United States Office of EPA-570/9-79-017
Environmental Protection Drinking Water
Agency
Water
4»EPA A Guidance for
Protection of Ground Water
Resources From The Effects
of Accidental Spills
of Hydrocarbons
and Other Hazardous
Substances
July 1979
-------
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
PROTECTION OF CROWD WATER RESOURCES
FROM THE EFFECTS OF
ACCIDENTAL SPILLS OF HYDROCARBONS AND OTHER
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Project Officer
Jentai T. Yang, Ph.D., P.E.
William E. Bye
Ground Water Protection Branch
Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
U.S. fiivironnwmtal Pr«t*etiw
Region 5, Library f&PL-
£30 S. lrar..rn 3t*M%,
Chicago, IL MiU
U.S. Environmental Protection Ager^cy
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This guidance has been reviewed by the Office of Drinking Water of
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Versar, Inc. would like to acknowledge the assistance given us fay the
various Federal, state and industrial organizations. Vfe would like to thank
our Project Officer, Mr. William E. Bye, for his guidance and assistance.
The assistance of Mr. Thomas J. Charlton, OSMCD, EPA, is greatly appreciated.
The comments received from the many state spill-response personnel after
Versar's preliminary oral presentation of the Guidance Document in Denver,
Colorado, in February, 1978, are appreciated and were given consideration.
Special thanks goes to the members of the review committee set up by the
Project Officer and composed of trade association and industrial personnel.
Specifically, they are: William D. Shepherd, Shell Oil Co.; Verne E. Farmer,
Jr., Exxon Oil Co.; Frederick B. Killmar, American Petroleum Institute; and
Edward C. Nieshoff, Owens Corning Fiberglass.
The assistance provided by Mr. Richard L. Raymond of Sun Tech, Inc., on
the biodegradation of hydrocarbons is greatly appreciated.
The authors, Mr. Charles E. Colburn, Hydrogeologist, and Mr. Edwin F.
Abrams, Program Manager, would like to extend thanks to the following Versar
personnel for their capable assistance:
Marcelle L. Brodeur
Michael D. Campbell (Consultant)
Drew Comer
Ralph T. Duckett
Randy Freed
Deborah K. Guinan
Linda Kay
Harry E. LeGrand (Consultant)
Jean C. Moore
Judi M. Robinson
Robert G. Shaver
Robert C. Smith, Jr.
Peggy Waggy
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRDDOCTICN ....................... 1
2 HYDROGEOLCGIEAL INFORMATION ................ 3
1. What is Ground Water? ................. 3
2. Ground Water Movement ................. 3
3. The Susceptibility of Aquifers to Contamination fron
Spills ......................... 3
4. Ground Water Hydrology Relative to Spills ....... 4
5. Important Hydrogeological Factors Needed to Evaluate
the Course of Action Required in the Event of a
Spill ......................... 7
6. Spill Site Evaluation - A Numerical Rating System ... 9
3 S^M I -I1- DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
1. Mcanitoring Wells .................... 15
2. Surface Water Measurements ..... .......... 17
3. Aerial Photography ................... 18
4. Geophysical Well Logging ................ 19
4 SPILL CLEAN-UP TECHNIQUES ................. 21
1. Soil Removal ...................... 21
2. Trenching and Skimming ................. 21
3. Recovery Wells ..................... 24
4. Biodegradation of Petroleum and Chemical Spills .... 25
5. In-Place Detoxification . ............... 32
6. Foams ......................... 32
7. Galling Agents ..................... 33
5 LAND SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES ....... 34
1. Prevention Techniques ................. 34
2. Control Techniques ................... 38
6 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................... 43
APPENDIX A - General Descriptions of the 24 Ground Water Provinces
in the United States .................. A-l
APPENDIX B - State Laws ....................... B-l
APPENDIX C - State and Federal Spill Response Telephone Numbers . . . c-1
APPENDIX D - List of State Geologists to Call for Further
Geological Information ................. D-l
APPENDIX E - A Manual for Evaluating Contamination Potential of
Surface Impoundments ................. E-l
iii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 Generalized Shapes of Spreading Cones at Immobile
Saturation .................... .... 6
2 Demonstrates Possible Migration to Outcrop, Followed by
Second Cycle of Ground Water Contamination ........ 6
3 Oil Moving with Shallow Ground Water Intercepted by Ditch
Constructed Across Migration Path ............. 22
4 Three Systems for Skirtming Water Surface in Ditches or
Wells ........................... 23
5 Oil on Water Table is Trapped in Cone of Depression
Created by Drawdown of Pumping Well ............ 26
6 Use of Two Wells for Recovery ............... 27
7 Drawdown Configuration of Well Pumping from Inclined
Water Table ........................ 27
8 Schematic of a Commercially Developed Leak Plugger .... 39
9 Underground Barrier and Cutoff Wall ............ 41
A-l General Distribution of Ground Water Reserves in the
United States ....................... A-8
A-2 U.S.G.S. Ground Water Provinces .............. A-9
IV
-------
SECTION 1
INTRiXUCTICN
Accidental land spills of liquid wastes, toxic fluids and hydrocarbons
occur in every region of the U.S. from incidents such as tank car accidents,
train derailments, pipeline ruptures, bulk and underground storage leaks and
improper storage and handling of equipment. Regulations have been established
to protect the Nation's air, streams, lakes and coastal waters from contamina-
tion. There are no similar regulations protecting ground water. Ground
water contamination resulting from spills is a significant problem and has
recently received attention from industry and Federal and state authorities.
Ihe purpose of this document is to assist state, regional and industrial
personnel by providing guidance on spill prevention and clean-up methods as
they relate to ground water contamination. The document is divided into
several sections, each with a specific purpose.
Ihe following is a general description of each of these sections:
Ifydrogeological Information - This section describes ground water and
those hydrogeological factors which are iirportant for the assessment and
evaluation of a spill.
Spill Damage Assessment Techniques - The information in this section
describes the basic state-of-the-art in sub-surface spill damage assessment.
land Spill Prevention and Control Techniques - This section describes
several prevention and control techniques used to minimize ground water con-
tamination.
Bibliography - This section contains those references used in the
preparation of this document and others for the reader's further specific
investigation or knowledge in the areas ofi spill abatement and prevention.
Appendices - The appendices contain details regarding the following
areas:
A - Description of U.S. Aquifer systems
-------
B - State laws applicable to ground water contamination
C - State and Federal spill response telephone numbers
D - State geologist to call for specific hydrogeological
information in each state.
To use this document effectively, the reader should be aware of the con-
tents in a general way. A step-by-step suggested procedure for the use of
this document follows:
Determine what is spilled and the volume.
Contact state, Federal offices (Appendix C).
Determine state laws applicable (Appendix B).
Determine the hydrogeological condition and damage assessment of the
area in as much detail as possible (Section 2, 3 and Appendix A).
Contact with the state geologist may be helpful (Appendix D).
Develop plan for clean-up and abatement immediately after an
assessment has been made (Section 4).
If technical information is needed and is not contained in this
document, consult with a hydrogeologist and refer to the bibliography
(Section 6).
Document and evaluate all actions taken until clean-up is completed.
To prevent spills, refer to Section 5 and the bibliography for the
technology that is most widely used.
-------
SECTION 2
HYDRDGBOLOGICAL INFOBMATICN
1. What is Ground Water?
The term ground water is normally defined as that part of the
subsurface water which is in the zone of saturation. The geology of
the stratum governs the occurrence and distribution of ground water;
the supply of water to the ground is determined by the local hydrology;
and the movement of the ground water can be understood by applying
the principles of fluid mechanics. In many areas ground water provides
the major drinking water supply, and more than half of the population
of the United States obtains its drinking water from this source. A
general distribution of ground-^water reserves in the U.S. and general
descriptions of the 24 ground-water provinces as developed by the
U.S. Geological Survey are presented in Appendix A.
2. Ground Vfater Movement
Ground water is/usually moving in the natural state, although there are
certain unique situations where ground water is essentially static. The rate
of flow is governed by the permeability of the aquifer and the hydraulic
gradient within it. Measured rates of ground water movement vary markedly,
from many feet per day to a few feet per year. Field tests have reported
velocities of more than 100 ft/day; however, a normal range is from 0.5 ft/
year to 5 ft/day. The natural flow can be modified to produce higher or
lower velocities by the presence of pumping wells, drains, and steeper or
shallower water table or piezonetric slopes.
3. The Susceptibility of aquifers to Contamination from Spills
Recharge to an aquifer may be natural or artificial. Precipitation is
the ultimate source of water for the natural replenishment of ground water.
The recharge takes place by percolation of precipitation and surface water
through the sub-surface strata. Percolation starts by a gradual wetting
of dry surface particles and continues by capillary forces. The last stage
of percolation is saturated flow by gravity through openings in the sub-
surface strata.
-------
Where a water table exists, the surface of the saturated zone is not
protected by a relatively impermeable layer and recharge with contaminated
water can be direct. Where artesian conditions exist, the surface of the
saturated zone is protected by an impermeable layer and contaminated re-
charge is usually indirect. Generally, recharge to an artesian aquifer
occurs in outcrop areas where water table conditions exist. Deeper, more
extensive artesian aquifers do not always outcrop at the surface and, in
these cases, recharging must occur through the relatively impermeable layer.
Therefore, artesian aquifers are much less likely to be contaminated than
water table aquifers.
Artificial recharge is accomplished by water spreading, recharge through
pits or other excavations of moderate depth and recharge through wells and
shafts. Each of these may give a contaminant a direct route to an aquifer.
Another way that artificial recharge can occur is by the infiltration of
water from a surface water body. Normally, the aquifer will flow into the
surface water. Hswever, if excessive pumping from the aquifer creates a cone
of depression near the surface water, contaminated surface water can back-
flow into the aquifer. Salt water intrusion into coastal aquifers is an
example of this.
Aquifers may also be contaminated fay inter-aquifer migration of ground
water. This fact should be considered when evaluating the potential damage
that could happen as a result of a spill.
4- Ground-Water Hydrology Relative to Spills
This section discusses the basic principles of pollution movement rela-
tive to different hydrogeologic conditions. The hydrogeology of a given
location controls the occurrence and movement of ground water and deter-
mines, to a considerable extent, the impact a pollutant may have on a
ground-water regime.
A spill of a contaminant may occur slowly over a long period of time,
or instantaneously. The downward flow of the contaminant may cease for one
of three reasons:
-------
The contaminant will be exhausted to irmobilitv.
it will encounter an impermeable bed, or
it will reach the water table.
The downward percolation and lateral migration of a contaminant is
governed by the stratigraphic conditions of the soil layers through which
the contaminant passes (Figure 1). The rate of migration depends on the
viscosity of the contaminant and the permeability of the subsurface.
In the case of exhaustion to imraobility, a substance spilled may migrate
initially both vertically and laterally through the soil media. Migration
ceases when the saturated soil reaches a low point called the "immobile" or
"residual" saturation. If this condition develops before the contaminant
reaches a water table, ground-water contamination is minimized. Subsequent
precipitation and water table fluctuations may carry residual amounts of the
product into the ground-water regime. However, there is less risk of signifi-
cant contamination in this situation than if the plume reached the water
table directly.
Precise and detailed data on the nature of the soil and the spilled con-
taminant are rarely available at the time a spill incident occurs.. However,
in the event data are available, the volume of soil required to immobilize
the spill can be calculated by the following equation:
= Cubic yards of soil required to attain immobile saturation
P x Sr
V = Volume of contaminant in barrels
P = Porosity of soil, dimensionless
Sr = Residual saturation, dimensionless
After calculating the volume of soil required to immobilize the spill,
the depth to the water table and the probability of the contaminant reaching
it may be estimated in the following manner. Calculate the volume of soil
between the surface of the spill and the top of the water table, making no
allowance for lateral migration, so that the volume of soil actually avail-
able to absorb the contaminant is understated. If the result is less than
the volume determined by the saturation equation, then a distinct risk exists
that the contaminant will reach the aquifer.
-------
SURFACE
Figure 1. GENERALIZED SHAPES OF SPREADING CONES AT IMMOBILE SATURATION
A - HIGHLY PERMEABLE. HOMOGENEOUS SOIL
9 - LESS PERMEABLE. HOMOGENEOUS SOIL
C-STRATIFIED SOIL WITH VARYING PERMEABILITY
.::/
Figure 2. DEMONSTRATES POSSIBLE MIGRATION TO OUTCROP,
FOLLOWED 8Y SECOND CYCLE OF GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION.
(Courtesy of API Publ. 4149)
-------
As mentioned earlier, a plume of spilled material migrates vertically
unless its course is affected by the stratigraphic changes in permeability.
Should the material encounter an impermeable layer, or sequence of imper-
meable layers, the plume will spread laterally until it reaches immobile
saturation or until it migrates to a surface outcrop. If this occurs and
enough contaminant is in notion, a second stage of soil contamination may
begin as illustrated in Figure 2.
This situation occurs only if a water table does not exist above the
impermeable barrier or bed. This condition is most common in an arid region
or during a dry season and exists as a rule only within several feet of the
subsurface.
Ihe migration of a contaminant in the direction of least resistance
to the water table usually is the most hazardous effect of a spill on
land. As a plume of contaminant, such as oil, reaches the top of the
capillary zone located directly above the water table, the substance
begins to spread over the water table. The shape of the layer is
equivalent to the thickness of the capillary zone and is elongated in
the direction of ground-water movement. The plume continues to migrate,
forming a shape relative to the permeability features, until it reaches
immobile saturation or surfaces at a discharge point. Oil reaching the
water table will either be suspended or float. Even though oil is
commonly considered insoluble in water, most hydrocarbons either contain
enough soluble components or will mix sufficiently with ground water so
that it will be unfit for domestic use.
5. Important Hydrogeological Factors Needed to Evaluate the Course of
Action Required in the Event of a Spill
Many hydrogeologic factors should be considered to properly assess the
procedures needed to mitigate the effects of a spill.
a. Distance to Point of Water Use
The chance of significant contamination to present sources of
drinking water decreases as the distance between the source of contamination
and a point of ground water use increases. Sone reasons include:
-------
Dilution tends to increase with distance,
sorption is more complete with increased distance,
time of contaminant exposure to soil increases with distance,
resulting in an opportunity for more complete decay or degradation,
and
sometimes the water table gradient decreases with distance, and
therefore, the velocity of flow decreases with the distance from the
contamination site.
b. Depth to Water Table
The water table is a determinable but fluctuating boundary between the
unsaturated zone and the underlying zone of saturation. The thickness and
nature of the unsaturated zone are important considerations in the management
of spills affecting ground water. In most places, loose granular materials
occupy at least part of the unsaturated zone, and contaminants tend to be
stationary except when leached or carried downward by precipitation or by
seepage. The great reliance on the unsaturated zone for natural contamina-
tion control stems chiefly from the biological and chemical degradation and
the sorption of contaminants.
c. Water Table Gradient
The direction of flow and flow rate of ground water are important consi-
derations in evaluating the possibilities of contamination at a specific site.
Measurements of water levels in wells and the preparation of a water table map
are major steps in solving or avoiding the more serious contamination
problems. If a water table map is not available or the cost of making one
is not justified, a hypothetical water table map based on topography may
be constructed to visualize the general gradient of the water table and
thus the general direction of water movement. Of course, it is important
to know whether a contaminant is moving toward or away from a water supply.
d. Permeability - Sorption
Because there is a tendency for many contaminants to be retained on
earth materials by chemical and physical sorption, an evaluation of the per-
meability-sorptive capacity of the site should be made. Determining the
-------
presence of cracks, fractures and other openings is important because they
can provide easy access for a contaminant to an aquifer.
The initial investigation of the geology of a site should be conducted
using sources of previously published information which include:
United States Geological Survey, Ground Water Division (offices in
most major cities and state capitals),
state water resource agencies,
state geological surveys (usually located in the state capital,
and sometimes associated with a state university),
university geology departments, and
city water departments.
6. Spill Site Evaluation - A Numerical Rating System
In conducting the Surface Inpoundment Assessment program, the Office
of Drinking Water has developed a rating system for rapid evaluation of the
hydrogeological parameters discussed in the previous section. This rating
system determines the aquifer sensitivity of an area where at a minimum
cost a surface impoundment is located. It can be used to determine quickly
the probability of ground-water contamination potential caused by an
accidental spill.
The system examines contamination potential in the upper ground-water
system which usually is a water-table aquifer. In a few areas of the country,
the first aquifer to be encountered may be an artesian aquifer in which case
this rating would also apply. Five basic factors are scored in this system:
(1) the hydrogeology of the unsaturated zone above the aquifer
(thickness of unsaturated zone, permeability and general
attenuating characteristics of the material, whether con-
solidated or unconsolidated);
(2) the aquifer transmissivity;
-------
(3) the grouncHvater quality;
(4) the physical and chemical character of the spilled material such
as toxicity, concentration, volume, etc.
(5) the potential for contamination of existing ground and surface
water supplies by considering distance and direction of con-
taminated ground-water movement.
When conducting this assessment, the following steps are taken:
Step 1. Rating the Uhsaturated Zone
The hydrogeologic properties of the material underlying the spill
site in the unsaturated zone above the aquifer are rated to determine the
potential for contaminants to reach the water table. The permeability and
sorption characteristics of the earth materials (either consolidated or
unconsolidated) may decrease the rate of waste movaitent and attenuate the
waste concentrations to a certain degree. Finer grained unconsolidated
material and impermeable consolidated rock inhibit the movement of fluids
to the ground water. Additionally, the finer grained earth materials (clays)
tend to retard the waste movement by attenuation mechanisms (ion exchange,
adsorption and absorption), depending upon waste type and the chemical milieu
of the underlying unsaturated zone. The thickness of the unsaturated zone
also affects the attenuating capability of the spill site by providing
greater contact time of the spilled material with the earth materials and
by providing the opportunity for other processes (oxidation, precipitation,
biological degradation and filtration) to help attenuate the spilled material.
Although it is acknowledged that contaminated ground water is subject
to varying degrees of attenuation as it flows throvigh the aquifer, this
rating system focuses primarily on the potential for ground-water pollution.
This occurs when contaminants reach the ground water. For this reason, the
hydrogeologic factors being rated in this step are those of the material
above the aquifer in the unsaturated zone.
Step 2. Rating the Ground-Water Availability
In determining the ground-water pollution potential of the spill site,
the overall aquifer property of transmissivity, is important. Transmissivity
10
-------
is the ability of the aquifer to transmit ground water and is related to the
hydraulic conductivity and saturated thickness of the aquifer.
Step 3. Rating the Ground-Water Quality
Ground-water quality is a determinant of the ultimate usefulness of
the ground water. Consideration of ground-water quality is intended to
indicate the background water quality of the aquifer. Ground water presently
used for drinking water or having fewer than 500 mg/1 total dissolved solids
(TDS) is rated highest, and water of more than 10,000 mg/1 TDS is rated
the lowest quality.
Step 4. Rating of the Physical and Chemical Character of the Spilled
Material
The rating of the potential health hazard of the spilled material to
drinking water supplies involves the physical and chemical character
including toxicity and the volume of the spill. The rating of the toxicity
of the spilled material will be characterized according to the waste
characteristics identified in the SIC code.
Step 5. Scoring of the Site's Ground-Water Contamination Potential
Upon completion of the first four steps rating the hydrogeologic
factors, the aquifer, and the potential waste character, a final score
will be determined for that spill site indicating its overall relative
ground-water contamination potential.
Step 6. Determination of the Potential Health Hazard to Present Drinking
Water Supplies
In order to allow further prioritization of the spill sites by their
potential threat to drinking water sources, the distance to present under-
ground and surface drinking water supplies will be rated in conjunction with
the determination of the direction of movement of the waste plume (i.e.,
towards or away from the water supply).
Step 7. Rating the Degree of Confidence
This step allows the spill investigator to indicate his/her confidence
in the data used to arrive at the Step 1 through 6 scores. High confidence
is given to site specific data sources, and low confidence is given to
assumptions based on general knowledge.
11
-------
Step 8. Miscellaneous Identifiers
This step allows the evaluator to identify special conditions that
would not be evident from the numerical scores. For example, the letter
A can be added to the score to indicate that the spill site is in an alluvial
valley.
Step 9. Recording of Final Score
In this step the evaluator will record the values determined
in Step 6 through 8, along with those recorded in Step 5. Upon completion
of this step all values for Steps 1-8 will have been recorded and the
rating of the ground-water contamination potential will be completed.
The following table shows the general ranges for ground-water contamination
and incumbent risks or probability of aquifer contamination. This table can
be used as a general guide to determine the degree and urgency of action
needed in response to a spill according to the probability of aquifer
contamination.
To explain this system in detail, the "Manual for Evaluating Contamination
Potential of Surface Impoundments" (EPA 570/9-78-003) is reprinted in
Appendix E.
It must be emphasized that the use of the above system is intended as
only a standardized methodology for recording the hydrogeologic parameters at
a spill site and obtaining a first approximation of the potential for ground-
water contamination. The rating system should be utilized to get a quick
overview of the spill's threat to ground water and the degree and quickness
of the response to the spill required.
To assist in the hydrogeological evaluation of pollution hazards, the
following information should also be made available.
direction and amount of surface runoff
amount of evaporation and transpiration
natural and extent of artificial controls exerted on the aquifer,
i.e., pumping wells, recharge and discharge areas
soil attenuation properties
12
-------
^* ti
.si
a, 3 3
fl£S
CO PH W
in ro o
a.a
4-1 4->
rd tc
m
+
(N
m -d g 4-1
&sSs +
^Bg^p
CO U U fli ^^
a\ ro r>
-------
The retrieval of such information can be made from existing hydrogeological
surveys, pumping test analysis, borehole logging information, geophysical
surveys, rainfall and evapotranspiration details and river flow records.
Given this information, the hydrogeologist should be able to determine ground-
water movement and flow patterns, with the aim of assessing whether or
not a given aquifer system affords adequate protection against sources
of contamination.
After the determination of aquifer sensitivity is completed, a second
stage of susceptibility evaluation is required. This involves an evaluation
of the sources of contamination in the vicinity.
The numerical rating system can provide a rapid way of evaluating a
spill site for its susceptibility to contamination. However, the spilled
material and its properties such as toxicity, biogradability, etc., must
be a major consideration in the determination of further action required.
The following are some major factors to be considered:
Type of contaminants
Volume in the surrounding area
Storage types
Transportation amounts, type and routes
Preventive techniques used in the area
14
-------
SECTION 3
SPILL DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
1. Monitoring Walls
To detect and evaluate potential or existing ground-water contamination
from a land spill, an acceptable monitoring well network should be implemented
and consist of the following:
One line of three wells downgradient from the spill and situated
at an angle perpendicular to ground-water flow, penetrating the
entire saturated thickness of the aquifer.
Che well immediately adjacent to the downgradient edge of the spill
area, screened so that it intercepts the water table.
Che well upgradient from the spill so that it will not be affected
by potential contaminant migration.
The size of the spill, hydrogeologic conditions, and budget restrictions
are factors which will dictate the actual number of wells used. However,
every effort should be made to have a minimum of five wells at the site and
no less than one downgradient well for every 76 meters (250 ft.) of spill
frontage.
Even if wells are sited according to the information previously described,
there is a high probability that one or more of them will not intercept the
plume of contaminated ground water because of the heterogeneous and anisotropic
lature of aquifers. Also, the aquifer's hydrogeologic pararrenters have
a significant effect on the shape of the plume. For these reasons, if the
budget allows, it is better to have too many monitoring wells rather than too
few.
dice contamination is detected, additional lines of wells can be con-
structed farther downgradient to gauge the dispersion and attenuation of the
contaminant. This effort may provide the information necessary for predicting
the ultimate fate of the plums, assuming its vertical distribution can be
delineated. Construction of additional wells is time consuming and expensive
but may be necessary because of regulatory requirements.
15
-------
A single, properly constructed well adjacent to or within the spill site
can indicate whether or not the contaminant is reaching the ground water and
gives early warning of potential aquifer degradation. If the contaminant is
detected here, the investigator should observe the downgradient wells with
extreme caution. The installation of additional downgradient wells at
various distances from the spill or the implementation of remedial migration
control measures may also be justified at this time. Ihe actual course of
action will depend upon site conditions and upon Federal, state and local
regulations governing ground-water contamination.
There are potential problems associated with the use of a monitoring
well within the spill site. Ihe water monitored is skimmed only from the
surface of the aquifer. If any density stratification is occurring, total
reliance on this well could give an unrealistic picture of actual contaminant
concentration in the ground water. Elevated contaminant concentrations may
also be found in water samples if wells are improperly constructed. A back-
filled area can act as a conduit for downward movement of the contaminant,
introducing it into the aquifer sooner than might have occurred naturally.
Proper construction requires the placement of an impermeable seal of either
bentonite or cement grout in the annular space between the well casing and
the borehole wall. Ihis does not completely guarantee the stopping of down-
ward movement of the contaminant because grout can shrink and bentonite can
dry and crack. However, neglecting to use this seal during well installation
is almost certain to accelerate and promote ground-water contamination. Ihe
value of the information obtained from a well will rarely be outweighed by the
above problems, although it is extremely important to be aware of the problems
that might occur and to construct wells carefully.
The upgradient monitoring well will provide water samples which will
indicate background water quality. This well should be sampled at regular
intervals, and the analytical results should be used as a baseline for
comparison with results from the spill site and downgradient monitoring wells.
Proper water-quality baseline data are necessary for the correct interpreta-
tion of the chemical analyses of monitoring well samples. Ihe background
well can also provide information on contaminants in the ground water not due
to the spill. Elevated nitrates or sulfates from agricultural operations or
16
-------
low pH and high, iron characteristic of acid mine drainage are examples of
contamination from other sources.
Aquifers differ according to their permeability and porosity. The basic
design of a monitoring system at a particular site will require modification
according to geologic conditions if the monitoring network is to be effective.
Aquifer characteristics should dictate the following:
monitoring well density, depth, construction and drilling methods;
probability of successful detection of the contaminant plume;
sampling methods.
The basic data that should be carefully evaluated in designing a
monitoring network include:
ground-water flow direction;
distribution of permeable and impermeable ground material.;
permeability and porosity;
present or future effects of pumping on the flow system;
background water quality.
Prior to commencing field investigations, the engineer/hydrogeologist
study team should first contact state and federal agencies for data and
publications concerning existing conditions of the spill site and its vicin-
ity. State environmental departments and the U.S. Geological Survey offices
are usually a valuable source of data useful to site investigation. With this
information, the study team, familiar with the ground water hydrology in the
area, may be able to estimate conditions without actual field measurements.
However, every effort should be made to perform field measurements at the
site, including the installation of a series of low-cost wells, collecting
geologic samples during drillings and measuring water levels in the completed
wells. Background water quality can be determined from chemical analysis of
water samples from these wells. With good information, monitoring wells can
be placed effectively to detect the contaminant plume spreading from the spill
site.
2. Surface Water Measurements
Surface waters, such as ponds or streams, in close proximity to a spill
may develop a color or oily film on the surface. These bodies of water are
17
-------
usually discharge points fear contaminated ground water. Location of these
discharge points on a topographic nap of the site will often help to provide
a reasonable preliminary picture of the ground water flow patterns. In
large bodies of water or in areas of rapid flow, the contaminant may be
diluted to a point where it can not be detected by visual inspection, m
such cases, water samples should be taken and analyzed to establish the
presence of contaminants. In a full investigation of surface-water bodies
near a spill site, the native biota should be studied for the effects of
contaminant migration.
Ihe importance of an analysis of surface-water quality at a spill site
is twofold:
determination of contaminant discharge areas is crucial to
establishing an overall hydrogeologic picture;
surface-water quality degradation is an important component of
overall environmental degradation and should be carefully examined.
3. Aerial. Photography
Aerial photography has several important uses in spill studies. An
aerial photograph will show a spill and the drainage away from it, regardless
if it is taken with black, and white or color film.
Aerial photography will also detect vegetation stress which may result
from the underground migration of a contaminant. Stressed species may
include agricultural crops, trees or other plants. Remote sensing of vegeta-
tion stress is particularly useful in detecting the extent of spill contamina-
tion over large areas.
While advanced vegetation stress may be visible in a color photograph,
less advanced stress is best distinguished by using infrared photography.
Multi spectral aerial photography has been used in many spill investiga-
tions to detect vegetation stress. In this procedure, special equipment is
used to determine subtle differences in light reflected at various wave
lengths for stressed and unstressed species. Photographic filters which
emphasize this difference are used, and several images of the same area are
made simultaneously with the aid of a multi-lens camera and the selected
filters. Differences between stressed and unstressed vegetation are further
18
-------
enhanced by projecting the images through different color filters and super-
imposing them on a projector screen.
The usefulness of aerial photography is not limited to the detection
of vegetation stress. Accurate contour maps of the land spill surface may
be constructed from aerial photographs and are useful in determining hydro-
geological characteristics of the spill site. Stereo color photography is
used to construct and update these maps. It is important that bench marks,
wells and other sampling points be located on these maps because these items
will facilitate problem interpretation.
4. Geophysical Well logging
An accurate evaluation of the sub-surface geology at a spill site is
essential to the determination of the direction and rate of movement of a
contaminant from a land spill, and the contaminant attenuation capacity of
the materials through which it migrates. Geophysical well logging is a use-
ful technique for evaluating these characteristics. It provides indirect
evidence of sub-surface formations, indicating the relative permeabilities
as well as the depths of the formations by using geophysical measuring tech-
niques. Geophysical well logs are used to supplement the driller's and
geologist?s logs of the materials penetrated by the borehole.
The most cannon, borehole geophysical operation is electric logging. In
this procedure the apparent resistivities of the sub-surface formations and
the spontaneous potentials generated in the borehole are recorded. This
information is plotted against the depth of the borehole below the ground
surface. The measurements of apparent resistivity and spontaneous potential
are related to the electrical conductivity of the sediments - a partial
function of the size of the grains. Thus fine-grained sediments containing
silt and clay will have a lower resistivity than clean, coarse sand and
gravel. In addition, a leachate plume may be detectable by an electric log.
Electric well logs can be run only in uncased boreholes.
Gamma-ray logging is a borehole geophysical procedure based upon
measuring the natural gamna-ray radiation from certain radioactive elements
that occur in varying amounts in sub-surface formations. The log is a
diagram showing the relative emission of gamma-rays, measured in counts per
19
-------
second, plotted against depth below land surface. Since some formations con-
tain a higher concentration of radioactive elements than others, formation
changes with depth often can be accurately determined. For example, clay and
shale contain more radioactive elements (e.g., isotopes of uranium, potassium,
phosphorus, and thorium) than sand or sandstone. The relative amount of silt
and clay in the formations can be estimated by the deflections of the gamma-
ray log. Unlike electric logs, gamma-ray logs can be run in single-cased
wells.
Geophysical well logging generally is applicable only to those spill
site investigations which include test drilling and is therefore not an
independent tool. However, gamma-ray logging can be used to gain some under-
standing of the sub-surface geology at a spill site from existing wells which
may be in the vicinity and for which no geologic logs are available.
Since geological well logging requires specialized equipment operated
by trained personnel, the task is normally carried out by a firm offering
geophysical services. In some instances, larger well-drilling companies are
also equipped to perform this service, nil such cases, the logging can be
included as part of the well-drilling operation.
20
-------
SECTICN 4
SPILL CLEAN-UP TECHNIQUES
1. Soil Removal
Removal of contaminated soil is possible if the contaminant has pene-
trated only a few feet below the surface and high-capacity earth-movers
are available. Soil that is excavated from a spill site should be disposed
of at an approved land disposal site. Soil excavation can be considered an
initial, rapid response method for the recovery of a contaminant before
it reaches the water table.
Earth-moving equipment is relatively easy to obtain and usually can be
rented from ccmmercial sources in all large urban areas. Equipment may be
more difficult to acquire in rural areas, but even there it is usually avail-
able. Well-equipped farms will often have useful machinery. City, county
and state departments that deal with water, sewers or roads usually have
earth-moving equipment. Private and public utilities, such as electric,
gas and telephone companies, also can supply excavation equipment.
2. Trenching and Skimming
Interceptors such as ditches, trenches or pits can control subsurface
movement of contaminated ground water in a water table that is located
near the surface (Figure 3). Trenching and skimming may be used as the
prime clean-up method or a supplement to other methods described in this
section. Equipment required is usually available and, if not, makeshift
devices for excavation and skimming can be employed.
Ditches deeper than 6 to 8 feet are iitpractical, but the depth is
basically limited by the type of ditching equipment available and the ability
of the soil to support the walls of the excavation without caving. The ditch
should extend at least 3 or 4 feet below the water table if the excavation is
to be used as a withdrawal point.
Three systems for skimming the water surface in trenches or excavated
pits are illustrated in Figure 4. If the ditch is to be a collection point
21
-------
SPILL
/ /
WATER MOVEMENT
PLAN VIEW
SPILL AREA
IMPERMEABLE
3ARRIER
:' '.;::'.:. FLUID oii.-w-V;'.;'
CSOSS SECTION
Figure 3. OIL MOVING WITH SHALLOW GROUNO WATER
INTERCEPTED 8Y OITCH CONSTRUCTED ACROSS
MIGRATION PATH.
(Courtesy of API Publ. 4149)
22
-------
SUPPORT
TO SUCTION
POWER
SUPPUY
A Flotation Device May be Substituted
for the Handling Cable or Rod
TO SUCTION PUMP
life
Figure 4. THRE5 SYSTEMS FOR SKIMMING WATER
SURFACE IN Q1TCHES OR WELLS.
(Courtesy of API Publ. 4149)
23
-------
for skinning, its downstream wall should be lined with an impermeable material
such as polyethylene film as shown in Figure 3. An impermeable film will
block floating oil, but permit water to pass below. Skimming must be contin-
uous or collected oil will tend to move to the ends of the ditch and pass
around the barrier.
Ditches need not be left open. Cfce approach is to lay a string of
perforated culvert pipe in the bottom and backfill the ditch with very porous
material such as broken rock or gravel. Fluid enters the pipe through the
perforations and can be removed through an opening left in the backfill. Some-
times an intercepting ditch can be filled with straw or other absorbent to
absorb the contaminant. Ihe absorbent can be replaced periodically as it
becomes saturated. It must be noted that a trench is not a barrier to
control subsurface movement of contaminated ground water. The trench must
either be skimmed continually or pumped sufficiently to make it a suitable
collection point.
3. Recovery Vfells
Vertical withdrawal wells are used when the water table is too deep for
the use of interceptor trenches or pits. This clean-up method is more effi-
cient when- the permeability of the aquifer is high and the depth of the aqui-
fer is adequate to allow construction of a high-capacity well. In addition,
vertical withdrawal wells can be effective in shallow aquifers when intercept-
or trenches cannot be used because of interference of such things as build-
ings, highways, tunnels, conduits and pipelines.
This removal method establishes a depression in the water table suffi-
cient to concentrate and prevent the further migration of a non-water soluble
contaminant. A withdrawal well will work effectively where hydraulic condi-
tions are such that pumping will depress the water table significantly. In
this situation, the permeability and other hydrcgeologic conditions allow a
significant cone of depression of the water table. This causes the contami-
nated ground water to migrate toward the center of the depressed cone and be
removed through the pump. Many common spilled materials such as oil products
are lighter than water and have a low solubility. Materials of this type may
be withdrawn and separated by this recovery method.
24
-------
A standard procedure to determine the size and rate of development of
the cone is to drill several monitoring wells in straight lines adjacent to
the withdrawal well. By the observation of fluid levels, the time and
amount of drawdown can be determined as well as the further expansion of
the depression cone. Withdrawal rates should be adjusted to maintain a cone
large enough only to contain the contaminant.
The average cone of depression is shallow, with horizontal distances
measured in feet and vertical distances in inches. If the water table is
horizontal, a shallow depression normally will suffice to confine the
floating contaminant. See Figures 5 and 6. However, water tables are
usually inclined and the cone must be deep enough to reverse the resulting
gradient. The point at which the reversal occurs is the water table "divide".
See Figure 7. If the contaminant is to be contained effectively, the divide
must lie beyond the contaminated area.
4. Biodegradation of Petroleum and Chemical Spills
All natural soil, ground water and surface water ecosystems include a
group of organisms which are capable of biologically degrading complex
organic molecules. These organisms are mostly microscopic, and consist
mainly of bacteria and fungi. Although petroleum and organic chemicals are
toxic to most plants and animals, some decomposing bacteria and fungi can use
these substances for nutrient supplies. For this reason, development of
spill abatement technologies based on biodegradation is a promising field,
and has recently received much, attention.
Although biodegradation is a natural process and will occur without any
stimulation, its major drawback is that it normally proceeds at a very slow
rate in soil or ground-water systems. Thus, the technologies being developed
to combat spills in these systems are directed toward speeding up biodegrada-
tion by ensuring a good supply of the materials which normally limit the
growth of bacterial and fungal populations. These materials, the most impor-
tant of which are oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and water, are injected or
allowed to percolate into the soil or ground-water system. In some cases,
an activated sludge culture of bacteria or fungi is also added to supply a
baseline population of these organisms. Since soil and ground waters normally
25
-------
ORIGINAL WATER TABLE
»»V****«**»*-**"** ****** «%*»»***»«^**
-------
Flours 6. Use of two Halls for Recovery.
WELL A IS MAINTAINING DEPRESSION ANO RECOVERING OIL IN SINGLE OPERATION 8Y DRAWING
FLUID. SURFACE DOWN TO PUMP LEVEL
WELL i IS MAINTAINING OEPRESStON 8Y PUMPING CLEAN WATER FROM BELOW WATER TABLE.
FLOATING OIL IS RECOVERED BY SUCTION PUMP AT FLUID SURFACE.
OUTER LIMIT
OF CONE
"04V10E"-'
Figure 7. DRAWDOWN CONFIGURATION OF WELL PUMPING FROM INCLINED WATER TABLE.
FLUID AT THE SURFACE OF THE WATER TABLE BETWEEN THE DIVIDE ANO OUTER
LIMIT OF CONE WILL NOT BE TRAPPED. BUT WILL MOVE DOWN-GRADIENT WITH
THE WATER.
(Courtesy of API Publ. 4149)
27
-------
contain sufficient quantities of the trace elements necessary for growth and
metabolism by these organisms, these materials are not usually added. A
short discussion of the roles of the major factors (oxygen, nitrogen, phospho-
rus and moisture) in controlling bicdegradation follows.
a. Oxygen
Oxygen is a fundamental element needed for the breakdown of organic
materials. Although some anaerobic bacteria and fungi are capable of using
oxygen liberated by the breakdown of oxygen-containing chemical compounds, the
use of free oxygen by aerobic bacteria and fungi results in much faster break-
down. The biochemical reactions which require oxygen and take place within
the cells of these organisms, result in the production of carbon dioxide,
water, and in some cases other by-products which may be used in the synthesis
of more cells.
Although oxygen is normally present in low levels in soils and ground
water, the oxygen demand created by the large-scale biological degradation
of petroleum or other organic compounds can create situations where the rate
of degradation is limited by the amount of oxygen in the system. This is
particularly critical in ground-water systems, where dissolved oxygen concen-
trations are usually minimal. 1b correct this problem, air can be pumped
into wells. In soils, frequent tilling helps increase the oxygen available
to microorganisms and results in an increased rate of degradation.
b. Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential nutrients for all living things,
and are used in the manufacture of proteins. Nitrogen is most available to
bacteria and fungi if it is in the form of ammonia or nitrates, and phospho-
rus is most available as phosphates. It has been demonstrated that biodegra-
dation of petroleum products in soil is much faster when nitrogen/phosphorus
fertilizer is added to experimental soil plots. Another investigator showed
that the addition of a nutrient mixture consisting primarily of nitrogen and
phosphorus compounds greatly increased the rate of biodegradation of gasoline
in a ground-water system.
28
-------
c. Moisture
Since nutrients are transported into the cells of bacteria and fungi by
water, some moisture is required if biodegradation is to occur. Optimal
conditions for the breakdown of organic confounds in soil are found when the
soil is moist and friable. Although moisture is necessary, too much can be
harmful by interfering with the circulation of oxygen. This is one of the
main reasons why biodegradation occurs much more quickly in soil than in
ground waters. Surface water systems have an entirely different situation.
The biodegradation of oil is faster in the water column than in the sedi-
ments, which are usually poorly oxygenated.
Another problem related to moisture is that in saturated conditions,
petroleum or other organic chemicals with a specific gravity less than that
of water may form a layer on top of the saturated zone. This layer presents
much less surface area per unit volume for attack by the bacteria and fungi
than if the spilled material were sorbed over a large volume of soil. Thus
too much moisture, or too little moisture, can severely retard the rate of
faiodegradation. It is especially critical in instances of ground water contam-
ination that oxygen and nutrients be supplied to help speed up biodegradation.
d. Other Factors
Other factors besides oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and moisture also
affect the rate of biodegradation. The temperature of the soil or ground
water helps control the metabolic rate and growth of populations of bacteria
and fungi. As the temperature increases, so does the rate of biodegradation.
The density and composition of the bacterial/fungal community is also impor-
tant - acclimated cultures of these organisms can respond quickly to influxes
of organic materials and generally do not exhibit population crashes typical
of unacclimated communities. Commercial activated sludges similar to those
used in sewage treatment are available from some suppliers to consume
petroleum products in areas contaminated by spills.
Che other factor which is extremely important in determining the rate of
biodegradation is the type of material spilled. The susceptibility of organic
chemicals to biodegradation varies widely. In general, it appears that the
more highly halogenated an organic chemical is, the more resistant it is to
29
-------
biodegradation. It is generally believed that the paraffin fractions of
petroleum are more susceptible to biodegradation than the aromatics. Hew-
ever, it has been reported that, in tests with five different oils applied
to soil plots, the paraffin fraction of the oils was not degraded faster
than any of the other fractions.
e. Case Histories
At this time, the techniques used to stimulate biodegradation have been
used only rarely in combating spills. Hcwever, the results are promising.
The works of R. L. Raymond, V. M. Jamison and J. 0. Hudson, Jr., have been
instrumental in pioneering this field. (See references cited in Bibliography,
Section 6). In. a study of a gasoline contaminated aquifer in VJiitemarsh,
Pennsylvania, these investigators determined that the lack of availability
of oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus was limiting the biodegradation of gaso-
line. After performing laboratory studies on the rates of bacterial decompo-
sition of the gasoline, they stated that "By addition of these... nutrients
to several selected wells in the system, the removal of gasoline might be
accomplished in a matter of months rather than in the years it would take
to physically remove it."
In a study of the rate of biodegradation of oils in soil, it was shown
that the addition of fertilizer greatly increased the rate of biodegradation.
McKee found that the number of gasoline-degrading bacteria in samples
from contaminated wells was related to the concentration of gasoline in the
sample. Although there had been no addition of nutrients or oxygen, there is
some evidence that biodegradation would have resulted in the degradation of
the gasoline over a period of years.
f. Advantages and Disadvantages
Although biodegradation is by no means a proven technique, it is already
apparent that there are certain advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of
the approach include:
It can efficiently remove small concentrations of pollutants which
would be difficult to separate by physical means.
Water-soluble pollutants which are susceptible to biodegradation
would be extremely difficult to remove by other clean-up techniques.
30
-------
Waste disposal is not a problem associated with this clean-up
technology.
In some cases, biodegradation may be a much faster process than
other removal techniques.
In ground-water contamination, the treatment moves with the
contaminant plume.
Disadvantages include the following:
Bacteria and fungi can create a viscous slime, which could plug up
wells and soils and cut off the supply of oxygen, nutrients and
moisture.
Residues may create taste and odor problems.
Even though the organisms involved are very small, in some geologic
formations with extremely small pore size, water and cell movement
may be hindered.
Continued injection of oxygen and nutrients may be necessary to
sustain a high rate of degradation, especially in ground-water systems.
Where the pollutant is relatively concentrated, there may be
relatively little surface area for the organisms to attack, and bio-
degradation may be slower than physical removal processes.
In summary, biodegradation may not be the best technology to employ for
all spills, but as more research is completed, it appears that it may be the
best choice in some circumstances, and it is probably a valuable supplement
to other clean-up techniques in others. Most of the information available on
biodegradation relates to spills of petroleum products, but is certainly
applicable for other organic substances as well. It is conceivable that bio-
degradation techniques may be used in the future for combating spills of solu-
tions of inorganic materials such as antimony, mercury/ arsenic and selenium.
Hiese elements can all be reduced by bacteria to form gaseous complexes which
TOuld be mobile in the environment and could result in their liberation from
contaminated soil or ground-water systems. At any rate, currently existing
technology for stimulating biodegradation of petroleum and organic chemicals
is a valuable tool for ameliorating spills and should be considered as an
alternative or supplement to other, more well-known, spill clean-up techniques.
31
-------
5. Pi-Place Detoxification
The present nest widely used clean-up techniques for land spills are
excavation and hauling to a landfill or flushing the affected area with water.
Although these methods nay be appropriate for sane spills, other approaches
may be needed when ground water is threatened, when a large soil mass is con-
taminated or when no suitable disposal site is available. An alternative
method is a mobile treatment system which will provide in-place detoxification
of hazardous materials spilled on soil.
Ihe objectives of an in-place detoxification system are to contain and
treat the spill. Containment is achieved by surrounding the spill with in-
jections of grouting material which envelops the contaminated area. The
isolated area is then chemically treated to achieve oxidation/reduction,
neutralization, precipitation or polymerization which detoxifies the spilled
contaminant.
Ihe treatment system can be mounted on a truck-like vehicle. The grout
or chemicals are mixed in4-two fiberglass tanks in alternate batches. The
grout is transferred by positive displacement pumps which provide the most
control and simplest operation. Ihe vehicle is also equipped with an air
compressor and a diesel-electric generator. These will power the "air-
hammer" type device used to drive the injectors into the ground. Tanks for
detoxification of chemicals can be mounted on the vehicle.
6. Foams
The advantage of using foam on spills of hazardous materials is the
foam's ability to isolate the spill surface and partially control the vapor
concentration above the spill. Presently, two types of foam are used in the
area of fire suppression. These are the low expansion protein foams made by
mechanical agitation and the high expansion surfactant foams generated by
impacting foam on a screen or net.
The most extensive use of foam in spill control has been for the isola-
tion of hydrocarbon fuel spills. Both high and low expansion foams are used
to control and extinguish hydrocarbon chemical fires. The foam provides
protection for a limited amount of time as all volatile materials have some
32
-------
degree of permeability through foam. Care must be taken to vise foams only
when they have been proven effective for a specific situation.
High expansion foam is used exclusively to treat cryogens in this case.
Vapor dispersion and reduction of flame intensity are the two major benefits
provided by foam when treating cryogens.
Another application of foam is to apply water to aggressive water
reactive materials. By using foam, water can be added gently to such
reactive materials as S03 and SiCli». In this way the concentration of the
toxic species can be slowly reduced to the desired level.
7. Gelling Agents
An effective method of containing and controlling spills of hazardous
materials on relatively non-porous surfaces is that of applying a gelling
agent to the contaminated area. Gelling agents interact with the hazardous
material to form a gel that can be easily removed by mechanical means. This
immobilization prevents the spill from spreading and therefore minimizes con-
tamination of soil and water.
There are various gelling agents with different gel rates, application
techniques and production costs. Most are dispersed by a hydraulically-
driven auger-fed pneumatic conveyor and powered by a gasoline engine. These
systems are housed in a waterproof utility trailer designed to be towed by a
3/4-ton pick-up truck.
Field tests have shown that the application of gelling agents is a
practical solution for both small and large scale spills. The system can be
operated with low technology personnel and can be built from readily avail-
able coranercial equipment. The major drawback to this clean-up method is
that gelling agents will not immobilize material at depths greater than 10
centimeters.
33
-------
SECTION 5
LAND SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The use of effective spill prevention and control techniques reduces
the probability of ground water contamination in the event of a land spill.
The hazard potential of various materials , the spill problems they pose and
potential effects on the surroundings must be clearly recognized. Even with
the most care, spills will occur as long as there is a possibility of human
error and mechanical failure. Presently, the technology to mitigate the
effects of a spill that has contaminated ground water is less developed than
the technology available to either prevent or contain a spill. Also, most
of the prevention and control emphasis in this document is directed toward
underground tanks and pipelines which are the major source of undetected
spills affecting the quality of ground water supplies. This section of the
document describes currently used prevention and control techniques.
1* Prevention Techniques
a" Uhdei^pround Tank Corrosion and Leak Testing
The following are the basic technioues used to detect leaks and to pre-
vent corrosion of underground storage tanks.
(1) Coatings
Many service stations in the United States use coatings such as good
gna.li.ty epoxies, asphaltic paints, mastics and hot-applied bituminous mate-
rials to prevent corrosion of their underground storage tanks. Some of
these materials deteriorate with time and may be useful for only a few
years. Coatings reduce the amount of tank exposure to corrosive elements in
the surrounding soil. Accelerated corrosion often occurs at breaks or
flaws in the coating. It is best to combine coatings with cathodic
protection.
(2) Cathodic Protection
This technique protects underground storage tanks by preventing electro-
lytic corrosion caused by stray electrical currents. Connections are made
to opposite ends of a storage tank and a small power source is connected,
34
-------
resulting in a polarized tank. The current passing through the tank inter-
feres with, and reduces the effect of, any external electrical currents.
There are two basic types of cathcdic protection: galvanic and impressed
current. Each is widely used to protect buried tanks. A general description
of each is given below.
Galvanic Cathcdic Protection
Galvanic cathcdic protection, sometimes referred to as sacrificial anodes,
is used for the protection of pipelines as well as for tanks. Kiowledge of
the soil resistivity, the quality of the coating material used, the size of
container and the presence or absence of insulation are required for the cal-
culation of the number of anodes needed. The most common type of anode is
magnesium, although zinc anodes are used in low resistivity soils (below
1,000 ohm-cm). It is good practice to coat the tanks because the number of
anodes required increases with the unprotected area of the tank. During the
past few years, "pre-engineered" cathcdic protection has been developed and
usually consists of a tank with a galvanic anode on each end.
Impressed Current Protection
Impressed current is the form of cathcdic protection used to protect most
service station tanks. It works by passing DC current, supplied by an AC-DC
transformer-rectifier through the circuit consisting of the tank, anodes, soil
and the rectifier. The anodes are usually made from cast iron, graphite or
scrap steel. Because impressed current systems are adjustable over a wide
range, even uncoated or bare tanks can be protected by increasing the driving
voltage.
Impressed current systems require a constant source of current and when
protecting bare or poorly coated tanks, large amounts are necessary. This
energy demand may be a problem, depending on the availability and cost of
electricity. There are periodic inspection and maintenance costs also.
A stray current problem may occur when there are other metallic struc-
tures in the area and the current is picked up by these structures. This
will leave the tank unprotected and can lead to corrosion. For this reason,
field tests are required to assure adequate protection.
35
-------
b. Storage Tank Liners
Storage tank corrosion is one of the major causes of tank failure and
leakage. In the case of gasoline storage tanks, it is not the gasoline
itself that causes corrosion, but rather the occluded air and water. When
the tenperature of a hydrocarbon drops from 140°F to 80°F, as much as 0,5
Ib of water can be condensed from 100 Ib of hydrocarbon. To insure against
corrosion, tanks can be lined with epoxy resins.
Epoxy coatings provide a solid, glass-hard inner protective wall that
prevents corrosion and subsequent leaking. Old tanks with leaks can be
lined with epoxy resin for less than it would cost to purchase a new tank,
and it would be more corrosion resistant. Over 70 percent of repaired
storage tanks are lined with epoxy resins.
The process of epoxy lining a storage tank takes only two days. The
tank must first be emptied and aerated. It is then sand blasted to clean
metal. The epoxy resin is applied and the tank is permanently sealed shut
with a pressure-proof cover.
c. leak Detection
There have been numerous instances where large amounts of gasoline have
leaked from storage tanks at service stations. Most of these leaks were not
discovered for quite some time. If they were detected somewhat earlier, the
harmful effect on the environment could have been lessened significantly.
leak detectors for installation on gasoline service station pumps are
currently available and effective.
d. Pipeline Monitoring by Acoustic Emissions
Acoustic emissions are internally generated sounds produced by a materi-
al when placed under stress. This phenomenon can be effectively used for
early warning and immediate response to hazardous spills developing from
pipeline ruptures or leaks. The equipment necessary for monitoring acoustic
emissions is available commercially and can give instantaneous answers
regarding the stability and condition of pipelines over an infinite variety
of field conditions.
36
-------
Although some acoustical emissions, like wood splitting or cracking,
are audible to the naked ear, most are above or below our hearing range.
To monitor these sounds, a transducer must be placed on the pipeline. The
transducer transforms the acoustical emissions into electrical signals which
are then amplified, filtered and recorded. The records are interpreted to
determine the location and severity of damage.
e. Volume Sensing Tapes
Ihese small, compact sensing tapes offer numerous applications from
storage facilities to various transportation modes to monitoring ground
waters. The sensing tapes are capable of measuring any type of bulk materi-
al that flows providing their bulk densities are betsreen 15 and 200 lb/ft3.
Having uniform resistance per unit length, the sensing element provides
a highly linear output signal, with errors substantially independent of
sensor length.
Ihe sensing element is usually gravity-suspended through a small
access hole in the tank roof. Tank walls are not breached, and installation
can often be performed while the vessel is in use.
There are many applications of the sensing tape level-measurement
equipment. In the petroleum industry, uses range from automation of cargo
loading and unloading to tank farm inventory monitoring and control. Many
plastics, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl chlo-
ride and ABS are measured with sensing tapes to determine quantities.
Chemical compounds can also be monitored using sensing tapes due to its
corrosion resistant properties.
f. Fiberglass Underground Storage Tanks
An alternative to the use of steel tanks is the use of fiberglass
storage tanks. Fiberglass is strong enough to withstand soil and loading
stresses and it resists hydrocarbon corrosion. Although not difficult to
handle or install, care must be taken to insure correct installation as
indicated by the manufacturer. Incorrect backfilling can result in crack-
ing. Fiberglass storage tanks will usually be serviceable for at least
twenty years.
37
-------
2. Control Techniques
a. Tank and Pipe Leak Plugging
The problem of leaks in pipelines, storage facilities and transportation
vehicles has indicated the need for a portable, easy to use device that will
plug up these leaks. Such a device has been developed through the experimen-
tal stage. The wide range of its applications combined with the simplicity
of its operation make this leak plugging system seem very practicable.
A schematic diagram of the leak plugger is shown in Figure 9. It can
be operated by one unskilled employee dressed in protective clothing. At
one end of the unit is the applicator top which must be inserted into the
rupture where the tank is leaking. The size of the tip differs according to
the size of the hole to be plugged. When triggered, the tip expands as foam
is forced into it. When the foam hardens the applicator tip is released from
the main frame and the leak is sealed. Another important part of the leak
plugging system is the tandem cylinder. Two urethane foam components are
stored under pressure and ready for use. When the system is applied, the
foams are propelled by a COz cartridge to the applicator tip. The tip swells,
the foams harden, the tip is released from the unit and the leak is plugged.
The system can be used quickly and repeatedly as it only requires about one
minute for the foams to harden and, to repeat the procedure, one simply re-
places the applicator tip, C02 cartridge and the tandem cylinders.
b. Surface Preparation Control Techniques
When spills or leaks occur within an above-ground storage area, con-
tamination of the soil and migration of the contaminant to the water table
may occur. Several techniques are being used to contain above-ground spills.
These include soil treatment with sodium bentonite, plastic liners and under-
ground barriers.
(1) Sodium Bentonite Soil Treatment
This substance has a unique molecular structure that allows it to
absorb many times its own wsight of substance, swelling enormously in the
process - in most cases up to 10-16 times its dry bulk volume - to form an
impermeable gel barrier.
38
-------
Multilayer
Tip Sheath.
_Relief Valve
Foam Delivery Tube
^Outside Tank Wall
Applicator Tip Just After Insertion into a Hale
Oiside Tank Hall -
Applicator. Tip Expanded by Initial Gaa Flow
APPLICATOR TIP
MAIM FRAME
A.
C02 CARTRIDGE
TANK WALL
QUICK QISCONNECTS
TANDEM CYLINDER
DELIVERY
TUBE
MIXING TEE
Figure 3. Scfrpmn'r of a Cccmercially Developed Leak Plugger.
(Figurea from EEA.-80Q-12-76-300, 1976)
39
-------
In most sodium bentonites, the swelling ability is long lasting and
reversible. It can be dried and re-swelled an infinite number of times.
Khen mixed with soil around a storage tank and wetted, the sodium bentonite
swells, pressing against the soil particles and filling the voids between
the particles. It usually never permanently sets or hardens, so it remains
flexible, naturally expanding and moving to self-seal any cracks. The swell-
ing action forms a tight seal around pipes and other equipment that protrude
from a tank, eliminating difficult installation and sealing problems. Instal-
lation instructions are available from the sodium bentonite supplier.*
Bentcnite treated layers may lose their structural and sealing integrity
when in contact with acidic fluids.
(2) Liners
Ultra-wide linings are fabricated from polyvinyl chloride, Hypalon, and
chlorinated polyethylene (CPE). The high quality lining materials have proved
to be extremely durable. All the materials are tough, resilient and resistant
to biodegradation. The use of PVC, Hypalon or CPE will depend on the applica-
tion. Linings are available in a variety of thicknesses ranging from 10 to
40 mils, or greater. The thickness will depend on the specific application
and on the material selected. Since mechanical damage is always possible,
all membranes and particularly the thinner ones, should be protected with an
earth covering. If covering is not possible, greater thickness of a rein-
forced material should be considered. Linings are fabricated in widths up
to 100 feet. Two or more sections may be joined to cover any area. Through-
out the United States, linings and covers are in widespread use to prevent
seepage of industrial wastes through the soil to ground water and streams.
These linings cost far less than rigid materials such as concrete and
asphalt used for earth sealing.
(3) Underground Barriers and Cut-off Walls
An interviews underground barrier as illustrated in Figure 10 is a
concrete-like cut-off wall reflecting methods and technology ideal for con-
tainment of oil, chemical and leachate seepage. Installation can be rel-
American Colloid Company
40
-------
IMPERVIOUS
POLLUTION
BARRIER
GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINANT
SEEPAGE
FLOW
OIL OR CHEMICAL
POLLUTANT
OIL & CHEMICAL SEEPAGE MIGRATION PREVENTION
Figure 9. Underground Barrier and Cut-off W&ll.
(Courtesy of Ghent-Bar.)
41
-------
atively fast and uncomplicated which permits rapid compliance with pollution
control directives. These permanent barriers are ideally suited to prevent
the pollution of ground water, rivers and lakes. They may be installed at
a low cost with minimum surface disturbance and facility operation. Exten-
sive subsurface experience in geology, foundation engineering and hydrology
should be applied to the design and fabrication of an underground pollution
barrier. This technical know-how will ensure a permanent cutoff wall of
the highest quality to prevent ground water pollution.
It has been conclusively proven that if a barrier does not reach to an
aquiclude below ground waters, a floating contaminant will collect against
the barrier and flow under it. Any contaminant barrier must have associated
pumping recovery of the contaminant as it collects. Further, if a barrier
encircles the facility and reaches the aquiclude, a lake will be formed
unless dewatering is accomplished.
42
-------
baL.-rj.urJ 6
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. "Analytical Instrurtentation". W. L. Budde and D. Craig Shew. Presented
to the Office of Research and Development, EPA, ADP Workshop, Bethany,
West Virginia, October 2-4, 1974.
2. "Application of Ground Water Flow Theory to a Sub-surface Oil Spill".
Holzer. Ground Water, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1976.
3. "Applied Hydrology". Ray K. Linsley, Jr., Max A. Kbhler and Joseph L. H.
Paulhus. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1949.
4. "Aspects of Aquifer Management". Leslie G. McMillion and Diane Olsson.
The Cross Section, Vol. 18, No. 3, March 1972.
5. "Bacterial Degradation of Motor Oil". J. D. Walker, R. R. Colwell and
L. Petrakis. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Pollution 47(8):2058-
2066.
6. "Biodegradation of High-Octane Gasoline in Ground Water". Raymond
Jamison and Hadson. Development in Industrial Microbiology, Vol. 16, 1975.
7. "Control of Hazardous Material Spills". Proceedings of 1973-78 National
Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills.
8. "Corrosion Control for Buried Service Station Tknks". Paper #52, John
Fitzgerald. Presented at the International Corrosion Forum devoted
exclusively to the Protection and Performance of Materials, April 14-18,
1975, Toronto.
9. "Elements of Applied Hydrology". Don Johnstone and William P. Cross.
Ronald Press Co., New York, 1949.
10. "Feasibility of Plastic Foam Plugs for Sealing leaking Chemical Con-
tainers". R. C. Mitchell et al, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
R2-73-251, May 1973.
11. "Gasoline in Ground Water". McKee, Laverty, Hertel. JWPCF, Vol. 44,
No. 2, 1972.
12. "General Principles of Artificial Ground-Water Recharge". O.E. Meinzer.
Econ. Geol. 41:191-201, 1946.
13. "Ground Water". C. F. Ttolman. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1937.
14. "Ground Water Hydrology". David Keith Ibdd. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York, 1959.
43
-------
15. "Ground Water Monitoring to Verify Water Quality Objectives". Leslie
G. McMillion. Presented to Conference on Land Disposal of Wastewaters,
East Lansing, Michigan, December 6-7, 1972.
16. "Ground Water Pollution in the South Central States". Marion R. Scalf,
Jack W. Keeley and C. J. LaFevers. EPA-R2-73-268, June 1973.
17. "Ground Water Problems Associated with Well Drilling Additives".
" D. Craig Shew and Jack W. Keeley. Presented to EPA's Office of Toxic
Substances Conference on Environmental Aspects of Chemical Use in
Well Drilling Operations, Houston, Texas, May 20-22, 1975.
18. "Ground Water Reclamation by Selective Pumping". Leslie G. McMillion.
Transactions of Society of Mining Engineers, AIME, Vol. 250, March 1971.
19. "Guidelines for Interception of Ground Water Contamination near
Buildings". Department of Environmental Conservation, New York.
20. "Hydrology". C. 0. Wisler and E. F. Brater. John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1949.
21. "Hydrology". Edited by Oscar E. Meinzer under auspices of National
Research Council. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1949.
22. "Nutrient, Bar?+-«»-Haif and Virus Control as Related to Ground Water
Contamination". Sub-surface Environmental Branch, Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, National Environmental Research
Center, EPA. PreDared for Region IV, EPA, Atlanta, Georgia.
December 1974.
23. "Occurrence of Ground Water in the United States, with a Discussion of
Principles". 0. E.Meinzer. U.S. Geological Survey, W.S.P. 489, 1923.
24. "Gil Pollution Prevention, Non-Transportation Related Onshore and
Offshore Facilities". Fprbral Register, Vol. 38, No. 237, p. 34164-
34170.
25. "Outline of Ground Water Hydrology". O.E. Meinzer. U.S. Geological
Survey W.S.P. 494, 1923.
26. "Outline of Methods for Estimating Ground Water Supplies". 0. E.
Meinzer. U.S. Geological Survey, W.S.P. 638-C, 1932.
27. "Polluted Ground Water". David Keith Todd, Daniel E. Crren McNulty.
Water Information Center, Inc., New York, 1976.
28. "Practical Handbook of Water Supply". Frank Dixey. Murby, London,
1931.
29. "Present Status of our Knowledge Regarding the Hydraulics of Ground
Water". 0. E. Meinzer and L, K. Wenzel. Econ. Geol. 35:915-941,
1940.
44
-------
30. "Proceedings of the Second National Ground Water Quality Symposium".
National Water Well Association and Robert S. Ksrr Environmental
Research laboratory/ NERC, EPA. Symposium held in Denver, Colorado,
September 25-27, 1974.
31. "Regulatory and legal Aspects of Aquifer Management". Leslie G.
McMillion and Diane L. Olsson. Presented to American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, February 22, 1972.
32. "Sampling Equipment for Ground Water Investigations". Leslie G. McMillion
and Jack W. Keeley. Ground 'Water, Vol. 6, No. 2, March-April 1968.
33. "Significance and Nature of the Cone of Depression in Ground Water
Bodies". C.V. Theis. Econ. Gaol. 33:889-902, 1938,
34. "Sub-surface Biological Activity in Relation to Ground Water Pollution".
James F. McNabb and William J. Dunlap. Proceedings of the Second
National Ground Water Quality Symposium, Paper presented to Symposium
in Denver, Colorado, September 25-27, 1974.
35. "Technology for Managing Spills on Land and Water". D. B. Dahm and
R. J. Pilie. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 8, No. 13,
1974.
36. "The Migration of Petroleum Products in Soil and Ground Water - Prin-
ciples and n-rnn-h^jrni^am'nngg", American Petroleum Institute, Publication
No. 4149, 1972.
37. "The National Ground Water Qi.Tali.ty Symposium". Environmental Protection
Agency and National Water Well Association 16060 GRB 08/71.
38. "The Role of Geosciences in Ground Water Development and Protection".
Jay H. Lehr and Jack W. Keeley. Presented to Geosciences and Man
Committee, international Union of Geological Sciences, Bad Hamburg,
Germany, July 1974.
39. "The Theory of Ground Water Motion". M. K. Hubbert. Jour. Geol. 48:
785-944. Nov-Dec 194Q CJan. 1941).
40. "Underground leakage of Flammable and Combustible Liquids". 1972.
NFPA No. 329, National Fire Protection Association.
45
-------
APPENDIX A
GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE 24 GROUND WATER
PROVINCES IN THE UNITED STATES
-------
Figures A-l and A-2, at the end of this appendix, show the general
distribution of ground water reserves and the U.S.G.S. ground water
provinces in the U.S., respectively. The following are general descrip-
tions of the 24 provinces as identified on Figure A-2.
A. Atlantic Coastal Plain Province
Water is derived in rather large quantities from Cretaceous, Tertiary/
and Quaternary strata, which are comprised chiefly of sand and gravel inter-
bedded with clay. Large supplies are obtained from alluvial gravels in the
Mississippi Valley and adjacent areas. This province includes extensive
areas of artesian flow. The ground water ranges from low to high in mineral
content.
B. Northeastern Drift Province
Principal ground water supplies in this province come frcm glacial
drift. The glacial till yields small supplies to many springs and shallow
wells. The outwash gravels supply large amounts of water, notably on
Long Island in New York. Many drilled rock wells have small supplies,
chiefly frcm joints in crystalline rocks or in Triassic sandstone. Ground
water is generally low in mineral content.
C. Piedmont Province
Water that is generally low in mineral matter is supplied in small
quantities by the crystalline rocks and locally by Triassic sandstone.
Many shallow dug wells are supplied from surface deposits or from the
upper decomposed part of the bedrock. Many drilled wells of moderate
depth are supplied from joints in the crystalline rocks. Sane wells in
Triassic sandstone yield rather large supplies.
D. Blue Ridge-Appalachian Valley Province
This is a region of rugged topography with numerous springs which
generally yield water of good quality from Paleozoic strata, Pre-Cambrian
crystalline rocks, or Post-Cambrian intrusive rocks. The water supplies
are derived chiefly from springs, spring-fed streams and shallow wells.
A-l
-------
E. South Central Paleozoic Province
The ground water conditions are in general rather unsatisfactory. The
principal sources of water supply are the Paleozoic sandstones and limestones.
Ihe Paleozoic water supplies are meager or of poor quality throughout a con-
siderable part of the province. Deep Paleozoic water is high in mineral
content. In many of the valleys, large water supplies are obtained from
glacial outo*ash and other alluvial sands and gravels.
F. North Central Drift-Paleozoic Province
Most water supplies are derived from the glacial drift, where the water
is generally hard but otherwise good. Numerous drilled wells obtain large
supplies of water from glacial outwash or from gravel interbedded with glacial
till. Many drilled wells end in Paleozoic sandstone or limestone and receive
ample supplies of water. The deeper Paleozoic waters are generally high in
mineral content and in many places are unfit for use; the shallower Paleozoic
waters are commonly of satisfactory quality except that they are hard. In
many areas flowing wells can be obtained from glacial drift and Paleozoic
aquifers.
G. ^.sconsin Paleozoic Province
Most of the water supplies are obtained from wells of moderate depth
drilled into Cambrian or Ordovician sandstone or limestone. These wells,
as a rule, yield ample supplies of hard but otherwise good water. In many of
the valleys, artesian flows are obtained from the Paleozoic aquifers. The
region is devoid of water-bearing gldcial drift except in the valleys, where
there are waterbearing outwash gravels.
H. Superior Drift-Crystal]ine Province
In most parts of this province, satisfactory water supplies are obtained
from glacial drift. Where the drift is thin, water supplies are generally
scarce, because the Pre-Cambrian crystalline rocks in most places yield only
meager supplies, and, as a rule, there are no intervening Paleozoic, Mesozoic
or Tertiary formations thick enough to yield much water. The drift and rock
waters range, from waters of low mineral content in Wisconsin to waters of
high mineral content in the western and northwestern parts of the province.
A-2
-------
I. Dakota Drift-Cretaceous Province
The two important sources of ground water in this province are the
glacial drift and the Dakota sandstone. The drift supplies numerous wells
with hard but otherwise good water in nearly all parts of the province. The
Dakota sandstone has extensive areas of artesian flow which supply many
strong flowing wells, a considerable number of which are more than 1,000 feet
deep. The Dakota sandstone waters are high in mineral content but are
usable for domestic supplies. Although the water from most parts of the
formation is very hard, water from a few strata is soft.
J. Black Hills Cretaceous Province
The conditions in this province are, on the whole, unfavorable with
respect to shallow water supplies because most of the province is underlain
by the Pierre shale or by shales of the White River group (Oligocene). The
principal aquifer is the Dakota sandstone, which underlies the entire region
except most of the Black Hills. This sandstone will probably yield water
wherever it occurs, but over considerable parts of the province it is far
below the surface. In. some localities underlain by shale, small supplies are
obtained from shallow wells. En the Black Hills, water is obtained from a
variety of sources, ranging from Pre-Cambrian crystalline rocks to Cretaceous
or Tertiary sedimentary rocks.
K. Great Plains Pliocene-Cretaceous Province
The principal aquifers of this province are the late Tertiary sands and
gravels of the Ogallalla formation and related deposits and the Dakota
sandstone. The Tertiary deposits underlying the extensive smooth and
uneroded plains supply large quantities of water to shallow wells. The
Dakota sandstone underlies nearly the entire province and provides various
areas of artesian flow. Throughout much of the province, however, it lies
too far below the surface to be a practical source of water. Where the
Tertiary beds are absent or badly eroded and the Dakota sandstone is buried
beneath thick beds of shale, as in parts of eastern Colorado, it may be
difficult to develop even small water supplies. Many of the valleys contain
Quaternary gravels, which supply large quantites of good water. Considerable
amounts of Tertiary and Quaternary well water is used for irrigation.
A-3
-------
L. Great Plains Pliocene-Paleozoic Province
The principal aquifers of this province are the late Tertiary and
Quaternary sands and gravels, which give the same favorable conditions as
those in province K. The Tertiary deposits are underlain through practically
the entire province by Permain or Triassic "Red Beds", which in. most places
yield little water or water of high mineral content. In localities where the
Tertiary deposits are thin or absent, or where they have been badly eroded,
the ground water conditions are generally unfavorable.
M. Trans-Pecos Paleozoic Province
The bedrock consists of Carboniferous and Triassic strata, including
shaley cleavage sandstone, and some less shaley cleavage sandstone. In most
of the province, these rocks yield only meager supplies of high mineral
content from deep wells. In the Pecos Valley, however, Carboniferous lime-
stones and sandstones yield large supplies to numerous flowing wells. The
water is very hard, but usable for irrigation, domestic and livestock purposes.
The bedrock is locally overlain by Quaternary water-bearing gravels.
N. Northwestern Drift--Bocene--Cretaceous Province
Ground water supplies are obtained from glacial drift and from, under-
lying Eocene and Upper Cretaceous formations. Where the drift is absent or
not water bearing, wells are sunk into the underlying formations with variable
success. The Eocene and latest Cretaceous formations, which underlie most of
the eastern part of the province, generally include strata or lenses of sand,
gravel, or coal that yield water. The Cretaceous formations that occur in the
western part of the province consist chiefly of alternating beds of shale and
sandstone. The sandstones generally yield water, but the shales are unpro-
ductive. Where a thicke shale formation immediately underlies glacial drift
or is at the surface, it may be difficult to get successful wells. Upland
gravels yield water to shallow wells in certain localities.
0. Montana Eocene-Cretaceous Province
Fairly good water in quantities adequate for domestic and livestock
supplies and even for small municipal supplies is obtained from strata and
lenses of sand, gravel, and coal in the Fort Union (Eocene) and Lance (late
A-4
-------
Cretaceous or Eocene) formations which underlie most of the province. These
formations usually rest on the Pierre shale, a thick dense shale of Upper
Cretaceous age that yields no water or only meager amounts of generally poor
quality water. There is great difficulty in obtaining satisfactory water
supplies in locations where the Port Union and Lance formations are absent or
do not yield adequately. In the northern part of the province, there is a
little water-bearing glacial drift.
P. Southern Rocky Mountain Province
This mountain province is underlain, for the most part, by crystalline
rocks. Water supplies are obtained chiefly from springs, from streams fed by
springs and melted snow, or from very shallow wells near streams.
Q. Montana-Arizona Plateau Province
This large area is, for the most part, an arid to semi-arid plateau
region underlain by sedimentary formations ranging in age from Paleozoic to
Tertiary. This area is not violently deformed, but it is sufficiently warped
and broken to produce a close relation between rock structure and the occur-
rence of ground water and to cause rapid variation in ground-water conditions
from place to place. Cn the whole, water supplies are not plentiful and not
of very satisfactory quality. Water supplies are scarce where thick formations
of nearly impervious material, are at the surface, or where the plateau is
greatly dissected, as in the Grand Canyon region. Locally, however, sandstone
aquifers, such as those of the Kbotenai formation, the Dakota sandstone, or
the Mesaverde formation, can be developed and may yield very satisfactory
supplies - in some places giving rise to flowing wells. There are also local
deposits of water-bearing gravels of Quaternary age.
R. Northern Rocky Mountain Province
This region is chiefly mountainous with extensive intermontane valleys
and plains. It is underlain by a great variety of rocks with complicated and
diverse structures. As in other mountainous regions, water supplies are
obtained largely from mountain springs and streams. Considerable water is
available in places from valley fill, chiefly ordinary alluvial sand and
gravel, and the outwash deposits of mountain glaciers. A few water supplies
are also obtained from wells drilled into various rock formations of the
A-5
-------
Pre-Carrbrian and Tertiary ages.
S. Columbia Plateau Lava Province
The principal aquifers of this province are the widespread Tertiary and
Quaternary lava beds and interbedded or associated Tertiary sand and gravel,
such as those of the Ellensburg formation. In general, the lava yields
abundant supplies &£ good water. It gives rise to many large springs,
especially along the Snake River in Idaho. Locally, the lava or the inter-
bedded sand and gravel may give rise to flowing wells. However, much of the
lava is so permeable and the relief of the region is so great that in many
places the water table is too far below the surface to be reached except by
deep wells. In certain parts of the province, glacial outwash and ordinary
valley fill are also important sources of water.
T. Southwestern Bolson Province
The principal source of water supply in this arid province is the allu-
vial sand and gravel of the valley fill underlying the numerous intermontane
valleys that characterize the region. In the elevated marginal parts of the
valleys, the water table may be far below the surface or ground water may be
absent; in the lowest parts, underlain by clayey and alkaline beds, ground
water may be meager in quantity and poor in quality; at intermediate levels,
however, large supplies of good water are generally found. Most of the water
in the valleys of this province is recovered by pumping wells, but there are
many springs and areas of artesian flow. In mountain areas of the province
there are many springs, small streams, and shallow wells that furnish valuable
supplies. As a rule, the most favorable areas in the mountains for springs
and shallow wells are those underlain by granitic rocks.
U. Central Valley of California Province
Ground water of good quality is found chiefly in alluvial cones formed
by streams emerging from the Sierra Nevada, although water can be obtained
throughout the valley floor. The yield of cones flanking the Coast Range
is small, with poorer quality water generally occurring in the south and
central sections, and better in the north. Underlying piedmont deposits
consist of marine, lacustrine, and alluvial formations. High mineral content
connate water is found in deep strata throughout the valley; in the center it
A-6
-------
occurs near the ground surface. Extensive irrigation in the valley is
dependent upon ground water pumped from wells.
V. Coastal Ranges of Central and Southern California Province
The principal' ground water bodies are in the mountain valley and plains
in the Piedmont Region draining to the Pacific Ocean. Aquifers consist of
valley fill and alluvial sand and gravel deposits. Locally, good water
supplies are developed from underlying younger Tertiary sandstones. Heavy
development of ground water along the coast for municipal and irrigation needs
has resulted in sea water entering and contaminating aquifers in several
valley mouths.
W. Willamette Valley-Puget Sound Province
A large body of alluvium fills the structural trough forming this
province. Abundant supplies of surface water have delayed investigation and
exploitation of the extensive ground water resources of the area.
X. Northern Coast Range Province
Ground water is found in the alluvial fill of the valleys draining to
the Pacific Ocean. A small area in the southern part of the province con-
tains heated ground water, hot springs, and geysers. Petalled information on
ground water conditions is limited because of the abundant surface water and
the relatively undeveloped nature of the province.
A-7
-------
A-8
-------
CO
o
CO
D
CO
n
en
O
CO
D
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B
STATE LAWS
-------
State Laws Pertaining to the Protection of Ground Water
The tables in this appendix summarize the results of a state-by-state
survey regarding state laws and/or regulations that pertain to the protec-
tion of ground water. The provisions, listed below, were established by
Versar, Inc. as those that impart effectiveness to a ground water protection
regulation. The tables note which of these provisions are included in the
state's laws.
Definitions
(1) "Oil or "oils" shall mean oil, including gasoline, crude oil, fuel
oil, diesel oil, lubricating oil, sludge, oil refuse and any other petroleum
related product.
(2) "Hazardous materials" shall mean any matter of any description or
origin other than petroleum related products or radioactive substance which,
when discharged into a underground water supply of a state, presents an
imminent and substantial hazard to public health, comfort, convenience,
efficiency, or esthetics.
(3) "Person" means an individual, partnership, firm, association, joint
venture, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, municipality
or any other political subdivision of a state.
Provisions
(1) Any person owning or having control over oil or hazardous materials
that is spilled such that there is a substantial likelihood it will enter
underground public waters shall:
(a) Immediately stop the spilling;
(b) Immediately collect and remove the spilled oil or hazardous
material unless not feasible, in which case the person shall take
all practicable actions to contain, treat, and disperse the
same in a manner acceptable to the state in coordination with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and in accordance with
Annex X of the National Contingency Plan.
(c) Immediately proceed to correct the cause of the spill;
B-l
-------
(d) Xnmediately notify the state of the type, quantity, and location
of the spill, corrective and clean-up actions taken and proposed
to be taken; and
(e) Within short duration following a spill, submit a complete written
report to the state describing all aspects of the spill and steps
taken to prevent a recurrence.
(2) Cleanup of oil or hazardous material spills shall proceed in a
timely and diligent manner until official notice is obtained from the state
that satisfactory cleanup has been achieved.
(3) State compliance with state abatement requirements does not relieve
the owner or person responsible from liabilities, damages or penalties
resulting from spill and cleanup of such oil or hazardous materials.
(4) Notification of the state does not relieve the owner or responsible
person from the liabilities of the mandatory reporting requirements to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
(5) State cleanup fund for mystery spill.
(6) State underground pipeline and storage tank corrosion requirements.
B-2
-------
SDGE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
I21,inoi.,s
1 ' ' ' " ' ' ~ . -JL V ! ' ' VTETy S2CHCNS
N/A
Alaska Oil Discharge Pollution and
Control Act
Arizona Oil Spill Contingency Plan
Section A
Water & Air Pollution Control Act
Porter-Cologne Act
Colorado Water Qualitv Control Act
Part 6
Water Pollution Laws
Delaware Environmental Protection Act
Section 6028
Florida Statutes 403
CH 17 Fla. Rules of Administrative
Procedure, Section 3, 4
Georgia water Quality Control Act
Department of Health Regulations
Chapter 37-A
Water Quality Standards and Wastewater
treatment Requirements
Section X G
Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules
And Regulations , Chanter 6 Public
Water Supplies, 313-C
PROVISIONS
N/A
l-
Id, 2, 4, 5
l(a-d) 2, 3, 4
1~6
Id
l(a-e), 2, 3
Id
l(a^e), 2, 4, 5, 6
lfa*e), 2, 3, 4, 5
!(**«), 2, 3, 4, 5
la, b, d
la, b, c, d, e
2, 3, 6
B-3
-------
S3KE
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mama
Maryland
Ma «sa»r«'m IS**C** S
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
"";', PSCSJSff ^rViryig
Indiana Board of Health Regulations
Iowa itouse File 490
Kansas Stateboard of Health Peculations
28-16-27. Pollution Spills and By-
Passes
Water Quality Regulations
Department of Conservflticr Menorancam
Oil Conveyance Law, MRSA Title 38,
Chap. 2, Oil Discharge Prevention &
Pollution Controls
Maryland Natural Resources Law For
ttnyaijrVmg Substance
General Laws of Massachusetts
Michigan Spills Contingency Plan
Laws Belating to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Aoencv, Chapter 116,
Section 116.061
Mississiaoi Code Of 1972, Section 49,
17.1 - 17*31
Rules of Department of Natural Resources
Division 20 - Clean Water Commission
Chapter 5 - Hazardous Materials
10 CSR 20-5.310
N/A
P3OVISTQNS
l(a-^l , 2, 4, 6
l(a-e), 2, 3, 5
Id, &
!(*«), 2, 3, 4
l(a-«), 2, 4
l(a-*), 2, 3, 5, 6
(oil only)
l(a-e), 2, 3, 5
l(a-Ki) , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Ka-e), 2
la, b, c, a.
l(a-d), 2, 3, 5
la, c, 2
S/A
B-4
-------
STRE
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
*
North
Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
TTTT~. i'JiiC'iNENT iatd'IUNS
Grandw&ter Standards
State of Nevada Hater Pollution Controls
New Hampshire Revised Statutes
Chapter 146-A
Spill Contingency & Control Act
AtrenriPd Water Quality Control Commission
Peculations 1-?0? Justification of
Discharge
Policies and Procedures Manual
Title 1800 - Emergency Operations
New iTork state Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (Menorandum)
Spill Contingency Plan
Ohio Water Pollution Controls
Oklahoma Statute 52
Oregon Department of Swironrrental
Quality, Oil Spill Contingency Plan
Subdivision 7, 47-105 Notice, Control
and Cleanup of Oil Spills Seq.
Title 25 Rules and Regulations Part I.
Department of Environmental Resources
Sutapart C Protection of Natural Resource;
Article II. Hater Resources 101.2
PJO/XSIONS
!(*»«), 2, 4
l(a*e), 2, 3, 4, 5
l(a~d), 2, 3, 4
l(a-e), 2, 3, 4, 5
la, b, d
Id, 4
6
!(*«}, 2, 3, 4
2
l(a-d), 2, 3
la, b, c, d, e, 2, 3
l(a-d), 2, 3, 4, 5
B-5
-------
srazs
Rhode Island
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TTTL£. SHOEEST SHXriCNS
General Laws of Shode Island
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
PI/-92-500
South Dakota Water Pollution Standards
lennessee Code Anotated
State of Texas Oil and Hazardous
Pollution Contingency Plan
Section VI
State of Utah Oil and Hazardous Spills
Directory
Vernont Statutes Annotated, Chapter 47
Section 12
State Water Control Law Article 8
Laws and Oil Spill Brergency Procedures
Code of West Virginia Chan. 20,
Article 5A
Wisconsin Proposed Bill 380
Wyoming Water Quality Rules and
Regulations Chapter IV
provisions
l(a-c), 4
l(a-e), 2, 3, 4
la, b, d, e, 3
l(a-d), 2, 3
Id, 2, 3, 4
la, b, d
l(a-d), 2, 3, 4
3
la, b, d, 3
l(a-«), 2, 3, 4-
la, b, c, d
l-«
B-
-------
APPENDIX C
STATE AND FEDERAL SPILL RESPONSE TELEPHONE NUMBERS
-------
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
AGENCY
Water Improvement
Comnission
Coast Guard
Juneau
Bureau of Health Services
State Emergency Response
Emergency Services
Department of Health
State Environmental
Protection Agency
Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Department of Environmental
Regulations
Environmental Protection
Division
Coast Guard
Department of Health
and Welfare
State Envijranmental
Protection Agency
Department of Health
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Hsalth
Department of Natural
Resources and Environ-
mental Protection
Stream Control Comnission
State Environmental
Protection Agency
Department of Hater
Resources
PHCHE NO.
207-277-3630
800-442-3802
602-255-1173
301-374-1201 (Little Rock)
301-321-3601 (Conway)
800-852-7550
303-388-6111 x231
303-366-5363 (after hours)
203-566-3338
302-678-4761
904-487-1980
404-656-4300
800-442-8802
208-384-2433
217-782-3637
317-633-1709
515-281-8931
913-862-9360
502-564-3410
504-389-2176
504-389-7336
207-289-2591 (Augusta)
207-947-6746 (Bangor)
207-773-6491 (Portland)
301-269-3551
301-269-3181 (after 4:30)
C-l
-------
AGENCY
PH3JE ND.
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Mew Hanpshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Chio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
Department of Natural
Resources
Pollution Control Agency
Pollution Control
Commission
Department of Natural
Resources
Department of Health
Department of Environ-
mental Control
Civil Defense
Water Supply & Pollution
Control Commission
Department of Environmental
Protection
Environmental Improvement
Agency
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Department of Natural
Resources and Community
Development
Division of Environmental
Health & Engineering
Services
State Environmental
Protection Agency
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Environmental
Resources
Department of Health
Department of Health
and Environmental Control
617-727-6373 (Boston)
617-826-2424 (SE)
413-549-1755 (W)
517-373-1947
612-296-7235
601-354-2550
314-751-3241
406-449-2406
402-471-2186
702-885-4240
603-271-3303
609-292-7172
505-827-5271 x201
518-457-7362
919-733-7120
701-224-2386
614-466-6542
800-452-0311
717-787-4343
717-737-9702 (after 4:30)
401-277-2234
803-758-5531
C-2
-------
STRIE
South Dakota
Ttemessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wast Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
District of
Columbia
flGEHCY
Department of Environmental
Protection
Divil Defense
Department of Waiter
Resources
Division of Health
Department of Water
Resources
Water Control Board
Department of Ecology
Department of Natural
Resources
Department of Natural
Resources
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Environmental
Services
PH3HE NO.
605-224-3296
615-741-5182
512-475-5695
512-475-2651 (after hours)
801-533-6146
802-328-2763
804-786-2241
206-753-2353
304-348-2107
608-266-2857
307-777-7781
202-767-7370
202-629-4522 (after hours)
C-3
-------
Coast Guard Chemical Hazards Response Information System 300-442-8802
Interagency Radiological Assistance Plan 300-424-9300
Coast National Strike Force 300-424-8802
U.S. fxny Technical Escort Center Chemical
Emergency Response Team 703-521-2185
Pesticides Safety team Network 300-424-9300
Chlorine Emergency Team 300-424-9300
Chemical Transportation Qiergency Center 800-424-9300
EPA CBM REGTCNMi COORDINATORS
Region 1 Lexington, Mass.
Region 2 Edison, N.J.
Region 3 Philadelphia, Pa.
Region 4 Atlanta, Ga.
Region 5 Chicago, HI.
Region 6 Dallas, TK.
Region 7 Kansas City, Mo.
Region 8 Denver, Colo.
Region 9 San Francisco, Calif.
Region 10 Seattle, Hash.
John Concon
Fred Rubel
Howard Lanp'l
Al Smith
Russell Diefenback
Wally Cooper
Gene Reid
Al York
Harold T^tenaka
James Wtllmann
617-861-6700
201-321-6672
215-597-9075
404-881-3931
312-353-2316
214-767-2861
316-374-3171
303-837-2468
415-556-7358
206-442-1263
C-4
-------
APPENDIX D
LIST OF STATE GEOLOGISTS TO CALL FOR FURTHER GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION
-------
LISTING OF STATE GEOLOGISTS
STATJJ
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
NAME AND TITLE
Mr. Philip E. LaMoreaux
State Geologist
Dr. Boss G. Schaff
State Geologist
Dr. William H. Dresher
Director
Mr. Norman F. Williams
State Geologist
Mr. Thomas E. Gay, Jr.
Acting State Geologist
ACORESS AMD
Mr. John w. told, Director
and State Geologist
Dr. Hugo F. Thomas
State Geologist
Dr. Robert R. Jordan
State Geologist
Geological Survey of Alabama
P. 0. Drawer 0
University, Alabama 35486
(205) 759-5721
Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys
3001 Porcupine Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(927) 586-6352
Arizona Bureau of Mines
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
(602) 884-2733
Arkansas Geological Commission
Department of Conwerce
Vardelle Parham Center
Little Hock, Arkansas 72204
(501) 371-1646
California Department of
Conservation
Division of Mines and Geology
Resources Building, Room 1341
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 445-1825
Colorado Geological Survey
254 Columbine Building
1845 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 892-2611
Dept. of Environmental
Protection
State Office Building, Fm. 561
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
(203) 566-3540
Delaware Geological Survey
University of Delaware
101 Penny Hall
Newark, Delaware 19 711
(302) 738-2833
D-l
-------
Georgia
Hawaii
NAME AMD TITLE
Mr. C. W. Hendry, Jr., Chief
Bureau of Geology
Mr. S.M. Pickering, Jr.
Director & State Geologist
Mr. Robert T. Chuck
Manager-Chief Ehginer
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Dr. Maynard M. Miller
Chief
Mr. Jack A. Simon
Chief
Dr. John B. Patton
State Geologist
Dr. Stanley C. Grant
State Geologist
Dr. William W. Hambleton
Director
ADDRESS AND TPT.TPHOHE ro.
Department of Natural Resources
903 West Tennessee- Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
(904) 438-4191
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Earth and Water Division
19 Hunter Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
(404) 656-3214
Department of land and Natural
Resources
Division of Water and Land
Development
P. 0. Box 373
Banolulu, Hawaii 96809
(808) 548-2211
Idaho Bureau of Mines and
Geology
Moscow, Idaho 83843
(208) 885-6785 or 885-6195
Illinois State Geological Survey
Natural Resources Building
Urbana, Illinois 61801
(217) 344-1481
Department of Natural Resources
Geological Survey
611 N. walnut Grove
Blocmington, Indiana 47401
(812) 337-2862
Iowa Geological Survey
Geological Survey Building
16 West Jefferson Street
Iowa Citv, Iowa 52240
(319) 338-1173
Kansas Geological Survey
Raymond C. Moore Hall
1930 Avenue A, Campus West
University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
(913) 864-3965
D-2
-------
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
NAME AND TITLE
Dr. Wallace W. Hagan
Director and State
Geologist
Mr. Leo W. Hough
State Geologist
Dr. Robert G. Doyle
State Geologist
Dr. Kenneth N. Weaver
Director
Mr. Joseph A. Sirmott
State Geologist
Mr. Arthur E. Slaughter
State Geologist
"Dr. Matt S. Walton
Director
Mr. William K. Moore
Director & State Geologist
Dr. Wallace 3. Itowe
Director 4 State Geologist
ADDRESS AND TTT.KPHJNE MO.
Kentucky Geological Survey
University of Kentucky
307 Mineral Industries Building
120 Graham Avenue
Lexington, Kentucky 40506
(606) 257-1792
Louisiana Geological Survey
Box G, University Station
Baton Souge, Louisiana 70803
(504) 348-2201
Maine Geological Survey
State Office Building, 3m. 211
Augusta, Maine 04330
(207) 289-2801
Maryland Geological Survey
Latrobe Hall, Johns Hopkins
University
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
(301) 235-0771
Massachusetts Department of
Public "/forks
100 Nashua Street-Poom 805
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
(617) 237-9110
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Geological Survey Division
Stevens T. Mason Building
Lansing, Michioan 48926
(517) 373-1256"
Minnesota Geological Survey
University of Minnesota
1633 Eustis Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108
(612) 373-3372
Mississippi Geological Survey
2525 Mb. West Street
Drawer 4915
Jackson, Mississippi 39216
(601) 354-6228
Missouri Geological Survey
Division of Geological Surrey
and Water Resources
P. 0. Box 250
Holla, Missouri 65401
(314) 364-1752
D-3
-------
MflME AND TITLE
ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE MO.
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Hew Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Dr. S. L. Groff
Director & State Geologist
-Mr. Vincent H. Dreeszen
Director and State Geologist
Mr. John H. Schilling
Director
Dr. Glenn W. Stewart
State Geologist
Dr. Kenble Widmer
State Geologist
Dr. Frank E. Kbttlowski
Acting Director
Dr. Janes F. Davis
State Geologist
Mr. Stephen G. Conrad
Director
Montana Bureau of Mines and
Geology
Montana College of Mineral
Science and Technology
Butte, Montana 59701
(406) 792-8321
Conservation and Survey Division
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
(402) 472-3471
Nevada Bureau of Mines and
Geology
Oniversity of Nevada
Reno, Nevada 89507
(702) 784-6987
Department of Resources and
Economic Development
James Kail, University of New
Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire 03824
(603) 862-1216 "
New Jersey Bureau of Geology
and Topography
P. 0. Box 2809
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 292-2576
New Mexico State Bureau of
Mines and Mineral Resources
Campus Station, P. 0. Box 946
Socorro, New Mexico 87801
(505) 835-5420
New York State Geological
Survey
New York State Education
Building, Room 973
Albany, New York 12224
(518) 474-5816
Department of Natural and
Economic Resources
Office of Earth Resources
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
(919) 829-3833
D-4
-------
MBME AND TITLE
ADDRESS AMD TET.PPHQME NUMBER
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Dr. Edwin A. Noble
State Geologist
Mr. Horace R. Collins
Division Chief & State
Geologist
Dr. Charles J. Mankin
Director
Mr. Raymond E. Corcoran
State Geologist
Dr. Arthur A. Socolcw
Director & State Geologist
Mr. Norman K. Olson
State Geologist
Dr. Duncan J. McGregor
State Geologist
Mr. Robert E. Hershey
State Geologist
Dr. Charles Groat
Acting Director
North Dakota Geological Survey
University Station
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58201
(701) 777-2231
Ohio Department of Natural
Resources
Division of Geological Survey
Fountain Square, Building 6
Coliaifcus, Ohio 43224
(614) 466-5344
Oklahoma Geological Survey
University of Oklahoma
830 Van Vleet Oval, Rm. 16 3
Norman, Oklahoma 73069
(405) 325-3031
State Department of Geology
and Mineral Industries
1069 State Office Building
Portland, Oregon 97201
(503) 229-5580
Department of Environmental
Resources
Bureau of Topographic and
Geologic Survey
P. 0. Box 2357
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-2169
Division of Geology, South
Carolina State Development Board
Harbison Forest Road
Columbia, South Carolina 29210
(803) 758-6431
South Dakota State Geological
Survey
Science Center, University of
South Dakota
Vermillicn, South Dakota 57069
(605) 624-4471
Department of Conservation
Division of Geology
G-5 State Office Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
(615) 741-2726
Bureau of Economic Geology
University of Texas at Austin
University Station, Box X
Austin, Texas 78712
(512) 471-1534
D-5
-------
APPENDIX E
A MANUAL FOR EVALUATING CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
-------
A MANUAL FOR
EVALUATING CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
This manual was written
by
Lyle R. Silka and Ted L. Swearingen
Ground Water Protection Branch
Office of Drinking Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
June 1978
-------
DISCLAIMER
This manual has been reviewed by the Office of Drinking Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
official ground-water protection policy of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
E-i
-------
PREFACE
The Manual for Evaluating Contamination Potential of Surface
Impoundments was prepared specifically for implementing a standardized
evaluation system for the EPA Office of Drinking Water Surface
Impoundment Assessment (SIA) and serves as the training manual for that
assessment. The SIA evaluation system set forth in the manual is based
upon the previous work by Harry E. LeGrand who began over 15 years ago to
develop a standardized, consistent approach to the selection of proper
waste disposal sites. This system departs from the LeGrand system in
order to accommodate certain philosophical differences concerning
ground-water protection and specific technical aspects related to
surface impoundments. In no way does this detract from the importance
of the LeGrand system in serving as the basis for the SIA evaluation
system.
This manual also was prepared with the assistance of the SIA work
group who made many valuable suggestions. The work group members are:
Jack Keeley
Ground Water Research Branch
Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory/EPA
Ada, Oklahoma
Charles Kleeman
Ground Water Protection Section
EPA/Region III
Richard Bartelt
Ground Water Protection Section
EPA/Region V
James K. Channell
Hazardous Materials Branch
EPA/Region IX
E-X1
-------
George Garland,
Toby Goodrich
Office of Solid Waste
EPA/Headquarters
Jane Ephremides,
Larry Graham,
Ted Swearingen,
Lyle Silka
Office of Drinking Water
EPA/Headquarters
The Office of Drinking Water also extends its appreciation to the
following for their assistance in reviewing early drafts of this manual:
Bruce F. Latta
Oil Field and Environmental Geology Section
Kansas State Department of Health & Environment
John Dudley
Water Quality Division
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency
Robert M. Sterrett
Virginia Water Control Board
Donald G. Williams
Water Quality Bureau
Montana Department of Health and Environment
Ronald G. Hansen
Water Pollution Control
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Paul Beam
Bureau of Water Resources Management
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Robert Wall
Division of Water Pollution Control
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
Leonard Wood
USGS/Water Resources Division
Reston, VA
E-iii
-------
Jay H. Lehr
Tyler E. Gass
National Water Well Association
John Osgood
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
James Geraghty, David Miller and Nat Perlmutter
Geraghty and Miller, Inc.
Bob Kent
Texas Department of Water Resources
We also take this opportunity to thank the following for
assisting Messrs. Silka and Swearingen in collecting case studies
and field testing the evaluation system in the early phases of its
development.
John Scribner and Ronald G. Hansen
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Mead Sterling and Lyndon Hammond
Arizona Department of Health
Tom Bailey and Alvin L. Franks
California State Water Resources Control Board
Orville Stoddard
Colorado State Health Department
Dick Woodhall
Connecticut State Health Department
Paul Beam and Frank Andrews
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Rauf Piskin
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Bruce Latta and Bill Bryson
Kansas State Department of Health and Environment
Charles Bishop
Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources
E-iV
-------
Chester Harvey and Fred Eyer
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Donald G. Williams
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Bob Wall, Clark Haberman, Jon Atkinson and Dennis Heitman
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
Wendall McCurry
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
Patrick A. Clancy and Jon 0. Nowlin
USGS/Water Resources Division
Nevada
Joe Pierce, Maxine Goad, Mike Snavely and John Dudley
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency
Dan Serrell
New York Department of Health
Norman Peterson
North Dakota State Health Department
Mark Coleman and Dick Jones
Oklahoma State Department of Health
Harold Sawyer
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Jerry Mullican and Bob Kent
Texas Department of Water Resources
Charles Ratte
Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation
R.M. Sterrett, Eugene Siudyla and Virginia Newton
Virginia Water Control Board
E-V
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Step 1Guidance for Rating the Unsaturated Zone 8
Step 2Guidance for Rating Ground-Water Availability 33
Step 3Guidance for rating the Ground-Water Quality 36
Step 4Guidance for Rating the Waste Hazard Potential .... 39
Step 5Determination of the Site's Overall Ground-
Water Contamination Potential 50
Step 6Determination of the Potential Endangerment
to Current Water Supplies 52
Step 7Determining the Investigator's Degree of
Confidence 56
Step 8Miscellaneous Identifiers 61
Step 9Record the Final Score 62
Appendices 64
E-vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Title
Flow Chart of the Surface Impoundment assessment
Generalized sequence of steps involved in the
SIA evaluation system
Guide of the determination of the depth to the
saturated zone
Well hydrographs of a water well at Maywood,
Illinois
Well hydrograph of the Ainsworth, Nebraska
water supply well
Common driller's terms
Earth material categories and their approximate
Unified Soil Classification System equivalents
Hypothetical flow paths of waste fluids seeping
from a surface impoundment through unsaturated
sands containing clay lenses
Poultry Processing Plant site plan
Portion of the 7-5 minute quadrangle topographic
map of the Poultry Processing Plant
Portion of driller's report on the water supply
well drilled at the Poultry Processing Plant
Portion of the geologic map from the County
Geologic Report containing the location of the
Poultry Processing Plant
Portion of the geologic cross-section from the
County Geologic Report
Portion of driller's report on the water supply
well drilled at the Poultry Processing Plant
Driller's logs of test boring beneath the waste
treatment lagoon at the Poultry Processing Plant
Initial ratings of hazard potential range for
Page
2
6
11
12
14
17
18
20
24
25
26
29
30
31
32
common sources and types of ground-water
contaminants
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
I Step 1. Rating of the Unsaturated Zone 9
II Step 2. Rating of the Ground-Water 3^
Availability
III Step 3'. Rating the Ground-Water Quality 37
IV Contaminant Hazard Potential Rankings of
Waste, Classified by Source ^Q-W
V Contaminant Hazard Potential Rankings of
Waste, Classified by Type M5-46
VI Step 6. Rating the Potential Endangerment
to a Water Supply 5^
VII Rating of the Ground Water Pollution
Potential 63
E-viii
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - Typical Sources and Types of Data Useful
in Applying the Assessment System
Appendix 2 - Measuring Unit Conversion Table
Appendix 3 - Glossary
Appendix 4 - Selected References
E-ix
-------
INTRODUCTION
An objective of the surface impoundment assessment (SIA)
program (see Figure 1) is to rate the contamination potential of ground
water from surface impoundments and to develop practices for the
evaluation of different surface impoundments (elsewhere referred
to as pits, ponds, and lagoons). One of the activities conducted
under the SIA program is the application of the evaluation system
described in the present manual. This evaluation system applies
a numerical rating scheme to different impoundments that yields
a first round approximation of the relative ground-water contamination
potential of these impoundments.
The basis of this system was developed by Harry E. LeGrand
in 1964. LeGrand and Henry S. Brown expanded and improved
the system in 1977 under contract to the Office of Drinking Water.
The present system described in this manual has been modified
by the Office of Drinking Water through consultation with LeGrand
and Brown to reflect its ground-water protection philosophy.
Before the selection of the present evaluation system, other
standardized systems were considered (Cherry, et. al., 1975; Finder,
et. al., 1977; Phillips, 1976) but were not deemed as suitable for the
purposes of the assessment. The system is designed to provide an
E-l
-------
AAAAA
ii ii it ii it
E-2
-------
approximation of the ground-water contamination potential of
impoundments at a minimum cost. Precise, in-depth investi-
gations of actual ground-water contamination from surface impound-
ments (i. e., drilling, etc.) would be too costly and time-consuming
and are not involved in this first-round site evaluation. The specific
site investigations into actual contamination would begin after this
assessment is finished in order to optimize expenditures. Those
sites identified as high contamination potential would be addressed
first.
The philosophy guiding the development of this surface impound-
ment evaluation system is that underground drinking water sources
must be protected for both present and future users as intended
by Congress in the Safe Drinking Water Act, 1974. Ground-water
pollution occurs when contaminants reach the water table (saturated
zone) beneath the site. This is contrary to the commonly held
view that ground-water contamination cannot legally be determined
until the contaminated ground water crosses the property boundaries
of the facilities. EPA believes that in order to protect the nation's
ground-water resources it is necessary to identify potential contamin-
ation at the source where preventive measures may be initiated.
The purpose of this evaluation system is to rank impoundments
E-3
-------
in terms of their relative ground-water contamination potential.
The evaluation system considers several hydrogeologic parameters
in the rating of the site. There are numerous parameters that
may be used in evaluating a site. However, many of these para-
meters are related and their simultaneous consideration would be
redundant. Thus, only selected parameters representative of
different processes, have been included. The present evaluation
system provides a standardized methodology which will ensure more
consistent national results.
The parameters used in the present SIA system have been separated
into two distinct groups which correspond to the two phases of the
evaluation, i. e., 1) the rating of the ground water contamination
potential itself and 2) the rating of the relative magnitude of potential
endangerment to current users of underground drinking water sources.
The parameters considered unique in rating the ground-water contamin-
ation potential are 1) the thickness of the unsaturated zone and the
type of earth material of that zone, 2) the relative hazard of the
waste, and 3) the quantity and quality of the underground drinking
water source beneath the site. The parameters considered unique
in determining the rating for the potential for endangerment of
currently used water resources include: 1) the type of water source,
i. e. ground water or surface water, 2) whether that water source
is in the anticipated flow direction of the contaminated ground water
E-H
-------
(if such contamination occurred); and 3) the distance between the
potential contamination source and the water source. These para-
meters account for the basic processes and factors which determine
the contamination potential of the site and which indicated the relative
threat to underground drinking water sources.
The level of contamination of ground water is subject to varying
degrees of attenuation as the water flows through the unsaturated
zone and on through the aquifer; however, the evaluation focuses
on the potential for contamination of underground water sources.
Attenuation mechanisms are very complex, varying with the type of
waste, earth material, and physico-chemical environment. A general
site evaluation system concerned with an approximation of the contamin-
ation potential cannot consider the specific attenuative capabilities
of different earth materials for different wastes, particularly since
there exists a vast variety of complex wastes possible. This evaluation
system therefore treats attenuation in an indirect manner by considering
it in combination with permeability.
The evaluation is performed in a sequence (see Figure 2). The
first four steps involve the evaluation of the potential for ground water
to be contaminated by rating the site's hydrogeology and waste character.
The fifth step then determines the site's overall contamination potential
relative to other rated sites by combining the first four steps. It must be
stressed that this overall rating will express only a site's hydrogeologic
E-5
-------
Step 1
Rating the Unsaturated Zone
Step 2
Rating the Ground Water Availability
Step 3
Rating the Ground Water Quality
I
Step 4
Rating the Waste Hazard Potential
Step 5
Overall Ground Water Contamination Potential
Step 1 + Step 2 + Step 3 + Step 4
Step 6
Rating the Potential Endangerment to Water
Supplies
Figure 2. Generalized sequence of steps involved in the SIA
evaluation system.
E-6
-------
conditions relative to those conditions for all possible sites, and
does not relate to a site's absolute degree of ground-water contamin-
ation. Such determination of actual contamination involving ground-
water monitoring and sampling procedures must be made following
site specific investigations. This system allows the investigator to
assign priorities to sites on the basis of contamination potential so
that the investigator could then concentrate resources upon the further
investigation of these sites that rank highest in terms of their conta-
mination potential.
Precise data is not necessary for the application of the
SIA. evaluation system. Performing precise measurements of the
the depth to the water table, the character of the earth materials
underlying the site, the hydrogeology at the site, etc., can be costly
and time consuming. It must be remembered that this evaluation
system is a first-round approximation and therefore estimates based
on the best available information will be used with the expectation that
they will provide satisfactory results for first-round evaluations.
E-7
-------
STEP1
GUIDANCE FOR RATING THE UNSATURATED ZONE
The earth material characteristics of the unsaturated zone
underlying the surface impoundment are rated to determine the
potential for contaminants to reach the water table. This step
involves the combined rating of a) the thickness of the unsaturated
zone, and b) earth material (both consolidated and unconsolidated
rock) in the unsaturated zone (see Table I).
Step 1, Part A, Determination of the depth to the saturated zone for Step 1
Contaminants attenuate to varying degrees as they migrate down
through the unsaturated zone, depending upon the thickness and the
type of earth material. Therefore, more favorable conditions exist
where the water table is deeper. The depth to the saturated zone is
the depth from the base of the surface impoundment to the water table.
This depth may be measured to the water table in unconfined aquifers
(See Site 1 in Figure 3) or, in the case of a confined aquifer, to
the top of the confined aquifer (See Site 2 in Figure 3). Where a
perched water table is known to occur, the depth may be measured
E-8
-------
PQ
<
H
_
_
in
.
*? (Jvp
o
>-LA
J? V
_C 4-> ro
4J 3 .
.0 0
5 ovo oxp
"O LA O
C «- LA
£ A VI
^
-C ro
o
2
O LA 4J
C «
> "O
c
O ro
4-1 tO
tt) 0)
C C
U_ U-
c
O ro
4-* tO
t
Ed)
(1) 3 m
> .- u
ro "O ro
i_ O
C .c en C
"Q ^~ i- 4-> 3
I/) tt) C 4-> Q)
"o "o a) o
c O E <0 ro
CD Z: 4) 1- £
ro
"O O >
c CD
-o CD x: _i o ^^
4) Q. C ~0
u m i- 4-1 o > tt)
3 3 O Q. 4J 4J
4-) O E a) in i- c
u a) ro o TJ o a)
CD c 4-1 x c O E
u en a) LU ro O_ tt)
Lu 3E to O
O * ro in
- in > tt)
\j\ "O Q) O f*0 C
3 tt) C 4-> _J O
O 1- O M
C 3 4-> U 4J
i_ 4-1 m o 4-1
tt) O tt) QL ro
> ro E ro in 3
ro »- > ro ro
o U- _ i LU CQ LI.
T3
4-*
ro
IE
^
O
in -^
c 0
0 0
( l ty-
CM
O
o r--
i
0 0
V^
V
CM
O vD
I
0 0
v y
CM LA
1
O O
\M *~
V
J-
1
csl o
^
i
I
Csl LA
|
0 0
csl
I
0 0
o
CM
1 1
Csl -3-
1
O
csl
0 1
O O
CSI f
A A
>
>. i i
4-1 4->
ro rM
4-> 4-) O
C .- 4- 0)
tt) -O ^ in
in ro "O >x
tt) tt) Q. E
v- E en U
Q. u
0) d) c c
/v n ._ ._
X
al
t-
^£
3E
cn
z
^
i-
cc:
Li- O I LL. i(i
o o o cn
LU LU LU LU 3
o cs PA en
d*** ^ /~i /*** /\
csi CA ^r LA en
o o o o i
-3- LA so i*~ en
CO CO CO Lu C?
vD r . co cn cn
)D i qj_
HOJ
E-9
-------
to it rather than the underlying regional water table (See Site 3
in Figure 3). The investigator will decide whether to measure
the depth to the perched water table or ignore it and measure
to the regional water table. This decision should be based on
the extent and thickness of the perched water table and its usefulness
as a drinking water source. If the perched water table is currently
being utilized as a drinking water source, the depth should be
measured to it.
Water tables fluctuate on a diurnal, seasonal and annual basis
due to natural and artificial causes. For this assessment system
the depth to the water table should be determined on the basis
of the seasonal high water table elevation. As is shown in Table I,
the depth determination does not have to be exact since the
intervals are large. Illustrations of possible well hydrographs
are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4a depicts a hydrograph
of a well in Illinois which is only affected by seasonal climatic
variation. The depth to water table would be taken as approximately
five feet (1.6 meters). In Figure 4b the well hydrograph illustrates
a water table which is affected by seasonal pumping variation.
Pumping is greatest and, as a result, the water table is lowest
during May through September, the hot season when consumption
E-10
-------
SITE 1
Unsaturated
Zone
Thickness
Aquifer
SITE 2
lickness
Unsaturated
Zone
Aquifer
SITE 3
Unsaturated Perched
Zone Water Table
Aquifer
Regional
Water Table
Figure 3. Guide for the determination of the depth to the
saturated zone (water table in the unconfined case
or top of confined aquifer) for completion of Step 1
E-H
-------
1942 194} .944 1943 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 i9Sl I9S2 1911 I9S4 1955 I9S6 19^7 1958 1959 I960
Figure
168
166
164
160
158
156
154
152
150
148
146
144
142
140
t38
136
COK 39N !2£-ll.7f
(MAYWOOD)
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Figure
Figure k. Well hydrographs of a water well at Maywood, Illinois,
showing, in Figure 4A, seasonal fluctuations in a well
remote from pumping well influences; and in Figure ^B,
fluctuations in a well close to a ground water pumping
area (from Walton, 1970, p. 106).
E-
-------
is greatest. During the winter months of November through March
the demand decreases and the ground-water table recovers. In this
case the depth to the water table would be computed at the highest
level, at 168 feet (51.2 meters) of elevation rather than the summer
levels of 142 feet (43. 3 meters).
Figure 5 shows a long period of record for a well hydrograph
located in Ainsworth, Nebraska, in which annual and longer term
fluctuations exist. Although the maximum change in water level
amounts to only about 6 or 7 feet (2 meters), other areas of the
country do experience much greater variation and should be
considered. However, in this example, the water level used in
determining the depth to the water table should be the higher level
of 34 feet (10.4 meters) below the surface. Note that in all these
examples, the more conservative estimate is used for depth to
the water table.
In the situation where a confined (artesian) aquifer is encountered
below a disposal site and an unconfined (water table) aquifer does not
exist, the depth is measured to the top of that confined aquifer.
Due to the nature of the confined aquifer, the net hydrostatic head
of the system may decrease the possibility of contamination. However,
conditions are not steady-state and other phenomena may affect the
E-13
-------
133J Nl '13A31 03S NH3H 3«
(D 0)
3
OJ (U
j«: *->
U1 tl
»o 2
(D C v£>
2 o
. U Q.
.c cn
4j *
i_ E r-
o i- r-
S «J - en uJ
x: c
in
a)
i_
3
E-14
-------
net hydrostatic head of the confined aquifer. With the reductions
of head which can be experienced (as in many irrigated areas of
the country), confined aquifers may become vulnerable to contamination
from surface sources through over pumping.
Step 1, Part B, Determination of the earth material category for Step 1
The type of earth material must be identified in order to complete
Step 1. Table I contains an ordinal ranking of the general categories
of earth materials based upon permeability, secondarily upon sorption
character. The inclusion of sorption is based on the general
relationships between grain size/surface area and permeability/sorption.
Grain size (or pore size) is proportional to permeability and inversely
proportional to surface area which is an important factor in sorption
mechanisms. As grain size is inversely proportional to sorption
capacity, sorption capacity is inversely proportional to permeability.
Thus, going from left to right across the earth material categories
in Table I, permeability decreases while sorption generally tends
to increase. The categories take into account whether the permeability
of the material is primary (properties existing at the time of formation
such as the pore spaces) or secondary (properties of the material
imposed upon it sometime after formation such as joints, fractures,
E-15
-------
faults and solution channels). Secondary permeability is usually
much greater than primary permeability due to the larger pathways.
This distinction is very important in the categorization of earth
materials as the presence of secondary permeability increases
the flow of water and decreases attenuation. Fractures, joints,
and faults are caused by earth movement and generally become
closed and tighter with depth (generally within a hundred meters)
because of increased pressures and decreased weathering effects.
Faults often have an associated zone of crushed rock (fault breccia)
which may be highly permeable.
The classification of the earth material should follow the
guidelines of Table I and of Figures 6 and 7 which supply further
assistance in the classification. Figure 6 gives a fairly compre-
hensive list of driller's terms found in driller's logs and the
equivalent classification for Table I. Some groups of terms are
assigned to more than one category, in which case the investigator
must make a judgement. In Figure 7, the equivalent Unified Soil
Classification System codes are shown.
E-16
-------
I
Gravel, S»nd. Sand and Gravel, and Similar Mat trials
Specie v'tio 25 o«r cent
Bouiden Gravel and und
Cc«f*e g'Bvei Gr»v*l and undrock
Cot't* isnd Medium und
Cobt>'c: Rock and grave*
CGSD'O i*.cn« Running tand
D'vF'tf*1 "* *t>ovewater Sand
i*uie Sand, water
Fleet rocks Send end boufden
Free tenC Sand and cobbiei
Gr»vel Sand and line gravel
Loot* crevel Sand and prevat
Loote uno Sandy gravel
Rockt *»i** »reve4
nnv TTT
FirwSand.TightSand.TightGravet.andSimilarMaHrwIj
Specific yield 10 percent
Sand »r>d clay Sandy loam
Sand *nd clay ttrata (meat) Sendy loam, und, and clay
Sand and dirt Sandy nit
Sand and handDan Sandy toll
Sa^d and hard und Surface and fine Mod
Sand and lava
Sand an- pack tand Cloggy und
Sand ane landy day Coarte pack und
Sand «nd soaDftone Compected und end tlri
Sand and toil Dead tand
Sana and tome clay Dirry tend
Sand, clay. and water Fine pack und
Sano erwit FineQUtcktandwIthalkalnejeek
Sand-tmie water Ftne tand
Send mud and water Fin* tend, foot*
Sand dome water) Hard peck und
SanesTrtakt.tMlancetiay Hard und
Sand streaks of clay Herd tand end ftroekt Of
Sand with cemented undy clay
tu«ar.(
Sand wiThthintireektof Herd und rock e*xJ tome water
clay tand
Hard cand, aoH rtr«»kt
Coa'te and »*ndy Loamy iina a»nd
Locce »andv e*»y Madium muddy »*nd
Maomr-i »andy Milk tand
Sandy Mora or la«t »and
Sendy and aandy clay Mwedy aand
Scndy ctay, tand. and P»ctt tand
clav Poor water a*nd
Sanoyciay «watar Powdar »»nd
Occrtno Pumice »»nd
Sandy clay wrtti nrvakt Ouickc«nd
of tana Sand, mucky or dirty
Sandy formation Set »and
Sandy muck SI»TY »»mJ
Sandy »edima>nt Sloppy und
Very undy clay Sltcky tand
Strcaktfinaandco»r«*wnd
Bouldert, c*m*nt«d und Surfaca und and clay
Cement. gra*«l.und, and Tight und
rockt
Ciay and gravvt, water
be»nnf Brmie clay »nd uf*d
Clay & rock, tome loeu rock C>ay *nd tand
Ciay, >and and praval Clay, und. and wtt«r
Ciav.fit.und.andgraval Clay with tand
Conpicm»f«t«,gfavel.»nd Ctay with und nr*«kt
bouiopti More or let* clay, herd und
Conglomerate, rtickycUy. and bounder*
tano and oravel Mud and und
Dirrv oravel Mud, tand, indwater
Fine c-ivet, hard Sand and mud with chunk*
Gr»vel cemented tand Silt and fin* und
Grave) v.'i?*ttreekso< ct«V Sill and und
Hard frtvei Soil, und, and
Hard sand and gravel clay
Packed gravel Toptoil and light
Packed Sfend and prevet t«nd
Quictcund and cooblec Water und cpnnkted wrth
Rock und and clay ctoy
Sino artdgrvvel cemented
»u*a^i Float rock (ttone.)
Saicvctayandfiravel Seep water
Set gravel Soft undcton*
Si'tyundandgravel Strong teepag*
(cobbles)
T»pfit gravel
IV or V
Clay and GravH. Sandy Clay,*ndSirnfUrM*t»rMl|
S=>eci-t»c yield 5 percent
Cemented pr«vef UoOb»e»J Clay and candy ctoy
Cemenito g'avel and clay Clay and tilt
Cemented prevcl, hard Ciay. cemented tend
Cemcntanc rock tt cobbles) Ciay. compact loam and und
Clay a^d crave! troct.) Cley to coarte tand
Clay and tot-leer i(cobbtei) Clay, streaks pi hard packed Hhd
Clav. pack send, and grav«f Clay, streakt of undy ct*y
Cobbict m cley Oay, water
Cong'omerete Clay with undy pock*t
Orycr*vai (bttoM-xvEtcT Clay with small rtreaki of
taDie! und
Gravel and clay Clay with tome und
Gravel Icementl Oay with ttrcaki of ftnt und
Gravel an3 tandy clay Clay with thm ttreakl of MAd
Grav«t a^d tough fhate Porphyry e»»y
Graveity ctcy Quickundy el»y
Rocks in clay E*nd clay
Ronen cement Sand then
Sitt and oravel Sticky tend and cley
Sod and oowfdery Ttght muddy tend
Very fine tight muddy tend
Cemented tand and clay Dry tendy «ltt
Clav sand Fine undy loem
Dry htfC sacked t»nd Ftn» undy tilt
Dry i»nd 1 D« IDW Ground turtac*
warer table) Loam
Dry und and dirt Loam end Cley
Fmc muddy und Sandy clay loem
Fin»ae-»d.sTTc»ksof ctay Sediment
Fine i'g*iT muddy tend S»t
Haid p*cKCdtand,t^reBk( Silt and clay
el clay Si Sty clay lo**n
Hard und and clay Silty toarn
Hard tetsa-td and clay Soft loam
Mudev tand and day Soil
ricked sand and clay Soil end Clay
Packedtanoandthafe So
band end tough thala Surlace lor mat ion
Sand rock Top h*rdpen koll
Sandstone ToptoM
Sendttone and leva Toptoil end undy eltt
Set tand and cley Toptoil-«itt
Set und. ctreakt of clay
Cemented tandv clay
H«rd sandy clay (tight) Decomposed herdpan
Sandy cl*v Hardpan and undtione,
Sandy clay wi;h:ma»und H*rcpan end undy day
strecK;, very line H*rdp»n and tandy theit
Sanov sht*e Heropen and tendy ttrartM
Set tandy clay Herd rock le^uvieO
£
Brrnle cley Loot* vheAt)
Ceving clay Muck
Cement Mud
Cement ledg* Pecked cley
Choppy day Poor clay
Clay Shale,
Cley, occasional rock Shell
Crumbly clay Slush
Cube ctev Soapnone
DecpmpoMrd granite Soapttona float
Dm Soft clay
Good clay Squeeze clay
Gumbo ctay Sticky
Hard clay Sucky clay
Hardpen (H.P.J Tiper clay
H^rdpan that* Tight clav
Hard thele Tu
-------
Step 1
Earth Material Category
(and Step 1 Designation)
Uni fied Soi1
Class i fi cation
System Designation
Permeabi1i ty
Range (cm/sec)
Gravel (l)
Medium to Coarse Sand (l)
Fine to Very Fine Sand (ll)
GW, GP
SW, SP
SW, SP
Permeable
> 10"1* cm/sec
Sand with £15% Clay, Si It (III) GM, SM, SC
Sand with >15% but £50% Clay (IV) GM, SM, ML
Semi-permeable
10"2 to 10~6 cm/sec
Clay with <50% Sand (V)
Clay (VI)
OL, MH
CL, CH, OH
Relatively imperme-
able
< 10"° cm/sec
Figure 7. Earth material categories and their approximate Unified Soil
Classification System equivalents.
E-18
-------
The geologic conditions beneath the site can be a very complex
layering of clays, sands and gravels or consolidated sedimentary
rocks such as sandstone, limestone and shale. In these layered
situations the rating may be accomplished by considering the probable
hydrology of the system. Where the different layers have similar
hydrologic properties, the layers may be considered a single hydrologic
unit for rating purposes. Where contrasting layers are encountered,
best judgement must be exercised in rating the site. For example,
if an impermeable shale overlies permeable sandstone rate only
the thickness of shale. The investigator must be cautioned, however,
that in rating a case where hydrologically unlike layers alternate,
the waste is more likely to move through the more permeable zones
and avoid the impermeable layers. As an example, a sand containing
clay lenses should be rated as if only sand were present (See Figure 8).
Similarly, where secondary permeability is present (i. e. fractures,
joints and faults) the major path of waste movement is through
the large conduits of secondary permeability rather than the interstices
of primary permeability. This results in a short circuit of any
attenuation capability present in the material. In such cases, the
earth material would be rated as the more permeable categories.
E-19
-------
Impoundment
' .Unsaturated
. 'Sands'
« i . * I *
. -7 .^_ ' yJL-l^^
, * _ _ -/ ' f^~ ^~^^""^"7
Water Tab^e
- . '
'Saturated Sands '
Figure 8. Hypothetical flow paths of waste fluids seeping from a
surface impoundment through unsaturated sands containing
clay lenses.
E-20
-------
Step 1, Part C, The Scoring of Step 1.
After the thickness of the unsaturated zone and the type of earth
material in the unsaturated zone have been determined, refer to the
Step 1 matrix (in Table 1) and record the appropriate score for the
particular values of thickness and material.
Sources of information for completing Step 1.
Many data sources exist for the depth to the water table and
the geologic material beneath a site. The site may have specific
data available from State files if the site is permitted. The owner/
operator may have data on shallow bedrock and soils available
from borings or trenches made for the impoundment or nearby
building foundations. Nearby water wells may provide data on
the geology and ground-water levels, and adjacent road cuts can
provide additional information on the subsurface.
General information is available from State agency reports
such as the State geological survey, State departments of transpor-
tation soil borings, water resources agencies or universities with
departments concerned with geology and ground-water resources.
The United States Geological Survey also publishes reports and
E-21
-------
maintains files on ground water occurrence in each State. The
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
publishes county soils reports and maps with information on local
soil profiles and bedrock, depth to the water table and depth to
unweathered bedrock or parent material of the soil.
Example for determining the score for Step 1.
To score a site for Step 1, information is needed on: 1) the
depth to the saturated zone and 2) the earth material of the unsat-
urated zone. The following example illustrates the method of
scoring a site and will be utilized in all steps of the evaluation
system.
A poultry processing plant, located in the Appalachian Valley
and Ridge Province of a Mid-Atlantic State, operates a two acre waste
treatment lagoon (about 8000 m ) for disposal of poultry processing
waste water. The waste treatment lagoon is shown in the site plan of
Figure 9; Figure 10 gives the site location in relation to local
topography.
Example Step 1, Part A. Determine the depth to the water table to
establish the thickness of the unsaturated zone, m this example the
E-22
-------
depth to the water table may be obtained from the driller's log
of the plant water well. Figure 11 shows the driller's report which
indicates that the depth to the static water table is 33 feet (about
10 meters). This static water table level is not the seasonal high
water table at this site. The seasonal high water table would be
expected to occur around 25 feet (7. 5 meters).
The depth to the water table could also be estimated by studying
the topographic map in Figure 10 if no well data was available.
The elevation of the lagoon bottom is estimated to be about 1020
feet (311 meters) Mean Sea Level as the site is located between
two 1020 foot contours. The river is about 100 feet (30 meters)
to the west and, in the humid eastern climate, the water table
can be assumed to be the river level at the river. Since the lagoon
is close to the river, the water table is estimated to be about
the same elevation as the river, i. e., 990 feet (302 meters). This
is determined by noting that the 980 foot (299 meters) elevation
crosses the river about 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) downstream and
the 1000 foot (305 meters) elevation crosses about 1 mile upstream.
Interpolation between 980 and 1000 gives a river elevation of 990
feet. By estimating the lagoon elevation (1020 feet) and adjacent
E-23
-------
SCALE
FF.RT l(j)0
Figure 9. Poultry Processing Plant site plan.
E-24
-------
wv*-
SCALE 124000
o
I MILE
1000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
Figure 10. Portion of the 7-5 minute quadrangle topographic map of
the Poultry Processing Plant (Marked by arrow).
E-25
-------
fVJL-76 IWATER CONDITIONS!
STATIC WATER LEVEL
WATER ZONES (fissures cr formations supplying water)
(from) (to) (from) (to)
fl. , ft
f I. : ft.
QUANTITY OF WATER
WELL PUMPED (or bailed) nt /S Gal, per Min. with
/ftfP feet DRAWDOWN cfter _&,,._HOURS PUMPING.
FLOW(notural)_ G PM. HEAD
REMARKS:.
ft. (above ground]
COLOR.
QUALITY OF. WATER
OTHER
ANALYSIS.'AVAILABLE-Y«« Q NoO: ATTACHED YliONeD
TEMPERATURE '.
.WATER.
(Itom)
(salt, brackish, iron, tultur.flod, oth*r)
USE OF WATER! Oomntle O
.ft.
'(to)
-s_ft.
D Publlea
WG TYPE f»r milh«d)
DATE.' Started
TOTAL
BEDROCK fit
(rotary, cable, bortd, dnvln, «|
; Completed.
.ft.
.ft.
GROUTING INFORMATION
METHOD LJSFn 6*^1/1
GROUTING MATERIAI
nEPTH OF GROUTING.
t/
jf "f
HOLE SIZE
(diom) (from) (lo)
in ft (1
If) f> 5O
£'/< <-,-,
-------
river elevations (990 feet), the water table depth is estimated at
30 feet (about 9 meters). This estimate is fairly close to the
measured static water level in the well. This method of estimating
ground-water levels is useful only for perennial streams and is
not reliable in the arid western United States where streams are
intermittent. In such cases the ground-water level is often deeper
than the stream bed and may have no relationship to the stream
level or topography.
Example Step 1, Part B. The second part of completing Step 1
is to estimate the composition of the earth material of the unsaturated
zone. For the Poultry Processing Plant, there is a substantial
amount of data available from a county geologic report, the driller's
report for the water well at the site and, several test borings
conducted at the lagoon site. Figure 12 and 13 show the surface
bedrock configuration and the structural cross-section of the
area. The bedrock at the site is the Edinburg Formation composed
of shale and limestone layers tilted at about 70 degrees to the
west. The Driller's report containing the well log (Figure 14)
indicates that about 16 feet (about 5 meters) of unconsolidated
clay and gravel overlie a considerable thickness of variable lime-
stone down to 424 feet (129 meters).
E-27
-------
The logs of the test borings shown in Figures 15 indicate
a quite variable thickness of sand and gravel (from 12 to 60 feet,
or 3 to 18 meters) above limestone. It would be expected in this
area of steeply tilted limestone and shale layers to have a rough,
variable bedrock surface as a result of differential weathering.
Example, Step 1, Part C. After determining the thickness of
the unsaturated zone (7. 5 meters) and the type of earth material
in the unsaturated zone, the Step 1 score can be determined from
the Step 1 matrix in Table I for the following parameters:
Thickness of the unsaturated zone = 7. 5 meters
Material of the unsaturated zone = 3 meters of sand and gravel
4. 5 meters of limestone
As the sand, gravel and limestone are of similar hydrologic
character and in the same earth material category of Step 1,
their thickness can be combined so that the Step 1 score would
be determined for 7. 5 meters of category "I" material rated at
9C. (The presence of a liner would be noted by recording the
appropriate code in the reporting form.)
E-28
-------
Edinburg formation
Dark graptolite bearing shale, dense
black limestone, and nodular weather-
ing limestone.
Beekmantown formation
Thick-bedded, gray, medium-grained
dolomite and some blue limestone; much
ehrrt.
Chepultepec limestone
Gray and blue dense limestone, some
dolomite.
SCALE 1 62500
i 2
Fugure 12. Portion of the geologic map from the County Geologic Report
containing the location of the Poultry Processing Plant
(marked by an X and an arrow).
E-29
-------
bbbb-J o o o
O O O O ra OOO
ooooSooo
< ro CM « I/) »- C\J ro
O
311111
CT> 0)
c e
O 4->
c
o_ nj
- C
O
Q. (/I
0) (A)
o: Q-
O
>-
O »-
- O
M CL
C
2 a)
O ^:
o *->
. O
M 3
O 1-
(fl I/)
(A U
1/1
O C71
L. O
o
o
U (U
Ol
en
O (U
o
o m
0) <4-
CT) »-
-
a.
D
cn
E-30
-------
f*
N;
-.5 1
>-
1
tn
»r & fc
o
Q.
-o
0)
D.
Q.
3
in
(0
3
0) .
Ji en
M O
c
O
4-> Si
O in
.- o
i- O
O 1-
Q_ 0.
D
O)
E-31
-------
C
o
*r4
4-1
0.
H
i-l
O
CO
Oi
I-l
to
H
^_l
V
4-1
CO
4-»4->
D.OJ
CO
4J I-l
r-l 0
1-1
W r-l
CO
0 C
C O
CO
TJ Cfl
d o
CO O
C/5 O
0)
C
0
4-1
10
CD
E
H
j
rQ
)-|
cO
as
O \\ "*i CJ
in j\ o
to
C
o
o
cr>
(D
C
0)
0)
l_
4->
cu
4~>
l/l
fO
3
(0
C
1- CD
l« C
0)
u- CD
O O
o
in i-
01 Q-
o
I- D
0) O
Q_
.- CO
1- .C
O 4->
-------
STEP 2
GUIDANCE FOR RATING GROUND WATER
AVAILABILITY
Determining the ground-water availability ranking.
The ability of the aquifer to transmit ground water depends
upon the permeability and saturated thickness of the aquifer.
Step 2 provides the guidance to determine the ground-water
availability rating of the aquifer. Since this evaluation system is
a first-round approximation, the ground-water availability rating
is not exact, but an approximation. The categories of earth material
which make up the saturated zone are the same categories as used
in Step 1 but have been combined into good, fair and poor aquifer
material categories (Table II).
Estimate the aquifer's saturated thickness (in meters) and the
type of earth material in the saturated zone as done for Step 1.
Choose the appropriate ranking in the matrix of Step 2 (Table
II) from the respective saturated thickness and earth material
category. The letter accompanying the ranking is for the purpose
of identifying what the ranking's derivation is if, at sometime in
the future, there is reason to verify the number.
Sources of information for completing Step 2 .
Sources of information in determining the parameters of Step 2
are similar to those of Step 1.
E-33
-------
TABLE I I
Step 2. Rating of the Ground Water Availability
>-
CH
o
CD
LU
1
<
CJ
CJ
-z.
z
z.
C£
LU
1
UJ
Q
CH
O
Lu
co
LU
_J
LU
Q
r>
o
Earth
Material
Category
Jnconsol i dated
Rock
Consol i dated
^ock
^epresentati ve
Permeab i 1 i ty
2
in gpd/ft
in cm/sec
1
Gravel or sand
Cavernous or
Fractured Rock,
Poorly Cemented
Sandstone ,
Fault Zones
>2
-k
>10
1 1
Sand with
-------
Example, Step 2.
The type of earth material of the saturated zone can be
determined from the county geologic map and cross-section
(Figures 11 and 12) and the driller's log of Figure 13. Generally,
the material down to greater than 400 feet (122 meters) below
the surface is limestone with shale interbeds. From the drillers'
report of the pump test (shown in Figure 10) the water supply well
near the surface impoundment had 400 feet of drawdown at 15 gpm
(57 liters per minute) after 2 hours pumping. From this data the
limestone is very tight with little permeability and very little
development of open fractures. The category in Step 2 for rating
this material would be category n as the saturated zone is capable
of producing water but only at moderate to low quantites. From
the above sources of information the thickness of the saturated
zone is estimated to be several hundred feet. The score for the
ground-water availability ranking would be determined for earth
material category II and greater than 30 meters thickness, i. e.,
the Step 2 ranking is "4C. "
E-35
-------
STEP 3
GUIDANCE FOR RATING THE GROUND-
WATER QUALITY
Ground-water quality is a determinant of the ultimate usefulness
of the ground water. Waste disposal sites situated in an area of
poor quality ground water unsuitable as a drinking water supply would
not present the same degree of pollution potential to ground water as
the same site situated in an area having very good quality ground
water. Step 3 (Table III) is used to determine the ranking of
the aquifer's ground-water quality. The ranking is based upon
the criteria that has been set forth in the proposed Underground
Injection Control Regulations (40 CFR Part 146) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act of 1974 (P. L. 93-523). The descriptions are to be
used as basic guidelines to assist the investigator in arriving
at the appropriate rating of ground-water quality. Consideration
of only the background water quality of the aquifer is intended.
Determine the Aquifer Quality Ranking
Determine the total dissolved solids content of the ground water
and apply it to the appropriate rating in Step 3, Table HI. If the ground
water is presently a drinking water supply, the ranking would be a
"5" regardless of its total dissolved solids content.
E-36
-------
Table I I I
Step 3. Rating the Ground-Water Quality
Rating
Qua 1i ty
k
3
2
1
0
£500 mg/1 IDS or a current drinking water
source
> 500 - £1000 mg/1 IDS
>1000 - <3000 mg/1 IDS
>3000 - £10,000 mg/1 IDS
>10,000 mg/1 TDS
No ground water present
E-37
-------
Sources of information for completing Step 3 .
Ground-water quality data for the determination of the Step
3 rating may be obtained from several sources. If the aquifer
is presently used by individuals or communities, no further docu-
mentation is required. If industries or agriculture use the ground
water, but not currently for human consumption, further quality
data may be required for the rating. Many State agencies (i. e.,
geological surveys, health departments, water boards or commissions
and State engineers) and the U. S. Geological Survey have consider-
able water quality data on file, in published reports and as maps
outlining the ground-water quality in the States by aquifer.
Example, Step 3.
The quality of the ground water beneath the Poultry Processing
Plant site would be rated "5" since the aquifer does supply drinking
water, and in addition based upon driller's report, general State
files and published reports, the aquifer has an overall good quality
with very low total dissolved solids.
E-38
-------
STEP 4
GUIDANCE FOR RATING THE WASTE HAZARD POTENTIAL
Contaminants that may enter ground water have been evaluated
by their potential for causing harm to human health (Hazard
Potential). The hazard potential rankings for contaminants range
from 1 to 9 with 1 being least hazardous and 9 being most hazardous.
Contaminants and their hazard potential rankings are classified
in two ways: (1) by contaminant source (Table IV), and (2) by
contaminant type (Table V). Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
numbers are used to classify sources. Common sources and types
of contaminants and their hazard potential ranges are illustrated in
Figure 16.
There are many variables that influence a substance as it enters
the ground-water environment such that its true hazard potential as
a ground-water contaminant is not likely to be the same as its
apparent hazard potential. Most such variables tend to reduce
hazard potentials. The hazard potential rankings considered the
following factors and their interactions.
TOXICITY - The ability of a substance to produce harm in or on the
body of living organisms is extremely important in ranking the
hazard potential of that substance. While some substances are highly
toxic they may possess low mobility and thus be assigned a lower
hazard potential ranking than a less toxic but highly mobile substance.
E-39
-------
TABLE IV
CONTAMINANT HAZARD POTENTIAL RANKINGS OF'WASTE, CLASSIFIED
BY SOURCE FOR STEP k.
SIC
Numb e r
Description of Waste Source
Hazard Potential
Initial Rating
01 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION < CROPS
02 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - LIVESTOCK
021 Livestock, except Dairy, Poultry and
Animal Specialties
024 Dairy Farms
025 Poultry and Eggs
027 Animal Specialties
029 General Farms, Primarily Livestock
10 METAL MINING
101 Iron Ores
102 Coppsr Ores
103 Lead and Zinc Ores
104 Gold and Silver Ores
105 Bauxite and other Aluminum Ores
106 Ferroalloy Ores Except Vanadium
103 Metal Mining Services
1092 Mercury Ore
1094 Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ores
1099 Metal Ores not elsewhere classified
11 ANTHRACITE MINING
12 BITUMINOUS COAL AND LIGNITE MINING
13 OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION
131 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas
132 Natural Gas Liquids
1381 Drilling Oil and Gas Wells
1382 Oil and Gas Field Exploration Services
1389 Oil and Gas Field Services not elsewhere
classified
14 MINING AND QUARRYING OF NON-METALLIC MINERALS,
EXCEPT FUELS
141 Dimension Store
142 Crushed and Broken Stone, Including Riprap
144 Sand and Gravel
145 Clay, Ceramic, and Refractory Minerals
147 Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining
148 Nonmetallic Minerals Services
149 Miscellaneous Non-metallic Minerals,
except Fuels
1-2
(5 for Feedlots)
4
4
2-4
2
4
6
5
6
5
5
4
6
7
5
7
7
7
7
6
1
Variable depending
Activity
2
2
2
2-5
4-7
1-7
2-5
E-i(0
-------
(TABLE IV continued)
SIC Hazard Potential
Number Description of Waste Source Initial Rating
16 CONSTRUCTION OTHER THAN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
1629 Heavy Construction, not elsewhere classified
(Dredging, especially in salt water) 4
20 FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS
201 Meat Products 3
202 Dairy Products 2
203 Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables 4
204 Grain Mill Products 2
205 Bakery Products 2
206 Sugar and Confectionery Products 2
207 Fats and Oils 3
208 Beverages 2-5
209 Misc. Food Preparation and Kindred Products 2
22 TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS, ALL EXCEPT LISTINGS
BELOW
223 Broad Woven Fabric Mills, Wool (including 6
dyeing and finishing)
226 Dying and Finishing Textiles, except 6
Wool Fabrics and Knit Goods
2295 Coated Fabrics, Not Rubberized 6
24 LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS, EXCEPT FURNITURE
241 Logging Camps and Logging Contractors 2
242 Sawmills and Planing Mills 2
2435 Hardwood Veneer and Plywood 4
2436 Softwood Veneer and Plywood 4
2439 Structural Wood Members, not elsewhere 3
classified (laminated wood-glue)
2491 Wood Preserving 5
2492 Particle Board 4
2499 Wood Products, not elsewhere classified 2-5
26 PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
261 Pulp Mills 6
262 Paper Mills Except Building Paper Mills 6
263 Paperboard Mills 6
E-lJl
-------
(TABLE IV continued)
SIC
Number
Description of Waste Source
Hazard Potential
Initial Rating .
28 CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
2812 Alkalies and Chlorine 7-9
2813 Industrial Gases
2816 Inorganic Pigments 3-8
2819 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals,
not elsewhere classified 3-9
2821 Plastic Materials, Synthetic Resins, and
Nonvulcanizable Elastomers 6-8
2822 Synthetic Rubber (Vulcanizable Elastomers) 6-8
2823 Cellulose Man-Made Fibers 6-8
2824 Synthetic Organic Fibers, except Cellulosic 6-8
2831 Biological Products 6-9
2833 Medicinal Chemicals and Botanical Products 3-8
2834 Pharmaceutical Preparations 6-9
2841 Soap and Other Detergents, except
specialty cleaners 4-6
2842 Specialty Cleaning, Polishing and
Sanitation Preparation 3-8
2843 Surface Active Agents, Finishing Agents,
Sulfonated Oils and Assistants 6-8
2844 Perfumes,. Cosmetics, and other Toilet
Preparations 3-6
2851 Paints, Varnisher, Lacquers, Enamels, and
Allied Products 5-8
2861 Gum and Wood Chemicals 5-8
2865 Cyclic (coal tar) Crudes, and Cyclic
Intermediates, Dyes and Organic Pigments
(Lakes and Toners) 6-9
2869 Industrial Organic Chemicals, not elsewhere
listed 3-9
-------
(TABLE IV continued)
SIC Hazard Potential
Number Description of Waste Source Initial Rating
2873 Nitrogenous Fertilizers 7-8
2874 Phosphatic Fertilizers 7-8
2875 Fertilizer Mixing Only 5
2879 Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals,
Not Elsewhere Listed 5-9
2891 Adhesives and Sealants 5-8
2892 Explosives 6-9
2893 Printing Ink 2-5
2895 Carbon Black 1-3
2899 Chemicals and Chemical Preparations, not
Elsewhere Listed 3-9
29 PETROLEUM REFINING AND RELATED INDUSTRIES
291 Petroleum Refining 8
295 Paving and Roofing Materials 7
299 Misc. Products of Petroleum and Coal 7
30 RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS PLASTICS PRODUCTS
301 Tires and Inner Tubes 6
302 Rubber and Plastic Footwear 6
303 Reclaimed Rubber 6
304 Rubber and Plastics Hose and Belting 4
306 Fabricated Rubber Products, not Elsewhere
Classified 4
31 LEATHER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS
311 Leather Tanning and Finishing 8
(Remaining Three-Digit Codes) 1-3
32 STONE, CLAY, GLASS, AND CONCRETE PRODUCTS
321 Flat Glass 4
322 Glass and Glassware, Pressed or Blown 4
324 Cement, Hydraulic 3
3274 Lime 3
3291 Abrasive Products 3
3292 Asbestos 3
3293 Gaskets, Packing, and Sealing Devices 3
33 PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES (EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW) 3
3312 Blast Furnaces, Steel Works, and
Rolling and Finishing Mills 6
333 Primary Smelting and Refining of
Nonferrous Metals 7
-------
(TABLE IV continued)
SIC Hazard Potential
Nunber Description of Waste Source Initial Rating
34 FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS, EXCEPT MACHINERY
AND TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT (EXCEPT AS NOTED 5
BELOW)
347 Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services 8
3482 Small Arms Ammunition 7
3483 Ammunition, Except for Small Arms
not Elsewhere Classified 7
3489 Ordnance and Accessories, not Elsewhere
Classified 7
349 Misc. Fabricated Metal Products 3-6
35 MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL 5-7
36 ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT
AND SUPPLIES (EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW) 5-7
3691 Storage Batteries 8
3692 Primary Batteries, Dry and Wet 8
37 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 5-8
38 MEASURING, ANALYZING, AND CONTROLLING INSTRUMENTS;
PHOTOGRAPHIC, MEDICAL, AND OPTICAL GOODS; WATCHES 4-6
AND CLOCKS (EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW)
386 Photographic Equipment and Supplies 7
39 MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES 3-7
49 ELECTRIC, GAS, AND SANITARY SERVICES
491 Electric Services 3-5
492 Gas Production and Distribution 3
494 Water Supply 2
4952 Severage Systems 2-5
4953 Refuse Systems (except Municipal Landfills) 2-9
496 Steam Supply 2-4
-------
TABLE V
CONTAMINANT HAZARD POTENTIAL RANKINGS OF WASTES, CLASSIFIED
BY TYPE1 FOR STEP 4
Hazard Potential ID
Description Initial Rating Number *
A. SOLIDS
Ferrous Metals
Non-Ferrous Metals
Resins, Plastics and Rubbers
Wood and Paper Materials (except as noted below)
- Bark
Textiles and Related Fibers
Inert Materials (except as noted below)
- Sulfide Mineral-Bearing Mine Tailings
- Slag and other Combustion Residues
- Rubble, Construction & Demolition Mixed
Waste
Animal Processing Wastes (Except as noted below)
- Processed Skins, Hides and Leathers
- Dai ry Wastes
- Live Animal Wastes-Raw Manures (Feedlots)
- Composts of Animal Waste
- Dead Animals
Edible Fruit and Vegetable Remains -
Putrescab les
B. LIQUIDS
Organic Chemicals (Must be chemically Classified)
- Aliphatic (Fatty) Acids
- Aromatic (Benzene) Acids
- Resin Acids
- Alcohols
- Aliphatic Hydrocarbons (Petroleum
Deri vat i ves
- Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Benzene Derivatives
- Sulfonated Hydrocarbons
- Halogenated Hydrocarbons
- Alkaloids
- Aliphatic Amines and Their Salts
- An i 1 ines
- Pyridines
- Phenols
- Aldehydes
- Ketones
- Organic Sulfur Compounds (Sulfides,
Mercaptans)
- Organometal 1 i c Compounds
- Cyanides
- Thiocyanides
- Sterols
- Sugars and Cellulose
- Esters
I-42
1-72
2
2
4
2
2
6
5
3
2-4
6
4
5
2-4
5
2-3
2
3-5
7-8
5-7
4-6
)6-8
7-8
7-9
7-9
1-4
6-8
2-6
7-9
6-8
6-8
7-9
7-9
7-9
2-6
1-4
6-8
1100
1200
1300
1400
1401
1500
1600
1601
1602
1603
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1800
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
-------
Descri ption
Hazard Potential
Initial Rat i ng
Inorganic Chemicals (Must be Chemically Classified)'
- Mineral and Metal Acids 5-8
- Mineral and Metal Bases 5-8
- Metal Salts, Including Heavy Metals 6-9
- Oxides 5-8
- Sulfides 5-8
- Carbon or Graphite 1-3
Other Chemical Process Wastes Not Previously Listed
(Must be Chemically Classified)2
- Inks 2-5
- Dyes 3-8
- Paints 5-8
- Adhesives 5-8
- Pharmaceutical Wastes 6-9
- Petrochemical Wastes 7-9
- Metal Treatment Wastes 7-9
- Solvents 6-9
- Agricultural Chemicals (Pesticides,
Herbicides, Fungicides, etc.) 7-9
- Waxes and Tars *»-7
- Fermentation and Culture Wastes 2-5
- Oils, including Gasoline, Fuel Oil, etc. 5-8
- Soaps and Detergents *»-6
- Other Organic or Inorganic Chemicals,
includes Radioactive Wastes 2-9
Conventional Treatment Process Municipal Sludges *»-8
- From Biological Sewage Treatment **-8
- From Water Treatment and Conditioning
Plants (Must be Chemically Classified)2 2-5
Number*
2100
2101
2102
2103
210A
2105
2106
2200
2201
2202
2203
220A
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
221A
2300
2301
2302
ID
Number is for identification of waste type in the Reporting Form.
Classification based on material in Environmental Protection Agency
Publication, 670-2-75-02**, pages 79-85, Prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc.
and published in 1975-
2For individual material ranking refer to solubi1ity-toxicity tables
prepared by Versar, Inc. for the Environmental Protection Agency.
E-46
-------
MOBILITY - The material must be able to enter the ground-water
environment and travel with the ground water. Certain substances
are essentially immobile (eg., asbestos fibers) while others are
highly mobile with most substances falling between these extremes.
PERSISTENCE - Some substances such as halogenated hydrocarbons
decay or degrade very slowly and receive a higher hazard potential
ranking than other equally toxic materials that decay more rapidly.
VOLUME - Some substances, such as tailings or slimes from
mining operations, are only moderately toxic but because they
are produced in enormous quantities are given a somewhat
higher hazard potential ranking.
CONGENTRATION - Substances entering the ground-water
environment in concentrations which could potentially endanger human
health are ranked. Concentration may decrease with dilution and
attenuation but the amount of decrease at a given place depends, in
part, on waste mobility, waste interaction with soils and aquifer
material, etc.
Determining the Waste Hazard Potential for Step 4 .
Wastes may be simple in composition, but most are complex
and the hazard potential rankings given in Tables IV and V are
maximum values based on the most hazardous substance present in
the contaminant. Such rankings are, of necessity, generalizations
because of the unknown interactions that occur between substances
and the variables of the ground-water environment.
-------
For those substances or sources that show a hazard potential
ranking range (e. g., 5-8) additional information concerning the specific
nature of the source or contaminant is required for assigning a
specific ranking. Specific rankings in such cases must be personal
judgements by the assessor. Additional information for determining a
specific ranking may be available from the source of the contaminant,
i. e., the industry may be able to supply specific information about
the contaminant. In the event specific information is not available
from the source, additional information may be obtained from an
examination of descriptions of average contaminant characteristics
listed in several publications cited below. For cases when there is
considerable pretreatment of the waste, the ranking may be lowered
to the bottom of its range. If no additional information is available,
the first round approximation ranking must assume the worst case
and a low confidence rating be given the ranking.
If sufficient information exists about the material (i. e., exact
composition, concentration, volume, treatment prior to coming in
contact with the ground, etc.) the rating may be lowered. In considering
whether to lower the rating, some compounds degrade aerobic ally or
anaerobically and the products of degradation are more hazardous
than the parent chemical. Initial rankings may be modified downward
provided:
E-48
-------
1. The hazardous material in question has been effectively
treated to lowerits hazard potential as a ground-water pollutant.
Several references describe best available methods for treating
contaminants to reduce their toxicity, for example see:
- Sax, 1965, Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials.
- Identification of Potential contaminants of underground
water sources from land spills, by Versar, Inc. (Task
II of EPA contract No. 68-01-4620.
- EPA, 1973, Report to Congress on Hazardous Waste
Disposal
- Powers, 1976, How to Dispose of Toxic Substances and
Industrial Wastes.
2. It can be shown that the hazardous material in question has
low mobility in the specific site it is contaminating. Most solid
and inert substances have low mobility. Substances with high
solubilities tend to be most mobile. Mobility depends on a
complex interplay of many factors and only a few substances
have been studied sufficiently to predict with any degree of
confidence their specific mobilities at a specific site.
3. The volume and/or concentration of the hazardous material
is so small that there is a good probability that it will be diluted
to safe (drinking water standard) levels at the point of concern.
Example for Determining the Score for Step 4 .
The waste in the Foul try Processing Plant lagoon is a meat
product waste, SIC number 201 and would receive a "3" rating.
E-49
-------
STEP 5
DETERMINATION OF THE SITE'S OVERALL GROUND-WATER
CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
After the site has been rated on Steps 1, 2, 3 and 4, the overall
ground-water contamination potential of the site can be determined by
totalling these scores. This overall score allows a comparison of one
site with other rated sites by indicating the general, overall contamin-
ation potential. Sites may be rated identically, yet be very different
in one or several of the parameters included in the overall score; thus
the overall score of Step 5 should be used with caution in assessing
a particular site's potential to allow ground-water contamination. In
addition, this overall score cannot be used to assess the actual amount
of ground-water contamination at the site. The score is only for relative
comparison with other sites. An actual determination of ground-water
contamination requires an intensive on-site investigation.
EPA has not formulated an interpretation of the overall ground water
contamination score other than as a relative means to prioritize sites.
Step 5. Determination of the Site's Ground-Water Contamination
Potential Rating.
The site's ground-water contamination potential rating is the addition
of the rating scores for the first four steps:
Contamination Potential = Step 1 + Step 2 + Step 3 + Step 4.
E-50
-------
The highest ground-water contamination potential rating a site
can receive is "29" while the lowest is "1. "
Example for determining the score for Step 5.
The overall ground-water contamination potential score for the
Poultry Processing Plant lagoon is determined in Step 5 by adding
the scores from Steps 1, 2, 3, and 4:
Step 5 Rating = Step 1 + Step 2 + Step 3 + Step 4
E-51
-------
STEP 6
DETERMINATION OF THE POTENTIAL
ENDANGERMENT TO CURRENT WATER SUPPLIES
The distance from the impoundment to a ground or surface water
source of drinking water and the determination of anticipated flow
direction of the waste plume are used to ascertain the potential endanger-
ment to current water supplies presented by the surface impoundment.
For many assessments this step can be accomplished by measuring the
horizontal distance on a 7. 5 topographic map, or similar scale. In order
to use this step, the anticipated direction of ground water flow within
1600 meters (1 mile) of the impoundment must be determined. Ground-
water movement depends upon natural ground-water flow direction,
variations due to pumping wells, mounding of the groum water beneath
the site and other factors influencing flow direction, such as faults,
fractures and other geologic features.
In the case of artesian wells, the anticipated flow direction of the
waste plume generally would not be in the direction of the artesian well
intake. Artesian wells are located in confined aquifers separated
hydraulically from the surface sources of contamination by relatively
impermeable confining layers, and wells tapping the confined zone
generally will not be drawing ground water from upper zones.
E-52
-------
Artesian wells should not be considered in this step unless there is an
indication that the anticipated flow direction of the contaminated ground
water would be in the direction of that well. To score Step 5, prioritized
cases (cases A-D) have been established for rating the site according to
the potential magnitude of endangerment to current sources. These
priorities are detailed in Step 6 (Table VI). To score a site when a
water table is nearly flat and the flow direction is indeterminable, a circle
with a 1600 meter radius should be drawn around the site for designating
the area of concern. In this situation the evaluator would use the same
criteria, in sequential order, begining with Case A, Case B, and then
Case D, eliminating Case C.
After the distance has been determined, use the Step 6 rating matrix
to determine the rating under the column of the appropriate case.
E-53
-------
TABLE VI
Step 6. Rating the Potential Endangerment to a Water Supply
Case A
Case B
Highest Priority:
1600 meters of the
direction of waste
Rate the closest water well within
site that is in the anticipated
plume movement.
Case C
Second Priority: If there is no well satisfying Case A,
rate the closest surface water within 1600 meters of the
site that is in the anticipated direction of the waste
plume movement.
Third Priority: If no surface water or water well
satisfying Case A or B exists, rate the closest water
supply well or surface water supply within 1600 meters
of the site that is not in the anticipated direction of
waste plume movement.
Case D
Lowest Priority:
wells within 1600
rate the site as "OD."
If there are no surface waters or water
meters of the site in any direction,
Select the appropriate rating for the given distance and case:
Di stance
(Meters)
Case A
Case B
Case C
Case D
<200
>200, l^OO
>1tOO, £800
>800,
>1600
9A
7A
5A
3A
SB
6B
4B
2B
7C
5C
3C
1C
OD
-------
Example for determining the score for Step 6.
The potential health hazard to existing water supply sources which the
Poultry Processing Plant presents is found by determining what
types of water supplies are present and their distances from the
lagoon. The drilled well described in Figure 11 is for industrial
water supply. Surface water (a river) is within about 30 meters of the
lagoon as shown in Figure 9. Step 6 requires an estimation of the
anticipated flow direction. In this example, the anticipated flow of the
waste plume is to the river. The rating of Step 6 would be based on
Case B, and would be scored "8B".
E-55
-------
STEP 7
DETERMINING THE INVESTIGATOR'S DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE
The evaluation of a surface impoundment's ground-water contamination
potential involves three steps and about twice ae many separate variables.
In many situations the investigator will not have comprehensive information
concerning the variables and will have to evaluate the site on the basis
of estimation or approximation. For this reason a rating of the investigator's
confidence in scoring each step will be made. The following outline
is intended to assist the investigator in rating the confidence of the
data for each step, with "A" the highest confidence, "C" the lowest.
Step 1 confidence rating for determining the earth material of the
unsaturated zone.
Rating Basis for Determination of Rating
A Driller's logs containing reliable geologic
descriptions and water level data;
U. S. Department of Agriculture soil survey
used in conjunction with large scale, modern
geologic maps.
Published ground-water reports on the site.
B Soil surveys or geologic maps used alone.
E-56
-------
General ground-water reports.
Drillers' logs with generalized descriptions.
Drillers logs or exposures such as deep road cuts near
the site of contamination allowing interpolation
within the same general geologic unit.
C On site examination with no subsurface data and no
exposures of subsurface conditions nearby.
Estimation of water levels or geology based on
topography and climate.
Extrapolations of well logs, road cuts, etc.
where local geology is not well known.
Estimation based on generalized geologic maps.
Estimations based on topographic analysis.
Step 2 confidence rating for determining the ground-water availability
ranking.
This step involves the earth material categorization and thickness of the
aquifer's saturated zone. The confidence rating for Step 2, Part A follows
the same basis as Step 1, Part B above.
Step 3 confidence rating for determining background ground-water quality.
Rating Basis for Determination of Rating
A Water quality analyses indicative of background
ground-water quality from wells at the site or
nearby wells or springs or known drinking water
supply wells in vicinity.
E-57
-------
B Local, county, regional and other general hydro-
geology reports published by State or Federal
agencies on background water quality.
Interpolation of background ground-water quality
from base flow water quality analyses of nearby
surface streams.
C Estimates of background ground-water quality from
mineral composition of aquifer earth material.
Step 4 confidence rating for waste character.
Rating Basis for Determination of Rating
A Waste character rating based on specific
waste type.
B Waste character rating based on SIC category.
Step 6 confidence rating for determination of the anticipated direction
of waste plume movement.
Rating Basis for Determination of Rating
A Accurate measurements of elevations of
static water levels in wells, springs, swamps,
and permanent streams in the area immediately
surrounding the site in question.
Ground-water table maps from published State
and Federal reports.
E-58
-------
B Estimate of flow direction from topographic maps
in non cavernous area having
permanent streams and humid climate.
Estimate of flow direction from topographic maps
in arid regions of low relief containing some
permanent streams.
C Estimate of flow direction from topographic
maps in cavernous, predominantly limestone
areas (karst terrain).
Estimate of flow direction from topographic
maps in arid regions of highly irregular
topography having no permanent surface
streams.
Example for determining the confidence rating for each step.
Based upon the guidance just presented, the confidence ratings for the
Poultry Processing Plant are:
Confidence Rating
Step 1 ABased upon measurement in on site
well.
Step 2 ABased upon well logs of on site well.
Step 3 ABased upon water well analyses.
E-59
-------
Step 4 BBased upon SIC category.
Step 6 BEstimate of flow direction from
topographic map in humid region.
E-60
-------
STEP 8
MISCELLANEOUS IDENTIFIERS
This step allows the evaluator to identify any additional
significant variable not noted in the rating system. Such para-
meters are:
Identifier
R - The site is located in a ground-water recharge area,
D - The site is located in a ground-water discharge area,
F - The site is located in a flood plain and is susceptable to
flood hazard,
E - The site is located in an earthquake prone area,
W - The site is located in the area of influence of a pumping water
supply well,
K - The site is located in karst topography or fractured,
cavernous limestone region.
C - The ground water under the site has been contaminated
by man-made causes (i. e., road salt, feed lot, industrial
waste).
M - Known ground-water mound exists beneath the site.
I - Interceptor wells or other method employed to inhibit
contaminated ground-water migration (endangerment to
water supply wells may be reduced).
E-61
-------
STEP 9
RECORD THE FINAL SCORE
In order to present the rating scores from the previous nine steps
of the evalution system in a logical manner, Step 9 provides
a systematic format in which the evaluation of the site can be
recorded. The nine steps are not recorded in numerical order as
the focus of the evaluation is on the ground-water pollution potential
score of Step 5. Thus, Step 5 is listed first, followed by Steps 1, 2, 3, 4,
6 and 8. The example of the Poultry Processing Plant waste treatment
lagoon has been listed on page 6 3 on the following sample reporting
form. The confidence scores of Step 7 have been distributed
among the appropriate steps.
E-62
-------
TABLE VI I
RATING OF THE GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL:
9
C
c
0
4-)
OJ
I/}
c
;^
A
0
c
d)
T>
14-
C
O
o
STEP
1
4
C
__
0>
^£
3
C3
A
0)
0
c
0)
-o
<4
c
0
o
STEP
2
5
^
03
3
O1
^E
C3
A
STEP
3
3
a)
4-1
I/)
0)
^
B
4-J
0
C3 fl-
STEP
5
8 B
SL "0
4-1 1-
OJ
ro N
ttJ rtj
B
0)
o
c
0)
-o
l__
It-
c
o
STEP
6
R F
l/>
^
o ^
dj i-
C d)
flj .-
^ ._
<1> 4-J
o c
i/i d)
T3
E-63
-------
APPENDIX L
TYPICAL SOURCES AND TYPES OF DATA USEFUL IN
APPLYING THE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
Type of Data
Typical Sources
Useful in determining
Steps
1 2&3 4 6
Property survey
County Records , proper!
:y * X
Well drillers logs
Water level measure
ments
Topographic Maps
Air Photos
County Road Maps
Ground Water Reports
Soil Surveys of Counties
Geologic Maps
Waste Character
owner
Well Driller, property
owner, state records
Well owners' observations,
well drillers' logs, topo-
graphic maps, ground water
maps (reports)
U. S. Geological Survey and
designated state sales offices
U. S. Dept of Agriculture,
U, S, Forest Service, etc.
State agencies
U.S. Geological Survey,
State agencies
U.S. Department of
Agriculture
U. S. Geological and State
Surveys
Owner/operator, State or
Federal permits, SIC Code
X
X
X
X
X
X
* - Source of data may be especially useful
X - Source of data may be of slight use or may be used indirectly
-------
APPENDIX 2
MEASURING UNIT CONVERSION TABLE
inch (in)
centimeter
feet (ft)
meter
mile (mi)
kilometer
U. S. gallon (gal)
cubic meter
cubic feet (ft 3)
cubic meter
acre-foot (ac-ft)
cubic meter
hectare
square meter
hectare
acre
Hydraulic Conductivity
gpd/ft2
cm/sec
Darcy
Darcy
x 2.54
x 0.3937
x 0. 3048
x 3. 2808
x 1. 609
x 0 621
x 0. 0038
x 264. 17
x 0. 0283
x 35.314
x 123.53
x 0. 0008
x 10,000.0
x 0. 0001
x 2.471
x 0. 4047
-5
x 4. 72 x 10
3
x 21.2x10
x 18.2
-4
x 8.58 x 10
centimeter (cm)
= inch
= meter (m)
= feet
= kilometer (km)
= mile
o
= cubic meter (m )
= U.S. gallon
= cubic meter
= cubic feet
= cubic meter
= acre -feet
= square meter (m )
= hectare
= acre
= hectare
= cm/sec
= gpd/ft2
= gpd/ft2
= cm/sec
-------
APPENDIX 3
GLOSSARY
Aquifer - a formation, group of formations or part of a formation that
contains sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant
quantities of water to wells and springs.
Artesian ground water - synonymous with confined ground water which
is a body of ground water overlain by material sufficiently impervious
to sever free hydraulic connection with overlying ground water.
Confined ground water is under pressure great enough to cause water
in a well tapping that aquifer to rise above the top of the confined
aquifer.
Discharge area - geographic region in which ground water discharges
into surface water such as at springs and seeps and subsurface seepage
into streams,, lakes and oceans (referred to as base flow in streams).
Karst topography - geologic region typified by the effects of solution of
rocks by water. Rock types most likely effected are limestone
dolostone, gypsum and salt beds. Features produced are caverns,
collapse features on the surface (sink holes), underground rivers
and zones of lost circulation for well drillers.
Perched water table - unconfined ground water separated from an underlying
body of ground water by an unsaturated zone. Its water table is a
"perched water table" and is sustained by a "perching bed" whose
permeability is so low that water percolating downward through it is
not able to bring water in the underlying unsaturated zone above
atmospheric pressure.
Plume of contaminated ground water - as contaminants seep or leach into
the subsurface and enter the ground water, the flow of the ground
water past the site of contamination causes the contaminated ground
water to move down gradient. This action results in the creation of
a "plume" shaped body of ground water containing varying concentrations
of the contaminant, extending down gradient from place of entry. The
shape of the plume of contaminated ground water is affected by
attenuation of the specific contaminants and, to a lesser extent, by
dispersion.
Primary permeability - permeability due to openings or voids existing
when the rock was formed, i. e. , inter granular interstices.
-------
Recharge area - geographic region in which surface waters infiltrate
into the ground, percolate to the water table and replenish the ground
water. Recharge areas may be well defined regions such as lime-
stone outcrops or poorly defined broad regions.
Saturated Zone - the zone in the subsurface in which all the interstices
are filled with water.
Secondary permeability - permeability due to openings in rocks formed
after the formation of the rock, i. e., joints, fractures, faults,
solution channels and caverns.
Unsaturated zone - formerly the "zone of aeration" or "vadose zone".
It is the zone between the land surface and the water table, including
the "capillary fringe".
Water table - that surface in an unconfined ground-water body at which
the pressure is atmospheric. Below the water table is the
saturated zone and above is the unsaturated zone.
-------
APPENDIX 4
SELECTED REFERENCES
Alexander, Martin, "The Breakdown of Pesticides in Soils, in Brody,
N. C. ," Agriculture and the Quality of Our Environment, Plimpton
Press, Norwood, Massachusetts, pp 331-342, 1967.
Belter, W. G. , "Ground Disposal: Its Role in the U. S. Radioactive
Waste Management Operations,: in Comptes Rendus, Collogue
International sur la Retention et la Migration de Jons Radioactifs
dans les Sols, Centre d'Etudes Nucleaires, Saclay, France, pp
3-10, 1963.
Bredehoeft, J.D. , and G. F. Pinder, "Mass Transport in Flowing
Groundwater," Water Resources Research, Vol 9, No. 1, pp 194-
210, 1973.
Born, S. M. , and D. A. Stephenson, "Hydrogeologic Considerations in
Liquid Waste Disposal, " Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
Vol 24, No. 2, pp 52-55, 1969.
Brown, R. E. , Hydrologic Factors Pertinent to Ground-Water Contami-
nation, Public Health Service Technical Report W61-5, pp 7-20, 1961.
Brown, R.H., andJ.R. Raymond, "The Measurements of Hanford's
Geohydrologic Features Affecting Waste Disposal," in Proceedings
of the Second Atomic Energy Commission Working Meeting - Ground
Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Chalk River, Canada, U.S. Department
of Commerce TID 7628, pp 77-98, 1962.
Carlston, C. W. , 'Tritium - Hydrologic Research: Some Results of the
U. S. Geological Survey Research Program," Science 143 (3608),
pp 804-806, 1964.
Cartwright, K. , and F. B. Sherman, "Evaluating Sanitary Landfill Sites
in Illinois," Illinois State Geological Survey Environmental Geology
Note No. 27, 15 pp, August 1969.
Cherry, J.A., G.E. Grisak, andR.E. Jackson, "Hydrogeological
Factors in Shallow Subsurface Radioactive-Waste Management in
Canada," Proceedings International Conference on Land For Waste
Management, Ottawa, Canada, October 1-3, 1973.
-------
Clark, D.A. andJ.E. Moyer, 1974, An Evaluation of Tailings Ponds
Sealants, EPA-660/2-74-065.
Cole, J.A. (ed.), Groundwater Pollution in Europe, Water Information
Center, Port Washington, New York, 347 pp, 1975.
DaCosta, J. A. , and R. R. Bennett, "The Pattern of flow in the Vicinity of
a Recharging and A Discharging Pair of Wells in an Aquifer Having
Area! Parallel Flow," International Union Geodesy and Geophysic,
International Association Committee Subterranean Waters, 1961.
Davis, S.N. andR.J.M. DeWiest, 1966, Hydrogeology, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. , New York.
DeBuchannanne, G.D. , and P. E. LaMoreaux, Geologic Control Related
to Ground Water Contamination, Public Health Service Technical
Report W61-5, pp 3-7, 1961.
Deutsch, M. , Groundwater Contamination and Legal Controls in Michigan,
Public Health service Technical Report W61-5, pp 98-110. , 1961.
Ellis, M.J. andD.T. Pederson, 1977, Groundwater Levels in Nebraska,
1976, Conservation and Survey Division, University of Nebraska-
Lincoln.
Engineer ing-Science, Inc. , "Effects of Refuse Dumps on Groundwater
Quality," Resources Agency California State Water Pollution Control
Board, Pub. 211, 1961.
Geswein, A. J. and 1975, Liners for Land Disposal SitesAn Assessment,
EPA/530/SW-137.
Giddings, M.T. , 'The Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, Sanitary Landfill:
State-of-the-Art in Ground-Water Protection," Ground Water, Vol 2,
Special Issue, pp 5-14, 1977.
Haxo, H. E. , Jr., andR.M. White, 1976, Evaluation of Liner Materials
Exposed to Leachate, Second Interim Report, EPA-600/2-76-255.
Haxo, R. S. andR.M. White, 1977, Liner Materials Exposed to Hazardous
and Toxic Sludges, First interim Report, EPA-600/2-77-081.
Hughes, J. L. , Evaluation of Ground-Water Degradation Resulting From
Waste Disposal to Alluvium Near Bar stow, California, U. S. Geological
Survey Prof. Paper 878, 33 pp, 1975.
-------
Hughes, G.M. , and K. Cartwright, "Scientific and Administrative
Criteria for Shallow Waste Disposal," Civil Engineering -ASCE,
Vol 42, No. 3, pp 70-73, 1972.
Hughes, G.M. , R.A. Landon, andR.N. Farvolden, Hydrogeology of
Solid Waste Disposal Sites in Northeastern Illinois, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Report SW-122, 154 pp, 1971.
LeGrand, H.E. , "System for Evaluating the Contamination Potential
of Some Waste Sites," American Water Works Association Journal,
Vol 56, No. 8, pp 959-974, 1964a.
LeGrand, H.E. , "Management Aspects of Ground-Water Contamination,"
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol 36, No. 9, pp
1133-1145, 1964b.
LeGrand, H. E. , "Patterns of Contaminated Zones of Water in the Ground,"
Water Resources Research, Vol 1, No. 1, pp 83-95, 1965.
LeGrand, H. E. , "Monitoring the Changes in Quality of Ground Water,"
Ground Water, Vol 6, No. 3, pp 14-18, 1968.
Lieber, Maxim, N.M. Perlmutter, and H. L. Frauenthal, "Cadmium and
Chromium in Nassau County Groundwater , " Journal American Water
Works Association, Vol 56, No. 6, p 742,
Meyer, C.F. (ed. ), Polluted Groundwater: Some Causes, Effects, Controls
and Monitoring , U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No.
EPA-600/4-73-001b, Washington, B.C., 325 pp, June 1974.
Miller, D.W. , F. A. Deluca, andT.L. Tessier, Ground Water Contamination
in the Northeast States, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report
No. EPA-660/2-74-056, Washington, B.C. , 325 p, June 1974.
Miller, D.W. (editor), Waste Disposal Practices and Their Effects on
Ground Water , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No.
EPA-570/9-77-001, Final Report to Congress , 1977.
Morrison, W.R. , R.A. Dodge, J. Merriman, C.M. Ellsperman,
Chungming Wong, W. F. Savage, W.W. Rinne and C. L. Granses, 1970,
Pond Linings for Desalting Plant Effluents, U. S. Dept. of the
Interior, Office of Saline Water, Research and Development Progress
Report No. 602.
-------
Palmquist, R., and L. V. A. Sendlein, "The Configuration of Contami-
nation Enclaves from Refuse Disposal Sites on Floodplains,
Ground Water, Vol 13, No. 2, pp 167-181, 1975.
Panel on Land Burial, Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, The
Shallow Land Burial of Low-Level Radioactively Contaminated Solid
Waste, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D. C. , 150 pp 1976.
Papadopolos, S. S., and I. J. Winograd, Storage of Low-Level Radioactive
Wastes in the Ground Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical Factors with
an Appendix on the Maxey Flats, Kentucky, Radioactive Waste Storage
Site: Current Knowledge and Data Needs for a Quantitative Hydrogeologic
Evaluation, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA-
520/3-74-009, Reston, Virginia, 40 pp, 1974.
Parsons, P. J. , "Underground Movement of Radioactive Wastes at Chalk
River," in Proceedings of the Second Atomic Energy Commission
Working Meeting - Ground Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Chalk River,
Canada, U.S. Department of Commerce, TIP 7628, pp 17-64, 1962.
Perlmutter, N M. , M. Lieber, and H. L. Frauenthal, "Waterborne
Cadmium and Hexavalent Chromium Wastes in South Farmingdale, Nassau
County, Long Island, New York," U. S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper
475-C, pp 179-184, 1963.
Peters, J. A. , 1968, Ground Water Course, State of California, The
Resources Agency, Dept. of Water Resources, Sacramento, Calif.,
pp. 5-7.
Pettyjohn, W. A., "Water Pollution in Oil Field Brines and Related
Industrial Wastes in Ohio," in Water Quality in a Stressed Environment,
Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp 166-180, 1972.
Phillips, C.R. , Development of a Soil-Waste Interaction Matrix, Canada,
Environmental Protection Service, Solid Waste Management Report
EPS-EX-76-10, 89 pp, 1976.
Pinder, F. F., "A Galekin -Finite Element Simulation of Groundwater
Contamination on Long Island, New York," Water Resources Research,
Vol. 9, No. 6, pp 1657-1669, 1973.
Pinder, G. G., W. P. SaukinandM. Th. Van Genuchten, 1976, Use of
Simulation for Characterizing Transport in Soils Adjacent to Land
Disposal Sites, Research Report 76-WR-6, Water Resources Program,
Department of Civil Engineering, Princeton University.
-------
Robson, S. G., and J. D. Bredehoeft, "Use of a Water Quality Model for
the Analysis of Ground Water Contamination at Barstow, California,"
Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Annual
Meetings, Vol 4, No. 7, pp 640-641, 1972.
Romero, J. C. , 'The Movement of Bacteria and Viruses through Porous
Media," Ground Water, Vol 8, No. 2, pp 37-48, 1970.
Sendlein, L.V.A. , and R. C. Palmquist, "Strategic Placement of Waste
Disposal Sites in Karst Regions,: in Karst Hydrology, Memoirs of
the 12th Congress of the Inter national Association of Hydrogeologists,
published by University of Alabama at Huntsville Press, pp 328-335,
1977.
Simpson, E.S. , Transverse Dispersion in Liquid Flow through Porous
Media, U. S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 411-C, 30 pp, 1962.
Theis, C.V. , "Notes on Dispersion in Fluid Flow by Geological Factors,"
in Proceedings of the Second Atomic Energy Commission Working
Meeting, Ground Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Chalk River, Canada,
U.S. Department of Commerce TID 7628, pp 166-178, 1962.
Thomas, Henry, "Some Fundamental Problems in the Fixations of
Radioisotopes in Solids," Proceedings U.N. International Conference:
Peaceful Uses Atomic Energy, 18, pp 37-42, 1958.
Todd, D. K. , 1959, Ground Water Hydrology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. ,
New York, p. 53.
, 1970, The Water Encyclopedia, The Water Information
Center Inc. , 559 pp.
Todd, O.K., andE.E. McNulty, Polluted Groundwater: A Review of the
Significant Literature, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report
No. EPA-680/4-74-001, Washington, D. C. , 215 pp, March 1974.
Todd, D. K. , R.M. Tinlin, K. D. Schmidt, and L. G. Everett, Monitoring
Groundwater Quality: Monitoring Methodology, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Report No. EPA-600/4-76-026, Las Vegas,
Nevada, 154 pp, June 1976.
Vogt, J.E. , "Infectious Hepatitis Outbreak in Posen, Michigan," in
Ground Water Contamination, Proceedings of 1961 Symposium, pp
87-91, 1961.
-------
Walton, W. C. , 1970, Ground Water Resource Evaluation, McGraw-
Hill Book Co. , New York, p. 36.
Waltz, J. P. , "Methods of Geologic Evaluation of Pollution Potential at
Mountain Homesites," Ground Water, Vol 10, No. 1, pp 42-47,
1972.
Walz, D. H. , and K.T. Chestnut, "Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes:
An Example from Hopewell, Virginia," Ground Water, Vol 15, No. 1,
pp 75-79, 1977.
Wenzel, L.K. , Methods for Determining Permeability of Water-Bearing
Materials, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 887, 1942.
------- |