United States       Office of        EPA-570/9-79-017
          Environmental Protection    Drinking Water
4»EPA     A Guidance for
          Protection of Ground Water
          Resources From The Effects
          of Accidental Spills
          of Hydrocarbons
          and Other Hazardous
          July 1979





              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

     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.


     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
          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


          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

                               LIST OF FIGURES
   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

                                  SECTION 1

     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-
     • 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
       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.




                       (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
     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,
     • 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

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
     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.

     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
     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
     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

  ^* ti
a, 3 3

                      in ro o
   4-1 4->
   rd tc


m -d g 4-1
&sSs +
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

                                  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
     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
     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.


     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


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
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

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


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

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
     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.

                                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

                         /        /
                       PLAN VIEW
                     • :•' • • '.;•:•:•'.:. FLUID oii.-w-V;'.;'•

                      CSOSS SECTION
            MIGRATION PATH.

              (Courtesy of API Publ.  4149)


            TO SUCTION

               A Flotation Device May be Substituted
               for the Handling Cable or Rod
            TO SUCTION PUMP
                    SURFACE IN Q1TCHES OR WELLS.

                    (Courtesy of API  Publ.  4149)

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.

     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

                                                 ORIGINAL WATER TABLE
                                                 • • »»V****«•**»*-**•"** ****** «%*»»***»«^**
Flours  6.   Use of two Halls for Recovery.


                                                                       OUTER LIMIT
                                                                         OF CONE


                  THE WATER.

                                 (Courtesy of API Publ.  4149)

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.

     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

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.


     • Waste disposal is not a problem associated with this clean-up
     • 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
     • 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.

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
     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

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

                                 SECTION 5

     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
      (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,


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
     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.

     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.

     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.

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.

                         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
                                         MAIM FRAME

                                           C02 CARTRIDGE
                  TANK  WALL
                                                                       QUICK QISCONNECTS
                                                               TANDEM CYLINDER
                                                  MIXING TEE
     Figure 3.   Scfrpmn'r of a Cccmercially Developed Leak Plugger.

                       (Figurea  from EEA.-80Q-12-76-300, 1976)

     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


                    OIL OR CHEMICAL
             Figure 9.   Underground Barrier and Cut-off W&ll.
                         (Courtesy of Ghent-Bar.)

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.

                                  baL.-rj.urJ 6

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-

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.

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-

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,

29.  "Present Status of our Knowledge Regarding the Hydraulics of Ground
     Water".  0. E. Meinzer and L, K. Wenzel.  Econ. Geol. 35:915-941,


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,

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.

                APPENDIX A

     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
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.

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
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 water—bearing 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.


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.


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

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


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


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.




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.
     (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.
     (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;


     (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.


1 ' ' ' " ' ' ~ . -JL V ! ' ' VTETy S2CHCNS
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

Id, 2, 4, 5
l(a-d) 2, 3, 4
l(a-e), 2, 3
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


Ma «sa»r«'m IS**C** S


••""•;', PSCSJSff ^rViryig
Indiana Board of Health Regulations
Iowa itouse File 490
Kansas Stateboard of Health Peculations
28-16-27. Pollution Spills and By-
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

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


New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota

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
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

!(*»«), 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

!(*•«}, 2, 3, 4
l(a-d), 2, 3
la, b, c, d, e, 2, 3
l(a-d), 2, 3, 4, 5


Rhode Island
South Dakota
West Virginia

General Laws of Shode Island
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
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
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

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
la, b, d, 3
l(a-«), 2, 3, 4-
la, b, c, d


                    APPENDIX C















Water Improvement

Coast Guard
Bureau of Health Services

State Emergency Response

Emergency Services

Department of Health

State Environmental
Protection Agency

Natural Resources and
Environmental Control

Department of Environmental

Environmental Protection

Coast Guard

Department of Health
and Welfare

State Envijranmental
Protection Agency

Department of Health
Department of Environmental
Department of Hsalth
Department of Natural
Resources and Environ-
mental Protection
Stream Control Comnission
State Environmental
Protection Agency

Department of Hater




301-374-1201 (Little Rock)
301-321-3601 (Conway)


303-388-6111 x231
303-366-5363 (after hours)












207-289-2591 (Augusta)
207-947-6746 (Bangor)
207-773-6491 (Portland)

301-269-3181 (after 4:30)

                                                      PH3JE ND.



Mew Hanpshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota




Rhode Island
South Carolina
Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering

Department of Natural
Pollution Control Agency
Pollution Control
Department of Natural
Department of Health
Department of Environ-
mental Control
Civil Defense
Water Supply & Pollution
Control Commission
Department of Environmental
Environmental Improvement
Department of Environmental
Department of Natural
Resources and Community
Division of Environmental
Health & Engineering
State Environmental
Protection Agency
Department of Environmental
Department of Environmental
Department of Health
Department of Health
and Environmental Control
617-727-6373 (Boston)
617-826-2424 (SE)
413-549-1755 (W)





505-827-5271 x201






717-737-9702  (after 4:30)

South Dakota



Wast Virginia



District of
Department of Environmental
Divil Defense
Department of Waiter
Division of Health
Department of Water
Water Control Board
Department of Ecology
Department of Natural
Department of Natural
Department of Environmental
Department of Environmental

512-475-2651  (after hours)




202-629-4522  (after hours)

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

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

                             APPENDIX D

                             LISTING OF STATE GEOLOGISTS






Mr. Philip E. LaMoreaux
State Geologist
Dr. Boss G. Schaff
State Geologist
Dr. William H. Dresher
Mr. Norman F. Williams
State Geologist
Mr. Thomas E. Gay, Jr.
Acting State Geologist
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
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
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

                    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
Dr. Maynard M. Miller
Mr. Jack A. Simon
Dr. John B. Patton
State Geologist
Dr. Stanley C. Grant
State Geologist
Dr. William W. Hambleton

Department of Natural Resources
903 West Tennessee- Street
Tallahassee, Florida  32304
(904) 438-4191

Georgia Department of Natural
Earth and Water Division
19 Hunter Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia  30334
(404) 656-3214

Department of land and Natural
Division of Water and Land
P. 0. Box 373
Banolulu, Hawaii  96809
(808) 548-2211

Idaho Bureau of Mines and
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

                    NAME AND TITLE

                    Dr. Wallace W. Hagan
                    Director and State
Mr. Leo W. Hough
State Geologist
Dr. Robert G. Doyle
State Geologist
Dr. Kenneth N. Weaver
Mr. Joseph A. Sirmott
State Geologist
Mr. Arthur E. Slaughter
State Geologist
"Dr. Matt S. Walton
Mr. William K. Moore
Director & State Geologist
Dr. Wallace 3. Itowe
Director 4 State Geologist

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
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
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

                    MflME AND TITLE
                                                       ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE MO.
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
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
Montana Bureau of Mines and
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
Oniversity of Nevada
Reno, Nevada  89507
 (702) 784-6987

Department of Resources and
Economic Development
James Kail, University of New
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
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

                    MBME AND TITLE
                                   ADDRESS AMD TET.PPHQME NUMBER
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Dr. Edwin A. Noble
State Geologist
Mr. Horace R. Collins
Division Chief & State
Dr. Charles J. Mankin
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
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
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
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

                              APPENDIX E

            A MANUAL FOR


          This manual was written


    Lyle R. Silka and Ted L. Swearingen
      Ground Water Protection Branch
          Office of Drinking Water
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                June 1978

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.


     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


     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
          Ada, Oklahoma

          Charles Kleeman
          Ground Water Protection Section
          EPA/Region III

          Richard Bartelt
          Ground Water Protection Section
          EPA/Region V

          James K. Channell
          Hazardous Materials Branch
          EPA/Region IX

          George Garland,
          Toby Goodrich
          Office of Solid  Waste

          Jane Ephremides,
          Larry Graham,
          Ted Swearingen,
          Lyle Silka
          Office of Drinking Water
     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

     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


     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

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

Joe Pierce, Maxine Goad, Mike Snavely and John Dudley
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency

Dan Serrell
New York Department of Health

Norman Peterson
North Dakota State Health Department

Mark Coleman and Dick Jones
Oklahoma State Department of Health

Harold Sawyer
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Jerry Mullican and Bob Kent
Texas Department of Water Resources

Charles Ratte
Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation

R.M. Sterrett, Eugene Siudyla and Virginia Newton
Virginia Water Control Board

                      TABLE OF CONTENTS


Introduction 	 1

Step 1—Guidance for Rating the Unsaturated Zone 	8

Step 2—Guidance for Rating Ground-Water Availability  	 33

Step 3—Guidance for rating the Ground-Water Quality 	 36

Step 4—Guidance for Rating the Waste Hazard Potential  .... 39

Step 5—Determination of the Site's Overall Ground-
        Water Contamination Potential 	 50

Step 6—Determination of the Potential Endangerment
        to Current Water Supplies 	 52

Step 7—Determining the Investigator's Degree of
        Confidence 	 56

Step 8—Miscellaneous Identifiers 	 61

Step 9—Record the Final Score 	62

Appendices 	64

             LIST OF FIGURES
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,
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

common sources and types of ground-water

                       LIST OF TABLES

Table     Title                                           Page

I         Step 1.  Rating of the Unsaturated Zone            9

II        Step 2.  Rating of the Ground-Water               3^


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

                     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


   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


                                           ii   ii    it    ii   it

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
    The philosophy guiding the development of this surface impound-
ment  evaluation system is that underground drinking water sources
must  be protected for both present and future users as intended
by Congress in the Safe Drinking Water Act, 1974.  Ground-water
pollution occurs when contaminants reach the water table (saturated
zone) beneath the site.  This is contrary to the commonly held
view that ground-water contamination cannot legally be determined
until the contaminated ground water crosses the property boundaries
of the facilities. EPA believes that in order to protect the nation's
ground-water resources it is necessary to identify potential contamin-
ation  at the source where preventive measures may be initiated.
The purpose of this evaluation system is to rank impoundments

in terms of their relative ground-water contamination potential.

The evaluation system considers several hydrogeologic parameters

in the rating of the site.  There are numerous parameters that

may be used in evaluating a site.  However, many of these para-

meters are related and their simultaneous consideration would be

redundant.  Thus,  only selected parameters representative of

different processes,  have been included.  The present evaluation

system provides a standardized methodology which will ensure more

consistent national results.

   The parameters used in the present SIA system have been separated

into two distinct groups which  correspond to the two phases of the

evaluation, i. e.,  1) the rating  of the ground water contamination

potential itself and 2) the rating of the relative magnitude of potential

endangerment to current users of underground drinking water sources.

The parameters considered unique in rating the ground-water contamin-

ation potential are 1) the thickness of the  unsaturated zone and the

type of earth material of that zone, 2) the relative hazard of the

waste, and 3) the quantity and  quality of the underground drinking

water source beneath the site.  The parameters considered unique

in determining the rating for the potential for endangerment of

currently used water resources include: 1) the type of water source,

i. e. ground water or surface water, 2) whether that water source

is in the  anticipated flow direction of the  contaminated ground water


(if such contamination occurred); and 3) the distance between the

potential contamination source and the water source.   These para-

meters account for the basic processes and factors which determine

the contamination potential of the site and which indicated the relative

threat to underground drinking water sources.

    The level of contamination of ground water is subject to varying

degrees of attenuation as the water flows through the unsaturated

zone and on through the aquifer; however, the evaluation focuses

on the potential for contamination of underground water sources.

Attenuation mechanisms are very complex,  varying with the type of

waste, earth material,  and physico-chemical environment.  A general

site evaluation system concerned with an approximation of the contamin-

ation potential cannot consider the specific attenuative capabilities

of different earth materials for different wastes, particularly since

there exists a vast variety of complex wastes possible.  This evaluation

system therefore treats attenuation in an indirect manner by considering

it in combination with permeability.

    The evaluation is performed in a sequence  (see Figure 2).  The

first four steps involve  the evaluation of the potential for ground water

to be contaminated by rating the site's hydrogeology and waste character.

The fifth step then determines the site's overall contamination potential

relative to other rated sites by combining the first four steps. It must be

stressed that this overall  rating will express only a site's hydrogeologic


                          Step 1
                Rating the Unsaturated Zone
                          Step 2
            Rating the Ground Water Availability
                          Step 3
              Rating the Ground Water Quality
                          Step 4
              Rating the Waste Hazard Potential
                          Step 5
         Overall Ground Water Contamination Potential
               Step 1 + Step 2 + Step 3 + Step 4
                          Step 6
           Rating the Potential Endangerment to Water
Figure 2.  Generalized sequence of steps involved in the SIA
          evaluation system.

conditions relative to those conditions for all possible sites, and

does not relate to a site's absolute degree of ground-water contamin-

ation. Such determination of actual contamination involving ground-

water monitoring and sampling procedures must be made following

site specific investigations.  This system allows the investigator to

assign priorities to sites on the basis of contamination potential so

that the investigator could then concentrate resources upon the further

investigation of these sites that rank highest  in terms of their conta-

mination potential.

    Precise data is not necessary for the application of the

SIA. evaluation system.   Performing precise  measurements of the

the depth to the water table,  the character of the earth materials

underlying the site, the hydrogeology at the site, etc., can be costly

and time consuming. It must be remembered that this evaluation

system is a first-round approximation and therefore estimates based

on the best available information will be used with the expectation that

they will provide satisfactory results for first-round evaluations.



   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





*? (Jvp
J? V
_C 4-> ro
4J 3 .—
— .0 0
5 ovo oxp

C «- LA
£ A VI

-C ro

— o

•O LA 4J
C «— —

> "O
O ro
4-1 tO

tt) 0)
•— •—
U_ U-

O ro
4-* tO
— 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- £

"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.

in -^
c 0
0 0
( l ty-

o r--
• i
0 0

O vD
• I
0 0
v y

• 1
\M *~

csl o
Csl LA
• |
0 0

0 0
o —

1 1

Csl -3-

0 1
CSI f—

— >. 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 ._ ._



Li- O I LL. i(i
o o o — cn

o •— cs PA en

d*** ^ /~i /*** /™\ — •—
csi CA ^r LA en

o o o o i
-3- LA so i*~ en

vD r — . co cn cn

)D i qj_

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

                          SITE 1
                      SITE 2
                                    SITE 3
          Unsaturated    Perched
          Zone       Water Table
                       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

          1942 194} .944 1943 1946  1947 1948 1949 1950 i9Sl I9S2 1911 I9S4 1955 I9S6 19^7 1958 1959  I960

                                             COK 39N  !2£-ll.7f
           JAN   FEB  MAR    APR  MAY   JUN   JUL   AUG   SEP   OCT   NOV  DEC
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).

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

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


net hydrostatic head of the confined aquifer.  With the reductions

of head which can be experienced (as in many irrigated areas of

the country), confined aquifers may become vulnerable to contamination

from surface sources through over pumping.

Step 1, Part B, Determination of the earth material category for Step 1

    The type of earth material must be identified in order to complete

Step 1. Table I contains an ordinal ranking of the general categories

of earth materials based upon permeability, secondarily upon sorption

character.  The inclusion of sorption is based on the general

relationships between grain size/surface area and permeability/sorption.

Grain size (or pore size) is proportional to permeability and inversely

proportional to surface area which is an important factor in sorption

mechanisms.  As grain size is inversely proportional to sorption

capacity,  sorption capacity is inversely proportional to  permeability.

Thus, going from left to right across the earth material categories

in Table I, permeability decreases while sorption generally tends

to increase.  The categories take into account whether the permeability

of the material is primary (properties  existing at the time of formation

such as the pore spaces) or secondary  (properties of the material

imposed upon it sometime after formation such as joints, fractures,

faults and solution channels). Secondary permeability is usually

much greater than primary permeability due to the larger pathways.

This distinction is very important in the categorization of earth

materials as the presence of secondary permeability increases

the flow of water and decreases attenuation. Fractures, joints,

and faults are caused by earth movement and generally become

closed and tighter  with depth (generally within a hundred meters)

because of increased pressures and decreased weathering effects.

Faults often have an associated zone of crushed  rock (fault breccia)

which may be highly permeable.

   The classification of the earth material should follow the

guidelines of Table I and of Figures 6 and 7 which supply further

assistance in the classification.   Figure 6 gives a fairly compre-

hensive list of driller's terms found in driller's logs and the

equivalent classification for Table I.  Some groups of terms are

assigned to more than one category,  in which case the investigator

must make a judgement. In Figure 7, the equivalent Unified Soil

Classification System codes are shown.

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
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
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
Bouldert, c*m*nt«d und Surfaca und and clay
Cement. gra*«l.und, and Tight und
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*
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

  > 10"1* cm/sec
Sand with £15% Clay, Si It (III)    GM, SM, SC

Sand with >15% but £50% Clay (IV)  GM, SM, ML

                      10"2 to 10~6 cm/sec
Clay with <50% Sand (V)

Clay (VI)
   OL, MH

   CL, CH, OH
  Relatively imperme-
< 10"° cm/sec
Figure  7.  Earth material categories and their approximate Unified Soil
            Classification System equivalents.

    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.

                                             '  .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.

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

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
   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

Example Step  1, Part A.  Determine the depth to the water table to
establish the thickness of the unsaturated zone, m this example the

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

                                      FF.RT   l(j)0
Figure 9.    Poultry  Processing  Plant  site plan.

                                   SCALE 124000
                                                                             I MILE
                           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).

                      fVJL-76  IWATER  CONDITIONS!
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
                                                        ft. (above ground]
                                  QUALITY OF. WATER
                   ANALYSIS.'AVAILABLE-Y«« Q  NoO:  ATTACHED YliONeD
                   TEMPERATURE	'.
                    (salt,  brackish, iron, tultur.flod, oth*r)
                  USE OF WATER!  Oomntle O
                                                              D Publlea
                  WG TYPE f»r milh«d)
                  DATE.' Started
                  BEDROCK  fit
                (rotary, cable, bortd, dnvln, «|
                          ;  Completed.
                               GROUTING INFORMATION
                  METHOD LJSFn      6*^1/1
                  GROUTING MATERIAI	
                  nEPTH OF GROUTING.
                            jf "f
(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).

   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.)

                                                                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
                                                               Chepultepec limestone
                                                        Gray and blue  dense limestone,  some
                                  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).

bbbb-J   o  o  o
O  O  O   O   ra   OOO
<•  ro  CM   —«   I/)   »-  C\J  ro
                                                                                                         CT>  0)
                                                                                                         c  e
 O  4->
—  c
 o_ nj
 -  C
 O  —
 Q. (/I
 0)  (A)
o:   Q-
—  >-
 O  »-
 - O
 •M  CL
 2  a)
 O  ^:
 o  •*->

                                                                                                         .—   O
                                                                                                          •M   3
                                                                                                          O   1-
                                                                                                          (fl   I/)

                                                                                                          (A   U
                                                                                                          1/1  —
                                                                                                          O   C71
                                                                                                          L.   O
                                                                                                          o  —
                                                                                                          U   (U
                                                                                                         —   Ol
                                                                                                          O   (U
                                                                                                         —   o
                                                                                                          o   m
                                                                                                          0)  <4-
                                                                                                          CT)  »-    •


-.5  1
                   »r &  fc


                                             0)  .
                                             Ji  en
                                             •M  O

                                             O —

                                             4->  Si
                                  O in
                                  .-  o
                                  i- O
                                  O 1-
                                  Q_ 0.




4J I-l
r-l 0
W r-l
•0 C

TJ Cfl
d o
C/5 O


O \\ "*i CJ
in j\ o 




                                                               —  C
                                                                1-    CD

                                                                l«  C
                                                                0)  —
                                                               u-  CD
                                                                O  O
                                                                in  i-
                                                                01 Q-
                                                                I-   D
                                                                0)   O
                                                               —  Q_

                                                               .-   CO

                                                                1-  .C
                                                               O  4->
                               STEP 2



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.

                               TABLE I I
Step 2.   Rating of the  Ground  Water  Availability


Jnconsol i dated

Consol i dated

^epresentati ve
Permeab i 1 i ty

in gpd/ft

in cm/sec

Gravel or sand

Cavernous or
Fractured Rock,
Poorly Cemented
Sandstone ,
Fault Zones


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. "

                              STEP 3


                          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.

                               Table  I I I
Step 3.   Rating the Ground-Water Quality
     Qua 1i ty




£500 mg/1 IDS or a current drinking water

> 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

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.

                              STEP 4


    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.


                                       TABLE  IV
                BY SOURCE FOR STEP  k.
Numb e r
Description of Waste Source
Hazard Potential
Initial Rating

       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



       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

             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
                                              (5 for Feedlots)


                                              Variable depending


  (TABLE IV continued)
SIC                                                             Hazard Potential
Number            Description of Waste Source                   Initial  Rating

        1629       Heavy Construction, not elsewhere classified
                   (Dredging, especially in salt water)          4

        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

        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

        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

       261        Pulp Mills                                    6
       262        Paper Mills Except Building Paper Mills       6
       263        Paperboard Mills                              6

     (TABLE  IV continued)
Description of Waste Source
Hazard Potential
Initial  Rating  .
        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

          291         Petroleum Refining                           8
          295         Paving and  Roofing Materials                  7
          299         Misc. Products of  Petroleum and Coal          7

          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

          311         Leather Tanning and Finishing                 8
                     (Remaining  Three-Digit  Codes)                1-3

          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

          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

         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

               AND  SUPPLIES  (EXCEPT  AS  NOTED BELOW)               5-7
         3691        Storage Batteries                            8
         3692        Primary Batteries,  Dry and Wet                8

  37           TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT                          5-8

         386        Photographic Equipment and Supplies           7


         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
Hazard Potential ID
Description Initial Rating Number *
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
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
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,
- Organometal 1 i c Compounds
- Cyanides
- Thiocyanides
- Sterols
- Sugars and Cellulose
- Esters













    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 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.


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


    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
       -  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.

                           STEP 5


   After the site has been rated on Steps 1, 2,  3 and 4, the overall

ground-water contamination potential of the site can be determined by

totalling these scores.  This overall score allows a comparison of one

site with other rated sites by indicating the general, overall contamin-

ation potential.   Sites may be rated identically, yet be very different

in one or several of the parameters included in the overall score; thus

the overall score of Step  5 should be used with caution in assessing

a particular site's potential to allow ground-water contamination. In

addition, this overall score cannot be used to assess the actual amount

of ground-water contamination at the site.  The score is only for relative

comparison with other sites.  An actual determination of ground-water

contamination requires an intensive on-site investigation.

   EPA has not formulated an interpretation of the overall ground water

contamination score  other than as a relative means to prioritize sites.

Step 5.  Determination of the Site's Ground-Water Contamination

        Potential Rating.

The site's ground-water contamination potential rating is the addition

of the rating scores for the first four steps:

Contamination Potential = Step 1 + Step 2 + Step 3 + Step 4.

The highest ground-water contamination potential rating a site

can receive is "29" while the lowest is "1. "

Example for determining the score for Step 5.

    The overall ground-water contamination potential score for the

Poultry Processing Plant lagoon is determined in Step 5 by adding

the scores from Steps 1, 2, 3,  and 4:

    Step 5 Rating = Step 1 + Step 2  + Step 3 + Step 4

                          STEP 6



   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.

    Artesian wells should not be considered in this step unless there is an

indication that the anticipated flow direction of the contaminated ground

water would be in the direction of that well.  To score Step 5, prioritized

cases (cases A-D) have been established for rating the site according to

the potential magnitude of endangerment to current sources. These

priorities are detailed in Step 6 (Table VI).   To score a  site when a

water table is nearly flat and the flow direction is indeterminable,  a circle

with a 1600 meter radius should be drawn around the site for designating

the area of concern.  In this situation the evaluator would use the same

criteria, in sequential order, begining with Case A, Case B, and then

Case D, eliminating Case C.

    After the distance has been determined,  use the Step 6 rating matrix

to determine the rating under the column of the appropriate case.

                               TABLE VI
Step 6.   Rating the Potential  Endangerment to a Water Supply
Case A
Case B
               Highest Priority:
               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
               Case A
Case B
Case C
Case D

>200, l^OO

>1tOO, £800












 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".

                              STEP 7


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.

                    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
    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.

      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.

     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


Example for determining the confidence rating for each step.

   Based upon the guidance just presented, the confidence ratings for the

Poultry Processing Plant are:

                                   Confidence Rating

   Step 1                   A—Based upon measurement in on site


   Step 2                   A—Based upon well logs of on site well.

   Step 3                   A—Based upon water well analyses.

Step 4                      B—Based upon SIC category.

Step 6                      B—Estimate of flow direction from

                           topographic map in humid region.

                               STEP 8


    This step allows the evaluator to identify any additional

significant variable not noted in the rating system.  Such para-

meters are:


  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


  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).

                             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.

                          TABLE VI I











• —








• 0
C3 fl-

8 B

SL "0
4-1 1-
•— OJ
ro N
ttJ rtj



o ^
dj i-
C d)
flj .-

^— ._
<1> 4-J
o c
i/i d)
• — T3


                         APPENDIX  L

Type of Data
Typical Sources
Useful in determining
1 2&3 4 6
Property survey
County Records , proper!
:y * X
Well drillers logs
Water level measure
Topographic Maps

Air Photos

County Road Maps

Ground Water Reports

Soil Surveys of Counties

Geologic Maps

Waste Character

 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

 U. S.  Geological and State

 Owner/operator, State or
 Federal permits, SIC  Code
*  - Source of data may be especially useful

X  - Source of data may be of slight use or may be used indirectly

           APPENDIX 2

inch (in)
feet (ft)
mile (mi)
U. S. gallon (gal)
cubic meter
cubic feet (ft 3)
cubic meter
acre-foot (ac-ft)
cubic meter
square meter
Hydraulic Conductivity
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
x 4. 72 x 10
x 21.2x10
x 18.2
x 8.58 x 10
centimeter (cm)
= inch
= meter (m)
= feet
= kilometer (km)
= mile
= cubic meter (m )
= U.S. gallon
= cubic meter
= cubic feet
= cubic meter
= acre -feet
= square meter (m )
= hectare
= acre
= hectare
= cm/sec
= gpd/ft2
= gpd/ft2
= cm/sec

                          APPENDIX 3

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

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

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-

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 Sites—An Assessment,

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,

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,

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.