United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmenta1 Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
PO Box 15027
Las Vegas Ntf 89114
EPA-600/7-80-090
May 1980
vvEPA
Research and Development
Groundwater Quality
Monitoring Designs
for Municipal Pollution
Sources:
• .;-:-; i
Preliminary Designs for
Coal Strip Mining
Communities
Interagency Energy-
Environment Research
and Development
Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
•
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad categories
were established to facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster
technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields. The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY—ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the effort
funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and Development
Program. These studies relate to EPA'S mission to protect the public health and welfare
from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy systems. The goal of the Pro-
gram is to assure the rapid development of domestic energy supplies in an environ-
mentally-compatible manner by providing the necessary environmental data and
control technology. Investigations include analyses of the transport of energy-related
pollutants and their health and ecological effects; assessments of, and development of,
control technologies for energy systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range
of energy-related environmental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
EPA-600/7-80-090
May 1980
GROUNDWATER QUALITY MONITORING DESIGNS FOR
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION SOURCES:
Preliminary Designs for Coal Strip
Mining Communities
Edited by
LorneG. Everett
Margery Hulburt
General Electric Company—TEMPO
Center for Advanced Studies
Santa Barbara, California 93102
Contract No. 68-03-2449
Project Officer
Leslie G. McMillion
Advanced Monitoring Systems Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory-Las Vegas, 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 recom-
mendation for use.
n
-------
FOREWORD
Protection of the environment requires effective regulatory actions
based on sound technical and scientific data. The data must include the
quantitative description and linking of pollutant sources, transport
mechanisms, interactions, and resulting effects on man and his environment.
Because of the complexities involved, assessment of exposure to specific
pollutants in the environment requires a total systems approach that
transcends the media of air, water, and land. The Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory at Las Vegas contributes to the formation and enhancement
of a sound monitoring-data base for exposure assessment through programs
designed to:
• develop and optimize systems and strategies for moni-
toring pollutants and their impact on the environment
• demonstrate new monitoring systems and technologies
by applying them to fulfill special monitoring needs
of the Agency's operating programs
The research progran, of which this report is part, is intended to provide
basic technical information and a planning format for the design of
groundwater quality monitoring programs for municipal sources of pollution
impacted by western coal strip mine operations. As such, the study results
may be used by various local, State, and Federal agencies charged with
responsibilities in environmental monitoring and planning.
Further information on this study and the subject of groundwater quality
monitoring, in general, can be obtained by contacting the Exposure Assessment
Division, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Glenn E. Schweitzer
Director
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas
m
-------
PREFACE
General Electric-TEMPO, Center for Advanced Studies, is conducting a
5-year program dealing with the design and verification of an exemplary
groundwater quality monitoring program for western coal strip mining. The
coal strip mining activity discussed in this report is located in Campbell
County, Wyoming. This report discusses secondary water resource impacts of
municipal and industrial support programs which accompany the mining effort.
The report follows a stepwise monitoring methodology developed by TEMPO.
1v
-------
SUMMARY
Development of the vast energy resources in the western states will have
a dynamic affect on the small municipalities located therein. Potential so-
cial, economic, and environmental problems will arise. A potential environ-
mental problem area would be the contamination of the local or regional
groundwater supply. Groundwater quality may be impacted by energy development
directly through processes involved in energy production, or indirectly as a
result of increased population of the area supporting energy development which
could overload existing disposal systems for municipal wastes. This report
discusses groundwater quality monitoring designs for municipal pollution
sources through the study of selected sources for a small western city, Gil-
lette, Wyoming, which is experiencing rapid growth brought about by develop-
ment of several major coal strip mines in the area.
Specific pollution sources examined include solid waste disposal
(landfill), sewage treatment plant, and domestic treatment plant. Minor pol-
lution sources, e.g., package plants and septic tank areas, are also identi-
fied and monitoring designs are discussed. Companion reports to this document
examine alternative potential pollution sources from development of western
coal resources. These reports are entitled "Groundwater Quality Monitoring of
Western Coal Strip Mining: Identification and Priority Ranking of Potential
Pollution Sources" (Everett, 1979), "Groundwater Quality Monitoring of Western
Coal Strip Mining: Preliminary Designs for Active Mine Sources" (Everett and
Hoylman, 1979a), and "Groundwater Quality Monitoring of Western Coal Strip
Mining: Preliminary Designs for Reclaimed Mine Sources" (Everett and Hoylman,
1979b).
The format used to study the potential pollution sources follows TEMPO'S
stepwise monitoring methodology (Todd et al, 1976). This methodology sequen-
tially evaluates each potential pollution source through a series of monitor-
ing steps summarized below:
• Identify pollution sources, causes, and methods of waste disposal
• Identify potential pollutants
• Define groundwater usage
• Define hydrogeologic situation
• Study existing groundwater quality
• Evaluate infiltration potential
-------
• Evaluate mobility of pollutants in the vadose zone
• Evaluate attenuation of pollutants in the saturated zone.
Sample collection techniques, sample preservation, and custody and qual-
ity control measures to implement the monitoring designs are discussed in Sec-
tion 7 of the report. Cost estimates for the proposed monitoring designs are
given throughout the text.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Preface iv
Summary v
Figures ix
Tables x
List of Abbreviations xi
Acknowledgments xii
Section Page
1 Introduction 1
2 Solid Waste Disposal Monitoring Design 8
Identify Pollution Sources, Causes, and Methods of
Waste Disposal 12
Identify Potential Pollutants 12
Define Groundwater Usage 24
Define Hydrogeologic Situation 24
Study Existing Groundwater Quality 29
Evaluate Infiltration Potential 31
Evaluate Mobility of Pollutants in the Vadose Zone 32
Evaluate Attenuation of Pollutants in the Saturated
Zone 37
3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring Design 39
Identify Pollution Sources, Causes, and Methods of
Waste Disposal 39
Identify Potential Pollutants 39
Define Groundwater Usage 52
Define Hydrogeologic Situation 52
Study Existing Groundwater Quality 54
Evaluate Infiltration Potential 57
Evaluate Mobility of Pollutants in the Vadose Zone 58
Evaluate Attenuation of Pollutants in the Saturated
Zone 60
4 Water Treatment Plant Monitoring Design 63
Identify Pollution Sources, Causes, and Methods of
Waste Disposal 63
Identify Potential Pollutants 63
Define Groundwater Usage 65
Define Hydrogeologic Situation . 67
vii
-------
Section Page
4 Study Existing Groundwater Quality 69
Evaluate Infiltration Potential 74
Evaluate Mobility of Pollutants in the Vadose Zone 76
Evaluate Attenuation of Pollutants in the Saturated
Zone 77
5 Sewage Treatment Package Plant Monitoring Design 79
Identify Pollution Sources, Causes, and Methods of
Waste Disposal 79
Identify Potential Pollutants 79
Define Groundwater Usage 80
Define Hydrogeologic Situation 81
Study Existing Groundwater Quality 81
Evaluate Infiltration Potential 82
Evaluate Mobility of Pollutants in the Vadose Zone 83
Evaluate Attenuation of Pollutants in the Saturated
Zone 85
6 Septic Tank Areas 86
Identify Pollution Sources, Causes, and Methods of
Waste Disposal 86
Identify Potential Pollutants 86
Define Groundwater Usage 89
Define Hydrogeologic Situation 89
Study Existing Groundwater Quality 89
Evaluate Infiltration Potential 90
Evaluate Mobility of Pollutants in the Vadose Zone 91
Evaluate Attenuation of Pollutants in the Saturated
Zone 93
7 Sample Collection, Preservation, and Control 95
Custody Control 95
Quality Control 97
Sampling Procedure 103
References 107
Appendices
A Budget Summary 111
B Metric Conversion Table 113
vm
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Location of City of Gillette in Campbell County, Wyoming 2
2 Map of potential sources of groundwater pollution in the
Gillette area 4
3 City of Gillette sanitary landfill 13
4 Industrial waste survey questionnaire 18
5 Monitoring facilities—garbage trenches, City of Gillette
landfill 22
6 Metric contour map of piezometric surface through landfill
observation well area, October 13-29, 1978 26
7 Geologic cross section and monitoring facilities—City of
Gillette landfill 27
8 Cross section of suction cup assembly and backfilling
material 34
9 Hi/Pressure-Vacuum Soil Water Sampler schematic 35
10 City of Gillette wastewater treatment plant 40
11 Wastewater treatment plant data recording format 41
12 Placement of sampling equipment at wastewater treatment
plant 61
13 City of Gillette water treatment plant 64
14 Location of water supply wells 66
15 Locations of observation wells at the water treatment plant 68
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Report of Analysis 15
2 Gillette City Dump Inventory, June 28, 1978 17
3 Chemical Analyses for Wells Near Gillette Landfill 30
4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Data Summary 43
5 Analyses of Sludge and Digester Samples from the Gillette
Wastewater Treatment Plant, September 1977 44
6 Report of Analysis 45
7 Shallow Well Data 53
8 Analyses of Stock Wells Near Gillette Wastewater Treatment
Plant, July 1978 . 55
9 Wasatch Analyses 70
10 Fort Union Analyses 72
11 Fox Hills Analysis 73
12 Field Permeability Data for the Gillette Water Treatment
Plant Area 75
13 Septage Characteristics as Reported in the Literature 87
14 Recommended Sampling and Preservation Techniques for
Inorganic Chemical Determinations 100
15 Recommended Sampling and Preservation Techniques for
Organic Chemical Determinations 102
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
afa
BOD
Btu
cc
COD
DEQ
DO
DOC
EPA
epm
9
gpd/ft
gpm
in/sec
meq
mgd
mg/1
mmhos/cm
ppm
s
SAR
TDS
TOC
acre-feet annually
biochemical oxygen demand
British thermal units
cubic centimeters
chemical oxygen demand
Department of Environmental Quality
dissolved oxygen
dissolved organic carbon
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
equivalents per million
grams
gallons per day/foot
gallons per minute
hour
inches per second
milliequivalents
millions of gallons per day
milligram per liter
micromhos per centimeter
parts per million
seconds
sodium adsorption ratio
Total dissolved solids
total organic carbon
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. Lome G. Everett of General Electric-TEMPO was responsible for man-
agement and technical guidance of the project under which this,report was pre-
pared. Principal TEMPO authors were: Dr. Lorne G. Everett, Mr. Edward W.
Hoy!man, and Dr. Guenton C. Slawson, Jr.
Principal consultant authors were: Ms. Margery A. Hulburt, Wyoming De-
partment of Environmental Quality, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Dr. Kenneth D. Schmidt,
Consultant, Fresno, California; Dr. John L. Thames, Professor, University of
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; Dr. Richard M. Tin!in, Consultant, Camp Verde, Ari-
zona; Dr. David K. Todd, Professor, University of California, Berkeley, Cali-
fornia; and Dr. L. Graham Wilson, Professor, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona.
XII
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Groundwater quality may be impacted by energy development directly, as a
result of processes involved in energy production, or indirectly, as a result
of increased population growth associated with energy development. Indirect
impacts occur as the population of the area supporting new energy development
grows and, consequently, places greater and greater strains on the disposal
systems for municipal wastes. When the rate of growth becomes too large,
these systems tend to become ineffective under the increased load, and the po-
tential for groundwater contamination increases.
This report looks at a community experiencing rapid growth'associated
with energy production and the potential sources of groundwater pollution gen-
erated by the rapid growth situation. For each of the potential pollution
sources, a source-specific approach is outlined for monitoring groundwater
quality; the monitoring design is based on the concept of nondegradation re-
gardless of the existing or potential groundwater usage.
The City of Gillette, Wyoming, was chosen as a case study for its unique
position as the only community of any size in the Powder River Coal Basin of
Wyoming. The basin is semi arid, with an average annual rainfall of 15 inches*
and an average potential evapotranspiration of 25 to 30 inches. Gillette lies
on the drainage divide between Little Rawhide Creek, a tributary of the Powder
River, to the north and Donkey Creek, a tributary of the Belle Fourche River,
to the south (Everett, 1979) (Figure 1). Both of these streams are ephemeral,
although Donkey Creek has become perennial downstream of the Gillette waste-
water treatment plant. The Gillette downstream area is drained by Burlington
Ditch, constructed by the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad to channel
runoff into Burlington Lake for railroad use. The lake is no longer used and
only fills during the spring season with exceptionally high runoff. Perennial
lakes in the Gillette area include Ditto Lake and the Gillette Fishing Lake.
During seasons with high runoff, small, intermittent lakes form in all of the
natural depressions.
Groundwater is pumped from three formations in the Gillette area: the
Wasatch Formation, from the land surface to a depth of about 350 feet; the
Fort Union Formation, below the Wasatch to a depth of about 2,300 feet; and
*See Appendix B for conversion to metric units. English units were used in
this report because of their current usage and familiarity in industry and
the hydrology-related sciences.
1
-------
/'FOURCHE
i I \
, X RIVER
LEGEND
WATERSHED
BOUNDARY
EPHEMERAL OR
INTERMITTENT
STREAM
INTERMITTENT
— OR PERENNIAL
STREAM
MONITORING
AREA
M PROJECT COAL
LEASE AREAS
1 CARTER NORTH
RAWHIDE
2 AMAX EAGLE
BUTTE
3 WYODAK
4 AMAX BELLE
AYR
5 SUN OIL
CORDERO
6 KERR-McGEE
JACOBS
RANCH
7 ARCO BLACK
THUNDER
Figure 1. Location of City of Gillette in Campbell County, Wyoming.
2
-------
the Fox Hills Formation, below the Fort Union to a depth of about 3,800 feet.
The Wasatch Formation yields calcium magnesium sulfate water, while both of
the other formations yield sodium bicarbonate water. Water from the three
formations is combined and softened at the municipal water treatment plant
north of town (Figure 2).
Two separate reports outlining the direct impact of regional coal strip
mining on groundwater quality at Gillette, Wyoming, are under preparation.
These reports (Everett and Hoylman, 1979a,b) cover the preparation of ground-
water quality monitoring designs for active coal strip mine potential sources
of pollution and reclaimed mine potential sources of pollution. The sources
include: stockpiles (topsoil, overburden, coal, coal refuse, coal waste,
partings); explosives; solid waste for road construction; pit discharge; mine
sanitary and solid wastes; liquid shop wastes; and spills and leaks. Re-
claimed area pollution sources, such as fill materials, topsoil, spoils, and
reclamation aids are discussed.
A separate report outlining the direct impact of regional coal strip min-
ing on groundwater quality at Gillette, Wyoming, is under preparation.
As an established population and commercial center, Gillette has become
home for a majority of workers associated with the local coal strip mining in-
dustry. Sixteen strip mines are presently operating or are in the planning
stages within 50 miles of Gillette. The impact of population growth due to
strip mining development is evident. The three municipal waste disposal sys-
tems—the sanitary landfill, the wastewater treatment plant, and disposal of
by-products from the municipal water treatment pi ant--are all severely over-
loaded and pose potential threats to Gillette's groundwater quality. Addi-
tional potential sources of pollution due to growth in the Gillette area are
the large number of septic tanks and package treatment plants which serve
numerous subdivisions just outside of the city limits. The hydrogeologic de-
scription of the threat to Gillette's groundwater supply is discussed in
Hulburt, 1979.
The design approach for monitoring these pollution sources has been
developed following a generic methodology developed by General Electric
Company-TEMPO (Todd et al., 1976). The methodology consists of the following
15 steps:
1. Select area for monitoring
2. Identify pollution sources, causes, and methods of waste
disposal
3. Identify potential pollutants
4. Define groundwater usage
5. Define hydrogeologic situation
6. Study existing groundwater quality
-------
re
O)
QJ
-l->
4->
O)
O>
O
3
O
Q.
QJ
-t->
(O
2
T3
C
3
O
s_
Ol
01
-------
7. Evaluate infiltration potential of wastes at the land surface
8. Evaluate mobility of pollutants in the vadose zone
9. Evaluate attenuation of pollutants in the saturated zone
10. Prioritize sources and causes
11. Evaluate existing monitoring programs
12. Establish alternative monitoring approaches
13. Select and implement the monitoring program
14. Review and interpret monitoring results
15. Summarize and transmit monitoring information.
For the Gillette area, steps 1 through 10 of the generic methodology were
carried out in a previous report, "Groundwater Quality Monitoring of Western
Coal Strip Mining: Identification and Priority Ranking of Potential Pollution
Sources," (Everett, 1979). On the basis of this information, the municipal
sources at Gillette, Wyoming, were then ranked according to pollution poten-
ti al as fol 1 ows:
1. Hazardous wastes at the landfill
2. Waste disposal at water treatment plant
3. Oily waste ponds at the landfill
4. Garbage trenches at the landfill
5. Sewage effluent to Donkey Creek.
The source of the greatest threat is where the funds are spent first.
This report continues the methodology through steps 16, 17, and 18. This is
accomplished by making a second pass through steps 2 through 9 by evaluating
existing monitoring programs, discussing alternative monitoring approaches,
and selecting the preferred monitoring approach for each step.
For purposes of presenting preliminary monitoring designs, the potential
pollution sources have been grouped according to four categories: sanitary
landfill, wastewater treatment plant, water treatment plant, and miscellaneous
sources.
A typical sanitary landfill is constructed using either the area or
trench method. With the area method, waste is deposited directly on the
ground surface. It is covered at the end of the day with earth materials
brought in from another area. This method is usually used to fill in low-
lying areas. With the trench method, waste is deposited in one end of a
trench and covered at the end of the day with materials that were stockpiled
-------
during excavation of the trench. Both methods depend on immediate compaction
of the waste, daily covering with earth materials, and isolation from surface
water and groundwater for the maintenance of sanitary conditions. Major envi-
ronmental factors that must be considered in the design and operation of sani-
tary landfills include leachate, gas production, odor, noise, air pollution,
dust, fires, and vectors (ASCE, 1976). The City of Gillette landfill origi-
nally was an open dump. Currently, trench techniques are used to operate the
facility.
The type and extent of treatment municipal wastewater receives vary
greatly from place to place., The Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of
State Sanitary Engineers (1973) states that some of the important factors
which influence the selection of the type of treatment at a given plant are:
present and future effluent requirements; location and topography of the plant
site; effect of industrial wastes likely to be encountered; capital and annual
costs; and probable type of supervision and operation which the plant will
have. The report sets forth the following recommendations for screening, grit
removal, and settling; sludge handling and disposal; biological treatment; and
disinfection.
Protection for pumps and other equipment should be provided at all plants
by installing coarse bar racks or screens at the plant inflow. Facilities
must be provided for removal, handling, storage, and disposal of screenings in
a sanitary manner. Next, grit removal facilities should be provided at all
wastewater treatment plants. This is especially important for plants receiv-
ing sewage from combined sewers or from sewer systems receiving substantial
amounts of grit. If a plant serving a separate sewer system is designed with-
out grit facilities, the design should include provisions for future installa-
tion. The report recommends that the next step be flocculation of sewage by
air or mechanical agitation, with or without coagulating aids, to reduce the
strength of sewage prior to subsequent treatment. Flocculation may also be
beneficial in pretreating sewage containing certain industrial wastes. Floc-
culation would be followed by a primary settling tank.
Sludge removed from the pretreatment facilities can be treated in either
aerobic or anaerobic digestors. It is then spread in percol ation-type or im-
pervious sludge-drying beds. Drainage from the beds should be returned to the
sewage treatment process. The report states that shallow sludge-drying la-
goons may be used in lieu of drying beds provided the soil is reasonably po-
rous and the bottom of the lagoon is at least 18 inches above the maximum
groundwater table. Surrounding areas should be graded to prevent surface wa-
ter entering the lagoon, and consideration should be given to prevent pollu-
tion of groundwater and surface water.
Biological treatment can be accomplished either through the use of trick-
ling filters or the activated sludge method. The report states that where
primary settling tanks are not used, effective removal of grit, debris, exces-
sive oil or grease, and comminution of solids must be accomplished prior to
the activated sludge process. The process itself consists of a settling tank
and one or more aeration tanks.
-------
Finally, where a public health hazard may be created by the sewage treat-
ment plant effluent, the report states that disinfection will be required.
Effluent standards, however, are based on the Public Health Service Water
Quality Standards and the objectives for the receiving waters as established
by the State. The sewage treatment plant for the City of Gillette fails to
meet many of the above requirements.
The type and amount of treatment a water supply receives depend on raw
water quality and the desired quality of the finished product. Groundwater
generally requires little treatment except for disinfection and possibly
softening.
The most common water softening method is the lime-soda process. Lime
and/or soda ash is added to the raw water together with a flocculent in a
rapid mix tank. The water is then mixed slowly for a longer period of time in
a flocculation tank to allow the floe to form. The floe is then removed by
settling in a sedimentation basin. Lime removes calcium and magnesium from
carbonate waters, while lime and soda ash together are required to remove the
salts from sulfate waters.
An alternative softening method is the cation exchange process. Raw wa-
ter is passed through a tank containing a cation exchange resin which removes
calcium and magnesium ions and replaces them with sodium. The resin can be
regenerated when necessary by flushing with a sodium chloride solution.
The cation exchange process is not effective for the removal of sodium or
dissolved solids. Iron, manganese, or a combination of the two should not ex-
ceed 0.3 ppm in the raw water. The Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board
of State Sanitary Engineers (1976) includes design standards for both the
lime-soda and cation exchange softening process. The State of Wyoming design
criteria for water treatment facilities are based on this report.
Where the water supply is particularly mineral ized, softening can be
achieved by a desalinization process. Electrodialysis consists of a series of
alternate cationic and anionic membranes arranged between a cathode and an an-
ode. Positive ions in the water move toward the cathode, negative ions move
toward the anode, and demineral ized water is extracted from the center. Re-
verse osmosis consists of two compartments separated by a membrane. Pressure
is applied to the compartment with the higher salt content. Water is able to
pass through the membrane, while salts cannot. Both electrodialysis and re-
verse osmosis are considerably more expensive than the softening processes and
result in deionized water. The City of Gillette water treatment plant uses a
combination of lime-soften ing and electrodialysis to provide a potable water
supply.
-------
v SECTION 2
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL MONITORING DESIGN
All solid waste from the City of Gillette is disposed in the Gillette
landfill. Under the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Solid Waste
Management Rules and Regulations (1975), communities with a resident popula-
tion of 3,000 or greater must dispose of solid waste by sanitary landfill,
incineration, composting, or other acceptable methods approved by the
Department.
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality minimum standards of op-
eration for the sanitary landfill are as follows:
• Each day's deposits of solid waste shall be compacted to the
smallest possible volume and a 6-inch layer of acceptable cover
material shall be placed and compacted over the solid waste at
the end of each working day. A minimum of 2 feet of acceptable
cover material shall be placed over any completed segment or cell
of the site in such a manner that effective surface drainage will
be obtained.
• The working face of the site shall be confined to the smallest
practical area in order to control the exposed waste without in-
terfering with operational procedures.
• Adequate fencing shall be provided in order to prevent access to
the site by livestock and large wild animals.
• Adequate fencing shall be provided to catch windblown material.
All windblown material shall be collected by attending personnel
and returned to the working face once per week or as necessary to
prevent the site from becoming unsightly.
• Adequate provisions shall be made for operating during adverse
weather conditions. This may be accomplished by providing an
emergency disposal area which can be utilized during bad weather.
• Surface water shall be prevented from entering or leaving the de-
posited solid waste.
• Solid waste shall not be deposited nearer than 500 feet to a
drinking water supply well, stream, reservoir, lake, water treat-
ment plant, or raw water intake which furnish water to a public
8
-------
water system or for human consumption unless engineering data
supplied to the Department .show there is no danger of the contam-
ination of these waters.
• Reasonable precautions shall be taken to prevent leachate from
the solid waste from entering the surface water or groundwater.
• The Department, at its discretion, may require monitoring wells,
provided by the responsible person, in order to observe any
changes in the quality of groundwater.
• No burning of solid waste shall be conducted at any site without
the written permission of the Department.
• Adequate equipment shall be provided for excavating, compacting,
and covering.
• Adequate personnel or signs shall be provided at each site to
give directions for the unloading of refuse.
• All-weather access roads shall be provided at each site.
• A fire lane (minimum 10-feet wide around the perimeter of the
site) and other fire protection shall be provided at each site.
This may be accomplished by a water supply, stockpiled earth,
nearby fire department, or other acceptable means.
• Hazardous materials may be disposed of in a municipal solid waste
disposal site only if the Department gives special written per-
mission. This permission can be obtained by submitting in writ-
ing the type, physical composition, and chemical composition of
the waste and the special procedures and precautions to be taken
in handling and disposing of the hazardous waste. There will be
some types of hazardous waste that will not be allowed to be de-
posited in a municipal site. Special directions for the disposal
of these wastes will be given by the Department.
• Salvaging and reclamation, if permitted, will be conducted in
such a manner as not to interfere with normal operating
procedures.
• The site shall be operated in such a manner so as to control in-
sects and rodents. Additional control in the form of pesticides
may be required.
• Scavenging and animal feeding or grazing by domestic livestock
shall not be permitted on the site.
• Adequate provisions shall be made for the handling and disposal
of bulky waste. If this type material cannot be combined with
normal municipal refuse, a separate unloading or alternate area
shall be provided on-site for the handling and ultimate disposal
-------
of large or bulky items. These items (junk cars, tires, tree
stumps, appliances, etc.) shall not be stored on-site in such a
manner or for periods of time that they will create a public nui-
sance, fire hazard, public health hazard, or detriment to the
environment.
• Special provisions shall be made for the acceptable disposal of
dead animals. Dead animals shall be covered with 6 inches of
cover material upon disposition. Small animals can be worked
into the operating face of the landfill, but provisions should be
made for the disposal of large dead animals.
• When a site is completed or disposal operations are temporarily
suspended, all refuse in the area shall be covered with at least
2 feet of topsoil and reseeded if sufficient vegetation is not
available to stabilize the surface. The person who received the
written approval of the Department will be responsible for the
repair of any eroded, cracked, and uneven areas for a period of
3 years after completion of the site.
• The person who was given permission to operate will be responsi-
ble for controlling any gases or leachate from a site for a pe-
riod of 5 years after completion of the site.
• Street sweepings may be stored temporarily or utilized in areas
where they do not create public nuisance, aesthetic degradation,
or public health hazards.
Minimum standards of operation for hazardous waste disposal sites are de-
fined by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. To comply with the
minimum standards, each hazardous waste site shall meet or exceed the follow-
ing requirements:
• The responsible person shall take all precautions to prevent un-
authorized persons from entering the site.
• The responsible person shall take the necessary precautions to
prevent animals from entering the site.
• All sites shall be located away from floodplains, natural depres-
sions, and excessive slopes unless the detailed engineering plans
indicate the acceptability of a site in these areas.
• Hazardous waste sites shall be located in areas of low population
density, low land use value, and low groundwater contamination
potential unless detailed engineering plans indicate the accept-
ability of this type of site in the area.
• Sites shall not be located near a drinking water supply well,
stream, reservoir, lake, water treatment plant, or raw water in-
take which furnish water to a public water system.
10
-------
• Whenever possible, sites shall be located in areas where imperme-
able soils are located.
• The site shall be located and designed to contain any runoff from
accidental spills at the site.
• All sites shall be designed and located where there will be no
hydraulic surface or subsurface connection between flowing or
standing water.
• All trenches, ponds, holding tanks, etc. shall be lined with ac-
ceptable liners to prevent leaching or transmission of materials
from the site.
• All sites shall be located, designed, and operated in such a man-
ner that they will not create nuisances, aesthetic degradation,
or hazards to the surrounding area.
• Records of the amounts received, types (chemical analysis),
date, and locations where these materials are on-site will be
maintained.
• Precautions shall be taken to avoid mixing of materials that are
not compatible.
• All sites shall be designed, located, and operated in such a man-
ner that the materials will be totally contained on the site.
• Prior to the deposition of hazardous wastes at a site, monitoring
wells shall be provided by the person responsible and background
data shall be provided to the Department.
• The site and the different areas within the site shall contain
the appropriate hazardous waste signs.
• When the site is completed, the working areas of the site shall
be properly encapsulated to prevent the migration of water into
or out of the material.
• The site at completion shall be closed off, signed, and perma-
nently isolated from humans and animals.
• Before a letter of approval is issued for the operation of a haz-
ardous waste disposal site, the responsible person shall consult
with the Department of Environmental Quality as to the length of
time that person will be required to monitor for water pollution
at the site. The length of time required will depend on the
types of materials deposited and their life span.
11
-------
IDENTIFY POLLUTION SOURCES, CAUSES, AND
METHODS OF WASTE DISPOSAL (Step 2)
The Gillette/Campbell County sanitary landfill is located in the south-
ern half of Section 28, T50N, R72W (50-72-28CD), as shown in Figure 2 (see
page 4). Site elevations range from 4,630 feet to about 4,740 feet. At the
landfill site, there are two ponds and five pits. A natural pond is located
adjacent to pit 4 (see Figure 3). A second pond is found in the tire disposal
area located above pit 1. The five pits are located in parallel along the
same plane. Pits 1 through 4 are clearly marked. Pit 5, referred to as "New
Pit" in the figure, is under excavation.
Originally, waste was simply dumped over the side of the hill at the
southeastern corner of the property. Eventually this waste was covered with
earth materials, artificially extending the hill to the south. Waste was then
buried in small pockets in the area east of pit 1. In 1960, pit 1 was was ex-
cavated and sanitary landfilling was begun using the trench method. Pits 2
and 3 have since been covered, and pit 4 is currently being filled. A new pit
is under construction between pits 3 and 4. The ages of pits 1 through 4 are
19, 9, 6, and 4 years, respectively.
Construction materials, brush, and large metal objects are piled in the
southeast corner of the property. Periodically, the wood is burned and the
metal is crushed and hauled away. Tires are piled in the northeast corner of
the property in and around two semi covered disposal ponds. Until January
1978, the pond to the east was used for disposal of septage wastes and the one
to the west was used for oil and hazardous waste disposal. Oil was also dis-
posed of near the scrap metal area. Since 1978, the ponds have not been used
pending the outcome of court action relative to disposal of these liquid
wastes.
Dead animals are buried in a separate trench located between pit 4 and
the one under construction. Covered dead animal pits are located all along
the southern fence!ine.
The monitoring design assessment for the sanitary landfill is presented
in the following discussions. In some cases, the approach taken for a step
follows directly from the results of the previous step.
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS (Step 3)
Leachate is a major potential groundwater pollutant at any sanitary land-
fill. The main factor contributing to leachate generation is the inflow of
water from either groundwater or surface water sources. In the absence of
these, leachate formation may be due simply to the infiltration of rain water
through the buried refuse. The Gillette landfill has a large potential for
leachate generation because surface runoff tends to collect in the partially
filled trenches. Due to the large amount of scoria and fractured coal in the
vicinity of the trenches, it is likely that rain water infiltrates the ground
rapidly and moves laterally into the trenches through these fracture systems.
Other major potential pollutants at the Gillette landfill may include pesti-
cide residues, oils, and other hazardous wastes, and septic tank septage.
12
-------
to
l/l
O)
-l->
-l->
-------
Currently there is very little monitoring for potential pollutants at the
Gillette landfill. Wastes that are brought into the landfill are inspected
briefly and are separated for disposal into the major categories discussed in
the previous section. A tally is kept of the number of vehicles of various
types that enter the landfill each day, but no record is kept of the types of
waste brought in.
In March 1978, the City of Gillette drilled three monitoring wells at the
sanitary landfill (Figure 3). All three were drilled to about 40 feet below
the ground surface and cased with 4-inch PVC pipe perforated over the entire
interval. They were each developed with air for about 15 minutes. The holes
were left open around the casing, providing a good channel for surface runoff
into the well. Any sample analyses from these wells would not be meaningful.
In June 1978, samples were collected from the hazardous waste disposal
pond, water standing in pit 4, and the small pond east of pit 4. The analyses
are shown in Table 1.
Relative to background water quality conditions, the hazardous waste pond
was found to have quite high concentrations of potassium, chloride, iron, and
sodium. Although the sulfate concentration of 490 ppm is lower than back-
ground water quality, it is nearly double the U.S. Public Health recommended
limit. Concentrations of cadmium, mercury, selenium, and lead were all found
to be relatively low.
The pond east of pit 4 shows particularly high levels of chloride, boron,
iron, and potassium. Background concentrations of lead are unknown; however,
the constituents, as well as selenium and sulfate, exceed drinking water stan-
dards (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975a). This probably represents
seepage from the garbage trenches, but may include constituents carried to the
pond by runoff water from the scrap metal area.
Similarly, the water standing in pit 4 may have come from a combination
of surface runoff and seepage from the pond. It was found to be high in chlo-
ride relative to background water quality, and selenium and sulfate concentra-
tions were found to exceed U.S. Public Health drinking water standards.
Data deficiencies include waste deposition rates, composition of waste,
the quantity and composition of leachate in the buried trenches, and the quan-
tity and quality of surface runoff into the landfill trenches.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches--
1. The daily deposition rate of wastes in the landfill could be deter-
mined by installing a scale near the entrance to the site. The deposition
rate into individual disposal areas could be estimated. The scale would be
operated continually, possibly by City of Gillette personnel. The approximate
cost of the scale would be $15,000 for a 30-ton, 24-foot scale, plus instal-
lation. The salary for a qualified operator, if necessary, would be about
$13,000 per year.
14
-------
TABLE 1. REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Silica (as Si02)
TDS (at 180°C)
pH (units)
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
Zinc
Cadmi um
Mercury
Selenium
Arsenic
Lead
Total organic carbon
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Nitrate (as N)
Sodium
Carbonate (as CO,)
Bicarbonate (as HCOZ)
Sulfate (as SO^)
Chloride
Iron
Boron
Landfill
Pond
2.6
2,200
7.55
2,580
0.078
0.005
<0. 00001
0.019
0.018
0.07
52
355
144
22.5
0.10
65.7
0
150
1,420
92
0.15
1.5
Determination3
Hazardous
waste pond
5.7
1,340
7.13
1,812
0.074
<0.005
<0. 00001
0.010
0.015
<0.05
30
316
29.9
53.8
<0.05
137
0
180
490
220
2.75
0.3
Pit #4
1.3
858
7.81
1,089
0.050
<0.005
<0. 00001
0.024
0.006
0.05
8
174
38.4
5.64
0.10
23.9
0
60
510
22
0.05
0.1
aValues in ppm unless specified.
15
-------
2. Rough estimates of deposition rates and types of waste could be made
by keeping an inventory of wastes entering the landfill. One such inventory
done at the Gillette landfill on June 28, 1978, is shown in Table 2. The in-
ventory should be done at least quarterly and for several days out of the week
each time. Landfill personnel have stated that use of the facility varies
quite a bit with the day of the week. Use is also likely to vary with the
seasons. City of Gillette personnel may be willing to conduct the inventories
with TEMPO supervision. The only inventory cost would be salary for one per-
son for 4 days per year (supervision) or 20 days per year (entire inventory),
or about $200 to $1,000. Labor for about 4 days per year would be required
for data compilation and evaluation, costing about $224.
3. More specific information on waste sources could be obtained by con-
ducting a survey in both the City and Campbell County. To facilitate the
survey, a questionnaire could be prepared, such as that used in the State of
Arizona during an industrial waste survey in 1975. The questionnaire, devel-
oped by Behavioral Health Consultants (1975), is reproduced in Figure 4. Note
that sources are categorized by Standard Industrial Code (SIC). Information
is requested on waste type, quantity produced per year, potential hazard, on-
site storage and handling, and disposal methods. Because information is re-
quested on disposal in the public sewer system, data from this questionnaire
also are relevant to monitoring of municipal wastewater treatment plants.
Traditionally, it has been extremely difficult to obtain the cooperation
of industries in answering questions such as those in the questionnaire. How-
ever, the provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 may expedite future cooperation, partic-
ularly if the questionnaire is sent out under the aegis of DEQ or the County
Sanitarian. Costs would include salary for one person for about 10 days, or
$360 to distribute the surveys and compile and evaluate data, plus printing
and mailing costs of $60 for 200 surveys.
Sampling Approaches--
1. Surface samples collected for analysis from the following areas could
yield information about potential pollutants at the Gillette landfill:
a. Surface runoff collected in the garbage trenches
b. The hazardous waste disposal pond
c. Runoff from the metal disposal area
d. The pond located between pits 3 and 4
e. The stockponds to the east of the landfill
f. Groundwater, if any, discharging into the trenches through
cracks or fissures.
All of the samples could be analyzed initially for the major dissolved
constituents: calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, carbonate, bicarbonate,
16
-------
TABLE 2. GILLETTE CITY DUMP INVENTORY, JUNE 28, 1978
Garbage
and Wood and
debris construction Cement Tires Metal Brush Miscellaneous
8:00 am - 12:30 pm
Cars
Cars with trailer
Street van
Pickup
Pickup (full)
1-ton truck
4-ton truck (full)
Dual tire 1-ton
Dual tire 4-ton (full)
1-3 ton (full)
4-3 ton (full)
3 axle
3 axle (full)
Garbage truck
Utility trailer
1
2
24
6
2
5
1
1
5
2
3
2
1
6
2
1111
2 1 2
12:30 pm - 5:00 pm
Cars 4
Cars with trailer
Street van 1
Pickup 18
Pickup (full) 15
1-ton truck 1
1-ton truck (full) 1
Dual tire 1-ton
Dual tire 4-ton (full)
1-3 ton 1
1-3 ton (full)
3 axle
3 axle (full)
Garbage truck 2
Utility trailer 1
1-car body
1-ton truck
of dirt
17
-------
CO S
W s
H *
tn -5
E-
2
H
Q
O
: *j 3 e <->
- a u IH .o M c
:u s ~"
J -H 3
« s o
01 C x
00
!£3
rs«
S5S
?E > ;
O 3 O i
: .c a.
i S w o 5
01 ai •
• 0) 01
!£"fi
r-* V
•^ 00
3 «
B -H B g
a> •»""«) vol wcao4
^ -O a; c -o > 01
« w < j= O -H n) i- 3 • ••
wu W-H > 3tri-X
nj *j o V O 5E &-
D. -H
01 fM O 0)
J3 W 3
^ £
73 n j* ^ to o
•H B 3 (8 M
V cQ O V •H
H n) H » O. <
S
•c
•<
CO
§
•
•o
<
2
'3
n
x
I
55
LO
r~.
ai
to
+->
03
CO
c
o
o
(O
to
03
i
i
i
l
=5
*
^.Md;
'•HK3
u»|iXs J»/««s >!|«|nj
p«|IJ»UI3U|
Bui|«oduio3
uoo6r]
pur) uO pt»ids
||!jpuri Ajuiuts
•11$ diuna
•6|A|IJ
I
V
j
£
1
•6
$
£
1
S-
4->
IO
3
T3
S-
18
-------
&
i
•^
e
lz
aS
n
S a.
^ IU
S3
8*
5
0
\
11
l!
(A 1=
11
1*
.5
|
j
*»
S-
.
u
•"
t
.0
Ez
V*Z
Sf
*z
^
^
1
•
z
5
5
«
*
Z
u
—
s
~
1
o
g
z
<
Ul
1-
l/l
e
I
LU
I/I
O
1
J)
1
X
o
3
c
^
«N
'*HK>
,,!»»..,
Buipuoj
uo,,.,..mu,
.u^u,..
'"WO
««!PP«"(S
Buiptdiuo^
,,U.*,H..d
W U
»!«»!
"i-H-i
"!«""3
--""•!«
p,nbn
WIK-f
P!I»S
,,„..,.„,
^.u-^o
«
Q>
•r—
-l->
C
o
<-
O)
S-
en
* E ' X 3
o i 9 0 u i
u O
19
-------
sulfate, nitrate, nitrite, boron, silica, and chloride; the minor constitu-
ents: silica, boron, iron, lead, cadmium, mercury, selenium, arsenic, fluo-
ride, manganese, aluminum, chromium, antimony, copper, and nickel; total
organic compound (TOC); and toxic organic pollutants. Because of the great
expense of determining the entire suite of potential organic pollutants,
screening methods should be used to evaluate the presence or absence of or-
ganic constituents followed, if necessary, by the determination of specific
constituents. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency intends
to propose analytical techniques in 1979 for the screening of organic toxics.
One approach will entail screening by gas chromatography/mass spectrophotome-
try (GC/MS), followed by either gas chromatographic or liquid chromatographic
quantification of pollutants which have been identified (Federal Register,
1979). In addition, IDS at 180°C, pH, and conductivity could be determined
in the laboratory, and pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen could be deter-
mined in the field. Such an extensive analysis is recommended initially be-
cause of the lack of information on types of waste and locations of disposal.
Pohland and Engelbrecht (1976) have found that the following contaminants
are often associated with solid wastes: nitrate, calcium, chloride, sodium,
potassium, sulfate, magnesium, manganese, iron, zinc, copper, cadmium, lead,
and organics. In addition, a low pH will increase the solubility of heavy
metals in the waste. Representative assays of crankcase drain oils done by
Weinstein (1974) include: carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, lead, zinc, barium, cal-
cium, phosphorus, and iron. Sources associated with metal items could include
any or all heavy metals, such as manganese, iron, aluminum, chromium, nickel,
and zinc. Silberman (1977) found high TOC and COD values associated with sep-
tage. Other constituents of concern may be nitrogen, chromium, iron, manga-
nese, zinc, cadmium, nickel, copper, and aluminum.
Extensive initial analyses for all sources at the landfill would indicate
the relative importance of these constituents for each source. Later samples
could be analyzed only for those constituents found to be characteristic of
each source. Due to the variability of wastes disposed of at the Gillette
landfill, extensive analyses should be done on a yearly basis to identify any
new potential contaminants.
The frequency of sampling would be partially dictated by the nature of
the samples. Runoff samples must be collected after runoff-producing storms.
Any seepage into the garbage trenches or underground movement of water into
the pond on the landfill property would also be more likely to occur after a
rain where there is infiltration of rain water into the trench and scoria
areas. Samples could be collected after rainfall events until the constitu-
ents have been characterized. According to the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration (1976), the average number of days from March through
October receiving more than 0.1 inch of rain in Gillette is 30. A mean of 7
days per year receive more than 0.5 inch of rain between these months. The
highest rainfall occurs in June. Once constituents have been characterized,
a yearly sample would be taken in June for identification of new potential
contaminants.
Costs would include labor for 1 day based on collection and preparation
of six samples, or about $50; about $16 for chemicals, sample bottles, etc.;
20
-------
about $25 for air freight of six samples to Denver, Colorado; and analytic
costs of about $200 per sample.
2. Samples of leachate generated at the base of the landfill could be
collected by the manifold device shown on Figure 5. This collector consists
of a PVC pipe laid horizontally across the base of the trench, within a shal-
low trench. The pipe contains a number of slots or perforations, to permit
fluid entry. The top of the pipe is covered with washed pea gravel. One end
of the pipe is closed and the other end connects to a closed pipe, which in
turn is connected to a vertical sump and riser pipe. Leachate produced at the
base of the landfill would drain into the sump and be extracted by a pump or
bailer.
As shown on Figure 5, the riser pipe or well is located beyond the
trench. This design minimizes the possibility of damage to the well by blade
operators. The manifold collector would only function properly under fully
saturated conditions. During an unsaturated flow, water will not readily en-
ter an open cavity. Unsaturated flow would also result in exposure of the
leachate to air and consequent changes in leachate composition.
Several of these collectors could be installed in the trenches. The
units would be constructed entirely of plastic or PVC and would be buried at a
depth of about 3 feet. Samples would be collected and analyzed as for the
first approach above. Although sampling frequency would be dictated by the
rate at which the collector fills, a bailer should be sufficient for sample
collection because of the shallow depth of the riser pipe and anticipated in-
frequent sampling.
A controversy exists in the type of material to install when monitoring
for pesticides and other organic pollutants. For example, Dunlap et al.
(1977) oppose the use of PVC pipe, stating:
In some earlier work...PVC casing was utilized for casing of
sampling wells. This material is relatively inexpensive and
easy to use, but it is less desirable as a casing material
than the Teflon tubing-galvanized pipe combination for two
reasons. First, organic constituents of groundwater may be
adsorbed on the PVC casing. Second, there is evidence that
PVC casing may contribute low levels of organic contaminants
to the samples, such as phthalic acid esters used as plasti-
cizers in PVC manufacture and solvent from cements used to
join lengths of PVC tubing.
In contrast to the findings of Dunlap et al. (1977), regarding interac-
tion of PVC pipe with organic constituents, Geraghty and Miller (1977) indi-
cated the following:
PVC pipe was used for all well casing. It is light and easy
to handle, and is more inert toward dissolved organic sub-
stances than steel casing. The iron oxide coating that de-
velops on steel casing has an unpredictable and changeable
adsorption capacity. However, when the adsorption sites on
21
-------
-I-I-SHALEY COAL-!-:-
- ---AND SHALES -----
PEA GRAVEL
MANIFOLD
Figure 5. Monitoring facilities—garbage trenches,
City of Gillette landfill.
PVC are saturated, water remains in equilibrium with it.
Leakage of organic compounds from PVC is negligible. As a
control, samples of pipe and a cemented joint were submitted
to the laboratory where they were soaked in water and the wa-
ter was analyzed. No contaminants were detected.
PVC pipe is recommended throughout this report primarily because it is
cheap, easy to work with, totally acceptable for major and trace metal con-
stituent analysis, and only of questionable use for some of the organic
species.
Construction costs per collector would be about $50 for trench construc-
tion; $85 per hour for drilling a 30-foot hole for the riser pipe; about $80
for 4-inch PVC; and $14 for washed pea gravel. Labor for installation would
cost about $175 for 3 days. Sampling costs would be about $6 for 1 hour's la-
bor; about $10 for air freight to Denver, Colorado; $7 for sample bottles and
acids; and about $200 per analysis. A bailer could be constructed for under
$20.
22
-------
3. Leachate samples could be collected by installing a series of suction
cup lysimeters in the base of the trench. These would be buried and covered
with pea gravel in the same manner as the manifold collector. Sampling lines
would be extended to the surface through a riser pipe. Suction cup samplers
have the advantage of functioning under both saturated and unsaturated condi-
tions. Collection and analysis of samples would be as described for the first
two approaches discussed above.
Costs would include approximately $85 per hour for drilling a 30-foot
well for the riser pipe; $60 for four samplers; $50 for a trench to carry the
sampling lines from the samplers to the riser pipe; and $35 for a vacuum pump.
Sample bottles, etc. would cost about $2.50 per sample; air freight to Denver,
Colorado, would be about $10 per sample; and analysis would be about $200 per
sample. Labor costs would be about $300 for 1 week for installation and about
$5 for 1 hour per sample for collection and preparation.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach for monitoring potential pollutants at the Gil-
lette landfill includes the nonsampling methods of inventorying wastes and
surveying industries in the County. Both of these are relatively inexpensive
and give at least a qualitative idea of the types and amount of waste entering
the landfill. The installation of a scale at the landfill is prohibitively
expensive for the limited information it would provide.
Surface samples collected at all of the suggested locations are recom-
mended. Samples should be analyzed for the constituents and with the fre-
quency recommended under the first sampling alternative discussed above. A
leachate collector would be installed in the newest trench and sampled as fre-
quently as possible. Suction cup samplers are likely to yield good samples;
however, the difficulty and expense of bringing the sampling lines to the sur-
face outweigh the value of the samples.
Total costs per year will be as follows:
1. Inventory (20 days labor) $ 800
2. Survey (10 days labor and materials) $ 400
3. Complete analyses for about seven samples after
seven rainfall events $9,800
4. Labor for seven sampling trips (2 days maximum each) $ 500
5. Air freight for seven sets of samples $ 200
6. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 100
7. Leachate collector $ 250
23
-------
DEFINE GROUNDWATER USAGE (Step 4)
Because they are located at the edge of the Gillette city limits, there
is very little usage of water from wells in the vicinity of the landfill. All
of the water users to the north, east, and immediately to the south, with the
exception of one, obtain water from the municipal system. The exception is
Pioneer Manor Nursing Home just over a quarter of a mile north of the land-
fill, which pumps irrigation water from a shallow well. An abandoned well is
located at the Wagensen and Hayden livestock yard immediately to the east of
the landfill. One shallow well, approximately 0.25 mile northwest of the
landfill, services three trailer homes. About 0.5 mile west of the landfill,
a shallow well serves a lumber yard and a Fort Union well serves three homes
and a business. In September 1978, three shallow wells were drilled within
350 feet west of the landfill to be used for commercial purposes and light in-
dustry. Two abandoned municipal wells in the Fort Union Formation, designated
S-l and S-14, are located immediately north of the landfill.
No monitoring of groundwater usage near the landfill is currently being
done. Because of the rapid development of land surrounding the landfill, in-
formation regarding water usage in the area must be periodically updated.
Monitoring Approaches
1. Owners of land within 1 mile of the landfill could be contacted about
water usage and development plans. They could be interviewed yearly or when-
ever new construction is observed.
The only cost would be labor for one person for about 2 days per year, or
about $80.
2. Listings of water rights permits issued by the Wyoming State Engi-
neer's Office could be obtained yearly for the landfill area. The cost for
the listings is based on computer time but would not run over $100. Labor
costs would be about $200 for 1 week to review the listing.
Recommended Approach-
Both of the suggested approaches are recommended because of the very
small amount of time and capital required.
The total costs would be approximately as follows:
1. Labor for 2 days per year for interviewing $ 80
2. Computer listing $100
3. Labor for 1 week per year for reviewing listing $200
DEFINE HYDROGEOLOGIC SITUATION (Step 5)
Near-surface geology at the landfill is evident from cuts made for con-
struction of the garbage trenches. Pit 1 appears to have been constructed in
24
-------
a scoria area on a layer of shaley coal and shales. Pit 2 was constructed in
scoria, shaley coal, and shales. Pit 3 was excavated within a coal seam over-
lying mixed clays and sands. The fourth pit and the two most recent dead ani-
mal pits are located within mixed clays and sands. In the northwest corner of
the site is a scoria hill.
In September 1978, TEMPO constructed two monitor wells at the Gillette
landfill. At about the same time, three private wells were drilled immedi-
ately west of the landfill (Figure 6).
Subsurface geology at the landfill, as inferred from these wells, is
shown in Figure 7. All five of the wells are completed in a sand aquifer, the
top of which is at an elevation of about 4,460 feet. The aquifer appears to
be continuous with that providing water to the City of Gillette municipal well
field, about 1 mile north of the landfill.
A piezometric surface map for the landfill area is shown in Figure 6.
Water was found to be flowing generally northward with an average velocity of
6 feet per year. A 24-hour aquifer test was performed on well no. 1, using
well no. 2 and the three private wells for observation. Transmissivity and
storage coefficients for the aquifer were calculated to be 3.58 x 10^ gal-
lons per day per foot (gpd/ft) and 2.17 x 10~4, respectively. Geologists'
and geophysical logs, well elevations, pumping test results, and water level
measurements are described in Hulburt (1979).
Prior to drilling the two TEMPO wells, data deficiencies existed in the
following areas:
1. Locations and interactions of aquifers
2. Location of water table
3, Locations of perched water layers
4. Aquifer characteristics
5. Direction and velocity of flow.
Monitoring Approaches
1. City and privately owned wells in the vicinity of the landfill could
be inventoried for background information on geology, yield, water levels,
well construction data, etc. The only cost would be labor for one person for
about 1 week, or $200.
2. All available drillers' logs and/or geophysical logs could be re-
viewed. The cost would be labor for one person for about 1 week, or $400.
3. A magnetic survey could be conducted in the buried dump area to lo-
cate pockets of buried waste. The location of buried metal could be picked
up easily with a simple magnetometer, and the extent of waste disposal, with
its associated ground disturbance, could be inferred from this information.
25
-------
ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION
LINE AND FENCE LINE
1369.00
1369.25\
WELL A\
\
\
• v
WELL 1\
I \1368.75
FENCE LINE
NORTH
Piezometric surface contour
line, dashed where inferred
SCALE: 1" - 50 m
1:1996
CONTOUR INTERVAL: 0.25 m
Figure 6. Metric contour map of piezometric surface through landfill
observation well area, October 13-29, 1978 (excluding pump
test and recovery period).
26
-------
ELEVATION (feet)
QJ
0)
4-
O
O
o
O)
+->
-(->
O)
•r—
CD
>4-
O
>>
+•>
•^-
O
l/l
O)
o
n)
CD
c
c
o
-a
ea
o
O)
1/1
VI
o
s_
o
o
o
01
crs
s-
27
-------
Rental of a magnetometer would cost about $25 per day, and labor costs for
conducting the survey and analyzing the results would be about $60 per day.
4. Monitor wells could be installed as necessary, geophysically logged,
and used for pump testing and/or water level monitoring. Without nearby ex-
isting wells, at least three wells should be constructed for determination of
direction of flow. These wells could be used for sampling in later stages of
the monitoring program. The well that is used for pump testing should be at
least 8 inches in diameter in order to have room for the pump and water level
measurements in the well. Other wells should be at least 6 inches in diameter
for easy installation of a submersible pump. Well elevations should be sur-
veyed for accurate water level measurements.
Costs would include about $7,000 per 300-foot, 8-inch well, or $6,000 per
6-inch well. Geophysical logging of each well would cost about $600, and
rental of a pump and generator for one test would be about $3,000. Labor
would cost approximately $200 for one person for drilling supervision for
about 3 days, $150 for two people for pump testing for about 2 days, and $50
for one person for water level monitoring once a month for a total of 6 hours
per year. If automatic water level recorders are used, the capital cost would
be about $375 per recorder. Portable well sounders would cost about $100
apiece, and a survey of six points would cost about $60.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach for monitoring the hydrogeologic framework at
the Gillette landfill includes all four of the approaches discussed above.
The inventories of background information and geophysical logs are both very
inexpensive and may yield important data. The magnetic survey would also
yield important information for a relatively low cost. A grid pattern with a
10- to 20-foot spacing would be sufficient to delineate the covered dump area.
A minimum of three monitor wells should be installed initially to define
a hydraulic gradient. They should be drilled into the same aquifer that is
tapped by nearby shallow wells, at a depth of about 300 feet. They should be
constructed to ensure production from a specific zone so that surface water
and water from any other zone are excluded. Samples should be taken whenever
there is a major change in lithology. All of the holes should be logged geo-
physically, including spontaneous potential, gamma, and resistivity logs. An
accurate picture of the subsurface geology is essential for the later stages
of the monitoring design and is well worth the expense. The information
obtained from drilling the first three wells will dictate whether or not ad-
ditional wells are necessary for an understanding of the hydrogeologic
framework.
A 24-hour pump test should be done on one of the wells using the other
two for observation of water level response. Resultant data will be analyzed
for values of transmissivity and storage characteristics of the aquifer.
The total cost of monitoring the hydrogeologic framework is as follows:
28
-------
1. Labor for gathering background data (one person for
2 weeks) $ 600
2. Drilling three wells $1,800
3. Geophysical logging of three wells $1,800
4. Pump rental $3,000
5. Labor for one 24-hour pump test (two people for
2 days) $ 300
6. Labor for drilling supervisor (9 days) $ 600
7. Labor for water level monitoring (6 hours per year) $ 50
STUDY EXISTING GROUNDWATER QUALITY (Step 6)
Water quality data are available for the two municipal wells located
north of the landfill. In addition, samples have been collected from the Pio-
neer Manor Nursing Home and Foster Lumber Company wells, north and west of the
landfill, respectively (Table 3). City of Gillette personnel have sampled the
40-foot well drilled by the hazardous waste pond; however, the meaning of any
analysis would be questionable due to the poor well construction. In fact,
the well provides a conduit for contaminants to move into the aquifer and
should be plugged.
Essentially, no data are available on groundwater quality beneath the
landfill itself.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approach--
Any further existing water quality data for wells located on or in the
vicinity of the landfill could be reviewed. The cost would be about $375 for
one person spending 1 week. This step could be accomplished simultaneously
with gathering background information for step 5, hydrogeologic framework, to
minimize costs.
Sampling Approaches--
1. Existing wells in the vicinity of the landfill could be sampled.
Samples would be analyzed for the same constituents as the surface samples
collected during step 3, identify potential pollutants, for comparison pur-
poses. Sampling frequency would depend on anticipated travel times in the
aquifer, determined during the previous step, hydrogeologic framework. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1977) recommends annual sampling for
flow velocities less than 75 feet per year, semiannual sampling for veloci-
ties between 75 and 150 feet per year, and quarterly sampling for velocities
greater than 150 feet per year.
29
-------
TABLE 3. CHEMICAL ANALYSES FOR WELLS NEAR GILLETTE LANDFILL
Constituent3
Sodi urn
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
Sulfate
Chloride
Carbonate
Bicarbonate
TDS
pH
F 1 uor i de
Hardness
Nitrate
Sulfide
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Boron
Cadmium
Selenium
Arsenic
S-l
200
12
23
11
6
12
48
549
582
8.3
1.1
-
-
-
-
- •
-
-
-
-
-
S-14
148
15
58
2
54
20
-
500
543
5.4
1.2
104
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pioneer
Manor
62
4.7
430
210
1860
10
-
175
2840
6.7
1.2
1937
6.89
0.05
0.015
0.085
<0.1
0.4
0.01
0.02
0.01
Foster
Lumber
14
1.9
165
28
516
24
-
81
831
6.4
0.4
526.5
1.42
0.14
0.01
0.14
<0.1
0.1
0.005
0.007
0.01
aValues in ppm unless specified.
?
Limited sampling is recommended for this step because the purpose of the
step is simply to quantify background water quality, not to monitor future
changes in water quality. Labor costs would be about $75 for one person sam-
pling approximately seven wells. Air freight to Denver would cost about $25.
The cost for sample bottles and chemicals would be about $18. Analysis would
cost about $1,400 for seven wells.
2. Monitor wells installed during step 5, hydrogeologic framework, could
be sampled. Samples would be collected with the same frequency and analyzed
for the same constituents as existing wells. The costs would be the same per
30
-------
well as for the first sampling approach above if pumps are installed in these
wells during step 5, hydrogeologic framework.
3. Additional wells could be installed for sampling purposes. It is
especially important to have at least one well upgradient from the landfill.
Sampling and analysis would be the same as for the two previous sampling
approaches.
Costs would include about $5,000 per well for drilling and $150 per well
labor for drilling supervision. Sampling would cost about $30 per well for
pump rental; $10 labor for sampling each well; $2.50 per sample for bottles
and chemicals; about $10 per sample for air freight; and about $200 per sample
for analysis.
Recommended Approach--
The recommended approach for monitoring existing water quality at the
Gillette landfill includes gathering background water quality data and frame-
work. The drilling expense is too great to justify installation of additional
wells unless no existing wells can be found upgradient. Then drilling would
become necessary.
Yearly costs for this step include the following:
1. Labor for sampling existing wells (based on 10 wells,
each sampled once) $ 100
2. Air freight for one set of samples $ 30
3. 10 analyses $2,000
4. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 25
EVALUATE INFILTRATION POTENTIAL (Step 7)
The infiltration potential of the landfill materials determines how much
water moves into the trenches, contributing to leachate formation, and how
much leachate seeps away from the trench areas. It also partially determines
the quantity of pesticide residues and hazardous waste materials that may seep
into shallow groundwater layers.
Infiltration potential has not been assessed quantitatively at the Gil-
lette landfill. Data deficiencies include infiltration rates at the surface
and base of the trenches and dead animal pits, infiltration rates in the vi-
cinity of the scrap metal and hazardous waste disposal areas, and delineation
of the buried dump area.
Monitoring Approaches
1. Infiltration rates could be measured using a double-ring infiltrome-
ter. This could be done on the surface of covered trenches, on the ground
surface near scrap metal and hazardous waste disposal areas, and at the base
31
-------
of newly excavated or partially filled trenches and dead animal pits. Capital
costs would be about $300 for two double-ring infiltrometers. Labor costs
would be about $90 for testing 10 sites at 1 hour each.
2. Shallow drill cuttings obtained during drilling of wells installed
for steps 3 and 4 could be characterized for particle-size distribution. This
analysis would give an idea of the permeability of the sediments. The cost of
analysis would be about $13 per sample.
3. Recharge through the landfill could be assessed using the water bud-
get method (Fenn et al., 1975). Percolation into the covered landfill
trenches is equal to the mean monthly precipitation minus runoff, minus the
change in soil moisture from month to month, minus the amount of water lost to
evaporation during a given month. Mean monthly precipitation values for Gil-
lette are available from the University of Wyoming Agricultural Experiment
Station at Gillette. The "rational method" may be used to obtain a rough es-
timate of runoff from mean monthly precipitation data. The change in soil
moisture and losses due to evapotranspiration can be calculated by the Thorn-
thwaite method (Thornthwaite and Mather, 1957).
The only cost for this alternative would be labor for about 2 days for
computations and analysis, or $120.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach for establishing infiltration potential includes
double-ring infiltrometer work, drill cutting analysis, and water budget cal-
culations. All three of these approaches are inexpensive and yield valuable
information in a short amount of time.
Costs for this step include:
1. Capital costs for two double-ring infiltrometers $300
2. Labor for infiltrometer tests at 10 sites $ 90
3. Particle-size analysis (three samples from each of
three wells) $120
4. Labor for water budget calculations $120
EVALUATE MOBILITY OF POLLUTANTS IN THE VADOSE ZONE (Step 8)
There is a large potential for movement of possible pollutants through
the vadose zone at the Gillette landfill due to the highly fractured nature of
the coal and scoria in the trench areas. Mobility in the vadose zone is not
being monitored at this time. Information gaps include the direction and ve-
locity of both water and pollutants through the vadose zone.
32
-------
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches--
1. Access wells could be installed for use with a neutron moisture
probe. These would help delineate perched water zones and locate water in
fractures. Moisture content data and associated values of soil-water pres-
sure, obtained from installation of tensiometers discussed below, could be
used to estimate unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and flux (Nielsen, Biggar,
and Erh, 1973). A depth of 100 feet would place the bottom of the access well
below the fractured near-surface material and into more uniform geologic
materi al.
Capital costs for 2-inch seamless steel pipe would be about $3.12 per
foot. Drilling would cost about $250 per 100-foot well. The capital cost of
the neutron moisture probe and generator would be about $15,000, and labor
costs would be about $75 per well for drilling supervision for 1 day and $50
per well for logging, based on one-half day per well. Purchase of a neutron
moisture probe is advisable for a State or Federal agency active in monitor-
ing; however, a municipality may find the probe too expensive for only local
use.
2. Soil moisture tensiometers could be installed adjacent to trenches,
dead animal pits, scrap metal areas, and hazardous waste disposal ponds.
These would give information from which the vertical flux beneath the ground
surface could be estimated. Tensiometers are also essential for determining
the proper pressure to use with the suction cup lysimeters.
Capital costs would be approximately $20 per tensiometer and about $0.50
per foot for PVC. Augering costs would be approximately $85 per hour. Labor
costs would be about $25 per tensiometer for setup and readings.
Sampling Approaches--
1. Shallow drill cuttings obtained during drilling of wells installed
for step 5, hydrogeologic framework, or for the second approach above could be
characterized for cation exchange capacity, soluble salts, etc. There would
be no labor costs because samples would be obtained during drilling. Analyti-
cal costs for three samples from each of three wells would be about $450.
2. One or more small-diameter wells could be constructed for the instal-
lation of vertical nests of suction cup lysimeters associated with the tensi-
ometers and access wells discussed above. Apgar and Langmuir (1971) reported
on such systems for monitoring in the vadose zone underlying a landfill in
Pennsylvania. The basic design is illustrated in Figure 8. Figure 9 illus-
trates a Hi/Pressure-Vacuum Soil Water Sampler, generally used for depths
greater than 10 feet. A bore hole is constructed to the desired total depth
and suction cups are positioned at predetermined locations with nylon tubing
extended to the surface. The tip of each cup is embedded in a fine matrix,
such as powdered quartz. The annul us between the body of the lysimeter and
the wall of the hole is backfilled with soil or other material. Each sampling
unit is isolated by upper and lower grout seals. The region of the hole
33
-------
,2-WAY PUMP
PLASTIC TUBE
AND CLAMP
VACUUM PORT
AND GAUGE
DISCHARGE
TUBE
PLASTIC PIPE
24 INCHES LONG /
6-INCH HOLE
WITH TAMPED
SILICA SAND
BACKFILL
SAMPLE
BOTTLE
POROUS CUP
BENTONITE
Figure 8. Cross section of suction cup assembly and backfilling
material (after Parizek and Lane, 1970).
34
-------
£
|
f?
ui i
(/> s
5
o
4->
-------
between sampling units is backfilled with bentonite to minimize side leakage.
The cups would be positioned in the holes to coincide with fractures or other
openings capable of transmitting water.
Analytic requirements would depend heavily on the results of potential
pollutant characterization efforts in step 3. It may be worthwhile to ini-
tially analyze all samples for the extensive range of constituents discussed
in step 3. The composition of wastes disposed of at the landfill is likely to
be changing over time, and pollutants may be present in the vadose zone as a
result of past sources that are no longer evident at the surface. Preliminary
surface samples from the landfill, discussed in step 3, indicate that later
samples collected in the vicinity of the trenches would be analyzed for sul-
fate, chloride, boron, selenium, potassium, iron, and lead at the very mini-
mum. Similarly, samples collected near the hazardous waste pond would be
analyzed at least for potassium, sulfate, chloride, iron, sodium, and TOC.
The frequency of sampling would depend partially on the rate at which
water enters the lysimeter. This is dependent in turn on the rate of infil-
tration of water into the vadose zone. Initially, the lysimeters would be
sampled as frequently as possible.
Costs would be about $250 per 50-foot hole for each set of lysimeters;
$21 capital cost per lysimeter; $0.50 per foot for PVC; and about $30 labor
for installation and sampling. Analytical costs would be about $200 per sam-
ple; bottles and chemicals would be about $2.50 per sample; and air freight
would be about $25 for each set of eight samples.
3. If perching layers are indicated by the neutron moisture logs, shal-
low monitor wells could be installed in these layers. Samples would be ana-
lyzed as discussed in the second approach above. Costs would include: about
$250 per 50-foot hole (8.75-inch diameter), $2.70 per foot for 6-inch PVC, and
about $10 per well for sampling. Analytical costs would be about $200 per
sample; bottles and chemicals would be about $2.50 per sample; and air freight
would be about $10 for each set of three samples.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach for monitoring mobility in the vadose zone is to
construct lysimeter nests associated with tensiometers and access wells. The
tensiometers and neutron logs of the access wells would indicate more perme-
able zones, and lysimeters installed in these zones would allow water quality
sampl ing.
These monitoring nests should be associated closely with potential pollu-
tion sources at the landfill. Locations would depend on the results of pre-
ceding steps, in particular step 3, identify potential pollutants, and step 7,
establish infiltration potential.
Because perched layers are not expected at the Gillette landfill, the
construction of monitoring wells in perched zones is not included in the se-
lected approach. If perched water is indicated by the neutron moisture logs,
the construction of such wells would be recommended at that time.
. 36
-------
Costs for this step include:
1. Drilling for access wells (based on eight 100-foot
holes) $ 2,000
2. 2-inch seamless steel pipe (800 feet) $ 2,500
3. Capital cost for neutron moisture probe and generator $15,000
4. Labor for drilling supervision and logging $ 125
5. Drilling for tensiometers (based on eight clusters) $ 1,350
6. 24 tensiometers $ 480
7. Labor for tensiometer setup and readings $ 200
8. Drill cutting analyses for nine samples $ 450
9. Drilling for lysimeters (based on eight 50-foot
holes, 8.75-inch diameter) $ 2,000
10. 24 lysimeters $ 500
11. Labor for installation and sampling lysimeters $ 250
12. 1,200 feet of 2-inch PVC $ 600
13. Bentonite (plugs for 56 installations) $ 300
14. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 110
15. Air freight (six shipments) $ 150
16. Six sets of complete analyses (eight samples per set) $ 9,600
EVALUATE ATTENUATION OF POLLUTANTS IN
THE SATURATED ZONE (Step 9)
Very little is known in general about the movement of pollutants in
groundwater beneath sanitary landfills. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (1977) states that landfill leachate tends to move with groundwater
flow as a plume undergoing minimal mixing. The plume shape is determined by
the physical characteristics of the aquifer. Leachate plumes, as they travel,
tend to sink to the bottom of the aquifers.
No monitoring of the saturated zone is currently underway at the Gillette
landfill. Data deficiencies include characterization of the hydrogeology,
direction and velocity of flow in the saturated zone, and movement of pollu-
tants through the saturated zone. Information about the local hydrogeology
and direction and velocity of flow will be obtained in step 5, hydrogeologic
framework.
37
-------
Monitoring Approaches
Sampling Approaches—
1. Existing wells and wells installed during previous steps could be
sampled for evidence of contamination. This would be a continuation of the
sampling program established during step 6, existing groundwater quality.
Constituents for which the samples are analyzed would be dependent on the re-
sults of the previous step, mobility in the vadose zone. As a minimum, sam-
ples would be analyzed for the constituents discussed in the previous step
(sulfate, chloride, boron, selenium, lead, potassium, iron, sodium, and TOC).
Sampling frequency would be determined in step 6, based on travel times
in the aquifer. Annual sampling may be reasonable.
Costs would include labor for sampling 10 wells, or about $90; $25 for
sample bottles and chemicals; $25 for air freight; and $700 for 10 sample
analyses.
2. Additional wells could be installed for sampling in the saturated
zone. Drilling and installation costs would be similar to those outlined in
step 5, or about $6,000 per well. Other costs would be the same as for the
first approach above.
Recommended Approach--
The recommended monitoring approach depends heavily on the results of
previous steps. If sampling of existing wells during step 6, existing ground-
water quality, indicates contamination, then those wells would continue to be
sampled. The direction and velocity of flow determined in step 5, hydrogeo-
logic framework, may indicate existing wells downgradient that should be
watched closely.
The major emphasis would be on discovering contamination close to the
source. Even so, source-specific monitoring wells would only be installed in
the saturated zone if pollutants are found to be moving through the vadose
zone or if hydogeologic studies indicate a direct connection between the
source and the saturated zone.
Based on sampling existing wells yearly for the constituents listed under
the first approach, costs for this step would include:
1. Labor for sampling 10 wells $ 90
2. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 25
3. Air freight $ 25
4. 10 sample analyses $700
38
-------
SECTION 3
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MONITORING DESIGN
The State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has adopted the
report, Recommended Standards for Sewage Works by the Great Lakes-Upper Mis-
sissippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers (1973), as the standard of
minimum design criteria for wastewater facilities.
IDENTIFY POLLUTION SOURCES, CAUSES, AND
METHODS OF WASTE DISPOSAL (Step 2)
The Gillette wastewater treatment plant is located about 5 miles south-
east of the City in the SW 1/4, Section 32, T50N, R71W (50-71-32c). As shown
on Figure 2 (see page 4), the plant is in alluvium immediately upstream of the
confluence of Stonepile Creek and Donkey Creek. Preliminary surveys suggest
that a shallow alluvial aquifer underlies the plant facilities.
Principal facilities at the plant, shown on Figure 10, include aerator,
clarifier and aerobic sludge digester tanks, sludge disposal areas, and an ox-
idation pond. Note that a primary settling tank is not included, and plant
effluent is not chlorinated.
Flow paths of sewage and activated sludge are shown by the arrows on the
figure. Treated wastewater introduced to the oxidation pond discharges to
Stonepile Creek. Wastewater is also diverted as needed from two locations,
shown on the figure, into a 5-mile pipeline to the Wyodak power plant. In the
past, sludge from the aerobic digesters was discharged into a pit, shown on
the figure. Because the pit is full, sludge is now spread on the land immedi-
ately north of the plant buildings.
The initial inventory of potential sources of pollution at the plant (Ev-
erett, 1979) indicated that monitoring facilities should be installed within
or in the vicinity of sewage and sludge treatment tanks, new and old sludge
disposal areas, the oxidation pond, and Stonepile Creek.
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS (Step 3)
Daily monitoring at the wastewater treatment plant began in September
1977. Data are recorded in such a way that a month's records can be displayed
on one page (Figure 11). Total, average maximum, and minimum values are com-
puted and copies of the sheet are sent to DEQ and EPA.
39
-------
TO 5
TO 10
SECONDARY AERATORS
WYODAK DIVERSION
WYODAK PUMP HOUSE
DONKEY CREEK
LI.NE MAIN LINE
AEROBIC DIGESTOR
SLUDGE
POND
(ABANDONED)
OXIDATION POND
TO GOLF COURSE
• 9
LOCATION OF
SHALLOW
MONITOR WELLS
TO STONE
PILE CREEK
TO WYODAK
Figure 10. City of Gillette wastewater treatment plant.
40
-------
h-
i
;
s
•»
u
J
3~
L.
3
>•
^
FECAL
COLIFORM
V)
m
_ 3
«! *
i g
a 3
5 Pi
t 1
0 O
0.1
Kujja
3
» >
* "
« .^
si
^
en J
»3
£ 8
S a
1 5
< _
s
II
f/i
a
SJ
,'i
2 8
A
(A
a
™ 3
X
V)
; «2
£ 9
2 oi
- tf)U
£ 2
OO
a. I
-UI^O.
5
«
H o
s
8
11
11
QC-UO.
Is
"2
Q<>
< ^- UJ
1
-
1
04
n
*
tfi
<
,*--*
-c
c
c
+-
c
t.
'v^^
I
*=
c
•^~
0
(/)
i
^^^^H
I
<
=
—
mat
Ul
=
^
-4
<
O
O
O
O
(O
(O
O.
O)
OJ
(O
S-
3
CD
41
-------
!
1
in
s
1
1
•
; «
c £
J ™
O
5
h
a
i-
5
u.
Z
X
g
-
is!
tf)0
Z
00
0. X
"5°-
5°l
J
lp|
#g
V) C
^
oo
CLX
iSO-
FECAL
COLIFORM
V)
CD
o-*
i
00
ax
"»*
T3
0)
C
o
o
a;
s-
01
42
-------
It can be seen that air temperature, raw inflow, and return to activated
sludge are recorded daily. The plant does not have a rain gage. Data for the
influent, aerators, and final clarifiers are taken on weekdays. Figure 11
shows that raw influent samples are analyzed for temperature, dissolved oxygen
(DO), pH, suspended solids, and BOD. Final effluent samples are examined for
temperature, DO, pH, total suspended solids, BOD, and fecal coliform. Samples
from the aeration tanks are examined for mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS),
sludge volume index (SVI), and age. Samples collected from the aerobic di-
gestors are characterized for temperature, pH, DO, total volatile suspended
solids (TVSS), and supernatant suspended solids; while samples of polishing
pond effluent are tested for temperature, pH, DO, total soluble salts, BOD,
and fecal coliform. All of the tests are performed at the wastewater treat-
ment plant.
Table 4 summarizes data collected by personnel at the wastewater treat-
ment plant for January through June 1978. It can be seen that average pH re-
mains fairly constant throughout the plant and from month to month. Dissolved
TABLE 4. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DATA SUMMARY
Influent
1978
January
Minimum
Maximum
Average
February
Minimum
Maximum
Average
March
Minimum
Maximum
Average
April
Minimum
Maximum
Average
pHa D0b
7.2
8
7.5
6.9
8.5
7.5
6.9
8.5
7.2
6.3
8.3
7.5
2
4
3
0
4
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
.1
.3
.3
.3
.6
.5
.4
.8
.2
.6
.1
BODb
84
6060
1727
168
474
296
192
378
300
108
465
241
Final effluent
pH
7.1
7.6
7.3
6
7.5
7.3
6.5
7.4
7.0
6.4
8
7.3
DO
2.6
8.7
6.8
0.5
7
3.1
0.3
8
2.8
0.3
15
2.4
BOD
5
312
110
36
150
74
18
48
31.4
14
96
34.8
Oxidation
PH
7.4
7.5
7.4
6.5
7.8
7.0
6.5
7.3
6.9
6.1
8.1
7.4
DO
9.3
11.2
10.6
5.2
11.1
7.6
1.2
8.4
5.8
1.2
9
4.9
pond effluent
BOD
_
_
-
36
144
90
45
533
291
22
50
34
Fecal
coliform
_
-
-
59
229
144
_
-
-
12
42
27
May
Minimum
Maximum
Average
June
Minimum
Maximum
Average
7.1 0.1 168
8,4 4.3 210
7.7 1.2 181
7.1 0.1 156
8.1 1.9 234
7.7 0.8 198
7.1 0.4 20
8.2 4.7 57
7.£ 1.7 33
7.4 0.3
8.0 4
7.7 1.0
17
69
28
7.0 1.1 18 too
8.0 8.1 38 numerous
7.6 5.1 25.7 to count
5 2.2 0 120,000
8.6 16.5 49 960,000
7.8 7.0 32.7 620,000
aValues in pH units.
^Values in mg/1.
43
-------
oxygen values show more variation between months, but within any given month
dissolved oxygen values increase as the waste moves through the plant. Varia-
tions in both pH and DO appear to be greater on a daily basis than between
months. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and fecal coliform are both highly
variable.
The consulting firm of Bell, Galyardt, and Wells is currently conducting
an evaluation of the sewer system in Gillette, and an expansion of the waste-
water treatment plant is being designed by EPA. Data from both of these stud-
ies are available.
In September 1977, sludge samples were analyzed by Wright-Mclaughlin En-
gineers and found to contain high levels of cadmium, chromium, and lead (Ta-
ble 5).
TABLE 5. ANALYSES OF SLUDGE AND DIGESTOR SAMPLES FROM THE
GILLETTE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, SEPTEMBER 1977
(Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, 1977)
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Chromium
Lead
Cadmium
Cyanide
Ash
Nickel
Copper
Zinc
Combined
digestors
0.20 %
0.14 %
0.03 %
1.0 ppm
1.2 ppm
0.32 ppm
<0.1 ppm
-
Dried
sludge
1.
1.
0.
16
35
5.
26.
4 %
6 %
34 %
ppm
ppm
8 ppm
-
2 %
Digestor
1.8 ppm
25 ppm
57 ppm
In June 1978, samples were collected from the aerators, clarifiers, and
digestors, and from the oxidation pond. Two shallow wells near the plant were
also sampled, as well as Stonepile Creek and Donkey Creek upstream and down-
stream of the plant. An example analysis is given in Table 6. Further analy-
ses are provided in Hulburt (1979).
Samples from the east aerator and clarifier were both found to be high in
sulfate, chloride, calcium, magnesium, potassium, lead, sodium, nitrate, bo-
ron, selenium, and arsenic with respect to local background water quality.
The aerator sample was also found to be high in iron and cadmium, and the
clarifier sample was also high in mercury. Sodium, sulfate, selenium, and
44
-------
00
1— 1
oo
^_
*^^
_l
^
^y
=£
1 1
o
o:
o
Q.
UJ
Q£!
4
>^
QJ QJ OJ
_^ QJ C
c: s- •*-
00 r-
o
oo
i_
o
+-> *->
(/I t/T
OJ OJ
3 cn
"O
s_
(U
H-> M-
W 1-
UJ *O
o
s_
o
+-> H->
10 i.
LU O)
ro
cn
c
J= T3
•r- O
r- O-
O
a.
cn 4_»
c: c
•r- T3 OJ
in O i —
•r- 0.
(O
C
E
i_
OJ
4->
OJ
a
r-H CO
rH rH O
r^ CO uo O O ^O
VT> CO r-H LT>
*3- ro ro
ir> in
oo O O
CT> CO *3* O O CTt
CTI CO rH V V O
rH ID
ir> ir>
0 0
in r— 1 r--. CO CO tT)
cn CM r-v v v o
CT» ro ^n «t
CT> CO
LT> O^ i— 1
r-H rO CM O O P-.
CO LO I-H O
CM i — 1 CO
CM in
CO «3- O
ro i"--. vo o o r--
ro to CM v i^
CO rH «tf"
O LO
+J 4J E
•r- CU V T3 -r- 3
u c: re i_ j_ ••-
r— CJ1 +J -4-> 4-> "O
re re o T- T- o
o s: o_ z z (/i
CM rH
O CM IT)
ocooOrHOr-cno
r^ in co r— <3-
«3- OO rH CM CT\
CM «3- ro
ro rv.
r^ ro ^*^
OOOOOOrHr-^roo
CM o O ro vo
r-v vo vo ^o CM
ro CM
CM
VD 00
or^ooinovoroo
CM O «=f
ocooooor-^coo
CT^ tn ijO ^O \£>
in O ro
ro ^o CM
OtnoOOOco«=ro
f^, LO ^f CM O*i
in rH CM CM ro
rH rO CM
-^
(/I
^-^ o
i ro -c
•— - O II «=J- rIL
u ro X O - — -~*
O •— • c/o t_>
o >» o
•*-^ QJ t/> -M O
+j re -r- co
CU re * > rH
4J C -»->
C JO 4-> -r- O «3
O S_ *O S- C ^ --^
ja re M- o c o ~a
J_Oi — r— O S- COO
re-r- rj-c s_ oz Od
CJCgQOO(_J»— ICQ CLOH-
CM
CO
rH
«=±
CO
CM
t-H
^a-
^d-
*j-
t.n
CM
cn
»— <
0
00
, — 1
«d-
p^
,,— ^.
CM
xO
OO
re
u
•r—
OO
O
S
o
rH
P-*
CM
O
IT)
P--.
rH
P-*.
S
0
ro
CO
rH
00
CO
O
o
, — 1
s
o
c
0
XI
1_
re
u
u
c
re
C7>
t.
0
re u
4_> C
O -r-
t— r^j
O
, — i
o
0
CO
8
o
•a-
13-
1 — 1
o
ir>
8
O
V
LT)
rH
0
o
P*v.
8
o
ir>
8
o
E
13
E
-0
ro
<_>
rH
o
O
8
o
V
r-4
O
O
8
o
V
t — 1
o
o
8
o
V
OO
o
o
8
o
, — 1
o
0
8
o
V
rH
o
o
8
0
rH
o
8
o
>,
S-
^
o
i_
rH
O
O
U
•r—
(/)
l_
=c
-a
QJ
00 3
rH C
O 40
C
o
o
01
o
o
OO
ID
i — 1
ID
O
O
ID
ro
o
r^
0
o
r^
0
o
QJ ro
cn 3:
o z
i.
4-> eft
•r- ro
C "~^
O ro
C C
-a ro o
ro cn E
oj s_ E
—1 0 eC
45
-------
•o
O)
rs
c
'£
c
o
o
UJ
CO
1—
HI
01
3 (O
s-
ro
1
cu
Ol
XI
l/l Q.
"O
i —
O
i — I
>i=tfc
QJ
XX XX
C QJ
O OJ
Q S-
OJ
CU v
C i-
C/O CJ
QJ
Q.
QJ xx
C OJ
O CU
CO O
^IT
Ol
E
C
o
fO
C
OJ
CU
Q
1
1
CM
Ol
1 — 1
CO
CVJ
00
00
1 — 1
Ol
CO
in
r-*
in
U
-t->
(O O -r-
SIQ-Z:
( 1
1 1
ID
O
q •*
V in
xd
O CO
in
0
O in
V CM
in
S
9 8
O
CM
8
o o
v r^
y
a
cu
r 3
-(-> -O
*i- O
2= 00
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
O CO 0 <-
*3- O
r-H LO
cn o o o
CM O LO (O
IT) <— 1 CM
i — 1
f— 1 CM Q CM
CO O CM
CM-
O CO LO O
i^) r^ co
CO 00 CT»
o *
0 ^ 0 0
«*• O ^3"
CM r^ ^a-
CM
I ro
O "~*
-— x C_> It «d-
II CO 3C O
o — co
o
•»_ f CU (/)
O) ro — -
-•-> C CU
C -O -M -r-
O S- *O S-
*O -r- 3 .C
O CO CO (_J
CM
1 1 UD 1 1 1
r>*
1 1 kO t 1 I
I-H in
CM i— I CO CM
^D i — 1
r-H 00
i— t
0 LT>
CM r*-. ^- oo
co CD co en. CD ^"
CM -Rj-
ro CM
CM ^~ CTt
Ch O
CO (^
«d- oo
r-H CM I"*- CO
O O <£> CO O O
00 CO ^D
in CM
o^ o
« — 1
CD, T-H CM
r** ro oo co
o o f*-. en o o
LO f-H
un o
LO LO
u
to
o
3-
O "—
>» O CM
4^ CD O
•^ co ••-
> i-H CO
O *O fO
C 3 -—^ O
co -o •*-
OS- C CO •—
t. 0 3C 0 0 '•-
t-H CQ Q. O 1— CO
46
i
i
i
i
1
o
o
r^
o
t— i
i
o
s-
u
u
C
Ol
o
o
l~
01 en
01 Ol
3- 3.
oo
CO • — 1
1 — 1
Ol Ol
Ol Ol
a 3.
01
0
CM O
1 — 1
1-H CO
S 8
o o
S 8
0 0
CM O
8 S
o o
r^ CM
8 S
0 0
*± CM
f-l 0
0 0
3
•i- re
r~i °
O> Ol
Cn en
3. 3.
800
Ul
CO CD
Ol Ol
~~x, \
01 en
3 3.
co r**
xO xD
OO O
CM
0
O *±
o o
0 0
OO
O
o m
8 S
o o
o r^
8 o
0 0
! 1
o co
8 §
0 0
V
f-H
O CO
8 S
«9 °
E
S- T-
3 C
CD QJ
s: oo
Ol Ol
Ol Ol
a 3
CO
O «!• 1
CM
Ol Ol
en en
3. 3.
O
f— 1 CM 1
OO
8 S
O O 1
xO
8 CO
O Ol
o o oo
oo
C5 r- i
o o i
XC
8 CM
OO
0 0 1
O i — 1
O O 1
C
QJ
Ol
O
s-
4->
C
U L)
C C
S- Q) S-
< _l O
XI
QJ
C
C
o
IJ
1 —
1
'
IV.
CTt
1
1
'
CO
JC
(O
rO
C
O
C
<
-------
•Q
QJ
C
1J3
c
o
o
^0
LLJ
CQ
h-
p_
^~
E CM
•6 =tt
c
3
,^
^~
£ *— <
TJ =*fc
C
3
C
O)
13 t — 1
14-
LU
cn
c
•r- d)
l/l H3
LL_
fO
>>=»=
~^l ^
C 0)
O QJ
0 S-
CVJ
O)
C Ol
o 0)
Q S-
(_5
p
^^
cn
_E_
c:
o
+j
IO
c
^.
<1J
-l-»
0)
0
CT* LO
CO LD UT) CM CT^ O
CM^"LT)O IO VO« — l^" f^ WDCZ)
• • * • 1 • • * • • | • •
oocoo inoo^£>inir)Or-.cOLnc\j OO
r--«tf- ^ co *^-cov v coo1) v
ro CM o ^D
t-H
in
coooooo <£> r- 1 ^D CMCOO
in r*T u> O ' ^-oooOLnop-O«-HCM ' coo
rH Vr-O^Ht-HVCOCO V
1 — 1
*d- o
ro ^H
ill •• i i i i i i i t i i i i i i
0 0
in un
COCMOO^t C\JCMi-H CTi OO
coocooocnocoo'^joocor^ro'— H oo
r-H t-H «3- i-H OO
r- i
O .-H
^O CD CO t.0 CO i — 1
cMto«-HOOi-iocr>ocnoocor^OLo ' oo
CM t— t CM ro I-H «d- o>
t-H CM «— 1
<«o r*^
in m o I-H CM o
r*-* C3 C3 c^ CM CM i — i ro CD c^
OLnooocMOr-xocooococooo oo
01 ^ >— ' vr-. i— iO CTiroV
t— ( i-H CM CT> I"-- ^~
<-H r-H
V) O
—^. O J3
i ro -C s.
0 — E «
x-* O II ^ 3- U
*— ^ -^- ti ro :E o - — -^*
C_> >» 0 CM -r-
t/i tn — o O C
§E *— - — ' r-HOOCT>
3 -*-> C 4-) -M 4-> "O i_Oi — i — Oi» C OO i — -»->C~D
ro (13 O •!— •!— o *O *r* 3 c~ j_ Q -j- Q Q .p. Q .,_ fo
O S Q- ZT ^ OO OcQoOOi — iCQ O. O ^ OO 1 — M O
i — i
0
o c\j cn
ass
000
i-H
O
O CTi CM
o o o
o o o
V
1 1 f
1 — 1
o
O CM \O
8 S 8
O O 0
r— (
O
O LT> un
O O 0
S
O to cn
8 S 8
0 O 0
c
3 C C
QJ 0} i-
s t*o -H CM
in
o
o
El * — •
0) m
D) Z
2 =
-M l/l
-.- fO
c c
QJ !»- E
1 O ^
47
-------
lead concentrations exceed U.S. Public Health drinking water standards in both
the aerator and clarifier, as does the cadmium concentration in the aerator.
A sample collected from the west digester was found to be high in sul-
fate, chloride, iron, zinc, cadmium, arsenic, boron, calcium, magnesium,, po-
tassium, sodium, bicarbonate, and lead relative to the local background water
quality. Sodium, sulfate, chloride, cadmium, and lead concentrations in the
digestor all exceed U.S. Public Health drinking water standards. Solid sludge
samples taken from just below the surface of the new and old drying areas were
analyzed for trace constituents. Both were found to be quite high in zinc,
cadmium, mercury, and lead. These constituents present the greatest hazard to
the shallow groundwater system from sludge areas.
Samples of the oxidation pond and pond effluents exceed U.S. Public
Health drinking water standards for sulfate, sodium, selenium, and lead. Sam-
ples taken downstream of the plant from Stonepile Creek and Donkey Creek were
all found to be high in sulfate, chloride, sodium, mercury, selenium, and lead
with respect to drinking water standards. Upstream samples show, however,
that both creeks have high concentrations of sulfate, selenium, and lead be-
fore they flow past the plant. Stonepile Creek is also high in chloride,
sodium, and cadmium upstream from the plant. In fact, concentrations of sul-
fate, chloride, selenium, and lead actually decrease slightly upon mixing with
plant effluent. Nitrate and nitrite increase downstream of the plant, but
only to about 0.5 ppm. The boron concentration also increases slightly. Con-
centration increases in Donkey Creek are probably due to the inflow of Stone-
pile Creek rather than direct contamination from the plant.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches—
1. Sources in the City contributing pollutants to the sewage system
could be inventoried. The purpose of such an inventory would be to locate
sources of hazardous wastes, oils, etc. which contribute slug loads of pollu-
tants or which upset plant operation. The inventory would involve contacting
industrial and commercial sources in Gillette. A questionnaire similar to the
one for solid waste (Figure 4, page 18) would be prepared with relevant ques-
tions such as: SIC category of source, quantity and nature of specific wastes
discharged to the sewer system, etc.
Costs would include salary for one person for about 10 days, or $500, to
distribute the surveys and compile and evaluate data, plus printing and mail-
ing costs of $60 for 200 surveys. Costs would be minimized if the same sur-
vey is used to identify potential pollutants at the sanitary landfill.
2. Data could be obtained from the sewage system evaluation and plant
expansion studies currently being conducted. Costs would be about $250 for 1
week's labor to compile and review data. Possible reproduction costs might be
about $10.
3. The extent to which the oxidation pond operates effectively could be
estimated by examining the surface for the presence of floating bacterial
48
-------
colonies and for wave action. Generally, if wave action is minimal, the im-
plication is that the pond is anaerobic. Maximum costs would be $6 for 1
hour's labor per day. This simple check could be conducted at no additional
cost whenever sampling is being done at the wastewater treatment plant.
Sampling Methods—
1. To supplement the ongoing wastewater sampling program at the plant,
additional samples could be obtained via suitable automatic sampling devices.
Both raw influent and treated wastewater could be sampled. Selection of a
sampler can be based on results of sampler comparison studies by Harris and
Keefer (1974). From an evaluation of 14 commercial samplers, Harris and
Keefer (1974) concluded:
a. Overall failure rate of commercially available samples is
approximately 16 percent
b. The major cause of sampler malfunction is due to plugging
of intake lines
c. Operational reliability of commercially available samplers
varies significantly and application is a major factor in
selecting appropriate equipment
d. Variations in nonfilterable solids concentrations of raw
waste samples as a result of differences in sampling equip-
ment or collection method are at least 9 to 24 percent
e. Currently available sampling equipment cannot be relied
upon to produce representative samples
f. High vacuum samplers produce more representative samples
and should be used on raw municipal wastewaters and other
wastes with significant levels of large heavy suspended
material
g. Any sampler compatible with site conditions and data re-
quirements can be used to sample well-treated effluents
with no visible solids
h. Flow-proportional sampling of raw municipal wastewater with
currently available sampling equipment is neither necessary
nor justified
i. Adequate discrete grab sampling programs for routine sur-
veys and monitoring of municipal wastewaters require an
inordinate amount of laboratory resources and should be re-
placed with automatic compositing equipment
j. Current sampling equipment and methodologies need to be re-
fined to improve data reproducibility and accuracy
49
-------
k. Apparent wastewater chemistry characteristics and facility
removal efficiencies can easily be manipulated by choice of
sampling equipment and methodology
1. There is need for development of a synthetic suspended sol-
ids waste to evaluate samples performed under controlled
laboratory conditions.
For the Gillette plant, item f may be of particular importance in se-
lecting a sampler. Thatris, the high suspended solids loading of Gillette
wastewater, both in incoming raw sewage and in "treated" wastewater, could
necessitate using a high vacuum sampler. A unit such as that manufactured by
the North Hants Engineering Co., Ltd. (England) may be suitable (Hammer,
1977).
Samples would be analyzed for pH, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and
BOD as a check on analyses done at the wastewater treatment plant. Initial
samples would also be analyzed for the major constituents: calcium, magne-
sium, sodium, potassium, carbonate, bicarbonate, sulfate, ammonia, nitrate,
nitrite, total nitrogen, chloride, IDS at 180°C, pH, and conductivity; and
the minor constituents: silica, iron, lead, zinc, nickel, copper, cadmium,
mercury, selenium, arsenic, and fluoride. Such an extensive analysis ini-
tially would allow characterization of the wastes within the treatment system.
After the composition of the wastes has been characterized, subsequent samples
would be analyzed only for those constituents found to be in excess of the
natural background water quality. Periodically, samples would be analyzed
more extensively to detect possible changes in the concentration of other
constituents.
Samples would initially be composited over 24 hours on a daily basis in
order to identify any day-to-day fluctuations. Later sampling would be done
on a monthly or possibly a quarterly basis simply as a check on whether or not
waste composition is essentially the same. Samples would also be collected
after shock loads.
Capital costs would be about $600 for an automatic sampler. Labor costs
would be about $20 per sample, assuming 1 hour collection and sample prepara-
tion time, and 3 hours per trip to the airport. Air freight would cost about
$10 per sample. Analytical costs would be about $140 per sample.
2. Grab samples could be collected for analysis of inorganic constitu-
ents at the following points: raw influent, aerators and clarifiers, aerobic
digesters, sludge disposal areas, oxidation pond, and Stonepile Creek. Liq-
uid samples would be analyzed for the same constituents and with the same fre-
quency as in the previous approach.
Because of the tendency of sludge to concentrate metals, sludge samples
from the disposal areas would be analyzed for the trace contaminants: iron,
lead, zinc, nickel, copper, cadmium, mercury, selenium, and arsenic. The fre-
quency of sludge sampling would have to be determined by trial and error.
Quarterly sampling may be sufficient unless the plant operation has been af-
fected by shock loading.
50
-------
No capital costs would be required for this approach, and labor would
cost about $3 per sample, assuming 0.5-hour collection and preparation time.
Air freight would cost about $20 per sample set. Analytical costs would be
about $140 per liquid sample and $100 per sludge sample.
3. Samples could be split with treatment plant personnel for a check on
their analytic accuracy. Samples would be analyzed for BOD, pH, dissolved
oxygen, and fecal coliform. Costs would include 1 day's labor per check, or
about $60, and $20 for chemicals.
A small number of BOD and fecal coliform determinations can be made
using the equipment at the wastewater treatment plant.
4. Samples could be collected at the following points for fecal coliform
counts: aerators and clarifiers, aerobic digesters, oxidation pond, and
Stonepile Creek. Costs would include about $11 per sample for labor, assuming
about 2 hours per sample for collection and analysis, and $2.50 per sample for
bottles and chemicals. Equipment at the wastewater treatment plant could be
used on a limited basis.
Recommended Approach--
The recommended approach for monitoring pollutants at the Gillette waste-
water treatment plant includes all of the nonsampling approaches discussed
above. All of these approaches are inexpensive and would yield valuable back-
ground information. The collection of composite samples, as discussed above,
is also recommended, as well as grab samples from the two sludge areas.
Total costs per year would be as follows:
1. Survey (10 days labor and materials) $ 600
2. Review existing data (1 week's labor and reproduction
costs) $ 260
3. Labor for composite sampling at four locations on a
daily basis for 2 weeks each $ 500
4. Labor for composite sampling at four locations monthly
for 11 months $ 600
5. Labor for sampling two sludge areas quarterly $ 6
6. Labor for four coliform counts monthly $ 66
7. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 300
8. Air freight for 25 sets of samples $ 600
9. Extensive analysis for four sets of liquid samples $3,400
51
-------
10. Analysis for eight sludge samples $ 800
11. Composite sampler $ 600
DEFINE GROUNDWATER USAGE (Step 4)
Only two wells are located within 1 mile of the wastewater treatment
plant. Both are stock wells and are pumped intermittently throughout the sum-
mer by windmills. Usage is minimal. Local groundwater is not used at the
plant itself; rather, water supplies are brought in by truck.
No monitoring of groundwater usage in the vicinity of the wastewater
treatment plant is currently being done. Due to land development east of the
plant, information regarding water usage in the area must be periodically
updated.
Monitoring Approaches
1. Owners of land within 1 mile of the plant could be contacted about
water usage and development plans. They could be interviewed yearly or when-
ever new construction is observed. The only cost would be labor for one per-
son for about 2 hours a year, or $15.
2. Listings of water rights permits issued by the Wyoming State Engi-
neer's Office could be obtained yearly for the plant area. The cost for the
listings is based on computer time, but would probably run under $100.
Selected Approach--
Both of the suggested approaches are recommended because of the small
amount of time and capital required.
The total costs would be approximately as follows:
1. Labor for 2 hours per year $ 15
2. Computer listing $100
DEFINE HYDROGEOLOGIC SITUATION (Step 5)
A small amount of information is available on the hydrogeologic framework
in the vicinity of the wastewater treatment plant. Immediately east of the
plant office are two abandoned wells, one at a depth of 358 feet and the other
of unknown depth. A geophysical log is available for the 358-foot well, about
30 feet east of the plant office. It shows a coal seam from 95 to 125 feet
below the surface, mixed sands and clays to a depth of 200 feet, and silts and
sands below 200 feet. The well is perforated from 246 to 258 feet below the
surface. In August 1978, the water level was found to be 39 feet below the
surface. The water level in the second well, about 60 feet east of the plant
office, was found to be 80 feet below the surface. Nothing is known about the
second well, but it is likely perforated in a separate aquifer from the first.
52
-------
During the summer of 1978, 10 shallow holes were augered in the vicinity
of the wastewater treatment plant (Figure 10). Depths and static water level
measurements are shown on Table 7. These data indicate a shallow water table
within 10 feet of the ground surface. A well drilled to 75 feet (well no. 11)
showed sandy clay to a depth of about 40 feet below the ground, then gray sand
to 75 feet.
TABLE 7. SHALLOW WELL DATA (AUGUST 1978)
Hole
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Depth
(feet)
12
8
11
8
12
12 to 15
12 to 15
12 to 15
12 to 15
25
Depth
to water
(feet)
9.5
5.8
5.6
8.1
dry at 12
7.2
6.2
3.9
6.1
5.6
No additional monitoring of the local hydrogeology is currently being
done. Data deficiencies include: definition and interactions of aquifers,
direction and velocity of flow, and aquifer characteristics, such as transmis-
sivity and storage.
Monitoring Approaches
1. Water levels could be monitored in the two abandoned wells near the
plant and in the two stock wells, as well as in the 11 new holes. Data from
the two abandoned wells would be questionable since their construction is not
known. Monthly measurements would be frequent enough to indicate seasonal or
long-term trends. Weekly or daily measurements would be taken during the
spring runoff when the shallow water table would be apt to rise quickly.
Costs would include the capital cost of a well sounder, about $100, and
labor for 4 hours to measure all of the wells.
2. An automatic recorder could be used to measure water levels continu-
ously in one or more wells. Costs would be $375 for each recorder.
3. Aquifer tests could be conducted using the two abandoned wells at the
plant to estimate transmissivity and storage.
labor.
Costs would include rental of a pump, about $3,000, and $150 for 2 days
53
-------
4. Additional shallow wells could be augered in the vicinity of the
plant. These wells could then be used for water level measurements and deter-
mination of direction of flow. Cutting samples collected during augering
would further characterize the near-surface geology. Costs would include
about $15 for 4-inch PVC casing per well, $45 per hour for augering, and $10
for bentonite seal around the well. Labor costs would be about $20 for 2
hours per well.
5. Additional deep wells could be drilled to characterize the hydraulic
properties of the deeper aquifers and formations. These wells would be neces-
sary for determination of direction and velocity of flow and aquifer storage.
At least two wells would be necessary for characterization of flow direction.
Drilling costs would be about $8,000 for a 300-foot well. Eight-inch PVC pipe
would cost about $2,000, and bentonite would be about $16 per well. Labor
would cost about $1,000 for 2 weeks drilling supervision and 4 days aquifer
testing. Pump rental could cost about $3,000 for 4 days.
Selected Approach--
The recommended approach includes monthly static water level measurements
in all wells within 1 mile of the wastewater treatment plant, with weekly mea-
surements taken in shallow wells during spring runoff. The cost of an auto-
matic recorder does not justify its use for these measurements.
An aquifer test should be done on one of the abandoned wells near the
plant to obtain an estimate of transmissivity and storage in the deeper aqui-
fer. Nearby shallow wells should be monitored during the test for water level
changes indicating hydraulic interconnection.
Additional deep wells should not be drilled initially because of the ex-
pense. If contamination of the shallow aquifer is found, then deep drilling
may become necessary to determine the degree of interconnection between the
shallow and deep systems.
Total costs for monitoring the hydrogeologic framework at the Gillette
wastewater treatment plant are as follows:
1. Labor for measuring water levels (16 hours per month
during runoff season, 4 hours per month otherwise) $ 500
2. Pump rental for one aquifer test $3,000
3. Labor for aquifer test (48 hours) $ 150
STUDY EXISTING GROUNDWATER QUALITY (Step 6)
The two stock wells near the wastewater treatment plant were sampled in
July 1978. Analyses are shown on Table 8. Well no. 1 is located about 0.5
mile west of the plant, and well no. 2 is located about 1.5 miles east of the
plant. Both wells yield sodium bicarbonate water. Well no. 2 is also high in
sulfate. Both wells are low in nitrate, chloride, and boron, indicating no
contamination from the wastewater treatment plant. Both wells, however, are
54
-------
high in iron and zinc, indicating probable contamination from an industrial
source upgradient. Concentrations of iron, zinc, selenium, and arsenic are
equal to or greater than maximum concentrations of these constituents within
the treatment system.
TABLE 8. ANALYSES OF STOCK WELLS NEAR GILLETTE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, JULY 1978
Constituent3
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Nitrate (as N)
Sodium
Carbonate (as CO.T)
Bicarbonate (as HCO^)
Sulfate (as SO^)
Chloride
Iron
Boron
Silica (as SiO^)
TDS (at 180°C)
pH (units)
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
Zinc
Cadmium
Mercury
Selenium
Arsenic
Lead
Well #1
15.8
7.80
6.88
<0.05
274
0
700
<10
10
5.64
<0.1
2.2
681
7.66
1130
3.86
<0.005
<0. 00001
0.009
0.012
<0.05
Well #2
70.2
40.4
8.53
<0.05
85.6
0
340
286
<5
5.65
<0.1
2.7
695
7.42
1088
0.699
<0.005
<0. 00001
0.012
0.009
<0.05
aValues in ppm unless specified.
Groundwater quality is not being monitored in the vicinity of the waste-
water treatment plant. Additional samples and an increased number of'sampling
points are necessary for characterization of existing groundwater quality.
55
-------
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approach--
Any further water quality data for the two stock wells or for any new
wells constructed in the area could be reviewed. The cost would be about $130
for one person spending about 2 days. This step could be accomplished simul-
taneously with gathering background information for step 5, hydrogeologic
framework, to minimize costs.
Sampling Approaches--
1. Existing wells in the vicinity of the wastewater treatment plant
could be sampled.
Samples could be analyzed for the major constituents: calcium, magne-
sium, sodium, potassium, carbonate, bicarbonate, sulfate, nitrate, nitrite,
and chloride; the minor constituents: boron, silica, iron, lead, zinc, cop-
per, nickel, arsenic, selenium, fluoride, cadmium, and mercury; and pH, TDS
at 180°C, and conductivity, as discussed previously (Section 2, step 3).
Samples could be tested in the field for pH, conductivity, and dissolved
oxygen.
Since flow velocities probably would not be calculated for the deeper
aquifer, sampling frequency would be on a trial-and-error basis for these
wells. Sampling in these wells might be on a monthly basis initially, then
drop to quarterly or yearly after several months.
Labor costs would be about $25 for one person sampling three wells. A
submersible pump and generator for the abandoned well at the plant would cost
about $1,200, while a bailer would cost only about $20. Air freight to Den-
ver, Colorado, would cost about $10 per sample set. Sample bottles and chemi-
cals would cost about $9 per sampling trip, and analysis would cost about $200
per sample.
2. Monitoring wells installed during step 5, hydrogeologic framework,
could be sampled. The sampling frequency would be based on flow velocities
calculated during step 5. Analysis would be the same as in the first approach
above.
Costs per well would be the same as for the previous approach.
3. Additional wells could be installed for sampling purposes. Costs
would include about $8,000 per well for drilling, and $1,000 per well for
drilling supervision. Sampling costs would be the same as for the previous
approaches.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach for monitoring existing groundwater quality at
the Gillette wastewater treatment plant includes gathering background water
quality data and sampling both existing wells and those installed during
56
-------
step 5. Wells less than about 15-feet deep should be sampled by bailing.
These wells are shallow enough that it should be possible to develop them
quickly and thoroughly by bailing before the sample is taken. The deeper
wells should be pumped rather than bailed to ensure complete development prior
to sampling. Although a submersible pump is quite a bit more costly than a
bailer, a portable pump could also be used for monitoring other sources, thus
minimizing costs.
Costs for this step include the following:
1. Labor for sampling (based on 10 shallow wells sampled
twice and four deeper wells sampled six times) $ 250
2. Purchase of portable pump and generator $1,200
3. Bailer $ 20
4. Chemicals and sample bottles $ 100
5. Air freight (six sets of samples) $ 130
6. Analysis $8,800
EVALUATE INFILTRATION POTENTIAL (Step 7)
Discussions with wastewater management officials for the City indicate
that the aeration, clarifier, and digestion tanks may leak directly into the
shallow groundwater system at the plant site. No data are available, however,
on the magnitude of seepage. Infiltration from the oxidation pond may be min-
imal because of the penetration of benthic materials into the pores of the
underlying soils, an effect observed in established ponds (Deming, 1963). In-
filtration into the Donkey Creek stream bed should also decrease with time be-
cause of clogging of the channel deposits with organics and fines. However,
periodic discharge events may scour the channel and temporarily increase in-
take rates. The infiltration potential of the sludge disposal areas may also
be restricted by the movement of organics and fine sediments into the pores
underlying vadose zone material.
The infiltration potential has not been assessed at the Gillette waste-
water treatment plant.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches—
1. Flow could be measured into and out of the plant. The City has plans
to install flow recorders at the plant inlet and outlet. Otherwise, a water
stage recorder could be installed on the Parshall flume on the inlet line.
The V-notch weir in the line leading to Donkey Creek could be repaired and
instrumented with a water stage recorder. The cost of a water stage recorder
would be about $375. Repair of the V-notch weir would cost about $500.
57
-------
Labor costs would be about $15 per month for maintenance and upkeep of the
recorders.
2. Seepage losses in the aeration, clarifier, and sludge digestion tanks
could be estimated. If the system is closed down for some reason, losses from
the tanks could be estimated by measuring changes in water levels. Labor
costs would be about $5 for 1 hour per day to measure water levels in the
tanks.
3. Records, if available, could be obtained on the quantity of sludge
spread on the disposal area. If not already available, data could easily be
collected with the cooperation of plant personnel. Labor costs would only be
about 1 hour per week to pick up the information, or $5.
4. Infiltration rates could be measured in the sludge disposal area
using a double-ring infiltrometer. Capital costs would be about $300 for two
infnitrometers. Labor costs would be about $5 per site for 1 hour.
5. Data could be obtained from Bell, Galyardt, and Wells on groundwater
infiltration in the incoming municipal sewer lines. The only cost would be
about $20 for about 4 hours labor.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach for establishing infiltration potential at the
Gillette wastewater treatment plant includes all of the approaches outlined
above. Data collected by plant personnel would be relied upon for determina-
tion of flows into and out of the plant. It is not likely that the system
would be shut down completely for long, but if it is, seepage losses would be
estimated. Infiltration rates would be measured using a double-ring infil-
trometer at four points in the sludge disposal area.
Costs for this step include:
1. Labor costs for obtaining flow and sludge disposal data
from plant personnel $ 5
2. Labor for estimation of seepage losses from tanks $ 5
3. Two double-ring infiltrometers $300
4. Labor for infiltrometer studies $ 5
5. Labor for data collection and review for sewer line
infiltration $ 20
EVALUATE MOBILITY OF POLLUTANTS IN THE VADOSE ZONE (Step 8)
The depth, properties, and extent of alluvium on which the wastewater
treatment plant is located are poorly understood at this time. The 10 shallow
holes augered in the vicinity of the plant indicate that a water table under-
lies the site at a depth of less than 10 feet. The implication is that the
58
-------
vadose zone is relatively thin and the opportunity for attenuating pollutants
in the region may be minimal. The vadose zone is not currently being moni-
tored. Information gaps include the direction and velocity of both water and
pollutants through the vadose zone.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches--
1. Access wells could be installed in the vicinity of the tanks, oxida-
tion pond, sludge disposal areas, and Stonepile Creek for neutron logging.
Installation involves placing a 2-inch seamless steel pipe in a tight-fitting
hole. Because of the shallow water table, access wells would be less than 20-
feet deep. Logging with a neutron probe would indicate areas of saturation or
higher water content than adjacent regions.
Costs would include about $85 per hole for drilling; $65 per hole for
pipe, bentonite, etc.; $25 per hole labor for drilling supervision; and
$15,000 for the neutron logger and generator.
2. Soil moisture tensiometers could be installed in the vicinity of the
tanks, oxidation pond, sludge disposal areas, and Stonepile Creek. Tensiome-
ter units could be positioned in incremental depths below the surface for the
proper operation of suction cup samplers discussed below. Tensiometer data
could be used in conjunction with moisture content data, obtained through neu-
tron logging of access wells, to estimate unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
and flux (Nielsen, Biggar, and Erh, 1973).
Costs would include about $25 per tensiometer for 10-foot pipe; $85 per
hour for drilling; about $25 for labor for installation; and $5 for labor for
taking readings.
Sampling Approaches—
1. Vertical nests of suction cup lysimeters could be associated with the
isiometers discussed above. The installation and operation of lysimeters
2 reviewed in Section 2, step 8, which deals with monitoring the mobility of
llutants in the vadose zone at the sanitary landfill.
Samples could be analyzed for the same constituents as in step 6, ex-
isting groundwater quality. Sampling frequency would be determined on a
trial-and-error basis, depending on the yield of the lysimeters. A monthly
frequency may be suitable initially.
Drilling costs would be about $85 per hour, plus $8 per hour labor for
supervision. Fifteen-foot lysimeters would be about $30 apiece, and bentonite
would be about $2.25 per hole. Sampling costs would include about $30 for la-
bor per sampling trip; $10 for sample bottles and chemicals; $10 for air
freight; and about $200 per sample for analysis.
2. Shallow drill cuttings obtained during drilling of wells installed
for step 5, hydrogeologic framework, or for the approaches discussed above
59
-------
could be characterized for cation exchange capacity, soluble salts, microorga-
nisms, etc. There would be no labor costs because samples would be obtained
during drilling. Analytical costs would be about $50 per sample.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach is to install seven access wells and four sets
of tensiometers and lysimeters, as shown in Figure 12. Since the vadose zone
is expected to be thin in the vicinity of the tanks and polishing pond, moni-
toring emphasis would be placed on sludge disposal areas. If neutron logging
data indicate a need for further monitoring near the tanks or polishing pond,
tensiometers and lysimeters would be installed at that time.
Costs for this step would include:
1. Drilling for seven access wells $ 1,000
2. Neutron logger $15,000
3. Labor for logging seven wells $ 140
4. Drilling for tensiometers $ 200
5. Four tensiometers and pipe $ 100
6. Labor for tensiometer installation and readings $ 120
7. Drilling for lysimeters $ 200
8. Four lysimeters and pipe $ 120
9. Labor for lysimeter installations and sampling $ 120
10. Labor for drilling supervision $ 80
11. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 60
12. Air freight (six sample sets) $ 60
13. Analysis $ 4,800
14. Drill cutting analysis (seven samples) $ 350
EVALUATE ATTENUATION OF POLLUTANTS IN
THE SATURATED ZONE (Step 9)
There is currently no monitoring of pollutant mobility in the saturated
zone. Data deficiencies include characterization of direction and velocity of
flow and movement of pollutants through the saturated zone. Information about
the hydrogeologic framework will be obtained in step 5.
60
-------
NORTH
AERATORS DIGESTORS
I
.SLUDGE
EVAPORATION
BEDS
D
A
0
CLARIFIERS
ABANDONED
SLUDGE
PIT
D
A
0
POLISHING
POND
O OBSERVATION WELL
D TENSIOMETER ARRAY
A SUCTION CUP LYSIMETER ARRAY
0 ACCESS HOLE FOR NEUTRON LOGGING
O
O
Figure 12. Placement of sampling equipment at the wastewater
treatment plant.
61
-------
Monitoring Approaches
Sampling Approaches—
1. Existing wells and wells installed during previous steps could be
sampled. This would be a continuation of the sampling program established in
step 6, existing groundwater quality. Constituents for which the samples are
analyzed would be dependent on the results of the previous step, mobility in
the vadose zone. Initial studies, discussed in step 6, indicate that at least
sulfate, chloride, iron, zinc, mercury, lead, nickel, copper, cadmium, arse-
nic, boron, selenium, and microorganisms would be monitored in the saturated
zone. Sampling frequency would be determined in step 6 based on travel times
in the aquifer.
Costs would include $60 for 1 day's labor to sample 14 wells; $35 for
sample bottles and chemicals; $35 for air freight; and $80 per sample analysis
for the constituents listed above.
2. Additional wells could be installed for sampling in the saturated
zone. The number and location of wells would depend on the results of previ-
ous steps.
For each additional deep well, costs would include about $500 for drill-
ing; $270 for 100 feet of 6-inch PVC; $5 for bentonite; and $400 for drilling
supervision.
For each additional shallow well, costs would be about $45 for augering;
$20 for 15 feet of 4-inch PVC; $4.50 for bentonite; and $25 for drilling
supervision.
Sampling costs would be the same as for the previous alternative.
Recommended Approach--
The recommended approach at this time would be to sample only existing
wells. Additional wells would be installed only as indicated to be necessary
by previous steps.
For quarterly sampling of existing wells for the constituents outlined in
the first approach, costs would include:
1. 4 days labor $ 240
2. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 130
3. Air freight $ 140
4. Analysis (56 samples) $4,480
62
-------
SECTION 4
WATER TREATMENT PLANT MONITORING DESIGN
IDENTIFY POLLUTION SOURCES, CAUSES, AND
METHODS OF WASTE DISPOSAL (Step 2)
The City of Gillette water treatment plant is located in the SE 1/4 of
Section 21, T50N, R72W (50-72-21DB). Currently, the water supply for the City
is derived from 32 wells, primarily from a well field immediately to the north
(Figure 2, see page 4). The facilities associated with the plant include a
raw water storage tank, pretreatment plant, an electrodialysis (ED) plant, a
wet well, and two clear wells (Figure 13). As of 1977, the ED plant was not
in operation because of salt build-up on the plates. When the plant was func-
tioning, it was estimated that brine waste equals 25 percent of the total feed
coming into the plant (Nelson et al., 1976). This amounts to 0.3 mgd. The
treatment facilities site plan (Figure 13) shows that a 6-inch PVC line is
used to discharge brine from the ED plant into Stonepile Creek. Similarly, a
24-inch concrete pipe is used for drainage from the pretreatment plant. Dis-
cussions with the City officials in the past led to the understanding that ED
brine was discharged primarily into an abandoned oil well near the plant.
However, the extent of this practice and even the location of the disposal
well are uncertain at this time.
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS (Step 3)
Major wastes discharged from the water treatment plant are water soften-
ing sludge and filter backwash water. In the past, brine was also discharged
from the electrodialysis plant. According to the American Water Works Associ-
ation (1978), lime-softening sludges are mainly composed of calcium carbonate.
Other components include magnesium hydroxide, silt, and minor amounts of unre-
acted lime. Softening sludge volume generally ranges from 0.3 to 5 percent of
the volume of raw water treatment (American Water Works Association, 1978).
Data deficiencies include quality and quantity determinations of ED
brine, softening sludge, backwash water, and water in Burlington Ditch.
Monitoring Approaches
Sampling Approaches--
Grab samples could be obtained of backwash water, water in Burlington
Ditch, and softening sludge.
63
-------
c
(O
"a.
4->
c
a>
OJ
a>
S-
0)
4->
(O
O)
O)
5
o
•t—
o
s_
13
a>
64
-------
Samples could be analyzed for constituents noted for elevated levels in
the groundwater being treated. These include: calcium, magnesium, potassium,
sodium, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, chloride, iron, zinc, cadmium, arse-
nic, selenium, lead, IDS at 180°C, electrical conductivity, and pH. These
are the constituents that would be likely to concentrate in backwash water or
softening sludge.
Monthly samples could be taken initially for reproducibility and for an
idea of short-term variations. Once these have been characterized, yearly
sampling should be sufficient unless major changes are made in the water
treatment process.
Costs would include $12 for about 2 hours labor for three samples; $9 for
sample bottles and chemicals; $20 for air freight; and $105 per sample for
analysis.
Recommended Approach--
The recommended approach is to collect grab samples of backwash water,
water from Burlington Ditch, and softening sludge initially on a monthly ba-
sis. Later samples would be collected yearly. Assuming six monthly samples,
costs for this step include:
1. Labor for sampling (12 hours) $ 100
2. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 70
3. Air freight (six sets of samples) $ 150
4. Six sets of analyses $3,600
DEFINE GROUNDWATER USAGE (Step 4)
Because the water treatment plant is located at the southern edge of the
Gillette municipal well field, extensive use is made of groundwater in the
area for municipal purposes. Wells near the plant are shown in Figure 14.
Twenty-one wells are perforated in the Wasatch Formation, ranging in depth
from 180 to 200 feet. Seven wells, from 1,100 to 1,800 feet in depth, are
perforated in the Fort Union Formation, and one well is perforated in the Fox
Hills Formation at a depth of 4,200 feet.
Data are available concerning well depths, perforation zones, specifica-
tions, etc. Records are kept by City personnel of the times at which wells
have been turned on or off. Flow into the water treatment plant is measured.
Because new wells are being added to the municipal system and existing
wells are put in and out of production, information on the municipal water
supply system should be periodically updated.
65
-------
WATER
TREATMEN
PLANT
H-20 H-21 WH-25
City of
GILLETTE
(LANDFILL
I '
LEGEND
• Water Supply Wells
Hard
Soft
Fox Hills
Foster Lumber Co.
Pioneer Manor
Pool
Cemetery
FLW Fishing Lake Wei I
v / i xw i
Figure 14. Location of water supply wells.
66
-------
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches—
Interviews could be held with water treatment plant personnel and City
records could be reviewed periodically. Quarterly reviews would probably be
sufficient, except during the summer, when increased activity would require
monthly updates. The only cost would be labor for one person for about 3
hours per review, or $25.
Recommended Approach--
The recommended approach for updating well field information is that de-
scribed above. The total cost would be about $175 for 20 hours labor.
DEFINE HYDROGEOLOGIC SITUATION (Step 5)
Lithologic and geophysical logs are available for the wells and several
test holes in the vicinity of the water treatment plant. These data indicate
a channel sand at an elevation of about 4,500 feet, which is tapped by the
shallow municipal wells. The thickness of the sand bed varies with location,
but ranges from zero to 150-feet thick. The sand is underlain by 10 to 40
feet of interbedded shale and coal. The Wasatch, Fort Union, and Fox Hills
Formations are found below the land surface to 350 feet, 2,300 feet, and 2,800
feet, respectively. A complete description of these formations and their
water-bearing capability is found in Hulburt (1979).
Historic water level data and water level measurements taken during 1977
and 1978 indicate that water levels have dropped from 17 to 26 feet during the
past 8 years. Flow into the area appears to be primarily from the south and
southwest, and water leaves the area toward the north or northeast.
In November 1978, four shallow wells, ranging from 18 to 25 feet in
depth, and one well 75-feet deep were completed at the water treatment plant.
Locations are shown in Figure 15. Drill cuttings from all holes indicate lay-
ers of fine sand and silty sand, with little clay. On November 21, 1978, all
wells were found to be dry except no. 5, with a static water level of 53 feet
below the ground surface.
Monitoring deficiencies include a complete and up-to-date analysis of
available information, and seasonal water level variations and direction and
velocity of flow in the shallow alluvium.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches—
1. Records of existing information on the Wasatch wells could be updated
periodically. Yearly interviews with City of Gillette personnel should be
sufficient for obtaining data on new wells or aquifer tests. Labor costs
would be about $300.
67
-------
OIL
DEVELOPMENT
OPERATIONS
BURLINGTON DITCH
OIL TANKS
a
Q
FLOCCULENT MOUND
Figure 15. Locations of observation wells at water treatment plant.
68
-------
2. Water levels could be measured in the shallow wells during the spring
runoff. The frequency of measurement would depend on the rate of change of
water level in the wells. Daily monitoring may be required when Burlington
Ditch is flowing. Costs would include $105 for a well sounder and $12 for 2
hours labor per day.
Selected Approach--
The selected approach includes both nonsampling methods discussed above.
Costs for this step include:
1. Labor for collecting existing data $300
2. Labor for water level measurements $ 12
3. Well sounder $100
STUDY EXISTING GROUNDWATER QUALITY (Step 6)
In October 1977, water samples were analyzed from 16 wells in the Wasatch
Aquifer, six wells in the Fort Union Aquifer, and one well in the Fox Hills
Aquifer. Analyses are shown in Tables 9, 10, and 11. The Wasatch wells pro-
duce calcium magnesium sulfate water ranging in pH from 6.25 to 7.45. TDS
values, from 831 to 9,310 ppm, classify it as brackish water (Davis and
DeWiest, 1966). Hardness ranges from 526 to 5,951 ppm as CaC03, averaging
2,011 ppm. Potassium concentrations are also quite high, and concentrations
of cadmium and selenium were found to exceed U.S. Public Health drinking water
standards in some samples.
All of the Fort Union wells were found to produce sodium bicarbonate wa-
ter. Fort Union water is slightly alkaline, with a pH range of 8.0 to 8.1,
and low TDS values of 291 to 545 ppm classify it as good quality drinking wa-
ter (Nelson et al., 1976). The water is soft, ranging from 16 to 76 ppm hard-
ness as CaC03. Fluoride concentrations were found to exceed the mandatory
drinking water standard of 2.2 ppm, and selenium concentrations were found to
be high in some wells.
The Fox Hills well also yields sodium bicarbonate water. It is slightly
alkaline, with a pH of 8.3, and the TDS value of 856 ppm indicates that the
water is fresh, but not of the best quality (Nelson et al., 1976). The water
is very soft, with a hardness of 14 ppm as CaC03. Concentrations of fluo-
ride and chloride were found to be quite high.
The major data deficiency is the characterization of local groundwater
quality in the Burlington Ditch alluvium located in the Wasatch Formation.
Although the alluvium in Burlington Ditch is not extensive, it does provide a
channel for the potential migration of pollutants.
69
-------
(S)
LU
(J~>
>-
_J
et
Z
i
«•
i
in
CO
i
31
fO
c
CU
^_)
l/l
c
o
LO
LO
O
CSJ
E
.^
u
fO
CJ
0
o
CM
o
CM
CM
in
CO
CM
o
CM
CM
tn
l-H
0
tn
i — i
o
CO
1 — 1
o
CO
l-H
tn
01
c
cn
10
¥.
i^
to
tn
f—t
i — i
^j.
(^
co
i —
CO
in
CM
tn
to
^
•o
o
to
CXI
CO
CO
to
«*•
to
0
fs^
in
i^J
^
in
i — i
i —
CM
§
00
to
1O
'o
D_
0
O
O
O
O
o
o
CD
CU
•*-»
CO
c
o
1O
CJ
0
co
to
CO
o
CO
*S"
o
Cn
o
1 — 1
^j.
to
l-H
CO
in
cn
CO
"•T
CO
CO
CO
cu
rO
c
0
£_
(O
u
CO
LO
8
CD
V
in
o
CD
V
in
0
CD
V
tn
0
0
V
in
o
in
o
o
V
8
CD
£
CD
V
cu
(O
£
;z
O
in
CO
*•
i — i
O
Ol
i — i
o
^-
co
i-H
O
00
to
l-H
o
CO
r^
i — i
0
CO
CM
^
0
in
tn
i — i
0
S
l-H
CU
ra
;t
to
CO
o
CD
V
CO
o
CD
V
CM
CD
CO
o
o
V
in
0
0
to
o
8
o
CO
o
0
V
T3
H-
t/}
CO
CM
CO
to
CO
CO
00
^j.
CO
tn
CO
un
cu
•o
£
o
o
in
0
o
1 — 1
00
0
in
0
i.
cu
s:
CM
CO
O
O
CM
CO
O
O
CO
O
O
Ol
CO
0
o
CO
r*-
0
o
CO
o
o
to
8
o
tn
8
0
1
c
cu
"cu
to
0
o
V
l-H
0
o
V
i-H
o
o
V
I-H
0
o
I-H
o
o
V
r-H
0
0
V
CO
o
o
CM
o
0
(J
£=
cu
to
i-
01
. — 1
I—1
CXI
to
1 — 1
to
CM
o
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
O
CO
o
to
o
o
1 — 1
f,
CO
o
o
CM
CO
CO
o
ro
o
CO
o
CO
o
cn
CO
CO
o
to
CM"
o
ss
1 — 1
J3"
o
l-H
ra
to
a
I—
0
tn
CM
*
CO
o
tn
ro
CO
o
in
ro
ro
o
o
*3"
CO
0
o
CM
CO
O
in
in
CM
o
cn
CM
0
CM
CM
til
•a-
CO
CO
*
st
to
1 — 1
00
CXI
to
to
CO
CO
to
CO
tn
CO
O
CO
CO
[^
to
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
CM
g
CM
CJ
LU
-o
"oj
U_
0
^
CO
f^
CM
^
cn
to
0
P^
l-H
j^
CM
,^
«J.
r-
^—^
(/)
c
""
:r
O.
r^
to
CM
rs%
tn
o
P^
to
to
CO
to
CO
to
o
(^
•a-
P^
=£.
"O
'cu
u.
0
1 — 1
t—t
LO
ro
« — i
LO
C\J
i-H
LO
t— 1
r-*
O
ro
i— i
O
ro
t-H
O
C\J
• — 1
LO
CVJ
i-H
O
O
-------
T3
rs
c
+J
E
0
O
CPl
LU
1
CQ
"~
s-
O)
.0
i . r-H LD
rH «*
CM
O i— I 00 O O
r--. 10 «— »
i-H CO
CD
-4-»
§E Q) «
5 4-» C
•r- T- (0 0
(/» E (/) C J3
OJ 3 l/> O S-
CD T3 4-» S- U
fd O O n3 >r-
S C/l Q_ C_) CO
i — i
O UD O
^J- i-H <- O i— 1 i— t r-H O O
—H^OO^J-OOOOCDOO
r-H CM V V
IT)
t-H
LD LD ^" O
LD CD ^" ID >-H C^
O r-H rOOOi-Hr-HOO
V O i— * V V
f— (
«r
r-H
O O CD O
LD ID ro CD C3 c^
O ro roOOr-tCMOO
OOOiDOOOOOOO
v o v v
CO
1-1
, — 1
O LD CD O
LD ^- CM co Q Q
O O I"*- O O r— t i — i O O
v ro v v
*±
1 — 1
r-H
LD CD O
LD ro «a- o Q O
O O ^1" O O i — I «— I O O
V 00 V V V
n
CM
r-H
CO 0
LD ro ro o O Q
O O i-HOCMf-HrHOO
V CD V V v
CO
1 — 1
r-H
0 CO O
Sro i£) ^- O CD
^D CM ^J <^> i — t CM ^^ ^J
OOOCDOOOOOOO
V CM V V V
CO
i-H
OJ OJ E
+J +J TJ •!-•!- C 3 S-
•4-> r— r— r- 3 OC 3S-T3S-
•r- 3^JZ»— S_.i-i — OTJQJ
ZCOtyOOtJ-'— "r-JeCCClOS
P-.
O t-H
OOr-Hi-HOCM^D^^ 1 VO
i-H CO P*1* P"^ rH CM
CO O r-H Lfl
«-H i-H
CM
0 i-H
o o ro i — i o CM LD
r-* r-i LD CD i— 1 LD
CO CM LD CD
o^ co o~* m
O CM LD
O O LD *d" O CM O
oocooor*-p^.p^--HCDcsj
CM CM O f-H i-H O
O CM l£3 CO
co ro ro «-H
ro
•-H CM
V CM »3- CM r-H i— 1 r-H
ro ID o "5J-
CM CM rO r-H
CM
ro i — i
O o ro ro LD ^f o
V i — 1 i-H ID ID i — 1 CD
CM «5f CM i-H
»i * ft r-
ro co ro CM
LD
^J- r-H
O O CM O O O O
V CM CD LD CO r-H CO
O CM ro O
CO CO ^3- CM
So co ^a- LD ID LD
OOCOOOCDp^r^CMOCM
Vr-Hp-.lDi-H r-HrHCM
co o «=r co
CM CO rO r-H
o"
o
*-^
OJ ro
3 0
c? m o^o"
0 S- OJ
§
*-~* Q- 'O (O
i— t vi E ' —
§C_) +•* ~r~ QJ C^ (/) ^2
(_> ^-9 LlJ *r— CL 4-* ^2 t/) O
•r- -r- fO fO C <1) r—
C C U ••— -* "D 3 "O "O "O C *^
QJ OJ T— i — i — i — r— "D i — oo Qj ajoj
-------
oo
LU
oo
1
^^
<
o
i — i
ZD
| —
O
O
r-H
LU '
1
CQ
*~
01
en
01
>
"*
+->
l/l
O
o
CO CM
cn «a-
i — i
i^ .
i-l CO
1 1
LO CO
CO t— 1
T-H to
r^ CM
to co
CO r-T
CM O
r~ co
CM
CM to
T-H
,-H
r~ co
T-H
CO LO
CO CO
E ••-
§ t/J
•r- O)
^£ ^,
rt3 (O
cj y
00
CO
""
o
CM
CM
1
00
CO
o
CM
CM
m
Ln
r-H
o
CM
1 — 1
in
in
in
Ln
E
•o
oo
i — i
I*-*- VO CO ^- CO VO
in cn oo i— i r^QOocM
<- coor-.ocoiooo«— i,— :ooooun
ooOi-HOinoocMOOOoooooi— toooo
O V CM r-H V V .-(COCO
^ ro «£>
in in in
CM OO CO O «— < UO
oo r--. CM vo »— i o coo oo inin
*3- uoLnr--.Oi— icooo ooooOi-Hincn
O r-H O
1 O l • l l l l l l • i t O l l l l f
o o
VO LnVr-HOOVOCOmUOVr-.POOi-Hi-H*-Hr— 1«— 1
• cn vo • Q o -ovo0*— 'cn«— t
CM CM • .-HOO OO O • CMin
o • v • o
v o o o o v
v v
Ln co o *a-
tn O i-HCO QQr-H'-H
O O I-H LOOOf— Ir-HOOOO
ooor-.o CO
3 4J c 4J "o •(— -I- c 3 s- ••— -i— TO (O
-M S- U-M^r^r— § OcM2"O S-l— Wr^OO
Q_c_Jcoz:ooooou_t— tr-g
13
Q.
r-H
CO
in
CO
1
in
CO
1 — 1
CO
Ln
CO
r^
cn
r^.
in
CO
in
CO
i — i
CO
31
OL
-o
CU
U_
CM
CM
CM
O
CO*
CM
1
0
cn
i— i
O
CO
CM
UO
CM
CM
O
i — |
CM
O
cn
1—1
Ln
cn
i — i
O
oo
CM
^3"
o
cu
^
TO
0)
Q.
E
cu
T3
CU
U_
CM
LO
0
CO
0*
o
00
CM
0
m
o
0
uo
0
0
CO
0
in
0
0
Q
-a
cu
u_
<3-
0
o
vo
1
0
vo
t — 1
o
CO
CM
O
vo
1 — 1
o
CM
OO
Ln
in
in
0
VO
o
in
CO
CO
o
'TO - —
<_) -o
cu
TO TO
(/. 3
l/l O
QJ r—
i- ^
:c
.
cu
M_
<_>
CU
Q.
t.O
in
l/l
CU
C
13
E
a.
a.
c
tn
13
'TO
TO
72
-------
TABLE 11. . FOX HILLS ANALYSIS
Constituent* FH-3
Calcium 3.0
Magnesium 1.6
Sodium 370
Potassium 2.2
Carbonate 0
Bicarbonate 849
Nitrate <0.05
Sulfate 33
Sulfide 0.52
Chloride 28
Fluoride 8.4
Iron 0.020
Zinc 0.010
Aluminum <0.1
Boron 0.4
Cadmium <0.005
Mercury <0.0001
Selenium 0.004
Arsenic 0.02
Silica 20
IDS (at 180°C) 856
EC 1,430
Field EC (at 36°C) 1,900
pH (units) 8.3
Field pH 8.5
Field temperature (°C) 36.0
Field DO 3.5
Hardness as CaC03 14.0
(calculated)
aValues in ppm unless specified.
73
-------
Monitoring Approaches
Sampling Approaches—
1. Wells installed near Burlington Ditch could be sampled. The wells
are shallow enough that bailing should be sufficient for development and sam-
pling. The wells could be sampled two or three times for reproducibility of
the data. Samples could be analyzed for the complete list of constituents
given in Tables 9 through 11. This would allow complete characterization of
shallow water quality. Costs would include $30 for labor for 4 hours sam-
pling; $13 for sample bottles and chemicals; $10 for air freight; and $150 per
sample for analysis.
2. Additional shallow wells could be constructed for sampling near the
plant. Costs would be about $45 per well for augering; $20 for 15 feet of
4-inch PVC; $4.50 for bentonite; and $25 for drilling supervision.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach for characterizing shallow groundwater quality
near the water treatment plant is to sample wells installed near Burlington
Ditch. Additional wells should be constructed only if samples are not obtain-
able from existing wells.
Costs for this step include:
1. Labor for sampling (based on three sampling trips) $ 90
2. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 35
3. Air freight $ 30
4. Analysis (15 samples) $2,250
EVALUATE INFILTRATION POTENTIAL (Step 7)
Burlington Ditch is a losing stream, being dry most of the year except
for about a 10-foot reach where wastes from the water treatment plant enter
the ditch. Permeabilities, calculated from tests done on three shallow wells
near the ditch, were found to range from 5.9 x 10~6 in/sec to 4.7 x 10~5
in/sec (Table 12). Infiltration potential in the vicinity of the plant has
not been assessed. Data deficiencies include the location and specifications
of a brine disposal well, the quantity of wastewater flows into Burlington
Ditch, and seepage losses in Burlington Ditch.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches—
1. The location of the well used for disposal of brine from the ED plant
could not be determined. Because no written records are available regarding
74
-------
such a well, information would have to be obtained through interviews with
City of Gillette personnel. The cost would be $250 for 1 week's labor.
TABLE 12. FIELD PERMEABILITY DATA FOR THE GILLETTE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT AREA
Borehole
2
2
3
3
4
4
Depth
(feet)
5
10
5
10
5
10
Permeabil ity
(in/sec)
5.9 x lO'6
4.7 x ID'5
1.2 x ID'5
3.9 x KT5
4.3 x lO'5
1.4 x lO'5
2. Seepage losses in Burlington Ditch could be estimated during periods
of runoff by measuring flows at several points along the stream. Costs would
include $2,000 for a flow meter and $60 for 1 day's labor.
3. Water levels in shallow wells near Burlington Ditch, installed as
part of step 5, hydrogeologic framework, could be compared to the stream stage
during periods of flow. Costs would include $100 for a well sounder, $40 for
a hand level, and $30 for 4 hour's labor.
Recommended Approach—-
The recommended approach for assessing infiltration potential in the vi-
cinity of the Gillette water treatment plant includes all of the nonsampling
approaches discussed above. It is recommended that no more than 1 day be
spent locating the brine disposal well. At this time, the indications are
that it does not exist.
Costs for this step include:
1. Labor for gathering information on brine disposal well $ 250
2. Labor for flow measurement in Burlington Ditch $ 60
3. Flow meter $2,000
4. Labor for stream stage measurements $ 30
5. Well sounder $ 100
6. Transit $ 400
75
-------
EVALUATE MOBILITY OF POLLUTANTS IN THE VADOSE ZONE (Step 8)
There is currently no monitoring of mobility in the vadose zone near the
water treatment plant. Tentatively, it appears that only a few meters of the
vadose zone may be affected by the infiltration of wastewater. Consequently,
monitoring would probably be concentrated in this region. If the ED plant is
reactivated, however, about 300 gpm would be released to the creek and a
greater extent of the vadose zone would be affected.
Data deficiencies include lateral and vertical movement of pollutants
through the vadose zone.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches--
1. Access wells could be installed along Burlington Ditch and logged
with a neutron moisture logger. Installation costs would be about $200 for
drilling a 75-foot hole; $230 for 2-inch seamless steel pipe; $2 for benton-
ite; and $40 labor for drilling supervision. Other costs include about
$15,000 for a neutron logger and $20 labor for operating the logger.
2. Tensiometers could be installed along Burlington Ditch near the ac-
cess wells. Resultant data on the relationships between soil-water pressure
and water content changes could be used to estimate the flux of wastewater.
Individual units within each set of tensiometers could terminate at various
depths.
Capital costs would be approximately $20 per tensiometer and about $0.50
per foot for PVC. Drilling costs would be about $85 per hour. Labor costs
would be about $25 per tensiometer for setup and readings.
3. Drill cuttings obtained during drilling of the five wells along Bur-
lington Ditch could be analyzed for cation exchange capacity and soluble
salts. Analytical costs would be about $50 per sample.
Sampling Approach--
Suction cup lysimeters could be installed within the creek bed at depths
corresponding to the tensiometers. Sampling frequency would be determined
from travel times calculated in step 5, if possible, or on a trial-and-error
basis. Initial samples would be analyzed extensively for the same constitu-
ents characterized in step 6, existing groundwater quality.
Costs would include about $85 per lysimeter set for drilling; $21 capital
cost per lysimeter; $0.50 per foot for PVC; and about $30 labor for installa-
tion and sampling. Bottles and chemicals would be about $2.50 per sample, air
freight would be about $10 for each set of three samples, and analytical costs
would be $150 per sample.
76
-------
Recommended Approach--
The recommended approach for monitoring the mobility of pollutants in the
vadose zone includes the installation of access wells, tensiometers, and ly-
simeters along Burlington Ditch. They would be grouped at three sites, one
upstream and two downstream of the water treatment plant outfall. Positions
of tensiometers and lysimeters would depend partially on the results of log-
ging the access wells, but are anticipated to be at depths of about 1 foot, 3
feet, and 5 feet.
Costs for this step include the following:
1. Drilling three access wells $ 600
2. 2-inch steel pipe $ 700
3. Neutron moisture logger $15,000
4. Labor for logging $ 20
5. Nine tensiometers $ 180
6. Drilling for three sets of tensiometers $ 250
7. 2-inch PVC for tensiometers $ 15
8. Labor for tensiometer setup and readings $ 225
9. Drilling for three sets of lysimeters $ 250
10. Nine lysimeters $ 190
11. PVC for lysimeters $ 15
12. Labor for lysimeter installation $ 300
13. Bentonite $ 4
14. Labor for four sampling trips $ 175
15. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 30
16. Air freight $ 40
17. Analysis (36 samples) $ 5,400
EVALUATE ATTENUATION OF POLLUTANTS IN
THE SATURATED ZONE (Step 9)
No monitoring of the saturated zone is currently being done at the Gil-
lette water treatment plant. Data deficiencies include direction and velocity
77
-------
of flow and movement of pollutants through the saturated zone. Information
about the direction and velocity of flow should be obtained in step 5.
Monitoring Approaches
Sampling Approaches—•
1. Existing wells and wells installed during previous steps could be
sampled for evidence of contamination. Constituents for which the samples are
analyzed would be dependent on the results of previous steps; however, the
data presented in step 4 indicate that, at a minimum, samples would be ana-
lyzed for the following: calcium, magnesium, sulfate, potassium, cadmium, se-
lenium, sodium, bicarbonate, fluoride, and chloride. Sampling frequency could
be based on travel times determined in step 5.
Costs would be about $5 for labor for sampling each well; $2.50 per well
for sample bottles and chemicals; $20 for air freight for each set of eight
samples; and $65 per sample for analysis.
2. Additional wells could be installed for sampling in the vadose zone.
Costs for each additional shallow well would be about $45 for augering; $25
labor for drilling supervision; $35 for 25 feet of 4-inch PVC; and $4.50 for
bentonite. Costs for each additional deep well would be about $500 for drill-
ing; $100 for labor for drilling supervision; $270 for 100 feet of 6-inch PVC,
and $5 for bentonite. Sampling costs would be the same as for the previous
approach.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach is to sample only existing wells until a need
for additional wells is demonstrated. Based on annual sampling of eight wells
and analysis for the limited number of constituents discussed above, the costs
for this step include:
1. .Labor for sampling eight wells $ 50
2. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 20
3. Air freight $ 20
4. Analysis of eight samples $520
78
-------
SECTION 5
SEWAGE TREATMENT PACKAGE PLANT MONITORING DESIGN
IDENTIFY POLLUTION SOURCES, CAUSES, AND
METHODS OF WASTE DISPOSAL (Step 2)
At the present time, two trailer courts treat on-site sewage by means of
package plants. One court, the J and J Trailer Court, is located in the SW
1/4, Section 20, T50N, R72W (50-72-20C). Treated wastewater from the package
plant is discharged to a polishing pond. Overflow from the pond discharges
into Burlington Ditch, a tributary to Stonepile Creek. The second package
plant treats sewage generated within the Carson Trailer Court, south of Gil-
lette, in NE 1/4, Section 34, T50N, R72W (50-72-34AA). Treated wastewater
from the Carson Trailer Court is discharged to a tributary of Donkey Creek.
Flows in the tributary wash may enter Donkey Creek and ultimately reach the
Golf and Country Club.
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS (Step 3)
The following pollutants are normally associated with package plants:
organics (BOD, COD, DOC, or TOC), microorganisms (total and fecal coliform,
virus, microscopic animals), and major and trace inorganics in concentrations
above recommended drinking water limits. Monitoring of pollutants in the J
and J and Carson package plants is unknown.
Alternative Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches--
Sources contributing to the package plants could be inventoried to deter-
mine potential pollutants other than sanitary wastes. Information could be
obtained on the types and operational characteristics of the two package
plants, including loading rates and available quality information. The dis-
position of sludge could be determined. The cost for this approach would be
$250 for 1 week's labor.
Sampling Approach—
Wastewater discharging from the J and J treatment plant could be sampled
with a composite sampler. Surface samples could be obtained from the oxida-
tion pond and Burlington Ditch. Wastewater from the Carson plant could be
sampled in the wash draining into Donkey Creek, in Donkey Creek proper, and on
the golf course.
79
-------
Samples could be analyzed for the constituents: calcium, magnesium,
sodium, potassium, carbonate, bicarbonate, sulfate, ammonia, total nitrogen,
nitrate, nitrite, boron, chloride, total organic carbon, BOD, and fecal
coliform.
Samples could initially be collected on a daily basis in order to iden-
tify day-to-day fluctuations. Later sampling could be done on a monthly or
quarterly basis.
Costs would include $50 for 1 day's labor per sampling trip; $600 for a
composite sampler; $2.50 per sample for bottles and chemicals; about $15 for
air freight for each sampling trip; about $20 for chemicals for BOD and fecal
coliform studies; and about $80 per sample for analysis.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach includes both of the approaches discussed above.
Costs include:
1. Labor for pollutants inventory $ 250
2. Labor for sampling (based on 10 daily samples and
three quarterly samples) $ 650
3. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 145
4. Air freight $ 200
5. BOD and fecal coliform chemicals $ 50
6. Analysis (65 samples) $5,200
DEFINE GROUNDWATER USAGE (Step 4)
Monitoring of groundwater usage at the trailer courts is unknown. The
courts are not on the municipal water system and, therefore, probably have
local wells for a domestic supply. Data deficiencies include: quantity of
groundwater used, types of uses, and location of wells.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches--
1. Information on groundwater usage could be obtained through interviews
with local inhabitants. The only cost would be labor for 1 week, or about
$250.
2. Listings of water rights permits issued by the Wyoming State Engi-
neer's Office could be obtained for septic tank areas. The cost for the
listings is based on computer time, but would probably not run over $100. An
additional cost would be labor for 2 days to review the listings, or about
$120.
-------
Recommended Approach--
The recommended approach for obtaining information on groundwater usage
includes both approaches given above.
Yearly costs would include:
1. Computer printouts $100
2. Labor to review printouts $120
3. Labor for interviews $250
DEFINE HYDROGEOLOGIC SITUATION (Step 5)
Monitoring of the local hydrogeology is unknown. The following data de-
ficiencies exist: location and extent of aquifers; water table elevation; di-
rection and velocity of flow; and aquifer characteristics.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches--
1. Available data on wells near the package plants could be collected.
Particular attention would be paid to driller's logs; geophysical logs; well
construction information, including depths, diameter of casing, and location
of perforations; and available records on water levels and aquifer testing.
Labor costs would be about $250 for one person spending 1 week.
2. Additional wells could be installed for a more complete characteriza-
tion of the local hydrogeology. Aquifer testing could be conducted to deter-
mine values of transmissivity and storage. Costs for shallow drilling would
be about $45 for augering each hole; $25 labor for drilling supervision; $35
for 25 feet of 4-inch PVC; and $4.50 for bentonite. Costs for deeper drilling
would be about $500 for drilling each well; $100 for drilling supervision;
$270 for 100 feet of 6-inch PVC; and $5 for bentonite. Aquifer testing would
cost about $3,000 for pump rental for 5 days and $250 for labor.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach is to gather available data on existing wells.
The assessment of drilling needs would then be made. Initial costs for this
step would be $200 for labor.
STUDY EXISTING GROUNDWATER QUALITY (Step 6)
Monitoring of groundwater quality in the vicinity of the package plants
is unknown. No information is available on the quality of water in these
areas.
81
-------
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches—
Existing water quality data for wells near the package plants could be
reviewed. The cost would be $250 for 1 week's labor.
Sampling Approaches--
1. Existing wells and any wells installed during step 5 could be sam-
pled. Samples could be analyzed for the constituents listed in Tables 9, 10,
and 11. Wells could be sampled two or three times for comparison of the re-
sults. Costs would be about $6 for labor for sampling each well; $2.50 per
well for sample bottles and chemicals; $20 for air freight for each set of six
samples; and $150 per sample for analysis.
2. Additional wells could be constructed for sampling purposes. Drill-
ing and sampling costs would be the same as those discussed above.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach for establishing existing groundwater quality is
to review available water quality data and sample existing wells in the vicin-
ity of the package plants. Based on sampling six wells three times, costs for
this step would be:
1. Labor for gathering data $ 250
2. Labor for sampling . $ 110
3. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 45
4. Air freight $ 60
5. Analysis (18 samples) $2,700
EVALUATE INFILTRATION POTENTIAL (Step 7)
Infiltration potential in the package plant areas is unknown. Data defi-
ciencies include seepage losses in the discharge area and holding ponds and
package plant characteristics.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches--
1. The dimensions and operating characteristics of the polishing pond on
the J and J Trailer Court could be obtained. Costs would be about $100 for 2
day's labor for interviewing and reviewing records.
2. Seepage losses from the pond could be estimated using a water bal-
ance approach. Rainfall and evaporation data are readily obtainable from the
82
-------
University of Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station in Gillette. Discharge
rates into the pond should be recorded by the owner. Costs would be about $30
for labor and $40 for a staff gage.
3. Seepage rates in Burlington Ditch and the wash receiving wastes from
Carson Trailer Court could be estimated during periods of runoff by measuring
flows at several points along the streams. Costs would include $2,000 for a
flow meter and $100 for 2 day's labor.
4. Samples collected during any drilling done for previous steps could
be characterized for particle-size distribution. The cost of analysis would
be about $13 per sample.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach includes all of the approaches discussed above.
The extent of particle-size analysis depends on whether drilling and analysis
have been done for any of the previous steps. Costs for this work, excluding
any particle-size analysis, are as follows:
1. Labor for gathering information on the polishing pond
at J and J Trailer Court $ 100
2. Labor for estimating seepage losses from polishing
pond $ 30
3. Staff gage $ 40
4. Labor for estimating seepage rates in Burlington Ditch
and wash near Carson Trailer Court $ 100
5. Flow meter $2,000
EVALUATE MOBILITY OF POLLUTANTS IN THE VADOSE ZONE (Step 8)
Mobility of pollutants in the vadose zone is unknown. Data deficiencies
include flux and movement of pollutants through the vadose zone.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches--
1. Shallow access wells for neutron moisture logging could be installed
near the polishing ponds, along Burlington Ditch downstream from the J and J
Trailer Court, and along the tributary to Donkey Creek downstream from the
Carson Trailer Court. Costs would include about $35 per well for drilling;
$160 for 50 feet of 2-inch seamless steel pipe; $2 for bentonite; $50 labor
for drilling supervision; $15,000 for a neutron logger; and $60 labor for op-
erating the logger.
83
-------
2. Tensiometers could be installed associated with the access wells.
Individual units within each set of tensiometers could terminate at various
depths down to about 5 feet (e.g., 1 foot, 3 feet, 5 feet).
Capital costs would be about $20 per tensiometer and $0.50 per foot, for
2-inch PVC. Drilling costs would be $85 an hour for shallow holes 4.5 inches
in diameter. Labor costs would be about $25 per tensiometer for setup and
readings.
3. Drill cuttings could be analyzed for cation exchange capacity and
soluble salts. Analytical costs would be about $50 per sample.
Sampling Approach--
Suction cup lysimeters could be installed at locations and depths corre-
sponding to the tensiometers. Sampling frequency would be determined from
travel times calculated in step 5, if possible, or by trial-and-error. Ini-
tial samples could be analyzed extensively for the constituents listed in step
6, existing groundwater quality.
Costs would include about $85 per lysimeter set for drilling; $21 capital
cost per lysimeter; $0.50 per foot for PVC; and $30 labor for installation and
sampling. Bottles and chemicals would be about $2.50 per sample; air freight
would be about $40 for each set of 18 samples; and analysis would cost about
$150 per sample.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach includes all of the approaches discussed above.
Costs based on six sets of access wells, tensiometers, lysimeters, and quar-
terly sampling include:
1. Drilling for six access wells $ 500
2. 2-inch steel pipe $ 960
3. Neutron logger $15,000
4. Labor for logging six wells $ 360
5. Drilling for six sets of tensiometers $ 500
6. 18 tensiometers $ 360
7. Drilling for six sets of lysimeters $ 500
8. 18 lysimeters $ 380
9. 2-inch PVC $ 55
10. Bentonite $ 9
84
-------
11. Labor for drilling supervision $ 360
12. Drill cutting analysis (18 samples) $ 900
13. Labor for four sampling trips $ 150
14. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 45
15. Air freight $ 160
16. Analysis (72 samples) $10,800
EVALUATE ATTENUATION OF POLLUTANTS IN
THE SATURATED ZONE (Step 9)
Monitoring of pollutant mobility in the saturated zone is not known at
this time. Data deficiencies include movement of water through the saturated
zone and pollutant movement.
Monitoring Approaches
Sampling Approaches—
1. Existing wells and wells installed during previous steps could be
sampled. Sampling frequency would be based on travel times calculated in step
5, hydrogeologic framework. Constituents for which the samples are analyzed
would depend on the findings of earlier steps. By analogy with the Gillette
wastewater treatment plant, minimum analyses would probably be for the follow-
ing: sulfate, chloride, iron, zinc, mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, boron,
and selenium.
Costs would include $50 for 1 day's labor to sample 12 wells; $30 for
sample bottles and chemicals; about $30 for air freight; and $80 per sample
for analysis for the constituents listed above.
2. Additional wells could be installed for sampling in the saturated
zone. Drilling costs per well would be as discussed in step 5. Sampling
costs would be the same as above.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach is to sample existing wells. Additional wells
may be constructed if deemed necessary at a later date. Based on annual sam-
pling of 12 wells, costs for this step include:
1. Labor for sampling $ 50
2. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 30
3. Air freight $ 30
4. Analysis (12 samples) $960
85
-------
SECTION 6
SEPTIC TANK AREAS
IDENTIFY POLLUTION SOURCES, CAUSES, AND
METHODS OF WASTE DISPOSAL (Step 2)
Wastewater in unsewered areas of suburban Gillette is treated mainly by
septic tanks, although two trailer courts and a portion of one subdivision
have package treatment plants. Permits for septic tank installations are ob-
tained from the Office of the County Sanitarian in Gillette.
Two areas with septic tank problems are the Anderson Subdivision, T50N,
R72W, Section 23 (50-72-23A and 50-72-23B) and the Sunburst Subdivision, south
of Gillette in T50N, R72W, Section 34 (50-72-34D) (Figure 2, see page 4).
Leach fields in these areas are constructed in heavy, poorly-drained soils.
Ponded sewage is visible on the surface near Sunburst. Runoff from the Ander-
son area carries sewage into a small wash, a tributary of Stonepile Creek.
Runoff from the Sunburst Subdivision may drain into the Gillette Fishing Lake.
Leaching fields in the remaining septic tank areas appear to be operating
efficiently and, consequently, transmit effluent into the underlying vadose
zone.
The monitoring program for septic tank installations in the Gillette area
will concentrate on the regions experiencing leach field malfunction, i.e., in
the Anderson and Sunburst Subdivisions, and the areas in which septic tank
leach fields are potential sources of groundwater pollution.
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS (Step 3)
Potential pollutants from the septic tank areas near Gillette are unknown
at this time. A general analysis of effluent characteristics is given in Ta-
ble 13 (see Everett, 1979, for discussion).
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approach—
All sources discharging to the septic tanks could be inventoried to de-
termine whether any contaminants other than sanitary wastes are entering the
system. Costs would include $500 for labor for about 2 weeks.
86
-------
TABLE 13. SEPTAGE CHARACTERISTICS AS REPORTED IN THE
LITERATURE3 (Silberman, 1977)
Septage characteristics'3
Tot al sol i ds
Total fixed solids
Total volatile solids
Total suspended solids
Fixed suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
Biochemical oxygen demand
Chemical oxygen demand
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ammonia nitrogen
Nitrite nitrogen
Nitrate nitrogen
Organic nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Orthophosphate
Chromium
Alkalinity
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
Cadmium
Nickel
Mercury
Hexane extractables
Copper
Minimum
6,380
1,880
4,500
5,200
1,600
3,600
3,780
24,700
320
40
0.2
0.87
26
20
10
1
1,020
163
5.0
50
0.2
1.0
0.22
9,561
8.5
Maximum
130,000
59,100
71,400
93,400
9,000
30,100
12,400
62,500
1,900
150
1.3
9.0
26
310
170
1
1,020
200
5.4
62
0.2
1.0
0.1
9,561
8.5
pH (pH units) 4.2
Aluminum 50
TOC 15,000
Grease 9,600
LAS 150
Lead 2
aAll units in mg/1, except pH.
^Minimum and maximum values are presented to show that
septage characteristics vary substantially.
87
-------
Sampling Approaches--
1. Samples of raw sewage entering the septic tanks and wastewater dis-
charging from the tanks could be collected for analysis.
As for the Gillette wastewater treatment plant, initial samples could be
analyzed extensively for the following constituents: calcium, magnesium, so-
dium, potassium, carbonate, bicarbonate, sulfate, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite,
total nitrogen, silica, chloride, IDS, pH, conductivity, iron, lead, zinc,
nickel, copper, cadmium, mercury, selenium, arsenic, fluoride, BOD, and fecal
coliform.
Composite samples could initially be collected on a daily basis in order
to identify day-to-day fluctuations. Later sampling could be done on a
monthly or quarterly basis.
Costs would include $6 for labor for each septic tank sampled; $600 for a
composite sampler; about $2.50 per sample for bottles and chemicals; about $25
for air freight for each set of 10 samples; and $140 per sample for analysis.
2. For septic tank areas subjected to surface ponding of sewage, surface
samples could be obtained both from the ponded region and from areas receiving
runoff. For example, in the Anderson Subdivision, sewage runoff could be col-
lected from the nearby wash. Similarly, the Gillette Fishing Lake could be
sampled for evidence of sewage draining from the Sunburst Subdivision.
Sampling frequency analyses and costs would be similar to the first sam-
pling approach discussed.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach includes all of the approaches discussed. The
waste survey would be used to pick four or five septic tanks from each of four
subdivisions for sampling.
Costs for this step include:
1. Labor for gathering information $ 500
2. Labor for sampling 16 septic tanks eight times $ 750
3. Labor for sampling four ponded areas eight times $ 200
4. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 685
5. Air freight (eight sets of samples) $ 600
6. Analysis (160 samples) $5,320
7. Composite sampler $ 600
-------
DEFINE GROUNDWATER USAGE (Step 4)
The extent of groundwater usage in septic tank areas is unknown. The
City of Gillette municipal system does not service these areas. Water sup-
plies for domestic and stock usage probably come from subsurface sources in
the area. Information gaps include the amount of groundwater used and the
purposes for which it is used.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approach--
Information about water usage could be obtained by interviewing local in-
habitants. The cost would be about $250 for 1 week's work.
Recommended Approach--
The recommended approach is that discussed above. The cost would be $250
for labor.
DEFINE HYDROGEOLOGIC SITUATION (Step 5)
The local hydrogeology of the septic tank areas is unknown. Data defi-
ciencies include aquifer locations and interactions, water level elevations,
aquifer characteristics, and direction and velocity of flow.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches--
1. Available information on water-supply wells in the vicinity of the
septic area could be collected. Particular attention would be paid to (a) de-
tails on well construction (depth, diameter, location of perforations, methods
of construction); (b) drillers' logs and geophysical logs; and (c) water level
data. Costs would be about $250 for 1 week's labor.
2. If necessary, additional wells could be constructed to obtain litho-
logic information and for aquifer testing. Costs would be $5 per foot for
drilling an 8.75-inch hole; $2.68 per foot for 6-inch PVC; $5 per well for
bentonite; and $75 per well for drilling supervision. Aquifer testing costs
include $3,000 for pump and equipment rental for 5 days and $250 for labor.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach at this time is to review existing information
only. Additional drilling could be done in the future if deemed necessary.
The cost for this step is $250 for reviewing data.
STUDY EXISTING GROUNDWATER QUALITY (Step 6)
Monitoring of existing groundwater quality in septic tank areas is un-
known. Data deficiencies exist in the following areas: areal distribution of
89
-------
groundwater quality, vertical distribution of water quality in the uppermost
aquifer, and differences between adjoining aquifers.
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approach—
Existing water quality data for wells in the septic tank areas could be
reviewed. Costs would be $250 for 1 week's labor.
Sampling Approaches--
1. Water quality samples could be taken from existing wells and any in-
stalled during step 5. Samples could be analyzed for the constituents listed
under step 3 for a complete characterization of background water quality.
Three or four samples would be collected for reproducibility of the results.
Costs would include $75 for labor per sampling trip; about $2.50 per sam-
ple for bottles and chemicals; about $30 air freight for each set of 12 sam-
ples; and about $140 per sample for analysis.
2. Supplemental wells could be installed in septic tank areas, if neces-
sary. Drilling costs would be the same as those outlined in the previous step
and sampling costs would be the same as above.
Recommended Approach—
The recommended approach is to review available data and sample existing
wells in the area. Supplemental wells may be installed at a later date, if
necessary.
Based on sampling 12 wells four times each, costs for this step are as
follows:
1. Labor for data review $ 250
2. Labor for four sampling trips $ 300
3. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 110
4. Air freight (four sample sets) $ 120
5. Analysis (48 samples) $6,720
EVALUATE INFILTRATION POTENTIAL (Step 7)
Infiltration potential is not being monitored in septic tank areas. The
following data deficiencies exist: seepage rates in the leach field areas and
total volume of water moving into the vadose zone.
90
-------
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches—
1. Septic tank locations and densities in the Gillette area could be in-
ventoried. Information on leach field design and construction could be ob-
tained, together with observations of their effectiveness. County and State
officials could be contacted for information to assist in the inventory and
for copies of regulations and recommendations for septic tank design. The
cost would be $750 for about 3 week's labor.
2. The quantity of waste generated in each septic tank area could be es-
timated from data on domestic water usage. The number of households using
garbage disposals could be determined. The cost would be about $500 for 2
week's labor.
3. Data on soils in the leach field areas could be collected and exam-
ined for hydrologic properties, including infiltration characteristics and
drainage properties. Leach field areas could be rated according to drainage
properties. Costs would be about $500 for 2 week's labor.
4. Crust tests could be conducted on the soils underlying active leach
fields to determine the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and degree of clog-
ging. Details of a "crust test" are presented by the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (1977a). The cost would be about $400 for 2 week's labor and
$150 for materials.
Recommended Approach--
The recommended approach for establishing infiltration potential includes
all of the approaches discussed above. Costs for this step include:
1. Labor for septic tank inventory $750
2. Labor for waste estimation $500
3. Labor for gathering soils information $500
4. Labor for crust tests (based on four sites at each of
four septic tank areas) $400
5. Equipment for crust tests $150
EVALUATE MOBILITY OF POLLUTANTS IN THE VADOSE ZONE (Step 8)
The movement of water and pollutants through the vadose zone in the sep-
tic tank areas is unknown.
91
-------
Monitoring Approaches
Nonsampling Approaches--
1. Access wells could be installed in selected leach fields, including
those in areas subjected to ponding. Neutron moisture logs could be examined
for evidence of deep percolation of effluent beneath leaching fields and for
the presence of perched water tables.
Costs for this approach would include: $85 per hour for drilling; $25
for drilling supervision; $3.12 per foot for 2-inch seamless steel pipe; $2
per well for bentonite; $15,000 for a neutron moisture logger; and $30 for op-
eration of the logger.
2. Nests of tensiometers, to depths of 1, 3, and 5 feet, could be asso-
ciated with the access wells. Tensiometer data could be used in conjunction
with water content data to estimate the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and
flux.
Capital costs would be $20 per tensiometer and $0.50 per foot for 2-inch
PVC. Drilling costs would be $85 per hour, and labor costs would be about $25
per tensiometer for setup and readings.
3. Drill cuttings could be analyzed for cation exchange capacity, sol-
uble salts, and microorganisms. Analytical costs would be about $50 per
sample.
4. Seasonal high water levels could be estimated by soil mottling. To
ensure adequate purification of septage before it reaches qroundwater, a mini-
mum of 3 feet is necessary below the infiltrative surface (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977a). Spots of bright contrasting colors may be found in
soils subject to periodic saturation. The only cost for this approach would
be labor for examining drill cuttings collected for the previous approaches.
Sampling Approach--
Suction cup lysimeters would be installed at depths of 1 foot and 5 feet
at four sites for each of the four subdivisions with septic tanks. Initial
samples would be analyzed extensively for the constituents listed in step 3.
One initial sample from each lysimeter should be taken. Semiannual samples
from either the 1-foot or 5-foot lysimeter, depending upon the initial sample,
should be collected.
Costs would be about $85 per lysimeter set for drilling; $30 per lysime-
ter capital cost; $100 for lysimeter service kit; $30 labor for installation
of each lysimeter; $140 labor for each sampling from the set of lysimeters;
$2.50 per sample for bottles and chemicals; $25 for each set of 12 samples for
air freight; and $140 per sample for analysis.
92
-------
Recommended Approach--
The recommended approach includes installation of access wells, tensiome-
ters, and lysimeters at selected sites within several septic tank areas.
Drill cuttings would be analyzed for cation exchange capacity, soluble salts,
and microorganisms, and inspected for mottling. Water samples would initially
be analyzed for the constituents listed in step 3.
Based on four monitoring sites in each of four septic tank areas and five
initial daily samples, costs for this step are as follows:
1. Drilling for 16 50-foot access wells $ 1,360
2. Steel pipe $ 2,500
3. Neutron moisture logger $15,000
4. Labor for logging 16 wells $ 500
5. Drilling for 16 tensiometer nests $ 1,360
6. 48 tensiometers $ 960
7. Labor for tensiometer setup and readings $ 1,200
8. Drill cutting analysis (48 samples) $ 2,400
9. Drilling for 16 lysimeter nests $ 1,360
10. Drilling supervision $ 400
11. Bentonite $ 35
12. 32 lysimeters $ 960
13. Labor for three sampling trips $ 420
14. Bottles and chemicals $ 160
15. Air freight (seven sample sets) $ 175
16. Analysis (64 samples) $ 8,960
17. Labor for mottling check $ 120
EVALUATE ATTENUATION OF POLLUTANTS IN
THE SATURATED ZONE (Step 9)
The movement of pollutants in the saturated zone is unknown.
93
-------
Monitoring Approaches
Sampling Approaches--
1. Existing wells and those installed in previous steps could be sam-
pled. Constituents for which the samples are analyzed would depend on the
results of earlier steps, but by analogy with the monitoring design for the
Gillette wastewater treatment plant, the following analyses would probably be
performed as a minimum: sulfate, chloride, iron, zinc, mercury, lead, nickel,
copper, cadmium, arsenic, boron, selenium, and microorganisms. Sampling fre-
quency could be based on travel times calculated in step 5.
Costs would include $6 labor per well for sampling; $2.50 per well for
sample bottles and chemicals; about $30 air freight for each set of 12 sam-
ples; and $80 per sample for analysis.
2. Additional wells could be installed for sampling. Drilling costs per
well would be as discussed in step 5. Sampling costs would be the same as
above.
Recommended Approach--
Only existing wells should be sampled unless supplemental drilling is
found to be necessary at a later date.
Costs for this step, based on sampling 12 wells annually, are as follows:
1. Labor for sampling 12 wells $ 70
2. Sample bottles and chemicals $ 30
3. Air freight $ 30
4. Analysis (12 samples) $960
94
-------
SECTION 7
SAMPLE COLLECTION, PRESERVATION, AND CONTROL
Samples, including soil and water, can be taken from the land surface,
the vadose zone, or the zone of saturation. In spite of the location of the
sample site, many of the sample analysis techniques are similar. A water sam-
ple taken at the surface, in the vadose zone, or from the zone of saturation
is analyzed in the laboratory using much the same analytical techniques for
each parameter. The sample preparation, however, is often quite different.
Soil tests can be divided into physical and chemical analyses. The phys-
ical tests are not routinely handled by many chemical analysis laboratories.
Agricultural laboratories often provide these services. The physical tests
include water content, bulk density or porosity, particle-size distribution,
soil-moisture characteristic curve, and hydraulic conductivity. The chemical
analyses of soil samples include soluble salts, soluble ions, cation exchange
capacity and exchangeable ions, and specific surface.
The water tests can be divided into physical, chemical, bacteriological,
and radiological analyses. The chemical analyses are further subdivided into
inorganic and organic tests. In this discussion of water analysis, considera-
tion is given to sample containers, sample preservation and treatment, and
quality control.
CUSTODY CONTROL
The EPA's Office of Water and Hazardous Materials has prepared a proce-
dure (U.S. EPA, 1975) for a recommended "Chain-of-Custody" that will minimize
legal complications in obtaining and analyzing water samples. The chain-of-
custody described is directed toward enforcement actions and may appear too
strong for a simple monitoring program. However, monitoring data must be able
to pass legal examination if they are to be used to confront a polluter. The
following comments are abstracted from that document:
Quality assurance should be stressed in all monitoring programs. The
successful implementation of a monitoring program depends to a large degree
on the capability to produce valid data and to demonstrate such validity. No
other area of environmental monitoring requires more rigorous adherence to the
use of validated methodology and quality control measures.
It is imperative that laboratories and field operations involved in the
collection of primary data prepare written procedures to be followed whenever
evidence samples are collected, transferred, stored, analyzed, or destroyed.
95
-------
A primary objective of these procedures is to create an accurate written re-
cord which can be used to trace the possession of the sample from the moment
of its collection through its introduction into evidence.
Preparation
Chain-of-custody record tags are prepared prior to the actual survey
field work and contain as much information as possible to minimize clerical
work by field personnel. The source of each sample is also written on the
container itself prior to any field survey work.
Field logsheets used for documenting field procedures and chain-of-
custody and to identify samples should be prefilled to the extent practicable
to minimize repetitive clerical field entries. Custody during sampling is
maintained by the sampler or project leader through the use of the logbook.
Any information from previous studies should be copied (or removed) and filed
before the book is returned to the field.
Explicit chain-of-custody procedures are followed to maintain the docu-
mentation necessary to trace sample possession from the time taken until the
evidence is introduced into court. A sample is in your "custody" if:
• It is in your actual physical possession
• It is in your view, after being in your physical possession
• It was in your physical possession and you locked it in a tamper-
proof container or storage area.
All survey participants should receive a copy of the study plan and be
knowledgeable of its contents prior to the survey. A presurvey briefing
should be held to reappraise all participants of the survey objectives, sam-
pling locations, and chain-of-custody procedures. After all chain-of-custody
samples are collected, a debriefing should be held in the field to check ad-
herence to chain-of-custody procedures and to determine whether additional
evidence samples are required.
Sample Collection
1. To the maximum extent achievable, as few people as possible handle
the sample.
2. Water samples are obtained using standard field sampling techniques.
When using sampling equipment, it is assumed that this equipment is in the
custody of the entity responsible for collecting the samples.
3. The chain-of-custody record tag is attached to the sample container
when the complete sample is collected and contains the following information:
sample number, time taken, date taken, source of sample (to include type of
sample and name of firm), preservative, analyses required, name of person tak-
ing sample, and witnesses. The front side of the card (which has been pre-
filled) is signed, timed, and dated by the person sampling. The tags must be
96
-------
legibly filled out in ballpoint (waterproof) ink. Individual sample con-
tainers or groups of sample containers are secured using a tamper-proof seal.
4. Blank samples are also taken. Include one sample container without
preservatives and containers with preservatives. The contents of blank sample
containers will be analyzed by the laboratory to exclude the possibility of
container contamination.
5. The Field Data Record logbook should be maintained to record field
measurements and other pertinent information necessary to refresh the sam-
pler's memory if he later takes the stand to testify regarding his actions
during the evidence-gathering activity. A separate set of field notebooks
should be maintained for each survey and stored in a safe place where they can
be protected and accounted for at all times. Standard formats have been es-
tablished to minimize field entries and include the date, time, survey, type
of sample taken, volume of each sample, type of analysis, sample number, pre-
servatives, sample location, and field measurements. Such measurements in-
clude temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, flow, and any
other pertinent information or observations. The entries are signed by the
field sampler. The preparation and conservation of the field logbooks during
the survey is usually the responsibility of the survey coordinator. Once the
survey is complete, field logs should be retained by the survey coordinator,
or his designated representative, as part of the permanent record.
6. The field sample is responsible for the care and custody of the sam-
ples collected until properly dispatched to the receiving laboratory or turned
over to an assigned custodian. He should assure that each container is in his
physical possession or in his view at all times, or is locked in such a place
and manner that no one can tamper with it.
7. Colored slides or photographs are often taken which show the outfall
sample location and any visible water pollution. Written documentation on the
back of the photo should include the signature of the photographer, time,
date, and site location. Photographs of this nature, which may be used as
evidence, are handled by chain-of-custody procedures to prevent alteration.
QUALITY CONTROL
Because of the importance of laboratory analyses and the resulting ac-
tions which they produce, a program to ensure the reliability of the data is
essential. It is recognized that all analysts practice quality control to
varying degrees, depending somewhat upon their training, professional pride,
and awareness of the importance of the work they are doing. However, under
the pressure of daily workload, analytical quality control may be easily ne-
glected. Therefore, an established, routine control program applied to every
analytical test is necessary in assuring the reliability of the final results.
The need for standardization of methods within a single laboratory is
readily apparent. Uniform methods between cooperating laboratories are also
important in order to remove the methodology as a variable in comparison or
joint use of data between laboratories. Uniformity of methods is particularly
important when laboratories are providing data to a common data bank, such as
97
-------
STORET, or when several laboratories are cooperating in joint field surveys.
A lack of standardization of methods raises doubts as to the validity of the
results reported. If the same constituent is measured by different analytical
procedures within a single laboratory, or in several laboratories, the ques-
tion is raised as to which procedure is superior, and why the superior method
is not used throughout.
The physical and chemical methods used should be selected by the follow-
ing criteria:
• The methods should measure the desired constituent with precision
and accuracy sufficient to meet the data needs in the presence of
interferences normally encountered in polluted waters
• The procedures should utilize the equipment and skills normally
available in the average water pollution control laboratory
• The selected methods should be in use in many laboratories or
have been sufficiently tested to establish their validity
• The methods should be sufficiently rapid to permit routine use
for the examination of large numbers of samples.
Regardless of the analytical method used in the laboratory, the specific
methodology should be carefully documented. In some water pollution reports,
it is customary to state that Standard Methods (APHA, 1971) have been used
throughout. Close examination indicates, however, that this is not strictly
true. In many laboratories, the standard method has been modified because of
recent research or personal preference of the laboratory staff. In other
cases, the standard method has been replaced with a better one. Statements
concerning the method used in arriving at laboratory data should be clearly
and honestly made. The methods used should be adequately referenced and the
procedures applied exactly as directed.
Knowing the specific method which has been used, the reviewer can apply
the associated precision and accuracy of the method when interpreting the lab-
oratory results. If the analytical methodology is in doubt, the data user may
justifiably inquire as to the reliability of the result he is to interpret.
In field operations, the problem of transport of samples to the labora-
tory, or the need to examine a large number of samples to arrive at gross val-
ues, will sometimes require the use of rapid field methods. Such methods
should be used with caution, and with a clear understanding that the results
obtained may not compare in reliability with those obtained using standard
laboratory methods. The data user is entitled to know that approximate val-
ues may not represent the customary precision and accuracy obtained in the
laboratory.
Containers
Factors that are pertinent in selecting containers for collecting and
storing water samples are resistance to solution and breakage, efficiency of
98
-------
closure, size, shape, weight, availability, and cost. Hard rubber, polyethyl-
ene, Teflon, and other types of plastics, and some types of borosilicate glass
are suitable based on experience within the U.S. Geological Survey and other
agencies. Glass bottles may be a problem for analysis of boron, silica, so-
dium, and hardness. For dissolved oxygen determinations, only glass contain-
ers should be used. For silica determinations, only plastic containers should
be used.
Organic substances tend to cling to sample containers and special precau-
tions are necessary. Glass bottles are the most acceptable containers for
collecting, transporting, and storing samples for organic analysis. Glass ap-
pears to be inert relative to organic materials and can withstand a rigorous
cleaning procedure. Because organic materials are so plentiful in the envi-
ronment, it is extremely difficult to collect samples free from extraneous
contamination. Apparatus for containing samples must be scrupulously clean.
Boston round-glass bottles of 1-liter capacity with sloping shoulders and nar-
row mouths are usually satisfactory. The closure should be inert metal, lined
with Teflon.
Radioactive elements are often measured in the submicrogram range and
can, therefore, be influenced by any background or residual material that may
be in the sample container. Similarly, a radionuclide may be largely or
wholly adsorbed on the surface of suspended particles. Glass containers tend
to have a higher background radioactivity than polyethylene bottles. For
most radiochemical analyses (excluding tritium), a polyethylene bottle is
recommended.
Before use, all new bottles should be thoroughly cleaned, filled with
water, and allowed to soak several days. The soaking removes much of the
water-soluble material from the container surface. For organic analysis, the
accepted procedure is to wash the bottles in hot detergent solution, rinse
them in warm tap water, then rinse them in dilute hydrochloric acid, and fi-
nally rinse them in distilled water. The bottles are then put into an oven at
300°C overnight. The Teflon cap liners and metal closures are washed in de-
tergent. The caps are rinsed with distilled water and air dried. The liners
are rinsed in dilute hydrochloric acid, soaked in redistilled acetone for sev-
eral hours, and heated at 200°C overnight. When the heat treatments are
completed, the bottles are capped with the closure and Teflon liners. The
cost of glass bottles and mailers has been previously described. The source
of the sample and conditions under which it was collected should be recorded
immediately after collection. In the case of wells, this should include pump-
ing rate, duration of pumping if known, water level, temperature of water, and
electrical conductivity. Samples from wells near pollution sources should be
accompanied by a description of local conditions, such as "percolation pond
empty."
Preservation of Samples
EPA's Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (U.S.
EPA, 1974) is a basic reference for monitoring water and wastes in compliance
with the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972. Included is a detailed discussion of sample preservation techniques.
99
-------
Preservation techniques only retard chemical and biological changes; even
when approved preservation techniques are used, certain changes continue to
occur in the chemical structure of the constituents that are a function of
physical conditions. Metal cations may precipitate as hydroxides or form com-
plexes with other constituents; cations or anions may change valence states
under certain reducing or oxidizing conditions; and other constituents may
dissolve or volatilize with the passage of time. Metal cations may also ad-
sorb onto surfaces (glass, plastic, quartz, etc.). Biological changes taking
place in a sample may change the valence of an element. Soluble constituents
may be converted to organically bound materials, or cellular material may be
released into solution.
Methods of preservation are relatively limited and are intended generally
to (1) retard biological action, (2) retard hydrolysis of chemical compounds
and complexes, and (3) reduce volatility of constituents. Preservation meth-
ods are generally limited to pH control, chemical addition, refrigeration, and
freezing. Refrigeration at temperatures near freezing or below is the best
preservation technique available, but it is not applicable to all types of
samples. The preservative measures recommended by the EPA (U.S. EPA, 1974)
are given in Table 14. When the dissolved concentration is to be determined,
the sample is filtered immediately after collection through a 0.45-micron mem-
brane filter and the filtrate is analyzed by the specified procedure. Spe-
cific techniques for monitoring wastewater are given in the EPA's Handbook for
Monitoring Industrial Wastewater (U.S. EPA, 1973), and American Public Health
Association (1971), Part 200.Brown et al. (1970) present data that are ap-
plicable to groundwater sampling.
TABLE 14. RECOMMENDED SAMPLING AND PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES FOR
INORGANIC CHEMICAL DETERMINATIONS
Measurement
Volume
(ml)
Preservative
Holding time
Arsenic
Bromide
Chloride
Cyanide
Dissolved oxygen
F1 uor i de
Hardness
Iodide
Metals, dissolved
100 HN03 to pH<2 6 months
100 Cool to 4°C 24 hours
50 None required 7 days
500 Cool to 4°C 24 hours
NaOH to pH>12
300 On-site None
determination
300 Cool to 4°C 7 days
100 Cool to 4°C 7 days
100 Cool to 4°C 24 hours
200 Filter on site 6 months
HN03 to pH<2
(continued)
100
-------
TABLE 14 (continued)
Measurement
Metals, total
Mercury, dissolved
Mercury, total
Ammonia nitrogen
Nitrate nitrogen
Nitrite nitrogen
pH
Dissolved
orthophosphate
Hydrolyzable
phosphorus
Total phosphorus
Total dissolved
phosphorus
Filterable residue
Non-filterable residue
Total residue
Volatile residue
Selenium
Silica
Specific conductance
Sulfate
Sulfide
Sulfite
Volume
(ml)
100
100
100
400
100
50
25
50
50
50
50
100
100
100
100
50
50
100
50
50
50
Preservative
HN03 to pH<2
Filter
HN03 to pH<2
HN03 to pH<2
Cool to 4°C
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool to 4°C
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool to 4°C
Cool to 4°C
On-site
determination
Filter on site
Cool to 4°C
Cool to 4°C
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool to 4°C
Filter on site
Cool to 4°C
Cool to 4°C
Cool to 4°C
Cool to 4°C
Cool to 4°C
HN03 to pH<2
Cool to 4°C
Cool to 4°C
Cool to 4°C
2 ml zinc acetate
Cool to 4°C
Holding time
6 months
38 days (glass)
13 days (hard plastic)
38 days (glass)
13 days (hard plastic)
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
6 hours
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
6 months
7 days
24 hours
7 days
24 hours
24 hours
101
-------
Most water samples for organic analysis must be protected from degrada-
tion. Icing is the most acceptable method of preserving a sample. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (1974) presents data for organic materials in
water and wastes (Table 15).
TABLE 15. RECOMMENDED SAMPLING AND PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES FOR
ORGANIC CHEMICAL DETERMINATIONS3
Measurement
Biological oxygen demand
Chemical oxygen demand
Methyl ene blue active
substances (MBAS)
Nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA)
Oil and grease
Volume (ml)
1,000
50
250
50
1,000
Preservative
Cool to 4°C
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool to 4°C
Cool to 4°C
Cool to 4°C
Holding time
6 hours
7 days
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
Organic carbon
Phenolics
Kjeldahl nitrogen
25
500
500
to pH<2
Cool to 4°C
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool to 4°C
H2S04 to pH<4
1.0 g/1 CuS04
Cool to 4°C
to pH<2
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
aSource: U.S. EPA (1974).
Goerlitz and Brown (1972) also recommend preservation techniques for or-
ganic substances in water. The procedures are similar, with the following
additions:
Chlorophylls
Herbicides
Refrigerate at 4°C
Acidify with concentrated H2S04 at a rate of
2 ml per liter of sample and refrigerate at 4°C
Insecticides None required for chlorinated compounds.
Radiochemical sample containers normally are washed with nitric acid and
allowed to fume for several hours before use. After the sample has been taken
and separated into suspended and dissolved fractions, a preservative can be
added. The kind of preservative is highly dependent upon the kind of radio-
chemicals to be analyzed. Formaldehyde or ethyl alcohol has been suggested as
a preservative for highly perishable samples. Routinely in groundwater, how-
ever, hydrochloric and nitric acids are used as general preservatives. Pre-
servatives and reagents should be tested for radioactivity prior to their use.
102
-------
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Quality control would be maintained during sampling by adhering to the
following sampling procedure:
Materials
pH meter, buffer, probe solution
Conductivity meter, calibration solution
Dissolved oxygen meter, probe solution, materials for calibration
by the modified Winkler method
Thermometer
Distilled water
Sample bottles (1-liter; 0.5-liter; 0.25-liter)
Grease pencil
Sample bottle for field determinations
Filter
Pump
0.45y Millipore filter papers
1:1 nitric acid
1:1 sulfuric acid
Plastic bags
Ice chest
Field notebook, pen, watch
Rope, strapping tape, envelope, paper, scissors
EPA labels.
Instrument Calibration
All of the instruments should be calibrated once every 4 hours during
sampling. Calibration and operating instructions are included with the
meters.
103
-------
Sample Collection
1. Label sample bottles. All bottles should have the site clearly indi-
cated on them. In addition, the 1-liter bottle should be marked nonpreserved,
the 0.5-liter bottle should be marked HN03 preserved, and the 0.25-liter
bottle should be marked ^$04 preserved.
2. Rinse the filter with distilled water and put in a 0.45u Mi Hi pore
filter paper. Set up the filter so that it is ready to go. A bucket should
be placed under the filter so that the stand doesn't get wet.
3. If the sample is being taken from a well, be sure the well discharge
point is free of debris.
4. Rinse the sample bottles with the water being sampled. Be sure to
rinse the caps as well.
5. Rinse out a jug with the water being sampled and fill it. This water
will be filtered into the bottles.
6. Rinse out the field sample bottle and fill it. This will be used for
field temperature, pH, and EC measurements.
7. Turn off the well switch.
8. Record the temperature of the field sample.
9. Take the pH of the field sample by setting the temperature knob at
the sample temperature. Put the probe in the sample and turn the meter to pH.
Swirl the probe a little before reading the scale. Record the reading. Turn
off the meter, rinse the probe with distilled water, and replace the cap.
10. Take the conductivity of the field sample. Readings taken on the
setting will be the most accurate. Swirl the probe a little before
reading and record the reading. Turn off the meter and rinse the probe with
distilled water.
11. Rinse the thermometer with distilled water.
12. Pour the jug of water into the filter and filter it into the three
bottles.
13. Add 5 drops (ml) of 1:1 HN03 to the 0.5-liter bottle.
14. Add 1 drop (ml) of 1:1 H2S04 to the 0.25-liter bottle.
15. Be sure all of the caps are on securely. Put each bottle in a plas-
tic bag and fasten shut.
16. Put the 1- liter (nonpreserved) bottle and the 0.25-liter
preserved) bottle on ice in the ice chest. These samples should be kept at
4°C at all times.
104
-------
17. Put the 0.5-liter bottle (HNCh preserved) in a box set aside for
samples. This does not need to be chilled.
18. Empty the remaining water from the filter and field sample bottle.
Rinse the filter with distilled water and change the filter paper if neces-
sary. Make sure everything is clean and ready to go for the next site.
Field Notebook
A detailed field notebook should be kept and should include the following
items:
1. Date
2. Time of calibration of instruments, changing filter paper, etc.
3. Site name as marked on bottles
4. Time of sampling
5. Location or description of site, if necessary, so that the same
spot can be resampled
6. If it is a well, length of time it was pumped before sampling
7. Name of owner, if it is privately owned
8. Temperature, pH, and conductivity readings
9. Whether or not the sample was filtered
10. Number of bottles filled, how they were preserved, which ones
were chilled
11. Name of person(s) doing the sampling.
Storage and Mailing of Samples
1. Check the ice chest each evening and add ice if necessary. Nonpre-
served and ^$04 preserved samples should not be kept longer than 4 to 5
days before being sent to the lab. Samples that may change composition rap-
idly, such as sewage, should be sent off as soon as possible. HN03 pre-
served samples should not be held more than 2 to 3 weeks.
2. Keep the samples locked at night.
3. Pack the ice chest for mailing by layering samples and ice. Put the
nonpreserved and ^$04 preserved bottles on the bottom because these need
to be cold. Fill in the remaining space with the HN03 preserved bottles;
try to get all of them in to avoid confusion at the lab.
4. Seal the ice chest with strapping tape and rope.
105
-------
5. Fill out an EPA seal and put it over the opening on the chest. Cover
the seal with clear Scotch tape.
6. Prepare copies of the field notes for the lab.
7. Write a note to the lab listing the names of the samples being sent
and what they are to be analyzed for. Request that the ice chest be filled
with empty bottles (specify size) and returned immediately by bus.
8. Prepare a copy of your note and file it along with a copy of the
field notes in the large envelope attached to the top of the ice chest.
9. Put the lab address and phone number and a return address on the out-
side of the envelope. Be sure to label it "call upon arrival."
10. Take the ice chest to the airport and send it air freight. Be sure
that it will arrive before 5:00 pm on a weekday so that it will not be incon-
venient for the lab to pick it up.
11. Call the lab and let them know the samples are on the way.
12. Make a note in the field notebook of when and how the samples were
sent.
Spiked Samples
A spiked sample should be included with the others from time to time as a
check on the accuracy of the lab. The EPA samples should be used following
the instructions provided by EPA. The sample should be given a name, so that
it is not obvious that it is spiked, and bagged like the others. After the
field notes have been duplicated, a notation should be made in the field note-
book of the name given to the spiked sample and the EPA number for checking
the results. The spiked sample should be prepared at the last minute in order
to minimize any composition changes that may occur before the lab receives the
sample.
106
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association (APHA), Standard Methods for the Examina-
tion of Water and Waste Water, New York, 1971.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Sanitary Landfill, ASCE Solid
Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Engineering Division,
Headquarters of the Society of New York, New York, 1976.
American Water Works Association (AWWA), "Water Treatment Plant Sludges—An
Update of the State of the Art: Part 1," report of the AWWA Sludge Dis-
posal Committee, Journal of the American Water Works Association, Septem-
ber 1978.
Apgar, M.A., and D. Langmuir, "Groundwater Pollution Potential of a Landfill
Above the Water Table," Ground Water, Proceedings of the NWWA-EPA Na-
tional Groundwater Quality Symposium, Vol. 1, 1971, pp 76-94.
Behavioral Health Consultants, A Report on Industrial and Hazardous Wastes:
A Report to the Arizona Department of Health Services, Phoenix, Arizona,
1975.
Brown, E., M.W. Skougstad, and M.J. Fishman, "Methods for Collection and
Analysis of Water Samples for Dissolved Minerals and Gases, Chapter Al,"
Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 5, Laboratory Analy-
sis, U.S. Geological Survey, 1970.
Davis, S.N., and R.J.M. DeWiest, Hydrogeology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, New York, 1966.
Deming, S.A., "Natural Sealing Potential of Raw Sewage Stabilization Lagoons,"
unpublished M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 1963.
Dunlap, W.J., J.F. McNabb, M.R. Scalf, and R.L. Cosby, Samp 1ing for Organic
Chemicals and Microorganisms in the Subsurface, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, EPA-600/2-77-176, 1977.
Everett, L.G. (ed), Groundwater Quality Monitoring of Western Coal Strip Min-
ing: Identification and Priority Ranking of Potential Pollution Sources,
General Electric-TEMPO Report GE77TMP-50, prepared for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Labora-
tory, Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1979.
107
-------
Everett, L.G., and E.W. Hoylman (eds), Groundwater Quality Monitoring of West-
ern Coal Strip Mining: Preliminary Designs for Active Mine Sources,
General Electric-TEMPO Report GE79TMP-27, prepared for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Labora-
tory, Las Vegas, Nevada, (in review), 1979a.
Everett, L.G., and E.W. Hoylman (eds), Groundwater Quality Monitoring of West-
ern Coal Strip Mining: Preliminary Designs for Reclaimed Mine Sources,
General Electric-TEMPO Report GE79TMP-43, prepared for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Labora-
tory, Las Vegas, Nevada, (in review), 1979b.
Federal Register, "Pollutants Which Have Been Identified," Vol. 44, No. 116,
June 14, 1979, p 34401.
Fenn, D.G., K.J. Hanley, and T.V. DeGeare, Use of Water Balance Method for
Predicting Leachate Generation from Solid Waste Disposal Sites, EPA/530/
SW-168, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., The Prevalence of Subsurface Migration of Hazardous
Chemical Substances at Selected Industrial Waste Land Disposal Sites,
EPA/530/SW-634, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.
Goerlitz, D.F., and E. Brown, "Methods for Analysis of Organic Substances in
Water," Chapter A3, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 5.
Laboratory Analysis, U.S. Geological Survey, 1972.
Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers, Recom-
mended Standards for Sewage Works, Health Education Service, Albany, New
York, revised edition, 1973.
Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers, Recom-
mended Standards for Water Works, Health Education Service, Albany, New
York, 1976.
Hammer, M.J., Water and Waste-Water Technology, J. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, New York, 1977.
Harris, D.J., and W.J. Keefer, Wastewater Sampling Methodologies for Flow
Measurement Techniques, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-907/
9-74-005, Kansas City, Kansas, 1974.
Hulburt, Margery A., "Hydrology of the Gillette Area, Wyoming," M.S. Thesis,
Department of Hydrology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 1979.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climatology of the United
States. No. 20. Climate of Gillette. Wyoming, National Climatic Center,
Asheville, North Carolina, 1976.
Nelson, Haley, Patterson, and Quirk, Inc., Water Facilities Inventory-Remedial
Work Program for the the City of Gillette, Wyoming, Greeley, Colorado,
1976:
108
-------
Nielsen, D.R., W. Biggar, and K.T. Erh, "Spatial Variability of Field-Measured
Soil-Water Properties," Hilga.rdia, Vol. 42, No. 7, pp 215-260, 1973.
Parizek, R.R., and B.E. Lane, "Soil-Water Sampling Using Pan and Deep
Pressure-Vacuum Lysimeters," Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 11, pp 1-21,
1970.
Pohland, F.G., and R.S. Engelbrecht, Impact of Sanitary Landfills-An Overview
of Environmental Factors and Control Alternatives, American Paper Insti-
tute, 1976.
Silberman, P.T., On-Site Disposal Systems and Septage Treatment and Disposal,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Conference on 208 Planning
and Implementation, Washington, D.C., 1977.
Todd, O.K., R.M. Tinlin, K.D. Schmidt, and L.G. Everett, Monitoring Groundwa-
ter Quality: Monitoring Methodology. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-60074-76-026, 1976.
Thornthwaite, C.W., and O.R. Mather, "Instructions and Tables for Computing
Potential Evapotranspiration and the Water Balance," Publications in Cli-
matology, Vol. 10, No. 3, Laboratory of Technology, Drexel Institute of
5ay_, v
>logy,
Technology, Centerton, New Jersey, 1957.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Handbook for Monitoring Industrial
Wastewater, Technology Transfer Series, U.S. Government Printing Office,
732-349/414, 1973.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Wastes. EPA-625-15-75-003, Methods Development and Quality
Assurance Research Laboratory, National Environmental Research Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Model State Water Monitoring Program,"
EPA-440/9-74-002, Office of Waste and Hazardous Materials, Monitoring and
Data Support Division, Washington, D.C., 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Interim Drinking Water Regu-
lations," 40CFR248, 1975a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Procedures Manual for Groundwater Moni-
toring at Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. EPA-530-SW-611, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treat-
ment Systems. On-Site Disposal/Septage Treatment and Disposal, EPA Tech-
nology Transfer Seminar Publication, EPA-625/4-77-011, 1977a.
Weinstein, N.J., Waste Oil Recycling and Disposal. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, EPA-670-2-74-052, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1974.
109
-------
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Solid Waste Management Rules and
Regulations, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 1975.
110
-------
APPENDIX A
BUDGET SUMMARY
Because many of the expenses for the various steps of the monitoring de-
signs overlap with one another, the following budget summary has been devel-
oped for the first year of the program as a whole.
CAPITAL ITEMS
Well sounder $ 100
Double-ring infiltrometers (20) 300
Neutron moisture probe and generator 15,000
Tensiometers (104) 2,080
Lysimeters (104) 2,190
Composite sampler 600
Portable pump and generator 1,200
Bailer 20
Flow meter 40
Level 40
Crust test equipment 200
Conductivity meter 410
pH meter 350
Dissolved oxygen meter 400
Total $22,930
111
-------
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Leachate collector $ 250
Access wells (drilling, pipe, etc.) 1,400 feet at
$9 per foot 12,600'
Monitor wells (drilling, pipe, etc.) 1,000 feet at
$15 per foot 15,000
Tensiorneters and lysimeters (drilling, pipe, etc.) 8,200
Total $36.050
OPERATIONAL EXPENSES
Survey materials $ 60
449 water analyses at $190 per average complete analysis 85,310
Air freight 2,925
Sample bottles and chemicals 2,270
Computer listings 100
Geophysical logging 1,200
Pump rental 6,000
Surveying 1,000
Drill cutting analyses 3,200
Sludge analyses 800
Labor 19,900
Total $112.765
112
-------
APPENDIX B
METRIC CONVERSION TABLE*
Non-metric units
inch (in)
feet (ft)
square feet (ft2)
yards
square yards
miles
square miles
acres
gallons
cubic feet (ft3)
barrels (oil)
acre/ft
gallons/square foot per minute
cubic feet/second
gallons/minute**
gal Ions/day
million gallons/day
pounds
tons (short)
pounds/acre
parts per million (ppm)
Multiply by
25.
2.
0.
0.
91.
0.
1.
3.
4.
4.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
40.
3.
6.
3.
28.
0.
0.
4.
9.
0.
1.
1
4
54
3048
290
44
914
6093
599
047
047
785
785
785
590
108
74
532
308
785
32
028
454
536
072
907
122
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10-2
103
10-1
103
lO'3
102
10?
102
10-2
10 -^
102
m
c
m
s
c
s
k
s
s
h
c
c
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
c
k
t
k
t
k
m
Metric units
millimeters (mm)
centimeters (cm)
meters (m)
square meters (m2)
centimeters (cm)
square meters (m2)
kilometers (km)
square kilometers
square meters
hectares (ha)
cubic centimeters
cubic meters
liters
1i ters
liters
liters/square meter per minute
liters/second
liters/second
liters/day
liters/second
cubic meters/second
kilograms
tons (metric)
kilograms
tons (metric)
kilograms/hectare
milligrams per liter (mg/1)
*English units were used in this report because of their current usage and
familiarity in industry and the hydrology-related sciences.
**1 gpm = 1.6276 afa.
113
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-80-090
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
GROUNDWATER QUALITY MONITORING DESIGNS FOR MUNICIPAL
POLLUTION SOURCES: Preliminary Designs for Coal Strip
Mining Communities
5. REPORT DATF
Hay 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Lome G. Everett and Margery Hulburt (editors)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
GE79TMP-10
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
General Electric Company-TEMPO
Center for Advanced Studies
Santa Barbara, California 93102
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1NE833
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2449
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Las Vegas, Nevada
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/07
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report looks at the secondary water resource impacts of coal strip mining on
small municipalities in the western States. Specifically, the report covers the im-
pact of several coal strip mines on the City of Gillette, Wyoming. The TEMPO ground-
water quality monitoring methodology is applied in locating potential sources of
pollution and identifying specific pollutants for each source. The major potential
sources of pollution are the landfill, the sewage treatment plant, and the domestic
water treatment plants Minor sources of pollution are also identified. For each
source of pollution, TEMPO develops a groundwater quality monitoring program. Alter-
native monitoring approaches and costs are included in the discussion. The ground-
water quality monitoring designs are preliminary and will be verified in a second
phase of the program using field data.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/ Group
Groundwater
Groundwater quality
Waste management
Coal mining
Sanitary landfills
Strip mining wastes
Septic tanks
Groundwater movement
Monitor wells
Monitoring methodology
Gillette, Wyoming
43F
44G
48A
68C
68D
91A
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
126
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |