PROCEEDINGS OF
THE SECOND NATIONAL GROUND WATER QUALITY SYMPOSIUM
i
Cosponsored by the
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the
National Water Well Association
September 25-27. 1974
Denver, Colorado
U. S Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Transfer
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND NATIONAL GROUND WATER QUALITY SYMPOSIUM
Cosponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Water Well Association, September
25-27, 1974, Denver, Colorado
Contract No. 68-03-0367
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Ground Water and Politics Jay H. Lehr
4 C. L. McGuinness - Hydrogeologist, Writer, Teacher Gerald Meyer
7 New Priorities for Ground-Water Quality Protection D. W. Miller & M. R. Scalf
20 Rational Basis for Septic Tank System Design R. Laak, K. A. Healy, & D. M. Hardisty
25 Effects of Septic Tank Effluent on Ground-Water Quality,
Dade County, Florida: An Interim Report William A. J. Pitt, Jr.
28 Subsurface Sewage Disposal and Contamination of
Ground Water in East Portland, Oregon E. L. Quan, H. R. Sweet, & J. R. Illian
41 Sampling of Variable, Waste-Migration Patterns
in Ground Water K. E. Childs, S. B. Upchurch, & B. Ellis
50 Will Current Research Answer Today's Problems
at the Sanitary Landfill? J. C. Warman, R. K. Rainer, & A. S. Chipley
60 Leachate Plumes in a Highly Permeable Aquifer G. E. Kimmel & O. C. Braids
66 Transpiration Drying of Sanitary Landfills F. J. Molz, S. R. Van Fleet, & V. D. Browning
71 Ground-Water Quality Modeling L. W. Gelhar & J. L. Wilson
81 Uniform Distribution in Soil Absorption Fields R. J. Otis, J. Bouma & W. G. Walker
90 Waste Surveillance in Subsurface Disposal Projects Raphael Kazmann
99 Hydrocarbon Dispersion in Ground Water:
Significance and Characteristics John O. Osgood
111 Bull Session — Operation and Maintenance of Domestic Waste Disposal Systems
Discharging into Ground Waters
130 Pickling Liquors, Strip Mines, and Ground-Water Pollution Wayne A. Pettyjohn
137 Effluent for Irrigation - A Need for Caution? William H.Walker
143 Chemical Interaction During Deep Well Recharge,
Bay Park, New York S. E. Ragone & J. Vecchioli
151 Development of Fresh Ground Water Near Salt Water
in West Virginia Benton M. Wilmoth
159 Subsurface Biological Activity in Relation
to Ground-Water Pollution J. F. McNabb& W. J. Dunlap
171 Bacteriological Criteria for Ground-Water Quality M. J. Allen & E. E. Geldreich
179 Natural Soil Nitrate: The Cause of the Nitrate Contamination
of Ground Water in Runnels County, Texas C. W. Kreitler & D. C. Jones
189 Bull Session — The Impact of Zero Discharge Legislation on Ground Water
205 Bull Session — Lesser Known Ground-Water Pollution Hazards
225 Bull Session — New Technology for Ground-Water Protection
246 These Persons Attended the Second National Ground Water Quality Symposium
-------
GROUND WATER AND POLITICS3
If we are yet to save the last frontier of our nation's water
supplies, the ground-water hydrologist and geologist, engineer,
consultant and planner must come out of his tower or closet and
enter the political arena and make himself or herself heard. In
1972, a new Water Pollution Control Act was passed after two
by Dr. Jay H. Lehr years of heated controversy—controversy which rarely touched on
Executive Director, ground water—the latter topic having been easily disposed of by a
NWWA powerful oil and gas lobby.
With the handwriting clearly on the wall regarding the
congressional disinterest in ground-water protection, NWWA
attempted an end run by jumping into the middle of the drinking-
water legislation just in its embryonic stages in 1971 through
efforts by Congressmen Howard Robison of New York and Paul
Rogers of Florida. Rogers emerged as the main spokesman for the
legislation through his inherent power as Chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment of the Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Committee.
NWWA educated Rogers early in the game that as over 50
percent of drinking water today comes from underground-water
supplies, no Safe Drinking Water Act will be effective without
providing ground-water protection presently missing from the
Water Pollution Control Act.
Throughout the past three years ground-water protection
language has alternately expanded and contracted within the
proposed legislation as various negative interests rose and fell in
committee favor. The oil industry was caught sleeping in 1971 and
1972 on this legislative activity because they were so busy on the
WPCA, but in 1973 they began to fight vvaste disposal regulations
in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Their efforts, coupled with the
desire of Congress to protect State rights and their objection to the
expense of controlling ground-water pollution have continued to
obstruct adequate ground-water protection language.
Three years and ten congressional appearances later by NWWA,
the cause of ground water is still in doubt but very much alive.
This audience could be the strongest force yet mounted. Any
indication to your congressional representatives by you and your
aDe!ivered as the Keynote Address at the Second National Ground
Water Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25,1974.
-------
colleagues will strongly advance the cause in what has been a
veritable vacuum of activity on the part of our fellow scientists,
with the exception of NWWA whose singular presence without
adequate grass roots scientific support is lonesome indeed.
The time to act in getting the attention of Congress is now. If
we still lose we will at least have laid the ground work for a future,
more successful effort to convince each State to protect its precious
ground water so as to retain its optimum potential benefits.
I have long been dismayed by the lack of necessary dedication
amongst our scientific fraternity of ground-water people to work
together in a common cause. Obviously those I address here are
not those I wish to reach. Your presence here indicates you care
enough. Six hundred other ground-water scientists belonging to
the National Water Well Association did not and are not here. But
five will get you ten they attended some other national meeting
this year. The Technical Division of NWWA must get it together as
it has never done before.
We must not allow our goals to be splintered. The AGU has a
Ground Water Committee. GSA has some activity, as does AWRA.
But if you really want action, the action will best come through
NWWA. United we stand, divided we fall. On this issue I must
express some remorse at the decision of some State ground-water
officials to form the National Association of State Ground-Water
Officials outside of the NWWA Technical Division when it may
well have become an active, effective and well supported arm of
the NWWA Technical Division.
Ground water is invisible enough as it is. I think that the
more collective our effort, the greater our hope for visibility
without the aid of a microscope.
In this Second National Ground Water Quality Symposium,
let us not only talk of technological advantages of the laboratory
type, but'let us also deal with the administration problems of
bringing our ideas to fruition. It is not enough to know how
something should be done, we must determine how to get it done.
In the past decade we have seen successful revolutions for
many minority groups. May this Symposium signal the beginning
of a truly organized ground-water development and protection
revolution whose success can be celebrated when we meet again
two years hence for the Third National Ground Water Quality
Symposium in Las Vegas, Nevada, on September 15-17, 1976.
-------
C. L. McGuinness —
Hydrogeologist, Writer, Teacher
by Gerald Meyer
In the moments available to me I should like
to highlight Mac McGuinness' contributions to
water understanding, not for documentation of his
awesome array of significant writings, but in the
perspective of the continuing significance of this
gifted man's-works to water problems, and the
important benefits of other legacies not generally
known.
The directions set by Mac's (many called him
Lee) latest writings suggest that his untimely death,
April 25, 1971, probably cut short a bonanza of
new insights and ideas directed to water issues. He
was acutely aware of the social and economic worth
of accumulated knowledge and understanding of
ground water, and his most recent works seemed
bent on insuring public awareness of the applica-
tions of that body of knowledge, and on bringing
the physical sciences and the social sciences into
comfortable acquaintance. In the parlance of today,
he was "getting involved"—employing his most
proficient tools, his mind and pen—and I wish he
had been given more time.
Thoughtful browsing through his career
record—a remarkably varied one, including pro-
ficiency in photography and camera repair, firearms
and shooting, remote sensing, electronics, water
law, soils science, writing, editing and review, and,
of course, his beloved hydrogeology—one is
aMemorial address presented at the Second National
Ground Water Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado,
September 25-27, 1974.
t>Chief, Ground Water Branch, U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston, Virginia 22092.
attracted especially to his writings and his mastery
of clear scientific expre'ssion. As Chief of the
Technical Reports Section of the Geological
Survey's Ground Water Branch for 15 years, he set
a personal example of technical excellence and
writing clarity, exercising his manuscript-review
responsibilities with powerful influence on the
scientific and editorial quality of reports of the
Branch personnel and on technical betterment of
the authors.
Through the broad affiliations of the
Geological Survey with Federal and State agencies
and universities in the U.S.A., and with many
Nations of the world, his impacts on literary and
technical standards in ground-water hydrology
were extended worldwide. He was, in his own way,
a teacher. He taught with his pen.
Hearing himself labelled a teacher, Mac would
have elevated his big, bushy eyebrows in surprise,
following perhaps with a hearty chuckle of disbelief
and denial. But, if a teacher is one who encourages,
shapes, nudges, cajoles, leads, and upgrades the
thoughts of others, then Mac was indeed an
unusually gifted teacher. In 1950, he was drafted to
assist the President's Water Resources Policy
Commission on evaluation of the Nation's ground
water and related water laws, followed by similar
service to the Senate Select Committee on National
Water Resources. Subsequently, taking advantage of
materials prepared for these assignments and
isolating himself from interruptions, he fell to
writing "The Role of Ground Water in the National
Water Situation" (McGuinness, 1963), a compre-
hensive analysis of the Nation's ground-water
resources which won him international note and a
-------
number of awards, including the O. E. Meinzer
Award of the Geological Society of America. Aided
by contributions from each of the Geological
Survey's district offices, its 1,121 pages reflect the
phenomenal scope of the author's knowledge and
his intense devotion to the communication of
hydrologic facts and to clarity of expression.
Issued in 1963 as Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1800, there exists no other summation of the
Nation's ground water to equal it. Demand for the
report continues 11 years after its first printing,
attesting to its continuing pertinency.
Contrasting in size, but equally impressive on
its own merit, is a simple 26-page booklet
co-authored by Mac with Helene L. Baldwin (1963),
which I commend to all who find it necessary to
traffic in ground water but may lack knowledge of
its fundamentals. Entitled "A Primer on Ground
Water," this modest document serves up the
rudiments of the science, the resource, and manage-
ment principles for quantity and quality in simple
lay language and graphics. In print it looks
deceptively easy, but anyone who has had to
communicate technical facts to the uninitiated will
admire the writing craftmanship demanded by
this readable and instructive lay document. In the
present era of increasing interplay among scientific
disciplines and increasing dialogue with workers in
nonscientific fields, it is all the more extremely
valuable as teaching material and an introduction
to ground water.
Between these two extremes in style and
content, lie a great assortment of writings. I am
especially fascinated with Mac's most recent works
reflecting a watchful assessment of new technical
movements in the ground-water discipline, and the
broadening interrelations of ground-water
hydrology with the social and economic fields. His
papers carrying titles such as "The Changing Role
of Ground Water in Our Society" (1967), "New
Thrusts in Ground Water" (1969a), and "Scientific
or Rule-of-Thumb Techniques of Ground-Water
Management" (1969b), reveal a leaning to the
philosophical, and one must wonder where his pen
would have led him if he had been granted more
time. Here is what Mac had to say in 1969 about
the burgeoning demands on hydrogeology at the
midpoint of his five years of service as Chief of the
Ground Water Branch, U.S. Geological Survey:
"Of all the things that might be said about ground
water in today's world, one that seems highly
appropriate to me is an expression of amazement.
After years—in fact, decades—in which students of
ground water felt that we were just voices crying in
the wilderness, the world has suddenly discovered our
subject. Now we don't know whether to laugh or cry,
because the world suddenly wants from us more than
we have to give—more knowledge than was ever
demanded before, and more'than we ever dreamed
would be needed" (McGuinness, 1969a).
Mac's paper on scientific versus rule-of-thumb
techniques was written for the 23rd International
Geological Congress in Prague in August 1968. It
reveals his comfortable comprehension of the
functioning of ground-water systems, including
chemical and biologic relationships, and his
philosophical insight into the unfolding role of
modeling. He petitioned for enlarged support of
new research to insure competent techniques "for
predicting aquifer response to imposed forces,
whether static, hydraulic, thermal, or chemical."
These methods, he felt, are preferable by far to
management of aquifers by rule-or-thumb
standards. Presentation of the paper was aborted
by the Russian occupation of Prague, with Mac
scurrying out of Czechoslovakia by rail. (One
should not construe that the contents of Mac's
paper precipitated the surprise invasion.)
Mac was continually involved in important
ground-water issues, usually behind the scenes and
hidden from public awareness, but nonetheless
having significant impact on the interests of ground-
water hydrology and the water industries. He served
as the Geological Survey representative to the
Public Health Service's Advisory Committee for
State Legislation on Planning of Urban Water
Supply and Sewage Systems, seeking'with the
National Water Well Association, Water Systems
Council, and others to see that ground water got a
fair hearing and a fair shake at the hearings. (And,
through these joint efforts, it did.) He was the
Interior Department representrative on a work
group, assigned to the Office of Science and
Technology, to assist a task group on coordination
of water research in the Federal Government. These
actions were instrumental in establishment of the
Committee on Water Resources Research, the only
coordinating body for water research in the Federal
structure. Additionally, early in the inception of
the Interior's Office of Water Resources Research,
he helped design and install procedures for
processing applications for research funds received
from the newly emerging water-resources institutes
at universities and colleges.
Some further involvements: If you seek out
an explanation of a ground-water term in the latest
edition of the American Geological Institute's
Glossary of Geology (Gary, McAfee, and Wolf,
5
-------
1972), it is an explanation furnished by Mac
McGuinness. If you utilize a copy of the Geological
Survey's "Suggestions to Authors" (U.S. Geological
Survey, 1958), the basic reference of style, form,
and expression in Survey technical reports, you
may recognize Mac's fine touch. And, if you have
occasion to refer to Water-Supply Paper 1988,
"Definitions of Selected Ground-Water Terms-
Revisions and Conceptual Refinements" (Lohman
and others, 1972), an analysis of the concepts
behind common fundamental ground-water terms,
here too you will encounter Mac's handiwork.
By these examples you see that Mac
McGuinness was indeed "involved," both behind
the scenes in effective ways not readily evident,
and more prominently through his publications.
For more information on this talented man and his
legacies to the ground-water community, I' would
refer you to the two memorial papers listed in the
References, one by Stanley W. Lohman (1971) and
the other by George V. Cohee (1971), both of
which were used freely in the preparation of this
paper. Lohman's paper includes a complete bibli-
ography of Mac's publications.
I might close with another bit of Mac's
pragmatic philosophical advice, which is addressed
to those of us who wrestle daily with the Nation's
water problems. Encouraging accelerated pursuit
of improved analytic and management tools for
ground water, and collection of reliable and
pertinent supporting hydrogeologic data, he
observed (McGuinness, 1969a); "The more we do,
the bigger the remaining job seems. But it would
be still bigger if we did nothing, so we might as well
get at it."
I am sure Mac McGuinness would have agreed
that this series of symposia on the Nation's ground-
water quality is certainly one highly effective way
of "getting at it." Mrs. Helen Louise McGuinness
and I are extremely pleased to have been invited
to the Proceedings.
REFERENCES
Baldwin, Helena L. and C. L. McGuinness. 1963. A primer
on ground water. U.S. Geol. Survey misc. pub., 26 pp.
Cohee, George V. 1971. Memorial to Charles Lee
McGuinness—1914-1971. Am. Assoc. Petroleum
Geologists Bull. v. 55, no. 11, pp. 2064-2065,
November.
Gary, Margaret, Robert McAfee, Jr., and Carol L. Wolf,
editors. 1972. Glossary of geology. Am. Geol. Inst.,
805 pp., Bibliography A-52 pp.
Lohman, S. W. 1971. Memorial to Charles Lee McGuinness—
1914-1971. Geol. Society America (to be published in
v. 3, Memorial Series, 1974).
Lohman, S. W., and others. 1972. Definitions of selected
ground-water terms—revisions and conceptual refine-
ments. U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1988,
21 PP-
McGuinness, C. L. 1963. The role of ground water in the
national water situation, with state summaries based
on reports by district offices of the ground water
branch. U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1800,
1121pp.
McGuinness, C. L. 1967. The changing role of ground water
in our society. Delaware Univ., Dept. Civil Eng. and
Water Resources Center, Water Resources Seminars,
2d, 1966-1967, Proc., pp. 39-57.
McGuinness, C. L. 1969a. New thrusts in ground water.
Ground Water, v. 7, no. 2, pp. 7-10. Condensed in
Water Well Jour., v. 23, no. 2, pp. 22-24. Based on
paper presented at 13th Ann. Midwest Ground-Water
Conf., Columbia, Mo., Oct. 25, 1968.
McGuinness, C. L. 1969b. Scientific or rule-of-thumb
techniques of ground-water management—which will
prevail? U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 608, 8 pp. Based on
paper prepared for presentation, but not presented,
at 23rd Internat. Geol. Cong., Prague, Aug. 1968.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1958. Suggestions to authors of the
reports of the United States Geological Survey. 5th
edition, 1958, 255 pp.
-------
New Priorities for Ground-Water
Quality Protectiona
by David W. Millerb and Marion R. Sea If c
ABSTRACT
Four regional studies of the status of ground-water
pollution problems in 26 States have been sponsored by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These investigations
involved comprehensive reviews of the literature and
contacts with public officials and others involved in water
supply, so that individual case histories of ground-water
contamination problems could be evaluated. Septic tanks
and cesspools, petroleum exploration and development,
landfills, irrigation return flows, and surface discharges,
impoundments, and spills are the principal sources leading
to degradation of ground-water quality.
Only a very small percentage of the instances of
ground-water contamination that probably exist has been
discovered to date, and almost all the reported cases were
only discovered after a water-supply source had been
noticeably affected by one or more pollutants. In the vast
majority of cases inventoried, the problem has not been
corrected and will become more troublesome in the future.
A prime need in all four regions is a greater effort toward
locating and evaluating as many additional cases of ground-
water contamination as possible.
Over the past four years, the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, through the Robert S.
Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory in Ada,
Oklahoma, has been sponsoring an evaluation of
the key ground-water pollution problems through-
out the nation. To date, four regional investigations
Table 1. States Included in Each of Four Project Regions
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974.
t>Vice President, Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Consulting
Ground-Water Geologists, 44 Sintsink Drive East, Port
Washington, New York 11050.
cSanitary Engineer, Subsurface Environment Branch,
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada,
Oklahoma 74820.
Northeast
Connecticut
Delaware
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Northwest
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Oregon
Washington
Wyoming
South Central
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Southwest
Arizona
California
Nevada
Utah
have been carried out, and they include a total of
26 States in the northeast, northwest, south-central,
and southwest portions of the country. Table 1 lists
the States covered in each of the regions. The
findings of these studies have been used to establish
priorities for research into ways to correct existing
sources of contamination and to point out defi-
ciencies in present control methods for protecting
against further degradation of ground-water quality.
Without a thorough understanding of which
activities of man are having the greatest impact on
ground-water quality, effective programs for long-
term protection of this resource cannot be
developed. For years, salt-water intrusion, septic
tanks, irrigation return flows, and industrial waste
injection wells have been the principal concerns of
regulatory agency personnel and investigators in
the ground-water field. However, even though these
are important sources, more attention must be paid
in the future to the tens of thousands of surface
impoundments, landfills, buried pipelines and
storage tanks, abandoned oil, gas, and water wells,
and uncontrolled surface discharges that are adding
-------
millions of gallons of contaminated water each day
to the ground-water system.
Some of the key conclusions obtained from
the various regional studies of ground-water con-
tamination problems are as follows:
1. Only a very small percentage of the
instances of ground-water contamination from all
sources that probably exist in each of the regions
has been discovered to date. Almost all of the
reported cases were only discovered after a water-
supply well or spring had been noticeably affected
or the pollutant was being discharged to the surface.
Few cases of ground-water pollution are uncovered
as the result of specific studies, such as those
directed toward investigations of salt-water
intrusion in coastal areas, or as the result of specific
monitoring of potential sources of contamination.
Such monitoring is almost non-existent in all four
regions.
2. In the vast majority of cases inventoried,
the problem of ground-water contamination has
not been corrected from either the standpoint of
removing the source of contamination or signifi-
cantly improving the quality of the affected
ground-water supply. The principal reasons for the
lack of success in dealing with existing ground-
water contamination problems are deficiencies in
the technology presently available to satisfy
economic, social, and political restraints; inadequate
budgeting and staffing together with the diverse
interests of regulatory agencies; and a general lack
of understanding in each region as to how the
various activities of man can degrade ground-water
quality.
It should be kept in mind that the normal
range of cost to investigate ground-water contamina-
tion problems involving landfills and industrial
waste lagoons is $20,000 to $100,000. This
includes test drilling to define the areal extent of
the contaminated ground-water body, water
quality analyses to determine the character of the
pollutant, consultant fees, and litigation expenses.
Estimates for solution of landfill and industrial
waste lagoon problems, including procedures for
eliminating the source of pollution and to contain
or remove the pollutants already in the ground,
range in the millions of dollars. Some problems,
such as widespread contamination of an aquifer
with septic tank effluent or oilfield brines, are
insoluble at almost any cost.
The inclusion of ground water in new laws and
regulations as one of the resources to be protected
when dealing with activities that might degrade the
environment is a relatively new development. How-
ever, even at this late date, progress along these
lines is slow and is hampered by the complexity of
creating workable legal guidelines.
3. There are two basic approaches that have
been used to clean up contaminated ground water.
The first is containment and the second is actual
removal of the pollutant. Containment involves the
use of methods to protect against the spread of
degradation of water quality within the aquifer
already contaminated, to other aquifers that may
be affected, or to surface-water bodies into which
the contaminated ground water might discharge.
These methods include removing the source of
contamination, for example lining a waste-water
lagoon, or creating barriers against movement of the
pollutant by means of pumping wells.
Actual removal of the pollutants from the
ground-water reservoir has been attempted at a few
locations, especially where hazardous wastes are
involved. Use of wells drilled specifically for the
purpose of pumping out the contaminated fluid
is the most common approach, but existing water-
supply wells have been used, in addition to surface
drains and ditches.
4. Existing ground-water contamination prob-
lems will become more troublesome in the future
because of the long-time factors involved in decay
of the pollutants, the slow movement of the
affected ground-water body, exhaustion of the
soils' ability to reduce the concentrations of or to
remove specific pollutants, and the ever-increasing
volume and complexity of contaminating fluids.
Practices leading to pollution have been most active
over the past 30 to 40 years, which is a relatively
short time period with regard to the migration of
pollutants in the ground. Most pollutants are still
in water-table aquifers and within close proximity
of their source. With time, contamination will
spread horizontally-and vertically and affect more
and more surface streams and water-supply wells.
Throughout this paper, the terms "pollution"
and "contamination" are synonymous and mean
the degradation of natural water quality, as a result
of man's activities, to the extent that its usefulness
is impaired. There is no implication of any specific
limits (such as those in the U.S. Public Health
Service drinking water standards), since the degree
of permissible pollution depends upon the intended
end use, or uses, of the water. Increases in concen-
tration of one or more constituents as the natural
result of movement of ground water through an
aquifer are referred to as "mineralization."
8
-------
DESCRIPTIONS OF PROJECT REGIONS
Northeast
The northeast study region covers over
190,000 square miles, which is approximately 6
percent of the conterminous United States.
Characteristic physiographic features range from
broad areas of minor relief in the southeastern
portion to hilly and rugged, mountainous terrain
in the west and north. As of the 1970 census, 53.5
million people or over 26 percent of the nation's
population resided here, heavily concentrated in
the Boston to Washington, D.C., megalopolis.
Climate of the region is humid, with average
annual rates of precipitation ranging from 32 to 50
inches. In 1970, 18 percent of the total water used
in the area was from ground-water sources. The
largest use of ground water was for public supply.
Natural ground-water quality in the Northeast
is suitable for most purposes with little or no
treatment. High iron content (with associated high
concentrations of manganese), low pH, and some-
times high hardness are the most widespread
problems. High total dissolved solids and chlorides
are characteristic of ground water in some coastal
aquifers and in deeper bedrock units underlying
western Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Northwest
The northwest study region covers an area of
600,000 square miles, representing 20 percent of
the conterminous United States. The region is
characterized by a wide variety of landform
features, ranging from plains, large basins and
lowlands, to intermontane plateaus and high
mountains.
Climatic conditions differ widely because of
the varied topography and movement of air masses
across the continent. The Pacific zone has a coastal-
marine climate with high precipitation and runoff
and low evaporation rates. Eastward, the climate
becomes the high-desert type with low precipita-
tion, low runoff, and high evaporation rates. •
In 1970, approximately 9.5 million people, or
nearly 5 percent of the total United States popula-
tion, resided in the project area. Ground water
provided 12 percent of the total water used, with
irrigation the largest user of both ground and
surface water.
In the Pacific Coast States, ground water is
comparatively low in total dissolved solids, but high
in iron and manganese. Ground water in many areas
of Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado contain high
concentrations of fluoride. In addition, there are
numerous thermal springs and large areas are under-
lain by aquifers yielding ground water with a high
total dissolved solids content.
South Central
The south central study area covers 560,000
square miles, or about 19 percent of the
conterminous United States. The region is charac-
terized by high mountain ranges, vast stretches of
deserts and plains, and large swamps.
Climate varies from arid, in the deserts of New
Mexico and west Texas, to humid in the marshlands
of Louisiana, with annual precipitation of 8 and 64
inches, respectively.
In 1970, there were 20 million residents, repre-
senting 10 percent of the United States population.
Ground water provided 57 percent of the total fresh
water used in 1970, with the largest withdrawals for
irrigation. Natural ground-water quality ranges from
generally good but hard, to very hard with high
concentrations of iron, fluoride, or sulfate. Several
areas are troubled by arsenic, dissolved gases or
objectionable amounts of silica or nitrate.
Southwest
The southwest study area covers 468,000
square miles, about 13 percent of the conterminous
United States. Characteristic physiographic features
include high mountain ranges, vast deserts, several
large salt lakes, and the Colorado plateau. Climate
for the most part is arid to semi-arid (less than 10
inches annual precipitation over broad areas).
However, some of the mountains in California and
Utah have relatively high precipitation, and several
locations within the north coastal basin of Cali-
fornia receive over 80 inches.
In 1970, the population of the area was over
23 million people. Ground water supplies about .
one-half of the total fresh-water requirements of
the region with irrigation the largest consumer.
Natural ground-water quality is generally
good. However, high concentrations of total
dissolved solids and chloride are encountered in
some coastal areas of California and some inland
regions of the other States. There are also
scattered areas of excessive fluoride, boron, iron,
nitrate, and manganese.
SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION
Each of the investigations of ground-water
contamination problems involved a thorough
review of the literature of the region. However,
few descriptions of known instances of contamina-
tion have been published. In order to gain a more
accurate perspective on the status of pollution, it
-------
was necessary to contact public officials, con-
sultants, scientists, well drilling contractors,
representatives of industry, and others involved in
water supplies so that their files and individual
experiences could be applied to the various studies.
In the Northeast alone, information was obtained
on more than 1,000 cases of ground-water con-
tamination. The results of each of the investigations
have been published in a report, except for the
Northwest which is still in preparation
(van der Leeden et al, 1974).
A brief discussion of the findings for each of
the significant sources of contamination follows.
Their relative importance by region is given in
Table 2. The four pollutants most commonly
reported and the source of contamination are given
in Table 3.
Septic Tanks and Cesspools
By sheer volume of waste water discharged,
septic tanks and cesspools must be rated as the key
potential source of ground-water contamination in
all four regions. In the 11 States covered by the
northeast study, approximately 12 million people
are served by individual home waste-water treat-
ment systems. Assuming an average domestic
water use of 40 to 80 gallons per day per capita, as
much as one half to one billion gallons of raw
sewage is discharged from residences directly into
the subsurface each day. To this figure must be
added the millions of gallons per day discharged to
the ground from commercial and industrial septic
tanks.
It is a generally accepted fact that as much as
300 milligrams per liter of total dissolved solids
are added to water by domestic use, and thus, the
effluent from septic tanks can increase the
concentration of minerals in ground water. The
major concern or indicator of pollution from
septic-tank and cesspool effluent is nitrate.
Bacteria and viruses are normally removed by the
soil system, but under conditions favorable for
their survival, can reach the water table and can
travel significant distances through an aquifer.
Of growing concern is the tremendous increase
in the number of homesites where soil and geologic
conditions are not favorable for sufficient removal
of pollutants. This condition exists in many moun-
tainous resort areas. Arid regions are especially
vulnerable to contamination of ground-water sup-
plies where homes are served by both on-site wells
and waste-disposal systems. Because of the lack of
Table 2. Principal Sources of Ground-Water Contamination and Their Relative Importance by Region
Septic Tanks and Cesspools
Petroleum Exploration and Development
Landfills
Irrigation Return Flows
Surface Discharges
Surface Impoundments
Spills
Buried Pipelines and Storage Tanks
Mining Activities
Salt-Water Intrusion
Coastal Areas
Inland Areas
Water Wells
Agricultural Activities
Fertilizers
Feedlot and Barnyard Wastes
Pesticides
Disposal Wells
Deep Wells
Shallow Wells
Highway Deicing Salts
Artificial Recharge
River Infiltration
Spray Irrigation by Waste Water
I - High
II — Moderate
III - Low
IV — Not significant
Northeast
I
II
I
IV
II
I
I
I
II
III
I
II
III
III
III
IV
II
I
III
II
III
Northwest
I
II
II
I
I
I
II
II
I
III
II
HI
II
III
III
III
I
III
IV
II
IV
South Central
I
I
II
I
III
II
II
II
III
II
II
I
III
II
III
III
III
IV
III
IV
III
Southwest
I
I
II
I
I
III
II
III
II
I
II
III
II
III
HI
III
III
IV
II
IV
III
10
-------
Table 3. The Four Pollutants Most Commonly Reported and Source of Contamination
Source
Septic Tanks and Cesspools
Petroleum Exploration and Development
Landfills
Irrigation Return Flows
Surface Discharges
Surface Impoundments
Spills
Buried Pipelines and Storage Tanks
Mining Activities
Salt-Water Intrusion
Water Wells
Agricultural Activities
Disposal Wells
Highway Deicing Salts
Artificial Recharge
River Infiltration
Spray Irrigation by Waste Water
Chlorides
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nitrates
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hydrocarbons Heavy Metals
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
natural recharge and dilution, recirculation of waste
water can be an important factor in pollution over
the long term. Even in humid regions, investigators
have concluded that the relatively small amount of
natural ground-water recharge available in areas
underlain by poor aquifers limits septic tank use.
Studies have shown that in many housing develop-
ments recycling of liquid waste in the ground-
water system is an inevitable fact of life.
Probably the most comprehensive field
research on the effects on ground-water quality
of effluent discharged by typical individual sewage
disposal systems has been carried out on Long
Island, New York. Contamination from septic tank
and cesspool effluent, and to some degree from
fertilizers, has occurred in major aquifers over an
180 square-mile area. The nitrate-enriched water
has penetrated hundreds of feet into the principal
artesian coastal-plain aquifer.
In spite of their potential for ground-water
contamination, millions of septic tanks will
continue to be used in all of the regions studied,
and their over-all numbers will probably increase
during at least the next decade. Limitations on
local, State, and Federal budgets limit the installa-
tion of public sewers. Even in areas where the
density of housing and problems of ground-water
contamination have justified the need for conver-
sion to collecting sewers and treatment plants, a
long time period is normally required for the public
systems to become fully operational after funding
has been secured.
Petroleum Exploration and Development
In 1969, 70 percent of the total United States
crude oil was produced from more than 300,000
wells in the south central region. Each operating
oil or gas well is considered a potential or actual
source of pollution to fresh-water aquifers because
of improper control of gas, oil, salt water, or the
many chemicals used in drilling and production
activities. Production of crude oil is usually
accompanied by the production of waste water of
variable but usually high chloride content. A ratio
of a dozen or more barrels of brine to each barrel
of oil produced is not uncommon, and billions of
barrels of brine waste water are produced in the
south central States alone each year.
Most oil field brines are returned to subsurface
formations through old production wells or brine
disposal wells for the purpose of waterflooding or
just as a disposal method. However, many of these
wells are poorly designed for injection, and they
offer the opportunity for the salt water to enter
fresh-water formations through ruptured or
corroded casings.
Abandoned oil and gas wells, in addition to
test holes drilled for geophysical exploration, are
also potential sources of ground-water pollution.
Open bore holes or abandoned wells with corroded
casings can act as conduits for surface pollutants to
enter the ground-water reservoir. Some improperly
plugged wells discharge brine continuously on the
surface, contaminating shallow fresh-water aquifers.
Even in cases where the well is not flowing, saline
water from deep formations can migrate under
natural pressure up the bore hole and enter shallow
aquifers containing potable water.
Another problem has been the widespread
practice of discharging the brine waste water to
11
-------
unlined pits and basins. The highly mineralized
water can leak into shallow aquifers over broad
areas. Spills and leaks from pipes and tanks are
also common in oil fields.
Similar conditions to those described above
for the south central region also exist in each of the
other three regions. Although many States have
passed legislation and are enforcing regulations on
lining brine pits, plugging abandoned wells, and
otherwise controlling pollution from petroleum
exploration and development, the problem is so
extensive that this source of ground-water
contamination will be an important one for many
years to come. The problem has not been adequate-
ly studied in any of the four regions. Brine con-
tamination of ground water from pits and wells is
only now being discovered in areas where oil and
gas production was abandoned 30 or more years
ago. In many places where ground-water contami-
nation has occurred, records simply are not avail-
ah}e of where abandoned oil and gas wells are
located.
Landfills
Cases of contaminated ground-water supplies
caused by the leaching of solid wastes contained
in municipal and industrial landfills has been
reported in each of the four regions studied. The
problem has beeri most severe in the heavily
urbanized area of the Northeast where an annual
average precipitation of 42 inches can result in the
generation of 57 million gallons of leachate per year
at a 100-acre landfill site.
The principal indicators of pollution identified
in the documented cases of ground-water contamina-
tion related to municipal solid waste disposal
include high concentrations of BOD, COD, total
dissolved solids, hardness, iron, sulfate, and
chloride. For industrial landfills, a number of
instances of ground water being contaminated with
heavy metals and various organic compounds
have been reported. For example, in one case in the
Northeast, ground water containing up to 18 mg/1
of lead has traveled at least 500 feet from an
industrial landfill site through coastal plain deposits
toward a nearby municipal well field. In the
Northwest, landfilled sawdust containing glue
extracts has caused phenols to enter a shallow
aquifer, resulting in contamination of nearby
domestic wells.
The polluted ground-water body in many
instances is confined to within the general property
boundaries of the landfill site. However, there were
cases inventoried in the Northeast where pollutants
were detected in significant concentrations after
migrating more than 1,000 feet. In several
instances, contamination could be traced a distance
of more than a mile from the source.
Data obtained on landfill contamination of
ground water in the Northeast indicate that the
thousands of landfills in the region containing
municipal and industrial solid waste are an almost
universal source of pollution. For the south central
States, it has been concluded that the major solid
waste threat to ground-water quality is probably
from land disposal of industrial wastes, which can
consist of highly complex substances.
With the trend toward greater use of monitor-
ing wells by public agencies, it is reasonable to
forecast a rapid increase in the discovery of new
problems at existing landfills. Unfortunately,
adequate alternatives for eliminating existing
landfills as a continuing source of contamination
have not been developed. On the other hand, the
siting, design, and operation of new landfills is
receiving increased attention and regulation, which
should help in limiting the development of future
problems.
Irrigation Return Flow ^
Irrigation return flow is water diverted for
irrigation purposes that finds its way back into an
existing or potential water supply. This process
concentrates salts by evapotranspiration and can
introduce chlorides and other substances from
irrigated lands into a ground-water aquifer by
means of infiltration. Pollutants in irrigation return
flows may originate from many sources including
the applied water, soils, fertilizers, and pesticides.
In all but the northeast region, irrigation
return flow is considered a major problem which
has led to a large number of areally extensive
ground-water contamination cases. In the south
central States, for example, ground-water quality
has deteriorated from irrigation return flows in the
Rio Grande basin of New Mexico and Texas. Other
problem areas include the Pecos River valley in New
Mexico and Texas and the Arkansas River valley in
Oklahoma and Arkansas. In the southwestern
States, degradation of ground-water quality on a
broad scale has been reported in the San Joaquin
basin in California.
In the northwestern States, it is estimated that
there are over two million acres of saline land
within the region. A few of the larger areas current-
ly experiencing irrigation return flow problems are:
the valleys of the Grande, Platte, and Arkansas
Rivers in Colorado; the Yakima valley in Washing-
12
-------
ton; Larimer County in Wyoming; Rosebud County
in Montana; the Snake River valley in Idaho; and
the lower Columbia River basin in Washington. One
of the severest and best studied instances of a
problem related to irrigation return flow is in the
Grande Valley of Colorado, where a high percentage
of the irrigated acreage has become marginal
because of a high water table and concentrated
salts. It has been estimated that approximately 37
percent of the total salt load from the Upper
Colorado Basin is associated with irrigation return
flows in this area.
Irrigation return flows from agricultural
practices are and will continue to be a major source
of ground-water contamination within the foresee-
able future. In some areas, the problem could
decrease in severity as new techniques are devel-
oped for application and management of irrigation
waters and more efficient use is made of crop
types.
Surface Discharges
Discharge of effluent from sewage treatment
plants to dry stream beds and intermittent disposal
of wastes on the open ground at industrial and
commercial facilities are important sources of
ground-water contamination. In the northwest
region, discharge from sewage treatment plants has
created widespread problems of ground-water
quality degradation in the Denver, Colorado area.
Effluent released to stream channels has infiltrated
valley fill aquifers contributing to high detergent
and nitrate levels in ground water. Similar problems
have occurred in some of the arid basins of the
Southwest.
In the northeast region, one case of ground-
water pollution, with arsenic concentrations
exceeding 10,000 mg/1, was discovered at an
industrial site and traced to long-term discharge of
waste water to the land surface. In a recent study
on the disposal and management of waste oil in 18
counties of the New York metropolitan region, it
was determined that millions of gallons per year of
used auto lube and crankcase oil are simply dumped
on the ground by individuals and gasoline station
owners.
More attention must be given to uncontrolled
surface discharges of liquids that can create prob-
lems of ground-water contamination. Regulatory
agencies have halted uncontrolled discharge of
wastes to the land surface where such practices
have come to their attention and where there is an
alternative available. Frequently, by the time the
magnitude of the problem is properly appreciated,
pollution is so widespread that clean-up operations
are neither economically nor technically feasible.
Surface Impoundments
Surface impoundments used for storage and
treatment of liquid municipal and industrial wastes
are serious threats to ground-water quality. Some
impoundments containing waste effluent from
sewage and industrial plants are referred to as
"evaporation" ponds, but actually only operate
successfully if seepage of the liquid wastes to, the
subsurface occurs.
Statistics on the number and location of
surface impoundments that may be a potential
threat to ground-water quality have never been
compiled. However, in one State in the Northeast,
an inventory was conducted by means of low-level
aerial survey flights. It was estimated that more
than 1,500 industrial waste impoundments e> ist in
the area inventoried and that each one is a potential
source of ground-water contamination. In the south
central region, thousands of sewage lagoons are
scattered throughout the five-State area and
undoubtedly contribute much to the pollution of
ground water. Relatively high concentrations of
nitrates have been found in shallow aquifers
underlying many of these sewage lagoons.
In the cases of ground-water contamination
inventoried in the Northeast, the most important
pollutants found in the ground water associated
with leaky lagoons and other types of surface
impoundments include heavy metals such as
chromium, cadmium, and mercury, phenols; and
various forms of hydrocarbons. The largest number
of instances are those in which the surface
impoundments were receiving wastes from chemical
and metal processing industries.
The plumes of contaminated ground water
developed as a result of leakage out of surface
impoundments can be extensive in size and may
contain large volumes of polluted ground water. In
one case in the Northwest, disposal of liquid
chemical wastes into unlined holding ponds has
caused pollution of shallow ground water over an
area of 12 square miles. In the Northeast, disposal
of liquid wastes from a metal processing plant into
unlined basins, covering an area whose total size is
less than an acre, created a plume of contaminated
ground water 4,300 feet long, 1,000 feet wide, and
70 feet thick during a period of about 13 years.
The maximum volume of contaminated ground
water contained within this plume was estimated at
200 million gallons.
Few of the surface impoundments that may
13
-------
be contributing to ground-water contamination
have ever been monitored to determine their effect
on ground-water quality. If such monitoring were
to take place, it is quite probable that a substantial
number of additional problems would be
discovered. Unfortunately, removal of the pollu-
tants from the ground normally is not economical-
ly feasible.
Because there have been some serious instances
of ground-water contamination already reported,
public agencies in the four regions are putting into
effect more stringent controls over the manner in
which new surface impoundments are constructed
and the type of wastes that can be stored. Typical
regulations call for lining lagoons and basins with a
material of low permeability where the impound-
ment is receiving untreated or hazardous wastes.
Spills
Accidental spills of liquid wastes, toxic fluids,
gasoline, and oil occur in every region, accompanied
by the risk that the pollutant can migrate down to
the saturated sediments in the vicinity of the spill,
and degrade ground-water quality. Spills can occur
at industrial sites, along highway and railroad
rights of way, and at airports. By far the most
prevalent pollutants reported as affecting ground-
water quality from this source are hydrocarbons.
A typical instance of a serious case of ground-
water contamination from a spill occurred in the
Northeast in 1957 when 30,000 gallons of jet fuel
were spilled on the ground at an Air Force base.
The crystalline rock aquifer was so badly polluted
that the original wells supplying the base could not
be used for 15 years after the spill took place. In
the Northwest, the Department of Ecology of the
State of Washington recorded, during the first six
months of 1973, nearly 500 complaints of spills,
some of which affected ground-water quality.
The accidental spill is an unavoidable hazard
inherent in the storing and transportation of fluids.
It is in the handling of spills after they have taken
place that better protection of ground-water
resources can be achieved. In the past, for
example, liquids spilled on highways have been
simply flushed from the road to adjacent soils at
•the expense of pollution of a shallow aquifer in
order to have a minimal effect on traffic flow.
Because time appears to be the most important
factor in minimizing ground-water pollution from
spills, some States, including Pennylvania and New
Jersey, have developed procedures for reporting
spills to the proper authorities so that effective
action can be taken quickly.
Buried Pipelines and Storage Tanks
Pollutants escaping from leaky and ruptured
buried pipes, including sewers, and from storage
tanks have affected ground-water quality at a
number of locations in all four regions. The
principal pollutants reported are hydrocarbons,
which have leaked from gasoline service station
and home fuel-oil storage tanks, industrial produc-
tion facilities, and petroleum product transmission
lines.
Details on the number of cases of ground-
water contamination due to leakage from buried
tanks and pipelines that occur in the various regions
each year are not available. However, some statistics
are revealing. In the northeast region, the Pennsyl-
vania Department of Environmental Resources
estimates that 2,600 new or replacement storage
tanks are buried each year within that State.
Failure of the tank is normally the reason for
replacement, and the product originally contained
has been lost to the ground. In the northwest
region, the Colorado State Oil and Gas Inspection
Office records gasoline leaks on a monthly basis.
As much as 37,000 gallons from various sources
leaked into the subsurface during one 30-day
period. One interesting study in Colorado indicates
that salts used for deicing service station driveways
and electrolysis from electric street cars has
increased corrosion in buried steel gasoline station
tanks, leading to a greater incidence of failure.
A well documented case in the southwest
region is that which occurred in southern California
in 1968. Thousands of gallons of gasoline were
found to have contaminated a broad area under-
lying the City of Glendale. About 30 wells for
observation, containment, and removal were drilled
in the problem area. The clean-up operation also
involved installation of two special facilities for
separating gasoline from the polluted water pumped
from the wells.
Exfiltration and infiltration occurring in
sanitary and storm sewers is a recognized engineer-
ing phenomenon. Where the system originally was
designed poorly and installed improperly, or where
the pipelines are old and in disrepair, leakage of
substantial quantities of poor-quality water into the
soil system can take place, eventually leading to
contamination of an aquifer. In Kings County,
Long Island, New York, leakage from sewers may
be the principal source of nitrate and total nitrogen
in the ground water. In fact, leakage is so great
that sewage is a significant source of artificial
recharge in this heavily urbanized area.
Leaks in buried tanks and pipelines are a
14
-------
continuing problem that is coming under greater
scrutiny by public agencies in all four regions.
However, programs directed toward protection of
ground-water quality have not yet been developed
to any significant degree. Research on methods for
removing hydrocarbons from the ground-water
reservoir is greatly needed because attempts to
efficiently remove this pollutant have been
relatively unsuccessful.
Mining Activities
Ground-water contamination associated with
extensive mining operations is prevalent in the
northeast, northwest, and, to some extent, in the
southwest regions. Most mining operations
encounter ground water, and disposal of the highly
mineralized or acidic drainage water from mine
working is the most prevalent cause of ground-
water pollution. In Pennsylvania, for example,
investigations have shown that coal mine drainage
with high concentrations of iron and sulfate and an
abnormally low pH has had a deleterious effect on
both surface-water and ground-water quality over
broad areas.
Other sources of ground-water contamination
associated with mining activities include leachate
from waste rock piles and leakage from tailing
ponds. Uranium mine tailings in the Shirley basin
of Wyoming are the cause of high concentrations
of Ra226 in ground water. Metal sulfides contained
in old mine tailings in the Coeur d'Alene basin of
Idaho are the source of appreciable amounts of
zinc in the local ground water.
A number of studies.are being carried out in
the various important mining States on the extent
of water pollution from surface and underground
mining. Closer control in the future will be given to
the various potential sources of ground-water con-
tamination associated with active mining operations,
in order to protect ground-water quality. However,
a major problem exists in how to deal with on-going
cases of pollution from thousands of abandoned
mines in all regions. In these instances public funds
must be used, and the costs of the corrective
measures typically are prohibitive. New Federal
and State laws and regulations designed to minimize
the impact on land use resulting from mining
activities should be as concerned with aquifers as
with the restoration of the visible environment and
the protection of surface-water quality.
Salt-Water Intrusion
Intrusion of salty water into fresh-water aqui-
fers in coastal areas is one form of ground-water
contamination that has been widely recognized for
many years in all four regions. Salt water occurs
naturally in water table and artesian aquifers in
coastal areas. Pumping from wells near salty ground-
water bodies can induce the mineralized water to
intrude into fresh-water zones.
The large number of individual and widely
publicized cases of salt-water intrusion has led to
the development of strict controls over diversion of
ground water in the coastal plain States of the
Northeast. These controls on pumpage, together
with the general knowledge of well drilling
contractors and ground-water users of where saline-
water aquifers occur, has been most effective in
eliminating salt-water intrusion as a critical problem
in the region.
Contamination of wells with sea water does
not appear to be a major problem in the Northwest.
However, in the south central States, salt-water
encroachment has affected a number of important
and heavily pumped ground-water areas including
Baton Rouge and Lake Charles in Louisiana and
Houston, Galveston-Texas City, and Matagorda-
Lavoca Bay in Texas.
In the Southwest, California has had serious
problems of salt-water encroachment in many of its
coastal basins. Various agencies in the State have
established programs to reverse the movement of
intruding saline water, the most well known of
which involves the placement of a series of
"barriers." The barriers, such as those in the Los
Angeles area, are established by injecting non-saline
water at a line of wells whose axis roughly
parallels the ocean source. Some of these barriers
have been successful in reversing the hydraulic
gradient in the affected aquifer so that flow is
toward the sea instead of toward fresh-water supply
wells.
An even more critical problem in each of the
four regions than salt-water intrusion in coastal
areas, is that which can occur inland. Many inland
fresh-water aquifers also are in direct contact with
saline ground water. In most cases, the heavier
mineralized water underlies the fresh water. Where
wells are too deep or where excessive pumping
modifies the hydraulic gradient, saline water may
be drawn into zones formerly containing fresh
water.
Unlike coastal intrusion, potential problems
associated with inland saline ground-water bodies
have not been studied in detail. Regulatory controls
over diversion of ground water or well construction
have not been developed to the degree that they
have in coastal areas, and saline-water intrusion in
15
-------
inland regions will continue to be a significant
problem.
Water Wells
Water wells under certain conditions can be
sources of ground-water contamination. Typical
examples are where a casing has been corroded or
ruptured, where a well screen or an open bore
hole interconnects two separate aquifers, where the
surface casing has not been adequately sealed in
soil or rock, or where an abandoned well is allowed
to discharge salty water on to the land surface.
Water wells can serve as a means for transmission
of pollutants from one aquifer to another or from
the land surface to an aquifer.
In some of the south central States, improper-
ly constructed and abandoned water wells are
considered by many public agency officials as the
most significant cause of ground-water pollution.
Contamination problems are especially prevalent
in cavernous limestones, such as those in the
Edwards plateaus of Texas and the Ozark plateaus
of Arkansas. Unplugged wells tapping artesian brine
aquifers have resulted in reported cases of
contamination of shallow ground-water supplies in
a number of counties in Texas.
In the Northeast, salt-water intrusion in
coastal areas has been aggravated at numerous
locations by the presence of corroded well casings,
which allow salt water to enter fresh-water aquifers
either from an underlying or an overlying saline-
water aquifer or from an adjacent salty surface-
water body. A classic example occurred in
Baltimore, Maryland, where highly acidic industrial
wastes in the water-table aquifer corroded the
casings of more than 1,000 abandoned wells. Saline-
water intrusion caused by pumping in the same
shallow aquifer affected the deeper fresh-water
artesian aquifer because the leaky, abandoned wells
acted as conduits, allowing poor quality water to
migrate into the deeper artesian aquifer.
A few of the States in the various regions have
adopted regulations and codes governing well
construction and the plugging of abandoned wells.
However, it is difficult to enforce these regulations
because records showing where operating water
wells have been drilled over the past 50 years are
incomplete. Better reporting of well data to public
agencies is required. Licensing of well-drilling
contractors in many States has been moderately
effective in improving well construction practices.
However, considerably more control is needed
over the construction of domestic, industrial, and
public supply wells and the fate of abandoned wells.
Agricultural Activities
A wide variety of agricultural activities, other
than irrigation, have polluted ground water in all
four study regions. Sources of contamination
related to raising crops and livestock include:
spreading of fertilizers, disposal of crop residues,
man-caused changes in vegetation, storage of
feedlot and barnyard wastes, mass burial of
livestock, and application of herbicides and
insecticides.
High nitrates are reported in ground water in
many agricultural areas and fertilizers are certainly
an important factor in the degradation of water
quality. Animal waste from feedlots is a relatively
new environmental problem because, until 10 or
15 years ago, most beef animals were raised on
pasture land, where wastes were easily assimilated
into the soil without significant surface- or ground-
water contamination. However, with the increasing
demand for more and better quality meat, con-
centrated feeding operations have been developed,
and in Texas alone there were over two million
beef cattle in feedlots during 1972. Most feedlots
are capable of holding 1,000 to 50,000 head, and
each animal produces about one-half ton of manure
during its stay.
Nitrates in high concentrations have been
found in soil profiles under a number of feedlots in
both the south central and northwest regions. Few
cases of ground-water contamination have been
reported, but the potential of contamination from
this source needs further study.
The most frequently mentioned cases of
ground-water contamination from pesticides are
those related to spills in the vicinity of a well or an
irrigation canal that is infiltrating water to an
aquifer. However, a few documented instances of
contamination from the application of pesticides
have been noted in the Northeast. For example,
arsenate compounds used for insect control in the
blueberry barrens of Maine have been found in
shallow ground waters. In another case, water from
a sand and gravel well in Massachusetts was con-
taminated by pesticides containing chlorinated
hydrocarbons sprayed on cranberry bogs.
Pollution of ground water from agricultural
activities is difficult to control. A high proportion
of the problems are isolated in rural areas. Severe
problems develop when former farm areas become
urbanized, and ground-water use increases. Also,
ground-water quality degradation can be aggravated
by even heavier application of fertilizers and
pesticides by individual home owners on relatively
small lots.
16
-------
Disposal Wells
Industrial waste, sewage effluent, spent cooling
water, and storm water are discharged through wells
into fresh- and saline-water aquifers in all four
regions. The greatest attention in existing literature
has been given to deep disposal of industrial wastes
through wells drilled more than 1,000 feet into
saline aquifers. Less than 300 such wells exist, and
they represent a comparatively small potential
problem when compared to the many thousands of
shallow wells injecting pollutants into fresh-water
aquifers.
For example only one or two deep disposal
wells are operating in the northeast region and
about 175 in the south central region. On the other
hand, there are an estimated 5,000 "drain wells" in
Idaho alone, that discharge domestic sewage
effluent, excess irrigation water, street runoff, and
even industrial wastes into the principal aquifer of
the region. In Long Island, New York, approxi-
mately 1,000 "diffusion wells" inject about 80
million gallons per day of heated water from air
conditioning or cooling systems into two of the
principal aquifers tapped for public water supply.
Thousands more, referred to as "sumps," are used
for disposal of storm-water runoff. In Arizona,
disposal of metal plating wastes into shallow wells
by various electronic industries near Phoenix and
Tucson was quite common at one time. All of these
practices have led to ground-water quality
degradation.
Few failures of wells used for deep disposal of
industrial wastes in saline aquifers have been
reported. This is probably due to the regulations
and permit systems enforced by State agencies,
mandating rigid testing and construction proce-
dures. On the other hand, disposal of wastes to
shallow wells has not been closely controlled. This
has resulted in a large number of documented cases
of severe ground-water contamination, frequently
from the illegal use of shallow wells for the disposal
of various types of hazardous waste.
Highway Deicing Salts
The use of large amounts of soluble salts for
road maintenance during winter months has led to
a significant number of cases of ground-water
contamination in the Northeast. The problem is
apparently not severe in the Northwest, and non-
existent in the other- two regions.
There are two principal ways in which road
salt can pollute ground water. Salt-laden runoff
from roads can percolate into soils adjacent to
highways and eventually reach the water table. The
other source is related to storage of salt in piles at
central distribution points. Rain falling on un-
covered storage piles can dissolve the salt before
infiltrating into shallow aquifers.
During the winter of 1965-66, the New York
State Highway Department used 245,000 tons of
sodium chloride. Massachusetts has applied more
than 20 tons of salt per single-lane mile to its
highways during a single winter season.
Because of the large amounts of salt spread
and stored in the Northeast, water from many
aquifers, especially sand and gravel deposits in the
glaciated region, has shown a disturbing rise in
chloride and sodium concentrations. In addition,
complaints of salt contamination of water from
individual wells is so common in New England that
several States have established annual budgets to
allow for replacement of affected wells.
There appears to be no adequate substitute
for highway deicing salts. However, general recog-
nition of the potential for polluting water supplies
has resulted in many States in the Northeast
embarking on programs to reduce the quantities of
salt spread per winter storm. Equipment modifica-
tion and driver education has been quite successful.
In addition, although the practice is restricted by
availability of funds, highway departments are
enclosing many salt storage piles to protect them
against contact with precipitation.
Miscellaneous Other Sources
Many other, activities or sources of ground-
water pollution have been encountered in the
regional studies. For example, artificial recharge
with treated municipal wastes and storm-water
runoff can degrade ground-water quality.
A few significant cases of ground-water pollu-
tion have occurred in the Northeast and Northwest
related to the infiltration of poor quality river
water into aquifers tapped by public supply wells.
In one instance in upper New York State, high
counts of coliform bacteria suddenly showed up in
water from a million-gallons-per-day municipal well
after 19 years of trouble-free operation. The well is
adjacent to the Susquehanna River, and excavation
of fine material from the bed of the river, which is
the principal source of recharge to the well, appears
to be responsible for the problem. The bacteria-
laden water traveled 180 feet through the sand and
gravel aquifer tapped by the well.
The land treatment of municipal and industrial
wastes by means of spray irrigation is a growing
practice in all four regions. Only a few documented
cases of ground-water contamination have been
17
-------
reported to date, but more monitoring and research
are needed to determine the long-term impact on
the resource.
Finally, land subsidence has been pinpointed
as a source of ground-water contamination. High
levels of arsenic in ground waters in a relatively
small area west of Fresno, California, may be
related to compression of clays. Arsenic, which has
adhered to clay particles, goes into solution when
the pressure is increased in the clay strata. The land
subsidence process is the result of heavy ground-
water withdrawals in the region.
RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR
GROUND-WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
There are two basic problems in dealing with
ground-water contamination. The first is handling
existing cases, and the second is preventing new
occurrences. Each requires its own strategy.
A. Solving Existing Ground-Water Contamination
Problems
1. Goals
a. Protect the ground-water user.
b. Prevent further degradation of water
quality.
2. Control Measures
a. Inventory sources of contamination.
b. Define and monitor contaminated ground-
water bodies that are considered hazardous.
c. Control use of ground water already
affected or threatened by contamination
and provide alternate sources of water
supplies where needed.
d. Contain or clean up pollution where
economically and technically feasible.
3. Research Needs
a. New techniques for inventorying, monitor-
ing, and defining instances of ground-water
contamination.
b. New techniques for effectively eliminating
sources of pollution (i.e., modifications in
septic tank design, methods for closing
landfills, procedures and materials for lining
waste lagoons).
c. New techniques for removing pollutants
from the ground (i.e., hydrocarbons, heavy
metals) and methods for their disposal (i.e.,
landfill leachate, acid mine drainage).
B. Preventing Future Ground-Water Contamination
Problems
1. Goal
a. Protect ground-water resources.
2. Control Measures
a. Prepare realistic guidelines and enforce
regulations that are truly protective.
b. Publicize new technology and how it is
being utilized.
3. Research Needs
a. Development of additional new procedures
to minimize environmental effects of the
various potential sources of contamination.
b. More complete documentation of condi-
tions at existing key sites of ground-water
contamination as a guide to future research.
The most common approach toward existing
problems is to attempt corrective action only after
a specific incident of ground-water contamination
has been discovered. This "brush-fire" approach is
not suitable, taking into account the millions of
ground-water sources pcesently in use and the
potential threat to the health of individuals, in
addition to possible adverse effects on industrial
and agricultural activities. Locating and evaluating
as many cases of ground-water contamination as
possible should be a major concern to public
agencies charged with the responsibility of protect-
ing water quality. For example, for every landfill
where pollutants have been discovered leaching into
the underlying aquifer, there are hundreds more
• located in similar geologic settings and designed in
the same manner, but for which no ground-water
quality data are available. For every surface
impoundment where it has been shown that
pollutants are being added to the ground-water
system, there are hundreds more being operated,
unmonitored, under similar conditions.
A major effort should be directed, within the
financial resources available to local, State and
Federal agencies, toward defining the areal extent
and severity of existing ground-water contamina-
tion problems. Such inventories can be used to
warn against use of certain aquifers or portions of
aquifers for specific purposes. Within the legal
framework under which each State must operate,
development or withdrawal of ground water could
be limited in affected aquifer zones. It would be
the task of the proper public agency to determine
"critical zones" around each known significant
case of ground-water contamination. In each
"critical zone," ground-water diversion would be
restricted from the standpoint of either the
quantity that can be pumped or the purpose for
which it can be used. Wells and other monitoring
techniques would aid in determining when and how
to modify the areal extent of a "critical zone" over
a period of time.
Of course, a major benefit from an inventory
18
-------
of existing ground-water contamination sources
would be an acceleration in the process of
eliminating some of those activities that presently
are introducing pollutants into the ground-water
system on a continuous basis. Ground-water
contamination in a number of categories can be
controlled so that the problem does not increase in
severity. These would include salt-water intrusion,
which can be impeded by restrictions on pumping;
leakage from surface impoundments, which can be
halted by lining; and the spread of pollutants from
a spill, which can be controlled in some cases by
excavating the affected soil. Unfortunately,
adequate measures and alternatives have not been
developed for eliminating the source of contamina-
tion when dealing with such sources as extensive
municipal landfills or use of highway deicing salts.
Equally as pressing as the need to develop
methods and strategies for dealing with existing
problems of ground-water contamination is the
need to establish ways to prevent future problems.
Almost every State in the four study regions has
existing legislation which, although general in
nature, would allow regulations and policies to be
formulated and enforced for the prevention of
ground-water quality degradation. Also, many
codes in various States have been adopted to cover
specific activities that can lead to ground-water
contamination, such as those dealing with landfill
siting, well construction, and sealing of surface
impoundments.
Nevertheless, there has not been an over-all
evaluation of the various options available to
regulatory agencies for protecting ground-water
quality. Such alternatives for control as the setting
of ground-water standards, enforcement of land-use
restrictions in critical areas, imposition of restraints
on each individual type of activity that can lead to
ground-water contamination, and regulation of
patterns of ground-water use should be explored.
Obviously, the choice of any control method must
be influenced by geologic and hydrologic conditions
in the area of interest and must take into considera-
tion the type of activity involved.
One item that immediately becomes obvious
from the various investigations is the need for more
detailed analyses of water samples obtained from .
new and existing wells. Most analyses are presently
run to measure non-toxic parameters. However,
pollutants affecting ground-water quality are of
such diverse nature and can originate from so many
different sources that analyses should at least
identify some of the more common pollutants that
could be harmful to man. As more economic and
reliable analytical techniques become available,
routine analyses should be expanded to cover a
wide variety of both inorganic and organic
compounds.
The use and purpose of monitoring wells
should be better understood. The general philos-
ophy that monitoring wells are protective devices
should be discouraged. Monitoring should be
applied when there is a need to determine the
status of ground-water quality at a particular
location and to gain a perspective on long-term
water quality at selected sites. At new sites, where
a specific activity may lead to contamination of
ground water, monitoring wells should be used
only to determine whether procedures designed
to protect ground-water quality have been success-
ful. The monitoring wells themselves should not be
considered as a method of preserving ground-water
quality.
Unfortunately, the rate of new occurrences of
ground-water contamination has not declined over
the past decade in spite of increased efforts by
local, State, and Federal agencies to protect
ground-water resources from water-quality
degradation. Even if new strategies are developed,
implementation will not be possible with the
present level of funding devoted to regulation and
management of ground-water resources. Public
agencies charged with the responsibility of protect-
ing ground-water quality are presently understaffed,
and authority appears to be splintered among too
many organizations with diverse interests and
capabilities. A basic need is a reevaluation of
priorities governing budgetary allocations with a
greater appreciation of the important role that
ground water continues to play in meeting
essential needs for high-quality water supplies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fuhriman, D. K., and J. R. Barton. 1971. Ground-water
pollution in Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah.
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pollution
Control Research Series 16060ERU, December.
Miller, D. W., F. A. DeLuca, and T. T. Tessier. 1974.
Ground-water contamination in the northeast states.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Protection Technology Series EPA-660/2-74-056,
June.
Scalf, M. R., J. W. Keeley, and C. J. LaFevers. 1973.
Ground-water pollution in the south central states.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Protection Technology Series EPA-R-2-73-268, June.
van der Leeden, Frits, L. A. Cerrillo, and D. W. Miller. 1974.
Ground-water pollution in the northwest states.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Monitoring, Contract No. 68-03-0298, Report in
Preparation.
19
-------
Rational Basis for Septic Tank System Design
by Rein Laak, Kent A. Healy, and Dan M. Hardisty
ABSTRACT
About 17 million families in the U.S.A. are served by
septic tank and subsurface seepage systems. Rational design
of these wastewater disposal systems includes three aspects.
First the system must be hydraulically sound. This means
that the flow regime and the storage and w^tci carrying
capacity of the receiving soil should be measured before
design. A soil with a coefficient of permeability of less than
10~4 ft/min (5 X 10"5 cm/sec) suggests, for example, that
the hydraulic capacity of the system governs the size of the
subsurface leaching field. Seasonally high water tables or
impervious strata may retard the flow and reduce the
quantity of wastewater that can be carried away from the
subsurface disposal area. In this case an elevated bed can
be designed to increase the potential hydraulic gradient.
The second consideration concerns the biological mat
in leaching fields. Leaching fields can be designed with
higher loadings in soils having a greater coefficient of
permeability than 10~4 ft/min (5 X 10~5 cm/sec) if increased
pretreatment is used. A mathematical relationship was
developed for reducing the size of leaching fields for
effluents with a BODS plus suspended solids less than 250
mg/1. Leaching fields were projected to operate indefinitely.
Long-term loading rates for different soil permeabilities
were plotted on a graph which can be used for sizing fields.
The third design consideration concerns preservation
of the ground-water quality. The travel of phosphate and
nitrogen has been studied by others and by the authors.
Concrete sand and silt with an unsaturated thickness of 1.5
feet (38.1 cm) still removed after 2 years of operation 30%
of septic tank effluent phosphate and nitrogen. The effluent
from the test soils had a concentration of about 13 mg/1
phosphate and 15 mg/1 nitrogen mostly in the NOs - N
form.
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974.
b Associate Professor; Associate Professor, and
Graduate Student, respectively, Department of Civil Engi-
neering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
06268.
INTRODUCTION
It is reported that about 17 million families in
the U.S.A. are served by soil seepage types of
systems for the disposal of domestic wastewater.
Rational basis of designing soil seepage
systems consists of three major considerations.
First, the system must be hydraulically sound. This
means that the flow regime including water use,
wasteflow flux, treatment tank hydraulic properties,
and the storage and water carrying capacity of the
receiving soil should be measured or at least esti-
mated before design drawings are prepared
(Bradshaw, 1972; Johnston, 1971). The second
major consideration concerns the biological
clogging mat which is developed on the soil surface
in the seepage field system (Winneberger et al,
1960). The clogging mat under certain conditions
could be the governing design factor in sizing the
seepage field area. The third aspect of design deals
with the preservation and protection of the ground-
and surface-water quality.
HYDRAULIC CONSIDERATION
It is important that the water use for carrying
of waste be carefully planned so that minimum
wasteflow results. This can be achieved by provid-
ing "easy" repairs to leaky plumbing fixtures and
by providing water saving devices such as spray
faucets, waterless toilets or adjustable toilet flushes,
no garbage grinders, etc.
The wastewater flow from households
fluctuates. The total flow as well as the duration of
peak flows become almost impossible to predict.
It has been customary to use mean maximum
month flows for sizing the seepage beds which
provide about 2 to 4 weeks storage between trench
stones. The pipes from the house are supposedly
sized using mean maximum hourly flows. Pipes
20
-------
past the treatment tank, septic tank, could be
small because peak flows have now been reduced
by the tank's surface area.
The hydraulic conductivity of a seepage field
is defined as the number of gallons of clear water
per day that can be absorbed by the field. The
conductivity of a field is dependent on the permea-
bility of the soil, the geometry, the position of
any impermeable boundaries, the position of the
water table, and evapotranspiration. Seepage fields
in temperate zones should be designed to function
under gravity flow potential only, if they are to
perform satisfactorily year round.
Knowing the boundary conditions and the
permeability of the soil, and assuming no evapora-
tion and steady state flow due to gravity potential,
it is possible to calculate the hydraulic conductivity
of a seepage field that can be used for design. The
thin zone of reduced permeability at the soil
interface can be ignored if it is assumed that a
head of one foot (30 cm) due to flooding in the
trench will be available to push the liquid through
this zone. If the soil surrounding the field can
carry the liquid away faster than one foot (30 cm)
of head supplies it, there will be, in addition,
capillary head available to pull the liquid through
this thin zone. With this capillary head, one foot
(30 cm) of flooding will not occur.
Flow nets for a variety of positions of the
ground-water table and bedrock were drawn, using
an electrical analog, showing the pattern and
amount of ground-water flow from a 3-trench
seepage field. These flow nets are 2-dimensional
and represent a cross-sectional flow pattern. The
flow per running foot of field can be calculated
using Darcy's Law.
In order to simplify the design procedures, a
seepage field consisting of 3 parallel trenches, 2
feet (0.6 m) wide, 2V2 feet (0.75 m) deep, and 8
feet (2.4 m) on centers was chosen as a reasonable
and efficient system. Variation in capacity is
obtained by varying the length of the field. This
system is a total of 18 feet (5.4 m) wide and, if
the effluent is assumed to flood the trench to a
depth of 12 inches (30 cm), has a soil interface
area of 12 square feet per running foot (3.64
nWm) of field. It was found that if the relative
hydraulic conductivity Q/K per foot of field was
plotted versus the distance from the bottom of
the trench to an impermeable strata (Hj) plus
5 times the distance from the bottom of the trench
to the original external water table (Hw), a fairly
continuous curve resulted as is shown in Figure 1
(Healey and Laak, 1973). This curve allows the
Hj-H^ (FT.)
Fig. 1. Hydraulic conductivity of 3-trench field.
effect of an impermeable strata and the effect of
the water table to be considered together.
CLOGGING MAT CONSIDERATIONS
Many engineers and health officers feel that all
seepage fields have a finite life. The authors
theorized, however, that at some loading rates,
decomposition would match accumulation and
growth, and absorption could continue indefinitely
under this long-term loading rate.
Work done by investigators (Thomas etal,
1966; Laak, 1970;Jones and Taylor, 1965;
Winnebergereta/., I960; Coulter et al, I960;
Orlob and Butler, 1955; Bouwer, etal, 1972;
Kropf, 1972; and Kropf et al, 1974) was reviewed
to determine their findings. In" all the investigations,
it was observed that the reduction in permeability
of the soils due to biological growth and clogging
occurred in the top 2 inches (5 cm) of the soil
sample. The results of these previous investigations
observed that 100 to 200 days after loading began,
a low but relatively constant rate of acceptance
occurred.
Different hydraulic heads had been used in the
cases reviewed and the results of tests by Healy and
Laak (1973) and Jones and Taylor (1965) had
shown that the long-term acceptance rate was
dependent on the hydraulic head. These tests
indicated that going from a hydraulic head of a few
inches to several feet could double the long-term
acceptance rate. The rates measured by other
21
-------
investigators were therefore adjusted to
approximate the rate that would have occurred if
the head had been one foot (30 cm). A plot of
adjusted long-term acceptance rate versus soil
permeability is given in Figure 2.
These conclusions are substantiated by the
results of the study done for the FHA by the
Robert Taft Sanitary Engineering Center (Coulter
et al., 1960). An approximation of the permea-
bilities of soils encountered in the FHA study was
made and these data are shown as solid dots in
Figure 2.
All of the data surveyed indicated that there
is a long-term acceptance rate at which a seepage
field will operate almost indefinitely if a sufficient
hydraulic head (one foot or 30 cm a minimum) is
available to push the liquid through the zone of
reduced permeability at the soil interface (Figure 2)
solid line. This curve applies to a domestic septic
tank effluent. If the domestic sewage is treated to a
greater degree, higher loadings are possible. A study
by Laak (1970) shows that the seepage area can be
adjusted as follows:
Adjusted Area = Septic Tank
Effluent Area
BODS + TSS
250
where BODS and total suspended solids (TSS) are
expressed in mg/1 as per treatment unit effluent.
PRESERVATION OF WATER QUALITY
The reactions that nitrogen may undergo while
passing through soil include (1) mineralization-
breakdown of organic nitrogen to ammonium;
(2) nitrification—biological oxidation of ammonium
to nitrate; (3) adsorption — attachment to soil
9
D
*
0
0
X.
*
•
^••^M
UAK
JONES 3 TAYLOR
KROPF
ORLOB ?, BUTLER
WINUEBERGER ET AL
:
l^
Q
9
4-
^
0.0032
0.00* 0.001 O.OT2 O.ffW
0.01 0.02
o.ot
0.1
SOIL PERMEABILITY (FT. PER HIM.)
GPD PER SO. FT. X 1.07 = CM PER DAY
FT PER MIN. X 0.05 = CM PER DAY
Fig. 2. Long-term acceptance rate of effluent by soil.
particle surfaces; (4) ion exchange—ions in the
percolating water replace ions attached to soil
particles; (5) fixation—permanent immobilization
of the molecules by entrapment between clay layers
or formation of stable complexes with the organic
fraction; (6) volatilization—vaporization of
ammonia at high pH; (7) biological uptake—incor-
poration of nitrogen into plants or microorganisms;
and (8) denitrification—biological conversion of
nitrate to nitrogen gas.
In a leaching field, wastewater percolates
through several feet of unsaturated flow in the zone
of aeration. In this situation the predominant
reaction expected is nitrification. Unfortunately,
the nitrate ion flows with soil water and may
pollute potable well water supplies.
In leaching field systems located in or near to
the ground-water table, anaerobic conditions often
prevail. In this case the nitrogen remains in the NH4
form and can be adsorbed. Adsorbed ammonium,
however, is subject to plant uptake if in the root
zone, and to nitrification if the soil becomes
aerobic once again.
Phosphate fixation by soils primarily depends
upon the pH of the soil and the presence of
aluminum, iron, calcium, and organic colloids.
Fixation is maximum at the extremes of pH and
minimum at pH = 6-7. It is reported that most soils
have high long-term fixation capacities, but
numerical values too often are missing.
At pH less than about 5, simple precipitation
of M (OH)2 H2PO4 (M can be Al+++ or Fe*+t) is
favored. If soil pH is more mildly acid (pH about
3-5) phosphate is adsorbed onto weakly acidic
hydroxy polymers forming M (H2O) X (OH) y
H2PO4. Both the above reactions occur in two
steps; the first is the rapid (reaction time less than a
day) precipitation or adsorption of phosphate as
described above. The second is caused by slow
breakdown of clay structure in the presence of
phosphate releasing additional aluminum or iron.
The phosphate is then fixed by the released metal.
The clay decomposition is caused by the upset of
the aluminum-silical equilibrium in solution. That
is as the rnetal precipitates with the phosphate.
In calcareous or alkaline soils, fixation is
caused by the formation of an entire series of
insoluble calcium phosphates in a very
heterogeneous form. There is evidence that Al*** or
Al (OH)3 can fix phosphate even in alkaline soils.
This is partially a function of other ions.
To investigate the ability of soils to remove
nitrogen and phosphorus, septic tank and oxidation
pond effluents were passed through 18 inches of
22
-------
aerobic unsaturated soil in experimental soil boxes
constructed to simulate leaching trenches. Two
soils, concrete sand and silt were used.
It was concluded that 18 inches of soil can
remove roughly 30% of the phosphate on the
average. Total nitrogen removals were erratic
varying from release of nitrogen to an average of
30% removal. Higher removals were expected but it
was reasoned that 18 inches of soil was insufficient
for complete removal. The lagoon-soil total system
and septic tank soil total system were able to
remove 60-80% of the phosphorus.
The soil box effluents were usually 80-90%
nitrified, producing effluents with roughly 15 ppm
NO3-N. This represented a 50% removal of nitrogen
by the lagoon-soil total systems and septic tank-soil
total system.
The removal of nitrogen and phosphorus with
pretreatment and 18 inches of soil was considered
excellent since in actual field conditions waste-
water effluent usually must pass through a much
greater distance in the soil.
REFERENCES
Bouwer, H., R. C. Rice, E. D. Escarcega and M. S. Riggs.
1972. Renovating secondary sewage by ground-water
recharge with infiltration basins. Office of Research
and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Bradshaw, D. L. 1972. An investigation of seepage field
failure. C. E. 320, University of Connecticut, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, Jan.
Cedergren, H. R. 1967. Seepage drainage and flow nets.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Coulter, B., T. W. Bendixen and A. B. Edwards. 1960. Study
of seepage beds. Report to the Federal Housing
Administration from Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engi-
neering Center, Dec.
Hardisty, D. M. 1974. Nitrogen and phosphorus considera-
tions in on-site wastewater disposal. C. E. Department,
University of Connecticut.
Healy, K. A. and R. Laak. 1973. Factors affecting the
percolation test. Journal WPCF. v. 45, no. 7, July.
Healy, K. A. and R. Laak. 1973. Sanitary seepage fields-
site evaluation and design. C. E. 73-61 Report, Civil
Engineering, University of Connecticut.
Hill, D. E. 1966. Percolation testing for septic tank drainage.
Bulletin of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station, New Haven, No. 678.
Johnston, R.E.L. 1971. A survey of subsurface sewage
disposal failures. C. E. Department, University of
Connecticut, May.
Jones, J. H., and G. S. Taylor. 1965. Septic tank effluent
percolation through sands under laboratory condi-
tions. Soil Science, v. 99, no. 5.
Kropf, F. 1972. Effect of frequency and duration of septic
tank effluent submergence on soil clogging. M.S.
Thesis, C. E. Department, University of Connecticut.
Kropf, F., K. Healy, and R. Laak. 1974. Soil clogging in
subsurface absorption systems for liquid domestic
wastes. Proc. 7th Inter. Corp. on Water Pollution
Research, Perjamor Press, Sept. 9-13.
Laak, R. 1970. Influence of domestic wastewater pretreat-
ment on soil clogging. Journ. WPCF, Aug.
Orlob, G. T. and R. G. Butler. 1955. An investigation of
sewage spreading on five California soils. Sanitary
Engineering Research Laboratory, University of
California, Berkeley.
Sutton, J. G. 1960. Installation of drain tile for subsurface
drainage. Journ. of Irrigation & Drainage Div., ASCE,
Sept.
Thomas, R. E., W. A. Schwartz, and T. W. Bendixen. 1966.
Soil chemical changes and infiltration rate reduction
under sewage spreading. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Proc.
v. 30.
Winneberger, J. H., L. Francis, S. A. Klein, and P. H.
McGauhey. 1960. Biological aspects of failure of
septic tank percolation systems. Sanitary Engineering
Research Laboratory, University of California,
Berkeley, Aug.
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by Rein
Laak after delivering his talk entitled "Rational
Basis for Septic Tank System Design."
Q. by Fred C. Saxon. What effect does your design
have on the bacteriological quality of the water
leaving the field?
A. Our design is not a design but rather a method
of sizing fields by following a procedure. Our
method or criteria does not prevent anyone from
providing maximum preventive measures by requir-
ing long distances to wells, etc. The bacteriological
quality of the water leaving the field is the same
for a given soil of unit thickness with same
boundaries and loading patterns. We stress that the
clogging mat should be left intact (i.e. no resting)
to provide maximum treatment through it.
Q. by Philip Wagner. In your abstract you mention
storage. What is your rational basis for storage
evaluation of leach fields? Regulatory standards for
"separation distances"appear to be arbitrary, but
have you calculated storage coefficients needed?
A. Storage in leach fields equals the yield or
approximately the volume of spaces between stones.
This storage volume available can store peak flows
or overloads when they occur. The acceptance
23
-------
rates into soil are variable due to clogging mat
permeability flux and sometimes the position of
the ground-water table. The exact storage required
cannot be calculated because we have no exact data
on flow flux v.s. acceptance rate flux. The distance
between trenches has nothing to do with storage in
the stones, but may have to do with the mounding
of ground-water table and storage in soil itself
during nongrowing season.
Q. by G. Morgan Powell. Why did you assume
saturated flow below the drain line for equation
calculation? Is this in reality saturated? If so, why
do you state unsaturated flow 18 inches below the
lines for N and P data?
A. Saturated flow was assumed to represent the
worst condition, i.e. near failure. In reality, it
probably, most of the time, is not saturated. For
design it is customary to find the worst case or the
maximum it can take—for sizing.
Q. by John L. Wilson. What are the mechanisms
work to remove N and P in the unsaturated zone
existing in sand which you investigated? Was N
removed by denitrification, or by plants growing at
the leaching field site?
A. The possible mechanisms of removals are listed
in the paper. Nitrogen was possibly removed by
denitrification after it was nitrified in soil, and also
by adsorption of ammonia in anaerobic regions and
possibly by grass roots. We did not study the
mechanisms but measured the removal quantity.
Q. by Lyle V. A. Sendlein. How did you determine
K in the laboratory and-how reliable do you think
it is?
A. We did not determine K in laboratory. K values
were determined in field using falling head
permeameter and "undisturbed" samples. K values
determined were within a magnitude of two to five
fold which is ample accuracy to size leaching fields.
Q. by Ken Webb. By what mechanism is the
nitrogen removed through the 18 inches of sand
filtration?
A. Nitrogen removal mechanisms were not studied
but rather the quantity removed was measured.
The nitrogen could have been removed (a) in
anaerobic zone by adsorption of ammonia; (b) by
biological uptake by grass roots and microorganisms;
(c) denitrification—some nitrogen could have been
denitrified after having been nitrified; and
(d) possibly by other mechanisms such as
volitilization and fixation.
24
-------
Effects of Septic Tank Effluent on Ground-Water
Quality, Dade County, Florida: An Interim Report
by William A. J. Pitt, Jr.c
ABSTRACT
At each of 5 sites in Dade County, where individual
(residence) septic tanks have been in operation for at least
15 years and where septic tank concentration is less than
5 per acre, a drainfield site was selected for investigation to
determine the effects of septic tank effluent on the quality
of the water in the Biscayne Aquifer.
At each site 2 sets of multiple depth wells were
drilled. The upgradient wells adjacent to the drainfields in
most places, were constructed in such a way that the aquifer
could be sampled at 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 feet below land
surface. The downgradient wells at each site are 35 feet or
more from the upgradient wells in the direction of ground-
water flow, and allow the aquifer to be sampled at various
depths.
Except at one site, no fecal coliforms were found
below the 10-foot depth. Total coliforms exceeded a count
of one colony per ml at the 60-foot depth at 2 sites. At one
site a fecal streptococci count of 53 colonies per ml was
found at the 60-foot depth and at another a count of 7
colonies was found at the 40-foot depth. The 3 types of
bacteria occur in higher concentration in the northern areas
of the county than in the south. Bacteria concentrations
were also higher where the septic tanks were more
concentrated.
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Geological Survey has completed.an
interim report of the first year of a 3-year investiga-
tion to determine the effects of septic tank effluent
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974. Prepared as Open File Report 74010 by the U.S.
Geological Survey in cooperation with Dade County,
Florida.
t>Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Re-
sources Division, 901 South Miami Avenue, Miami,
Florida 33130.
on ground-water quality of the Biscayne aquifer of
Dade County, Florida. The investigation is in
cooperation with the Dade County Manager's
office, the Dade County Pollution Control Depart-
ment, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The University of Miami, under a separate
contract with the county, is also involved with the
investigation in an effort to determine the effects of
viruses in septic tank effluent on the ground-water
quality.
SCOPE
The investigation studied only possible con-
tamination from septic tanks in areas where
individual sewage disposal units (septic tanks) have
been in use for more than 15 years and where the
septic tank concentration is 4 or less per acre. All
the areas investigated are west of the salt front.
This report has been prepared to fulfill the
requests of many for an interim report on the
investigation. It is not intended as a final report,
and the data and statements contained therein are
subject to change after all the data are available.
This report contains all the water quality data
collected at the areas selected for investigation in
Dade County. The data include physical, biological,
and chemical parameters.
CONTENTS OF OPEN FILE REPORT 74010
Page
Abstract 5
Introduction 6
Scope 6
Acknowledgments 7
Site location 8
Top soil 17
Aquifer characteristics 20
25
-------
Ground-water quality. 41
Physical characteristics 45
Chemical characteristics 46
Biological characteristics 49
Future plans 53
References 54
Glossary 55
Appendix 58
Table
Conversion factors
Exhibit A
ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 1. Map showing location of study sites.
Fig. 2. Map of North Dade septic tank site.
Fig. 3. Map of Hialeah septic tank site.
Fig. 4. Map of Bird Road-Galloway septic tank site.
Fig. 5. Map of Homestead low density septic tank
site.
Fig. 6. Map of Homestead high density septic tank
site.
Fig. 7. Lithologic section of North Dade site.
Fig. 8. Lithologic section of Hialeah site.
Fig. 9. Lithologic section of Bird Road-Galloway
site.
Fig. 10. Lithologic section of Homestead low
density site.
Fig. 11. Lithologic section of Homestead high
density site.
Fig. 12. Soil classification triangle.
Fig. 13. Map showing the average ground-water
level from 1960-71.
Fig. 14. Map showing the average yearly highest
ground-water level 1960-71.
Fig. 15. Map showing the average yearly lowest
water level 1960-71.
Fig. 16. Map showing the average monthly ground-
water level from October 1960-71.
Fig. 17. Map showing the average monthly ground-
water level for May 1960-71.
TABLES
Table 1. Septic tank density at the 5 sites.
Table 2. Natural soil characteristics.
Table 3. Aquifer characteristics.
Table 4. Particle size analysis.
Table 5. Hydraulic gradients.
Table 6. Ground-water velocities.
Table 7. North Dade—Bacteria colonies per 100 ml.
Table 8. Hialeah—Bacteria colonies per 100 ml.
Table 9. Bird Road-Galloway—Bacteria colonies per
100 ml.
Table 10. Homestead (low density)—Bacteria
colonies per 100 ml.
Table 11. Homestead (high density)—Bacteria
colonies per 100 ml.
(A complete copy of this report—Open File Report
74010—is available from the U.S. Geological Survey,
325 John Knox Road, Suite F240, Tallahassee,
Florida 32303.)
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by William
A. J. Pitt, Jr., after delivering his talk entitled
"Effects of Septic Tank Effluent on Ground-Water
Quality, Dade County, Florida: An Interim
Report."
Q. by Lynn W. Gelhar. What is the rate of natural
recharge in the study area?
A. F. W. Meyer in his U.S.G.S. open-file report
71003 indicates that of the average annual rainfall
GJ. oO inches, trie average annual water ioss was T.T
inches, and the average annual runoff was 16
inches. He calculated the natural evapotranspiration
as 40 inches per year, and the consumptive use to
be 2 inches per year.
Q. by Lynn W. Gelhar. What were the nitrate levels
in the shallow ground water?
A. The'sandy sites had nitrate levels very close to
0. The highest value recorded there was 0.07 mg/1
as NO3. In the southern sites (the limestone areas),
nitrates ranged from 0.01 mg/1 to 2.10 mg/1 with
the average somewhere around 1.5 mg/1.
Q. by Edwin A. Ritchie. What were the horizontal
distances that the bacteria moved from the various
r. .' J. ^ n O
stLC $:
A. In North Dade, one of the sandy sites, the
bacteria traveled 50 feet to the downgradient wells.
26
-------
In Hialeah, another sandy site, no bacteria were
found 95 feet downgradient. In Bird Road-Gallo-
way and the two Homestead sites, the bacteria
traveled 35, 90, and 50 feet respectively. All of
these three sites are in the highly permeable
limestone areas. The above values hold true for both
total coliform and fecal strep., but fecal coliform
were not detected at the downgradient wells in the
sandy areas.
Q. by G. F. Hendricks. How long were the 5 septic
tank study sites operated prior to study?
A. The minimum age was 15 years (the Hialeah
site). The oldest operating tank was in the low
density Homestead area which has been operating
over 30 years. The other sites have been in use for
over 20 years.
Q. by Robert C. Minning. What detection method
did you use for the Rhodamine WT velocity stzidy?
A. A fluorometer was used. Even though most of
the samples could be identified with the naked
eye, we used a fluorometer so that we could
determine the peak of the concentration plume.
Q. by Dennis E. Gray. What is the mean vertical
distance separating the bottom of the study drain-
fields and the water table?
A. All the sites studied have been in operation for
more than 15 years so that the owners do not know
or do not remember how deep the drainfields are.
However, if we assume them to be at least 2 feet
below land surface, which is the present require-
ment, then the distance to the water table is 2 to 5
feet below the bottom of the drainfield.
27
-------
Subsurface Sewage Disposal and Contamination
a
of Ground Water in East Portland, Oregon
by E. L. Quanb, H. R. Sweetc, and Joseph R. I Mian
ABSTRACT
Over the past 30 years East Portland and central
Multnomah County have metamorphosed from a rural-
suburban to a locally urban community. Services, including
community water and sewer have been extended to most of
the area. However, a 30-square-mile (80 km2) area within
central Multnomah County remains unsewered today. This
area reportedly disposes of 8 to 10 mgd (34,400 m3/day to
38,000 m3/day) sewage via subsurface systems, i.e. cess-
pools, seepage beds, and drainfields. These methods of
waste disposal have resulted in the degradation of the
ground-water resource within the study area.
Most of the developed area is located on a relatively
level terrace made up of Pleistocene fluviolacustrine sedi-
ments. Partially cemented gravels of the Pliocene Troutdale
Formation underlie the terrace deposits. Both of these units
are generally excellent aquifers where saturated. The depth
to water in the unsewered area ranges from about 100-200
feet (30 to 60 m) in the southern terraced area to less than
10 feet (3 m) in much of the northern area underlain by
younger, floodplain, terraces adjacent to the Columbia
River.
Central Multnomah County is situated within a
regional ground-water discharge zone. It receives ground-
water recharge from the Cascade Mountains to the east
and intermediate recharge from the Cascade foothills and
other isolated hills bordering and within the study area. The
major surface drains receiving ground water from the
regional and intermediate flow systems are the Willamette,
Clackamas, and Columbia Rivers.
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974.
bWater Quality Division, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, 1234 S.W. Morrison, Portland,
Oregon 97205.
cHydrogeologist, Oregon State Engineer, 1178
Chemeketa Street, N.E., Salem, Oregon 97310.
dHydrogeologist, Oregon State Engineer, 1178
Chemeketa Street, N.E., Salem, Oregon 97310.
The fluviolacustrine terraces constitute a local
recharge zone. The primary ground-water recharge source is
infiltrating precipitation as evidenced by the paucity of
natural surface drainage, although the area receives in excess
of 40 inches (100 cm) of precipitation per year. However,
due to development and its attendant reduction in area for
infiltration, e.g. paving and building, there has been a
decrease in natural recharge. The estimated 8 to 10 mgd
(34,400 m3/day to 38,000 m3/day) of domestic waste
which is disposed of via the subsurface is thus introduced as
supplemental local recharge.
Infiltrating precipitation and sewage effluent migrates
downwards through the water table. The depth to which the
local recharge can penetrate the water table is limited by its
hydraulic potential and the vertical hydraulic conductivity
of the substrata. Therefore, the NOj-N contaminated re-
charge is effectively buoyed up and migrates laterally along
the upper portion of the water table to its eventual surface
drain, Columbia Slough South Arm.
Water samples from wells developing water in
adjacent or upgradient sewered areas and/or from deeper
aquifers within the unsewered area generally have NO3-N
concentrations of less than 1 mg/1. Shallower wells and
springs within the unsewered area and South Arm Slough,
downgradient grom the unsewered area, had NO3-N con-
centrations ranging from 4.7 to 11.86 mg/1, with a mean
value of 7.74 mg/1 in July 1974.
INTRODUCTION
The Columbia Slough is a small dead-ended
waterway located in North Portland and North
Multnomah County, Oregon. The entire length of
the slough lies in a flat valley that is bordered by
minor agricultural areas, industries, swampy landsr
and the northern sector of the Portland Metropoli-
tan area. It is fed by large spring flows, area surface
water and subsurface drainage. The slough has a flat
gradient which causes it to flow slowly, and its
lower section is substantially influenced by
responses in the Willamette and Columbia Rivers to
tidal changes in the Pacific Ocean.
28
-------
WASH I N6TON
C
Fig. 1
ALIFORNIA i NEVADA
Location of East Portland study area.
The study area (see Figure 1) in East Portland
of Multnomah County, Oregon, has received wide
attention from governmental agencies and citizen
groups for many years. During 1972, the City of
Portland, Multnomah County, Port of Portland,
Corps of Engineers, and the Department of En-
vironmental Quality formed the Columbia Slough
Environmental Improvement Task Force for the
purpose of bringing together the land-use plans
proposed for the Columbia Slough area. Numerous
meetings were held with members of the public
and organized citizen groups. The major topics
considered by the Task Force and the public
involved flood control, land-use patterns, fish and
wildlife, recreation, and water quality improvement
for the development of the Columbia Slough area.
Water quality studies in the Columbia Slough
were started in 1971 and completed in 1973 by the
Department of Environmental Quality. Most of the
data were collected during the dry weather period.
The chemical data indicated that the spring sources
forming the headwaters of the South Arm Slough
were unusually high in nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N)
and sulphate ion concentrations. It was suspected
that the area lying directly south of the South Arm
Slough was contributing much of the NO3-N via
subsurface disposal of domestic waste. The State
Engineer's Office was requested to assist in the
interpretation of the data.
The area lying directly south of the Columbia
Slough drainage system changed from an agricultural
to suburban-urban area over the past 30 years.
Household waste disposal is primarily by means of
cesspools (see Figure 2), and septic tanks and
seepage beds. The area estimated to be served by
subsurface waste disposal in central Multnomah
County covers about 20 square miles (50 km2)
(Moffatt and Taylor, 1965). In addition, about 7
square miles (18 km2) along the eastern border of
Portland are currently served by cesspools and
septic tanks (see Figure 3). Several square miles
along the west boundary of Gresham are also served
by subsurface disposal systems. The population
within this area served by subsurface systems was
estimated to be 102,000 persons in 1972, dis-
charging an estimated 10 million gallons per day
(mgd) (38,000 mVday).
The purpose of this paper is to describe the
study area geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, and
to compare the water quality in wells within the
unsewered area to those in the sewered area of east
Multnomah County, Oregon. The study is also
concerned with developing general recommendations
for alleviation of the contamination problem.
GEOLOGY
The geology of the East Portland area has been
described by Treasher (1942), Trimble (1957, 1963)
and more recently by Hogenson and Foxworthy
(1965) (see Figure 4). Underlying the area are older
volcanic and sedimentary rocks ranging from Eocene
to early Miocene in age. Only one well in the East
Portland area has penetrated these older rocks. This
well derived little water from the older rocks.
4" C.I.
Ł.
w-*-
*WS
o a
o a
a c
o o
0 D
a a
a a
a o
a a
a o
a a
a o
0 0
o o
o a
a o
a D
o o
ft*, n n
7-o p
o a o
1
UJ
O
O
*•-?
CESSPOOL
WITH 4'— «"0.0.
PRE-CAST CONCRETE LINERS
MINIMUM BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR TEMPORARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
NOTE: Any system other than o community sanitary sewage system is considered to b« temporary-
TYPE
OF UNIT
CESSPOOL
PRIMARY US€
Individual ami
Multiple
Residential.
Limited
Commercial
Use-
SOIL
CONDITIONS
Coorce, Loon
Grovel fi Stone
four feet obov*
Wottr Table.
SIZE OR DEPTH"
A. Single Residence 15'
B. Multiple Residence 20'
C. Commercial 20'
Noft: Add soil overburden
for total depth of
hoi*.
LOCATION
A. 10' from Building.
8. 10' from Property Line.
C. 20' center to center.
(Two or more)
*Ctsspool depth indicate* depth of rings in grovel.
STANDARD
CONCRETE CESSPOOL
Fig. 2. Typical cesspool design for East Portland.
29
-------
Proposed Central
Multnonah County
Sewerage District
(unsevered)
Unsevered Area*
within City of
Portland
Sever Lines vlthln
Generally Unsevered
Area.
Roads and Streets
Section Line*
Fig. 3. Topography, major roads, sewered, and unsewered area in East Portland.
Unconformably overlying the older rocks are
a sequence of accordantly layered basaltic lava
flows of the Columbia River Group of early
Miocene age. Individual flows in this unit range in
thickness from about 10 to 150 feet (3 to 45 m)
and can be traced laterally for distances ranging
from less than one to as much as three miles (8 km).
The thickness of the Columbia River Basalt in the
study area ranges from about 120 feet (37 m) in
the Fairview area to perhaps several hundred feet
(90 m) in the west portion of the study area.
Columnar, cubic or "brickbat," and platy jointing
are present in the various flows. These together
with the scoriaceous and fractured materials in the
interflow zones are the major avenues for water
movement. Water wells penetrating these interflow
zones yield moderate to large quantities of water.
The Columbia River Basalt is unconformably
overlain by the Sandy River Mudstone of early (?)
Pliocene age. This unit is primarily made up of
indurated clay and silt, probably of lacustrine
origin. It also includes minor amounts of sand and
fine gravel, especially near the base of the unit.
The maximum known thickness of the unit in the
study area is about 900 feet (270m). Though most
of the unit is saturated with ground water, it does
not readily yield water to water wells, because of
its relatively low hydraulic conductivity.
30
-------
Unconformably overlying the Sandy River
Mudstone is the Troutdale Formation of early
Pliocene age. This unit consists mostly of well-
indurated sandy conglomerate with local layers of
stratified claystone and siltstone. The thickness of
the Troutdale Formation in the study area ranges
from about 150 feet (46 m) near Sandy to about
360 feet (110 m) at Fairview. Bedding in the
Troutdale Formation dips slightly towards the west
as a result of initial deposition by westward-flowing
streams and subsequent tilting during the deforma-
tion that formed in Portland structural basin. This
unit is the major aquifer in the study area.
Overlying and in places intruding the Trout-
dale Formation are basaltic lava, tuff, and volcanic
cinders of the late Pliocene to late (?) Pleistocene
Boring Lava. This unit crops out at Kelly Butte,
Rocky Butte, and Mount Tabor in the study area
(see Figure 4). The Boring Lava was deposited on
an undulating erosional surface developed on top
of the Troutdale Formation. The Boring Lava is
primarily unsaturated.
A unit mostly made up of clay, silt, sand,
gravel, and mudflow deposits underlies much of
the area to the southeast of the study area.
Hogenson and Foxworthy (1965) refer to this unit
as "piedmont deposits." The thickness of these
deposits is commonly less than 100 feet (30 m)
but at places nearly 200 feet (60 m). The materials
in this unit generally have a low hydraulic, con-
ductivity and do not readily yield water to wells.
Poorly consolidated and unconsolidated
gravel, sandy silt, and clay, deposited by the
ancestral Columbia River and its tributaries on the
eroded surface of the Troutdale Formation during
the late Pleistocene make up the Portland terraces.
The materials were deposited during a time when
the surface drainage system was at a level several
hundred feet above its present channels. These
fluviolacustrine deposits are relatively coarse-
grained and include boulders in the northeastern
part of the study area. They grade into predomi-
nantly finer-grained materials to the west. Through-
out the area the gravels are poorly sorted and
commonly include a fine-grained matrix. These
terrace materials feather-out in places but are as
thick as 250 feet (76 m) in much of the area. They
are not generally saturated but are moderately
permeable and yield small to large quantities of
water to wells where they extend below the water
table.
The broad plain along the Columbia River is
underlain by Recent alluvial materials. The depth
of this Recent fill is as great as 175 feet (54 m) in
the study area. The upper portion of this unit is
composed mainly of sand, silt, and clay, while
deeper parts include some gravelly layers. Shallow
wells, tapping the finer-grained materials yield only
small to moderate amounts of water. Deeper wells
which tap the gravelly layers yield larger quantities.
HYDROLOGY
Major surface-water drains in the East Port-
land area include the Columbia River to the north;
Johnson Creek, a tributary of the Willamette River,
to the south; and the Sandy River and its tributary,
Beaver Creek, to the east (see Figures 3 and 5).
Although the Portland area receives over 40 inches
(100 cm) per year of precipitation, there is a
noticeable paucity of surface drainage systems on
the terrace area. This is due to the high hydraulic
conductivity of the terrace materials and was the
case even before extensive development of the area
took place.
Fairview Creek flows from Grant Butte to
Fairview Lake. The out-flow from Fairview Lake
forms the upper Columbia Slough and the main
drainage canal of Columbia Slough which flows
west, subparallel to the Columbia River. South Arm
Slough begins as spring flow about 2Vi miles west
of Fairview Lake. South Arm Slough flows parallel
to and is located immediately south of the main
drainage canal of Columbia Slough (see Figure 3).
South Arm Slough is connected to Columbia Slough
by a small channel located nearly 2 miles below its
headwaters. Its main confluence with the slough is
southwest of Portland International Airport.
Perennial flow in upper South Arm Slough is
through the small channel. During the dryer
summer months, flow from lower South Arm is
also through the smaller channel into Columbia
Slough. On the other hand, during wet, winter-
weather periods, the flow is generally through
South Arm to its main confluence with Columbia
Slough. In addition to natural surface runoff, 12
storm sewers ranging from 12 to 60 inches (30 to
150 cm) in diameter discharge to Fairview Lake,
South Arm, and Columbia Slough in the study
area. The study area does not have extensive storm
drain development. Most of the drains are associ-
ated with the primary roads in the area. Spring
discharge, base flow, and bank storage are the
major sources of water during the summer months
when this system is made up of gaining streams.
Flow measurements in Columbia Slough range from
about 70 to 176 cubic feet per second (cfs) (2 to 5
nWsec) and it has been estimated that the upper
1% miles (3 km) of South Arm Slough (primarily
31
-------
*-**
A Surface Water
Sampling Point
Fig. 4. Geology, selected water wells, and surface-water sampling points in East Portland (see legend on facing page).
spring discharge) contributes about 26 percent of
the total flow in upper Columbia Slough during
dry weather.
HYDROGEOLOGY
Stratigraphic relationships and aquifer charac-
teristics in the study area are outlined in the earlier
text with the geology and summarized in the legend
on Figure 4. The major aquifers in the study area
include the fluviolacustrine deposits where saturated
and the more transmissive portions of the Trout-
dale Formation. Because of its general low hydraulic
conductivity, the Sandy River Mudstone does not
readily provide water to wells. Some wells in the
Portland area develop water from interflow zones
in the Columbia River Basalt. However, its great
depth in the study area and the availability of water
in the shallower Troutdale Formation has resulted
in little development of this deeper aquifer.
The Columbia River and its floodplain, includ-
ing the Columbia Slough system is situated in a
ground-water discharge area. The Cascade Mountains
to the east are the major source of recharge to the
regional flow system. Most of the water movement
in this regional system probably takes place in the
deeper substrata, i.e. the older rocks and perhaps
the Columbia River Basalt. Although potential
gradients may be great, actual movement of the
water in the regional system is probably extremely
slow, primarily because of the low hydraulic con-
32
-------
YOUNGER ALLUVIUM
Gravel, s«nd, silt, and clay; slightly •tract fled.
Mostly well sorted beneath flood plain* of
larger rivers; less sorted near smaller stream*.
Thickness generally a few feet near small
streams, about 20 or 30 feet along Sandy and
Clackamas Rivera, 75 to 100 feet along Willam-
ette River, and as much as ZOO feet along
Columbia River. Layers of well-sorted gravel
and sand yield large amounts of water to well*;
less sorted and finer grained aaterials yield
smaller amount**
FLUVIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSITS
Unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay; slightly
stratified. Generally bouldery and coarser
grained to the east and progressively finer grained
to the west side of the area but contains some
gravel layers throughout most of the area. Thick-
ness generally less than 100 feet; locally, it may
be as great as 150 feet. Gravel and aand beda are
permeable but are mostly above regional water table
and are unsaturated or yield only small amount* to
wells from perched water. Where permeable beda extend
below the regional water table, they yield moderate to
large quantities to well*.
Mostly silt and clay, but includea some sand
gravel, and mudflow deposits. Underlie* the
Kelso elope and olu upland valleya to depth*
generally less than 100 feet. Generally non-
water bearing or yields only small quantltlea
to wells and springs from perched water.
lesser amounts of tuff and volcsnlc cinders.
The lava occurs mostly as flow layers but in-
cludes sills snd feeder dikes. Total thickness
rsnge* from 5 to about 800 feet. Generally is
above regional water table and yields only small
to moderate amounts to wells and springs from
perched water.
BORING LAVA
Mostly gray massive basaltic lava; contains
(geology after Hogenson and Foxworthy, 1965)
Legend for Figure 4.
TROUTDALE FORMATION
Uncon*olldated snd partly consolidated gravel,
•and, allt, and clsy, commonly in the form of
well-Indurated sandy conglomerate. Thickness
generally more than 100 snd locally more than 800
feet. Layers of permeable gravel and send below
regional water table yield moderate to large
•mounts of water to wells and springs; similar
beds nbove regional water table yield smaller
less dependable supplies from perched ground
water.
SANDY RIVER HUDSTONE
Principally mudstone, claystone, and partly con-
solidated silt and clay but includes minor
beds of sand snd grsvel. Total thickness Is at
least 900 and probably more than 1,000 feet.
Generally impermeable and non-water bearing, but a
few wells obtain small amounts of water from local
layer* of sand and gravel.
COLUMBIA RIVER BASALT
Dark basalt in accordantly layered flows that
range from about 10 to 150 feet in thickness;
total thickness 800 feet or more. Permeable
zones at contacts between some flows yield
moderate to large amounts of water to wells
ihat penetrate the basalt below the regional
vater table and yield lesser smount* to springs
and wells from perched ground water above the
water table.
ductivity of the older rocks and the differences in
the horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities
of the Columbia River Basalt.
Superimposed on this regional system are
intermediate and local ground-water flow systems.
The Cascade foothills and other isolated hills
bordering and within the study area may be sources
of recharge to the intermediate flow system.
Ground-water movement in the intermediate system
probably takes place in the upper portion of the
previously described Columbia River Basalt and the
Sandy River Mudstone, as well as in the deeper
portions of the fluvial sediments of the Troutdale
Formation. Major surface drains receiving ground
water from the regional and intermediate flow
systems are the Sandy, Willamette, Clackamas, and
Columbia Rivers.
Within the study area, a local ground-water
flow system can also be outlined. A local ground-
water divide is formed by coalescing ground-water
mounds under Mt. Tabor, Kelly, Powell, and Grant
Buttes. Precipitation is the major natural source of
recharge to the local flow system. The ground-
water divide is underlain by the previously
described Boring Lava and associated remnants of
the Troutdale Formation. The generally low
hydraulic conductivity of the lava results in a great
deal of surface runoff to the adjoining terrace.
Much of the runoff toward the north apparently
infiltrates into the fluviolacustrine materials as well
33
-------
•
• Well*
• Spring!
Surface Water
Sampling Point
Equlpotentlal Linei
i ^ Representative Flow Linei
l?V'r.; Contaminated Zone
Fig. 5. Representative flow lines and contaminated ground-water zone in East Portland.
as the Troutdale Formation underlying the terrace
and is a source of recharge to the local flow system.
Flow from these recharge areas is directed down-
ward and away from this divide toward Johnson
Creek on the south and the Portland terraces and
Columbia Slough South Arm on the north. Johnson
Creek may provide some recharge to the ground-
water flow system. Most local flow is apparently
restricted to the saturated portions of the fluvio-
lacustrine materials and the upper part of the
Troutdale Formation.
A few representative flow lines have been
added to the ends of the basic isometric diagram of
the study area on Figure 5. These lines are added in
order to qualitatively show the relative directions of
ground-water movement in the area. Contaminated
34
-------
ground-water zones are also outlined on this Figure.
Hogenson and Foxworthy (1965) have also
described some perched ground-water bodies within
the unsaturated zone of the fluviolacustrine material
and the Troutdale Formation. Other presumably
perched ground-water discharges in springs and
seeps in the Boring Lava at several of the buttes in
the area.
Many authors, recently including Schwartz
and Domenico (1973), have discussed natural water
quality patterns in ground-water flow systems.
Hughes and Cartwright (1972) generally, and Freeze
(1972) more specifically, have pointed out some of
the ramifications of waste disposal relative to
ground-water flow systems.
Bouma et al. (1972) and Dudley and
Stephenson (1973) have outlined some water
quality problems associated with the subsurface
disposal of domestic wastes. Their studies, like
most others, are primarily concerned with waste
disposal in areas with shallow water tables and/or
high hydraulic conductivities. They have pointed
out the practicality of using nitrate concentrations
as a measure of chemical contamination resulting
from the subsurface disposal of domestic wastes.
Domestic sewage is often characterized by high
concentrations of nitrogen compounds including
ammonia, organic nitrogen, and minor amounts of
nitrate and nitrite. However, during the disposal
and percolation of the effluent through unsaturated
aerobic materials, rapid nitrification of the effluent
takes place and that effluent reaching the ground-
water table contains nitrogen almost exclusively as
nitrate. Nitrogen serves as a good tracer because it
is not generally susceptible to hydrogeochemical
retardation, such as adsorption by clays; it mixes
well; and it travels with ground water. Therefore,
the nitrate content of the ground water can be used
as an indicator of its degree of contamination.
Extensive development and its attendant dis-
ruption of natural drainage, paving of recharge
areas, and subsurface disposal of wastes has resulted
in some changes in the water quality within the
study area. In 1965 it was estimated that 8 mgd
(34,400 m3/day) of domestic waste water was being
disposed of via subsurface systems in the study area
(Moffatt and Taylor, 1965). Since that time, there
has been an increase in population in the area and
perhaps as much as 10 mgd (38,000 m3/day) of
waste water is disposed of in subsurface systems.
These disposal systems include standard septic tank
and drainfields, seepage beds, and cesspools.
Perhaps 80 percent of the systems are cesspools (see
Figure 2). The cesspool disposal in the fluviolacus-
trine deposits results in very little loss of the waste
water to evapotranspiration and consequently most
of the liquid percolates downward as local recharge
to the water table. This takes place even though the
depth to water ranges from 100 to 200 feet (30 to
60 m) in the terrace area. As this contaminated
local recharge reaches the water table, it migrates a
short distance downwards, through the water table,
and then merges with the local flow system. The
depth to which the contaminated recharge will
penetrate the water table is primarily dependent
upon its hydraulic potential and the vertical
hydraulic conductivity of the substrata. From this
point the primary means of movement for the
contaminated recharge is convective transfer, that is
with the ground water. Some dispersion of the
contaminant can be expected as it randomly inter-
acts with particles in its flow path.
In the study area, it appears that only those
wells which tap the upper portions of the saturated
zone, local flow system, have significant nitrate
contamination. This indicates that as a result of the
position of the local flow system above the deeper
intermediate and regional systems and the vertical/
horizontal differences in hydraulic conductivity,
the contaminated ground water is effectively
buoyed up. Figure 6 is a plot of the elevation of the
9 .
5 . .
1N/2E-22P!!
1N/2E-33J!J I 1
lN/2E-22Rl|| i
1N/2E-29K I "-
IN/2E-33J2II H
1N/2E-23E!!),-
lN/2E-22Qil| H-
1N/2E-23EII I—1
1N/2E-17L Sampling Point
II Kater Table
1 I Open Zone of Well
Caned Well
1N/2E-26R1H
II*- X>0' ||
1N/2E-26R2||
1N/3E-35F11-
1N/3E-28J
250 200 150 100 50 0 ^50-100 -150 -200 ^250
WATER TABIŁ AND OPEN ZONES
Elevation In Feet, Datum la Mean Sea Level
Fig. 6. Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations relative to water
table and open-zone elevations in selected wells and springs,
July 1974.
35
-------
Table 1. East Portland Water Quality Data
WELL
1N/2E-17L
22Pi
22Qi
22Ri
23Ei
23E
26Ri
26R2
26R3
26R4
29K
33Ji
33J2
1N/3E-21G!
23Bx
23Hi
23Ki
26
26N,
34Dt
27Mi
28R
28J
1N/3E-34A
35 F
34E
1N/1E-13C
1N/2E-14N
1N/2E-17G
OWNER
Calcagno
Hopwood
Parkrose #1
Freemont School
Parkrose #2
Parkrose #3
Richland #1
Rlchland #2
Rlchland #3
Richland #4
(Abandoned)
City of Portland
Bureau of Parks
Russellvllle #1
Russellvllle #2
Latter Day Saints
Bonneville Power Ad
Reynolds Metal Co.
Reynolds Metal Co.
Troutdale Spring
Multnomah Co. Farm
cs
-" I
8
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
(4) Well
(12)Well
Spring
Well
Multnomah Kennel Club Well
Falrvlew #3
Falrview #4
Falrvlew #5
Woodvillage #1
Woodvlllage #2
Kennel Club
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Spring
South
.Arm
Slough @
N.E. 33rd
Columbia
Slough @
N.E.
122nd
South
Arm
Slough
-------
Table 1. (continued)
WELL
OWNER
i
DATE
S
w
H o
Si
is
O v
J o
< M
o>
g
w O
e.
2
U)
1N/2E-22D
1N/3E-20N
a
a
a
South a
Ann a
Slough. @ a
N.E. a
122nd a
a
a
a
a
Columbia a
Slough @ a
N.E. a
185th a
a
a
a
a
a
11/17/72
9/4/73
7/18/74
8/18/71
5/2/72
6/19/72
7/5/72
8/2/72
9/12/72
11/17/72
9/4/73
7/18/74
8/18/71
5/2/72
6/19/72
7/5/72
8/2/72
9/12/72
11/17/72
9/4/73
7/18/74
.
18.0
17.5
14.0
13.0
14.0
.
14.0
12.0
11.0
15.0
14.0
20.0
15.0
18.5
-
19.0
17.0
9.0
20.0
20.0
.
7.0
6.9
6.7
6.5
6.9
-
6.8
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.6
7.5
7.1
7.4
-
7.1
7.6
7.1
7.1
8.6
-
293 .
298
195
225
190
.
228
257
204
236
242
200
190
181
-
242
238
188
216
217
.
212*
195
188*
173*
171*
-
198*
193*
-
185*
181
205*
166*
178*
-
190*
220*
-
178*
107
.
70
70
46
49
50
-
49
43
.
50
47
80
54
54
-
85
78
.
74
72
89.7
-
91.3
74.9
74.2
76.3
-
81.0
79.2
.
72.4
74.0
78.8
64.8
78.7
-
79.9
84.8
.
70.8
73.6
.
10.3
7.8
6.6
6.5
7.0
.
7.6
12.4
6.8
9.1
5.7
.
0.11
0.23
0.16
0.29
0.24
.
0.33
0.25
0.33
0.17
0.31
6.8<0.01
4.7
5.6
-
6.1
6.2
4.7
7.3
4.2
0.04
0.05
0.04
-
0.20
0.02
0.11
0.04
-
15.4
11.3
12.7
11.9
13.3
-
21.6
13.8
.
12.6
8.7
8.8
10.8
9.6
-
8.6
9.4
-
9.7
5.2
.
6.80
6.89
5.30
5.60
3.50
.
5.10
3.60
7.00
7.20
8.50
0.64
2.00
1.20
-
1.00
0.61
2.30
0.87
1.14
1. w - well; s - spring; si - slough
2. a - Department of Environmental Quality; b - Pittsburg Testing; c - Charlton Lab; d - U. S. Geological Survey;
e - Reynolds Metal Co.
3. U.Si Public Health recommended maximum 500 mg./l.; total solids where *
4. Noncarbonate where *
5. U.S. Public Health recommended maximum 250 mg./l.
6. U.S. Public Health recommended maximum 250 mg./l.
7. U.S. Public Health maximum allowable 10 mg./l.
open zone or zones of some wells in the study area
versus the NO3-N concentrations of water samples
collected during July of 1974. It appears that those
wells which are in the unsewered portion of the
study area, developing water primarily from the
upper portion of the local flow system, are signifi-
cantly higher in NO3-N, that is having concentra-
tions above 5 milligrams per liter (mg/1). Samples
from these wells ranged as high as 11.86 mg/1 of
NO3-N. This is in excess of the Public Health Service
maximum allowable concentration for drinking
water of 10 mg/1 of NO3-N. On the other hand,
wells from the unsewered areas and deeper wells,
either not developing water from the upper portion
of the flow system and/or mixing water from
deeper portions of the aquifer generally have
NO3-N concentrations of less than 3 mg/1 and most
are less than 1 mg/1 (see Figure 6 and Table 1).
Other water quality parameters were also
considered in the study area. Figure 7 is a plot of
nitrate-nitrogen versus sulphate ion concentrations
in spring and well-water samples. Although more
data points at particular sampling stations are
necessary for valid statistical analysis, a general
trend showing increased sulphate concentrations
with increased NO3-N concentrations is apparent.
Soluble orthophosphate ion concentrations were
also measured in well, spring, and surface-water
samples. However, the susceptibility of the phos-
phate ions to sorption has apparently resulted in
low levels of this constituent.
Some sampling points outside the unsewered
area shown on Figure 3 have also been relatively
high in NO3-N concentrations. The most obvious of
these are the Troutdale and Kennel Club springs,
1N/3E-26 and 1N/3E-34E, respectively. The
Troutdale spring is immediately downgradient
from a small area, about one square mile, which
E 5.!
X Shallow WelU, Spring!
uneevered area*
• Severed areet end deeper
welle
L?*rV
. i
. . j. j, j, j, j. J6 i, i. »
SULPIUTB (ng./t.)
Fig. 7. Nitrate-nitrogen versus sulphate ion concentrations in
East Portland wells and springs.
37
-------
1.5
0.5 ..
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
SAMPLING MXB
Fig. 8. Trend of temporal changes in nitrate-nitrogen
concentrations.
has been sewered in the past 2 to 5 years. Figure 8
shows that the NO3-N concentration in samples
taken from the spring did not increase significantly
between the 1966 and 1974 sampling dates. The
Kennel Club spring is in a small as yet unsewered,
but proposed to soon be sewered, area. Contamina-
tion problems may be complicated in these areas
by the previously mentioned locally perched
ground-water bodies described by Hogenson and
Foxworthy (1965).
Although abundant data is not available, there
appears to be a temporal change or historic increase
in the NO3-N content of the ground water in the
study area. Figure 8 shows this increase graphically.
There are not sufficient data points to quantify the
contaminant increase, but the trend is apparent.
Water samples from shallow wells in the unsewered
area continue to increase in NO3-N concentrations
while the wells outside the unsewered area, deeper
wells, and/or wells developing from several aquifers
remain relatively low in N03-N content.
COLUMBIA SLOUGH SYSTEM
As described earlier, the Columbia River is a
main surface drain for the regional and intermediate
ground-water flow systems. Columbia Slough and
its South Arm receive recharge not only from the
Columbia River and bank storage, but also from the
ground-water flow system. The dynamic hydraulic
balance between the river, slough, and ground-water
flow system results in seasonal fluctuations in the
spring discharge. Innumerable small seeps and
springs with measured discharges ranging from less
than one to about 700 gpm (0.06 to 44 I/sec) are
located along the sloughs.
South Arm Slough is situated upgradient from
the Columbia Slough, with respect to the water
table. As such it acts as a cutoff or interceptor drain
to the upper portion of the water table and picks up
much of the shallow local ground-water discharge.
This is reflected in the water quality data. During
the most recent, July 1974, sampling period, 9
well-water samples apparently taken from the
upper portion of the water table in the unsewered
area had NO3-N concentrations ranging from 5.1 to
11.86 mg/1 and averaging 8.3 mg/1. Six samples
taken from the deeper water wells in the unsewered
area and from the sewered area ranged from 0.06
to 0.90 mg/1 of NO3-N with a mean value of 0.31
mg/L. Three samples taken from South Arm ranged
from 4.7 to 7.8 mg/1 of NO3-N with a mean value
of 6.1 mg/1. At the same time 2 samples taken from
the downgradient Columbia Slough had concentra-
tions of 1.14 and 1.71 mg/1. The distance between
the South Arm and Columbia Slough sampling
points is only about 1,000 feet (300 m) (see
Figure 4).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Subsurface disposal of domestic waste in
central Multnomah County has contaminated the
ground-water resource. Nitrate-nitrogen, one of the
end products of decomposed domestic waste, was
found to be significantly higher in content within
the unsewered area than in adjacent sewered areas.
This was particularly apparent in wells which
develop water from only the upper portion of the
saturated zone. A historic increase in the NO3-N
concentration of the ground water in the unsewered
area is apparent.
This study determined that the subsurface
disposal of waste also affected the quality of surface
water adjacent to the study area. South Arm
Slough, whose primary source is shallow ground-
water discharge, was also found to be significantly
high in NO3-N content, especially in those areas
downgradient from the unsewered area.
Sewerage of the area is imperative if the
quality of the ground water is to be maintained or
improved. As an interim precaution, water wells
developing drinking water from the upper portion
of the aquifer should mix contaminated well water
with water having a relatively low NO3-N content.
38
-------
This can be accomplished by adding imported
water prior to its distribution or deepening wells in
order to mix low NO3-N water from the uncon-
taminated portion of the saturated zone with
shallower contaminated ground water.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the staff of the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and
the Oregon State Engineer for their assistance in the
development of this paper. Also acknowledged is
Jim Hickman of the State Engineer's Office for his
work on the included graphics.
REFERENCES
Bouma, J., W. A. Ziebell, W. C. Walker, P. G. Olcott, E.
McCoy, and F. D. Hole. 1972. Soil absorption of
septic tank effluent. University of Wisconsin Ext.,
Informational Circular No. 20, 235 pp.
Dudley, J. G. and D. A. Stephenson. 1973. Nutrient
enrichment of ground water from septic tank disposal
systems. Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission,
Inland Lake Renewal and Shoreland Demonstration
Project Rept., 131 pp.
Freeze, R. A. 1972. Subsurface hydrology at waste disposal
sites. IBM Jour. Res. Develop, v. 16, pp. 117-129.
Hogenson, G. M. and B. L. Foxworthy. 1965. Ground
water in the East Portland area, Oregon. U.S. Geol.
Survey Water-Supply Paper 1793, 78 pp.
Hughes, G. M. and Keros Cartwright. 1972. Scientific and
administrative criteria for shallow waste disposal.
Civil Engineering ASCE. v. 42, no. 3, pp. 70-73.
Moffatt, Nichol and Taylor, Consult. Engrs. 1965. Master
plan of sewerage in East Multnomah County. 110 pp.
+ Apps. A-F.
Schwartz, F. W. and P. A. Domenico. 1973. Simulation of
hydrochemical patterns in regional ground-water
flow. Water Resources Res. v. 9, no. 3, pp. 707-719.
Treasher, R. C. 1942. Geologic map of the Portland area,
Oregon. Oregon Dept. Geology and Mineral Indus.
map.
Trimble, D. E. 1957. Geology of the Portland quadrangle,
Oregon-Washington. U.S. Geol. Survey Quad Map
GQ-104.
Trimble, D. E. 1963. Geology of Portland, Oregon, and
adjacent areas. U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1119, 119 pp.
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by H. R.
Sweet after delivering his talk entitled "Subsurface
Sewage Disposal and Contamination of Ground
Water in East Portland, Oregon."
Q. by Rein Laak. Was surface runoff evaluated?
A. On the isometric block diagrams I pointed out
that there is a paucity of surface runoff from the
terrace area, primarily because of the high hydraulic
conductivity of the fluviolacustrine materials under-
lying the terrace. Pavement runoff which may have
affected the NO3-N content in the study area of the
slough system was not a factor because all surveys
were conducted under dry weather conditions.
Q. by R. G. Knight. What was the difference
between horizontal and vertical-permeabilities?
A. Because of the stratification in the
fluviolacustrine materials and in the Troutdale
formation, it does not seem unreasonable to assume
that the horizontal permeability or hydraulic
conductivity is at least an order of magnitude
greater than the vertical. In the deeper Columbia
River Group, this difference may be as great as
several orders of magnitude.
Q. by Dennis Gray. Were cesspools used without
septic tanks?
A. Generally, yes.
Q. by Stephen Ragone. What conclusive studies
can you cite that show nitrogen in excess of 10 mg/l
(as N) is a health hazard?
A. The U.S.P.H.S. established 10 mg/l NO3-N as
the maximum allowable limit for drinking water
because of its potential health hazard to infants.
For further reference to the use of this limit and
the rationale behind it, I would suggest: Winton,
Tardiff, and McCabe, 1971, Nitrate in Drinking
Water: Feb., Jour. A.W.W.A., pp. 95-99.
Q. by John Wilson. 7s 8 mg/l NO3-N high? Do you
need to import water to dilute concentrations this
low?
A. The title of our paper indicates contamination,
not pollution. In this case, 8 mg/l is high with
respect to background levels of less than 1 mg/l.
However, our main point is that there is a temporal
increase in NO3-N concentrations in the area and
we hope that this increase will be halted before a.
."pollution" problem develops. The second part of
39
-------
the question deals with imported water and dilution.
Low NO3-N surface water is presently imported
into the Portland area. Also, it was pointed out that
water from deeper portions of the aquifer is low in
NO3-N and suitable for dilution. Therefore, we are
not proposing the development of a new water
system for the area but some simple changes in
plumbing, which will alleviate a problem should the
temporal increase in NO3-N continue.
Q. by Fred Crates. Is cesspool technique the
problem or are you saying that all on-site systems
are not adequate? If other on-site designs do a good
job, what is the economics of on-site reclamation
vs. central sewer?
A. The cesspool technique ultimately allows all
products of waste decomposition to enter the local
flow system. NO3-N, one of these waste products,
has reached high concentrations within the study
area because of the high population density. Other
on-site systems, i.e. septic tanks and drainfields, are
probably more efficient in removing decomposition
products through evapotranspiration and root
absorption of nutrients. However, the current
density of development in the area precludes the
installation of septic tank and drainfield systems
as a solution to the problem. Preservation of the
ground-water resource as a potable water supply
requires installation of an area-wide sewerage
system.
Q. by Gary G. Small. What method was used to
analyze N03-N and what was the time delay between
the sampling time and the time of analyses?
A. In many of the older samples shown in Table 1
of the paper we are not sure of the method of
analysis for NO3-N. However, the more recent
samples were analyzed using the Brucine method as
outlined in the 13th edition of Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Waste Water. The
last set of samples used in this paper was collected
between July 16 and 19, 1974, and all samples were
analyzed on July 19, 1974. All samples were
refrigerated between time of collection and analysis.
40
-------
Sampling of Variable, Waste-Migration
Patterns in Ground Watera
by K. E. Childsb, S. B. Upchurchc and B. Ellisd
ABSTRACT
A survey of waste-migration patterns from septic-tank/
tile-field systems surrounding Houghton Lake, Michigan
indicates that sampling plans designed to detect and quantify
waste migration in ground water should be predicated on
the concept that the waste plume may be complex and that
the plume may not follow regional, ground-water flow. The
waste-migration plumes at Houghton Lake range from
simple, multichemical plumes that move with regional flow
to complex plumes that bifurcate, that show different
migration patterns for different chemicals, and that move
up the regional gradient for short distances. The complexity
of these patterns is attributed to a combination of the
following system properties: loading rate and recharge at
the waste source, local hydrology, chemical-adsorption
capacity of the soil, soil microbiology, regolith texture and
fabric, and proximity to other waste sources. Based on the
observed patterns, it is suggested that observation wells be
placed so that an in-depth, 3-dimensional array of samples
can be obtained. The wells should be of sufficient depth to
insure that deep-moving plumes can be detected and, if the
actual, vertical-migration pattern is of importance, the wells
should allow collection of water samples at a number of
depths. The waste-migration pattern should be monitored
throughout the year in anticipation of vertical movement of
the plume axis during periods of surface recharge. If more
than one chemical is of interest, then it is unsafe to assume
that an index chemical, such as chlorides, demonstrates the
migration of the other chemicals and analyses must be run
for the other chemicals.
(Key words: waste migration, septic tanks, ground-
water contamination).
(Running head: waste-migration patterns).
INTRODUCTION
The general pattern of waste migration within
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, September 25-27, 1974.
^Ground-Water Geologist, Geological Survey Division,
State of Michigan, Stevens T. Mason Building, Lansing,
Michigan 48926.
cAssociate Professor, Department of Geology, Uni-
versity of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620.
^Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824.
the ground-water regime is assumed by many to be
characterized by the single-plume model. This
characterization portrays a homogeneous mass
(plume) of waste that is migrating in the direction
of net ground-water movement, that is undergoing
only dilution with distance, and that is transported
from a point source to an area of ground-water
discharge, such as a lake or stream. Ground-water
studies usually commence with the construction of
a regional, piezometric map, which is the basis for
locating an array of sampling (observation) wells
between the waste source and the area of suspected
ground-water discharge. Frequently, these wells are
positioned at a common depth below the top of the
saturated zone. To obtain background-concentra-
tion data, wells are placed nearby and upgradient
from the waste source. The water samples collected
from these observation wells are usually analyzed
for a single constituent, or a limited number of
constituents, under the assumption that most waste
chemicals move along a common axis. By this
model, therefore, the presence of a single constitu-
ent implies the presence, or possible presence, of
other constituents of interest. The severity of
ground-water contamination is evaluated by com-
parison with the data obtained from the back-
ground concentrations. The single-plume model
and related interpretations have been widely used
in'the interpretation of ground-water contamination
from various types of sources (e.g., Deutsch, 1961;
Childs, 1970; Bernhart, 1973; Dudley, 1973; Ellis
and Childs, 1973; and Bouwer, 1974).
There is good evidence to indicate that the
single-plume model is useful only to demonstrate
that there is a potential for ground-water contamina-
tion. If data are required to show the specific
behavior of multichemical wastes, then a single
plume cannot be assumed and much more extensive
sampling in a 3-dimensional array is required.
Procedures for defining waste-migration
patterns, utilizing the single-plume model, were
developed during a study (Ellis and Childs, 1973)
41
-------
Fig. 1. Location of sample sites at Houghton Lake,
Michigan.
of the migration of septic-tank wastes around the
perimeter of Houghton Lake, Michigan (Figure 1).
An important outcome of this study was the aware-
ness that data collected under the assumption of a
single-plume model frequently do not allow an
accurate characterization of system behavior. The
purpose of this paper is to provide evidence that
necessitates a model which characterizes the
complex, dynamic migration of multichemical
waste from a point source. This information can
be expanded and utilized to develop more
realistic ground-water sampling programs.
STUDY AREA
Geological Setting
Houghton Lake has 30 miles of shoreline, a
surface of 19,600 acres, and an average depth of 10
feet. The lake is eutrophic and appears to be
undergoing phosphorus enrichment (Pecor, Novy,
Childs, and Powers, 1973; Pecor, Novey, Tierney,
and VanLandingham, 1973). The lake was chosen
as a study area because of a high population density
(11,000 permanent residents), because of its
importance as a recreation resource, and because
of a suspicion, based on the eutrophic condition of
the lake, that the lake was receiving large inputs of
phosphorus from septic-tank systems via ground
water.
Houghton Lake is a large, shallow kettle lake
(Kelley, 1956). Approximately 80 percent of the
soils of the area immediately surrounding the lake
are developed on the outwash that surrounded the
stranded ice block. The other 20 percent are de-
veloped on recessional and ground moraines that
border the lake to the south and southwest. Based
on geologic considerations, the area has been
mapped for septic-tank-use suitability (Childs,
1973; Ellis and Childs, 1973; and Tilmann etal,
1974). Approximately" one-third of the lake shore
study area was considered to be suitable for septic-
tank use. The remaining lake shore is marginal to
unsuitable because the glacial deposits have low
nutrient-adsorption capacities or low or excessive
permeabilities.
The original waste-migration study (Childs,
1973) investigated waste movement from 19 septic-
tank sites located within l/2 mile of Houghton Lake.
The sites were located to include all of the soil
types along the lake shore. This paper presents data
from 5 test sites (Figure 1) that show the greatest
variability and complexity in waste migration. The
5 sites are located on 2 soil types (Newton Loamy
Sand, Rubicon Sand; Table 1) which comprise
approximately 55 percent of the lake shore. The 2
soil types are developed on outwash sediments, and
are distinct in physical and chemical properties.
According to the septic-tank-use suitability surveys,
these soil types range from fair to excellent for
this use.
Table 1. (from Schneider & Erickson, 1972)
Soil
Type
Newton
Loamy
Sand
Rubicon
Sand
Profile
0-4" -Sand
4-45"— Loamy Sand
45-60''-Sand,
Parent Material
0-4" -Sand Surface
4-45"-Sand-Subsoil
45-60''-Sand,
Parent Material
Phosphorus
Adsorption
Capacity
(Ibs/acre-ft)
72
1640
550
2262
104
1008
1368
2480
Water
Holding
Capacity
(in/ft)
1.01
6.79
1.61
Very
Low
Permea-
bility
(in/hr)
17
9
23
34
44
86
Depth
to Water
Table Slope
(inches) (%)
0 to 24" 0 to 2
Approxi- 0 to 12
mately
60"
General Soil Description
Consists of a few inches to
one foot of black, mucky
surface soil over a wet,
gray, sandy subsoil.
Well-drained minimal
podzols developed in
deep, sandy outwash.
Rich in iron, calcium,
and aluminum.
42
-------
Climate
The Houghton Lake area is in the northern
•half of the lower peninsula of Michigan. The area
has a mean annual temperature of 41 degrees F, a
mean annual precipitation of 27 inches, including
an average snowfall of 56 inches, and an annual
ground-water recharge such that between 15 and
27 percent of the water entering Houghton Lake is
ground water (Childs, 1973; Pecor, Novy, Childs,
and Powers, 1973; Swearingen, 1973). The winters
are long, and frozen ground prevails from November
to March. Occasional freezes may be expected in
September and May. Approximately 70 percent of
the precipitation occurs as rain from May through
October. The remaining 30 percent is snow, the
majority of which is stored as snowpack until the
spring thaw. Therefore, infiltration is seasonal,
with maximum recharge to the surface aquifer
occurring with the combination of precipitation
and snow melt in the spring. The seasonal recharge
implies that flushing of the regolith is also seasonal
and that vertical displacement of waste plumes may
occur under near-laminar flow conditions.
PROCEDURES
Ground-water and soil samples were collected
in the vicinity of operating septic-tank/tile-field
systems located within a half mile of the shoreline
of Houghton Lake. Four criteria were used to
select test-site locations:
1. Loading history—the systems had to have
been used by at least 2 full-time residents for a
time period of several years.
2. Accessibility—test sites had to be available
for the collection of water and soil samples.
3. Soil types—the sites were chosen to be
representative of area soil groups.
4. Isolation from other known waste sources.
Ground-water samples were collected through
water wells, driven to a maximum depth of 24 feet
below the water table. The sampling equipment
consisted of a 1'/4-inch drive pipe, a pitcher pump,
and 24-inch drive points with 18-inch, wound-wire,
10-slot screens. Test wells were driven and pumped
in 2-foot intervals. This procedure provided a
vertically-stratified set of water samples from the
water table to the maximum test depth.
Soil samples were collected above the water
table using a soil auger. Soil cores, 10 feet in length
and 1 inch in diameter, were collected from the
saturated zone by means of a 1-inch plastic tube
SOIL AND WATER SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
Fig. 2. Diagram showing method of recovering soil samples
from below the water table.
attached to a vacuum pump (Figure 2). The plastic
tube was inserted into the soil, a vacuum applied,
and the core retrieved under vacuum. The core was
then subsampled in 1-foot intervals.
All chemical analyses were according to the
procedures in Standard Methods (American Public
Health Association, 1971). The air-dried soil
samples were sieved and the fraction f^ner than 2
millimeters was subjected to phosphorus extraction
according to the method outlined in Ellis and
Childs (1973). The extraction was accomplished
with 0.025 N HC1 and 0.03 N NH4F with a soil
to solution ratio of 1:10.
RESULTS
A number of the sites investigated showed
anomalous results in comparison with the single-
plume model. These anomalies included differential
movement of chemicals from a single source,
bifurcation of the waste plume, and, in systems
where mounding of the water table is extreme,
upgradient migration. The following examples
demonstrate these phenomena.
Test site 1 (Figure 1) is situated in Rubicon
Sand about '/a mile from Houghton Lake. The
septic tank/tile field has been used continuously for
approximately 15 years by a family of 6. The site is
semi-isolated with the nearest adjacent source of
wastes over 200 feet away. The soil is homogeneous
to the eye. A ground-water table map, based on
surveyed elevations, suggests that net ground-water
movement is lakeward. The water samples from site
1 were analyzed for chloride, nitrate nitrogen, and
phosphorus (expressed as phosphates). Figure 3
shows the vertical configuration of the waste plume
in the direction of the lake. Note that nitrates and
chlorides extend to depths of at least 20 feet, while
43
-------
a-
f**t
4H
HI
l«*t
Fig. 3. Cross sections of the waste plume at site 1. A is chlorides, B is phosphorus (expressed as phosphate), and C is
nitrates. All concentrations are in parts per million.
44
-------
phosphorus is more or less confined to the upper 10
feet of the saturated zone. Phosphorus is also much
diminished in concentration in the water within
100 feet of the source, which probably reflects the
high phosphorus-adsorption capacity and low
water-holding capacity of the Rubicon Sand (Table
1). Chloride distribution suggests that there is some
contamination of the site from a source upgradient.
The magnitude of this chloride plume seems high
for a domestic source and may reflect road salting,
which is prevalent during the winter months. This
conclusion is supported by the distributions of
phosphorus and nitrates, which indicate possible
upgradient movement of material from the source
at site 1. There is indistinct water mounding at the
septic system in site 1, so the upgradient movement
is most likely due to chemical diffusion. There is no
indication as to the cause of the bifurcation of the
waste plumes of each chemical. Three possibilities
for this bifurcation are variation in loading history
from the septic system, seasonal variation in infil-
tration and ground-water flow, and textural or
fabric inhomogeneities in the regolith. Clearly,
selection of sample interval in each well, well depth,
and well spacing is critical to the interpretation of
waste contamination from a site such as site 1.
Sites 4 and 7 (Figure 1) are located on the
Newton Loamy Sand within 150 feet of the lake
shore. Both sites are characterized by high water
tables and sand to loamy sand substrates. The
septic systems have been in use for approximately
10 years by families of 6, each. Water samples from
these 2 sites were analyzed for phosphorus and
nitrates (Figure 4). At each site the waste plume is
significant as a comparison with the plume at site 1
(Figure 3), because the waste plumes appear to be
confined to the upper 6 feet of the saturated zone.
At both sites it is evident that there is phosphorus
and nitrate migration into the lake. It is also
apparent that phosphorus is equally as mobile as
nitrates in these systems. In contrast with site 1,
where chlorides are most mobile, nitrates second,
and phosphorus is least mobile, these 2 sites
dramatize the fact that single constituents cannot
be expected to characterize a multichemical system.
Within the 19 sites examined, there were cases
where each of the 3 chemicals described above was
mobile in comparison with the others. These differ-
ences in mobility can be related to loading
variations, adsorption-capacity variations in differ-
ent soil types, and differences in reaction kinetics
between the 3 chemicals.
Comparison of adsorbed phosphorus in the
soil with the dissolved phosphorus in the water of
INPUT
O
worm T«»ii
NIT FLOW I
.ARC
Fig. 4. Comparison of the waste plumes at sites 4 and 7. A
and B are phosphorus (expressed as phosphates) and
nitrates, respectively, at site 4, while C and D are
phosphorus and nitrates, respectively, at site 7. All concen-
tration values are in parts per million.
45
-------
Table 2. Comparison of Phosphorus (Expressed as ppm Phosphates) in the Soil and Water at Septic Sites 14 and 15.
Arrows Indicate Location of Septic Tanks in Relation to Wells. Sample Intervals Vary1.
Depth
from
surface
1
2
7
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
4
P04 on
soils
21
15
11
43
76
69
25
10
3
-
—
Sit
P04 in
water C.F.2
W ATFR
2.5 11
5.0 15
9.0 1.9
0.20 15
0.01
".e 14
PO^on
soils
39
51
4,0
63
44
18
15
12
5
15
-
—
PO4 in
water C.F.2
TART TT
0.11 490
-
0.02 830
0.04 210
0.01 1500
0.00
4.
PO4 on
soils
60
52
7O
100
40
48
37
24
22
21
—
—
Sit,
PO4 in
water C.F.2
W ATT7R
8.0 8.8
'4.0 11
0.08 290
0.01 2100
0.00
e 15
PO4 on
soils
22
84
07
86
74
48
22
16
14
15
-
• —
PO4 in
water
- -TARI F -
0.30
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
C.F.2
—
270
3500
infin.
1500
—
1 Soil samples were collected every foot below the ground surf ace; water samples were collected at 2-foot intervals
from the water table.
2 C.F. is the concentration factor and is the weighted ratio of soil-bound phosphates to aqueous. Soil-bound phosphate
was weighted by averaging of analyses within each 2-foot interval from which a water sample was taken.
the saturated zone demonstrates one of the possible
mechanisms that results in the differential move-
ment of constituents away from a waste source.
Test site 14 is a resort owner's home that has been
used by a family of 3 for approximately 10 years.
Site 15 has been permanently used by a family of 2
for about 20 years. Both sites are located in the
Newton Loamy Sand in close proximity to the
lake. Chloride, nitrate, and phosphorus data from
the 2 sites reveal complex flow of waste chemicals
toward the lake. In order to evaluate how effective
the soil minerals are in removing phosphorus from
the ground water and, thus, causing differential
waste migration, phosphorus was stripped from
the soil minerals in the test wells at these 2 sites.
Table 2 compares the results of the water analyses
with those of the soil-bound phosphorus. It is
evident that phosphorus is removed from the
ground water below the water table, and differ-
ential movement is likely to occur. Chlorides,
though generally considered conservative, may
also be absorbed on clays (Grim, 1968), and
nitrates have been shown to be reactive with clays
in solution.
Therefore, the differential movement of the 3
chemicals may result from adsorption on soil
materials. Again, if a simple-plume model is used,
there is a potential for error in sample selection.
Note the distribution of concentration factors in
the data of Table 2. The concentration factor is the
ratio of soil-adsorbed phosphorus to aqueous
phosphorus. If simple, linear diffusion and adsorp-
tion were to occur in a homogeneous regolith, then
the concentration factor would also vary in a linear
fashion, with lower ratios near the waste source
where adsorption may be retarded or incomplete.
Ellis and Childs (1973) have shown that the soils of
the Houghton Lake area can be saturated with
respect to phosphorus, which will retard adsorption
and maintain a low ratio. They found that maxi-
mum adsorbed phosphorus in the field was 120
ppm for the Newton Loamy Sand and 135 ppm for
the Rubicon Sand. These values compare favorably
with maximum loadings determined from Langmuir-
isotherm calculations (Newton Loamy Sand—
100 ppm, Rubicon Sand—140 ppm). Also, if the
rate of loading exceeds the rate of adsorption, a low
ratio will result. The data in Table 2 indicate that
the concentration ratios are not linear away from
the respective sources, so it is evident that either
non-uniform adsorption occurs or there are multi-
ple plumes of phosphorus.
DISCUSSION
The above data illustrate some of the com-
plexities that may be encountered in the analysis of
waste plumes in ground-water systems. These com-
plexities result from subtle causes, so there appears
to be little way in which they may be completely
anticipated. A few of the more obvious causative
factors are (1) loading rate, (2) recharge at the
waste source, (3) local hydrology, (4) chemical-
adsorption capacity of soil, (5) soil microbiology,
(6) regolith texture and fabric, and (7) proximity
to other waste sources.
Loading rate, local recharge, and local
46
-------
hydrology may cause variation in the rate of migra-
tion and position of the plume axis or axes. Load-
ing rate includes the introduction of waste chemi-
cals through the septic system and associated
sources, such as lawn fertilization. Local recharge
refers to water introduced to the regolith from the
septic system, from drains associated with the
home, and from infiltration from the surface in the
vicinity of the source. Local hydrology includes
sources other than those associated with the
septic system and other domestic wastes. These
sources include regional drains, surface runoff from
paved areas, and, in the case of the sites discussed
in this paper, bank storage from streams and lakes.
Any, or all of the above can interact to produce
upgradient movement of wastes, bifurcation of
water masses, and vertical movement of the axes
of plumes through time. For example, at Houghton
Lake the soil surface is frozen for up to 5 months
of the year. During this period, recharge from the
surface is retarded and lateral ground-water flow
predominates. During the spring thaw and early
summer, when rainfall is greatest, there may be
maximum infiltration at the surface, which may
displace the plume downward. This phenomenon,
combined with seasonal use of the septic system
and lawn fertilization (Ellis and Childs, 1973), may
result in the production of multiple waste plumes
and differential chemical migration.
Proximity to other waste sources may have the
effect of masking the movement of a waste plume,
and it may interfere with the determination of
background water quality. The sites selected for
discussion in this paper were chosen for their
isolation. However, extraneous loading, such as
chemicals derived from paved areas and fertilized
lawns, may interfere with detailed analysis of a
plume in spite of careful site selection (cf., Figures
2, 3). Arrays of observation wells should be 3
dimensional about the suspected waste source, so
that unexpected contaminants can be detected and
related to their respective sources.
Chemical-adsorption capacity of soil and soil
microbiology have the ability to remove chemicals.
Chemical-adsorption capacity of the soil includes
surface adsorption on all grains, exchange on clay
minerals, and adsorption on soil-organic matter.
Soil microbes metabolize and fix organic debris.
The result of these processes is the immobilization
of certain waste chemicals. The data presented
herein indicate that this immobilization can occur
both above and below the water table (Table 2),
thus creating the potential for differential move-
ment of chemicals in a waste plume.
Regolith texture and fabric include the effects
of porosity and permeability on fluid movement.
The soils discussed in this paper are operationally
homogeneous and the underlying, glacial outwash
consists of well to moderately well-sorted sands.
These strata should be relatively isotropic to fluid
flow. However, fabric variations, such as grain
orientation, incipient cementation, and bedding,
may cause differential flow.
Few of the causative factors discussed above
can be anticipated when laying out a sampling plan.
This necessitates development of a plan that
includes wells arrayed in all directions from the
waste source and installed with provisions for
sampling at intervals to a depth suitable to insure
that the base of the plume or plumes has been
intercepted.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The constituents in the waste plume are
sensitive to regolith chemistry and local hydrology.
The 3 chemicals discussed in this paper, chlorides,
nitrates, and phosphorus, do not move as a single
plume. The 2 non-conservative compounds are
removed from the effluent by adsorption on soil
materials above and below the water tables. The 3
chemicals migrate downward and laterally at differ-
ent rates, so there is partitioning of the effluent
into several "sub-plumes" that move away from the
waste source at different levels and extend laterally
for different distances. Since the depth and extent
of migration varies between chemicals from site to
site, one cannot assume that monitoring of a single
constituent allows characterization of the system.
Interpretation of plume migration must
include 3-dimensional sample arrays. These arrays
will obviate problems associated with identification
of incidental sources of contaminants and
background water quality.
Since chemical removal by soil particles and
microbes emphasizes concentration gradients of
non-conservative constituents, substrate samples
should be analyzed for determination of net waste
migration. The substrate samples provide an
integration of the distribution of waste chemicals
in a mobile plume, whereas water analyses provide
a static and, perhaps, unrealistic view of the con-
figuration of the plume in time. Furthermore,
ground-water contamination is commonly expressed
in terms of water-quality impairment as a function
of distance from the source. This evaluation does
not reflect multi-plume waste-model concepts, nor
does it reflect the contamination that may be
47
-------
retained (temporarily?) within the regolith.
Ground-water studies must consider the relation-
ship that exists between the waste constituents and
the regolith. This relationship includes the assimila-
tive capacity of the soil and the total volume of soil
available to serve as a filter. Saturation of the soil
filter with respect to a constituent that can be
adsorbed limits the effectiveness of the filter and
encourages waste migration. Thus, loading rate,
present quantity of adsorbed chemicals, chemical-
adsorption capacity of the soil, and volume of the
soil filter, in addition to water quality, should be
evaluated in ground-water contamination studies.
The migration patterns for the 3 constituents
described herein bifurcate vertically, indicating that
the plumes may occupy several levels below the
water table with changes in loading rate or water
supply, or that the plumes migrate along zones in
the regolith that, although they are texturally
similar, show subtle differences in fabric that result
in slight variations in permeability. These bifurca-
tions indicate that detection of a shallow plume
does not negate the existence of other plumes of
the same constituent at depth.
Since waste migration is a dynamic response
to (1) local and regional hydrology; (2) regolith
texture, fabric, chemistry, and microbiology; and
(3) loading history, the pattern of waste migration
should be correspondingly complex. Therefore, the
design of an adequate sampling plan to characterize
the movement of wastes away from a source by
means of subsurface flow should account for the
possibility of the existence of a complex-waste
plume. Samples should be taken in a 3-dimensional
array about the waste source, even though prior
knowledge suggests a preferential flow direction.
The nature of the plumes observed at Houghton
Lake indicates that water samples should be
collected at closely-spaced vertical intervals and
at several dates through the year, if the path of
waste migration is to be accurately delineated. If
background concentrations are to be delineated,
samples must be taken deep enough below the
water table or far enough away from the waste
source to avoid all possibility of contamination by
downward-deflected plumes. To avoid incidental
contamination by adjacent waste sources, the
background water-quality wells should be tied into
the sample net laid out around the source and
should be placed in all directions from the source.
In this way, incidental waste sources can be
detected and discounted. When the wells are driven,
serial soil samples should be collected and analyzed
for texture and, if possible, fabric. The soil samples
should also be analyzed for adsorbed chemicals
and ultimate adsorption capacity. Finally, the
water-quality samples taken through time should
be closely correlated to the local climate and
hydrological events.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was supported by funds provided
by the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission
and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association. 1971. Standard
methods for the examination of water and wastewater.
Washington, D.C. 13th Ed., 874 pp.
Bernhart, A. P. 1973. Protection of water-supply wells
from contamination. Ground Water, v. 11, no. 3,
pp. 9-15.
Bouwer, H. 1974. Design and operation of land treatment
systems for minimum contamination of ground water.
Ground Water, v. 12, no. 3, pp. 140-147.
Childs, K. E. 1970. History of the salt brine and paper
industries and their probable effect on the ground-
water quality in the Manistee area of Michigan.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Water
Resources Commission, Bureau of Water Management.
75pp.
Childs, K. E. 1973. The failure of septic-tank systems. Open
file report. Geological Survey Division, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources. 141 pp.
Deutsch, M. 1961. Hydrogeologic aspects ot ground-water
pollution. Water Well Journal, pp. 10-39.
Dudley, D. 1973. Nutrient enrichment of ground water
from septic-tank disposal systems. Unpublished
Master's Thesis. University of Wisconsin. 125 pp.
Ellis, B. G. and K. E. Childs. 1973. Nutrient movement from
septic tanks and lawn fertilization. Michigan Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Tech. Bull. 73-5, 83 pp.
Grim, R. E. 1968. Clay mineralogy. 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill
Book Co., N.Y. 596 pp.
Kelley, R. W. 1956. Moraines of the north-central region of
the southern peninsula, Michigan. Open file report.
Geological Survey Division, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources. 19 pp.
Pecor, C. H., J. R. Novy, K. E. Childs, and R. A. Powers.
1973. Houghton Lake annual nitrogen and phos-
phorus budgets. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Tech. Bull. 73-6, 128 pp.
Pecor, C. H., J. R. Novy, D. P. Tierney, and S. L.
VanLandingham. 1973. Water quality of Houghton
Lake. Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Tech. Bull. 73-7, 181 pp.
Schneider, I. F. and E. A. Erickson. 1972. Soil limitation for
disposal of municipal waste waters. Michigan State
. University, Crop and Soil Science Department Re-
search Report 195. 54 pp.
Swearingen, T. L. 1973. The significance of ground water in
the Houghton Lake drainage basin. Unpubl. Master of
Science Thesis. Michigan State University. 73 pp.
Tilmann, S. E., S. B. Upchurch, and G. Ryder. 1974. Land-
use site reconnaissance by computer-assisted derivative
^ mapping. Bull. Geological Society America. In Press.
48
-------
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by K. E.
Childs after delivering his talk entitled "Sampling
of Variable, Waste-Migration Patterns in Ground
Water."
Q. by D. E. Donaldson. You speak of phosphorus
"adsorption. " Could it be adsorbed? There are
sorption-desorption reactions with "P."
A. Adsorption is assumed by the authors of this
paper to be the dominant mechanism for removal
of phosphorus from solution. Adsorption refers to
a chemical or constituent being attached to the
surface. Absorption refers to something being
trapped internally or within the structure; solid
state mineralogy. Sorption is a general term
including all mechanisms. Yes, there are sorption-
desorption reactions with phosphorus, but we were
only concerned with the phosphorus that was
attached to the matrix at the time of sample
collection.
Q. by H. R. Sweet. Did you run laboratory
adsorption capacities (maximums) on the various
soils with respect to NH4 and PO4?
A. Phosphorus adsorption capacities have been run
for most Michigan soils, or, at least, for similar soil
types. The NH4 capacities were not established for
Michigan soils.
Q. by R. G. Kazmann. Have you ever looked at the
silt or clay content in the soil or aquifer? If so, was
the clay montmorillonite or illite?
A. No, we have not determined quantitatively the
clay or silt fraction in the sediments present at the
septic-tank test sites. The matrix textures were
identified using the existing soil classification
system. We estimate the clay fraction to be 5
percent or less and the clay minerals, when present,
to be dominantly illite. We believe that the coarse
Rubicon sand at site number 1 adsorbed much
larger quantities of phosphorus than the fine sand
at sites number 4 and 7 because:
(1) Site number 1 soils have a higher per-
centage of Fe, Al, and Ca which forms insoluble
salts with phosphorus.
(2) Waste constituents from site number 1
moved through a vastly larger filter zone, especially
when you consider the volume of filter within the
zone of saturation.
Q. by Bruce Yare. How were the water samples
(collected every 2 feet) brought to the surface?
What was their turbidity? If excessive, what effect
did this have on chemical analyses?
A. All water samples were collected with a pitcher
pump after a sufficient quantity had been wasted to
ensure that the samples were not contaminated by
priming water. All water samples were filtered prior
to analyses. At some test sites we attempted to
field check water samples, without filtration, for
phosphorus by adding a lab pre-mix. The purpose
was to get in the field an indication of phosphorus,
if present, so we could continue testing or alter
testing without waiting for the laboratory results.
This plan was not successful because the water
samples would frequently contain fine sediments
which undoubtedly carried adsorbed phosphorus.
The laboratory mix would wash the phosphorus
from the fine sediments and produce a blue color
indicating the presence of phosphorus. The same
water samples, after filtration, would not indicate,
other than trace amounts, the presence of phos-
phorous. Frequently, filtration is a necessary step
prior to the analysis of water samples.
Q. by Paul Plummer. Are home water softeners
common to this area? If so, what is a typical
hardness?
A. Water in this area is intermediate in hardness
and water softeners are not common. There were
no water softeners used at any of the test sites.
Q. by Frank Merrill. Was there any maintenance
performed on the septic tanks? Such as cleaning?
Do you feel the septic tanks were overloaded?
A. There was no maintenance performed on the
septic systems prior to the collection of soil and
water samples. The systems tested were selected on
the basis of heavy loading and, consequently, it is
quite likely that many were being used in excess
of design capacity.
Q. by Donald Runnells. Do you have data for
nitrogen in soil as compared to nitrogen in water,
similar to your phosphorus data?
A. Nitrogen data for soils is very difficult to obtain
and is presently unavailable for Michigan soils.
49
-------
Will Current Research Answer Today's
a
Problems at the Sanitary Landfill?
by Prof. James C. Warmanb, Dr. Rex K. Rainerc, and Mr. Alfred S. Chipleyd
ABSTRACT
Alabama's solid waste management program has been
commended repeatedly by the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency for establishing and operating throughout
nearly all of the State effective, county-wide, State-
approved,".rural solid waste collection and disposal systems.
The program is administered and regulated by the Division
of Solid Waste and Vector Control of the Environmental
Health Administration. Collection systems, sanitary
landfills, and other parts of the program are rated by the
regulatory agency; rating of landfills is used in enforcement.
In 1974, 87.0 percent of the 67 counties in Alabama
representing 97.0 percent of the total State population of
3,444,000 had total collection and disposal systems.
The two greatest problems in the sanitary landfill
program are disposal of hazardous industrial wastes and
training of operators; other problems are noted. Current
research throughout the nation on ground-water pollution
related to sanitary landfills was reviewed to identify
expected research results that will help solve the problems.
All the States have either developed or are
developing statewide solid waste management plans.
The State of Alabama is a leader among the top few
States that have passed and have implemented very
good legislation in this field. Alabama, in particular,
has probably made the most progress of all States
in achieving the highest percentage of the State's
counties to establish and place in operation State-
approved, effective, county-wide, rural solid waste
collection and disposal systems.
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974.
DDirector, Water Resources Research Institute,
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36830.
cProfessor and Head, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36830.
^Director, Division of Solid Waste and Vector Control,
Environmental Health Administration, Montgomery,
Alabama 36100.
In the solid waste management field, Alabama's
leadership is well-known. The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency has repeatedly commended the
determination, imagination, self-reliance and the
achievement exemplified in the State of Alabama's
program. Alabama's sole federally-funded demon-
stration project, started in 1968 in Chilton County,
has been eminently successful. The Chilton County
experience is continually cited by environmentalists
as a classic example of how much can be accom-
plished in solid waste management in the rural areas
of the nation.
Solid waste management in the State of
Alabama is administered by the Division of Solid
Waste and Vector Control of the Environmental
Health Administration. The Division of Solid Waste
and Vector Control has a Director, two profession-
als, and one clerical worker. The current annual
budget from the State is $46,458. The Director's
salary and corresponding salary benefits are paid
by the Federal Government. The Director's travel
and maintenance expenses are paid by the State.
Each State is entitled to a 216 grant; however, the
proceeds from the grant are reduced by an amount
equal to the salary and benefits paid the Director
by the Federal Government. Only in the last year
has the Division of Solid Waste and Vector Control
become a line item in the State budget.
The disposal of radioactive materials is regu-
lated in the State of Alabama by the Radiological
Division of the Environmental Health Administra-
tion. This Division makes the distinction between
low level and intermediate level radioactive wastes
and designates approved disposal sites for shipment
of the wastes. No commercial radioactive waste
disposal sites are operated in Alabama.
The foregoing introduction is given to justify
the authors' selection of Alabama's Solid Waste
Management program as a reference point to
indicate the present state of the art. Further, the
50
-------
thoroughness and meticulous care with which data
is kept in Alabama by monitoring results of site
selection, operation, leachate characteristics,
ground-water effects, and effective equipment and
pick-up arrangements provide a meaningful
beginning point to predict the potential usefulness
of certain research projects currently underway and
to identify problems needing further research on
sanitary landfills.
Appendix A contains rating charts used in
Alabama. One rating chart is for evaluating solid
waste management programs county-wide; the
other rating chart is for evaluating solid waste land
disposal sites. Note that a point system is included
for use in arriving at a numerical total score. The
program rating chart is used for general information;
however, the site rating chart is used for specific
information in the enforcement program.
Once or twice each year, sites and programs
are evaluated by inspectors and a copy of the
evaluation form is sent to the County Commis-
sioners and the County Health Officer. In the event
a substandard operation is determined to exist, a
letter with the evaluation form outlines corrective
measures recommended. The responsible parties
are at the same time notified that the deficient
operation will be re-rated within 10-30 days. After
re-rating, if unsatisfactory conditions still exist and
if no attempt at corrective measures has been
undertaken, a stiffer letter is sent and another visit
made. In the event of continued inaction, the
Attorney General's Office in the State of Alabama
is notified for legal action and enforcement. The
Attorney General can bring suit. A maximum fine
of $500 per day at fault may be levied. At this
time, no fines have been levied against
municipalities.
The geologic and hydrologic conditions in
Alabama vary from terranes of limestone, coal
measures, and Piedmont metamorphics to the sands,
gravels, and clays of the Coastal Plain. Thus the
criteria for sanitary landfill site selection and the
protection of ground-water quality must provide
concern for a wide variety of sites. Written
opinions and recommendations are obtained from
the Geological Survey of Alabama through the
Alabama Water Improvement Commission, the
State regulatory agency for water quality
standards. Recommendations may include the
desirability of having soil borings or other data
furnished by local interests. These opinions fre-
quently comment generally on such matters as
drainage or specifically on the necessity for a
structural control measure such as a clay liner.
Almost all gravel and sand pits and quarries are
rejected. It is estimated that less than fifty percent
of Alabama's coal strip sites are useable as sanitary
landfill sites.
Contrary to popular opinion, sites are difficult
to find in Alabama due to the permeability of the
soils in the Coastal Plain, the limestone terrane in
central and northern counties, and the clays in the
central and western counties usually identified as
the Black Belt. The Gumbo soils of the Black Belt
are particularly difficult. These soils are extremely
hard when dry, impossible to work when wet, and
exhibit large and irregular cracks when redried. In
the northern counties, for instance around
Huntsville, bedrock is shallow and encountered
often. Bedrock in limestone terranes is hazardous
because of the probability of solution channels
that are difficult to trace to final destination.
Waltz (1972) discussed similar problems related to
thin soils in describing methods of geologic evalua-
tion of pollution potential at mountain homesites.
In the southeastern counties of Alabama centered
about Houston and Geneva Counties, sand and
accompanying shallow water tables can lead to
problems. Although geologists would have pre-
ferred different soil characteristics in this area of
Alabama, there are two sanitary landfills operating
successfully without pollution.
The experience in Alabama is that geologic or
hydrologic considerations do not always control
the selection of a sanitary landfill site. Public
reaction may decide the issue of a suitable site
versus the availability of a site.
Alabama has made no piezometric studies of
sanitary landfill sites. A few monitoring wells were
installed in an area operated as a dump prior to its
conversion as a sanitary landfill meeting minimum
standards. Some contamination was evidenced but
cleared up after proper operation as a landfill.
Through June 1974, Alabama's 67 counties
had a total population of 3,444,000. The incor-
porated population was 2,048,000 and the unin-
corporated population was 1,396,000. Table 1
indicates several significant facts about the Solid
Waste Management Program in Alabama. Of the
64 County-Regional System Landfills embracing
96 percent of the counties, only 12 percent of
these landfills are substandard. Eighty-nine percent
of the State's population, or 3,057,800, are served
by adequate sanitary landfills. Only 3 percent of
the State's population, or 94,300 people, are
served by open dumps.
Figure 1 indicates the dramatic progress in
population served by solid waste and disposal
51
-------
Table 1. Alabama Solid Waste Management Status as of: 6/30/74
Counties: 67; State Pop.: 3,444,000; Incorporated Pop.: 2,048,000; Unincorporated Pop.: 1,396,000
Activities
Disposal:
Sanitary Landfill
Substandard Landfill
Open Dump
Collection:
House-to-House
Container
Combination(s)
Total Adequate
None, or Not Organized
County/Regional
Systems
%
No. Counties
56 84
8 12
3 4
38 57
19 28
1 2
58 87
9 13
Incorporated
Cities and Towns
No.
338
35
19
386
6
%
Cities
86
9
5
98
2
Population
1,841,400
180,600
26,000
2,046,300
1,700
%
Inc.
90
9
1
99
1
Unincorporated
Population
1,216,400
111,300
68,300
937,100
305,300
19,400
1,261,800
134,200
%
Uninc.
88
7
5
67
22
1
90
10
State
Population
3,057,800
291,900
94,300
3,308,100
135,900
%
State
89
8
3
96
4
facilities since 1968. In 1968, 4.5 percent of the
counties representing 17.9 percent of the total State
population had total programs. In 1974, 87.0
percent of the counties representing 97.0 percent
of the total State population had total programs.
Figure 2 shows that since 1968, the unincorporated
population percentage served by solid waste
collection and disposal facilities has grown from
5.3 percent to 95.0 percent and that the
incorporated population of the State so served has
grown from 25.8 percent to 99.0 percent. The
incorporated population reflects all cities and
towns regardless of size. About 53 percent of
Alabama's incorporated municipalities have
populations of 1,000 or less.
The two greatest problems in the sanitary
landfill program in Alabama are disposal of
hazardous industrial wastes and training of
operators. At the local level effective collection of
fees is a major problem, although not directly
related to protection of ground-water quality. Two
industries manufacturing pesticides in Alabama
operate their own approved landfill for disposal of
their own hazardous wastes. One industry ships 12
barrels of hazardous wastes each week to Minne-
sota where proper incinerator disposal facilities
are available; land disposal of these wastes probably
would cause pollution of ground water. At the
request of the Division of Solid Waste and Vector
Control, the Geological Survey of Alabama
restudied about 25 operating approved sanitary
landfills for possible use as disposal sites for
1968
1974
1968
197
-------
hazardous materials. Eight sites were designated as
possibly suitable with final determination
dependent on the results of detailed studies
recommended by the Survey.
The Division of Solid Waste and Vector
Control has requested authorization to add one
professional who would work as a training specialist
with operators of landfill sites. Following develop-
ment of a training program, the Division may
recommend that operators be certified.
CURRENT RESEARCH
Information about current research on ground-
water pollution related to sanitary landfills was
obtained by securing SSIE research information
package LAO2H, which is intended to include
sanitary landfills and sites and prevention of
pollution of soils, surface and ground waters from
landfill leachates. The package is one of many,
available from the Smithsonian Science Informa-
tion Exchange; new listings of available research
information packages are published in every issue
of the SSIE Science Newsletter.
Ten research projects described in the informa-
tion package are developing procedures for opera-
tion and management of sanitary landfills. Several
of these projects include the development and
operation of training programs for operators of
landfills^ J. M. Huie is conducting one of the more
comprehensive studies at Purdue University,
analyzing factors affecting the supply and demand
of selected public services including evaluation of
the economic feasibility of a regional solid waste
collection and disposal system for southwestern
Indiana. W. E. Hardy at Auburn University is
emphasizing transportation economics in designing
minimum cost solid waste collection and disposal
systems, maintaining concern for protection of
ground-water quality by considering only landfill
sites that have been determined geologically
suited for landfills. F. J. Forsberg is conducting a
two-year demonstration project in Minnesota that
should lead to development of legislation,
ordinances and standards of city, county and
regional systems and assist in improving solid waste
management practices. Several of the operation
and management studies are developing education
programs to acquaint the public with the need for
solid waste control to protect the quality of our
resources. D. Massey at the University of Wisconsin
is studying the reasons for and extent of opposition
from private citizens in the north central States to
location of sanitary landfills in rural residential
areas as part of a study leading to recommendations
for institutional arrangements needed for solid-
waste management on an area-wide basis.
Thirty-two environmental geology studies are
underway in areas ranging from Hawaii to the
northeastern States. A few of these studies are
concerned solely with determination of the degree
of ground-water contamination from sanitary
landfills. One is simply a baseline study of the
geology and hydrology of a proposed landfill site.
Most of these studies are more comprehensive and
include development of criteria for operation of
landfills in many kinds of sites—karst, abandoned
gravel and mine pits, glacial drift floodplains,
terraces, several soil types, coastal zones, and
others—and in all of these studies the criteria for
operation are intended to provide maximum
protection for ground and surface waters and insure
operations that meet the standards of a sanitary
landfill. Several of the studies include development
of field, electric analog or mathematical models
to predict the movement of contaminants from
sanitary landfills. A. A. Fungaroli and D. A.
Brunner at Drexel University expect to include in
their models potential remedial procedures for
existing leaching landfills.
The Indianapolis Department of Public Works,
regulating body for Marion County, has made as
part of their reissue of landfill-operation permits,
provision that all landfills be monitored by wells.
This requirement likely will be widely adopted.
J. R. Marie of the U.S. Geological Survey is
conducting the monitoring program in Marion
County. D. A. Rickert, with the U.S. Geological
Survey in Reston, Virginia, has been determining
the water quality parameters, frequency of
analysis, methods of sampling, and types of
sampling networks that are required to effectively
monitor the hydrologic aspects of sanitary
landfills.
Several specialized studies are underway that
should result in tools or procedures to help solve
field problems. These studies include the use of
remote sensing techniques, the relationship between
topographic position and contamination of water
resources by landfills, the development of design
criteria and operating techniques for landfill
operation in high ground-water table areas, and
geochemical studies forming the basis for formula-
tion of chemical models for the evolution of
ground-water chemistry as it responds to influxes
of leach ate.
Tools and materials are being developed and
evaluated in a few research projects. The California
Department of Water Resources has been develop-
53
-------
ing a well sampler for collecting dissolved gases and
other components in ground water. J. L. Melnick
has been studying the use of a portable virus
concentrator for determining the distribution and
survival of enteric viruses in leachates from
municipal sanitary landfills. R. C. Jones with Ohio's
Crawford County Board of Commissioners has been
evaluating the economic and technical feasibility of
using a commercially available shredder to partially
degrade or compost refuse. D. D. Blue and T. A.
Sullivan of the U.S. Bureau of Mines are determin-
ing the applicability of sulfur for constructing
impervious ground cover bases or liners for sanitary
landfills. H. E. Haxo with Woodward, Lundgren
and Associates has been evaluating the effective
life of 12 different liner materials when exposed to
leachate from municipal landfills.
Research on leachate includes development of
procedures for collection and recycle to the
landfill, collection and treatment as an effluent,
attenuation by earth materials, and transpiration
drying of the landfill.
As regulations have tightened on protection of
the quality of surface water and air, more waste is
being disposed onto the surface or into our land,
and research is underway on some of these
practices. D. L. Reddell at Texas A and M is study-
ing the machinery, tillage techniques and landfill
disposal systems necessary for applying large rates
of animal manure. W. Kam of the U.S. Geological
Survey and J. D. Menzies and W. D. Kemper of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture in separate studies
have been developing ways to protect ground-water
quality where sludge from a municipal sewage
treatment plant is placed in the ground. O. B.
Andersland at Michigan State University is investi-
gating methods for efficient and safe disposal of
dewatered high ash content pulp and paper-mill
sludges in landfills. Only three research projects on
disposal of pesticide waste and pesticide containers
were included in the information package. No other
research was reported that gave principal concern
to disposal to landfills of hazardous industrial
wastes; therefore, this may be the most critical
research need.
State Geological Surveys in Alabama and
North Dakota, among others, are producing reports
for the educated non-geologist on environmental
geology and the special problems related to
operation of sanitary landfills. These reports
emphasize the potential for pollution of surface
water and ground water and procedures necessary
to provide adequate protection.
You should be aware of the continuing
program in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to compile and publish a bibliography on
the influence of solid waste management practices
on the quality of surface water and ground water.
EPA uses its Solid Waste Information Retrieval
System and other sources to compile the
bibliography.
REFERENCES
Waltz, James P. 1972. Methods of geologic evaluation of
pollution potential at mountain homesites. Ground
Water, v. 10, no. 1, pp. 42-49.
APPENDIX A
ALABAMA SOLID WASTE LAND DISPOSAL
SITE EVALUATION
Location of Site:
Area Serviced: ,
Responsibility:
Rater: Date:
-Landfill
-Sanitary Landfill
.Trash Dump Garbage Dump
—Acceptable: Yes No
Site Objective:
Rating Points:
Note: To be acceptable in meeting minimum State
standards, none of the following may be checked:
Burning of refuse is permitted on site.
Refuse (contains garbage) is not compacted and
covered daily as used.
Water pollution is a recognized problem.
* Hazardous wastes are not properly managed.
Comments:
* Hazardous wastes are considered to be those in excess of
reasonable household or business wastes, as quantities of
pesticides or containers from a large pesticide user, toxic
wastes from a manufacturer or other generator, or similar
wastes that could be a serious hazard in a normal disposal
site.
LAND DISPOSAL SITE
1. Usage
(a) All wastes manageable in sanitary landfill 25
(b) Bulky rubbish stored at sanitary landfill 20
(c) Garbage & municipal refuse only—sanitary
landfill 15
(d) Rubbish only (landfill or open dump) 20
(e) All wastes (landfill or open dump) 10
2. Burning
(a) Not practiced 25
(b) Obvious possibility of fire 10
(c) Deliberately practiced or permitted 0
54
-------
RATING CHART USED FOR ENFORCEMENT
SOLID WASTE LAND DISPOSAL SITE, ALABAMA STATE DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH
in
'c
o
270
260
250
240 .
230
220
210 •
200 ~
190
180
o
•o 170 .
e
o
^ 160 .
o
* 150 •
^ 140 •
o>
130
120
I I 0
100
90 -
80
70
60
50
Meets full State Standards
for Sanitary Landfi
Limited or Borderline
Sanitary Landfill
(May meet State Standards)
or
Good Landfill
Sub-standard "Sanitary" Landfill
May be Acceptable Landfi
Well controlled, Non-burning
Open Dump
Classification of Site Graded
Division of Solid Waste & Vector Control
1972
55
-------
3. Water Pollution (b) General land improvement ............... 3
(a) No recognized problem— sanitary landfill ...... 25 (c) No plan for future use or plan not followed .... 0
(b) No recognized problem-landfill ........... 20 17. Site Reliability
(c) Very occasional ground water or leaching— (a) Provision for wet weather operation ......... 5
sanitary landfill ..................... 15 (b) Provision needed ...................... 0
(d) Very occasional ground water or leaching— 18. Public Access (Users)
landfill .......................... 10 (a) Controlled at entrance or container .......... 5
(e) Any serious problem ................... 0 (b) Allowed on site, directed ................ 3
4. Equipment (c) Uncontrolled ........................ 0
(a) Adequate for type of operation ............ 20 19. Site Security
(b) Limited for type of operation ............. 10 (a) Access denied by fence or other means, and
(c) None or totally inadequate ............... 0 gate locked when site unattended ......... 8
5. Equipment Facilities (b) Site secured by fence or natural boundaries,
(a) Satisfactory shelter & servicing ............ 10 but entrance uncontrolled .............. 4
(b) Open on-site servicing .................. 5 (c) No site security ...................... 0
(c) Off-site servicing ...................... 2 20. Records
6. Personnel (a) Weighing or good volumetric check .......... 5
(a) Sufficient to operate equipment and control (b) Vehicle count, estimated quantity .......... 3
site ............................. 20 (c) No records ......................... 0
(b) Limited in number or work quality .......... 10 21. Special Provisions
(c) None or ineffective .................... 0 (a) Separate trench for immediate burial of large
7. Personnel Facilities dead animals, highly putrescibles (eggs,
(a) Satisfactory (includes toilet facilities & etc.) or similar problem wastes ........... 8
telephone ........................ 10 (b) No consideration for above or no problem ..... 0
(b) Limited (not convenient or complete) ........ 5 (c) No consideration for abnormal quantities of
(c) Shelter only ........................ 2 hazardous wastes, if received ....... (neg.)-20
(d) None ............................. 0 (neg.)-40
8. Access Road 22. Site Progress
(a) All weather road to site ................. 15 (a) Adequate final cover and contour .......... 5
(b) Adequate road ..... . .................. 7 (b) Finish needs improvement ............... 0
(c) Unsatisfactory ....................... 0 (c) Obvious problem with erosion
9. Cover Quality and/or leachate ................ (neg.)- 5
(a) Good quality, on-site ................... 15 (neg.) -10
(b) Good quality, off-site. . . . ............... 10 (neg.) -20
(c) Low quality ......................... 5 Alabama State Department of Public Health
10. Cover Practices Environmental Health Administration
(a) As required for type of operation ........... 15 Division of Solid Waste & Vector Control
(b) Cover less than or more than needed ......... 7 1972
(c) Cover lacking or totally inadequate .......... 0
1 1 . Compaction Practices
(a) As required for type of operation ... ........ 15
(b) Poor compaction techniques .............. 7
(c) Compaction totally inadequate ............ 0
12. Operatinq Face
"'™"1'*0" ........ I0
(b) Too thick for proper compaction ........... 7 County - Disposal points
(c) Too thin and scattered .................. 5 Rated by - Collection points
(d) Out of control ....................... 0 Date - Bonus points
13. Housekeeping Over-all rating _ Acceptable _ Yes _ No
(a) Litter controlled ...................... 10
(b) Limited control ...................... 5 House-to-house - County operated
(c) Uncontrolled ........................ 0 Container - Franch1Sed
(d) Scavenging permitted ............. (neg.)-lO Combination - Other
14. Fire Control Comments
(a) Adequate water or firebreak .............. 10
(b) Control needed or burning permitted on site ... 0
15. Vector Control
(a) Regularly practiced or not needed .......... 6
(b) Sporadic control ...................... 3 Alabama Department of Public Health
(c) Control needed ....................... 0 ' Environmental Health Administration
16. Site Plan Division of Solid Waste & Vector Control
(a) Planned for specific ultimate use ........... 6 August, 1.972..
56
-------
RATING CHART USED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
COUNTY-WIDE
ALABAMA
280 -I
BONUS
Division of Solid Waste & Vector Control
1972
57
-------
COUNTY-WIDE COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Point Value Range
Rated Points
Either A. County operated "mailbox" system:
' 1. Serves rural areas —
Above 60% of households
40% to 60% of households
Less than 40% of households
Or B. County franchised "mailbox" system:
1. Serves rural areas —
Above 60% of households
40% to 60% of households
Less than 40% of households
Or C. Bulk container system:
1. Serves rural areas
Or " D. Combination "mailbox" and container system:
1. Serves rural areas
Or E. No organized system:
1. Nonfranchised rural collection serves:
More than 50% of households
25% to 50% of households
0% to 25% of households
Additional points:
1. System serves one or more municipalities
(see note)
2. One or more municipalities have no
organized collection
75 to 100
60 to 75
40 to 60
65 to 90
50 to 65
30 to 50
50 to 75
80 to 100
25 to 40
15 to 25
Oto 15
10
-10
NOTE: No credit is given for municipal collection unless conducted by county or county-franchised system. Negative
credit is given for small municipalities (generally under 1,000 population) having no organized collection.
COUNTY-WIDE DISPOSAL SITES
Point Value Range
Meets minimum
standards
A. Site(s) serve a rural system —
And 1. Operated as sanitary landfill and controlled by county
Or '2. Controlled by municipality
Or 3. Operated through county franchise
B. *Site(s) operated by municipality where no rural collection
system exists
Additional points for rural disposal systems:
For one or more additional sites
1. 1. In counties below 30,000 population
2. In counties 30,000 to 70,000 population
3. In counties above 70,000 population
4. When any county has multiple sites, and majority
are substandard
* Section B is only considered when no disposal site is designated
by a county-municipal agreement for the disposal of rural wastes.
Bonus Points
1. County has an independent solid waste authority
2. County has adopted rules and regulations
3. County has appointed Solid Waste Supervisor — Full-time
Part-time
4. County has concentrated effort on unauthorized dump cleanup
20 to 40
40 to 60
30 to 50
20 to 40
20 to 40
15
10
5
15
10
10
5
Oto 15
Substandard
20 to 40
20 to 30
10 to 20
5 to 10
10 to 20
7
5
2
-10 to -20
Rated Points
58
-------
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by the
authors after delivering the talk entitled "Will
Current Research Answer Today's Problems at the
Sanitary Landfill?"
Q. by Timothy J. Bergin. Are there any special
regulations for disposing of septic tank sludges and
have you noticed any specific leachate problems
attributable to these sludges?
A. We are not aware of such regulations nor of any
practice of disposing of septic tank sludges (from
"honey trucks") in sanitary landfills.
Q. by Thomas N. Canfield. Could you expand on
the degree of review of site geology at a landfill
site in Alabama? Please explain your statement
that technical evaluations of sites are sometimes
overruled.
A. The Geological Survey of Alabama study of a
proposed sanitary landfill site includes determina-
tion of other land use within the vicinity, uses and
potential uses of ground water and surface water,
probable direction of movement of ground water,
details of construction used for wells in the vicinity,
position of the water table (minimum 30 feet from
base of landfill to water table if possible), controls
necessary to avoid surface-water flow across the
site, depth to bedrock (boring to 30 feet or top of
bedrock), and the amount of clay in the regolith.
The Survey prefers high percentages of clay;
however, the regulatory agency must be sympa-
thetic to problems of site operators regarding
workability of the regolith. The Survey does not
run percolation tests nor does it make detailed
study by boring; its report may include
recommendation for more detailed study. As stated
in the paper, public reaction may decide the issue
of a suitable site versus the availability of a site.
Determination of other land use within the vicinity
is an important part of any site study. Failure to
consider it invites strong public reaction.
Q. by J. Koutsand. What methods should be used
to dispose of pathological wastes?
A. Incineration with proper equipment at the
proper place; for example, such wastes from a
hospital should be incinerated at the hospital to
avoid risks involved in transporting wastes to an
incinerator at another location.
Q. by Greg Stockert. In Alabama how many land-
fills are being monitored by wells? What is the pro-
cedure for treating leachate from sanitary landfills
to render them nonpolluting?
A. Only 6 or 7 landfills are monitored by wells in
Alabama at this time. Treatment of leachate has
been described in recent issues of the Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation. The current volume
46 (1974) includes an article entitled "Treatability
of Leachate from Sanitary Landfills by Biological
Methods," by W. C. Boyle and R. K. Ham and a
follow-up article by S. Ho, Boyle and Ham entitled
"Chemical Treatment of Leachates from Sanitary
Landfills."
Q. by John O. Osgood. We have learned in Pennsyl-
vania that natural renovation is an excellent
theoretical tool for sanitary landfill development;
however, practically, it has been a failure. We are
headed in our program to environmental isolation
with collection and treatment. Natural renovation
will not be permitted. What is your feeling on this
approach?
A. We are not familiar with the details of your work
in Pennsylvania on "natural renovation" versus
"environmental isolation with collection and treat-
ment." Assuming that others are unfamiliar, we
recommend that the THIRD National Ground Water
Quality Symposium provide time for a presentation
of your findings.
59
-------
Leachate Plumes in a Highly Permeable Aquifer
by Grant E. Kimmel and Olin C. Braids
ABSTRACT
Two landfills, 27 and 41 years old, were studied and
found to have plumes of leachate-contaminated ground
water extending 10,600 and 5,000 ft (3,200 and 1,500 m),
respectively, from the site of deposition in the upper glacial
aquifer on Long Island, New York. The plumes sink to the
bottom of the aquifer, which is 70 ft (21 m) below the
water table at the 27-year old site and 170 ft (52 m) below
at the 41-year old site. The aquifer has a hydraulic con-
ductivity of 270 ft per day (80 m per day).
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974. Work done in cooperation with the Suffolk County
Department of Environmental Control.
t>Hydrologists, U.S. Geological Survey, Mineola, New
York 11501.
Amounts of Na+, HCOs", and Cf and occasionally
amounts of Ca**, are greater in plume water than in ambient
ground water. Percentage of SO^ increases away from the
landfills. Nitrogen in plume water is mainly in the form of
NH4*. The pH of plume water decreases from about 7 near
the landfill to a native water value of about 5 along the
perimeter of the plume. Heavy metals other than iron,
manganese, and zinc were not found in concentrations
greater than several tens of micrograms per litre away from
the landfill. Selenium concentration in plume water is
occasionally greater than 10 jug/1. The extent of ground-
water contamination caused by the landfills suggests that
size and growth rate of a landfill are more significant than
age. Depending on geologic conditions, ground-water con-
tamination near a landfill might be avoided on Long Island
by lining the pit and collecting the leachate.
A study of landfills in Suffolk County, Long
Island, was begun in 1972 in cooperation with the
'location of landfills in towns of Babylon and Islip
Fig. 1. Location of Babylon and Islip landfills in Suffolk County, Long Island, New York.
60
-------
Suffolk County Department of Environmental
Control to determine the effect of landfills on
ground-water conditions there. Two landfills, with
widely differing ages and rates of refuse accumula-
tion but with similar geohydrology, were selected
for the study. One was in the Town of Babylon and
the other in the Town of Islip. Since the beginning
of the study, 3 major sets of water-quality samples
have been collected from 170 points throughout
the affected region of the aquifer. This report is a
summary of the data from 2 sets of the water
analyses.
The Town of Babylon landfill (Figure 1) is the
main refuse disposal facility for a population of
about 200,000. The landfill covers 25 acres (10 ha),
contains 2.3 million yds3 (1.7 million m3) of refuse,
and is 27 years old. The Town of Islip landfill
(Figure 1), at Sayville, is 1 of 3 landfills for a
population of 290,000. This landfill covers 17 (7
ha) acres, contains 0.8 million yd3 (0.6 million m3)
of refuse, and is 41 years old. Both landfills have
incinerators and have received scavenger waste,
though the Islip landfill no longer does.
The landfills are on an outwash plain that is
underlain mainly by coarse sand and a few streaks
of gravelly and fine sand. This deposit is known as
the upper glacial aquifer on Long Island (Cohen
and others, 1968). At the Babylon landfill, the
bottom of the upper glacial aquifer is 70 ft (21 m)
below the water table, which is 15 ft (4.6 m)
below the land surface, and is underlain by the
Gardiners Clay (Jensen and Soren, 1971), a single
12-ft (4-m) thick clay layer. At Islip, beds of fine
sand and silt near the base of the aquifer effectively
reduce the hydraulic conductivity and form a
hydrologic boundary about 170 ft (52 m) below the
water table. The landfills bottom at the water table
(about 20 ft or 6 m below land surface at the Islip
site). Plumes from the landfills flow vertically
through the full thickness of the aquifer and down-
gradient, as shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4.
The hydraulic conductivity of the upper
glacial aquifer is estimated to be 2,000 gal/day"'/ft'2,
or 270 ft/day"1 (80 m/day"1) (McClymonds and
Franke, 1972). At the prevailing hydraulic gradient
at these sites, ground water moves at a velocity of
2 ft/day"1 (0.65 m/day"1) toward saltwater bays
that are 4 miles (6.4 km) south of the Babylon site
and 3 miles (4.8 km) south of the Islip site.
The plume at Babylon occupies the full thick-
ness of the aquifer (Figures 2 and 3) and, for mo'st
of its length, contains a higher concentration of
leachate than the one at Islip. At Babylon, ambient
water contaminated by septic-tank waste has a
line of equal
conductanc e
Fig. 2. Lines of equal specific conductance, in micromhos
per centimeter at 25 degrees C, and of equal potentiometric
head on the water table, in feet above mean sea level, for
ground water downgradient from the Town of Babylon
landfill. The cross section A-A' is shown in Figure 3.
specific conductance of as much as 400 jumhos cm"1.
At this conductance, the Babylon plume can be
traced for 10,600 ft (3,200 m) from the original
site of refuse deposition.
The plume at Islip (Figure 4) flows near the
bottom of the aquifer along a hydrologic boundary
for 5,000 ft (1,500 m) from the original site of
deposition. Because thickness of the aquifer at the
Islip site is greater than that at Babylon, the top of
61
-------
well site
FEET
60
SEA IEVEL-
-50
CLAY
Babylon
114
1000
200
600 FEET
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION «2
conductance
Fig. 3. Cross section of upper glacial aquifer at Babylon landfill showing specific conductance in micromhos per centimeter in
region of contamination. Location of section shown on Figure 2.
the plume slopes downward and occupies a position
about 60 ft (18 m) below the water table about
3,000 ft (900 m) south of the landfill. At Islip,
ambient water near the bottom of the aquifer is
little contaminated by other sources and has a
specific conductance less than 100 /umhos cm"1.
The plume flowing near the bottom of the aquifer
is easily identified by the contrast in conductance
between plume water and ambient ground water.
Sodium chloride and sodium bicarbonate types
of water are present in both plumes. Stiff diagrams
of the water quality at various depths at site 12 at
Babylon are shown in Figure 5. Sodium is the
dominant cation. Chloride is dominant at 19, 40,
and 78-foot (5.8, 12.2 and 23.8 m) depths; bicar-
bonate is dominant at the 62-ft (18.9 m) depth, and
the 2 anions are almost equal in concentration at
the 48-ft (14.6 m) depth. Chloride is the dominant
anion at some localities near the Babylon site,
whereas bicarbonate is dominant at other localities.
Chemical quality of ground water in the plume
at Islip at sites 23 and 8 (Figure 4) is shown in
Islip
\
Specific
Conductance in ^rnhosl
per cm at 25°C
o
500
1000
2000
a
4000
Well site for which
water-quality dataare given
5-15
20-44
65-87
94-114
123-146
Depth below water table in feet
Fig. 4. Specific conductance in micromhos per centimeter at 25 degrees C of ground water at various depths downgradient
from the Town of Islip landfill.
62
-------
Figure 6. Site 23 is about 1,000 ft (300 m) from the
landfill or about one-fifth the length of the plume.
These analyses show that leachate enrichment is
greatest near the bottom of the aquifer. Bicarbonate
is the dominant anion in water at a depth of 123 ft
(37.5 m). Water from this depth had about the .
highest dissolved-solids concentration (1,550 mg/1)
of any water samples at the Islip site. At site 8,
2,200 ft (670 m) downgradient from site 23, the
maximum dissolved-solids concentration was 0.3 of
that at site 23. At site 8, the plume lies between
depths of 60 and 140 ft (18 to 43 m) below the
water table. The maximum leachate concentration
is near the bottom of the plume. Both plumes share
this characteristic, probably because of the differ-
ence in hydraulic conductivity between leachate
and ambient water at the heads of the plumes.
Most of the nitrogen in the plumes is in the
reduced form, NH4+, whose concentration ranges
from 10 mg/I near the distal end of the plume to
90 mg/1 near the landfill. In comparison, NO3", the
oxidized form, is generally less than 1 mg/1.
As a percentage of total ions, SO4= increases
downgradient. In some places near the distal end
of the plumes, it is the dominant anion. In the
plumes near the landfills, sulfate concentration was
less than 5 mg/1 in water from many wells. As there
was no indication of H2S in the water, sulfur must
be nearly absent in parts of the plume.
Of the heavy metals, arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc,
only zinc was consistently found in the plumes in
concentrations greater than several tens of micro-
grams per litre. Zinc was found in concentrations
as much as several hundred micrograms per litre
near and downgradient from the landfills. Con-
centrations of iron and manganese were as much as
400 and 190 mg/1, respectively, in water from wells
near the landfills but were much less farther away
from the landfills.
The U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standard (1962) of 10 /ig/1 for selenium is exceed-
ed at many sites within the plume and at some
locations outside the plume as well. Concentrations
of selenium were as much as 40 jug/l in places up
to the distal end of the plume at Babylon but were
less than 10 Mg/1 in the plume at Islip.
The pH in most of the leachate-enriched
ground water ranges from about 7 near the landfills
to about 5 near the perimeter of the plume, where
the pH approaches that of ambient water, 4 to 6.
Higher concentrations of Na*. Ca++, HCO3",
and Cl" in plume water than in ambient water
distinguish plume water. Plume water is generally
Babylon
milliequivalents per litre
V ? ?
5 10
Ca+
NH4+
so;
NO;
HC03
cr
78 depth below water table
Site 12
Fig. 5. Stiff diagrams showing ground-water quality in the
Babylon plume.
Islip
milliequivalents per litre
20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20
I I I I I I I I I
No"+ K -
— HC°~
5' -
N°
2l'depth below
water table
123'
505
i i i
14
34
87
,110'
134'
Site 23
Site 8
Fig. 6. Stiff diagrams showing ground-water quality in the
Islip plume.
63
-------
of a reduced chemical character, but near the edge
of the plume the percentages of oxidized species,
SO4=, and NO3~, increase.
The plumes did not spread significantly be-
yond the width of the landfills. Dispersion theory
suggests at least some lateral spread. Perlmutter,
Lieber, and Frauenthal (1963) found some lateral
spread in a chromate-rich plume in a similar
geological and hydrological situation on Long
Island. Longitudinal dispersion is difficult to
evaluate because of the highly variable strength of
the leachate.
Length of both plumes is less than that
calculated on the basis of average ground-water
velocity and age of landfill. Actual length is 0.7 of
the calculated length at Babylon and 0.4 of that at
Islip. And though the Islip landfill is 15 years older
than the Babylon landfill, the Islip plume is only
about half as long as the one at Babylon. Volume
of water in the Islip plume is about half that in the
Babylon plume and, similarly, the amount of refuse
at Islip is a little less than half that at Babylon.
Apparently length and volume of the plume may
be more closely related to the amount of refuse
than to the age of the landfill.
Unless special precautions are taken, quantity
of leachate-contaminated ground water produced
by landfills on Long Island can be expected to
increase as the amount of refuse in the landfill
increases. The plumes described in this report seem
to be free of highly injurious substances, although
pumpage was reduced in one public supply well
that tapped the Babylon plume because of
increasing chloride concentrations. Wells several
thousands of feet from the landfill are rarely
affected by the plumes to an extent noticeable to
the users.
In conclusion, lining the landfill and collecting
the leachate to eliminate a potentially dangerous
source of contamination may be worth the added
cost. Volume of leachate produced in landfills
already in operation could be reduced by increasing
surface runoff from the landfill. In the future,
in highly populated areas such as Long Island,
landfills may not be used as extensively as in the
past, and refuse may be recycled. The economics of
recycling may be favorable even at this time
(Albert, Alter, and Bernheisel, 1974).
REFERENCES CITED
Albert, J. G., Harvey Alter and J. F. Bernheisel. 1974. The
economics of resource recovery from municipal solid
waste. Science, v. 183, pp. 1052-1058.
Cohen, Philip, O. L. Franke, and B. L. Foxworthy. 1968.
An atlas of Long Island's water resources. New York
State Water Resources Comm. Bull. 62, 117 pp.
Jensen, H. M., and Julian Soren. 1971. Hydrogeologic data
from selected wells and test holes in Suffolk County,
Long Island, New York. Long Island Water Resources
Bull. no. 3, 35 pp.
McClymonds, N. E., and O. L. Franke. 1972. Water-trans-
mitting properties of aquifers on Long Island, New
York. U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 627-E, 24 pp.
Perlmutter, N. M., Maxim Lieber, and H. L. Frauenthal.
1963. Movement of waterborne cadmium and hexa-
valent chromium wastes in South Farmingdale,
Nassau County, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geol.
Survey Prof. Paper 475-C, pp. 179-184.
U.S. Public Health Service. 1962. Public Health Service
drinking water standards-1962. U.S. Public Health
Service Pub. no. 956, 61 pp.
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by Grant
Kimmel after delivering his talk entitled "Leachate
Plumes in a Highly Permeable Aquifer."
Q. by R. G. Kazmann. Are the conductivities
measured at a single elevation or is it some sort of
average over the entire 70 feet of aquifer?
Reference is to the slides showing contours.
A. The conductivities shown on the illustrations
were measured within a short time interval at a
horizon intermediate in depth for drawing of the
Babylon plume and at several depths for the Islip
plume. The Islip plume changes significantly with
depth, but the Babylon plume has virtually the
same shape a few tens of feet below the water table.
The measurements were made from a group of wells
set at various depths at one site.
Q. by Paul Plummer. 7s nearly all of the material in
the landfill incinerator residue or have municipal or
industrial wastes gone into the piles?
A. The landfills consist of garbage, industrial waste
which appears to be mostly odds and ends, bits of
plastic and metal strips from fabricating industries,
64
-------
construction refuse, and incinerator ash. I have no
measure of the proportion of each.
Q. by Donald D. Runnells. You mention arsenic,
boron and selenium in your abstract. What concen-
tration have you seen for these components in the
leachate?
A. The maximum concentrations in the plumes, in
Mg/1, are: As-7, B-2000, Se-42.
Q. by D. Craig Shaw. Did you look for organics?
A. We analyzed some water samples for total
organic and inorganic carbon. Organic carbon con-
centration generally increases with dissolved solids
concentration, but the relationship is not propor-
tional. The highest found was 2250 mg/1 organic
carbon in water from a well near the Babylon
landfill, but this was exceptional as most analyses
showed less than 20 mg/1.
Q. by Lynn Gelhar. What was the density difference
between the leachate and the native waters? What
is the porosity of the aquifer?
A. The density difference between leachate and
native water could not be measured directly.
Estimates of leachate density based on salt solutions
with dissolved solids concentrations similar to that
of leachate (5000-40,000 mg/1) indicate that there
may be very little change (less than several parts in
a thousand) in density as the solute content
increases to 40,000 mg/1 and the temperature
increases to 40 degrees C. Also, the density of a
salt solution (NaHCO3) is less than native water by
about 1 part in a hundred, at a concentration of
20,000 mg/1 at 40 degrees C.
The porosity in the upper glacial aquifer is
about 30 percent, but for calculations of velocity,
we used 25 percent as the effective porosity.
Q. by Robert Palmquist. What kind of control do
you have? Number, location, depth of monitoring
wells.
A. We have wells dispersed throughout and beyond
the region occupied by the plumes. There are about
70 wells at 30 sites at Islip and about 100 wells at
40 sites at Babylon. The vertical and horizontal
control at Babylon is good because of the thinness
of the aquifer there. At Islip the control is not as
good, though good enough to identify the extent
of leachate enrichment.
Q. by Ken Childs. Did your leachate move in a
mass or as individual constituents? How did varia-
bilities in the regolith (such as texture and fabric
adsorption) affect the shape and extent of leachate
migration?
A. Contrary to what you seem to have found, any
given ion that is high in concentration at the head
of the plumes can be used to trace the plume
through the downgradient course; however, the
conservation ion Cl" is best. Dispersion of the
plumes is controlled, in part, by the texture of the
sediments. Dispersion is probably less than noted
in other studies because of the coarseness of the
grain size in this aquifer. The aquifer may also be
anisotropic with a principal hydraulic conductivity
in the direction of flow.
There is considerable adsorptive capacity in
the aquifer because of iron oxide coating on the
sand grains which make up the aquifer, but this
coating has been stripped off in regions where the
plume is strongly reducing in chemical character.
Q. by John Wilson. (1) Why do you suppose there
was no lateral dispersion reflected in your measure-
ments? (2) Why is the plume shorter in longitudinal
extent than one might guess it to be?
A. The only reasons I have for lack of lateral dis-
persion is that the coefficient of lateral dispersion
is a great deal smaller than the coefficient of longi-
tudinal dispersion and consequently we just can't
observe any effects and also there may be
anisotropy in the aquifer as explained in the
previous question. (2) Possibly our estimate of
ground-water velocity is inaccurate.
Q. by Gary Small. What amount of nitrification or
denitrification took place at the air-water interface
below the landfill itself?
A. The water table intercepts the bottom of the
landfill, thus leachate does not travel through a
zone of aeration before entering the aquifer.
Conditions inside the refuse piles are highly
reducing, a condition which persists in the
leachate and in leachate-enriched ground water
beneath the refuse. Ammonium concentration is
very high and nitrate very low. Denitrification
probably does take place to a degree, but is
limited by the small amount of nitrate present or
produced in the refuse.
65
-------
Transpiration Drying of Sanitary Landfills
by Fred J. Molz, S. R. Van Fleet, and V. D. Browning11
ABSTRACT
Experiments are described which test the feasibility of
diminishing the leachate production of sanitary landfills by
using the roots of transpiring plants to dry the refuse and
surrounding soil. Full-scale models of landfill cores were
constructed and filled with typical municipal refuse in the
early spring of 1973. Selected.plant species such as slash
pine, thorny elaeagnus, bristly locust, black locust, and two
grasses were used to vegetate two landfill models, while a
third was denied vegetation and used as a control. Inter-
mediate term results have been positive from several view-
points. The various species of selected plants have thrived,
even though gas sampling indicated that the lower two-
thirds of the landfill models quickly became anaerobic.
Roots proliferated rapidly through the top 21A feet (76.2
cm.) of cover soil and first refuse layer. Following December
1973, all three lysimeters began producing leachate. How-
ever, the volume of leachate produced differed considerably
depending on whether the particular lysimeter was vegetated
or fallow. To date, the unvegetated control has produced
17.53 inches (44.53 cm.) while the two vegetated models
have produced 8.59 inches (21.82 cm.) and 2.49 inches
(6.32 cm.) respectively. The lysimeter producing the mini-
mum leachate volume was vegetated with pine and thorny
elaeagnus. The unvegetated bin produced the most dilute
leachate. If one uses the chemical oxygen demand, the total
Kjeldahl nitrogen, and the total solids as indices representa-
tive of the potency of leachate, then the leachate from the
lysimeter containing pine and thorny elaeagnus was 1.97
times more concentrated than that from the fallow lysimeter.
Thus one realizes a net improvement factor of 3.57 due to
the presence of plants.
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974.
^Respectively, Alumni Assistant Professor, Civil
Engineering Department; Graduate Research Assistant, Civil
Engineering Department; Agricultural Engineer, USDA,
ARS, Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station,
Auburn, Alabama 36830.
INTRODUCTION
A sanitary landfill, properly designed and
operated, is an economical method for disposing of
solid wastes. A major drawback, however, is that
water seeping through the refuse becomes grossly
polluted and, in a poorly designed landfill, may
contaminate a significant portion of the surrounding
ground-water system (Quasim and Burchinal, 1970;
Fungaroli and Steiner, 1971; Hughes, Landon and
Farvolden, 1971; Rovers and Faquhar, 1973).
Several costly methods have been developed to
correct the pollution problem. The objective of
these methods is either to retard the movement of
fluids into and from the landfill (clay linings,
asphalt linings, etc.) or to collect the leachate for
treatment (Ludwig, 1967; Coe, 1970; Lessing and
Reppert, 1971). An alternative could be to decrease
the amount of water available for seepage by
removing water from the landfill directly. Water can
be removed conveniently and economically by using
the roots of transpiring plants to dry the refuse and
surrounding soil. Water removed by plant roots
cannot contribute to leachate, and a drier landfill
promotes aerobic decomposition (Moore, Molz,
and Browning, 1974).
TRANSPIRATION
In areas of abundant rainfall, well distributed
throughout the year, most plant species with equal
leaf area will transpire at about the same rate
(Linsley, Kohler, and Paulhus, 1958). Some varia-
tions in transpiration do exist, however, partly as a
result of the differences in the length of the growing
season for various species. When water supply is
limited, depth and development of the root system
are very important. Then, phreatophytes (plants
whose root systems penetrate the water table) have
a distinct advantage and may transpire 110 inches
66
-------
(279.4 cm.) of water annually (Wisler and Brater,
1959), whereas shallow-rooted vegetation dies when
surface soil becomes dry (Linsley, Kohler, and
Paulhus, 1958; Wisler and Brater, 1959). Especially
with commercial crops, transpiration ratios are used
to characterize typical plant water use. These ratios
are defined as the weight of water consumed to the
dry weight of plant matter produced. A typical
transpiration ratio for corn might average around
300, whereas that for alfalfa and cotton may average
850 and 600, respectively (Moore, Molz, and
Browning, 1974).
Transpiration occurs mainly through pores
found on leaf surfaces that are surrounded by
special cells called "guard cells." These cells regulate
the size of the pore openings (stomata) through
which water vapor emission is largely confined and
controlled. Among the environmental factors influ-
encing transpiration are solar radiation, relative
humidity, air temperature, and wind speed (Chow,
1964). Solar radiation is very influential since it
stimulates the guard cells to open the leaf pores.
About 95% of daily transpiration occurs between
sunrise and sunset. Wind velocity also affects trans-
piration. Chow (1964) reported that with wind
speeds of 5 and 15 mph (8.05 and 24.14 kmph),
transpiration rates may be 20% and 50% higher,
respectively, compared to zero wind speed.
Transpiration is one part of evapotranspiration;
the other is direct evaporation. Although these are
distinctly separate processes, they occur simultane-
ously, are-difficult to separate, and both result in
the transfer of water from soil to atmosphere.
Consequently, medium- to large-scale measurements
of water lost to the atmosphere are most often
reported as evapotranspiration.
Historically, hydrologists have used lysimeters
to measure evapotranspiration. Essentially, they are
no more than upright tanks containing representa-
tive materials. Lysimeters maintain a water balance
by enabling one to record the difference in weight
or volume of liquid added as precipitation and that
lost through seepage and evapotranspiration.
Hence, lysimetry should offer a convenient way to
evaluate the effect of evapotranspiration on
leachate production by landfills. If transparent
lysimeters were used, one could also study root
growth in sanitary landfill materials, as described
by Moore, Molz, and Browning (1974).
EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS
To maintain a water balance so as to ascertain
the effect of evapotranspiration (including inter-
ception) on leachate production, experiments were
GROUND LEVEL
2.51 FILL
2' WASTE
12'
2' WASTE
Z5TFILL
2' WASTE
INFILL
2' STONE 8 GRAVEL
I
Fig. 1. Geometrical relationship of materials placed in the
lysimeters. "Ground Level" refers to the top of the lysimeter
which is 12 feet (365.76 cm.) above the actual land surface.
designed and conducted at the sanitary engineering
field laboratory of Auburn University. Full-scale
models of landfill cores were constructed (Figures 1
and 2), and, in the early spring of 1973, filled with
a typical municipal refuse mixture (Bell, 1964;
Moore, Molz, and Browning, 1974). Plant species,
such as slash pine (Pinus caribaea morelet), black
locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.), thorny elaeagnus
(Elaegnus pungens L.), bristly locust (Robinia
hispida L.), and two grasses (Lolium multiflorum
Lam. and Eleusine indica gaertn) were grown on
two landfill models. A third was kept bare and used
as a control. Facilities were designed to collect and
hold any leachate produced at the base of the
models for chemical analysis. All fluid volumes
entering the surface and leaving the base of the
simulated landfills were recorded, as were landfill
temperatures.
Thus far in the experiment, the species of
selected plants have thrived, even though gas
sampling indicated that the lower two-thirds of the
67
-------
SUB
PLATFORM
Fig. 2. Top view of the three lysimeters located at the
Auburn University Sanitary Engineering Field Laboratory.
in
• 200
100
I
M
M
400
"t 300
4-
•»*
* 200
3
o
> 100
M
M
landfill models quickly became anaerobic (Moore,
Molz, and Browning, 1974). Related studies using
rectangular lysimeters with a transparent wall
showed that roots rapidly proliferate through the
top 2Vi feet (76.2 cm.) of cover soil and first refuse
layer. Below the first layer, roots grow more slowly.
As of May 6, 1974, the landfill models had received
49 inches (124.46 cm.) of precipitation. After
December 1973, a very wet month, all three
lysimeters began producing leachate. However, the
volume of leachate produced differed considerably,
depending on whether the particular lysimeter was
vegetated or fallow (Figure 3). To date, the
unvegetated control (III) has produced approxi-
mately 394 liters (13.91 cu. ft.) of leachate, while
the two vegetated models have produced 193 liters
(6.82 cu. ft.) and 56 liters (1.98 cu. ft.) for I and
II, respectively. Lysimeter II, which has produced
the minimum leachate volume, is vegetated with
slash pine and thorny elaeagnus, which are non-
deciduous. The lysimeter producing the inter-
mediate volume (I) is vegetated with black locust
and bristly locust, both of which are deciduous.
The fact that the thorny elaeagnus and pine form
more dense annual cover accounts for the different
volumes produced by the two vegetated models.
Table 1 shows a 6-month average of several
chemical characteristics of the leachate collected
from each landfill model. As expected, the un-
vegetated lysimeter produced the most dilute
leachate. If one uses the chemical oxygen demand
(COD), the total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and the
total solids (TS) as indices representative of the
potency of leachate, then the leachate from
lysimeter II is, on the average, 1.97 times more
concentrated than that from the fallow lysimeter
III. Since the leachate volume from III is 7.04 times
larger than the volume from II, one realizes a net
improvement factor of 3.57 due to the presence of
plants.
In addition to the potential for reducing
leachate volume, landfill vegetation offers several
2 200
100
o
I
J F M A M
Time (Months)
Fig. 3. Plot of cumulative leachate volume versus time for
the three landfill models. Lysimeter III is fallow while
lysimeters I and II are vegetated.
Table 1. Average Chemical Characteristics of the
Leachate Obtained from Lysimeters I, II, and III
Characteristic (mg/liter)
Biological Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Carbon
Total Organic Carbon
pH
Alkalinity as CaCO3
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Solids
/
11,422
9,388
5,723
5,613
6.2
2,990
432
15,327
II
9,236
8,337
5,314
5,180
6.2
2,969
358
14,041
III
2,167
3,729
2,381
2,093
6.3
1,743
273
5,980
68
-------
advantages. Plants such as thorny elaeagnus and
pine can significantly enhance the beauty of a
landfill site"and help maintain property values in
the landfill vicinity. In addition, vegetation retards
erosion, stabilizes the landfill mass, and signifi-
cantly reduces the rate of surface settlement. Thus,
more consideration should be given to revegetating
landfill areas with hardy, deep-rooting plants.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by grant
B-048-Ala from the Office of Water Resources
Research and administered by the Auburn Uni-
versity Water Resources Research Institute (James
C. Warman, Director).
The writers would also like to thank Mr.
Charles L. Moore for his many original contributions
to the study reported herein.
REFERENCES
Bell, J. J. 1964. Characteristics of municipal refuse. Am.
Public Works Assoc., Special Report No. 29, 11 pp.
Chow, V. T. 1964. Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York, pp. 11-1-11-37.
Coe, J. J. 1970. Effect of solid waste disposal on ground-
water quality. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. v. 62,
pp. 775-783.
Fungaroli, A. A. and R. L. Steiner. 1971. Laboratory study
of the behavior of a sanitary landfill. J. Water Pollution
Control Federation, v. 43, pp. 252-267.
Hughes, G. M., R. A. Landon, and R. N. Farvolden. 1971.
Hydrogeology of solid waste disposal sites in north-
eastern Illinois. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,
154pp.
Lessing, P. and R. S. Reppert. 1971. Geological considerations
of sanitary landfill site investigations. Environmental
Geology Bulletin No. 1, West Virginia Geological and
Economic Survey, 35 pp.
Linsley, R. K., Jr., M. A. Kohler, and J.L.H. Paulhus. 1958.
Hydrology for engineers. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York, p. 111.
Ludwig, H. F. 1967. In-situ investigation of movements of
gases produced from decomposing refuse. California
State Water Quality Control Board, Publication No.
35, 62 pp.
Moore, C. L., F. J. Molz, and V. D. Browning. 1974. Trans-
piration drying: an aid to the reduction of sanitary
landfill leaching. Proc. 4th Envir. Eng. & Sci. Conf.,
University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky. In press.
Quasim, S. R. and J. C. Burchinal. 1970. Leaching from
simulated landfills. J. Water Pollution Control Fed.
v. 42, pp. 371-379.
Rovers, F. A. and G. J. Faquhar. 1973. Infiltration and
landfill behavior. J. Environmental Eng. Div., ASCE,
EE5, pp. 671-688.
Robinson, T. W. 1958. Phreatophytes. U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper, 84 pp.
Wisler, C. O. and E. F. Brater. 1959. Hydrology. John Wiley
and Sons. New York, pp. 192-229.
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by Fred J.
Molz after delivering his talk entitled 'Transpiration
Drying of Sanitary Landfills."
Q. by Paul Plummer. What was the discharge in Kg
of the Total Solids, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and
Chemical Oxygen Demand for each of the three
lysimeters?
A. As of September 15, 1974 the discharge from
lysimeter I was: TS (3.14 Kg), TKN (0.089 Kg),
COD (1.92 Kg). From lysimeter II: TS (0.87 Kg),
TKN (0.022 Kg), COD (0.52 Kg). From lysimeter
III: TS (3.38 Kg), TKN (0.20 Kg), COD (2.11 Kg).
Q. by Tim Bergin. 7s there any noticeable differ-
ence in refuse stabilization measured either by
compaction or gas production?
A. The fallow lysimeter is compacting more
rapidly than the vegetated lysimeters, although we
don't have exact measurements. However, the
effect is substantial and of engineering interest.
Also, there are higher oxygen concentrations in the
vegetated lysimeters, but the effect is small.
Q. by Bob Hill. What is the permeability of the fill
between the waste layers in the lysimeters?
A. The fill is a sandy-loam soil and is quite 5
permeable. I would estimate the saturated permea- :
bility to be around 0.1 to 0.01 cm per sec.
Q. by Dale Mosher. Could the more dense vegetation
of pine and silver berry compared to the other
lysimeters have caused a shedding of rainfall result-
ing in leacbate quantity differences between the
lysimeters?
A. Measurements of interception in lysimeter II as
69
-------
compared to lysimeter III (fallow) indicated that
as much as 30% of the rainfall was intercepted.
This is a high value but does not include the water
which runs down the stems of the plants. Thus the
30% figure can be considered as an upper bound.
For our apparatus, I would think that 15% would
be reasonable. Thus there appears to be a small
shedding effect.
Q. by Don Langmuir. Your trees are fairly small.
Will larger trees with most of their root systems in
the refuse be able to survive?
A. I don't see why not. As the trees get older and
the roots go deeper the landfill materials will have
had time to stabilize and become less toxic. Of
course we will have to wait and see to be sure.
Q. by K. Childs. Isn't root penetration restricted
by saturated conditions such as a water table? If so,
would a landfill with a water table in it be unable
to utilize plant roots for transpiration drying?
A. Yes, some roots are restricted by a water table.
With a water table in a landfill I would think that
the benefits of transpiration drying would be
reduced. Unless the aquifer was very impermeable,
the ground water could supply all the water the
vegetation required for transpiration and still
saturate the refuse.
70
-------
a
Ground-Water Quality Modeling
h r
by Lynn W. Gelharu and John L. Wilson
ABSTRACT
A generalized lumped parameter ground-water model
is developed based on simultaneous water and solute
balances for a phreatic aquifer. The basis for the lumped
parameter approach is established by comparison with
theoretical analyses of water and solute dynamics in a
distributed aquifer model. The basic behavior of the model
is characterized by two response times, one associated with
the hydraulics and the other with the solute.
The model is applied to simulate the impact of high-
way deicing salts on ground-water quality in eastern Massa-
chusetts. The results, obtained by digital computer
simulation, are found to be in reasonable agreement with
observed trends over a 15-year period. The effects of
various highway deicing alternatives are simulated and the
dependence on the aquifer parameters is demonstrated.
The application of this basin-wide modeling technique
to the case of highway deicing salts demonstrates that this
procedure can provide a reasonable basis for long-term
evaluation of ground-water pollution. With adequate data on
the inputs and aquifer parameters for a given locality, this
general technique can be used to guide regulatory proce-
dures and land use decisions which can be applied at the
local, regional or State level to protect ground-water
resources.
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974.
^Associate Professor of Hydrology, New Mexico Insti-
tute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico
87801.
cAssistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
02139.
INTRODUCTION
The natural and generally high quality of
ground water is under attack today by many
sources and types of contamination which are
associated with human activities and land use. Many
incidents of contamination are geographically iso-
lated and their sources, in the terminology of
current federal legislation, may be considered
"point" sources of pollution. Although locally
important, contamination from these sources may
not be significant on a ground-water basin-wide
level. In contrast, for example, nitrates and pesti-
cides from agricultural areas and nitrates leaching
from dense populations of septic tanks originate, in
effect, from distributed, or "non-point" sources of
pollution and may have a significant impact on a
ground-water basin. These distributed sources,
which may be treated as being relatively constant
over the entire basin, are often associated with local
development and waste disposal policies. Thus, it is
important that we take ground-water quality into
consideration during the land use planning process.
To do this we must predict how a contaminant
is transformed and transported in the subsurface
environment, an objective which is usually achieved
by modeling the ground-water system. In general,
natural aquifer structures are complex, and because
of this complexity, data on aquifer properties is
usually limited and highly uncertain. The data
limitation, as well as a requirement for efficiency,
leads us to greatly simplify representation of the
natural system. This paper describes a model which
is simple to apply and requires only the most
71
-------
limited data. The model can become an important
tool to aid in local planning and environmental
analysis, wherein decisions must be made from the
existing data base within a limited time frame.
Generally in the planning process and particularly
with ground-water pollution problems, the effects of
our current decisions will be with us for decades,
and thus we need models which can predict those
long-term effects.
Traditionally ground-water quality modeling
has been based on distributed system representa-
tions of the ground-water flow; e.g., Maddaus and
Aaronson (1972) used a computer based finite
difference model of two-dimensional aquifer flow
to predict quality trends throughout a ground-
water basin. Lyons and Stewart (1973) developed
a distributed two-dimensional finite difference
aquifer model coupled with a storage effect for the
unsaturated zone to predict TDS in a basin. Finder
(1973) used the finite element method to predict
concentration distributions in an aquifer including
the effects of hydrodynamic dispersion. Konikow
and Bredehoeft (1974) have demonstrated the
application of a numerical model which includes
dispersion to water quality simulation in ah
irrigated stream-aquifer system, but the model
requires extensive field data. Elaborate digital
models have been used to evaluate the ground-
water quality hazards of the AEC Hanford Project
(Cearlock, 1971). Lumped parameter models have
been used in predicting the salinity of irrigation
return flows (e.g., Hornsby, 1973; Thomas, Riley
and Isralsen, 1972).
The focus here is on the development of a
general framework for a ground-water quality
model which is simple and will be applicable
especially when data on aquifer properties and
extent may be limited. Since we are primarily
interested in long-term basin-wide changes in
ground-water quality due to distributed contami-
nant sources, we can ignore spacial variations and
concentrate on the temporal variation of the mean
contaminant concentration in the aquifer. This
kind of model which ignores spacial coordinates is
called a lumped-parameter model (see Domenico,
1972). It requires that we specify the nature of the
input to the model, the nature of the output from
the model, and the model itself which relates
inputs, outputs and system states. Furthermore we
have chosen a conceptual model based on a well
mixed linear reservoir, a technique long used in
analyzing surface-water systems. With this tech-
nique the inflow of a mass of water or contaminant
is balanced by a change in reservoir storage and an
outflow. Since the system is considered well mixed,
the outflow water contains contaminant at the
same concentration as the reservoir. This simplifica-
tion of the real system to a linear reservoir model is
certainly viable for an initial attack on a problem
and it may prove to be a great deal more practical
than the more sophisticated models for everyday
use.
In the following, the elementary balance
equations are first developed and then the model
parameters are related to the properties of some
simple distributed systems. The model is applied to
simulate the effect of highway deicing salts and the
results are compared with some observations in
eastern Massachusetts.
THE WELL MIXED LINEAR RESERVOIR
An elementary representation of the ground-
water flow in a phreatic ground-water system can
be stated in terms of a water balance in the form
dh
(1)
where: h = average thickness of the saturated zone;
n = average effective porosity of the aquifer; q =
natural outflow from the aquifer per unit area;
e = natural recharge rate; qr = artificial recharge per
unit area; q_ = pumping rate per unit area; and
t = time. As will be discussed in detail later, the
outflow from the aquifer can be approximated by
the linear term
= a(h-h0)
(2)
in which a is an outflow constant and h0 is a refer-
ence level at which the outflow is zero as depicted
in Figure 1. The reference level h0 could, in general,
be time dependent to represent the fluctuation of
water level in some body of surface water contact-
ing the aquifer.
The model given by Equation 1 with the out-
flow in the form of Equation 2 is a lumped param-
eter model which is identified as a linear reservoir;
this type of model with generalizations has been
used extensively to describe surface runoff phenom-
enon (e.g. Chow, 1964, Section 14) but has re-
ceived only limited attention in relation to
subsurface flows (Kraijenhoff Van de Leur, 1958;
Dooge, I960; Eliasson, 1971).
Similarly, a mass balance for some contami-
nant of average solute concentration c (t) can be
stated as
d
n —
dt
= -ac(h-h0) + ec0+qrcr-qDc-knhc (3)
v
72
-------
€,C
1111111111
q,C
'////////I// / / /
\ s-*
^~qp ,c
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the well mixed linear
reservoir.
where c0 and cr are the concentration in the
natural and artificial recharge respectively, and k is
a first order rate constant which accounts for
degradation of the contaminant. Equation 3 is
based on the assumption that the system is
thoroughly mixed, and thus the concentration in
the outflow is identical to that in the aquifer. This
assumption of complete mixing may at first seem
inappropriate for a ground-water system; however,
if input and withdrawals are distributed at numer-
ous points throughout the aquifer this assumption
becomes more reasonable. An explicit analysis of
this approximation will be presented in the follow-
ing section. A more convenient form of the mass
balance is obtained by combining Equations 1, 2
and 3 in the form
dc
nh — - + (e + qr + knh) c = ec0 + qrcr
dt
(4)
The system consisting of Equations 1 , 2 and 4
is a lumped parameter model from which the time
dependent features of water quality and quantity
can be described for phreatic aquifers. In the
following, some elementary solutions of these
equations with qr = qp = 0 and h0 = constant will
illustrate the general behavior of such systems. The
water balance (Equations 1 and 2) will, after a long
period, have a general solution in terms of the
convolution integral
= h-h0 =
u(t-r)dr
(5)
where h0 is taken to be constant. The unit impulse
of the system is given by
u (t) = e't/th /n , (6)
which is the solution when e (t) = 8 (t), the Dirac
delta function. The parameter t^ = n/a is the
response time of the water balance system. For a
step input of recharge
e = (
the explicit solution is
tt,
, t>t,
(7)
and for a sinusoidal input
e = e0 (1 + a sin cot); e0,a, co = constants
the solution is
sin(tot-0)] (8)
V
where the phase shift 0 is given by tan 0 = t^to .
Note that the water-table fluctuation lags the
recharge by an amount that increases with the
response time t^ .
Similarly, if the water balance is steady (e = e0
a constant, h = h0 + e0/a) and the contaminant is
conservative (k = 0), the mass balance (Equation 4)
has the solution
c = / [c0 (r)/tc]
— oo
dr
where tc = n (h0 + e0/a)/e0 is the response time of
the mass balance system. For a step input of con-
centration c0 at time t = 0, the solution is, follow-
ing Equation 7,
For a linear increase in input concentration, c0 = bt,
t> 0, b = constant, the solution is
from which it is seen that, for large time (t» tc)
the output concentration lags the input concentra-
tion by the response time tc.
PHYSICAL BASIS AND PARAMETER
ESTIMATION
The outflow parameter can be related to the
usual aquifer parameters by considering the
classical Dupuit approximation (e.g., Bear, 1972)
applied to a stream-connected phreatic aquifer (see
Figure 2). Using h (x) to denote the thickness of the
saturated zone as a function of horizontal position,
the steady flow equation is
73
-------
STREAM AQUIFER DIVIDE
Fig. 2. Contaminant movement in an idealized phreatic
aquifer.
± <*,.*>-.
ax ax
(10)
where K is the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer
and e is the accretion or natural recharge rate.
Applying the no flux condition at x = L, the
solution of Equation 10 is
h2-h2 =ex(2L-x)/K (11)
and when h - h0 « h0 this is approximated by
h- h0 = ex(2L- x)/2T (12)
where T = Kh0, the aquifer transmissivity. The aver-
age thickness of the saturated zone h is then
h = h + eL2/3T
(13)
and under steady conditions the outflow from the
aquifer per unit area is e, so that the linear reservoir
parameter a in Equation 2 becomes
a = 3T/L2
(14)
For unsteady flow with a declining sinusoidal water
table a similar analysis indicates that
a = 7r2T/4L2
(15)
Equations 14 and 15 can be used to estimate the
response time tj, = n/a if the lateral extent and the
aquifer transmissivity are known or can be esti-
mated. The response time can also be determined
from spectral analyses of water level and precipita-
tion data based on stochastic models developed by
Gelhar (1974). The above analysis demonstrates
that the average behavior of a stream-connected
phreatic aquifer can be approximated by a first
order lumped linear system as given by Equations 1
and 2.
The relation of the mass balance system
(Equation 4) to a distributed phreatic system can
be shown by analyzing the displacement of some
contaminant through the aquifer illustrated in
Figure 2. The kinematics of contaminant movement
through the aquifer are determined from the steady
flow field.
When h - h0 « h0 the horizontal component
of the specific discharge is
dh
3*
where * is the stream function. Integration yields
the stream function
e(L-x)
from which the vertical component of the specific
discharge becomes
(16)
The vertical position y of a particle which
originates at the surface y = h then is described by
dy -
— - qy/n = - ey/h0n
which has the solution
y =h(x)e-t/tc,tc = nh0/e (17)
using the condition y = h (x) when t = 0. Similarly
the horizontal position x is described by
dx
— = qx/n = -c (L - x)/h0n
dt
with the solution
L - x = (L - x) e
+t/tc
(18)
where x = x when t = 0. Equations 17 and 18 give
the location of particles which originate at the
phreatic surface when t = 0. If the aquifer is initial-
ly uncontaminated and at time t = 0 the concentra-
tion in the accretion becomes c0, then the boundary
of the contaminated zone is described by
Equations 17 and 18. When the water leaves the
aquifer at the stream, x = 0, and therefore the time
required for a contaminated particle to reach the
stream is related to its initial position x by
(L - x) = Le"
(19)
Using Equations 12 and 19 in Equation 17, the
vertical location of the contamination boundary as
it reaches the stream is
y~ = h0[l + (l-e-2t/t<0(eL2/2Th0)] e'1^
74
-------
and when h - h0 « h0, i.e., eL2/2Th0 « 1, this
is approximated by
Table 1. Typical Value of Response Times
(20)
y/h0=e-"'c
Because the horizontal component of the specific
discharge is constant over the depth of the aquifer,
the average solute concentration for the water
leaving the, aquifer is
This result is seen to be equivalent to the solution
of Equation 9 with the corresponding step input if
the factor e0/ah0 is small in the response time
expression preceding Equation 9. This will be the
case when h - h0 « h0 since a is related to the
aquifer parameters by Equation 14. Using Equation
17, the average concentration in the aquifer is
L _
c = (c0/L) / (1 - y/h) dx = c0(l -
»-t/tr
which is identical to the concentration leaving the
aquifer. These results show that, based on this
analysis, both outflow concentration and the aver-
age concentration in the aquifer of the contaminant
transport are equivalent to those obtained using the
well mixed linear system introduced in the previous
section.
In the above analysis it was implicitly assumed
that dispersive mixing is negliglible. Eldor and
Dagan (1972) analyzed the effects of dispersion in
a very similar soil leaching problem and found that
the result is "practically uninfluenced by disper-
sion." The lumped system will be most appropriate
when the contaminant is widely distributed over
the areal extent of the aquifer and when the average
concentration of several wells or the concentration
of the effluent to a stream is sought. The lumped
model will not adequately represent the concentra-
tion in a single well especially if the source of
contamination is very localized.
The analyses in this section establish the
physical basis for the lumped water and mass
balances in relation to a simple aquifer flow. Al-
though in a natural setting there are several other
complicating factors such as complex aquifer
geometry and structure, anisotropy, dispersive
mixing and partial penetration of stream which
may influence the result to some extent, this
elementary analysis illustrates the basic behavior of
phreatic aquifers in terms of certain aquifer
parameters. The two basic parameters in the water
and mass balances are the response times t^ and tc.
It can be seen from Equation 4 that tc is not, in
general, a constant; however, its magnitude can be
Aquifer
Thickness
ho
(ft)
25
25
100
400
Aquifer
Length
L
(ft)
500
5,000
5,000
50,000
Hydraulic
Response Time
tn
(yr)
0.083
8.3
2.1
52
Solute
Response Time
rco
(yr)
6.25
6.25
25
100
Note: Values based on eo = 1 ft/yr, K = 10 ft/yr, n '
0.25, tj, = nL2/3Kh0, tco = nho/eo.
estimated from tco = nh0/e0 where e0 is the
average inflow to the aquifer. Values of the two
response times based on typical values of the
aquifer parameters are shown in Table 1. These
values illustrate the effects of aquifer dimensions
on the response times. Usually the solute response
time will be greater than the hydraulic response
time but for relatively shallow aquifers the opposite
may be the case. Estimates of response time are
used in the simultaneous water and mass balance
system (Equations 1, 2 and 4) as illustrated in the
following sections.
NUMERICAL MODEL
Although the analytical solutions of the water
and mass balance equations (Equations 1, 2 and 4)
described above may be useful tools in understand-
ing some features of a ground-water reservoir, they
are too restricted to be of much use in dealing with
real problems. In real problems there are a variety
of inputs of both quantity and quality making it
inappropriate, for example, to set qp = qr = 0 for
the water balance and e = e0 a constant for the
mass balance. The natural recharge rate is generally
a random function of time, and may also contain a
deterministic component of time reflecting changing
land use patterns. For example, as artificial drainage
is improved, less precipitation eventually enters the
ground water. The other inputs (qr, q_, cr and c0)
are also functions of the changing pattern of land
use. Although water may be purposely recharged
through basins or pits, it is also recharged coinci-
dentally with the growth of a septic tank population
or with the development of a land-based sewage
treatment project. The pumping rate is a function of
the dependence of a community on the ground
water for water supply and the growth of that
community. The concentration of a contaminant in
artificial recharge (e.g., nitrates in septic tank
leachate) or natural recharge (e.g., highway deicing
compounds) may also be a function of time.
These features are conveniently handled by
75
-------
stating the water and mass balance equations in
finite difference f> cm and solving the resulting
equations numerically. For a change in time of
At the water balance equation (Equations 1 and 2)
may be written as
+h: 1
(21)
•th
where the subscript i refers to the ir time step,
t = iAt. Thus Equation 21 gives h at time i + 1 in
terms of h and the inputs at time i. A similar ex-
pression for the mass balance (Equation 4) is
At
n
•) (22)
where the decay term in Equation 4 has been
dropped. Equation 22 gives the concentration, c, of
a conservative solute at time i + 1 in terms of h at
time i + 1, as well as h, c and the input variables at
time i. Since this is a linear model, it predicts the
concentration of various solutes above that of the
natural background concentration.
To apply the model to a particular area or
region, specific inputs must be developed and the
range and combination of parameters must be esti-
mated. The following section contains a simple
example illustrating how this can be done.
APPLICATION TO HIGHWAY DEICING SALTS
The effect of highway deicing salts, primarily
sodium chloride, on ground water in eastern Massa-
chusetts will be examined as an illustration of the
application of the lumped parameter model. A
significant portion of the applied salt will, after
forming a brine with melt water, percolate to the
ground water lying beneath highways and exposed
salt piles. Where the density of roads is high, as it is
in eastern Massachusetts, this winter application of
salt can be treated as a distributed source of
chloride ion.
The recommended limit for chloride ion in
drinking water is 250 ppm (U.S. Public Health
Service, 1962) although lower concentrations are
desirable. This limit has been exceeded in several
locations and is being approached in public water-
supply wells in many built-up areas with extensive
highway development (Arthur D. Little, 1972;
Coogan, 1971; Environmental Protection Agency,
1971; Huling and Hollocher, 1972). There is little
doubt that these increasing concentrations of
sodium and chloride are due to the increased use of
highway deicing compounds.
A number of estimates have to be made of
land use and aquifer parameters, and of the various
inputs to the model. In eastern Massachusetts the
amount of water removed by pumpage varies from
town to town but it certainly averages less than 2
inches per year. Much of this is recharged after use
through septic tank leaching fields. In any case the
net effect of these processes on the buildup of road
salts in the ground water is minimal and it is
reasonable to set qr = qp = 0 and cr = 0.
The 2 important inputs for this problem are
natural recharge, e, and the concentration of solute
in the recharge, c0. In this illustration annual
precipitation data from local climatological records
constitutes the basic data from which recharge is
estimated. The time step, At, in the numerical
scheme is specified as one month. The annual
recharge is taken to be proportional to the annual
precipitation and is distributed over the first 5
months of the year in a triangular step-wise
pattern typical of recharge in New England (see
Huling and Hollocher, 1972). The maximum re-
charge occurs in March and no recharge occurs
after May. Thus the total recharge in any month is
given as e = ABP, where A = 0.35 is taken as the
portion of annual precipitation going to recharge, P
is the annual precipitation and B is the portion of
annual recharge occurring in a given month (B =
0.08 in January and May, 0.24 in February and
April, 0.36 in March and 0 the rest of the year).
The 40-year record of annual precipitation for
Worcester, Massachusetts is used for the precipita-
tion input.
If all road salt applied to our highways is
considered to be sodium chloride, the concentration
of NaCl in the natural recharge (c0) depends on the
rate of natural recharge, e; the density of highways,
roads and streets in the study area; and the rate of
application of salt to those roads. Representative
data for several eastern Massachusetts cities and
towns indicates that 8 to 10 tons of salt per lane
mile were applied to municipal and town roads
during the winter of 1970-71 (Arthur D. Little,
1972; Huling and Hollocher, 1972). The Massa-
chusetts Department of Public Works reported that
23 tons per lane mile were used that same winter on
State roads (Arthur D. Little, 1972). With an esti-
mate of 5% of roads as State maintained, the
average application rate of deicing salt in eastern
Massachusetts during that winter was 12 tons per
lane mile. Considering the highway network as a
distributed source of salt contamination, these
76
-------
Table 2. Basic'Data for the Road Salt Model
Urban
Heavy
Suburban
Light
Suburban
Rural
Population
Density
(persons/acre)
86
20
5
1
Street Density
(salted street
area/basin area)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.01
Street Density
Exponential Growth
Coefficient
(per year)
1.3 X 10"3
3.7 X 10'3
1.5 X 10"3
2.5 X lO'4
Estimated
Fraction of Salt
Reaching
Water Table
0.1
0.25
0.5
0.5
linear application rates may be converted to rates
in terms of a unit area of ground-water basin once
the street density is known.
A recent State legislative report (Arthur D.
Little, 1972) gives records of the amount of salt
used by the Massachusetts Department of Public
Works on the roads it maintained from 1955 to
1972. A tenfold increase in salt use is indicated
during this time period, and a doubling from 1965
to 1972. The increase can be fit to an annual
exponential growth rate of 0.1 per year.
Four different land use patterns were con-
sidered: urban (e.g., Boston or Cambridge); heavy
suburban (e.g., Newton); light suburban (e.g.,
Concord) and rural. Land use data for Massa-
chusetts (Comprehensive Land Use Inventory,
1965) was analyzed to determine typical street
densities (area of streets and highways/ground-
water basin area) for 1963 and street density
growth rates for the period 1955-1963. This
information, along with estimates for the per-
centage of total street area which is salted, as well
as the percentage of road salts reaching the water
table, is given in Table 2.
As seen in Table 2 the portion of the road salt
reaching the ground-water reservoir is related to
land use. Less salt infiltrates where drainage
facilities are well developed, as in heavy suburban
areas. From snowfall records it is evident that
nearly all the salt is applied in the 4 months from
December to March. Using an estimated time lag of
one month involved in the brine water passing
down through the soil to the water table, the actual
recharge by contaminated water takes place from
January to April, or during the first third of each
year. Thus the amount of salt entering the ground
water during a given month is assumed to be
proportional to the natural recharge that month.
Note that the natural recharge is assumed to be
independent of land use, a situation which may be
unrealistic for some applications.
Table 3. Aquifer Parameters
Aquifer
Depth
h0 (feet)
25
50
100
Hydraulic
Response Time
tn (months)
1
6
12
Aquifer
Length*
L (feet)
500
1,730
3,460
* Based on K = 104 ft/yr S 200 gpd/ft2, n = 0.25.
Three typical aquifer sizes were considered in
this example with response times as indicated in
Table 3. The average porosity was taken to be
n = 0.25.
The numerical scheme was programed in
BASIC and executed on a Hewlett-Packard Mini-
Computer, Model No. 2114B, the type of inex-
pensive machine becoming widely available to many
potential users.
A model simulation of water-table fluctuation
with h0 = 50 feet and tj, = 6 months is compared to
a local observation well record (Wilmington, Mass.)
in Figure 3 for a typical 5-year period. A single well
can be expected to present a better over-all picture
of regional ground-water table fluctuations than it
can of contaminant concentration fluctuation
because the latter has a greater spacial variation.
The simulation is based on the annual precipitation
data with the recharge pattern as described above.
5)
A
Fig. 3. Observed and simulated water levels; data from well
no. 78, Wilmington, Massachusetts.
77
-------
2 20
z
bJ
U
Z
O
U
UJ
O
o:
O
_i
I
U
57-10O MILES
FROM COAST
LIGHT SUBURBAN
21-56 MILES FROM
COAST
HEAVY SUBURBAN
5-20 MILES
FROM COAST
55 60 65 70
YEAR
Fjg. 4. Comparison of observed and simulated chloride con-
centration in ground waters of eastern Massachusetts; the
solid line is the simulated April concentration for ho = 50
feet, tn = 6 months, the dashed line for ho = 25 feet, tn = 1
month and the circles are Coogan's (1971) data.
A comparison of the well record and simulation
indicates that the model reproduces the general
behavior of the water table, with the same late-
winter, early-spring peaks, and the relatively low
water table for the drought, beginning in 1965.
However, the model does not simulate the much
smaller fall recharge evident in some years because
this feature was not included in the recharge
distribution.
Figure 4 compares the predicted salt concen-
trations in various areas of eastern Massachusetts
with field data compiled by the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health (Coogan, 1971).
Coogan's paper presents the average chloride con-
centration in public water-supply wells for the
period 1890 to 1970. He found it convenient to
divide the eastern part of the State into 3 bands:
5 to 20 miles, 20 to 56 miles and 57 to 100 miles
from the coast. These bands correspond fairly well
with the land use descriptions used here: heavy
suburban, light suburban and rural. The data
indicates that chlorides have been increasing above
natural background levels since 1940. Starting with
average chloride levels for 1952-1954, still rela-
tively low, the model utilized the estimated parame-
ters, including growth rates, in order to model this
buildup of salts. The application rate in the base
year, 1954, was taken as 2 tons per lane mile
(Arthur D. Little, 1972), and the recharge was
based on the Worcester, Massachusetts precipitation
record, 1954 to 1970. The typical ground-water
basin was estimated to have an h0 = 50 feet and
tj, = 6 months.
Figure 4 illustrates that the basin-wide model
can give fairly decent predictions of historical
record. This is especially interesting considering
that many of the model parameters (e.g., the
recharge ratio) were not particularly chosen to fit
Coogan's geographic divisions. Once provided with
reasonable estimates for the parameters involved it
is evident that the basin-wide model could be a
simple, yet valuable tool for examining the effects
of future road deicing policies on ground-water
quality.
Figure 5 shows a buildup in salt concentration
for a shallow aquifer (h0 = 25 feet) in a light
suburban area (curve A), in a manner similar to the
historical curve given in Figure 4. This assumes that
salting is started in year zero at a base rate of 2 tons
per lane mile and grows. Street density is also
allowed to grow. At the end of 18 years the salting
policy is reviewed due to the buildup of salt in the
ground-water supply. Several alternatives are
suggested and their results on the bulk salt concen-
tration in the aquifer are illustrated. Alternative A
is to continue past policy, and thus, past growth.
Curve A leaves little doubt that this policy will soon
result in the complete contamination of the basin
with chloride levels beyond recommended water-
supply limits. Alternative B is to abandon the use of
road salts as highway deicers in an effort to clean up
the aquifer. For this small aquifer the cleanup is
relatively rapid, but such a policy might not serve
the best interests of public safety. This leads to
alternative C, an effort to stabilize the salt applica-
tion rate of 12 tons per lane mile, the rate in year
18. Although street density continues to climb, a
quasi-steady state concentration is reached at about
100 ppm, 20 ppm greater than the present value
(year 18). Suppose studies have shown that the
average yearly application rate may be reduced to
8 tons per lane mile without any decrease in public
./ .-
-------
safety. The result of such a policy is shown in
alternative D with the quasi-steady value of concen-
tration hovering around 65 ppm, a reduction of 15
ppm from the present value. Recall that these quasi-
steady state values will experience long-term growth
due to growing street density.
These last alternatives illustrate what may
happen if we chose to continue salting at the same
steady rate every year. If that rate is equal to or
above present rates, we can expect the bulk con-
centration of salt in the aquifer to grow until it
equals input concentration (curve C). If the steady
rate is significantly lower, we can expect that the
bulk aquifer concentration may reduce (curve D).
Whether or not it will reduce in the near future will
depend on the aquifer size. As shown in Table 1
larger aquifers have longer response times, indicat-
ing that even though the input concentration may
decrease, the bulk concentration in the aquifer may
continue to rise.
A final alternative considered here is to slowly
decrease the rate of salt applied, from its value in
year 18, while we find deicing replacements that
are not harmful to the environment. Alternative E
illustrates an exponentially decreasing application
rate (0.05 per year). In connection with what was
said in the previous paragraph, observe the rise in
concentration, years 18 to 20, even as the applica-
tion rate has been reduced. Such an effect is greatly
magnified in a large aquifer.
Figure 6 illustrates the effect of alternative E
on 3 different aquifer sizes. Although the bulk
concentration in the larger aquifer builds up more
slowly, it also decreases more slowly. Thus the large
aquifer continues to experience an increase in salt
concentration for 14 years after the change in
policy, and does not return to its year 18 value
until year 40. Although one type of alternative may
(J
o 100
2 -
Q.
0.
2
O
50
2
LU
U
O
u
h0IN FEET 25,
10
20
TIME IN YEARS
Fig. 6. Effect of aquifer size with a decreasing rate of salt
application for the light suburban area.
appear most attractive for the small aquifer, it is
obvious that the same set of alternatives must be
reevaluated for larger ground-water basins.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
One important feature of the work is the
elementary modeling structure which has been
developed and applied. The lumped parameter
model, based on simultaneous water and mass
balances, is characterized by 2 physical parameters—
the response times—which can be estimated from
limited data. The equivalence of the lumped
parameter model and a simple distributed system
has been established.
The model was used to simulate the effect of
highway deicing salts on ground-water quality in
eastern Massachusetts and reasonable agreement
with observed trends over a 15-year period was
found. During this study the model was also used
to simulate nitrate contamination from septic tanks
and land-based sewage treatment (Gelhar, et al,
1973), but no field data were available to evaluate
those results. Additional evaluation of the model
for other hydrologic conditions and water quality
inputs is needed.
The application of the basin-wide modeling
technique to the road salt example reveals that this
general approach can provide a reasonable basis for
long-term evaluation of ground-water pollution
problems. The specific results developed depend on
certain assumed hydrologic and water quality
inputs. With adequate data on the inputs and
aquifer parameters for a given locality, this general
modeling procedure may be used to guide
regulatory procedures and land use decisions which
might be applied at local, regional or State levels to
protect ground-water resources.
An important general feature which is brought
out by this model is the slow response character-
istics of ground-water systems. Especially in large
aquifers there may be a substantial time lag
between the concentration in the aquifer and the
input concentration. In practical terms this means
that the magnitude of developing ground-water
pollution problems may not be adequately antici-
pated by monitoring ground-water quality. For a
complete evaluation the over-all pollution loading
on the system must be considered.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The paper developed out of a special 3-week
course on ground-water pollution which was
directed by the authors, at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology during the Independent
79
-------
Activities Period, January 1973. The students
participating in that course used the model to
investigate several cases of ground-water pollution
and thereby contributed significantly to the
development of the model.
REFERENCES
Arthur D. Little. 1972. Salt, safety, and water supply. A
Policy Study for the Special Commission on Salt
Contamination of Water Supplies. Massachusetts
General Court.
Bear, J. 1972. Dynamics of fluids in porous media.
American-Elsevier, New York.
Cearlock, D. B. 1971. A systems approach to management
of the Hanford ground-water basin. National Ground
Water Quality Symposium, EPA, Project 16060 GRB.
pp. 182-191.
Chow, V. T. (ed.). 1964. Handbook of applied hydrology.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Comprehensive Land Use Inventory, by Vogt, Ivers and
Assoc. for Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Boston,
Massachusetts, 1965.
Coogan, G. J. 1971. The increase in chlorides experienced
in Massachusetts water supplies. Jour, of New England
Waterworks Assoc. pp. 173-178.
Domenico, P. A. 1972. Concepts and models in ground-
water hydrology. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York.
Dooge, J.C.I. 1960. The routing of ground-water recharge
through typical elements of linear storage. Inter-
national Assoc. of Scientific Hydrology. Publication
no. 52. General Assembly of Helsinki, pp. 286-300.
Eldor, M. and G. Dagan. 1972. Solutions of hydrodyhamic
dispersion in porous media. Water Resources Research.
v. 10, pp. 1316-1331.
Eliasson, J. 1971. Mechanism of ground-water reservoirs.
Nordic Hydrology, v. 2, pp. 266-277.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Environmental
impact of highway deicing. Water Quality Office.
Water Pollution Control Research Report 11040GKK.
Gelhar, L. W., et al. 1973. Ground-water pollution. A report
prepared as part of the IAP mini-course, Department
of Civil Engineering, M.I.T.
Gelhar, L. W. 1974. Stochastic analysis of phreatic aquifers.
Water Resources Research, v. 10, pp. 539-545.
Hornsby, A. G. 1973. Prediction modeling for salinity
control in irrigation return flows. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency Report EPA-R2-73-168.
Huling, E. E. and T. C. Hollocher. 1972. Ground-water con-
tamination by road salts: steady state concentrations
in east central Massachusetts. Science, v. 176, pp.
288-292.
Konikow, L. F. and J. D. Bredehoeft. 1974. Modeling flow
and chemical quality changes in an irrigated stream
aquifer system. Water Resources Research, v. 8,
pp. 546-562.
Kraijenhoff van de Leur, D. A. 1958. A study of non-
steady ground-water flow with special reference to the
reservoir-coefficient. Ingenieur. no. 19, pp. 87-94.
Lyons, T. C. and J. Stewart. 1973. Ground-water model
development and verification for the San Jacinto
ground-water basin. Water Resources Engineers, Inc.
Final Report on Task XVI(S)-1.
Maddaus, W. and M. A. Aaronson. 1972. A regional ground-
water resource management model. Water Resources
Research, v. 8, pp. 231-237.
Pinder, G. F. 1973. A galerkin-finite element simulation of
ground-water contamination on Long Island, New
York. Water Resources Research, v. 9, pp. 1657-1669.
Thomas, J. L., J. P. Riley and E. K. Israelsen. 1972. A
hybrid computer program for predicting the chemical
quality of irrigation return flows. Water Resources
Bulletin, v. 8, pp. 922-934.
U.S. Public Health Service. 1962. Public health service
drinking water standards (revised). Publication no.
956.
80
-------
Uniform Distribution in Soil Absorption Fields
by R. J. Otis, J. Bouma and W. G. Walked
ABSTRACT
The function of a septic tank-soil absorption system
is to purify the wastewater discharged from the home before
reaching the ground water. However, failure often occurs in
the soil absorption field. Failure can originate from two
causes: (1) inadequate infiltration of effluent into the soil,
due to soil clogging or an increase in loading which results in
surfacing septic tank effluent, and (2) inadequate purifica-
tion in the soil during percolation because of short travel
times which can be due to presence of very permeable,
shallow soils or to local overloading. Inadequate purification
may result in pathogenic pollution of private well-water
supplies.
Failures of the second type can be prevented through
proper design and operation of the soil absorption field.
Studies have shown that 3 feet (90 cm) of unsaturated soil
are adequate in purifying septic tank wastes with the excep-
tion of nitrogen removal. However, 4-inch (10 cm) diameter
perforated drain pipe commonly used for distribution leads
to local overloading near the point of inlet whereas other
areas in the seepage system do not receive effluent at all.
This leads to locally high flow rates of the waste through
the soil reducing the soil's efficiency for pathogenic
organism removal. Uniform distribution of the septic tank
effluent over the entire soil absorption field is necessary to
relieve this situation.
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974. Based on research conducted as part of the Small
Scale Waste Management Project at the University of
Wisconsin, Madison.
^Respectively, Sanitary Engineer, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin,
Madison; Associate Professor of Soil Science, University of
Wisconsin, Madison; and Soil Scientist, Department of Soil
Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706.
One method by which uniform distribution can be
achieved over a large area is through a pressurized system.
By properly sizing the diameters of the pipes and the
number and diameter of the orifices in the distribution
laterals, the head losses across the orifices will be great
enough to cause the entire network to fill before the liquid
is applied to the soil. This system combines the advantages
of dosing with uniform distribution.
Three systems have been tested under laboratory and
field conditions. The network is easy to manufacture and
can be quickly sized. The design guidelines and results of
laboratory and field testing are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
The failure of septic tank-soil absorption field
systems serving homes in unsewered areas is a major
concern with health officials because of the public
health hazards that can develop. The function of
the system is to purify the wastewater from a single
home and recycle it to the ground water. However,
failure often occurs in the soil absorption field.
Failure can originate from one of two causes:
(1) inadequate infiltration of effluent into the soil
due to soil clogging which results in surfacing of
septic tank effluent, or (2) inadequate purification
in the soil during percolation because of short travel
times, which can be due to the presence of very
permeable, shallow soils or to local overloading.
Because this latter type of failure cannot be
observed visually it is often overlooked. However, •
inadequate purification may result in pathogenic
pollution of private well-water supplies leading to
severe public health problems.
Such failures can be prevented through proper
design and operation of the soil absorption field.
Studies have shown that 3 feet (90 cm) of un-
saturated soil are adequate in purifying septic tank
81
-------
wastes with the exception of nitrogen removal
(Magdoff et al, 1974; Green and Cliver, 1974) but
only if the soil is not overloaded. However, 4-inch
(10 cm) diameter perforated drain pipe commonly
used for distribution leads to local overloading near
the point of inlet whereas other areas in the seepage
system do not receive effluent at all (Bouma et al.,
1972, pp. 160,224).
Overloading results in locally high moisture
contents in the soil with corresponding high-flow
rates and short travel times through the soil.
Processes of filtration, absorption and oxidation,
which are essential to achieve purification, cannot
operate effectively under these conditions. High-
flow rates are therefore associated with poor
purification and pathogens can move downwards
for several feet (Bouma et al., 1972, pp. 205-209;
Green and Cliver, 1974). The problem is of
particular concern in sandy, shallow soils with high
permeabilities at saturation.
Application of effluent at acceptable rates for
the particular soils is therefore essential for optimal
soil absorption and purification of septic tank
effluent. This paper will describe: (1) model experi-
ments demonstrating the relationship between
loading rate and associated travel times in under- '
lying sand, which, in turn strongly influence the
purifying potential; (2) design criteria for pressure
distribution systems; and (3) field and laboratory
tests of these systems.
LOADING RATES AND ASSOCIATED
TRAVEL TIMES IN UNDERLYING SAND
The relationship between loading rate and
corresponding travel time of effluent through
underlying soil was investigated in a series of model
experiments using Rhodamine dye. Two 60-cm
(2 ft.) high columns with a diameter of 10 cm (4
in.) were filled with a medium sand. Moisture
retention characteristics (desorption) are shown in
Figure 1A and the hydraulic conductivity (K) curve
is shown in Figure IB. The column was saturated
with water and was left to drain for 24 hours.
Equilibrium moisture contents after drainage, as
determined from the moisture retention curve and
confirmed by in situ tensiometry, are shown in
Figure 1C. The gravitation potential is in equilibri-
um with the matrix potential after drainage. In
other words, the soil moisture tension at 10 cm
(4 in.) above the bottom of the core is 10 cm (4
in.) and at 40 cm (16 in.) above the bottom it is
40xm (16 in.), etc. The total volume of water in
the column at equilibrium was approximately
900 cc (0.032 cu. ft.) and at a total pore volume
of 1880 cc (0.066 cu. ft.), the air content was 980
cc (0.035 cu. ft.).
Seepage areas in sands are designed to receive
5 cm (2 in.) of effluent per day (Bouma et al.,
1972) which should ideally be distributed evenly
over the entire seepage area during any 24-hour
period. This is technically impossible and the
o
i 50
Z
UJ
O
O
UJ
o
2
40
30
20
10
^ 240
CT
" ^
~a
a, 2.4
ui
Ł0.24
cu
§0.02
I
I
I
0 20 40 60
MOISTURE TENSION
(cm)
o
•o
NS
E
o
- > 1000
O
- 13
o
r-8
o
100
10
I
O.I
o
I
I
I
20 40 60
MOISTURE TENSION
(cm )
60
O
O
O
50
40
30
u.
O 20
H
I
(3
UJ
X
AIR
PHASE
SOLID
PHASE
I
I
20 40 60 80
SOIL VOLUME (%)
100
Fig. 1. Hydraulic characteristics of sand-filled columns: (A) moisture retention; (B) hydraulic conductivity; (C) equilibrium
moisture contents.
82
-------
Table 1. Data on Column Studies for Determining Travel
Time of Dyed Water as a Function of the Dosing Regime
Cumulative Retention
Outflow No. of Time
Exp. Volume of Daily Before Dye Days of Dye
No. Dose* Breakthrough Dosed in Column
1
2
3
4
4000 cc (= 50 cm)
800 cc (= 10 cm)
400 cc (= 5 cm)
200 cc (2Vi cm)
900
850
900
920
1
2
3
5
30 min.
25 hrs.
50 hrs.
100 hrs.
1 cm = 0.25 gal/sq. ft.
effluent is therefore applied by means of inter-
mittent dosages. The sand located below an orifice
in the distribution pipe is bound to receive the most
effluent. The effect of local loading patterns on the
flow regime in medium sand (Soil Survey Manual,
1951) was tested by repeated application of a
specific volume of dyed water to a soil column
containing undyed water at equilibrium. Repeated
applications were made after re-establishment of
hydraulic equilibrium. The time was noted when
dyed water left the column for the first time.
Volumes tested were 60 cm (25 in.); 10 cm (4 in.);
5 cm (2.5 in.); and 2.5 cm (1.25 in.). The columns
were washed with clean water to remove the dye
between tests of different volumes. Hydraulic
equilibrium was re-established after approximately
4 hours when the latter 3 quantities of dyed water
were applied.
Results of the tests are presented in Table 1,
in which application of once-a-day dosages is
assumed. Cumulative outflows before break-through
of the dye of 850-920 cc (0.030-0.033 cu. ft.) were
almost identical for all treatments and were approxi-
mately equal to the volume of water-filled pores in
the soil urider equilibrium conditions which was
900 cc. (0.032 cu. ft.). This illustrates that water
applied to the column at equilibrium did not leave
the column before all water present at equilibrium
had left the column first.
This phenomenon can be explained by con-
sidering processes of capillary flow. Water applied
to the sand will try to flow into the smaller pores
because these pores exercise the largest capillary
pull. However, these small pores are filled with
water (Figure 1C), and water can only move into
and through these pores if water leaves them at the
bottom of. the cylinder at a relatively low rate
determined by their small size. Water will only
move into and through large pores if the capacity
of the smaller pores is inadequate to conduct the
amount of water added. The physical properties
of medium sand are such that water does not
flow directly through larger pores. Instead the
liquid flows through these finer pores, pushing the
liquid out of the column that was present in the
sand before dosing. Implications of these flow
phenomena are important because longer travel
times are bound to result in more effective purifica-
tion. Preliminary results of associated bacteriological
and virological studies, currently in progress, con-
firm this conclusion (Green and Cliver, 1974).
Construction details of uniform distribution
systems therefore have a direct relation to the
degree of purification achieved by the underlying
porous soil.
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PRESSURE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
One method by which uniform distribution
can be achieved over a large area is to utilize a
pressurized network. The liquid waste is pumped
through a small-diameter perforated pipe rather
than being allowed to trickle into the soil absorp-
tion field by gravity. The pipe network is designed
such that most of the total energy required to
deliver the waste to the trenches is lost across the
perforations in the pipe. If this requirement is
satisfied, the entire network will fill before much
liquid is lost through the orifices nearest the
pumping chamber.
Systems similar to this are used as backwash-
ing systems for rapid sand filters in water treat-
ment; therefore much design experience exists.
Design variables include orifice diameter, number
of orifices, lateral diameter, manifold diameter
and pump discharge head. Balancing these variables
to design a satisfactory system is a difficult task so
design guidelines have been developed. These can
be found in any text dealing with rapid sand filter
design. Typical guidelines are given below (Fair,
Geyer, and Okun, 1968):
1. The diameter of orifices should be 1A in.-%
in. (0.6 cm-1.9 cm).
2. The ratio of cross-sectional area of the
laterals to the total area of the orifices served
should be (2-4): 1.
3. The ratio of the cross-sectional area of the
manifold to the total cross-sectional area of the
laterals served should be (1.5-3):1.
If these rules-of-thumb are followed closely
and a sufficient head of water applied, uniform
distribution will be achieved.
83
-------
FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST OF THREE
PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
To demonstrate the effectiveness of pressure
distribution networks, 3 private homes were
selected for installations. One site has a shallow
permeable soil over creviced bedrock and the other
2 sites are located in slowly permeable soil areas.
Mound systems were installed at 2 of the sites and a
shallow trench system at the other.
Site I
The problem of ground-water contamination
by pathogenic organisms is an acute problem in the
Door County peninsula of northeastern Wisconsin.
The county is underlain by creviced limestone with
a very thin cover of porous soil. Bacterial and viral
contamination of private well-water supplies traced
to septic tank systems have plagued the region for
many years.
In an effort to combat the problem, mounded
or fill disposal systems have been installed. Details
of these systems are given by Bouma, et al. (1974b).
The principle of the mounded systems is to bring in
additional soil material, usually a medium sand,
and mound it over the area to be used for soil
absorption. The seepage trenches are constructed
within the fill. This provides the necessary 3 ft.
(90 cm) of soil that column experiments indicated
is sufficient for good purification (Magdoff et al.,
1974). However, monitoring of a mound designed
by a local plumber indicated that adequate purifica-
tion of the percolating effluent was not taking
place. Bacterial counts of 300 coliforms per ml, 25
fecal coliforms per ml, and 100 fecal streptococcus
per ml were found in the soil material below the
mound. This was attributed to poor distribution of
the septic tank effluent through the conventional
4-in. (10 cm) perforated pipe (Bouma, et al., 1972,
pp. 205-211).
To test this hypothesis, a single private home
was selected for installation of a similar mound. To
provide uniform distribution a pressurized system
was constructed through trial and error. It consists
of a 1%-in. (3.1 cm) diameter plastic pipe leading
into a 1-in. (2.5 cm) manifold and four 1-in. (2.5
cm) PVC laterals. Six Vj-in. (0.51 cm) diameter
holes are located 30 in. (75 cm) apart in each
lateral. A laboratory test of the system showed
good distribution during dosing (Bouma et al.,
1974b). Effluent is pumped into the mound 4 times
daily.
This system has been operating since the sum-
mer of 1972. Monitoring of the liquid below the
mound on a regular basis showed average counts of
54 coliforms per ml, 0.5 fecal coliforms per ml, and
0.1 fecal streptococcus per ml (Bouma et al.,
1974b). These results indicated that uniform distri-
bution is essential for the proper functioning of
these systems.
Site 11
A second private home was selected for
installation of a pressure distribution system in a
slowly permeable soil area. It was felt that uniform
distribution would also have application in tight
soils by preventing local overloading of the soil by
the liquid and solid phases of the waste. This
combined with dosing could conceivably prolong
the life of the field. While this has not yet been
borne out, this installation did provide an oppor-
tunity to develop design criteria of pressurized
networks and operational experience.
The home is occupied by a family of 5. A
daily flow of 250 gal (946 1) was estimated based
on 50 gpcpd (189 I/cap/day) (Bailey et al., 1969;
Witt, 1974). Percolation tests were run at the
2-foot depth and found to be 75 min/inch (30
min/cm). The crust test (Bouma, et al., 1974a) was
also performed. A saturated hydraulic conductivity
of 5 cm/day (1.2 gal/sq. ft./day) was found. With
aging of the infiltrative surface the hydraulic con-
ductivity was expected to drop to 1 cm/day (0.24
gal/sq. ft./day). Subsequent in situ measurements of
moisture tensions below the bed made after one
year's operation proved this to be correct.
The soil absorption field was designed on the
basis of 250 gpd (946 I/day) and a soil infiltration
rate of 0.25 gal/sq. ft./day (1 cm/day). Considering
bottom area only, a 1000 sq. ft. (92.9 sq. m.)
system is required. A trench design of the field was
used. Six parallel trenches 4 ft. X 42 ft. (1.2 m X
12.8 m) spaced 14 ft. (4.3 m) on centers with a
central connecting trench 4 ft. X 75 ft. (1.2 m X
22.9 m) provide 1212 sq. ft. (112.6 sq. m.) of
bottom absorption area. The trench bottoms are
level and within the top 18 in. (45 cm) of the soil
surface. The central trench receives no effluent
directly but may accept any which flows from the
parallel trenches. The trenches were filled with 12
in. (30 cm) of 3A in.-l in. rock (1.9 cm-2.5 cm)
upon which the distribution network lies. This
provides up to 1068 sq. ft. (99.3 sq. m.) of sidewall
area (see Figure 2).
The pressure distribution system was designed
following the design rules-of-thumb developed for
rapid sand filter backwashing systems listed above.
It was felt that the perforations in the pipe should
be no smaller than '4 in. (0.6 cm) in diameter and
84
-------
ABSORPTION TRENCH
-FROM PUMPING CHAMBER
1
f
1
i
-lOllmh
1
1
I
1
I
4-
1
I
.1
PVC
"42'(I2 8m)
— 4' (1.2m)
SCAl E»
74'(222m)
Fig. 2. Layout of pressure distribution system at Site II in
slowly permeable soil.
all pipe diameters no smaller than 1 in. (2.5 cm) in
diameter to prevent clogging by any solids in the
effluent. Further, it was felt that the perforations
should be spaced no greater than at 30 in. (75 cm)
and soil trench widths should be no wider than 4
ft.(1.2 m) to ensure the entire trench bottom area
was utilized. A lateral cross-sectional area to total
orifice area ratio of 2 to 1 was used allowing 8
perforations per lateral. These were spaced at 30-in.
(75 cm) intervals giving a total lateral length of 20
ft. (6.1 m). If 4-ft. (1.2 m) trench widths were to
be used, this required 12 laterals to be provided.
Using a ratio of the manifold cross-sectional area
to the total cross-sectional area of the 12 laterals, a
4.24-in. (10.61 cm) diameter manifold is required.
This was felt to be excessive because of the large
volume and cost, so 3-in. (7.5 cm) diameter was
tried. PVC pipe was used throughout.
Before installation of the distribution network
it was assembled and tap water pumped through it
at the expected rate of flow. The effectiveness of
the system was observed only visually (see Figure
3). Within 10 seconds from the start of pumping
the complete system filled and uniform distribution
was achieved. The orifices nearest the manifold
were observed to discharge more liquid at the
beginning and end of runs; thus it was decided to
include additional trench bottom areas under the
manifold to accept this liquid.
The entire treatment and disposal system was
installed in Summer 1972. The laterals were laid so
that the perforations were on the underside of the
pipe. The network was covered with an additional
2 in. (5 cm) of rock and the trenches are backfilled
with topsoil to 12 in. (30 cm) above the original
grade. To prevent freezing, the manifold was sloped
back to the pumping chamber to allow complete
drainage between pumpings. A common household
V3-horsepower submersible sump pump is used in
the pumping chamber.
Two 4-in. (10 cm) vertical perforated pipes
were set in each trench, 14 ft. (4.3 m) from either
side of the manifold. The pipes are 4 ft. (1.2 m)
long and extend to the soil surface at the trench
bottom. They were capped with standard vent caps.
These are used as a means to sample and measure
the liquid in the trench (see Figure 4).
Construction was done under ideal conditions.
The soil was dry and because of the trench design
the infiltrative surface was never compacted by
machinery driving over it. Unfortunately, before
additional fill could be brought in to mound over
the system to promote runoff, heavy rains con-
tinued for 2 months. Total rainfall during that
period was 12.13 in. (30.3 cm). The result of the
rain was to completely fill the trenches so that
surface seepage occurred during that Fall and the
following Spring. During Winter 1972-73 the field
was inspected but no seepage was observed.
In Summer 1973 the additional fill was added
and surface seepage has not been observed since.
The trenches have remained ponded, however. The
water level is measured periodically showing a drop
during the growing season and a rise during the
Spring and Fall.
A portion of the system was dug up after a
year of observation to determine if any of the
orifices were clogging. It was felt that clogging
might occur as the result of solids plugging the
openings or from mineral precipitation. Neither was
observed. The system continues to operate satis-
factorily after 21A years.
Site III
A third home occupied by a family of 5 was
selected for a demonstration installation in another
Fig. 3. Hydraulic test of distribution system no. 2.
85
-------
Fig. 4. Installation of network before backfilling at Site II.
slowly permeable soil area. In this case a mound
was installed because of a seasonally perched water
table. Details of its design and installation are given
elsewhere (Bouma et al., 1975). The mound is 70 ft.
X 80 ft. (21.3 m X 24.4 m) with a medium sand
used as the fill material. While saturated conduc-
tivity of the sand is approximately 200 cm/day
(48 gal/sq. ft./day), the ultimate acceptance rates of
infiltrative surfaces in sand have been shown to be
reduced to 5 cm/day (0.24 gal/sq. ft./day) after
septic tank effluent application (Bouma et al.,
1972). To estimate the daily flow 75 gpcpd (284
I/cap/day) was used to provide a safety factor of
1.5 which was felt to be necessary after the
experience gained at Site II. Thus a trench bottom
area within the fill of 300 sq. ft. (27.8 sq. m.) was
required. This was provided by three 2.5 ft. (90
cm) wide trenches each 44 ft. (13.4 m) long. No
trench was dug under the manifold in this installa-
tion. The total bottom area is 330 sq. ft. (30.7 sq.
fn.). The trenches were filled with 8 in. of % in.-l
in. (1.9 cm-2.5 cm) gravel before the pipe was laid.
This allows 187 sq. ft. (17.4 sq. m.) of sidewall
area (see Figure 5).
Following the success at Site II, the same
rules-of-thumb were used for the design of the
pressure distribution network used in the mound.
Six laterals 1 in. (2.5 cm) in diameter with V4-in.
(0.6 cm) diameter holes spaced 30 in. (75 cm)
apart were used. These are identical to those at Site
II. Using a ratio of 1.5 to 1 of the manifold cross-
sectional area to the total lateral cross-sectional
area requires a 3.67-in. (9.19 cm) diameter mani-
fold. A 3-in. (7.5 cm) diameter manifold was used.
PVC pipe was also used here for the network.
A common Vs-horsepower submersible sump
pump was again used in this installation to pump
FROM PUMPING CHAMBER
TO'(21m)
L
•
I
n]
|
m)
|
- MANI
ABSC
+
|"I2
*
2.5
*
SCALE
3/32 I
Fig. 5. Layout of pressure distribution system in mound at
Site III.
-------
Q
Ul
o
tr
UJ
2.0
2.0
Q
2.0
\
3.I6CFM
1.39 CFM
4
INLET
I
20 15 10 5 5 10 15 20
DISTANCE ALONG PIPE - FEET
Fig. 6. Results of hydraulic testing of distribution system
no. 2 (after Converse, 1974).
septic tank effluent to the mound. The pump
operates off a mechanical float switch set at
approximately 70-gallon (265 1) cycles.
This network was assembled and tested before
installation by Converse (1974). Tap water was
pumped through the system at rates ranging be-
tween 1.39 and 3.44 cfm (39.4 l/min-97.4 1/min). A
pan was placed under each hole and weighed before
and after every run to determine the volume of
water discharged from each orifice. The results of
this testing are shown in Figure 6. It was found that
at the lower flow rates the end of the laterals re-
ceived less flow but that the system provided much
better distribution than conventional systems.
Installation of this system was completed in
October 1973. The system operated satisfactorily
until April 1974 when it was observed that the last
trench was dry while the 2 upstream trenches were
filled. Both ends of the manifold were located and
the screw plugs removed. The manifold was clean
except for less than 250 cc (0.07 gal) of sludge at
the downstream end. The ends of the laterals in the
last trench were then uncovered and cut open.
These were found to be completely filled with
sludge composed mostly of grease balls and sand
(see Figure 7). This material had clogged the end
lateral. The pump was activated and the laterals
were flushed.
The reason for the high number of solids being
discharged to the mound was due to a number of
unusual circumstances related to improper mainte-
nance by the homeowner which have been correct-
Fig. 7. Lateral clogged with grease and sand at Site III.
87
-------
ed. One correction made which is felt to be impor-
tant in all installations is to set the pump off the
sump floor. When the pump was originally installed,
this was not done. All other installations have had
the pump set up on an 8-in. (20 cm) block, allowing
for settling of any solids that are carried over into
the sump. Placement of the pump was corrected,
and in addition, the low water switch was set well
above the pump volute to prevent any floating
material from being pumped out. No further prob-
lems have occurred with this installation since these
corrections were made.
COSTS
The cost of these systems ranges from $125 to
$200 for materials. Approximately 2 hours are
required for assembly. While this is about twice the
cost of materials for conventional systems, installa-
tion is simplified since the distribution laterals need
not be set on any grade or carefully leveled. All
other details of construction are identical to con-
ventional soil absorption systems.
CONTINUED RESEARCH
Additional laboratory studies are being con-
ducted at the present time with full-scale models of
several distribution systems. Pump discharge head,
dose volume, manifold diameter and length of
laterals are parameters being varied to determine
their relationship to equal distribution.
REFERENCES
Bailey, J. R., R. J. Benoit, J. L. Dodson, J. M. Robb and H.
Wallman. 1969. A study of flow reduction and treat-
ment of wastewater from households. FWQA Water
Pollution Control Research Series 11050FKE. 12/69.
Bouma, J., W. A. Ziebell, W. G. Walker, P. G. Olcott, E.
McCoy and F. D. Hole. 1972. Soil absorption of septic
tank effluent. Information Circular No. 20. University
of Wisconsin-Extension. Geological and Natural
History Survey. 235 pp.
Bouma, J., F. G. Baker, and P.L.M. Veneman. 1974a.
Measurement of water movement in soil pedons above
the watertable. Information Circular, Wis. Geol. Nat.
History Surv. 120 pp.
Bouma, J., J. C. Converse, W. A. Ziebell and F. R. Magdoff.
1974b. An experimental mound system for disposal
of septic tank effluent in shallow soils over creviced
bedrock. International Conference on Land for Waste
Management. Ottawa, Canada (proceedings in press).
Bouma, J., J. C. Converse, R. J. Otis, W. G. Walker and
W. A. Ziebell. 1975. A mound system for on-site
disposal of septic tank effluent in slowly permeable
soils with seasonally perched water tables. J. Env.
Qual. (submitted).
Converse, J. C. 1974. Distribution of domestic waste efflu-
ent in soil absorption beds. Transactions ASAE. v. 17,
pp. 299-304.
Fair, G. M., J. C. Geyer and D. A. Okun. 1968. Water and
wastewater engineering, v. 2, John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Green, K. M. and D. O. Cliver. 1974. Removal of virus from
septic tank effluent by sand columns. ASAE Symposi-
um on Home Sewage Disposal. Chicago, Dec. 9-10,
1974.
Magdoff, F. R., D. R. Keeney, J. Bouma and W. A. Ziebell.
1974. Columns representing mound-type disposal
systems for septic tank effluent, II, nutrient trans-
formations and bacterial populations. J. Env. Qual.
v. 3, no. 3, pp. 228-234.
Soil Survey Manual. 1951. USDA Handbook No. 18, 500 pp.
Witt, M. D. 1974. Water use in rural homes. Independent
study report, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by R. J.
Otis after delivering his talk entitled "Uniform
Distribution in Soil Absorption Fields."
Q. by Ken Childs. Your talk equates purification
with size terms—sand, clay, loam. How does the
difference in chemical make-up of the soil affect
purification? Does purification as you use it, refer
only to bacteria? If so, why not include N03~, CT,
SO4=, etc. ? Why use the term absorption instead of
adsorption?
Q. by K. Jack Kooyoomjian. Isn't the mechanism
properly entitled soil adsorption instead of soil
absorption? While some absorption does occur
adsorption is the primary mechanism involved.
A. When disposing of effluents into the soil two
problems are faced, (1) getting the liquid to infil-
trate the soil, and (2) purifying the waste. The first
is a problem of soil absorption and does not refer at
all to mechanisms of purification. The achievement
of purification is dependent on many mechanisms
including degradation, filtration, adsorption,
predation and dilution. It is hoped that both these
problems can be eliminated with improved
distribution.
The case studies discussed in my presentation
88
-------
were particularly interested in pathogenic organism
removal through porous soil systems. Movement of
salts we were not particularly interested in though
we recognize that it is a problem. Other research in
progress in the Small Scale Waste Management
Project is developing methods of N and P removal.
Q. by G. Morgan Powell. What is the pressure and
pumping rate?
Q. by G. F. Hendricks. What is the design head of
the system?
A. The maximum pressure achieved in these
systems is about 0.5 psi. The pumping rate is
approximately 15 to 20 gpm. We have found that
larger pumps probably should be used.
Q. by Greg Stockert. Is the pressure constant? If
not, has there been overloading caused by the
fluctuation of pressure in the system? Is pressure
maintained on the system by a sensing device that
turns on and off the pump?
A. No attempt is made to maintain constant
pressure through a pumping cycle. The orifices
nearest the manifold will discharge more liquid at
the beginning and ends of runs but this is not felt
to be critical. The intent in the design of these
systems is to provide improved distribution to
prevent gross overloading while keeping the system
simple and inexpensive.
Q. by Timothy J. Bergin. What do you recommend
the cycle time of the pump to be? Do you feel that
there is any benefit in resting the field?
A. We recommend that fields be dosed 4 or more
times daily in porous soils and about once a day in
tight soils. The more frequent dosing is necessary
in the porous soils to prevent saturated conditions
from developing which allow easy transport of
pollutants. Less frequent dosing is recommended in
the tighter soils to permit the soil to drain and rest
between applications.
Q. by Robert D. Mutch, Jr. Can the pressure
distribution system operate effectively as a typical
gravity system in the event of pump failure?
A. No. We feel this will encourage the homeowner
to repair his system. If it were to continue to
operate after pump failure there would be little
incentive to replace the pump until it was too late.
Q. by Dennis E. Gray. Your slides indicate that
the filter media is a sand gravel mix. Is this the way
it was or did sand migrate down during excavation?
A. The sand migrated down while digging the
observation pits.
89
-------
Waste Surveillance in Subsurface Disposal Projects"
by Raphael Kazmann
ABSTRACT
Probably the most time-consuming procedure associ-
ated with a deep-well disposal project is found in the
follow-up, when the operation is monitored to make sure
that the injected material has not escaped from the target
aquifer.
The usual procedure is to monitor the pressure in the
annular space between the injection tubing and the exterior
well casing, to monitor the injection pressure and, in extra-
ordinary circumstances, to monitor water levels in an
observation well in the nearest aquifer above the one used
for disposal. This observation well is normally drilled at a
distance of 300 feet or more from the waste-injection well
and the theory is that if any of the injected waste is escaping
from the target aquifer, this transfer of fluid into the upper
aquifer will show up as a pressure increase, as compared to
the base line data obtained before injection started.
Now there may, indeed, be a slow rise in pressure in
the observation well. However, it may be so slow and so
small that many years may elapse before it can be conclu-
sively demonstrated that the pressure rise has actually
occurred. Then the problem is: Where is the leak and what
can be done? The reason for the tardiness in detection is
that the observation well will most likely be affected by
barometric changes, and these obscure the rise in pressure
(water level) caused by the leak. Moreover, if the leak
occurs at some distance from both the observation well and
the injection well (and this is likely), the rate of fluid
escape may be very small, possibly in the order of one
percent or less of the injection rate. So if the injection rate
is on the order of 700 gpm, we are talking about detecting
the escape of 7 gpm of fluid at a distance of many hundreds
of feet from the point of observation—an unlikely prospect.
The experimental and theoretical work now underway
at Louisiana State University may point the way to effective
waste monitoring and provide criteria which will lead to the
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974.
^Professor of Civil Engineering, Louisiana State Uni-
versity, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.
safe containment of wastes for periods comparable to those
used by geologists: from 10,000 to 100,000 years.
Our experimental work has shown that if the waste is
denser than the native fluid in the aquifer (chemical com-
patibility, non-plugging, safe injection pressures, etc., being
assumed), then, in a horizontal aquifer, where the waste
may move radially from the injection well, due to the
density difference (even though the injection well is com-
pletely penetrating) the waste tends to move to the base of
the receiving formation. In fact, if the injection rate and the
aquifer characteristics are known (or can be estimated to
within, say, a factor of 2 or 3) then the maximum distance
of travel along the roof of the aquifer can be computed.
This implies that if a leak should occur in the confining bed
at a greater distance than the computed maximum, the
fluid leaving the target aquifer might not be waste, but
might well be the brine contained in the target aquifer,
presumably a much less dangerous substance.
If our objective is to determine the position of the
waste front at any time after injection has begun, then it
will be necessary to drill monitor wells in the target aquifer
and to make multiple completions in the target aquifer from
which samples of fluid may be obtained. The question then
becomes: Where, and at what depths, shall the well be
located and the multiple-completions made? Our compu-
tational program is designed to answer these questions. The
precision of the results depends on the validity of the data
that is read into the program. We have verified the compu-
tational procedure on a miniature well field that is installed
on a miniature aquifer (miniaquifer) in the laboratory,
where all of the variables have either been determined or are
under our control. Thus the simplest case of injection into a
horizontal aquifer at a constant rate has been studied experi-
mentally and we have made 3-dimensional models of the
configuration of the waste after stated periods of time.
However, aquifers are seldom horizontal and they
usually have fluid moving within them (there is a slope to
the potentiometric surface). We are working on the compu-
tational programs that will take the initial movement of
ground water in the aquifer into account if the aquifer is
horizontal. We are also working on other programs which
take dip into account both in the presence of ground-water
movement or in its absence. All of these computational
results have been, and will be, tested experimentally by
injection projects in the miniaquifer. However, even before
90
-------
the mathematical models have been completed, some very
useful qualitative results have been obtained.
Among the most important of these is the conclusion
that a gently dipping aquifer, with no existing ground-water
movement, is a desirable target aquifer—particularly if the
waste is, or can be made, denser (higher specific gravity)
than the native water. Under such conditions, the volume of
pore space available between the injection well and the
nearest down-dip boundary, will govern the minimum safe
period of containment.
The recommendations for long-term waste disposal,
including monitoring, involve adequate hydrogeologic
evaluation of the containment aquifer prior to building the
waste disposal well. Although the initial cost of such a
project may be increased over costs now prevailing, a single
adequate study will make it possible to design more than
one disposal project in an area and make it possible to
protect the biosphere from the effects of noxious wastes for
a period further into the future than the time interval
between the construction of the first of the pyramids in
Egypt and the present day.
The injection of wastes through deep waste-
disposal wells has always included monitoring as
part of the process. However, for most part the
object of the monitoring has been to ascertain
whether or not the wastes have escaped either from
the well or from the target aquifer into adjacent
formations or the biosphere. Thus injection
pressures are continuously recorded as are rates of
injection; the pressure of fluid in the annulus be-
tween the injection string of tubing and the well
casing is watched so as to detect tubing leaks and,
rarely, the water levels or pressures in an overlying
formation are checked to detect pressure changes
that might be due to leakage of waste through a
crack or fissure of the confining bed (Goolsby,
1972, p. 359; Talbot, 1972, pp. 85-92).
Although current procedures have proven to
be generally satisfactory, the operating experience
of some of the oldest installations is less than a
decade in duration and of the estimated 270+ waste
injection wells now (1974) in operation, all but 35
have been built since 1962.
This short-lived experience with subsurface
waste disposal contrasts with the permanent
presence, of the exotic, injected wastes—from
pickling liquor to radioactive material—in the sub-
surface environment. For the sake of our own, and
future, generations we are justified in adopting the
"long view" in waste management with a time
horizon of a thousand years or more.
From such a viewpoint our information should
be of a positive nature; we should be actively inter-
ested in where the waste actually is at any time.
The current attitude, that things are going well if
we can b'e sure that the waste stays in the target
CONSTANT INJECTION
RATE, Q
w
:ll
t
POROSITY, <#
Fig. 1. Successive positions of waste front (t,, t2, t3) after
different intervals of waste injection.
aquifer and does not contaminate presently and
potentially useful subsurface resources, should be
modified and extended. Exploratory testing and
monitoring programs should be designed to evaluate
the target aquifer as a container for waste and to
enable us to keep track of the movement of the
waste for many years after injection has started.
We should be able to predict where the waste will
move to, how fast it will move, and when it will
arrive at one or more predetermined check points.
The usual method of computing the capacity
of an aquifer to accept waste is volumetric; assume
piston-displacement of the native water, then the
cumulative volume of waste injected is 7rr2h0, or a
cylinder of aquifer, radius r, thickness h, and
porosity 0. This visualization is a misleading one,
but it can be depicted schematically as in Figure 1.
Based on such a picture, the monitoring of
waste after it has been injected is readily accom-
plished; place one or more observation wells at
different distances from the injection well and then
the cumulative quantity of waste injected will be
equal to the average rate of injection, Q, multiplied
by the period of injection, t, and this, in turn, will
be equal to the volume of the cylinder whose
height is h, radius r, and porosity 0:
Qt =
(1)
For any particular distance the time needed for the
waste front to arrive can be readily computed.
There are several important omissions in this
91
-------
CONSTANT INJECTION
RATE. Q
POROSITY,
Fig. 2a. Schematic diagram showing effect of density differ-
ence on the shape of the injected waste (rp has reached its
maximum, rp is still growing).
AVERAGE POSITION
OF WASTE FRONT
h POROSITY,
Fig. 2b. Schematic diagram showing effect of density differ-
ence on shape of the waste body after a long period of
injection (rp has reached its maximum, rp is still growing).
visualization. First, what if the density of the waste
is different from that of the native ground water?
Even though the aquifer is horizontal, homoge-
neous, and isotropic, if the waste is denser than the
native water it will tend to settle to the floor of the
aquifer (if less dense it will float to the roof of the
aquifer). Moreover, after a period of injection,
when peripheral area of the slug of injected waste
reaches a critical value, the rate of descent to the
floor will equal the injection rate and the trace of
the upper part of the waste will reach a maximum
while the floor contact continues to expand. Again,
simplifying matters for purpose of explanation, the
situation can be best visualized by a study of
Figures 2a and 2b. In Figure 2a the contact circle
between aquifer roof (rR) and waste has reached a
maximum. However, continued injection of waste
does not increase rR but, as shown in Figure 2b, the
waste continues to expand its contact with the floor
of the aquifer. (If the waste is less dense than the
native water, the picture must, of course, be in-
verted; the contact between waste and aquifer floor
reaches a maximum for a given injection rate, and
the waste-roof contact continues to expand.)
At Louisiana State University we have been
trying to write a computer program to enable us to
put numbers on this process. We have been verifying
our computer program with a laboratory-size
aquifer that we call a "miniaquifer." It is simply a
slab of homemade sandstone consisting of blasting
sand and epoxy in which we have installed a
miniature well field together with pumps, sensing
devices and recorders. Figure 3 is an overview of
the miniaquifer. Figures 4a and 4b are photographs
of models that we have carved out of polyurethane
based on actual measurements made on the mini-
Fig. 3. Photograph of the miniaquifer with Professors
Kazmann and Whitehead in background.
92
-------
a
Fig. 4a. Photograph of a polyurethane model showing how a dense waste spreads out from an
injection well (white map-tack) in a horizontal aquifer. The model was carved on the basis of the
traces of waste front on the roof and floor of the miniaquifer after injection of a volume, V, of
waste. The traces of the waste, if viewed from directly above, are circles. Ap = 0.43
Fig. 4b. Appearance of waste after a volume 3 V has been injected. Note that most of the waste
has descended to the floor of the aquifer. The traces of the waste, if viewed from directly above,
are circles. Ap = 0.43
-------
Fig. 5a. Photograph of a polyurethane model showing how a dense waste spreads out from an
injection well (white map-tack) in an aquifer that dips toward the camera at an angle of 15°. The
model was carved on the basis of the traces of the waste front on the roof and floor of the mini-
aquifer after injection of volume, V, of waste (same volume as Figure 4a). The traces of the waste,
if viewed from directly above, are not circles, but the downdip radii are much larger than the
radii updip. Ap = 0.43
Fig. 5b. Appearance of waste after a volume 3 V has been injected. The traces of the waste, if
viewed from directly above, are not circular, but are distorted with most of the waste moving both
downdip and to the floor of the aquifer. Ap = 0.43
94
-------
aquifer. Figures 4a and 4b show how the waste
tends to flow to the floor of the aquifer, the rF
keeps expanding while rR remains about the same.
What is the significance of all this when waste
monitoring is.involved? Simply this: under the
circumstances pictured the monitor well must
extend to the floor of the aquifer and must be
screened close to the floor if the movement of
waste is to be detected. If the well is not placed at
the correct distance (depending on density differ-
ence, porosity, rate of injection and other factors),
and screened in the right place, the waste may not
be detected at all by the monitoring system. More-
over, the computation for distance (or time) made
possible by Equation 1 is totally useless.
On the other hand, the escape of a dense
waste to overlying aquifers at a distance from the
injection well reasonably greater than the maximum
radius of the waste-roof contact is unlikely. Native
salt water may escape, but the waste will probably
not; it will continue to spread along the base of the
aquifer.
If the complexity of the hydrogeology of the
target aquifer is increased because the aquifer
possesses dip, the proper placement of monitor
wells becomes a real achievement. Based on our
experimental work on miniaquifers, for any speci-
fied dip angle, density difference and injection
rate (not to mention porosity, thickness, and
permeability), the waste will move updip for some
maximum distance and then the waste front will
retreat toward the injection well. Meantime the
dense waste has moved downdip and has spread
out on the floor of the aquifer. Figures 5a and 5b
are photographs of polyurethane models of the
slug of waste in a dipping aquifer. The models
were made on the basis of observed frontal
positions in the miniaquifer during an experimental
run.
If any conclusion is to be drawn, it is that
monitor wells should not be placed directly updip
from the waste injection well when the density of
the waste is greater than the density of the native
water. Another conclusion might be that it is
possible to place monitor wells near the injection
well in such locations that no trace of the injected
waste will be noted, if the monitoring is to be
believed.
Pre-existing ground-water flow in the receiving
aquifer will also have an effect on the positioning
of monitor wells. Figure 6 is a schematic diagram
showing the successive approximate positions of a
waste front in a horizontal aquifer together with
the cross sections of the waste stream. It should be
GROUND-WATER li ]
MOVEMENT I '
CONSTANT INJECTION
RATE, Q
Well
POROSITY,
Fig. 6. Successive average positions of the waste front at the
ends of different periods of injection (t,, t2, t3). Diagram
shows the effect of pre-existing ground-water movement on
the shape of the injected volume of waste.
noted that the word "approximate" is used to
modify the word "position." This word is intended
to warn the reader that as a waste front moves in an
aquifer, miscibly displacing the native water, a
"mixed zone" is formed due to convective disper-
sion (and to a lesser extent, diffusion) in which the
proportion of waste ranges from 100 percent to
zero. The further the movement of the waste
front, the larger the mixed zone becomes. Of
course, these remarks are applicable to all of the
preceding examples; they were not introduced
immediately to keep the analysis from becoming
prematurely complicated.
Should the aquifer possess dip and the ground
water be in motion, matters become even more
complicated; the proper placement of wells for
monitoring purposes probably should not be
accomplished solely on the basis of the hydrogeo-
logical survey prior to the drilling of injection wells.
Some of the wells should be installed after a year or
two of observations in the initial monitor wells.
The work at Louisiana State University has
already resulted in computational procedures that
enable the engineer to determine the position of
the waste front in a horizontal aquifer or in a
horizontal aquifer in which ground-water movement
is already in progress. We are still working on the
problem of frontal position in a dipping aquifer
95
-------
with the various parameters of ground-water move-
ment, density difference and viscosity difference-
assuming miscible displacement.
FIELD APPLICATIONS
The preceding paragraphs bring into focus the
necessity of studying the regional hydrogeology as
well as the local geology of the target aquifer. Some
of the implications of regional hydrogeology have
been outlined by Bergstrom (1968) and Bond
(1972) but these have dealt with the deep, consoli-
dated aquifers that underlie the State of Illinois.
Freeze (1972, p. 128) briefly discussed regional
hydrogeology and tentatively decided that as
between sanitary landfill and deep well injection,
the landfill was a safe and reliable method of dis-
posing of solid wastes (despite the movement of
liquid leachate into underlying aquifers) whereas
"the injection of liquid wastes into deep geologic
formations. . . leads to irreversible subsurface
pollution." He did not say, however, whether the
existing fluid in the target aquifer could not also
be considered "irreversibly polluted."
In the time scale that we have used to evaluate
containment, the most satisfactory aquifer is one
that possesses dip, is permeable and porous, and the
density difference between the native water and the
injected waste is not less than 0.02 gm/cc and is,
preferably, greater than that, the injected waste
possessing the higher density. The miscibility of the
fluids is assumed and the assumption made that the
viscosity of the injected fluid is equal to or greater
than that of the native fluid. The principal require-
ment is that there be a substantial distance between
the point of waste injection and the nearest down-
dip fault—a distance great enough to require a com-
puted travel time of 50 years or more." For a waste-
injection rate of 700 gpm (2.7 nWmin), an aquifer
with an effective porosity of 20 percent, a permea-
bility of 200 gpd/ft2 (9.4 X 10"3 cm/sec), thickness
of 100 ft (30 m), a dip of 40 ft/mile (.0075), and a
density difference between the native and injected
fluids of 0.10 gm/cc, the minimum distance
between the injection well and boundary should be
at least 2.5 miles (4 km). We might assume that
after the waste front reached the boundary the
waste would be "ponded" and would spread later-
ally along the boundary as the depth of the waste
increased, meantime forcing the native water updip
and slowly increasing the discharge to the subsea
outcrop, which might be several tens of miles away.
The waste would be in permanent storage, barring
catastrophic geologic changes, at least for a period
several times longer than the recorded history of
mankind. Since the waste would be moving primar-
ily along the floor of the salaquifer, there would be
little chance of upward movement into the bio-
sphere.
CONCLUSIONS
The injection of wastes into deep aquifers that
are presently filled with saline water is a technically
feasible method of long-term, essentially perma-
nent, removal of wastes from the surface environ-
ment. Accepted procedures now in use for the
construction of waste injection wells have proven to
be satisfactory. The "management" of these wastes
has not yet been achieved—the attitude has been,
"out of sight, out of mind."
Future waste injection projects should be
based on adequate knowledge of the regional
geology of the target aquifer; thickness, dip, faults
that obstruct regional flow, and the density or
density distribution of the native fluid in addition
to such parameters as porosity, permeability and
storativity. It is highly probable that permanent
containment of wastes for periods of time that may
be measured in tens of thousands of years will
prove feasible. For a waste fluid that is denser than
the native fluid the period of containment will
depend on the usable volume of pore space down-
dip from the injection well field to the boundary,
be it a fault, a permeability pinchout, or the
synclinal axis of the salaquifer.
It may not be much of an exaggeration to say
that if the density of the waste fluid is greater than
that of the aquifer fluid and the aquifer is not
horizontal, the safety of the project is almost
certain and the monitoring requirements will be
minimal. If the injected fluid is lighter than the
native fluid, no parallel statement can be made as
to the safety or life of the project, but a system of
monitor wells can be devised so that the waste can
be tracked and managed—measures can be taken
to prevent the waste from reaching the biosphere.
Who should bear the cost of such corrective
procedures, which might not be needed for decades
or centuries, is not a topic here.
Regardless of the ratio of density between the
injected and native fluids, monitoring wells will be
needed to determine the long-term interactions
between the waste, the aquifer fluids and the
materials of the aquifer and the confining beds.
Osmotic effects cannot be neglected, as they may
lead to unanticipated increases in the pressure
within the target aquifer and thus increase costs of
waste disposal. Thus monitoring of the pressures
within the salaquifer will also be required.
96
-------
Although much remains to be accomplished,
computational procedures to yield the required
information for the proper placement of wells for
monitoring have been developed for specific
hydrogeologic circumstances—when there is little
or no pre-existing ground-water flow and the
aquifer dip is small or negligible, and when the
aquifer is horizontal and there is ground-water
flow. The computational procedure has been
applied to the prediction of results of injection
into a small, laboratory size, artificially consoli-
dated, sandstone aquifer. The equations, and
computational procedure for solving them by a
stepwise procedure, have been substantially vali-
dated by visual observation of the movement of
fluid in the laboratory aquifer.
The equations and the procedure have been
applied to typical hydrologic situations in the field,
using parameters that are typical of aquifers that
might be used to contain waste materials. Based on
this information the distances and directions of
wells for monitoring the movement and quality of
waste have been computed.
Additional work in the field of miscible dis-
placement1 is needed to provide a sound basis for
the engineering design of monitoring facilities for
management of wastes that have been injected into
salaquifers. Present computational procedures must
be improved and their range of applicability ex-
tended. Verification of the computational results
by applying them to miniaquifers in the laboratory
should, logically, precede field testing.
Note: Printouts of the computer procedures
to determine the frontal positions in a horizontal
aquifer with or without pre-existing ground-water
movement are available upon request to the
Louisiana Water Resources Research Institute.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Much' of the experimental and computational
work referred to in this paper has been performed
by graduate and undergraduate students of the
Departments of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at
Louisiana State University under the direction of
the writer and Professor 0. K. Kimbler of the
Department of Petroleum Engineering (1970, 1974).
Special mention should be made of the experimental
and computational efforts of Omar Esmail (1967),
Anil Kumar (1970), Thomas Painter (1971), Walid
Esmail (1973), and Walter R. Whitehead (1974).
Many of the computations, and the experiments
that were photographed, were performed by Dr.
Whitehead while he was obtaining his Ph.D. degree
at Louisiana State University, and the writer is
most grateful for his assistance. The various phases
of the work were funded under grants administered
by the Louisiana Water Resources Research Insti-
tute and funded by the USDI Office of Water
Resources Research under P.L. 88-379. The theo-
retical and experimental studies have been accom-
plished under projects A-002-LA, A-011-LA,
A-022-LA, A-027-LA, and A-034-LA.
REFERENCES
Ballentine, R. K., S. R. Reznek, and C. W. Hall. 1972.
Subsurface pollution problems in the United States.
EPA Technical Studies Report TS-00-72-02,
Washington, D.C.
Barlow, A. C. 1972. Basic disposal well design. In Under-
ground Waste Management and Environmental Impli-
cations, AAPG Memoir 18, pp. 72-76.
Bergstrom, Robert E. 1968. Feasibility of subsurface dis-
posal of industrial wastes in Illinois. Illinois State
Geological Survey Circular 426, Urbana, 111.
Bond, D. C. 1972. Hydrodynamics in deep aquifers of the
Illinois Basin. Illinois State Geological Survey Circular
470, Urbana, 111.
Esmail, Omar J., and Oscar K. Kimbler. 1967. Investigation
of the technical feasibility of storing fresh water in
saline aquifers. Water Resources Research, v. 3, no. 3,
pp. 683-695.
Esmail, Walid. 1973. The effect of flux and gravitational
forces on miscible displacement in a thin homoge-
neous bed. M.S. Thesis, Louisiana State Univ.
Freeze, R. A. 1972. Subsurface hydrology at waste disposal
sites. IBM Jour, of Res. and Dev. (reprint), v. 16, no.
2, March, pp. 117-129.
Goolsby, Donald A. 1972. Geochemical effects and move-
ment of injected industrial wastes in a limestone
aquifer. In Underground Waste Management and
Environmental Implications, AAPG Memoir 18, pp.
355-368.
Kimbler, Oscar K. 1970. Fluid model studies of the storage
of freshwater in saline aquifers. Water Resources
Research, v. 6, no. 5, October, pp. 1522-1527.
Kimbler, Oscar K., R. G. Kazmann^and W. R. Whitehead.
1974. Storage of fresh water in saline water aquifers.
Louisiana Water Resources Research Institute Bulletin
10, Louisiana State Univ. (in preparation).
Kumar, Anil, and Oscar K. Kimbler. 1970. Effect of dis-
persion, gravitational segregation, and formation strati-
fication on the recovery of freshwater stored in saline
aquifers. Water Resources Research, v. 6, no. 6,
December, pp. 1689-1700.
Painter, T. R. 1971. Unequal density miscible displacement
in thin homogeneous tilted beds. M.S. Thesis,
Louisiana State Univ.
Talbot, J. S. 1972. Requirements for the monitoring of
industrial deep well waste-disposal systems. In Under-
ground Waste Management and Environmental Impli-
cations, AAPG Memoir 18, pp. 85-92.
Whitehead, W. R. 1974. Storage of fresh water in saline
aquifers using a well field. Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisi-
ana State Univ.
97
-------
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by Raphael
Kazmann after delivering his talk entitled "Waste
Surveillance in Subsurface Disposal Projects."
Q. by C. A. Pascale. What was the difference in
density between the 2 fluids used in your models?
A. 0.45 gr/cubic cm.
Q. by Dan W. Bench. What is the importance of the
injection pressure and the possibility of hydraulic
fracturing?
A. The maximum injection pressure, as indicated
in the paper, should not be permitted to exceed 80
percent of the fracturing pressure, defined as one
p.s.i. per foot of depth. An aquifer 1000 feet deep
would have a frac-pressure of 1000 p.s.i. and the
maximum pressure in the aquifer due to injection
should be kept below 800 p.s.i.
Q. by Kent Ballentine. On a policy basis, does it
seem reasonable to discharge a noxious fluid into
an aquifer which has sufficient flow to distort the
fluid front profile? Is this containment?
A. Yes, to both questions. With an appropriate
and adequate density difference and a sufficient
distance to the point of discharge the system can
be made perfectly safe for as long a period as might
be desired.
Q. by K. Childs. Deep wells are really a method of
waste storage, not "disposal." What is the long-
term effect of storing large volumes of undesirable
liquid, frequently under high pressure, in the
'ground? Consider the problem in Colorado of
recent earthquakes,
A. This is really two questions in one. The choice
of very deep, fractured igneous rocks in which the
fluid pressure was relatively low was not a good
one. The increase in pressure due to injection
reduced the grain-to-grain frictional resistance to
lateral or vertical stress and facilitated stress-
relieving rock movements that were manifested as
earthquakes.
Storage of wastes in deep sandstones or uncon-
solidated granular material should just increase the
pressure and either additionally compress the native
fluid or force it to its outcrop more rapidly, depend-
ing on whether or not ground-water movement was
occurring prior to injection. The geochemical
hydrodynamics (produced by osmotic forces) were
not covered in the talk, but the pressure sensing
monitor wells would show an unanticipated,
uncalculated increase in pressure which would serve
to alert the waste managers that some pressure relief
operations (by removing native fluid) might be in
order.
Q. by H. R. Sweet. How do you take into account
vertical-horizontal permeability differences?
A. At this time we do not even know how to
determine such differences by means of field tests.
Under such circumstances it would be essential
that the injected waste be denser than the native
water.
Q. by S. K. Tyagi. Waste disposal though recom-
mended higher in density will contaminate the
aquifer by virtue of the fact that it comes in contact
with the aquifer. Please comment.
A. Chemical interaction between waste and aquifer
material was not covered. However, the aquifer
should be studied (samples of fluid, material,
confining beds, etc.) for chemical reactions between
waste and aquifer components. The waste will, if
denser than native water, spread downdip along the
floor of the receiving aquifer.
Q. by R. C. Scott. In reference to the last slide
(Figure 6), should not the interface tilt be greater
on the stabilized upgradient front than on the
mobile downgradient front, as long as that front is
moving?
A. The upgradient interface will be closer to the
vertical than the downgradient interface.
98
-------
Hydrocarbon Dispersion in Ground Water:
a
Significance and Characteristics
by John O. Osgood
ABSTRACT
Ground-water contamination resulting from .hydro-
carbon spills is a significant problem which has received
little attention. Over two hundred spills to the ground have
been investigated during the last two and a half years by the
Ground Water Section of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources. Explosions, injuries, damaged
water supplies and other serious consequences have forced
the recognition that these cases are important. Since Federal
regulations are unsatisfactory in preventing spills to the
ground, it is clearly the responsibility of the State to develop
meaningful controls.
Hydrocarbon dispersion is essentially a shallow
ground-water problem. The hydrogeologic characteristics
at the spill site are critical in determining dispersion once
the hydrocarbon has reached the water table. The hydro-
carbon is largely contained on top of the water table. In
unconsolidated deposits or in fill material, the shallow
ground-water flow system and the direction of hydrocarbon
dispersion will coincide. In sedimentary rocks the orientation
of the rock becomes critical. When the dip is shallow enough
to contain the water table, dispersion may either coincide
with the major flow direction or may diverge from it where
facies changes or significant changes in packing are
encountered. Dispersion will parallel the strike of the rock
in more steeply dipping rocks rather than the major
ground-water flow direction. Lateral movement will be
controlled by jointing and fracturing. Solution channels and
fractures exert the major controlling influence on heavily
cemented soluble limestones. In tightly cemented elastics,
crystalline rocks and less soluble carbonates, contaminant
flows on top of the water table in fractures. Hydrocarbons
may be imprisoned where solution channels and fractures
do not intercept other openings within the water-table
plane.
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974.
bChief, Ground Water Quality Management Unit,
Bureau of Water Quality Management, Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources, P.O. Box 2063, Harris-
burg, Pennsylvania 17120.
Recovery programs for most hydrocarbon spills are
complex. Larger cases receive the greatest attention;
however, smaller ones are actually more significant since
they are more common. Recovery costs are expensive and
complete removal is extremely time-consuming. Better
maintenance and emergency response plans must be
developed, even by small users. Federal and State govern-
ments must recognize the problem as being serious and
must develop revolving product recovery funds to be used
in ground-water cases. Lastly, ground-water spills must be
handled by ground-water specialists. Experimentation by
those who lack the proper qualifications can prove very
costly.
INTRODUCTION
We have begun as a nation to recognize the
harmful effects of hydrocarbons on the environ-
ment. Effective regulations have been established to
protect our streams, lakes, ocean waters, and air
from contamination. However, the same degree of
concern shown these areas is lacking when hydro-
carbon spills to ground water are considered. The
Federal Government took the lead in oil pollution
prevention when the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 was passed. This legislation
excluded spills to ground water from consideration.
Even when subsequent amendments were added to
strengthen controls on oil spills, prevention of
ground-water pollution was still excluded from its
scope. Part 112, for example, was added in 1973 to
establish Spill Prevention Control and Counter-
measure (SPCC) Plans. SPCC Plans outline the ;v
measures required of oil handlers and processors to
develop prevention and recovery activities which
can be initiated rapidly if a spill occurs. It is
interesting to note that petroleum facilities with a
total subsurface storage capacity of less than
42,000 gallons are not required to develop these ;
plans. This amount of gasoline is enough to pollute
6.7 trillion gallons of ground water beyond the
threshold of taste. That is equivalent to 40 years of
99
-------
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's present water-supply
needs. In contrast, a facility having a single, above
ground, storage container with a capacity exceeding
660 gallons is required to develop a plan. In
addition, regulations requiring SPCC Plans apply
only when facilities "due to their location, could
reasonably be expected to discharge oil in harmful
quantities . . . into or upon the navigable waters of
the United States or adjoining shore lines" (EPA,
1973). If the oil can be contained by the hydro-
geologic system, no plan is needed. No attention is
paid to the near permanent damage which may be
done to the subsurface environment. It is obvious
that the Federal Government specifically excluded
the protection of ground water from their oil
pollution prevention laws.
In the absence of Federal guidelines, it is the
responsibility of each State to establish its own
ground-water prevention and emergency response
program. Pennsylvania is meeting this challenge.
The following discussion outlines some of its
conclusions.
SIGNIFICANCE
During the past 2% years, geologists from the
Ground Water Section 'of the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources have investigated
over 200 hydrocarbon spills as part of their normal
prevention-abatement program activities. One point
above all others has made itself clear—that spills to
the ground water are significant and dangerous. In
that time, more than 8 homes were destroyed when
fumes entered the houses, concentrated to
explosive levels and ignited. At least 17 persons
were injured in these explosions, 3 seriously. In
addition, 115 homes were abandoned or adversely
affected by gasoline fumes. Many were uninhabit-
able for extended periods while others were
permanently abandoned. Fourteen public-water
supplies were threatened or polluted affecting the
water needs of over 800,000 persons. The water
quality of 104 wells was seriously damaged when
they became contaminated by petroleum
pollutants. The individuals affected were required.
to obtain alternate water supplies by redrilling their
existing wells, by drilling new wells, by joining
public-water systems, or by carrying water until
their supply became useable once again. This was
usually accomplished with an exasperating amount
of personal hardship.
Solutions to cases where ground water has
been polluted by hydrocarbon spills are almost
always complex and time consuming. Many times
the damage can be considered permanent since no
practical recovery within a reasonable time period
is possible. It is estimated that in the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania spills or leaks of petroleum
products are the third leading cause of ground-
water pollution. Although the frequency of hydro-
carbon spills varies from State to State, the severity
of the problem and the potential dangers derived
from them makes the experiences learned in
Pennsylvania typical. The situation is serious.
Almost every case which has come to the
attention of the Department resulted from a
pollution complaint. This is true in spite of a very
strong State regulation which requires the
individuals responsible for a spill or leak to notify
the Department immediately after it is discovered.
Two factors account for the situation. The problem
is aggravated by the almost universal attitude faced
by those of us involved in ground-water protection—
the lack of insight shown by people who do not
understand what they cannot see but who, by the
very nature of their work, should. Further,
petroleum handlers commonly underestimate the
impact of a "small" spill on the subsurface environ-
ment. Compared to the large volumes sold, sloppy
handling-of gasoline or the slow leak of 200 gallons
at a service station is either overlooked as being
unimportant or passes unnoticed. Losses of 10,000
to 15,000 gallons of various liquid petroleum
derivatives from buried pipelines can go unrecog-
nized until some sign of the leak is spotted at the
surface. Six thousand gallons of gasoline or fuel
oil spilled from an overturned tank truck and
washed into the soil along the roadway is
considered a safe way of getting rid of the problem.
One such case in central Pennsylvania resulted in
the partial closing of an interstate highway, inter-
mittent explosions for several days from a nearby
spring, the destruction of aquatic life for over one
mile downstream of the ground-water discharge
point, the closing of a public water supply located
approximately 2 miles downstream for one day, the
partial abandonment of a nearby motel as a result
of fumes, and in extensive fines and recovery costs
for the company transporting the material. At the
time of the accident, all wreckage was cleaned up
and the spill product was allowed to soak into the
ground. The fire department, the driver, and the
owners of the trucking company returned home
unaware that the most significant impact from the
accident was yet to come.
Many similar examples can be cited. Volumes
lost in the cases investigated were as little as 10
gallons to as much as 300,000-400,000. Approxi-
mately 50 gallons were lost in one case when a slow
100
-------
Table 1. Distribution of Cases Involving Hydrocarbon
Spills Handled by the Ground Water Section Since 1971
Type Causes
Percent
Service Station Leaks
Private Sources
Pipeline Breaks
Industrial Storage Tanks
Bulk, Storage Areas
Transportation Spills
Unknown
51
18
9
9
7
4
2
leaking valve on a tank truck dripped fuel oil to
the ground. The truck was being used to refuel
vehicles at a construction site and was parked in a
driveway for only 2 afternoons. Two private wells
were made unuseable for several months as a result.
Another case developed when crude oil was dis-
covered in a newly installed well. The investigation
showed that a pipeline break in 1953 had spilled a
tremendous volume of crude oil which was never
cleaned up. It was still there 20 years later.
The distribution of cases which the Ground
Water Section has responded to since 1971 (Table
1) indicates that buried gasoline tanks at service
stations have been the most common source of
leaks investigated. There are over 11,000 service
stations in'Pennsylvania and approximately 2,300
subsurface gasoline tanks are installed in the State
each year. The number of known leakers are
relatively small when compared to the total of
newly installed tanks. However, many of the new
tanks reflect new service station installations and
increased volume capacities through tank replace-
ments. The majority of those remaining are
undoubtedly replaced as a result of leaking tanks
and are never reported.
The first major push to force storage tanks
underground occurred as a precaution during the
Second World War. As a result, large numbers of
buried tanks are now approaching the end of their
tank life. Additional problems can be expected
from the abandonment of service stations and
their conversion to other uses as a result of the
recent "gasoline crisis." Stations placed back into
service after being out of use for extended periods
may especially be prone to leaks. During this
period, management frequently changes hands, the
facility can be placed back into service with
inadequate preparation and the long period of
disuse can stimulate corrosion if the tanks remain
empty.
The common service station problem is
identified when neighbors taste or smell gasoline in
their water or recognize its odor in their homes.
Volumes lost are generally in the 200 to 600 gallon
range; however, losses up to 14,000 gallons have
been investigated. Service station cases are usually
quite significant since they are frequently located
in built-up areas where serious problems may
develop. Rapid recovery actions are required to
contain the lost product. This is almost always
hampered by the fact that the station manager is
unprepared for this type of emergency.
When the Department is eventually notified, a
Regional Geologist is sent immediately to
investigate. This is true for any petroleum spill
regardless of its source and a response time of 2-3
hours is attempted for any spill in the State. He
makes an assessment of the situation and directs
the initial recovery operations. If he feels that the
case can be handled quickly, he will direct all
recovery operations himself. The responsible party
is expected to obtain all equipment and man-power
required. If the case is more involved, the Regional
Geologist will require the responsible party to hire a
Ground Water Specialist to work under the Regional
Geologist's direction. The specialist will identify
the extent of contamination, develop a recovery
program, and conduct recovery operations. The
responsible party is required to finance these
activities until the problem is abated to the Depart-
ment's satisfaction. If no responsible party is
identified or if a stronger legal case is necessary,
recovery actions are made more difficult. Task
forces have been voluntarily established in some
cases by all operators who may be potentially
responsible. Each member contributes an equal
share to the recovery program. When a case is
considered an emergency situation, the State will
supply funds from a revolving account established
by the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Act. All
expenditures are recovered from the responsible
party once the source is identified. Very minor
cases where recovery is for all practicable purposes
impossible, are monitored until the problem
subsides. This method of operation has proven to
be very effective.
Heating oil leaking from buried and surface '
storage tanks at private residences is another
important cause of contamination. Since these
tanks are not monitored during use, it is difficult
to assess the amounts lost. Tank sizes are usually
small; however, small leaks over long periods of
time can account for considerable amounts of '
product lost. Estimates are usually from 100 to
300 gallons; however, in at least one case '
approximately 4,000 gallons of fuel oil was lost.
101
-------
Pipeline breaks supply some of the largest
volumes lost to the ground water. As such, they
usually get a great deal of attention. One break,
occurring in northeastern Pennsylvania, spilled high
octane gasoline into the well field of a public water
supply. Over 130,000 gallons were lost in the
soluble limestone terrain. Forty-three recovery
wells were drilled and through quick action most of
the product was retained at the site. Though the
ground-water quality of the well field was ruined,
the existing wells served to contain the spill and
were the first step in recovery operations.
Storage tanks at industrial factories, power
plants, transportation establishments, and other
similar facilities are also places where leaks of
petroleum are common. Many cases are similar to
service station problems since the same size tanks
are usually involved. Losses of up to 8,000 gallons
have been investigated. Other cases connected with
industrial activities result when poor handling and
disposal techniques enable petroleum materials to
be spilled onto the ground during manufacturing
and processing. These cases are usually quite
advanced before the problem is recognized. Small
amounts of waste spilled over long periods of time
disperse widely. Recovery is difficult, costly, and
usually meets with a great deal of resistance on the
part of responsible individuals who must pay
recovery costs.
Bulk storage areas are another major source of
hydrocarbon spills. Cases have resulted from leaking
underground lines within the safety dike areas,
from draining operations involving condensate
removal, from ruptured tanks, and from faulty
fittings. The amount lost is quite variable and has
the potential to be tremendous. The majority of
safety containment impoundments surrounding
bulk storage areas are not impermeable. Many even
contain outcrops which serve as perfect direct
avenues of escape for the spilled product (Figure 1).
Two thousand four hundred thirty-six gallons of
gasoline were lost in one case when a large tank
overtopped while it was being filled. The gasoline
escaped so fast through the highly soluble limestone
underlying the site, that no product could be
recovered.
Accidents occurring during transportation of
product offer special problems. The prime concern
at the accident site is the prevention of explosions
and fires. This is usually done by washing the
petroleum into the soil as fast as possible. The
major danger, however, is that the problem is just
being transferred. Though it is recognized that the
safety of human life must be the first consideration,
Fig. 1. Outcrops located in safety containment impound-
ments at bulk storage areas offer an excellent avenue for the
escape of spilled gasoline.
many excellent sorbent materials are available. They
can be spread on the migrating gasoline or oil and
removed in most cases. This will reduce fumes and
facilitate product recovery. Fire departments and
petroleum handlers should give thought to retaining
spilled materials before they cause major environ-
mental damage. The volumes of petroleum lost
varies from only a few gallons in an automobile
accident to several thousand gallons in railroad
derailments. Thirty-five thousand gallons of oil
were spilled in one railroad derailment in north-
western Pennsylvania alone. Tank truck accidents
are also a cause of ground-water pollution. The
case previously cited is an excellent example.
The largest case in the State occurred in 1970
when gasoline was identified in a newly drilled well.
The source is unknown to this day in spite of a
substantial effort to locate it. Recovery activities
were conducted by a task force of all petroleum
handlers in the area under the Department's
direction. Three bulk storage areas and two major
pipelines are located within a quarter square mile of
the site. Over 270,000 gallons of raw gasoline have
102
-------
been recovered to date and operations are still
continuing.
Spills and leaks of petroleum products are
frequent enough and serious enough to merit
special attention. We are talking about more than
just dirty water. The well-being and indeed the very
lives of the citizens of this nation are endangered
when proper respect is not given to the problem.
The responsibility is clear. It is up to each State to
examine its regulations and integrate the dispersed
regulative authorities into one effective response
team. This must be done in order to protect the
health and welfare of its citizens as well as the water
resources of its State.
CHARACTERISTICS
Ground-water contamination resulting from
hydrocarbon spills is essentially a shallow-water
problem. This is due to the relative insolubility of
hydrocarbons in water. The water table acts as an
impenetrable barrier to the downward migration of
the spilled hydrocarbons. As a result, the dispersion
of hydrocarbons is basically limited to the curvi-
planar surface of the water table. Since the water
table generally reflects topography, relating the
ground-water flow system to topography usually
serves as a good guide. This generalization can
especially be applied when the flow of soluble
contaminants is being traced. Soluble contaminants
are able to move through the ground-water system
in a true 3-dimensional manner. Hydrocarbons,
however, must flow in the direction of least
resistance on top of the water table. Contaminant
transport under static conditions is, therefore,
controlled by the ability of the hydrocarbons to
circumvent obstructions within this plane of flow.
Thus, 2 major hydrogeologic factors act in
conjunction to control hydrocarbon dispersion,
barriers to planar flow which retard flow under
static conditions and water-table fluctuations
which permit hydrocarbons to flow under or over
these obstacles.
Generally, the characteristics of the base
materials at the spill site are critical, since they
control the barrier properties which obstruct dis-
persion. Rates of supply and volumes lost, however,
have a greater influence on the actual dispersion
characteristics than do the base materials when fill
and unconsolidated sediments are involved. Spilled
hydrocarbons begin to saturate the soil as soon as
they are released. Relatively large volumes lost over
short periods of time will develop mounds. The
mounds are supported by the relative porosity,
permeability, adsorption, and pellicular character-
istics of the base materials which resist downward
flow. Dispersion occurs as the product moves out
on the water table from the "leaking" mound. In
fill or in unconsolidated sediments, flow is largely
unconfined. As a result, the major flow direction
of the hydrocarbons will coincide with the major
flow direction of the shallow ground-water system.
Controls on the flow of hydrocarbons are minimal
and dispersion is commonly rapid. A wider area is
usually affected than when consolidated materials
are involved. Recovery operations are generally
more difficult especially when quick action is not
taken. The hydrocarbons disperse to a thin layer
which usually requires extensive trenching for
shallow water tables and wells for deeper ones.
Pumping the wells recovers little product and
considerable water which increases disposal
problems.
Many of these dispersion characteristics
change in consolidated materials. Contaminated
flow is controlled very heavily by geologic factors.
In sedimentary rocks, the orientation of the rock
and the primary depositional characteristics of the
unit are as critical as porosity and permeability.
Whether the principal influence on ground-water
flow will be the sedimentary characteristics of the
rock or its fracture properties is to a large degree
controlled by the extent of cementation and
packing. Fracturing becomes more important in
controlling ground-water flow characteristics as the
rock becomes denser and the hydrocarbon
contaminant will flow into fractures where they
intercept the water table. In poorly cemented to
moderately cemented sedimentary rocks, the
orientation and depositional characteristics of the
unit are most important. When the dip is shallow,
facies changes and sorting and packing character-
istics control dispersion and dispersion rates. Under
these circumstances, the water table is essentially
within a single geologic unit and lateral changes in
texture act to impede contaminant flow. The
hydrocarbons flow at an angle to the local ground-
water flow system as it moves around these
obstacles (Figure 2). In more steeply dipping rock
units, the dominant flow direction of the hydro-
carbons is parallel to the strike, downslope, rather i
than down the dominant local hydraulic gradient
(Figure 3). Deviations from the strike direction are
accomplished through a side-stepping action con-
trolled by jointing and fracturing. The normal
tendency of the hydrocarbons to move in the major
ground-water flow direction is offset by its inability
to penetrate successive bedding units in the
direction of dip. Each unit has a different set of
103
-------
rSPILL
SITE
CROSS SECTION
PLANAR VIEW
Ground Water Flow
^Contaminant Flow
Fig. 2. Hydrocarbon flow is diverted by facies changes and packing changes in shallow dipping clastic sedimentary units.
rSPILL
SITE
CROSS SECTION
PLANAR VIEW
Fig. 3. Hydrocarbon flow commonly parallels the strike direction in more steeply dipping sedimentary rock units.
weathering, textural, and packing characteristics
which act to inhibit planar flow. This feature acts
to channelize the hydrocarbons which may
facilitate recovery operations once the particular
bedding channel has been discovered. Gasoline was
first discovered flowing from a spring in one case
investigated. The source was subsequently
discovered to be a leaking pipe buried in a bulk
storage area approximately 1A mile away. The leak
was almost directly on strike. Wells were drilled
along major fracture traces to facilitate recovery
operations, and discharge locations downgradient
from the leak site were monitored. No deviation
from the strike direction occurred. This is still true
2!/2 years later. Small amounts of gasoline are still
flowing and still being collected from the spring
(Figure 4).
In carbonate rocks, unit orientation, as dis-
cussed before, solution openings and fractures
are the 3 most important factors controlling dis-
persion. The network of solution openings and
fractures form a complex flow system. In some
cases, these systems hold the hydrocarbons for long
periods of time while, in others, the product
Fig. 4. Gasoline is collected in impoundments as it flows
from a spring in the foreground. A leaking buried line in the
bulk storage area caused the problem.
104
-------
maneuvers through a circuitous route. Recovery
operations are extremely complex and usually
require an extensive drilling program.
Fractures are extremely important when
tracing dispersion directions in crystalline rocks,
tightly cemented clastic rocks, and in poorly
soluble carbonates. Hydrocarbons flow on top of
the water table in fractures where they may be
imprisoned when they do not intercept other
openings within the water-table plane. Fracture
trace analysis, using airphoto interpretation, is the
best method of locating major fractures which
could be transporting the spilled product. Well-
developed local fracturing systems can carry the
product quickly over large areas through rather
random paths.
Hydrocarbon dispersion has been treated as a
2-dimensional system up to now; however, the
third dimension is supplied by fluctuations of the
water table. Activities which take place within the
capillary fringe zone may also be important in
supplying vertical mobility. These activities enable
hydrocarbons to migrate over and under obstacles
which would otherwise retard flow. As a result,
dispersion is able to advance beyond the point it
would have been capable of under static conditions.
Water-table fluctuations permit considerable
dispersion in carbonate terrain. Spilled product can
migrate through the soil until it enters a solution
channel where it is impounded on top of the water
table. No indication of a problem may have
developed up to this point. A rising water table can
then lift the hydrocarbons over an obstacle to
higher solution channels where dispersion will
continue. Some product is left behind in pockets
when the water table drops. Later shifts may
advance the hydrocarbon to wells where the con-
tamination may be noticed for the first time. The
pipeline break, referred to earlier, which occurred
in central Pennsylvania in 1953, spilled 40 to
50,000 gallons of crude oil into the ground. The
area was farm land and a private well near the spill
was contaminated. The well was heavily pumped for
3 months and a settlement finally was made with
the owner of the well. In the mid 60's, a severe
drought hit the area. The water table dropped and
wells for several miles began showing hydrocarbon
contamination. The problem cleared when the
water table returned to its original level. To this
day, pockets of the raw product are found when
new wells are drilled and places where crops will
not grow are common. In a few rare cases, evidence
seems to indicate that another type of hydrologic
pumping may occur. It may be possible for the
product to move upgrade in poorly consolidated
units perhaps by a mechanism similar to soil creep
in reverse. The buoyant character of the hydro-
carbon is an upward force in the vertical plane
opposed to gravity. Regional ground-water
fluctuations parallel the inclined plane of the
water table. Frequent minor fluctuations may
pump the product upslope lifting it vertically and
settling it back at higher elevations when the water
table drops. Another explanation may be that the
gasoline undergoes a phase change from a liquid to
gaseous state, migrates upgradient, and then changes
once again back to a liquid. Research into these
possibilities would be most interesting.
Though oil products are generally not found
in deeper systems, they will, under certain circum-
stances, contaminate deeper aquifers. The most
common cause results from dewatering of perched
aquifers. Complex bypassing of several wells is
common and depends upon casing properties. When
water supplies become critical during dry periods or
when improperly sealed or abandoned wells permit
the shallow system to drain, drawdown from
active wells will frequently pull hydrocarbons into
its cone of depression. Flow towards the well will
concentrate the hydrocarbons around the outside
of the casing as more is added. In other cases, raw
product will be drawn into the well casing where it
collects on top of the water column in the well.
Regardless, trace amounts may be carried down to
the pump where they are transferred to the storage
tank. Hydrocarbon build-up can occur in the tank
causing persistent taste and odor problems. Prob-
lems of this type give the appearance of deeper
aquifer contamination and many times will
continue even after the well is redrilled and recased.
One of the greatest dangers from hydrocarbon
spills is the problem of fume build-up. Vapors
continuously rising from the contaminated water
table normally dissipate at the soil surface with
little build-up; however, openings such as wells
(Gold, Parizek and Giddings, 1970) or basements
frequently permit fume concentrations to reach
explosive levels. The most critical time for
potential explosions is after a heavy rain, which
saturates the upper soil zone or during winter
when the ground freezes. Fumes cannot dissipate
and concentration occurs. Fumes have migrated
laterally 100-200 feet under the cap through open
pores and fractures into nearby buildings. One such
incident occurred recently when the home belong-
ing to a senior citizen in central Pennsylvania blew
up. Gasoline fumes reached explosive levels in her
basement and ignited. Fortunately, she was not at
105
-------
Fig. 5. Three successive explosions destroyed this house
when gasoline fumes concentrated in its basement. The
fumes originated from the contaminated water table under
the home.
home at the time. The local fire department
responded and extinguished the fire. As several
firemen were inside checking for sparks, the house
exploded a second time. Sixteen men were
hospitalized from that blast (Figures 5 and 6).
Every case involving hydrocarbon spills to
ground water seems to be unique. The complexity
of these systems is such that hydrocarbon disper-
sion has the potential of going in any direction.
Hydrocarbons may move directly down the major
hydraulic gradient; they can be held in suspension
at the spill site by pellicular attraction (McKee,
Laverty and Hertel, 1972); they may move at an
angle to the major hydraulic gradient; or if proper
conditions prevail, they may move upgradient. A
proper understanding of the hydrogeologic proper-
ties in the area of either the spill site or the affected
site can eliminate many variables. This is true even if
Fig. 6. Firemen view damage done to the home after explosion. Several firemen were hospitalized as a result of the blast.
106
-------
they are only generally understood. Prompt effec-
tive action can, therefore, be taken in determining
the extent of contamination and developing a
recovery program. Major case studies involving large
volumes of product seem to draw most of the
attention, yet smaller ones where losses of 100 to
3,000 gallons occur are equally difficult to handle.
Consequences may even be more serious since the
initial reaction is to let small spills go farther than
large ones before notification or recovery operations
are initiated. Since these cases occur much more
frequently than larger spills, they are actually more
significant.
Equally important are the problems associated
with the disposal of waste hydrocarbon products.
Improper disposal merely transposes the problem
from one place to another. In Pennsylvania,
approval must be given by the Ground Water
Section before the saturated recovery materials
and recovered product can be disposed. Acceptable
methods include incineration, bacterial decay,
reclamation, land disposal, and reuse. As a result of
the serious consequences which can occur, most
hydrocarbon spills are considered emergency
situations. Special permission from State air
pollution authorities is granted in these cases when
recovery volumes are small, less than 200 gallons, to
incinerate the waste. The material is removed to a
safe location and burned in open pit incinerators
under supervised conditions. When larger amounts
are involved, a separator is constructed and the raw
product recovered is sent to a refinery or blended
into a pipeline for reuse. Contaminated soil and
sorbent materials may be taken to landfills having
collection and treatment facilities where they may
be spread thinly and mixed with the soil in an area
not being used. This method, however, is less
efficient in the northeastern climate than in less
humid regions. Another disposal method for
handling larger amounts of contaminated waste is
to transport the materials to approved incinerators.
Specific low-temperature incinerators with proper
air pollution controls have been selected to accept
these wastes. The wastes are fed into the facility at
a controlled rate under the direct supervision of the
Regional Air Pollution Engineer. This method is
preferred over land disposal. Microbial activity was
used in one case to effectively remove an estimated
30,000 gallons of gasoline. Injection wells were
used to force air, nitrogen and a phosphate buffer
into the ground-water system. This effectively
accelerated bacterial growth.
Recovery costs for minor spills average
approximately $100 per gallon recovered. Approxi-
mately $600,000 has already been spent by State
and private parties in recovering the 270,000
gallons of gasoline, referred to earlier, in the largest
case in the State. These figures significantly support
the fact that the best method of handling hydro-
carbon spills is to prevent them. Regular mainte-
nance programs are absolutely necessary. They must
apply to all buried tanks, especially those in service
stations, as well as larger storage and transportation
facilities. Hydrostatic pressure tests should be
conducted periodically. The test frequencies should
concentrate on the first and last quarters of tank
life, since these appear to be the most critical
periods for breaks. Emergency response plans
should be developed for all petroleum users, even
small ones. They should be prominently displayed
so that all responsible employees can initiate
emergency notification procedures when necessary
and should include all telephone numbers for
emergency equipment, recovery supplies, man-
power, notification procedures, and other related
information. The problem of service station leaks
will undoubtedly increase as tanks are abandoned
or placed back into use after long out-of-service
periods resulting from the gasoline crisis. All tanks
should be removed or filled with concrete if they
are to be abandoned and pressure tests should be
conducted before tanks are placed back into
service.
Diked areas around large bulk storage areas
should be free of out-crops and be impermeable to
the least viscous material stored. Automatic drains
and alarm systems should be installed. Wells should
be drilled for each facility to serve the dual roll of
monitoring and, when necessary, recovery points.
All buried intrastate pipelines should be cathodical-
ly protected from electrolysis. This is presently
required by Federal regulations for interstate
pipelines. Automatic shutoff valves should be
located closer together to facilitate prompt pressure
testing when it becomes necessary to check a line
for leaks. Fire departments should receive instruc-
tion concerning the problems of washing spilled
product into the ground. They should have sorbent
materials as part of their equipment arsenal to
recover the majority of product before it escapes
from the spill site. All petroleum users should be
required to carry insurance policies which protect
the environment from contamination. The use of
buried heating fuel tanks for private residences
should be discouraged, since the average citizen is
ill-equipped to monitor the condition of his tank or
take steps to recover the product if a leak develops.
Federal, State, and municipal governments must
107
-------
recognize these problems as being serious and must
develop stronger regulations and revolving funds,
which can be used in ground-water cases. Lastly,
ground-water spills must be handled by Ground
Water Specialists. Experimentation by those who
lack the proper qualifications can prove very costly.
CONCLUSION
Hydrocarbon spills and leaks are serious,
complex problems. This nation consumes tremen-
dous volumes of petroleum each year and facilities
designed to store and transport the products are
seemingly everywhere.
Spills and leaks to ground water, regardless of
their size are potentially dangerous. Even minor
cases cause long-term discomfort for those involved.
Quick action is the key to abatement of spills and
will result in simpler, less expensive recovery
operations. Better maintenance programs are the
most effective preventive measures which can be
taken. Hydrogeologic characteristics have a major
impact in controlling the direction of hydrocarbon
dispersion. An understanding of their properties
enables the implementation of a rapid emergency
response program which should define the extent of
contamination and recover the lost product. This
paper was meant to present in a general way the
findings of the Ground Water Section. It is difficult
to assess how large the problem actually is. We feel
that in spite of all we have done, we are only
tapping the surface.
REFERENCES
Committee on Environmental Affairs. 1972. The migration
of petroleum products in soil and ground water,
principles and countermeasures. Am. Pet. Inst. No.
4149, 36 pp.
Gold, D. P., R. R. Parizek and T. Giddings. 1970. Water
well explosions: an environmental hazard. Earth and
Mineral Sciences, Penn State University, v. 40, no. 3,
pp. 17-21.
Ground Water Section Files, Bureau of Water Quality Man-
agement, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources.
McKee, J. F., F. B. Laverty and R. M. Hertel. 1972. Gasoline
in ground water. Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, v. 44, no. 2, pp. 293-302.
National Fire Protection Association. 1972. Underground
leakage of flammable and combustible liquids. NFPA.
no. 329, 56 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Federal water
pollution control act as amended, 1974. Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc. Env. Reporter.
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by John O.
Osgood after delivering his talk entitled "Hydro-
carbon Dispersion in Ground Water: Characteristics
and Significance."
Q. by K. Childs. Discuss the feasibility of removing
hydrocarbons from the ground-water aquifer, for
example by pumping.
A. Many factors control dispersion. The length of
time the product is being spilled, the volume lost,
the rate of loss, viscosity of the material, depth of
the water table, and the characteristics of the hydro-
geologic flow system are some of the major con-
siderations. The amount of product which can be
recovered by any system is dependent upon the
interrelationships of these factors. Though I may
have indicated otherwise when I answered the
question originally, the use of wells can be an
effective recovery tool. It is not a very efficient
method, however. Pumping is the only way to
remove hydrocarbons from the ground under
deeper ground-water table conditions. The effi-
ciency is greatly increased if large volumes have
been lost or if dispersion has not progressed far. In
any case, pumping usually results in large amounts
of water and relatively small amounts of product.
This product must be separated from the water
which now becomes another disposal concern.
When dispersion has been extensive or when only
small amounts of product remain, pumping becomes
an expensive activity with limited value. Generally
speaking, wells act to collect hydrocarbons which
have been carried towards them by the shallow-
flow system. The cone of depression does not draw
the hydrocarbon to the well in an efficient manner.
This is especially true when a static cone of
depression has been established. Since hydrocarbon
flow is largely isolated to the water table, static
conditions enable barriers to retard flow. Much
better results seem to be obtained when water-table
levels and pumping rates are permitted to fluctuate.
In limestones, a critical water table is frequently
reached where pumping is especially effective. At
other levels, little to no product is recovered. Under
shallower ground-water table conditions, trenching
is the most favorable recovery technique. Product
can be removed by skimming from the top of the
water table and sorbent materials can be used. Like
108
-------
wells, the trenches would be situated to intercept
the shallow ground-water flow system carrying
the contaminant. I suggest anyone interested in
recovery techniques, review the publication
produced by the American Petroleum Institute
identified in the bibliography of my paper. A good
discussion of techniques used to recover spilled
hydrocarbons is presented.
Q. by K. Childs. Are your water plume models
supported by sample results or are they theoretical?
A. The plume models were developed from general-
izations of actual hydrocarbon spills investigated.
Monitoring points, observation points, source loca-
tions, discharge characteristics, volumes lost, rates
of loss, soil and bedrock properties, water-table
conditions, flow properties, and recovery activities
have been documented in actual case studies. The
generalized plumes have therefore been supported
by actual field evidence. This data indicates that
hydrocarbon dispersion is strongly influenced by
the hydrogeologic conditions that exist at the spill
site. These characteristics permitted us to locate the
source when one was not originally obvious, to
predict dispersion directions, to select recovery
locations and effective monitoring sites and to
develop expert testimony for legal action.
Q. by K. Childs. Wouldn 't hydrocarbons move
down into an aquifer if dumped in a recharge zone?
A. It is probable that some of the soluble compo-
nents present in hydrocarbons will be carried down.
However, the water table actually acts as a barrier,
greatly inhibiting downward flow. This causes the
shallow ground-water flow system to have a major
controlling influence on dispersion. The amount
carried down to the deeper system should be
negligible. The key is to remove the product from
the soil and shallow-water system as soon as
possible. Once this is done, dilution should render
the soluble remnants harmless. Practically speaking,
this is more difficult than it sounds and may take
several months to several years. Local conditions
and the effectiveness of the recovery program will
determine the actual outcome.
Q. by J. Wilson. European studies have shown that
hydrocarbon movement in the subsurface environ-
ment depends on the viscosity of the hydrocarbon,
thus gasoline and fuel oil behave differently. Have
you observed this and what differences are there?
A. As indicated in an earlier answer, viscosity is
one of many factors which play an important role
in dispersion. I concentrated on some of the hydro-
geologic aspects of the problem in this paper. My
point is that once any hydrocarbon contaminates
ground water, the hydrogeologic characteristics at
the site become most important in controlling
dispersion. Viscosity seems to limit dispersion only
in the sense that more viscous oils are held by the
soil to a greater extent. We have not noticed any
differences once ground-water contamination has
taken place. Of course no control spills for com-
parative purposes were available. Gasoline and fuel
oil such as heating oil and number two fuel oil
seem to behave similarly. Dispersion is usually rapid
and recovery is difficult. More viscous oils, such as
crude oil, are retained by the soil to a greater extent
and relative dispersion is drastically reduced. In any
case, the product must be removed from the ground
to halt the continuous leaking of hydrocarbons to
ground water.
Q. by D. Kirby. What is the simplest and most
accurate test for low-level hydrocarbon contamina-
tion ofground water?
A. We have found that odor is the best field
method. The average person is able to smell gaso-
line, for instance, from .1 to .5 ppm which is lower
than it can be tasted. This is almost below the
threshold of chemical identification. It is best to use
the hot water tap in homes for this purpose since
the greater temperature volatilizes the hydrocarbon
so it can be readily identified. The cold water tap
may show no evidence of contamination under
similar circumstances. We also have had success
using gas vapor detectors. They have been used to
identify the extent of contamination under shallow
ground-water conditions and to locate the source of
leaks. Chemically, the hydrocarbon can be classi-
fied by type, i.e., gasoline, fuel oil, and creosols, at
less than 1 ppm. The hydrocarbon is extracted in
our laboratory by 1 liter of iso-octane and infrared
and ultraviolet analyses are run. Gasoline has been
identified from as little as .5 ppm. Brand identifica-
tion requires greater concentrations.
Q. by D. Kirby. Can different brands of gasoline be
identified?
A. We have had success in differentiating various
brands of gasoline. The use of special filters with
gas chromatography, in combination with infrared
and ultraviolet analyses revealed differences in
composition which have identified many brands.
Public disclosure of the methods used is not desir-
able. We will share our results with other State
protection agencies upon request, however. We have
also explored the possibility of forcing distributors
and service station operators to use tracers which
could readily be identified; however, problems
with tracers, required concentrations and the trade
109
-------
secret that service stations switch brands occasion-
ally when they cannot be supplied through normal
channels, made the effort of questionable value. We
also feel that if sample concentrations are sufficient
enough to identify the tracer, then the product can
be identified chemically. Colorado is evidently
attempting to assign tracers to service stations. It"
will be most interesting to see their conclusions.
Q. by J. Turk. Have you developed design criteria
for underground storage tanks? What do you think
of vaulted systems?
A. The serious consequences resulting from hydro-
carbon spills make safety backup systems absolute-
ly necessary. In Pennsylvania, the State Police Fire
Marshall's office has control of subsurface storage
tank installations. I am presently working to
expand these regulations to protect ground water.
In the course of these activities, vaulted systems
were considered. A vault must support the weight
of vehicles and must be impermeable. The use of
concrete vaults was discarded. Concrete is expen-
sive and though it meets the strength requirement,
it may crack. Asphalts are soluble in gasoline which
makes their use undesirable. However, other types
of liners are available which may be acceptable. I
have not completely decided on how to best
develop this regulation yet, but environmental
isolation will undoubtedly be required, combined
with an inexpensive alarm system which can be
placed between the liner and the storage tank.
Monitoring wells may also be included. The best
prevention is proper maintenance combined with
regular pressure testing.
Q. by J. Turk. Have you developed monitoring
techniques for detecting spills before they have a
chance to contaminate aquifers?
A. Monitoring hydrocarbon spills is a difficult
task. A viable system for pipeline spills would
require a large number of wells, while transporta-
tion spills would be impossible to monitor. Sub-
surface heating oil storage tanks at private resi-
dences could be monitored but first a mechanism
to locate all of them would have to be
established. Thousands of these tanks must exist.
As I indicated in my paper, there are over 11,000
service stations in Pennsylvania. This would result
in a minimum of 44,000 quarterly reports per year
if each had only one monitoring well. Add to this
the number of storage tanks used for industrial
and other business types and the number of
monitoring facilities increases. Bulk storage areas
will also require monitoring. Though the task may
be tremendous, it is expected that most of the
above will eventually be required. It will be a very
large undertaking.
Q. by B. Kent. Comment on gasoline discharged
from transport trucks when they have more gasoline
than the service station requires, i.e., they some-
times dump it in ditches and etc.
A. We have not come across the practice in
Pennsylvania. It could account for some of the
cases we have where no apparent source can be
identified. I will check provisions for returning
unused gasoline to the distributor. If no method
of accommodating the returned product is
available, then perhaps we, the State, should force-
fully suggest that one be developed.
Q. by J. Fryberger. What liability was assessed
against the service station owner in the case of the
demolished house?
A. It is the Ground Water Section's responsibility
to insure that the ground water is returned to its
original quality. Product removal in this case is still
in progress. Unfortunately, we were unable to
prosecute for environmental damages due to
technicalities. An out-of-court settlement was made
between the home owner and the insurance
company representing the responsible party. To the
best of my knowledge, no further legal action was
undertaken.
Q. by J. Fryberger. 7s the State prosecuting spillers?
A. The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Act provides
for prosecution when "waters of the Common-
wealth" have been contaminated. This supplies us
with a very strong lever. We usually prosecute when
cooperation is not being obtained from responsible
parties. Court action has been taken and fines have
been levied in a great many cases, enough so that
respect for our authority is guaranteed. Due to the
time involved in prosecuting a case, we prefer to
use this advantage only when necessary.
110
-------
Bull Session — Operation and Maintenance of
Domestic Waste Disposal Systems
Discharging into Ground Waters
Session Moderator: Steven N. Goldstein, Associate
Director for Management and Technical Assistance,
National Demonstration Water Project, Washington,
D.C.
Steve Goldstein, Moderator: Just to set the record
straight, this is the Bull Session on Operation and
Maintenance of Domestic Waste Disposal Systems
Discharging into Ground Waters, corresponding to
Session No. 2. The topic of Session No. 2 was the
Operation and Maintenance of Domestic Waste
Disposal Systems Discharging into Ground Waters.
There are a few procedural rules that I would
like you to follow. The general procedure here this
evening, which absolutely must be followed, is that
when you speak, please speak clearly for the record-
ing, number one; number two, the first time you
speak please identify yourself by name and affilia-
tion. Thereafter when you speak you need only
identify yourself by name. But you must identify
yourself every time you speak.
Sitting to my left is Sheila Willett, who is
recording you on mag tape and taking down what
you say in shorthand. Given the subject matter, I
suspect that she's going to be dealing with some
very interesting brief forms this evening. A brief
form, for the uninitiate, is a little shorthand-
shorthand.
I'd like to start out by having the speakers
from the session this morning field some of the
questions which they did not have time to answer
on the floor. Ken Childs, would you like to lead
off with some questions that you were asked and
give an answer, or did you answer all of them?
Ken Childs, Michigan Department of Water
Resources, Lansing: I believe I answered all of
them, unless there are some more.
Steve Goldstein: Okay. Grant Kimmel, did we ask
any of you that you didn't answer?
Grant E. Kimmel, U.S. Geological Survey, Mineola,
New York: Yes, here's one. "What amount of
nitrification or denitrification took place at the air-
water interface below the landfill itself?" That was
from Gary Small of the Salt River Project. Un-
fortunately, we don't have any information on the
interface between the landfill and the ground water.
We have only information downstream or down-
gradient from the landfill itself. We suspect that
some denitrification did take place, because the
nitrate content of the ground water is nil in the
plume itself. Ammonia is somewhat high near the
landfill, about 90 mg/1, and it decreases down-
gradient. The decrease could be due either to
adsorption, denitrification, or dilution; and who can
be sure what? What more can I say?
Steve Goldstein: Are there any questions about
the answer?
Grant Kimmel: Or any questions about nitrate at
all? It's kind of interesting, I might say here, in
relation to the Babylon landfill that the plume
represents a nitrate-poor area in the ground water in
comparison with surrounding ambient ground
water. The ambient ground water is over 10 mg/1,
generally.
Donald B. Aulenbach, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, Troy, New York: I just heard the end of
what you said and I wanted to confirm this, that it
is either adsorption or dilution or both, because I
just finished reading over a thesis by a student in
Maine who did a study on this, and his conclusion
was that it was desorption, and he didn't give any
credit to dilution, which we really don't have a good
handle on—how much might be dilution. And until
we know definitely, I think we have to say it just
the way you said it.
Grant Kimmel: Yes.
Don Aulenbach: I have tried myself to run a
nitrogen balance, and it's the hardest thing to do.
The nitrogen applied from the sewage treatment
plant effluent just wanders all over the place,
depending upon the operation of the treatment
plant. And then, of course, if you have any denitri-
111
-------
fication, how do you measure this in the field? It's
almost impossible.
Grant Kimmel: We ran denitrifying bacteria, and
there are plenty of denitrifying bacteria prevalent
in the plume water.
William A. J. Pitt, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey,
Miami, Florida: I had a 4-part question I wanted to
direct to you, but should I wait on that?
Steve Goldstein: Would you like to identify your-
self and ask your question?
Jack Hamshen, Hazardous Waste, EPA, Washington,
D.C.: I was just curious, the polio virus, was that
inactivated, the virus that was introduced?
Bill Pitt: It wasn't an activated virus. It was the
type of polio virus that you get in your normal
vaccine. It was an attenuated virus. It's not—well,
viruses are never dead, never alive, really. A virus is
nothing more than—
Jack Hamshen: The protein sheath-
Bill Pitt: Right, you have an enzyme and the
protein shell. And to what degree it was attenuated,
I really don't know.
Jack Hamshen: It was the vaccine type?
Bill Pitt: It was the vaccine type, the polio 2 virus.
Jack Hamshen: The other one: your septic tank pH
never exceeded 7.8; you said at 8 they released. Did
you monitor this in the laboratory as well as in the
field, or was this principally in the field?
Bill Pitt: No, the pH that we obtained was actually
in the field. Now, the release rate of the pH was
from the lab. The pH that we have, the maximum
pH that we got of 7.8 wasn't really indicative of
normal conditions, either. It happens just before
these people in this particular home—they were
getting ready to sell the home, and the housewife
there decided to clean up the house. She used a lot
of detergents, a lot of alkaline detergents. They, of
course, went into the tank. That's when the pH shot
up to 7.8.
Jack Hamshen: I see. And was there any isotope
detection techniques used for the polio virus?
Bill Pitt: No, the technique for the polio virus
analysis was actually a concentration of the virus
with polyelectrolyte infiltration. We didn't use any
isotope techniques.
Jack Hamshen: I see. Thank you very much.
Steve Goldstein: Grant, do you have any more
questions you'd like to field?
Grant Kimmel: Yes, there is one submitted by
Mr. Kazmann. "Are the conductivities measured
at a single elevation, or is it some sort of average
over the entire 70-foot aquifer?" The reference is
to the slides showing contours.
Yes. The conductivities are measured at a
single elevation for that slide that was shown. I have
other conductivities at the shallow depth and the
deeper one, but that slide was at an intermediate
depth. At the deeper depth they're very similar to
what they are at the medium depth. At the shallow
depth the high conductivity zone extends a few
hundred or a thousand feet from the landfill.
Lyle V. A. Sendlein, Iowa State University, Ames:
How many wells did you have in your formation
and at what different levels?
Grant Kimmel: Well, at the Babylon site the wells
were generally at 3 different settings, the shallow,
intermediate, and deeper. And there are a great
many more at the intermediate depths than there
are at the shallow and deep settings, because we
could use what are called fire wells in that area.
And there were probably in the neighborhood of
150 wells at the Babylon site.
At the Islip site the wells were far fewer, and
we had as many as 5 different settings at the Islip
site because the aquifer was much deeper. We didn't
recognize the deepness of the plume until the
second year.
Robert C. Palmquist, Iowa State University, Ames:
Did you have fresh water coming in under the
plume, towards the tip of the plume? Some of your
data suggests you might; the federal description
suggests it doesn't.
Grant Kimmel: I don't think so. I can't imagine
how the fresh water would come in under the
plume. What made you think that there might be?
Robert C. Palmquist: Your well No. 8 shows higher
conductivities just above the base of the well, and
112
-------
it suggested that the plume was rising back up
towards the surface.
Grant Kimmel: Well, if you saw this on a longitudi-
nal cross section, you would see that in fact it
doesn't do what you think it does.
Gerald Hendricks, SI ECO, Inc., Columbus, Indiana:
I would like to comment on this point awhile ago
about nitrogen balances. We're doing some pilot
plant work for sewage plant design. The intent is to
nitrify the ammonia. We find there is considerable
difference of opinion as to the proper test to use in
determining nitrates. There doesn't seem to be any
good general agreement as to the proper test to
evaluate the nitrates so that you can make the
nitrogen balance. It isn't unusual at all that the
nitrogen can't be accounted for. It is disturbing
because we often feel like maybe there is a loss of
ammonia or some conversion to elementary
nitrogen. But because of testing procedures, it's
difficult to get a true, acceptable test.
Steve Goldstein: Bill Pitt, do you have any
questions that you haven't fielded?
Bill Pitt: :Yes, I had one question asked that I never
did get a chance to answer. The question was, "How
far from the bottom of the drain field was the water
table at the 5 different sites?"
Well, the water table is about 7 feet below the
land surface at most of the sites—6 or 7 feet or so.
The actual depth of the drain field we really don't
know, but we imagine that it would be somewhere
between 2'/2-3 feet below the land surface. This
septic tank was constructed about 15 years ago,
more than 15 years ago, so it's a little hard to find
out how deep the drain field really is. That is the
question I have that I didn't answer.
Steve Goldstein: Grant?
Grant Kimmel: "Did your leachate move as a mass
or as individual constituents?" This is by Ken
Childs. I'm not sure what you mean, Ken. It moves
as a mass, essentially. But there's —
Ken Childs: Did you interpret the whole thing
moved out like a huge cloud, or did you see that it
moved out to develop individual bifurcating
patterns?
Grant Kimmel: I see what you mean—in relation to
what your study has shown. The same plume can
be traced by chloride and by bicarbonate, which are
2 individual ions that would be indicative of the
plume, more than anything else. As for other ions
such as sulfate, sulfate doesn't follow the plume. It
can be very small at the landfill and very large at the
terminus of the plume. And calcium, again, would
not describe exactly the same plume, but it would
not extend beyond the boundaries that we had
chosen on the basis of conductivity. And none of
these other ions, such as sodium, would extend
beyond the boundaries that I have chosen on the
basis of conductivity.
The second part of your question, how did
variables in the regolith such as texture, fabric, and
adsorption, affect the shape and extent of leachate
migration? Well, I think that this aquifer where we
have chosen to locate our sites is extremely homoge-
neous. Unless—there may be some inhomogeneity
in relation to the direction of flow. In other words,
there may be a preferential direction down the
gradient, because this is the direction in which the
deposit was laid down. There were no beds of finer
sand or anything of that sort found in the drilling
of the wells, so we assume that from top to bottom
it was coarse sand.
Steve Goldstein: Randy Sweet, I know you have a
lot of questions that you didn't have a chance to
answer. Do you want to hit 2 of them now?
H. R. (Randy) Sweet, Oregon State Engineer,
Salem: Sure. Stephen Ragone asked,"What con-
clusive studies can you site that show nitrogen in
excess of 10 mg/1 as nitrogen is a health hazard?"
The reason that we use 10 mg/1 is that it's the maxi-
mum acceptable limit for drinking water standards
as defined by the U.S. Public Health Service. I think
if you want to read a paper which explains the
rationale, I have a copy of it here if anybody wants
to copy it later, particularly Stephen Ragone.
Winton, Tardiff & McCabe published a paper
"Nitrate in Drinking Water" in February 1971 in
the Journal of the American Water Works Associa-
tion (pp. 95-99) explaining the rationale in the
development of 10 mg/1 as a standard.
The second question is from Fred Crates. It's
a 2-part question, apparently. One, "Is cesspool
technique the problem, or are you saying that all
on-site systems are not adequate?" Now, I think
when I addressed the problem of disposal in the
East Portland area I tried to point out that the use
of cesspools is certainly probably the most detri-
mental way that we could dispose of waste in the
area in that the cesspools are not used in conjunc-
113
-------
tion with septic tanks. Since urban development has
taken place in the area, cesspools also take up a
very small area, and this is one reason why they've
been used.
The second part: "And if other on-site designs
do a good job, what is the economics of on-site
reclamation versus a central sewer system?" I'm
afraid that we've reached the point in time in the
East Portland area where the population density is
so great that we don't have room to go in and put
in separate drain fields for all these systems. I'm
sure that if we did have properly designed and
properly constructed septic tank drain field
combinations, we wouldn't have near the problem
that we have now. Unfortunately, there is no more
room. The area is essentially housed and paved.
Steve Goldstein: We'll get back and get a few more
from you in a awhile, Randy.
This morning both Rein Laak and Dick Otis
alluded to some things that I'm not sure are
generally well known to this audience, and I think
they are very important. I'd like to say just a few
words about them, and then ask the 2 gentlemen
to comment and perhaps expand. They spoke about
clogging mats and clogging layers in septic tank
drain fields. A few years ago when we had the First
Ground Water Quality Symposium, not too many
attendees were familiar with the general construc-
tion of a septic tank system or any other on-site
drainage system, and perhaps we could go through
that just very briefly for introductory purposes.
Basically a septic tank is an underground vault,
an underground box, constructed to be watertight—
hopefully throughout its design life it is watertight.
Unfortunately, even that cannot always be
guaranteed. However, when the tank is properly
constructed, and if the integrity is maintained the
household waste sits in the septic tank for a day or
so and undergoes various kinds of biological
degradation to simpler biological substances.
The greases and other floating materials come
to the top. The heavy materials and solids settle out
in the bottom. On the bottom a sludge mat forms,
and a good deal more biological degradation takes
place in the sludge mat. And floating on the top is
a layer of scum which includes a lot of fats and
greases.
This can go on for many years, depending on
the size of the tank and the degree to which it is
loaded, and what goes in it. If you have a garbage
grinder, you fill it up faster. If you use a lot of
grease in the house and pour it down the drain,
you're going to get into trouble. But that clear
liquid in the center, between the floating scum
and the sludge, is the only thing which should get
out into the soil to be absorbed and further treated
by the life in the soil, and also the chemical and
physical aspects of the soil.
Now, when it's time to pump a septic tank,
you pump it because that sludge in the bottom has
risen up so high, and the scum in the top has come
down so low, that there's a very, very narrow clear
zone. So every time you flush or the washing
machine goes on you pour liquid through that septic
tank so fast that it scours out a lot of the sludge
and carries it out into the field. And furthermore,
since there's so little a volume of clear liquid in
there, it doesn't stick around long enough to get
good treatment.
Once out into the field, this relatively clear
liquid, which is still pretty high in organic content
and has—well, by definition, if it's septic it has no—
almost no—dissolved oxygen. It has to get out
to the soil, be absorbed by the soil, have some of its
constituents absorbed on soil particles, have some
of its organics removed by biological digestion in
the soil, and have some solids removed by being
physically strained by the soil.
In the process, the biological mat, or clogging
layer, or jelly layer, develops at the interface in
these trenches through which this effluent is carried
through pipes—pipes with holes in them, preferably.
Some people have been known to put in septic
tanks and not use pipes with holes in them. And I
can bring my pictures to document that little
story; believe me, I've seen it. But anyway, the
liquid goes through the pipes, out the holes, and
into the bulk soil. At that interface, at the bulk
soil, a clogging mat develops. Just a few years ago
the very latest and most respected technological
publications would tell you you've got to get rid
of that clogging mat, you've got to minimize it,
because it clogs up your system and the water can't
get into the soil, and so it rises and you get these
muddy lawns and smelly problems.
However, today we heard some of the
newer thinking, which is borne out by some pretty
critical laboratory and field work, which indicates
that the mat is not totally impervious, that it
performs good functions and good things, and as
long as you design for it you can have a very good
system. Both of these talks that we heard from
Rein Laak and Dick Otis dealt with the very creative
use of that clogging mat. And with that in mind, I
would like each of you to perhaps expand on this a
bit, on the points you think important. Rein, would
you go first?
114
-------
Rein Laak, University of Connecticut, Storrs:
Okay. What we found out about the clogging mat
was that the mat indeed was mainly biological. The
mat would react to temperature. It would react to
food load—the food load meaning nutrient load. As
more nutrients were applied, the thicker the mat
would be and the less permeable it would be (less
permeable meaning it has more resistance to flow).
Also, the mat itself breaks up sometimes. In other
words, holes form in it. The theory about that is
that inside the mat gases are released, carbon
dioxide and what not, methane, hydrogen sulfide
and so forth. This mat then will open at local spots,
like the carpet here. You look at the black spots
and say these are open and the rest of the spots are
closed. So it opens and closes.
We also found out that resting the mat up to 3
days, or wetting of the mat constantly does not
change the mat at all. We also found that if you
double the hydraulic head on the mat, you will not
get double the flow through it. It's not lineal. You
saw the equation, the cube root equation, is the
food load—you reduce the food load, in other words
you apply pretreatment, you have a thinner mat,
and you can have a higher so-called hydraulic con-
ductivity through it.
Steve Goldstein: Well, what is good about the mat?
Rein Laak: The mat is a very intense biological
barrier. The major oxygen demand is removed there.
A lot of the bacteria are removed. As a matter of
fact, maybe in some spots—you look at the black
spots in the carpet, the bacteria will pass through
there when it's open. The rest of the spots probably
it will not pass through. And large colloidal particles
will be strained out; they will be adsorbed. If you
think of the mat as an upward flow, a flocculation
type of a setup for municipal treatment, it will do a
good job on virus removal, bacterial removal, and
probably refractive organics.
Steve Goldstein: Thank you. Dick Otis, would you
like to add to that?
Richard J. Otis, University of Wisconsin, Madison:
There are 3 things that I'd like to mention. One is
that we haven't found that the nutrient load does
affect the clogging mat. This is something that we
differ on with Rein. We don't know why, and so
we're looking into it some more. Some of you may
be familiar with the Wisconsin project. You know
that we have this laboratory setup, we have a full
scale treatment, septic tanks, aerobic units, and
some others, and we are now beginning to load
undisturbed soil cores with various effluents to see
whether or not our previous experiments were
correct.
The other 2 points that we found that do
affect the mat are the underlying soil and the head.
By increasing the head on the soils we can clog
these columns up to where nothing will go through.
The other point about the type of soil, we find that
sometimes the more porous soils are the ones that
will clog the most rapidly. That is because of their
pore structure. Soils with larger pores do not have
the capillary attraction to pull the water through
the crust, so the crust becomes very effective in
clogging. Whereas you go into a clay, it will pull
the liquid through the crust, and as Rein pointed
out it no longer becomes a clogging problem, it's a
hydraulic problem. Hydraulics rule the design of
such a system in clay. So there's gradations between.
This is one reason why we have looked into pressure
distribution systems. One in the sands, to spread
the load out uniformly, try to prevent complete
clogging, but more importantly to help purification
so far as bacteriological constituents go.
Also we found that the silty sands cannot
maintain their structure, and therefore clog fairly
rapidly. We speculated that pressure distribution
would help here. We have a system that we've been
looking at. It wasn't a pressure distribution system,
but it was a system that provided more uniform
distribution. This is being used now, and may be
of some help.
Rein Laak: I'd like to answer to Dick Otis. I'd like
to ask the first question: How many tests did you
run and how many soil columns did you have
where you increased the head and you found there
was complete blockage? And how many tests did
you do resting and not resting, and the food load
difference? How many columns did you test and
how many soils? How many replicates did you have?
Dick Otis: Okay, the first part—it wasn't very
scientific, I'm afraid. One of the professors of soils
was looking at the problem of clogging and he
wanted to get some cores with the clogging to look
at ways of unclogging. So he had 5 cores of sands
where he just kept a constant head of about one
meter on them, and within a couple of months they
were completely clogged. All 5-would not transmit
any water at all. ;
In answer to the other part, we have undis- i
turbed soil cores which we think are very important
because of the pore structure again. The structure
115
-------
of the soil is very important. You have the worm
holes, you have the root channels, all these things
that you don't get in a packed column. And we're
looking at the tighter soils. We had—I don't know
the exact number, but it was upwards of around 20
of them. And we loaded them with various types of
effluent, and we found no difference. In fact, the
aerobic effluent was clogging somewhat faster than
the septic, but we can't explain it. We don't know
why.
What was that—you had one last bit to your
question?
Rein Laak: The food load.
Dick Otis: I covered that.
Rein Laak: No, you said aerobic effluent. That's
not food load.
Dick Otis: With dosing, with these tighter columns,
we don't feel that it was making that much differ-
ence. In fact, eventually it did become clogged, and
at the rates that we were loading, daily dosages, they
would no longer drain away between our daily
dosages. So that with the tighter soils we don't
think that the resting is going to be a critical factor.
Again because this has become a hydraulic problem
rather than a clogging problem.
Dennis Gray, Southwest Idaho Health Department,
Caldwell: Would it be fair to extrapolate this
clogging phenomenon and apply it to this modified
drain field where you can allow, let's say, 3 feet of
filter media beneath a perforated pipe in order to
save on gross area? What you said, if constant head
increases clogging, it would seem to me to be the
wrong way to go. Or at least a question about the
way to go. Would it be fair at this time to make any
statement?
Dick Otis: I don't know if I really understand, but
I think you may be confused as to where the
clogging mat is occurring. When you bring in fill,
you're putting the trench up in the fill.
Dennis Gray: I was taking subsurface as opposed
to surface.
Dick Otis: Okay.
Dennis Gray: The clogging phenomenon seems to
increase with the head.
Dick Otis: That was true for sands, in increasing
the head, yes. Strictly because of the pore structure.
The pores are too large and they don't have enough
capillary attraction to pull the liquid through,
whereas if you had a finer sand or a silt loam or
clay you would be able to pull it through. But your
loading rate may not be as high. Again, the smaller
pores are pulling the liquid through, but because
they are smaller they're not taking as much water.
Randy Sweet: As I read-what is it, Bulletin 21 by
Bouma et at., re soil absorption?
Dick Otis: Bulletin 20.
Randy Sweet: Bulletin 20, I'm sorry. Anyway, we
talk about mats forming essentially in all drain
fields. It's a matter of time and a matter of the
difference in the depth of different materials,
different substrate. So, then, is there a difference
in the hydraulic conductivity of the mat with the
different substrates? In other words, if they're
underlain by a clay or underlain by a more
permeable material? In other words, is the hydraulic
conductivity of the mat constant or is it something
that varies with the substrate?
Dick Otis: It varies with the substrate. If you took
the mat itself, took it away from the soil, maybe
you wouldn't find any difference. But the soil
underneath would make a difference, because they
will be able to pull the water to the surface. Smaller
pores can pull the water through whereas the larger
pores can't.
Randy Sweet: So the hydraulic conductivity is
constant, it's just the ability of the substrate to pull
the water through the mat with a given hydraulic
conductivity?
Dick Otis: I really can't say for sure, but that
would be possible. Now, we have found that at
higher loading rates the mat does become thicker.
Now if you have more water going through, it will
become thicker. If less water goes through, it will
begin to decompose.
Randy Sweet: Then the next logical question is:
Most drain fields have been sized based upon the
hydraulic conductivity of the substrate, or the
ability of the substrate to transport the effluent
away from the drain field. Essentially you're saying
then that it's been going backwards to a certain
extent, in that a more porous material is not
116
-------
necessarily capable of carrying the effluent through
the mat as well as, say, a silty clay loam or some-
thing like that.
Dick Otis: Yes, and no. If the system is sized too
small, your loading rate is going to be too high and
you're going to clog it. If it's sized properly even
according to what the States have as their codes, it
will probably function. The mat won't become
that thick. But sands can clog it pretty effectively.
It depends on just getting the right size field.
Rein Laak: I'd like to just clarify this, instead of
sticking to my food load if the load is lower you
have a low food load. If you have no food load
you have no clogging. If you have a slow load, low
food load, you have a lesser clogging layer and more
liquid flowing through. If you apply more liquid,
the clogging layer grows and controls itself, so it
will control how much liquid it will let through.
So if you put a big head on it, you force it, it
will become less permeable and less liquid will go
through it. So consequently there's less growth. You
have to wait for a period of time, and it will open
again, and it will clog quickly again. You can't
force through that clogging layer. The clogging layer
reacts very quickly to it.
So the ideal design is to find the equilibrium
with the load where the clogging layer is forming,
and with the degradation rate or disappearance of
this clogging layer. This will be a long-term accep-
tance rate to the clogging layer. The tests will have
to be run a year or 2 years to find this kind of an
equilibrium.
William F. Martin, Indian Health Service, Tucson,
Arizona: I just wanted to get some clarification.
Are you saying that the system designed a tile field
in such a way that you completely fail the first
lateral, and then keep it loaded and overflow into
the second lateral and so forth, like a serial
distribution system?
It's no advantage, in that my experience and
some of the things I've read is that you have a
longer life expectancy of the field if you leave a
major part of it completely idle until you've failed
a portion of it. And that idea seems to conflict
with your mat problem. I'd like clarification. I'm
not sure, were you challenging that if you load and
fail a section of your field and then use the next and
so on, it will not increase the total life expectancy'
of the field as opposed to a uniform distribution?
Rein Laak: You do not save the first field. What
you do, you have overloaded the first field. The
clogging layer still has—some liquid always travels
through the clogging layer. It may be very minute.
And then you proceed to the next trench. If it
proceeds to the next trench, then, if you keep the*
same head on the first trench, the next trench fails.
Also you have a minute acceptance rate on the
second one, and you go to the third one, fourth
one, and so on. And you add all those up, all those
small increments, that is really the long-term
acceptance rate of that field, that system. This is
what you design for.
William F. Martin: My understanding is that this
method of loading increases your total life
expectancy of the field over uniform wetting of
the field at one time, indicating that once the
bacterial action or mat is formed throughout,
there's some aging mechanism that sets in and
decreases the soil capability to receive water. Any
comment?
Rein Laak: Yes. We found it doesn't matter how
you do it. In the long run you form a clogging
layer, and its acceptance rate is very low. It may
develop over 10 years.
William F. Martin: I'm not arguing that it will
develop. Is the total capacity of the system any
different?
Rein Laak: No, not in the long run; it's no
different. There is no evidence to say it's different.
Steve Goldstein: May I try and clarify what he
said? I think what Dr. Laak is saying is that if you
start from the beginning and put clogging mat in
each one of your serial trenches, were you to have
done that, or were you to put a clogging mat in
one trench at a time, that the design criterion
should be that, at the very end of this process, you
still have enough clogging layered trench bottom,
with its much lowered acceptance rate, to accept
your daily load of effluent.
Sooner or later it's going to clog. Whether it'*
clogs in 10 years or 15 years need not matter as '
long as when it's fully clogged it's still passing a
little bit, it's passing the daily load. That's the
criterion we're shooting for.
Fred J. Crates, Hancor, Inc., Findlay, Ohio: Can '
you relate all this to the storage capacity of the
trench itself in the presence of gravel? In other '
words, you start out with a certain amount of
117
-------
storage capacity in the trench, and then predict
this clogging to occur. Are we not consequently
reducing the storage annually, and doesn't this
have some significance on the success of the system?
Rein Laak: If you have stones in the trench, part
of the effective porosity of the stones will be
reduced through the years, yes. The storage capacity
in the trench, the way I do it, is for peak loads,
once the clogging layer is formed. The problem is
what to design the clogging layer for, for the
maximum months or for the maximum days.-Will
it accept the maximum months or maximum days
or annual average? The storage space is to take peak
loads. And the storage space does reduce over the
years as the mass, biological mass, accumulates in
the stones. It does reduce.
Steve Goldstein: We have spent a good deal of
time now on septic tank drain fields. Is there some
other line of questioning that any of you would
like to pursue? Randy?
Randy Sweet: I'd like to have one clarification.
Laak seems to feel that it's the head—as I under-
stand it—in the drain field that drives the effluent
through the mat, whereas Mr. Otis here feels that
it's the capillarity that pulls it through the mat.
And I wonder, is it one or the other, or both?
Rein Laak: Both.
Steve Goldstein: One's a push, one's a pull. It
doesn't really matter.
Randy Sweet: I wonder how it relates to design.
Steve Goldstein: Vacuum is a negative pressure.
Rein Laak: As far as design goes, if you can depend
on capillarity during the wet seasons of the year,
then by all means go for the capillarity. Add that to
your design. But if you cannot depend on it on long
run, where the water table may mound up under-
neath, then you have to provide a head on it.
Lyle V. A. Sendlein: I can't remember from your
slides, Dr. Laak, if you were able to tell us what
the hydraulic conductivity was of the area, or if
this did vary. It seems to me that if it was a variable,
how does it vary, how do you predict it? And if it
doesn't vary, then really the soil type doesn't mean
anything, and you can just design then on how
big a load you're going to have applied to the field.
Rein Laak: Now you opened up a can of worms!
We divided the problem into two, the soil and the
hydraulic conductivity through the soil. And the
second problem is the clogging mat problem. So
you calculate one separately, and you calculate the
other separately, and put the two together and see
which one rules design.
The clogging mat is never really constant.
What we're trying to estimate, we estimate some-
where around 1CT4 feet per minute that it
fluctuates. And in certain cases where you have
high ground-water tables, and the soil permeability
may be around 10~4 feet per minute, you have a
high water table, or you may have a so-called
impervious layer fairly close to the bottom of this,
maybe 4 or 5 feet below, then you may have that
the hydraulic conductivity below the clogging layer
rules the design.
Lyle V. A. Sendlein: I assume you're saying that
you designed this really on the 10"4 number?
Rein Laak: In reality we don't use a 10~4. We have
a curve, showed you on the slide, the overhead,
today, the green line.
Lyle V. A. Sendlein: Yeah, I couldn't make it out.
Rein Laak: So actually the soil underneath is a
supporting mat for the clogging mat. It doesn't
matter what the soil is. The clogging mat more or
less is the same. You can grow it on this tablecloth.
And the only thing is when it forms the holes—the
black spots on here—if the underneath is more
porous, at that moment it lets through more water.
That's why in more porous soils you can get a little
bit more liquid through. But the clogging mat is the
same; it doesn't matter what the soil is.
Dick Otis: Since we are here for controversy, I beg
to differ with you. What we've done is gone into the
field, and we've looked at a number of systems
that have been installed in the field, and this is all
work that was done by Johannes Bouma. I don't
have the numbers, but I can sort of explain the
conceptual aspects of it.
We looked at the various types of soils, sands,
silt loams, the clays, etc., and through a technique
that Dr. Bouma points out we can measure the
unsaturated conductivity of the soil. And we know
that with sands, we start off with a very high
conductivity, but as the soil tension below the
clogging, as the degree of saturation drops off, you
can't pull as much through this mat. In other words,
118
-------
the hydraulic conductivity drops; it just drops
straight down and actually goes below the clays of
the soil. You have a very unsaturated condition.
The clays start very low, but they don't drop very
far as the degree of unsaturation progresses.
We use these curves for design. For the various
types of soils we found that clogging mats do
develop, and the resistance or the soil tension
underneath the mat will be different. And we can
go back to these curves then and just go along the
abscissa, which is the soil tension, up to the
particular soil type, and then get our design loading,
which gives us hydraulic conductivity, which is a
very neat way of doing it.
We found that there isn't that much difference
between the various silt loams. To a soil scientist
there's all different kinds of descriptions for all
kinds of silt loams. But generally for hydraulic
purposes you group them all as one, and it comes
down to about 4 or 5 different soils. We have
developed these curves and we have the competence
limits of these curves, and we think it will make a
very good basis for design in these fields.
We found with the silt loams that we can
actually load them about 3 times higher than what
the State health code says. But with the sands, you
have to stick pretty much with what they have. In
the clays they don't allow them, and we feel that
can get fairly excessive if you do install them. But
it would function. It's like Rein says, you have to
build the bed for the particular soil you have. You
can have a series of trenches, and eventually you'll
get to the last trench, all that you will need to take
care of it. That will be your design.
Rein Laak: This is the last time I'm going to say
anything, then everybody else can talk. The crust
test by Bouma is very interesting. The crust test
measures the unsaturated flow. It measures in
between. It does not measure the flow through the
crust. It also measures the flow, actually, under-
neath it. Our feeling at the University of
Connecticut is that this type of a measurement is
fine for functioning fields and what the behavior is.
But design, as a basic design for long term, and
using the worst conditions, we feel that test should
be modified and the test should be changed so that
you measure actually the transmissivity through
the clogging mat, not underneath it.
Dick Otis: In answer to that, in a sense you're
right in that we're actually looking at the flow
through the soil underneath the mat. But the water
is coming from above the mat and therefore it's got
to go through it. And the amount of water passing
through the soil with the various crust resistances
that we apply across these soil columns in situ—
we're trying to determine how much is going
through.
Steve Goldstein: Well, Laak promised he wouldn't
say anything else about that, and Wisconsin got the
last word. But then again, Wisconsin makes great
cheese!
Steve Sisk, EPA, Kansas City, Kansas: I'd like to
introduce a topic that I haven't heard anything
about since I've been here. It is of some interest in
our region. That is nonconsumptive spray irrigation.
Is there anyone here who has had experience with
contamination problems resulting from noncon-
sumptive spray irrigation? If so, I'd like to know
what they are.
Steve Goldstein: I could suggest that Bill Walker
would have something to say to that, and Bill is
probably in another room. I can do more than
suggest that, because he took me to task over some
items when I wrote about them a few years back.
Robert Ward, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins: One of the things in Colorado that we
have a lot of trouble with in the mountains is the
shallow soil layers in which to install leach fields.
What is the minimum amount of depth of permeable
material that is necessary in order to adequately
treat waste water? I'll throw that one out.
Steve Goldstein: You just reopened a wound that
I thought we had sealed! Does anybody from the
audience want to venture a guess?
Donald Aulenbach: I can't venture a guess. But
with the studies that we are anticipating doing at
Lake George, we have some sand beds which are
used for recharge, complete tertiary treatment of a
secondary treatment plant effluent, highly filtered
effluent. As of the moment we have installed well
points every 2 feet down to 15 feet, and we will be
installing lysimeters every 5 feet down to the
ground water, which is about 65 feet. And I hope
within a year we'll have at least some information
on the type of sand that we have, which I don't
say is applicable everywhere, but maybe we'll have
an answer within another year.
From the studies that we have done some i
years back, 10 feet of sand, vertical, has about 95,
99 percent BOD removal, and about the same 99
119
-------
percent coliform removal. And by extrapolating,
we would assume that maybe 15 to 20 feet would
have given us complete ammonia oxidation and/or
removal. I forget the other parameters. Phosphorus
was reduced, but not removed in that distance.
Ken Childs: I would like to throw out something
as a suggestion. As geologists we talk about sands
and clays and gravels, and we frequently infer
mineralogy exists. And we would like to use the
term "clay," and at times it means one thing,
sometimes something else; other times it means
size. Depends on whatever the need is.
More specifically here, I feel that you talk
about 10 feet of sand or 4 feet of something, the
relationship has got to be between a constituent
and a particular type of material. Now, there may
be sand size, it may be a sand of a particular
chemistry, for example, and 10 feet of sand may
be adequate in terms of ammonia nitrogen but it
may not be adequate for phosphorus. So it's not
simply a question of a number for a sand or a
number for sewage, you've got to be specific about
which constituent and specific about the environ-
ment that you're putting it into in order to apply
that type of rationale, I believe.
Randy Sweet: I assume we are still on the question
of the depth of materials needed. I pointed out in
our report that on our study we found that 200
feet wasn't sufficient depth when you have a cess-
pool type disposal system. I could carry that a little
farther and say that on the Oregon coast we looked
at some systems and we found that in one particular
county we have something like 46 percent failure
in the systems located in the dune sand and the
terrace sand along the coast, and that the sand is
generally a very sterile medium in that case. And
when I say "failure" I mean bacteriological and
chemical failure, and that's on the beaches and some
places. Most of these, however, are associated with
commercial establishments. So I think you also
have to put a loading rate into this thing, which
we haven't mentioned yet. The loading rate also
goes into that in this 200-foot separation I was
talking about earlier. We have a very high density
population in the area. You've got a lot of water, a
lot of effluent going down.
Steve Goldstein: Was the flow in those cases of
200-foot separation, and/or the beach, was the
flow in the soil regime saturated or unsaturated?
Randy Sweet: In the beach we can't be sure. In the
Oregon coast, I don't know if everyone is aware of
it, but we have quite a bit of precipitation in the
winter time. We actually can get a slugging of
material going to the water table that's discharging.
In the Portland Terrace area that I was talking about
earlier, we feel that we're talking about unsaturated
flow.
Ken Childs: I feel that it's not per se a distance
concept, it's a time concept. If you put so many
pounds into a system of some dimension having
specific characteristics, then that system has the
potential to remove X pounds of that constituent.
And when that constituent and that filter are
saturated, at that point there's no filter left. So I
think it's a time concept more importantly than a
distance concept, tied to loading and specific
characteristics of that particular part of the system
that is acting as a filter.
Randy Sweet: We carried that a step farther in
some of our studies, in fact with the nitrates. It's
not just the time and an ability to treat, it's also
a dilution ability. It's the same thing that they use
in the airshed plannings, and in some of the surface-
water quality—to balance things.
Ken Childs: I would suggest that dilution is not in
essence treatment, but dilution is only—you have
the same load when you get done, whether it's 5
parts per million or 10 parts per million. The only
thing you've done is to spread it out. Dilution is
not treatment.
Randy Sweet: I would just say that there is a school
of thought that says dilution is the solution. If you
can't measure it, then it's not a problem.
Gerald Hendricks: I think the gentleman from
Michigan said something really important in talking
about constituents. I think we're missing something.
No agricultural engineer that I know of that can
think would overload the soil with nitrogen to the
point where you would have an excessive problem
in the ground water. He's wasting fertilizer.
Some releases say that by 1980 we will not
have the fertilizer plants we need to meet the food
problems. I know farmers that buy fertilizer
$10,000 at a time. So I'm not negative about
application on land. But I'm a little disturbed by
the tendency for us to ignore the people who are
specialists in this field, the agricultural people, and
so I feel like this constituent loading should be
related to the vegetation that is using that soil.
120
-------
I feel like in the nongrowing season, let's say
by absorption you are storing. But come the grow-
ing season you better use it if this thing is going to
be a balanced situation. So I think that Mr. Childs
is saying something very true when he talks about
the constituent loading, rather than the distance,
as being what we should be looking at.
Steve Goldstein: Thank you, Gerry. I would like
to make this observation. Not too long ago, and still
today in many places, people feel very safe, secure
and content by reading in a book that wells should
be 100 feet or 50 feet, depending on the location,
away from a septic tank or drain field. And if the
regulation is written as 100 feet required separation,
they feel very safe at 101 feet and very insecure at
99 feet.
I think that all of us today, with the things
that have been batted back and forth, now see that
such rote formulas are really sheer folly. There's a
great importance in sanitary engineers, soil
scientists, geologists, and yes, Gerry, even the ag
engineers, communicating back and forth about
these things, but that really rote formulas have to
be on the way out.
Rein Laak: I'd like to defend the rote formulas.
The rote formulas have a good application on this.
Until there is a clear and universal understanding of
treatment through soil, there is uncertainty over
which constituent you are looking for. And some
kind of a soil test to know how well the soil can
treat.
The codes specify minimum distances. They
specify only minimum distances, which is a type of
minimum protection to the general public. And it
is up to professionals to decide whether this
minimum is sufficient or not. And there are many
cases where it should be longer than 75 feet or 100
feet. Although, when you do propose it, the code
in a way has a double edge. When you propose 200
feet, your client will say, "You're crazy, the code
says 75," and you have a tough time convincing
anybody you need 200, because we do lack a soil
test to predict what constituents, how far it goes,
and also an economic way of investigating a soil
site or investigating an area economically. There
is none available. It takes an enormous amount of
money to investigate an area.
James R. Gentry, Memphis/Shelby County Health
Department, Memphis, Tennessee: I think the cost
of land is such today that we can't justify depending
upon the formula that you have to be 100 or 200
feet away from a source of contamination. We have
a good overburden of clay there, and I'll approve a
well within 25 feet of a septic system if it's put in
right, if it's properly protected. If the space sur-
rounding the casing is properly protected, then you
don't need that distance. It's the cavities surround-
ing the casings that are creating the problems in a
lot of areas with contamination.
Bill Pitt: I'd like to come to the defense of dilution,
mainly because that's what we did in Miami. We
found out that dilution was indeed the major
factor that had any real weight when we're talking
about the parameters that we looked at. I realize
that here you're talking about distances and other
things, you're talking about sandy areas mostly,
clay areas. But in limestone areas, dilution is a
very important factor.
Steve Goldstein: Do we have any answers or
comments directed toward the gentleman's
comment about a 25-foot separation and so forth?
Ken Childs: Do you give any significance to the
depth of the well itself, whether it's 15 feet from
ground level, or whatever your minimum is, or if
it's 200 feet or 400 feet? Does this have any
significance in terms of the horizontal isolation
between that septic tank and that water well? And
also, whether or not the septic tank is upgradient or
downgradient, is that a consideration?
James R. Gentry: Yes. It is a requirement that the
well be located at a higher elevation than the septic
system. Also it is considered, in that most of the
formations that I was speaking of are 90 feet or 500
feet. We have a shelf at 90 feet, we have a 500-foot
formation and a 1500-foot formation. This is a
consideration. The well is required to be located
upstream from the septic system, and surface water
is required to be diverted from the area of the well.
And depth is a consideration, and the amount of
overburden that you have, and the type clay
formation, and so forth.
Randy Sweet: To be pragmatic about the whole
thing, I have worked with the development of the
rules in the State of Oregon. I don't agree with a
set distance to the water table or a set distance to
a well or a set distance to a septic tank. But the
people who are evaluating these systems we have
found are not always capable of completely under-
standing all the hydrologic and hydrogeologic
implications of a waste disposal system, and there-
121
-------
fore we set up a set of rules but cannot always—
and I'm sure that every other State has done the
same thing—set up a set of rules which we hope will
have a safety factor involved in the rules which will
allow for some practicable solution.
Unfortunately, and I'm sure it's happened to
most other people involved in the same kind of
business, we are not allowed to talk about density
at all, because we are not in the "land-use planning"
business. And therefore we run into a lot of prob-
lems like the one that I talked about in East
Portland, I think, where the density becomes so
great and the loading becomes so great that, as I
said earlier—and I didn't claim to be a proponent
of the school that dilution is the solution. But
where dilution is not the solution any longer, in
fact it's becoming a problem. We don't have
sufficient dilution.
Steve Goldstein: By "density" you meant popula-
tion?
Randy Sweet: Population density. Or disposal
system densities.
Thomas I. Iwamura, Santa Clara Valley Water
District, San Jose, California: To that regard,
concerning density, is there a way to even begin to
determine so-called threshold density, as to what
level of development can an area develop ? I realize
that we're talking about both the alluvial areas
that concern the ground water, and then the
mountainous areas. For instance, in an alluvial
ground-water basin area, is there a way? I guess
most people know Santa Clara County is one of
the fastest growing counties, and the city areas are
growing very drastically. But there is a great amount
of pressure to grow in the county areas.
They're starting out with, for instance, minor
subdivisions, 4-lot type, total of 10 acres divided up
into 2'/2-acre lots. Offhand, one here or there really
doesn't pose any problem. But from a county
standpoint, if we can allow these things to go
through and this spread becomes uniform through-
out the county area, how do we know that this is
permissible or not? Is there a way that we can
•evaluate this? I'd like to throw this out.
Steve Goldstein: That is an excellent question.
Does anybody care to hazard a guess? He's talking
about a rational approach toward limiting the use
of on-site disposal, primarily through septic tanks,
or coming up with a limiting or maximum permis-
sible density of population, based on physical,
geophysical, hydrogeological considerations, with
the objective of minimizing the contamination of
ground water or keeping it within acceptable limits.
George B. Maxey, Desert Research Institute, Reno,
Nevada: You put it on a scientific basis; he sounded
kind of emotional.
Steve Goldstein: But I don't have to face the
builders that he has to face every day.
George B. Maxey: He's quite emotional. I face
these things every day, and I wonder why he is so
emotional.
Tom Iwamura: I face the problem.
James R. Gentry: I think that the situation is such
that you can limit the density for septic systems. If
they go beyond this limit of density, then they have
to go to secondary treatment.
Steve Goldstein: I think the question was, how do
you determine for any given area what the limiting
density should be.
James R. Gentry: It depends upon the soil forma-
tions in the areas.
Steve Goldstein: Rein, if you recall, we both
attended a meeting where one of your colleagues at
the University of Connecticut came up with a model
for just such a thing. Could you identify him and go
over that briefly?
Rein Laak: Yes. University of Connecticut's
Professor Tom Holtzer is a geologist, and he did
some modeling on this thing. He used nitrogen as a
basis to come up with a density, and using minimum
ground-water flow, low flows, and ground-water
contamination by nitrate, to try to calculate what
the limit should be, assuming septic tanks.
Now, my personal opinion is that we should
not seek that kind of a planning tool, because
on-site disposal technology is developing. Other
types of pretreatment units, other ways of manipu-
lating treatment before it reaches the ground-water
table can be achieved, so that you should not
provide the planner with a tool, zoning, which has
a far-reaching effect, so it can be implemented.
Rural living or suburban living should not
suffer because of, I would say, antiquated technol-
ogy, which is just about moving ahead now, and
more information is coming up, so I don't think
122
-------
we should be thinking of basing population density
on septic tanks. Just leave it open.
Steve Goldstein: Okay. At least we have identified
Dr. Holtzer, and that's a start. Jim Warman, could
you comment on the question?
James C. Warman, Water Resources Research
Institute, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama:
The comment begs the issue that technology is
developing, but is not developed. He has a problem
today.
Tom Iwamura: I 'd like to add a little bit to this.
When I talk to our County Health Department
concerning the new technology and concerning
pretreatment or upgrading before it goes into the
leach field and these things, their stand at this time
is that they're very reluctant to give just a general
okay on this. They realize, it's just like on any
septic tank, it depends upon that system itself. Is
it performing the way it's supposed to? And our
County Health Department has indicated that we
just don't have the personnel to go out and check
every one of these.
William Martin: That just brings back a point,
Steve, that I wanted to sort of challenge you on, is
that not wanting to put out these guidelines, these
numbers, distances, and so forth, because we need
a team of experts to evaluate these sites. I don't
think we'll ever have that team there. We can't
afford it out on every site. And if we can't come
up as professionals with some guidelines that zoning
people can use now, and modify those as we gain
better knowledge, we're not worth our salt. We
should come up with those guidelines for these
guys. That's what we're working for, so that they
can get going.
We're putting in systems right now that we
don't have technicians out there seeing that they're
put in right. It bothers me. I design a system, I go
out 2 years later and find out that half the field
was put in. We're not even putting in what we know
about right now. It's very disturbing. I think we
have an obligation to people like this.
Steve Goldstein: That point is very well taken.
When I was referring to rote formulas, I guess I
was referring to a rigid description of something
like 100 feet irrespective of any other conditions.
Now what you're talking about in terms of
guidelines, where indeed there is some interpretation
and there is not just one answer, but there is an
answer which depends on other conditions which a
person with only moderate expertise can evaluate,
that's the kind of thing that I'm looking for, and I
think that we're not talking about different things.
Tom Iwamura: The thing that I would like to
really put on here is that unless we come up with
something, the politicians will steamroller us. It is
an awkward position to be in. But unless we can
realize the problem, we can look at it on the basis
of mass salt balance and things like this, we've got
to be a little bit more specific and a little bit more
practical. And unless we can get it down and
convince the politicians, they're just going to
steamroller us until we can prove that it is harming
the basin, and at that point it might be a little too
late.
Like for instance, some of the earlier talks
this evening that they had densities like about 4
septic tanks per acre and it was creating some
problems. It's creating problems up to a certain
time. But time doesn't stop; it keeps on going.
And then what?
Donald B. Aulenbach: This is another situation
where we are saddled with the problem that some-
body, usually the Health Department, has to make
a decision without adequate information. Of
course, this is something we do all the time. The one
thing that to me is the biggest problem, in actuality
there should be no requirements for any distance
between a well and a septic tank, because proper
septic tank disposal says that we discharge the
liquid effluent into the surface ground-water supply,
this is the ground water in contact with the surface
at the top layer; whereas a proper well will never
take water out of the surface ground water. In
other words, it will pass through at least one
aquaclude or impermeable layer before you extract
any water.
And assuming that the wells are properly
constructed—which they may not be—there will be
no interchange between the aquifer from which
we are taking the water and that into which we
are discharging the water.
Donald Keech, Michigan Department of Public
Health, Lansing: This brings a point that I want to
ask. What is a protected ground-water supply? Now,
this has to be considered along with the spacing or
lot size of your subsurface disposal system. For
example, many areas, as Mr. Childs knows because
we've discussed it, in. Michigan you don't have an
aquaclude. You've got sands and gravels to the
123
-------
depth of the water-bearing formation that is
potable. Is a 75-foot well, say, with 30 feet of
water above the screen, a protected water supply
with a reasonable horizontal separation from the
sewage disposal, on-site sewage disposal?
Steve Goldstein: Can anybody answer that question
before asking another?
Arthur Clarkson, Montana State Department of
Health, Helena, Montana: We have similar problems
in Montana, and we have taken the attitude if you
are below 50 feet and you have sand and gravel all
the way we're going to have to approve it, and if it
gets too bad you're going to have to chlorinate the
well. And we have many, many areas where you
have 50 to 75 feet of gravel over bedrock that was
formed when the glaciers moved through, and this
is the only source of water they're going to have.
And there's no other way to get rid of the sewage,
so you're going to have to use something like it.
Tom Iwamura: It's something like that, it's some-
thing like the ball is in progress, it's rolling. I think
a monitoring system has become highly important,
not only to know what the water quality condition
is, but what is the trend, even though it is within
safe limits. But as soon as an adverse trend begins to
occur, you've got to either take some action or
you'd better look into this very deeply.
Ken Childs: Well, in Michigan, many of the water
supplies are in water-table conditions, water-table
aquifers. Most of the sediments are glacial sediments
at the surface. So the clay is identified usually
from well logs, and the well logs are written up by
the driller who identifies clay on the basis of size.
There's an interpretive factor in each well log. But
the presence of clay in one well log does not insure
the continuity of clay beyond that well bore. And
like I say, in many cases there's no aquaclude
involved.
Getting back to the depth, I can show you
cases in Michigan in outwash, 70 feet of outwash,
and many wells in a small village where there's 70
feet of sand and gravel above a water-table aquifer,
and the wells are completed in the top of the
aquifer because that's the cheapest way to go, and
that's the way we do, cheap. And most of those
wells in that village show some influence of sewage.
But we don't have the luxury of "the aquaclude."
And you can't guarantee continuity from well logs.
Richard Slade, Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.,
Burbank, California: As a practicing engineer and
geologist I appreciate the necessity of well standards
as Mr. Sweet suggests. I also can appreciate the
gentleman from Santa Clara's necessity to have a
practical solution. We get, of course, involved in this
all the time to provide answers to clients who have
problems. And in Southern California there's the
magic number of 50 feet for a well seal that we
have to deal with every day. It's a sanitary seal
that's supposed to be the cure-all for everything.
But we get involved—for instance, one of our
projects was in the San Bernardino Mountains near
Lake Arrowhead where its granitic materials, there's
no interstitial or intergrain processes for permeabili-
ty, so you're dealing again with the fracture perme-
abilities. The State says, "Well, you've got to have
a 50-foot well seal and all your horizontal wells
are therefore no good because you don't have 50
feet of cover in the moutain mass over some of the
seepage pits."
So we said, okay, we'll try to go along with
that. So we decided to try some vertical wells. And
in the typical mountain mass the way the fractures
have been running the horizontal well is the only
solution for a water supply. The vertical well, if
you drill it, you don't necessarily intercept as many
of the fractures, and yet you can obviously get a
50-foot well seal. It's much easier to get one. But
in all actuality, when you're dealing with fracture
permeability, it doesn't make a bit of difference
whether you're horizontal or vertical because the
fractures, you're going to get them across the well.
So it's very difficult when you're fighting the
system to get the client water. They're dealing
with fantastic quality water. Up in the mountains
there, TDS's (total dissolved solids) are 70 or 80
parts per million. So you're dealing with these
problems. Yet the State says you've got to deal
with this 50-foot well seal and therefore you can't
have a horizontal well any longer.
So, again, how do you fight that problem? So
you have the standards on one hand, you have the
practicalities on the other. One further example we
deal with in the counties there is abandonment of
wells, and the procedures. You have a lot of old
farmers' wells out in the alluvial basins, long since
defunct, and the farmer has thrown his little bit
of dirt in them and some rocks every now and then
to cover them up. And years later someone is
grading there and hits the well casing and you've
got 400 gallons a minute flowing on the ground
surface. So then someone says you've got to shut
this well off or you're going to occlude everything.
124
-------
And we're called in to shut the well off. And we
have some regs, we can do this. But now we have to
fight the Department of Health, because the
Department of Health has an exact set of guidelines
on how to abandon wells in certain areas. And we
get involved there with a representative from the
Department of Health coming out and telling the
contractor or an engineering geologist how to shut
a well off. He has an exact list, a formula, if you
will, of what to do.
And it's been our experience in this case that
we don't feel the Department of Health ought to be
handling this. It ought to be people in the govern-
ment branch who are the inspectors, but in this
case the inspectors are in the wrong county depart-
ment. They're in the Health Department. Their
backgrounds are not such as the contractors, they
don't have any engineering experience, and this
becomes a serious problem. And we've had to fight
the system, and most of the time we actually end
up winning. But again, the standards versus the
practicalities. And this is very serious.
Jim Warman: We have as part of the well construc-
tion standards a concern about closing wells. These
regulations were written with the input from drilling
contractors who are members of the regulatory
board. And yet these people in their wisdom over-
looked something when they said, "If you're
going to seal a well, you're going to ideally fill the
thing with grout." And yet their same regulations
permit bored wells. And there's no way under the
sun that you're going to convince a fellow with a rig
that bores a well that he's going to fill a 24-inch
hole with grout. So that even when you have this
kind of input there will be mistakes made, and then
you have to go through the rather formal procedure
of revising these regulations. It's a rather formidable
task.
Steve Goldstein: For the record, Jim, would you
identify the regulations or the proposed standards?
Jim Warman: This is a regulation of the Alabama
Water Well Standards Board. These regulations are,
of course, up for revision. The board has been made
aware of this particular fault in the regulation, and
in due course they will take care of it. But I recall it
was about a year ago that I called that particular
problem to their attention, and it hasn't been fixed
yet. I would hate to see them try a court case to
force some fellow to fill a 24-inch or a 36-inch or
whatever bored well with concrete.
Steve Goldstein: To your knowledge, is this subject
addressed in the proposed well construction stand-
ards that the NWWA has put together for and with
the cooperation of the EPA?
Jim Warman: I can't answer that one.
Steve Goldstein: Do we have somebody here that
can?
Wilbur J. Whitsell, Water Supply Division, EPA,
Washington, D.C.: The so-called specifications on
well abandonment as they appeared in some of the
first drafts of the NWWA specs did not meet with
approval of a number of the contractors and other
people, and so a number of us sat down to see if
we couldn't come up with a more general and a
similar recommended procedure for the abandon-
ment of wells which would cover virtually all cases.
This primarily is based on using common sense in
following these procedures and not insisting, for
example, that you put in cement grout in regions
where it's not required. Now there are some catches.
One of the main problems in abandoning any well,
of course, is that you may be abandoning something
about which you know very little. And if you have
the information on the geological formations that
were penetrated in the construction of the well, it
suddenly becomes relatively simple.
To give you an idea of the way it stands now,
and I have to add to this there is a possibility this
could still be changed, we feel that within the
aquifer zone itself there's no point in putting a
material that's a sealant in a formation that is
permeable. The formation might just as well be
filled. We're talking about filling, backfilling, rather
than sealing. It can be backfilled with a material
that's similar to what is in the aquifer formation
itself.
For example, if you have penetrated a sand
and gravel aquifer, then we feel that a sand or a
gravel which has been disinfected—we prefer it be
disinfected—you can do this with sand and gravel-
can be used to fill that zone. Then in the imperme-
able zone, if there's an impermeable zone above
that, then you should use a cement seal or a plug.
Above that we don't really care a heck of a lot, as
long as whatever is used in the fill, the fill material
above there, is less permeable than the material
around it.
Don Keech: I feel that Michigan has a very practical
well plugging regulation, and in response to our
contractor from California, I am an engineer and we
125
-------
do get out on these jobs, and I think the Health
Department knows more about plugging wells than
the contractors in the majority of the cases. So be it.
But, Bill, I take exception to plugging sand
and gravel wells with sand and gravel. And I'm not
a geologist, but I've been associated with geologists,
and you know that when nature put the sands and
gravels down they were stratified, and your
horizontal permeabilities are much greater than
your vertical permeabilities. And when you drill a
hole through that you destroy it. When you pour
sand back in you do not recreate the stratification
that was originally there. You do not prohibit the
vertical permeability like you get under natural
conditions. So we feel that these holes should be
plugged with a fine grain size material, a puddled
clay or let's say a bentonite type of mixture, rather
than going back with the sand and gravel,
particularly to keep any surface contaminants from
using that as a channel down into a useful aquifer.
Wilbur Whitsell: I'm sure we go along with the
finer grain material. We would still prefer that it be
filled with something that we can disinfect before
we put it down there, and for this very same reason
that you mentioned. These materials are stratified,
and frequently, despite what the driller reports or
what he says, he doesn't really know what he
drilled through or hasn't reported it so we don't
know. And there can be layers in there that are
much more permeable than we realize.
Another part of it would be, in these forma-
tions about which we do not have good information,
then go the full route and fill it with cement.
Richard Slade: Just for one last clarification. I'm
an engineering geologist, not a contractor. My
point would be that it's fine to consider backfilling
the well with gravel strata, silts, clays, and finer-
grained material, until you have a problem that you
have a flowing well, first of all. How do you shut
those off?
And the second thing, you have a lot of
gravel-packed wells. So it actually does no good
just to simply pour gravel, or even grout for that
matter, because you've got a gravel-packed well.
First of all, you've got to consider that you're
dealing with wells that were drilled 40 years ago,
not 5 years ago.
Wilbur Whitsell: Yeah; let me finish. I've only
touched on a part of the well abandonment pro-
cedure. One problem—I want to talk about the
aquifers. The filling operation, we call the first
filling operations would be the aquifer, assuming
that is the bottom one, the first one. Assuming we
have filled that with an acceptable material, then
we must consider the seal which goes above it,
which is our way of capping the bottle or sealing it
to prevent contaminants from getting in. And this
should be done with a cement grout immediately
above in the closest impermeable or least permeable
formation above the aquifer. We can see 3 types of
seals. And whenever we mention seals we are talk-
ing about cement grout. Everything else is con-
sidered fill. So the first type of cement seal is—I
shouldn't say the first one, but one of them—the
one that is at the top of the aquifer formation and
presumably protects the aquifers from infiltration
of contaminants through the bore hole from above.
Another type of seal would be one which
you would place between aquifers to prevent the
interchange of water between aquifers via the bore
hole. And here again, in cases you won't know. If
you don't know, then the safest route to go is to
go with the cement all the way. In many cases it
won't be necessary. We're really wearing sus-
penders and belts at the same time on some of those
things when we do that, because you can prove
hydraulically that even with a material of relatively
low permeability you cannot generate enough head
between these aquifers to cause a significant amount
of transfer of water between the formations. We
can demonstrate that mathematically. I think you
know what I mean there.
Then one other type of seal, cement seal,
one other position for the cement seal that we
envision is what we call a permanent cement
bridge. As you know, you may have cases where
you have several hundreds of feet of hole, and
there's really no reason for filling all that if you
can satisfy your requirements by establishing a seal
above. But you need a base for the seal. So we're
saying that you may establish a temporary bridge,
and there are many ways to do that in well
construction, and then pour on top of that the 10
feet—say a minimum of 10 feet of cement, it's
called a permanent bridge, and then go with the
rest of it. •
I think a lot of them will find this attractive,
because if you've ever been faced with a problem
of having to backfill a well, you've drilled to 150
or 200 feet farther beyond the last aquifer you
went through looking for something better and you
didn't find it, and then you've got the problem of
completing, setting a screen or something in the
upper aquifer and you want to backfill all that,
that's an awful lot of backfilling. You think you'll
126
-------
never get it done, so you establish a bridge. The
only thing that we're specifying is that the bridge-
to satisfy anybody who might object to putting
organic materials in there—they don't have to be
organic materials although we've done it—it should
be inorganic materials that are used in that bridge.
Then once you get above the uppermost
aquifer and your uppermost cement seal,, that zone
can be filled with anything which is at least as
impermeable as the natural materials around there,
up to within 5 feet of the surface. Then we say fill
the last 5 feet with whatever you think is the most
appropriate for the anticipated use of the land.
The Only thing I haven't really covered here
is that we recognize that you may have 2 different
situations. You may have liners or things in the
well that you can't remove. In that case we have
written in a couple of requirements for cementing
which will improve the cement seal that must be
installed within a liner that you can't remove. We
recommend you remove everything you possibly
can.
Richard Slade: I still want to get back on the fact I
still don't feel it's really getting to, say, the gravel-
pack quality, by simply filling up a hole, a casing.
There's still—the old—we still would have to think
in terms of the—
Wilbur Whitsell: Well, you have a gravel pack.
Richard Slade: Pollution is not going to come down
through the sand inside the hole, it's going to come
down the gravel pack, obviously the most permeable
thing in the proximity of the well. And again,
going to the fact that a lot of these wells are old,
you have ai geological record which was made by a
driller who probably logged that hole a week after
he got home. You mentioned you get very poor
geologic data. I just cannot emphasize—I've seen so
many hundreds and hundreds of logs that are
absolutely worthless-
Wilbur Whitsell: On brand new wells. Brand new
wells, just completed and you still don't know
what's down there.
Richard Slade: Well, that's true, but that's another
problem. But you find these old holes and you have
to abandon them, so you pull out the geological
log, if it exists first-
Wilbur Whitsell: Right. I know what you're talking
about now. The gravel-pack well, California
construction, where you gravel-pack all the way to
the surface of the ground, even putting some pipes
so they can fill it in as they pump sand down there-
Richard Slade: So we've gotten around this by
putting in packers, and then squeezing cement
against those. We rip the casing above that, and put
maybe 10 psi on the pump and squeeze the cement
out of there.
Wilbur Whitsell: One of the first things that we
have, we started off with it, and the recommendation
was that in preparing the well for abandonment,
the first thing that you do is remove everything
that you possibly can, within reason, to remove
whatever they can from the well.
In those particular cases, unless the pipe is
cemented in and it probably is not—that particular
one you're talking about is not cemented in. They've
got it all the way to the top, right? They can cut
that casing off at some point. And if they don't
want to go all the way to the bottom, there's no
reason for them to go all the way to the bottom.
Cut it off at the top of the aquifer, remove that
casing, let the rest of the gravel pack fall into the
well, backfill to there, and then seal from there on
up. Would you buy that?
Richard Slade: In the general statement, no, I
wouldn't. I'd have to see that well.
Wilbur Whitsell: Well, the thing we're trying to do
is to get them to think about what they are trying
to do rather than trying to follow a cookbook
approach.
Donald Keech: I think we all agree you have to
know the construction of the well to be
abandoned to design the procedure to be used. And
if you don't know, you make the best guess.
Wilbur Whitsell: Then if you don't know, and if
you have no way of knowing there's too much
down it, then the only route you have to insist on
would be cement.
Richard Slade: Unless the well is flowing, I might
add.
Wilbur Whitsell: If the well is flowing, then you
have to—we've outlined some procedures for getting
those under control, too.
Richard Slade: That is getting back to the fact
127
-------
about the people from the Department of Health,
and that is they refuse to allow us to put sand in
our cement when we're trying to shut off a well
that's flowing. As far as we're concerned, it doesn't
do much good to put a liquid down the well when
you're trying to shut off all the liquid trying to get
out of the well. And you've got to reduce your
permeabilities. And the only way to reduce
permeabilities is to plug up the hole, and that is to
get some sand in the cement.
Wilbur Whitsell: Well, anything you put in the
cement is going to limit its ability to penetrate.
Richard Slade: We're not talking a saturated
solution or anything like that. Small amounts of
sand are very effective.
Wilbur Whitsell: Rather than take everybody's
time up with this, we have included some
recommended procedures for bringing flowing
wells under control, and if they would follow
those they shouldn't have any trouble. They can
seal it with almost anything they want.
Richard Slade: Maybe this is something for NWWA
to perhaps work on again. We have drillers who go
out and drill holes. We have geologists sometimes,
occasionally, if a client has enough money, who
will elect to have a geologist sit on his hole and get
some good geological data. And a lot of times it
ends there with just the geologic logs.
Is there any way that the NWWA can put
into their guidelines or specifications or anything
of the sort to be of future help, some standards on
electric logging water wells? Every time I run a
basin-wide survey, study, to try to get water for a
client, or this problem we've been dealing with
here, abandoning holes without any definite
geologic data, it seems that the best data you can
possibly have on a well is an electric log. Is there
any possible way of looking into that sometime?
Wilbur Whitsell: There are suggested specifications
written in there calling for electric logs.
Richard Slade: Government subsidy? I'd like to
see it done.
Wilbur Whitsell: I thought there were.
Tom Iwamura: Not in connection with abandon-
ment.
Wilbur Whitsell: Oh, abandonment. Were you talk-
ing about abandonment?
Richard Slade: It would apply later to abandon-
ment, at some future time. If you get data collec-
tion-
Wilbur Whitsell: During construction?
Richard Slade: At the time of construction. It
would serve as a data reference and guide to solve
some of the problems of abandonment at a later
time, and other problems of water supply, water
development in the area. You simply cannot rely
on drillers' logs.
James Gentry: Evidently there may be some lack
of support from the U.S. Geological Survey in
that we don't have any problem in our area of
getting electric logs on all formations.
Donald Keech: I am quite familiar with electric
logging. One drawback, you cannot electric log the
hole once the casing is in place. Thousands, perhaps
hundreds of thousands of wells go in with cable
tool equipment that would be impossible to electric
log. Furthermore, electric logging every well is not
practical or feasible.
Wilbur Whitsell: I sympathize with the gentleman's
problem that you don't get the logs from the
drillers. But those of us who are responsible for the
construction of these wells, we've got to assume
some responsibility for not getting this information.
It has got to be written into the contract. You will
sample by certain frequencies and intervals and by
certain methods. It's sometimes easier said than
done.
Donald Keech: I guess I must speak out in defense
of drillers. I can only talk about Michigan drillers.
Michigan received in excess of 24,000 drilling
records last year. Now I admit that every one of
those is not precise. But basically drillers put down
an honest record of what their interpretations were..
If they are wrong or they're not as professional
geologists would do it, then I think that falls on our
shoulders to hold education seminars to bring the
drillers' ability in that area up where it should be.
I think we have made vast improvements in the
last 6 or 7 years in Michigan since well records
were required.
Wilbur Whitsell: I agree. Most of the blame rests
128
-------
with us in not seeing that they understand what
we have to have.
Jim Warman: Let's be very careful that we don't
slip into a stance that says that the economist needs
to learn how to be a ground-water geologist, or the
political scientist needs to learn how to be a
ground-water geologist or an engineer, nor the well
drillers. We have different roles to play, different
kinds of responsibilities. We need to improve our
ability to communicate effectively with them to
get the job done. Don't ask that well driller to
become a full-fledged ground-water geologist and
bring all of his training and abilities to bear on
these kinds of problems. We need to get in there
and better help him, but don't pretend to yourself
that you're going to make him totally self-reliant.
We're not going to achieve that with many of these
people. We have to help them.
Wilbur Whitsell: That's right. I agree a hundred
percent. What we want to do is to make sure that
he understands the information that we have to
have in the way of sampling so we can make these
decisions.
Steve Goldstein: Ed Ritchie, you've been engrossed
in a lot of this conversation that's been going on,
and I think you've got a private one of your own
going on in the back. Could you add something,
some edification to what's been going on? Give
us your version?
Edwin Ritchie, California Department of Water
Resources, Sacramento: Can she turn it (the tape
recorder) off? (laughter)
We don't know a whole lot about what we are
doing yet with abandonment of wells, and all this
talk about it, it's a lot of conjecture. We need a lot
of experience yet. Does that answer your question?
I know the problems that he's faced with, since
I'm writing the standards for California. I know
the problems he's faced with with the logs. I'm a
friend of the drillers—I'm everybody's friend—
except once in awhile.
Steve Goldstein: What would you have said had
the tape been off? (laughter)
Ed Ritchie: I'm working on the same committee
with Bill. So is Ralph over there. It's not easy to
write generalizations to cover the specifics, is
really the problem. So in any application of
standards like these you've still got to use your
heads. You still have to either base it on experience
or find out the hard way. Somebody spoke in one
of the sessions this morning, I think it was in your
session, maybe the second or third speaker, said
you learn real well by making a lot of mistakes.
We've been making mistakes in California now since
I wrote the standards 7 years ago. But we're
learning a little more.
Things like he talked about, about ripping the
casing and trying to get down to that gravel pack
by pressure cementing. It's an expensive way to go.
We're convinced now that a better way to go,
cheaper way, anyway, and almost as effective, is
to put grout in and let it go under its own weight.
That means if you have a big enough head.
We've had some awful expensive deep structure
jobs. I don't know; in my own mind I'm not so sure
it's worth it when it costs half as much as the well
did. I'm talking about wells that are 700-800 feet
deep, 24 inches in diameter, and you want to seal
off 2 or 3 different zones. That could be real
expensive if you do it the hard way. It could be
maybe 5 or 10 percent if you want to try something
different. Now, can I edit all that?
Steve Goldstein: I'm going to edit the whole
session. I'd be glad to have you do it!
Ed Ritchie: My friend Tom, from Santa Clara
Valley, is trying to work on standards that apply
to that particular area, with my encouragement.
Torn Iwamura: I'm grateful for all the help.
Steve Goldstein: Gentlemen, is there another line of
discussion that anybody would like to pursue?
Jim Warman: I was going to say, I have been on the
phone with the Geological Survey of Alabama to
secure some specific information about exactly
what they do in the evaluation of a site proposed
for a sanitary landfill, and I will have that in the
Discussion section following my paper.
Steve Goldstein: Thank you, Jim. I thank you all
for attending, and invite you to finish what refresh-
ments are left.
129
-------
Pickling Liquors, Strip Mines, and
Ground-Water Pollution4
by Wayne A. Pettyjohn
ABSTRACT
In 1964 a waste disposal firm began dumping neutral-
ized spent pickling liquors into an abandoned strip mine in
eastern Ohio. In 1970 the disposal pit was enlarged and
shortly thereafter significant water pollution problems
began to occur. Highly mineralized fluids began to leak from
the disposal pit into the surrounding spoil material and
eventually into streams and ponds. These solutions are
characterized by a low pH and excessive concentrations of
dissolved solids, hardness, sulfate, chloride, nitrate, iron,
fluoride, aluminum, chromium, nickel, and zinc.
In addition to the contamination by steel mill wastes,
acid-mine drainage from surrounding areas degrades both
surface and ground water. Acid-mine drainage is character-
ized by a low pH, and high concentrations of dissolved
solids, hardness, sulfate, and iron.
Geohydrologic and geochemical data clearly illustrate
that abandoned strip mines should not be used for the
storage of toxic liquid or semiliquid materials.
INTRODUCTION
The disposal of acid pickling liquors in a strip
mine in eastern Ohio caused serious water pollution
problems, fish kills, an irate citizenry, and technical
and legal problems for State agencies and industry.
The history of the problem is both complex and
confusing, largely due to the wide variety and
number of groups involved and their expertise and
compounded by vested interests, ignorance, and in
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974.
bprofessor of Geology, Department of Geology and
Mineralogy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
43210.
Fig. 1. Generalized geologic map of Ohio and location of
study area.
some cases stupidity. An examination of the
situation adequately demonstrates that liquid toxic
wastes should not be stored in abandoned strip
mines.
Much of eastern and southeastern Ohio is
unglaciated. Rocks forming the gently rolling
timber-covered topography consist of eastward-
dipping strata of Mississippian, Pennsylvanian, and
Permian age (Figure 1). These rocks are composed
largely of alternating layers of sandstone, shale,
limestone, coal, and underclay.
Coal has been mined in eastern Ohio since
1804. Most of the early workings were
underground, but since World War II, production
from stripping has exceeded underground removal.
In the contour-stripping technique, material
overlying a coal seam is removed, starting at the
130
-------
outcrop and proceeding around the hillside. The cut
forms a bench and the overburden or spoil is placed
on its outer edge. The inside of the bench is
bordered by a highwall. Following removal of the
coal, successive cuts are made until the depth of
overburden becomes too great for economical
retrieval of the coal. In many cases, the bench is
enclosed by the highwall and spoil ridges. Water
collects in these basins forming long, narrow lakes.
Following the mining operation, stripped
lands are of relatively little value due to the rugged
highly erodable topography, lack of soil, and
commonly acid-mine drainage—the discharge of
highly mineralized corrosive water. In view of the
low economic value of many of the old strip-mine
areas, they have begun to appear as attractive
disposal sites for domestic, municipal, and
industrial waste. The purpose of this report is to
describe some of the effects of waste disposal in
an abandoned strip mine.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Large quantities of spent pickling liquors
provide significant waste-disposal problems in
Fig. 2. Sketch map of the disposal area showing location of
sampling sites.
Fig. 3. Generalized east-west and north-south cross sections
through disposal and strip-mine area.
heavily industrialized areas. Consequently, in the
early 1960's a Pennsylvania-based firm proposed to
collect and dispose of steel mill acid wastes from
throughout a wide area in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
The wastes include spent pickling liquors consisting
largely of sulfuric and hydrochloric acid and
relatively large concentrations of iron, chromium,
nickel, manganese, lead, aluminum, and zinc. The
firm proposed to mix the pickling liquors with
lime (calcium hydroxide), a waste product from
acetylene production, raising to 9 or higher the pH
of the resulting sludge. The sludge was to be stored
in an abandoned strip mine in eastern Ohio.
The mined area forms a divide between two
small streams (Figures 2 and 3). The rocks in this
area are typical Pennsylvanian strata consisting of
alternating layers of sandstone, shale, coal and
underclay. Nearly vertical joints are common in the
shale and sandstone. Most of the coal, the No. 6 or
Middle Kittanning, was removed by stripping, but
very likely there was a small amount of under-
ground or auger mining. Several highwalls and strip-
mine lakes occur throughout the area.
The disposal pit is bounded by spoil piles on
the west and south, a highwall on the east and an
earthen dam on the north (Figure 2). It is about
1700 feet (518 m) long and as much as 200 feet
(61 m) wide. The stripped area now covered by
spoil materials, extends about 800 feet (244 m)
westward from the highwall and southward along a
divide for nearly a mile (1.6 km).
A few hundred yards east of the disposal site
is a small stream, Tributary A, whose headwaters
lie in two long-abandoned strip mine lakes (Figure
2). Tributary A contains three recently abandoned
beaver dams and a man-made impoundment
(Wilson's Pond). Several other tributaries, all
originating in abandoned strip mines, join
Tributary A before it flows into Little Beaver
Creek, recently designated an Ohio Wilderness
Stream. Although Tributary A owes nearly its total
flow to runoff from strip mine lands, prior to 1966
131
-------
it was able to maintain a healthy aquatic life,
including beavers, and small-mouth bass in Wilson's
Pond.
Lying about a half mile (.8 km) west of the
site is Tributary B, whose discharge is more than an
order of mganitude greater than Tributary A.
Three small streams, a foot or two wide, originate
along the western slope of the spoil area and flow
into Tributary B (Figure 2).
ORIGINAL SITE EVALUATION
In 1963 the site was examined for the firm by
a consulting geologist before a disposal permit was
requested from the Ohio Water Pollution Control
Board. He reported that there would be no leakage
through the 2 to 4 feet (.6-1.2 m) thick underclay
which formed the base of the excavation. It was
pointed out, however, that some leakage might
occur through the overlying sandstone but that it
should decrease as the sludge moved into it causing
a reduction in permeability. Additionally, concern
was expressed over the possibility of fluids leaking
through the spoil where this material formed the
walls of the potential disposal pit.
The consultant's report and supporting docu-
ments were submitted by the firm to the Ohio
Division of [the] Geological Survey for examination.
This agency informed the Ohio Department of
Health that there were no problems with the site
and, consequently, a disposal permit was issued by
the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board in 1964.
THE PROBLEM APPEARS
The first complaint from local residents was
submitted to a State agency in February 1966.
Apparently some raw acids were being dumped
into the disposal pit, spilled on the ground, and
some reportedly were flowing in Tributary A. On
March 8, 1966, a second complaint was submitted
because cattle refused to drink from Tributary A.
A third complaint was initiated in July 1969,
because wastes were again being placed in the
disposal pit without neutralization. What effect
these complaints had on the operation itself or
how they may have influenced State regulatory
agencies is unknown.
By 1970, the pit was filling rapidly with
sludge and in order to provide additional storage
space, a narrow section of the pit was widened
and deepened, permitting the sludge to flow
southward into the low, newly-opened area.
Significant water-quality problems began to appear
shortly thereafter.
Wilson's Pond, formerly used for fishing,
swimming, and boating, became increasingly
stressed and a fish kill occurred in the pond in
September 1970. Nearly a year later, on August 16,
1971, Wilson's Pond overflowed into Little Beaver
Creek causing a major kill that amounted to some
77,000 fish. Following the fish kill, the entire area
was examined by the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources and water samples were collected from
Tributaries A and B, Little Beaver Creek, and from
several impoundments. Unfortunately, most of the
sample locations were so poorly described that it is
impossible to locate the original site within a few
hundred yards, or in some cases even a few miles.
After an evaluation of the collected data the
Ohio Department of Health ordered the disposal
firm to immediately cease the contamination or
suspend operation. A short time later, however, the
Water Pollution Control Board informed the
disposal firm that the Department of Health had no
jurisdiction, their order was invalid, and that the
operation could continue.
In October 1972, the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (OEPA) was formed by an act of
the legislature. Shortly thereafter the OEPA ordered
the disposal firm to close their operation in view of
the contamination. The order was appealed and in
the spring the office of the Ohio Attorney General
took jurisdiction of the case. Following several
months of legal involvements between the Attorney
General's office and the disposal firm, it was finally
agreed, in late fall of 1973, that the company
would build a plant and other facilities in order to
contain and treat the wastes that were discharging
into Tributary A. This agreement is now being
carried out, but the firm denied the assertion that
they had caused any contamination.
The writer, acting as a consultant for the
Attorney General's office, examined the disposal
area and collected a series of water samples in
1973. An examination of the chemical and
geological data provides an interesting example of
the dangers of liquid-waste disposal in strip mines.
SECOND EVALUATION
Sample Collection Sites
On April 14, 1973, water samples were
collected from streams, lakes, ponds, springs, wells,
and a sludge pit (Table 1) and analyzed at the Ohio
Department of Health laboratory. Tributary A was
sampled above the sludge pit, along the area of
supposed leakage, and downstream from the leak-
age area. Several small streams feeding into
Tributary A were also examined, including those
draining from opposite directions into the mainstem
132
-------
(Figure 2). One strip-mine pond (Site 7) contains
an abundance of fish, stocked in past years by the
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. The small
stream at Site 15 is formed by the leakage of lake
water through a spoil bank and although the stream
had a pH of 3.4, the lake water is neutral. Site 10
is a small flooded strip mine and an underground
working was penetrated by a test hole only a few
tens of feet to the south. Site 12 is a spring issuing
from a joint and Site 11 is a holding pond used to
collect leakage from an abundance of springs and
seeps immediately to the west. In order to keep the
holding pond from overflowing, fluids are pumped
from it uphill to the strip mine pond to the west—
a recycling process.
A spoil embankment at the north end of the
sludge pit serves- as a dam. Site 4 is a small stream,
fed by leakage through the dam, which flows into
Tributary B where it is rapidly diluted. Site 22 is a
shallow strip-mine lake in which some sludge has
been dumped. The ponds at Site 17 and adjacent to
Site 16 are low spots in the spoil. Site 16 is an
overflow stream from the pond and reportedly the
west end of the pond does not freeze during the
winter suggesting a considerable amount of ground-
water discharge. Site 19 is a pipe driven into the
hillside that provides water to Buckley's Pond;
reportedly the quality of the water in Buckley's
Pond has deteriorated significantly since 1971. The
immediate area has not been stripped. Sites 21 and
23 are on Little Beaver Creek just upstream and
downstream from the confluence with Tributary
A. Water samples were also collected from three
domestic wells between Buckley's and Wilson's
Ponds and another from a well nearly 3 miles (4.8
km) away. Data concerning the other collection
sites are shown in Table 1. More than 4 dozen other
analyses were also examined during the course of
the investigation.
Plant Operation
The largest volume of the pickling liquors
received at the site consist of sulfuric and hydro-
chloric acid with minor amounts of nitric and
hydrofluoric acid. Although data are not readily
available, the firm reportedly dumped about
725,000 gallons (2,744,125 1) per day in 1972. The
acid is neutralized with lime by mixing in large
tanks and then allowed to flow by gravity into the
pit. The mixed effluent reportedly has a pH of
about 11, but two samples show that it ranged
between 6 and 12.1 (Table 2). Five cores taken
from the sludge in the pit, however, indicate that,
with time, the pH tends to decrease. The pH of
Table 1. Description of Sample Collection Sites
Site •
Number Source Location
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Stream
Stream
Stream
Spring
Stream
Stream
Lake
Stream
Stream
Lake
Pond
Spring
Sludge pit
Stream
Stream
Stream
Lake
Stream
Spring
Stream
Stream
Lake
Stream
Little Beaver Creek
upstream from disposed
site
Small stream originating
at west side of mine
Tributary B below mine
Stream originating as
seepage through dirt
embankment at north
end of sludge pit
Small stream originating
at abandoned strip mine
Small stream originating
at abandoned strip mine
Lake between high wall
and spoil bank
Small stream representing
overflow from strip mine
lake
Tributary A above sludge
pit leakage area
Strip-mine lake
Holding pond used to
collect seepage
Water flowing from
fracture in shale
Fluid on top of sludge
Tributary A in sludge pit
leakage area
Small stream originating
from leakage through
spoil bank
Overflow stream from
"leaky pit"
Lake between spoil banks
Tributary A downstream
from major area of
seepage from sludge pit
Developed spring that
feeds Buckley's Pond
Overflow from Wilson's
Pond
Little Beaver Creek above
Tributary A
Lake between highwall
and spoil bank
Little Beaver Creek
downstream from
Tributary A
133
-------
supernatants ranged from 4.4 to 6.2 and the
various chemical constituents ranged within wide
limits (Table 2).
Furthermore, other core samples show
virtually no ferrous iron in solution. It is being
precipitated during neutralization. The ferrous iron
apparently is being leached both from the sludge in
the disposal pit and the spoil material, and moves
in the ground water to points of discharge. It is
interesting to note that the ferrous iron concentra-
tion is practically nil in samples collected in every
location except in the area affected by the disposal
operation. In all cases the moisture content of the
sludge was 70 percent or greater.
As the sludge pours into the pit, it flows first
in one direction and then in another as the
topography of the sludge surface changes. At the
southwesternmost corner of the pit at times there is
evident a low circular depression in the sludge
surface that probably indicates a point where fluids
are rapidly migrating into the adjacent spoil.
A water sample collected in 1972 from a
spring along the north wall at the southern end of
the pit had a pH of about 4. The spring is several
feet above the sludge level in the pit and probably
represents acid-mine drainage.
Surface Water
Surface water draining into Tributary A from
the north and east originates in strip-mine areas. In
many situations, water from coal-mine areas is
characterized by high dissolved solids, hardness,
sulfate, and iron, and low bicarbonate and pH,
but highly mineralized waters are certainly not
typical of all such regions. In many parts of
Appalachia, municipalities and industries withdraw
their water supplies from abandoned or even
abandoned parts of working underground mines,
and in many cases, the water contains less than
500 mg/1 of dissolved solids and is of excellent
quality. Acid-mine drainage is more typical of
those areas where water seeps through spoil banks
removing the soluble products generated by the
weathering of iron sulfides.
As indicated by data in Table 3, Sites 5, 6, 7,
and 8 contain no more than 377 mg/1 of dissolved
solids and, although high, the sulfate content is
less than Public Health Service recommended
limits. Site 15, however, is considerably more
mineralized since the entire flow is due to leakage
from an adjacent lake through a spoil bank. The
water has a low pH (3.4) and high dissolved solids,
hardness, and aluminum concentrations.
Water that flows eastward into Tributary A
from the north end of the sludge pit to the south
end of the spoil pile is highly mineralized,
particularly at Site 16. At Sites 12,16 and 19 the
pH did not exceed 3.3, the dissolved solids ranged
between 2,250 and 12,200 mg/1, hardness from
1121 to 3770, and sulfate and iron had maximum
values of 4760 and 2100 mg/1 respectively. These
particular constituents and their concentrations are
very similar to acid-mine drainage. It is strongly
suspected that fluid movement through the spoil
accounts for at least part of this unusual
occurrence.
On the other hand, the same sample sites, as
well as nearby impoundments, contain other
Table 2. Selected Chemical Constituents in Mixed Effluent and Sludge
(All Results Except pH and Moisture in Milligrams per Liter)
pH
Cl
F
Cd
Cr
Fe
Pb
Ni
Zn
Hardness
Dissolved
solids
NO3
S04
Moisture
(percent)
1
5.9
2700
5.9
0
0
94
.18
.10
6.6
—
-
-
-
70
2
6.1
3050
3.55
0
0
. 23.8
.20
.20
2.5
—
—
-
-
70
Cores from Pit
3
6.2
3450
4.0
0
0
13
.23
.23
.72
—
—
-
-
80
4
5.8
5200
5.05
.09
.07
100
.35
.81
3.0
—
-
-
-
-
5
4.4
8000
9.5
.08
.04
4500'
.23
3.8
180
—
-
-
-
80
Effluent
1
10.9
510
1.98
-
.32
27
0
.6
.1
13100
26600
3400
978
-
Before Dumping
2 3
6.0 12.1
- -
— —
.06
1.5
1250
.6
.6
1.23
— —
- -
- -
- -
81.7
134
-------
Table 3. Concentration of Selected Constituents from 23 Sites in the Vicinity of
Little Beaver Creek, Ohio (All Results Except pH in Milligrams per Liter)
Site
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PHS2
pH
7.2
7.0
6.7
3.0
6.5
6.4
7.1
6.2
6.9
4.9
3.8
3.3
9.6
6.6
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.0
7.5
6.9
6.0
6-8.5
Dissolved
Solids
328
1050
477
14500
337
377
182
174
5101
2250
2220
2250
6550
484
1140
12200
11400
2250
3630
-
250
-
355
500
Hard-
ness
142
704
226
-
198
242
104
102
—
1000
1100
1121
2800
280
388
3670
2800
1000
2620
-
142
514
220
300-
600
NO3
2
0
1.4
740
0
.9
—
1.6
_
9.6
1.5
-
220
.9
.4
340
320
54
51
-
2.1
5.0
8.4
45
SO4
85
266
143
4110
180
192
76
65
190
714
828
881
1890
219
599
4760
4160
903
2000
841
80
533
207
250
Cl
11
0
11
1000
0
3
4
1
6
300
300
430
900
4
1
750
750
200
290
240
12
119
35
250
F
.14
.23
.33
1.76
.23
.13
.16
.12
—
.7
.45
.31
4.6
.15
.61
1.5
1.9
2.5
3.4
—
.13
1.37
.8
1.7
Al
A
.9
.8
265
.1
.3
.1
0
—
.1
5.4
4.0
30
1.6
11.4
100
66
15.6
38
—
.5
.3
1.9
—
Cr
0
0
.01
3.05
0
0
0
0
—
.01
.01
.01
2.5
.01
0 "
.07
.06
.02
.01
—
0
0
0
.05
Fe
.6
1.3
1.6
220
.2
.6
.2
.1
.8
76
10.8
36
280
7.6
.9
2100
1950
320
14.1
220
.8
1.0
35
.3
Ni
0
0
0
36
0
0
0
0
0
.2
.3
.1
2
0
.5
18
16
2.5
1.9
2
0
.01
.3
—
Zn
0
0
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
.2
.2
.2
3
0
.7
58
40
8.8
8.4
7.1
0
.3
1.1
5.0
Mn
.12
.17
.55
272.
.68
.67
.06
.02
—
7.24
11.35
7.26
2.60
1.58
7.32
145.
116.
27.5
59.2
-
.26
2.38
3.60
.05
Conductivity
Public Health Service recommended limits for drinking water
substances in high concentrations that are totally
dissimilar to acid-mine drainage. These include
nitrate, chloride, fluoride, chromium, nickel, and
zinc, which are more indicative of contamination
by pickling liquors.
Small streams along the west side of the spoil
area flow into Tributary B. Although at Site 2 the
sulfate concentration was 566 mg/1, the pH was 7
and the other constituents were well within
expected limits. At Site 3, Tributary B, however,
does reflect the higher sulfate concentration of
the tributaries derived from acid-mine drainage.
Even a brief examination of the data in Table
3 indicates that Tributary A is grossly contaminated
and that the major source is the adjacent sludge
pit and spoil material to the west. The reasons
Tributary A is grossly contaminated relatively to
Tributary B are (1) the steeper hydraulic gradient
toward Tributary A, (2) an abundance of large
joints in the sandstone and shale between the sludge
pit and the tributary, (3) some spillage in past years
of sludge or untreated acids directly into the
stream, and perhaps most significantly, (4) the
presence of underground workings between the
sludge pit and Tributary A. One such opening
probably extends from the sludge pit to the
impoundment adjacent to Site 16.
The chloride ion was an especially good tracer
in the study, in spite of the fact that the firm
suggested that a possible source of the high chloride
concentration was leakage through abandoned oil
wells, several of which exist in the area. There are
no records indicating that any oil wells were ever
drilled in the strip-mine area, but similar State
agency files also indicate that there are no under-
ground workings in the area either!
Ground Water
There are two major sources of the water that
discharges from the spoil surrounding the disposal
site: (1) fluids squeezed from the sludge during
compaction, and (2) infiltration of precipitation
throughout the spoil area. These fluids tend to
become even more highly mineralized as they flow
through the spoil to points of discharge. It is also
suspected that there are significant geochemical
changes occurring in the sludge leading to the
generation of low pH fluids.
As the waste fluids migrate east and south
through the spoil, the low pH tends to maintain or
135
-------
perhaps even increase the concentration of heavy
metals in solution. There is probably little chance
for dilution or even dispersion, particularly in view
of the steep gradient and flow through underground
openings.
Data from several test holes drilled around the
southeastern extremity of the sludge pit tend to
complicate even more an understanding of the
situation (Table 4). The uncased test holes ranged
in depth from 40 to 95 feet (12 to 27 m) and the
pH of water withdrawn from them ranged from
3.86 to 7.40. Although drillers' logs and other data
concerning water levels, methods of collection,
and time intervals are not available, at least some of
the holes were drilled to depths near the elevation
of the bottom of the sludge pit. The data indicate,
however, that the ground water in the area of the
test holes is not as grossly contaminated as that at
Sites 12, 16, 17, and 19.
Other than the above-mentioned test holes,
wells have not been drilled in the spoil area or
adjacent unmined regions, but in view of the
contaminated springs and seeps that surround the
area, there is little doubt but that the ground water
is highly mineralized. In addition to the abundance
Table 4. Data from Test Holes Adjacent to the Sludge Pit
Table 5. Selected Chemical Constituents in Domestic
Well Water Supplies (All Results Except
Conductivity and pH in Milligrams per Liter)
Test Hole No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
(Underground
working)
12
Depth
68-70
90-95
70
Dry
Dry
76.77
52
95
80
65
95
65
68
95
40
40-42
pH
4.17
4.04
4.23
7.40
3.86
5.29
6.03
4.13
5.42 •
4.33
4.33
4.03
5.72
6.77
Total
Fe
(mg/l)
111
-
-.
1440
• -
1550
1390
-
-
64
140
Ferrous
Fe
(mg/l)
103
24
25
1430
25
1240
1280
34
33
55
90
Constituent
Conductivity
pH
Hardness
N03
SO4
Cl
F
Fe
Ni
Zn
1
550
7.9
70
.1
Tr
2
.41
—
0
0
2
490
7.5
106
.1
Tr
0
.39
.9
0
.6
3
320
8.2
50
.33
-
1.0
.72
0
0
—
4l
4002
7.4
200
2.3
33
29
.13
0
0
.4
1 Well is 2.8 miles east of disposal site
2 Dissolved solids
of springs along the eastern and southern margins
of the spoil, the topography, elevation of the water
surface in lakes, and the water quality all indicate
that the general direction of ground-water
movement is to the south and southeast.
Several homes and a school lie along a road
paralleling Little Beaver Creek from Wilson's Pond
to Tributary B. Their water supplies are all obtained
from wells a few tens of feet deep. Samples were
collected from three of these wells (between
Wilson's and Buckley's Ponds) in April 1973, but
as yet none have been contaminated. Analyses of
these waters and a fourth well about 3 miles (4.8
km) to the east are shown in Table 5. There is a
strong possibility that these wells could become
contaminated, particularly in view of the situation
at Site 19.
CONCLUSION
Although a treatment plant and pumping
facilities are scheduled for construction, probably
in the vicinity of Site 18, this will not entirely
solve the problem. Some means must be devised
to intercept or divert the southward flowing ground
water in the vicinity of Site 17. It may well be
years before the water-quality problem is under
control. Of course, none of these problems would
ever have come into existence if an abandoned
strip mine had not been used for waste disposal.
DISCUSSION
The following question was answered by Wayne A.
Pettyjohn after delivering his talk entitled "Pickling
Liquors, Strip Mines, and Ground-Water Pollution."
Q. by K. Bradley. Why didn 't the lake below the
strip-mine site freeze over? Is there any time limit to
the neutralization-precipitation, etc. ?
A. The lake didn't freeze largely because ground water
was rapidly discharging into it. I suspect the ground
water was flowing through an underground opening,
probably an auger hole, that terminated in collapsed
spoil material adjacent to the west end of the lake.
I don't understand the second question.
136
-------
Effluent for Irrigation — A Need for Caution?
by William H.Walker1
ABSTRACT
Most municipal waste treatment systems receive, treat,
and eventually discard to some segment of the environment
storm runoff and liquid wastes from all industrial, commer-
cial, and domestic areas and establishments in the communi-
ty. At any given time these wastes may contain viruses,
antibiotics, hormones, nutrients, weedkillers, fungicides,
pesticides, trace metals, and an almost countless number of
toxic chemical compounds. Present treatment by the old,
ineffectual sewage treatment methods and facilities still
employed generally does not remove nor reduce to a
harmless state all of the hazardous materials contained in
the waste streams entering the plant. Some are more
concentrated when they leave the plant in effluent and
sludge than they were upon entry.
Existing pollution protection laws prohibit surface-
water dilution of these effluents and sludges. Drying,
burning, or distilling them is very costly, causes air pollu-
tion, and produces potentially hazardous chemical residues
which still must be disposed of in some nonpolluting
fashion. There are no "technologically feasible, economi-
cally reasonable" alternative methods of effectively
treating these wastes to an acceptable quality level for
discharge to streams. For these reasons, land disposal of
sewage effluent and sludges now is being widely promoted
and employed as the best available method of treatment.
It is estimated that as many as 300 municipalities
have gone to the land to solve their sewage plant waste
problems in recent months. Many of these have been at
least partially funded with State and Federal grants. If
similar permits and financial assistance continue to be
granted in the future, it is anticipated that several
thousand municipalities will follow suit within the next
few years.
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974.
bHydrologist, Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana,
Illinois 61801.
Most operating facilities for land disposal of effluents
are not monitored adequately to provide required data to
quantitatively evaluate the total buildup and possible
subsequent release of toxic chemicals in contiguous soil,
plant, and water environments. Considering the potential
danger to public health which may result if widespread use
of this particular waste disposal practice is employed, it is
imperative that all such permitted sites be monitored and
evaluated in detail for all possible adverse effects, and the
results of these findings then considered in the design and
operation of future installations, if minimal pollution from
this practice is to be assured in the future. Concurrent
with this work, research must be expedited and greatly
expanded to develop effective alternative treatment
methods to employ where land disposal of effluent proves
to be impracticable.
INTRODUCTION
Practically all municipal sewage treatment
facilities now in use employ a method of treatment
which was designed for another time when wastes
were mostly of domestic origin, consisting of only
a few known harmful bacteria and a small quantity
of settleable organic solids. Treatment of such
waste material was relatively simple: solid-liquid
separation; bacterial treatment under anaerobic
conditions to kill oxygen-dependent bacteria;
aerobic-filtration treatment to remove solids and to
kill anaerobic bacteria; and final discharge to some
nearby water course for additional dilution. At
that time our population was largely rural with
less than 15 percent of the people living in urban
areas. Now, less than 5 percent of the population
live in rural areas; the remainder are living, working
and polluting in metropolitan areas constituting
less than 10 percent of our total land area.
The wastes formerly produced also have
changed in an equally drastic fashion. Steam
engines, candles, and coal-wood energy sources
137
-------
have been replaced by internal combustion and jet '
engines, electricity, hydrocarbons, and atomic
energy sources. Outside privies were abandoned
long ago for indoor flush toilets, and wooden
washtubs gave way to automatic washing machines,
dishwashers, and bathrooms supplied with hot and
cold running water. All of these replacements
require a much larger quantity of water and produce
a resultant waste-liquid volume much larger than
before. Biodegradable animal-fat and vegetable-oil
soaps were mostly forced from the market by
relatively nondegradable detergents containing large
concentrations of inorganic chemicals like phos-
phate. So was smelly, messy-to-handle, animal-waste
fertilizer formerly used on city lawns and gardens
and nearby farmlands, because of readily available
inorganic nitrogen and other plant nutrients that
smell better and are easier to handle and use.
Industries largely oriented toward the processing of
farm-produced organic materials now have been
joined by others which manufacture or process new
kinds of metal and petrochemical products that
were practically nonexistent 50 or so years ago.
Hazardous chemical, biological, and virological
contaminants from industry, hospitals, and educa-
tional-commercial laboratories scattered in and
around most towns now are normally diverted to
the municipal sewage treatment facilities for
processing along with the storm runoff and sanitary
sewage flow from throughout the community.
Included industrial chemical wastes may
contain acids, alkalies, chlorinated hydrocarbons,
all kinds of toxic metals, and a multitude of
hazardous chemical compounds. Added to these
from the general community might be appreciable
quantities of inorganic fertilizer and pesticide-rich
runoff from residential yards; zinc and copper from
water-system piping and plumbing fixtures; lead,
cadmium, cyanide, chlorides, and hydrocarbons
from city streets; nutrients as well as all kinds of
chemicals used for cleaning, maintaining, and
beautifying modern-day households; and perhaps
even prohibitive concentrations of mercury derived
from such commonly used products as paper
towels and toilet or facial tissue.
Many of the hazardous wastes apt to be
present in sewage plant discharge streams are costly
to analyze and to evaluate quantitatively by
presently available equipment and methodology.
Because of this they are not identified in typically
prescribed waste-stream analysis programs, an
omission that create*; continuous uncertainty
concerning their possible existence and concentra-
tions in sewage-plant effluent and sludges. In
addition, for most of these, no definite human-
animal-plant tolerance levels have been established.
It is this type of liquid and semiliquid waste
material from municipal sewage treatment plants
situated throughout the United States that is now
being dumped on the land.
PRIMARY CONTROLLING FACTORS
In our society, many different conflicting
philosophies concerning waste disposal prevail
among various segments of the scientific and
industrial communities, environmentalists, the
general public, and governmental control agencies.
Most of the controversy and resultant arguments
concerning this subject generally fall into three
different yet interconnected broad avenues of
concern and specialty—legal, economic, and
technical. The complexities of the over-all problem
are immense when viewed from any one of these
vantage points; interdisciplinary attempts of
definition, evaluation, and regulation present
almost innumerable complications. The following
statement taken from one State's Pollution Control
Board Regulations generally epitomizes the prevail-
ing state of confusion and illustrates all too well the
difficulty invariably encountered when an attempt
is made to develop a meaningful, positive, and
enforceable regulation on the subject.
"Pollution control facilities must afford the best
practicable degree of wastewater treatment or
control consistent with technological feasibility,
economic reasonableness, and sound engineering
judgement."
If practical long-term pollution control is ever
to be realized within the framework of such a vague,
all-encompassing decree, much interdisciplinary
action and cooperation will be required, particularly
between the legal, economic, and engineering fields
of specialty. The following subjects appear to be in
need of their special coordinated action.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Air and surface-water pollution protection
laws which force an ever-increasing quantity of
hazardous waste to the land for ultimate disposal
must be changed drastically, and soon, if optimum
environmental pollution protection is to be assured.
All new laws developed and finally adopted must be
a part of an over-all environmental pollution
protection act which permits and forces all major
pollution dissipation regimes (air, surface water,
ground water, soil, and vegetation) to share to their
full capability their proportionate part of the
burden of total pollutant transport, containment,
138
-------
and dissipation. No longer can we continue to solve
pollution problems in one dissipation regime in
such a fashion that an even more serious and
hazardous problem may be created in some other
equally important ecosystem. If laws are to ensure
protection of the air and surface water, so must
they also equally protect the ground water, soil,
and plant regimes. At the present time, these are
being placed in serious jeopardy by existing air and
surface-water protection regulations.
Hazardous chemical waste materials such as
chlorinated hydrocarbons can be disposed of far
more safely by incineration under high-temperature
controlled-burning procedures than could ever be
realized by surface-water or land-ground-water
disposal. By the same token, trace concentrations
of many of the toxic metals, and such common sxalt
pollutants as nitrate, chloride, and sulfate, can best
be reduced to harmless levels by dilution in large
volumes of surface-water flow. Chemical reconsti-
tution of some pollutants to an inert, relatively
insoluble form, encapsulation in an impermeable
container or polymer for later recovery, and
chemical separation-recycling are equally viable
alternative disposal methods which must be covered
by the law if optimum pollution abatement and
control at minimum cost are to be assured. Heavily
industrialized countries in Europe are presently
employing all of these ways and means of hazardous
waste disposal. A study of their methodology,
procedures, and results should be immediately
initiated so that the best of their findings may be
incorporated in revisions of our own technology,
laws, and regulations.
Also, it is essential that all new pollution
protection laws passed reflect the legal philosophy
that poisonous chemicals and other wastes known
to be harmful to public health must be considered
guilty until proved innocent instead of innocent
until proved guilty as is now so widely accepted.
Only in this way can the burden of proof of a
pollutant's guilt or innocence be rightfully placed
upon the polluter, not upon affected society as is
now the case under existing laws. This new approach
in law should encourage hazardous pollutant volume
reduction and subsequent pollution abatement from
such sources. However, if it fails to do so, volume
reduction of the more hazardous pollutants may
have to be dictated by imposing true-cost disposal
assessments on the manufacturer-user, and/or
placing legal constraints upon the total quantities
manufactured. By the same token, hazardous
chemical wastes from industries, biological-
virological contaminated sewage from hospitals,
and chemically contaminated runoff from streets,
parking lots, and factory grounds now dumped into
sanitary or interconnected storm sewers may reduce
the quality of municipal plant effluents to some-
thing less than desirable or even permissible for
disposal on the land. For this reason, any laws
passed also must reflect consideration of these
adverse factors by encouraging, or even forcing
where necessary, separation of industrial and storm
runoff streams from the old sewage treatment
facilities which were primarily designed for the
processing of domestic-type wastes.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
When considering the economics of pollution,
one is immediately faced with the harsh realization
that the actual cost of pollution is generally
undefined, particularly in the areas of adverse
effects to public health, and in the true treatment
costs to other, downstream users. These answers
are needed now so that the initial sales price of
every pollutant can be made to include the total
costs of all required control measures. Only in this
way can the people who make, distribute, and use
a pollutant be properly assessed for the beneficial
values they receive from its use. Other factors
involving actual cost that are often ignored in our
present approach to the problem are:
1. A pollutant is a valuable resource out of
place.
2. Pollution from any source will continue
only for so long as it remains more economical to
permit it to occur than to stop it.
3. For every one who profits from polluting
there are many others who may incur losses from
such action. -
All of these suggest that recycling, or separa-
tion-concentration-storage of potentially hazardous
wastes until reuse is economically feasible, may be
the optimum solution to most of our pollution
problems. However, the economical and legal
ramifications of such solutions are not now
definable because of inadequate prerequisite
technological knowledge and input.
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Generally expressed justification for using the
land for waste disposal is based on the hypothesis
that earth materials have the capability to precipi-
tate, adsorb, absorb, exchange, convert, decompose
or volatilize all kinds of hazardous material to a
harmless state. However, land disposal practices
139
-------
conceivably could become a very dangerous and
costly mistake if the soil and associated eco-
systems prove to be only a partial or temporary
filtration-retention-removal unit as is suggested by
an ever-increasing number of air, vegetation, and
water pollution occurrences. That the land's
"living filter" capability is finite, and at best
capable of only temporarily retaining many of the
hazardous chemical pollutants it must now receive
under prevailing environmental protection policies
and laws, is seemingly adequately proved by the
case studies illustrated in the few select references
included in this paper. However, even if these are
too few, surely the many hundreds of other similar
adverse-effect case histories recorded in technical
publications from throughout the world would
provide sufficient proof if all of these were com-
bined in one publication and made readily available
for use by legal-regulatory authorities everywhere.
Although several hundred systems for land
disposal of sewage effluent and sludge have been in
operation for a number of years, nearly all of them
are equipped with only minimal and generally
ineffectual monitoring systems which seldom are
capable of detecting even excessive surface-water
and ground-water pollution from the sites.
Monitoring data obtained from these systems are
practically useless in quantitatively evaluating the
total toxic chemical buildups in contiguous soil,
plant, and water environments, or in defining the
vertical and horizontal migration patterns of
pollutants through underlying earth materials.
Without such answers it is impossible to truly
appraise the validity of this land disposal method.
However, as the method is seemingly the only
"economical" one still available for use, in all
probability it will continue to be permitted,
perhaps at even a more expedited pace than
now, until or unless it is conclusively proved that
this method is ineffective in removing hazardous
pollutants from the environment. Just how long
such proof accumulation and acceptance will
require is not known. However, considering the
minimal number of researchers now engaged in this
work, the acutely low level of research funding
available, the mounting pressures from .
municipalities and industries for permission to
dispose of their liquid waste material in this
fashion, and the millions of dollars now being
expended for development and operation of such
sites, it seems likely that several years will pass
before any other disposal methods are seriously
considered or employed.
Many promising new methods of treating
modern-day municipal sewage have been discussed
and described in articles and papers scattered
throughout the world's technical publications and
scientific journals. All of these should be assembled
and evaluated from an effectiveness-economic
standpoint. At the same time, research must be
expedited and greatly expanded to discover and
perfect additional methods of waste treatment-
separation-elimination. Also, much more in-depth
research must be conducted on the optimum
nutrient needs of all the various types of plants, and
the time, quantity, and chemical makeup of sewage
effluent or sludge to apply for maximum plant
growth and minimal environmental pollution under
all soil and climatic conditions which prevail
throughout the'country.
Until all of these essential scientific inputs are
available, only a minimal number of new effluent
irrigation disposal installations should be permitted.
SELECT REFERENCES
Aldrich, Samuel R. 1973. Sludge application on agricultural
land. Soil Fertility Extension, University of Illinois.
May 1.
Anderson, Carl Andrew. 1957. A study of zinc toxicity in
some mineral soils of Illinois. Thesis for Master of
Science in Agronomy, University of Illinois.
Baier, Dwight C. and Wilton B. Fryer. 1973. Undesirable
plant responses with sewage irrigation. Journal of the
Irrigation and Drainage Division. June.
Braids, O. C., M. Sobhan-Ardakani, and J.A.E. Molina.
1970. Liquid digested sewage sludge gives field crops
necessary nutrients. Illinois Research, v. 12, no. 3,
summer 1970.
Buswell, A. M., S. I. Strickhouser, and others. 1928. The
depth of sewage filters and the degree of purification.
Illinois State Water Survey Bulletin 26.
Chumbley, C. G. 1971. Permissible levels of toxic metals in
sewage used on agricultural land. Ministry of Agri-
culture, Fisheries and Food. A.D.A.S. Advisory Paper
No. 10. Wolverhampton, England, July.
Hinesly, T. D., Robert L. Jones, and E. L. Ziegler. 1972.
Effects on corn by applications of heated anaerobical-
ly digested sludge. Compost Science-Journal of Waste
Recycling, v. 13, no. 4, July-August.
Johnson, Lt. Richard D., Robert L. Jones, Thomas D.
Hinesly, and D. J. David. 1974. Selected chemical
characteristics of soils, forages, and drainage water
from the sewage farm serving Melbourne, Australia.
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers.
Kardos, Louis T. 1971. Recycling sewage effluent through
the soil and its associated biosystems. Institute for
Research on Land and Water Resources Reprint Series
No. 29, The Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, Pennsylvania.
McMillion, Leslie G. 1972. Ground-water monitoring to
verify water quality objectives. Presented at Confer-
ence on Land Disposal of Wastewaters, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan. December 6-7.
140
-------
Sopper, William E. 1971. Effects of trees and forests in
neutralizing waste. Institute for Research on Land and
Water Resources Reprint Series No. 23, The Pennsyl-
vanjia State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Sopper, William E. 1971. Disposal of municipal waste water
through forest irrigation. Institute for Research on
Land and Water Resources Reprint Series No. 24,
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Pennsylvania.
Spotswoo|d, A. and M. Raymer. 1973. Some aspects of
sludge disposal on agricultural land. Water Pollution
Cotjtrol.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Report to
Congress on hazardous waste disposal. June 30.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Proceedings
of the joint conference on recycling municipal sludges
and effluents on land. July 9-13.
Walker, William H. 1969. Illinois ground water pollution.
Journal American Water Works Association, v. 61,
no.|l, January.
Walker, William H. 1970. Salt piling—a source of water
supply pollution. Pollution Engineering. July-August.
Walker, William H. 1971. Water pollution in perspective.
Water & Sewage Works. 118:7:205, July.
Walker, William H., Theodore R. Peck, and Walter D.
Lembke. 1972. Farm ground water nitrate pollution—
a case study. American Society of Civil Engineers
Annual and National Environmental Engineering
Meeting Preprint 1842, October 16-22.
Walker, William H. and Frank O. Wood. 1973. Road salt
use and the environment. Highway Research Record
No. 425, Highway Research Board, National Academy
of Science.
Walker, William H. 1973. Where have all the toxic chemicals
gone? Ground Water, v. 11, no. 2, March-April.
Walker, William H. 1973. Ground-water nitrate pollution in
rural areas. Ground Water, v. 11, no. 5, September-
October.
Walker, William H. 1974. Monitoring toxic chemical
pollution from land disposal sites in humid regions.
Ground Water, v. 12, no. 4, July-August.
Walker, William H. 1974. Our buried resource—may it rest
in peace. Guest editorial in Ground Water, v. 12, no.
5, September-October.
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by William
H. Walker after delivering his talk entitled "Effluent
for Irrigation — A Need for Caution?"
Q. by R. G. Kazmann. Do'you think that we ought
to use our rivers to remove biodegradable material
and just try to eliminate poisons, heavy metals,
fluorocarbons, etc. ?
A. An all-encompassing environmental pollution
protection law is critically needed, a law which
permits and forces all major pollution dissipation
regimes (air, surface water, ground water, soil and
vegetation) to share to their full capability their
proportionate part of the burden of total pollutant
transport, containment, and dissipation.
Hazardous chemical waste materials such as
chlorinated hydrocarbons can be disposed of far
more safely by incineration under high-temperature
controlled-burning procedures than could ever be
realized by surface water or land-ground-water
disposall By the same token, trace concentrations of
many ofj the toxic metals, and such common salt
pollutarits as nitrate, chloride, and sulfate, can best
be reduced to harmless levels by dilution in large
volumes of surface-water flow. Chemical reconsti-
tution of some pollutants to an inert, relatively
insoluble form, encapsulation in an impermeable
container or polymer for later recovery, and
chemical separation-recycling are equally viable
alternative disposal methods which must be covered
by the law if optimum pollution abatement and
control at minimum cost are to be assured. Heavily
industrialized countries in Europe are presently
employing all of these ways and means of hazardous
waste disposal. A study of their methodology,
procedures, and results should be immediately
initiated so that the best of their findings may be
incorporated in revisions of our own technology,
laws, and regulations.
Q. by Rein Laak. Is there no denitrification in
natural nitrogen cycle?
A. Surely there is some denitrification in the
natural nitrogen cycle. But how much? And how
does this quantity vary with different soil types,
or varying climatic, temperature, and carbon-
availability condition? For example, in a ground-
water nitrate pollution study we made in 1971-72
in southwestern Illinois in the late fall after crops had
been harvested, we found that 186 pounds of
nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) per acre were contained
in the upper 12 inches of soil in a cornfield where
100 bushels of corn had just been gathered. The
farmer had only applied 125 pounds NO3-N at the
beginning of the growing season. The available
nitrogen remaining-after the growing season ended
could only be attributed to nitrification of past
years plowed under plant residue left in the field.
Following our detection of this accumulation
we sampled this field two more times during the
winter, when the ground was semifrozen, and soil
141
-------
temperatures to the 18-inch level were below 35
degrees F (at times when denitrification losses
should have been minimal), and discovered that all
of the nitrogen formerly present in the upper 12
inches in October was transported by precipitation
recharge to the ground-water reservoir before the
next growing season began.
Later on, we brought samples of this soil back
to our laboratories and attempted to induce
denitrification under controlled conditions. We
could not induce significant denitrification to occur
at temperature ranges normally found in the soils
and ground-water reservoir of that area even after
adding carbon to make up for the gross lack of
that constituent within the soils at depth at that
location. At higher temperatures we did realize
significant denitrification under the latter
conditions, but this we considered more an
academic exercise than a practical, meaningful
result.
Dr. A. M. Buswell, formerly Chief of the
Illinois State Water Survey and Head of our
Chemistry Section, stated in Water Survey Bulletin
No. 26 in 1924, "From a survey of the literature on
this question, there are no data in the literature
showing that nitrogen gas is formed to any great
extent during the reactions of sewage purification."
Since that time other scientists have published data
showing that denitrification does occur under
special conditions and circumstances and many
rules of thumb values now are widely used and
applied for this phenomenon even though those
often using these values haven't the vaguest idea as
to where they came from, under what conditions
they apply, and whether or not they apply in the
case of soil-ground-water conditions. In fact, to my
knowledge no indisputable, factual data ever has
been published to prove that significant denitrifica-
tion occurs after nitrogen-rich water reaches the
water table. Instead, all of the reports I have seen
which infer that denitrification must have occurred
because little nitrogen was found in the ground
water during their study almost invariably had made
only token effort or expenditures to actually define
the total nitrogen content of the entire effective
zone of saturation. This is not surprising because
their primary investigative tool was observation
wells, generally placed at shallow "cheap" depths
and never enough to positively prove they had truly
sampled all vertical segments of all existing
permeable zones which might have been transport-
ing the nitrogen-rich water.
Much research is needed in this particular
area—research for the humid regions of the country
as well as the arid parts where much of the past
work on this subject has been done in the past. In
the meantime, I personally assume that denitrifica-
tion losses are minimal in most soil types and
ground-water conditions prevalent in Illinois, and
that instead most of the unaccounted for nitrogen
escapes undetected to underlying ground-water
reservoirs.
142
-------
Chemical Interaction During Deep Well Recharge,
2*
Bay Park, New York
by Stephen E. Ragone and John Vecchioli
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the
Nassau County Department of Public Works, recharged
tertiary-treated sewage (reclaimed water) into the Magothy
aquifer in 13 recharge experiments between 1968 and 1973.
The recharge resulted in a degradation in water quality
with respect to iron concentration and pH. Iron concentra-
tion increased from the range 0.14 to 0.30 milligrams per
litre to as much as 3 milligrams per litre at the 20-, 100-,
and 200-foot or 6.1-, 30-, and 61-metre observation wells as
the reclaimed water displaced native water. The increase
was presumably a result of pyrite dissolution. The pH of the
water decreased from the range 5.22 to 5.72 to a low of
about 4.50, predominantly as a result of cation-exchange
reactions.
INTRODUCTION
Population in Nassau County, an area adjacent
to New York City on Long Island, New York,
increased from 0.41 million in 1940 to 1.43 million
in 1970 afld is expected to increase to more than
1.63 million by the year 2000 (Scope of Public
Water-Supply Needs, 1972). Pumpage from ground
water, the only source of public supply in 1974,
increased'from 75 m gal/d (million gallons per day)
or 3.29 m3/s (cubic metres per second) in 1940 to
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974.
bHydrologists, U.S. Geological Survey, Water
Resources Division, 1505 Kellum Place, Mineola, New York
11501.
215m gal/d (9.42 m3/s) in 1970. Pumpage is
expected to be within the range of 258 and 313
m gal/d (11.3 and 13.7 m3/s) by the year 2000
(Scope of Public Water-Supply Needs, 1972). The
increased demand for water and a decrease in
recharge resulting from the replacement of
cesspools with sewer systems that discharge into
offshore bodies of water will probably cause a
water deficit between 93.5 and 123 m gal/d (4.10
to 5.39 m3/s) in Nassau County by the year 2000
(Scope of Public Water-Supply Needs, 1972).
In 1968 the U.S. Geological Survey, in
cooperation with the Nassau County Department
of Public Works, began an experimental, deep-well,
recharge program at Bay Park (Figure 1) to study
the feasibility of recharging tertiary-treated sewage
(reclaimed water) into the Magothy aquifer.
Reclaimed water was recharged in 13 experiments
and city water in 6 experiments between 1968 and
1973. Two adverse effects of recharge with
.-;•>/' r* "' ' VSUFTOLK
J'*i2 : • \
COUNTY^ 0 ,/,,.
10 0 10 20 30 40KIIOMETRES
Fig. 1. Location of .recharge site. Bay Park, New York.
143
-------
Sand clay, clayey sand, and silt
E3 LH
Gravel Consolidated roc*
Fig. 2. Major hydrogeologic units of the ground-water
reservoir of Long Island, New York.
reclaimed water—an increase in iron concentration
beyond the standards for drinking water set by the
U.S. Public Health Service [1962 (standards to
which drinking water and water-supply systems
used by carriers and others subject to Federal
quarantine regulations must conform)] and an
increase in acidity—and attempts to relate these
effects to the geochemistry of the reclaimed water-
native water system are described in this report.
Most of the data were collected during the 13th
experiment with reclaimed water in which 41.7
million gallons of the water were recharged inter-
mittently over a 6-month period.
HYDROGEOLOGY
The Long Island ground-water reservoir con-
sists of a wedge-shaped mass of unconsolidated
Pleistocene glacial deposits and underlying Creta-
ceous fluvial and deltaic deposits (Figure 2). At
Bay Park, thickness of the unconsolidated deposits
is estimated to be 1,250 ft (381 m) (Vecchioli and
others, 1974).
The recharge well at Bay Park is screened in
the Magothy aquifer, a mostly gray, very fine to
medium sand that contains some silt and clay
layers. X-ray analysis of a sample taken at a depth
of 527 ft (161 m) at the recharge site indicated that
the clay is composed of equal parts of kaolinite and
illite. Lignite occurs as disseminated particles or
layers. Pyrite and marcasite are also present and
commonly occur in association with lignite. Other .
accessory minerals include muscovite and trace
amounts of tourmaline, garnet, zircon, andalusite,
and sillimanite (Vecchioli and others, 1974).
The recharge zone is semiconfined by other
Magothy beds of lower hydraulic conductivity.
Static water level of this zone is about 5 ft (1.5 m)
below land surface.
WATER RECLAMATION AND
RECHARGE FACILITIES
About 1 percent of the effluent from the Bay
Park secondary sewage-treatment plant is diverted
to a 400-gal/min (gallons per minute) or 25-1/s
(litres per second), demonstration, tertiary-
treatment plant where the effluent receives physical-
chemical treatment. The product of the tertiary-
treatment plant, reclaimed water, meets potable-
water standards (Peters and Rose, 1968). The
reclaimed water is pumped about 0.5 mile (0.8 km)
to the recharge site. Detailed descriptions concern-
ing design and operation of the recharge facility
have been published (Koch and others, 1973;
Perlmutter and others, 1968; Cohen and Durfor,
1966 and 1967), so only a brief description is
given here.
The facility consists of: (1) a 50,000-gal
(gallon) or 189,000-1 (litre) storage tank, (2) an
18-inch- (46-cm-) diameter fiberglass recharge well
with a 16-inch- (41-cm-) diameter by 62-ft- (19-m-)
length stainless steel screen at a depth of 418 to
480 ft (127 to 146 m), (3) various equipment for
further treating the reclaimed water or city water
(dechlorination, degasification, Eh/pH adjustments),
and (4) 18 observation wells at distances from the
recharge well ranging from several inches to 200 ft
(61m) and screened at various depths ranging from
several feet to more than 700 ft (213 m) below land
surface.
Most of the water-quality data collected during
the recharge experiments were obtained on samples
from observation wells screened within the zone of
recharge (418 to 480 ft or 127 to 146 m below land
surface). These wells are designated N7886, N7890,
and N8022. Wells N7886 and N7890 are 20 ft
(6 m) and 100 ft (30 m), respectively, southwest
of the recharge well. Well N8022 is 200 ft (61 m)
northeast of the recharge well.
The recharge well and the observation wells
were constructed of nonferrous or noncorrodible
materials to minimize any possibility of chemical
reaction with either the native water or the
reclaimed water.
CHEMISTRY OF NATIVE AND
RECLAIMED WATER
Water samples for chemical analyses were
collected from the observation wells before the
recharge experiments were started and before,
144
-------
Table 1. Pertinent Chemical and Physical Data of Native and Reclaimed Water
(All data in milligrams per litre unless otherwise indicated) <•
Native water1
Range
Silica (SiO2)
Iron (Fe), total3 Mg/1
Iron (Fe), dissolved3 jug/1
Manganese (Mn), total jug/1
Calcium (Ca)
Magnesium (Mg)
Sodium (Na)
Potassium (K)
Bicarbonate (HCO3)3
Sulfate (SO4)
Chloride (Cl)
Nitrogen, ammonia, total as NH4
Dissolved solids, residue at 180 C
Specific conductance,3
(micromhos/cm at 25°C)
PH3
Water temperature, °C3
Oxidation! reduction potential
(Eh, in'volts)3
Dissolved oxygen (DO)3
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
0.025N K2Cr2O7
7.2
140
140
30 •
.4
.2
3.7
.4
4.5
3.6
3.9
.8
22
28
- 7.4
-300
-300
- 1.4
- 3.9
- .6
- 7.5
- 4.0
- .94
- 25
- 32
5.22- 5.72
15
-.03- -.10
0
0
Reclaimed water1
Mean Standard
deviation
13
410
230
75
20
6.4
86
13
59
160
99
30
398
786
6.1s
17.5
N.D.
4.5
9
1
260
180
31
3
2.1
12
1
19
20
23
2
68
81
.2
2.0
—
1.6
5
1 After Vecchioli and others, (1974), for samples taken from the 20-, 100-, and 200-ft (6.1-, 30-, and 61-m) observa-
tion wells before any recharge, unless otherwise stated.
2 Bksed on the weighted average of at least 33 daily or weekly composite samples.
3 Field data.
4 Data from RW10 (reclaimed-water test 10).
5 Mean calculated after converting pH values from logarithmic form to exponential form.
during, and after individual recharge experiments.
The samples were obtained with either submersible
or suction pumps and, on occasion, with a Foerst
sampler. Samples of reclaimed water were collected
during the recharge tests at the point of injection
and composited daily or weekly. A deep-well-
turbine pump in the recharge well was used to
repump the water that was injected in each test,
and samples of this recovered water were analyzed
also.
Total iron, Fe+2, HCO3", dissolved oxygen,
temperature, specific conductance, pH, and Eh
were determined in the field by procedures outlined
in Brown and others (1970). Additional parameters
were determined at the Geological Survey
laboratory in Albany, New York.
A comparison of chemical and physical data
of the native water from the Magothy aquifer with
those of reclaimed water is given in Table 1. Water
from the Magothy aquifer at Bay Park is low in
dissolved solids and is slightly acidic. Clay minerals,
principally kaolinite, control the concentration of
the alkali and alkaline earth elements through
cation exchange (Pearson and Friedman, 1971).
The concentration of silica approaches that in
equilibrium with'quartz, and the concentration of
Fe*2 and SO4"2 are controlled by pyrite (Vecchioli
and others, 1974; Faust and Vecchioli, 1974). The
pH of the water is controlled by both the dissocia-
tion of H2CO3 and the silica-kaolinite equilibria
(Faust and Vecchioli, 1974, p; 372). The water is
devoid of dissolved oxygen and has a negative Eh.
The reclaimed water contains much higher
concentrations of most constituents than the native
water from the Magothy aquifer (Table 1). Of
significance here are NH/, dissolved oxygen, and
COD concentrations, which are absent or are at low
concentrations in the native water.
CHANGES IN IRON CONCENTRATION
AND pH DURING RECHARGE
Although the concentration of total iron in
both native and reclaimed water was less than 0.5
145
-------
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED. IN MILLIONS OF LITRES
i 10
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 So
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED. IN MILLIONS OF GALLONS
Fig. 3. Change i.i iron concentration, pH, and the fraction
of reclaimed water {V\) calculated for chloride at the 20-ft
(6.1-m) observation well.
mg/1 (Table 1), iron concentration in mixed water
taken during recharge from the 20-, 100-, and
200-ft (6.1-, 30-, and 61-m) observation wells
approached 3 mg/1 as reclaimed water displaced
native water. This concentration is an order of
magnitude greater than the U.S. Public Health
Service standard for drinking water (1962).
Moreover, the concentration of total iron in water
passing the observation wells increased with
distance from the recharge well. This suggests that
processes causing iron mobilization are not
confined to the immediate vicinity of the recharge
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED. IN MILLIONS OF LITRES
12 5 10 20 50 100
li
J L_L
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 6 10 20 50
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED. IN MILLIONS OF GALLONS
Fig. 4. Change in iron concentration, pH and the fraction of
reclaimed water (V|) calculated for chloride at the 100-ft
(30-m) and 200-ft (61-m) observation well.
well and that they may continue to degrade water
quality with distance from the recharge site.
As reclaimed water displaced native water
from the vicinity of the observation wells, pH
decreased. Minimum values reached were successive-
ly lower with distance from the recharge well.
The change in iron concentration and pH in
water passing the 20-, 100-, and 200-ft (6.1-, 30-,
and 61-m) observation wells is shown in Figures 3
and 4. To determine the extent of mixing between
native and reclaimed water during recharge, a
dilution value, Vj, was calculated (F. J. Pearson
and G. D. Bennett, written commun., 1971). This
value is defined as:
V, =
cs-cn
Q-Cn
(D
where Vj is the fraction of reclaimed water in the
water sample, and Cs, Cn, and Cj are the concen-
trations of constituents in the water sample, native
water and reclaimed water, respectively. Chloride
ion was used to calculate Vj, as it does not react
with the mineralogical constituents during move-
ment through the aquifer. The value of Cs is based
on analysis of the Cl~ in the particular water sample
of interest. Cn is based on the average Cl" concen-
tration in native water. The concentration of Cl"
in the reclaimed water varied during recharge. The
value used in the computation was a running
average of the water calculated to be at the well at
the time the sample was collected.
A simplified mixing model was assumed in
calculating Vj (Ragone and others, 1975). With the
model, recharged water is assumed to move
radially from the recharge well as an expanding
cylinder having a height equal to that of the depth
interval of the recharge-well screen (418 to 480 ft
or 127 to 146m).
Using the Vj curve to indicate the amount of
mixing of native and reclaimed water, one can see
that Fe+2 increases and pH decreases simultaneously
with the arrival of reclaimed water at the observa-
tion wells. At the 20- and 100-ft (6.1- and 30-m)
wells, Fe+2 reaches maximum values of nearly 3
mg/1 at Vj values of 0.4 and 0.5, then decreases as
Vj approaches 1. This suggests that iron concentra-
tion increases in the reclaimed-water front as the
reclaimed water displaces native water from the
vicinity of the observation wells.
Native water in the vicinity of the 200-ft
(61-m) well was not completely displaced by
reclaimed water because of the inadequate length
of the test. Whether the 3 mg/1 Fe*2 concentration
146
-------
observed is the maximum concentration to be
reached there or the Fe*2 concentration would
decrease with continued recharge as it did at the
20- and 100-ft (6.1- and 30-m) wells is not known.
The pH of samples taken from the 20- and
100-ft (6.1- and 30-m) wells decreased with the
first arrival of reclaimed water, reached a minimum
at about the same point Fe+2 concentration reached
maximum values, and then increased (Figures 3
and 4). At the 200-ft (61-m) well (Figure 4), the
pH continued to decrease until the end of the test.
The minimum pH value was successively lower at
the 20-, 100-, and 200-ft (6.1-, 30-, and 61-m)
wells, respectively.
INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Iron mass-balance calculations using data from
an earlier test showed that the increased iron con-
centration in water passing the 20-ft (6.1-m) well
could not be accounted for by iron in the reclaimed
water (Ragone and others, 1973). This fact and the
fact that the amount of iron in the water passing
the 20-, 100-, and 200-ft (6.1-, 30-, and 61-m) wells
increased with distance from the recharge site
(Table 2) indicate that the source of the iron that
was dissolved is in the aquifer. Because pyrite is the
only known iron mineral in the recharge zone, the
increase in iron around the 20-ft (6.1-m) well was
probably caused by oxidation of pyrite by the
dissolved oxygen in the reclaimed water (Ragone
and others, 1973). This model fits the observations
at the 20-ft (6.1-m) well. Dissolved oxygen con-
centration of the first 2 million gals of reclaimed
water recharged was 5 mg/1. On the basis of this
value, the concentration of Fe*2 produced by the
oxidation reaction (equation 2)
FeS2 + -
H2O = Fe*
2H+
(2)
is calculated to be 2.49 mg/1. The calculated value
is in good agreement with the observed value of
2.88 mg/1. However, water reaching the 20-ft
(6.1-m) well had no detectable dissolved oxygen
cencentration. Consequently, oxidation of pyrite
by dissolved oxygen in the reclaimed water cannot
account for the continued pickup of iron at the
100- and 200-ft (30-and 61-m) wells (Table 2).
Other unresolved factors, perhaps including organic
complexihg, and auto-oxidation, may contribute to
the continued mobilization of iron.
Not all the observed decrease in pH during the
displacement of native water by reclaimed water can
be accounted for by pyrite oxidation (equation 2).
Table 2. Iron Content1, in Milligrams, of Water at the
20-, 100-, and 200-ft (6.1-, 30-, and 61-m)
Observation Wells During Recharge
20-ft Well
100-ft Well
200-ft Well
6.4Xl07mg 20.lXl07mg 18.5 X 107 mg2
1 Values represent the areas under those parts of the
iron-concentration curves that exceed native-water concen-
trations.
2 This is a.minimum value, as reclaimed water did
not completely displace native water from the vicinity of
the 200-ft (61-m) well.
The relatively high concentration of alkali and
alkaline earth metals, and NH4* in the reclaimed
water, as compared with the concentrations
of the same parameters in native water (Table 1),
and clay minerals in the recharge zone caused
cation exchange that released additional H+ to
solution.
To determine the extent and the direction of
exchange reactions, Vj values for Na+, K*, Ca*2,
Mg+2, NH4+ and HCO3" were plotted against the
volume of reclaimed water recharged in Figures
5, 6 and 7. Because of the reactivity of several of
the constituents under consideration, the Vj values
for these will differ from the YI values for Cl~. Vl
values greater than those for Cl~ at a given volume
recharged indicate that the particular constituent
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED. IN MILLIONS OF LITRES
2 5 10 20 50
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED, IN MILLIONS OF GALLONS
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED. IN MILLIONS OF LITRES
2 5 10 20 50 100
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 . 2 5 10 20
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED. IN MILLIONS OF GALLONS
Fig. 5. Change in the V| values for the major cations,
chloride, and bicarbonate at the 20-ft (6.1-m) well.
147
-------
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED, IN MILLIONS OF LITRES
5 10 20 60 100
2 5 10 20
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED. IN MILLIONS OF GALLONS
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED, IN MILLIONS OF LITRES
10 20 50 100
12 5 10 20
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED, IN MILLIONS OF GALLONS
Fig. 6. Change in the V| values for the major cations,
chloride, and bicarbonate at the 100-ft (30-m) well.
concentration is greater than can be accounted for
in a simple mixing model; values less than those
for CI" indicate that the constituent concentration
is less than can be accounted for by the mixing
model. The HCO3~ ion was included because it
reflects the changes in H+ described later.
Directing attention to the reclaimed-water
front where pH values are minimum (Figures 3 and
4), one can see that, compared with Cl~, concen-
trations of NH4* and K+ were less than can be
accounted for using the mixing model (Figures 5 to
7). Na+ behaves the same as Cl", and Ca+2 and Mg*2
show excess concentrations. The HCO3" curve
reflects changes in H* concentration (Faust and
Vecchioli, 1974) and indicates a loss as HCO3" or
gain as H*.
Examination of differences between calcu-
lated and observed concentrations of the exchange-
able constituents in water from the 20-ft (6.1-m)
observation well shows that, at 0.60 X 106 gal (2.3
X 106 1), when pH is near its minimum value, 1.32
meq/1 more cations have been added to solution
than removed (Table 3). This value is too large to
result from experimental or sampling error and
suggests reactions other than cation exchange also
may be occurring. As Ca+2 and Mg+2 are the only
cations that increase in concentration relative to Cl",
these constituents are probably taken into solution
by processes other than cation exchange. Deleting
these cations and Na+, which shows no significant
change as compared to total concentration, from
the cation balance results in very good agreement
between the other added and subtracted constitu-
ents; NH4+ and K* account for a 0.94 meq/1 loss
from solution and H+ accounts for 0.91 meq/1 gain
to solution.
Similar balances between NH4* and K+ lost and
H+ gained are seen at 0.70 X 106 gal (2.6 X 1061) and
0.74 X 106 gal (.2.8 X 1061) (Table 3) where pH
values remain low (Figure 3). Beyond this volume,
pH has increased to that of reclaimed water and
shows that native water has been displaced from
the well site. Coincidentally, the milliequivalents
per litre H* gained are no longer balanced by the
NH4+ and K* lost.
The authors assume that concentrations of
Ca+2 and Mg*2 observed as reclaimed water displaces
native water from the vicinity of the 20-ft (6.1-m)
well cannot be explained by cation exchange, but
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED, IN MILLIONS OF LITRES
10 20 50 100
~T
2 5 10 20
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED, IN MILLIONS OF GALLONS
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED, IN MILLIONS OF LITRES
10 20 50 100
~n—i—i i i i—i 1—i—i
~r
12 5 10 20
RECLAIMED WATER RECHARGED, IN MILLIONS OF GALLONS
Fig. 7. Change in the Vj values for the major cations,
chloride, and bicarbonate at the 200-ft (61-m) well.
148
-------
Table 3. Differences Between Observed and Calculated Concentrations of the Major Cations
and NH4+ and HC03~ in Water from the 20 ft (6.1 m) Well
Constit-
uents
Ca*2
Mg+2
Na*
K+
NH4+
HC03~(H+)
0.60Xl06gal
(2.3 X 106 I)
0.70X106 gal
(2.6 X1061)
Volume
0.74XW6gal
(2.8 X W6 I)
of Water Recharged
1.3Xl06gal 2.2Xl06gal
(4.9 X 10*1) (8.3 X 10*1)
9.1 Xl06gal
(34 XW6l)
22XW6gal
(83XW6l)
Concentrations Observed Minus Concentrations Calculated in Milliequivalents per Litre
+0.66
+ .58
+ .11
- .11
- .83
(+ .91)
Gain or loss1 +1.32
+0.24
+ .20
- .19
- .16
-1.00
(+1.15)
+ .24
+0.12
+ .16
- .30
- .17 •
- .95
(+1-12)
- .02
-0.20
- .15
+ .42
- .05
- .29
(+ -57)
+ .30
-0.21
- .03
- .22
- .03
- .42
(+ .58)
- .33
-0.10
- .02
+ .11
+ .03
- .07
(+ .34)
+ .29
-0.25
- .03
- .05
+ .02
0
(+ .16)
- .15
Plus sign indicates that cations have been added to solution; minus sign indicates that cations have been removed.
that changes in NH4+ and K+ for H* result from
cation-exchange reactions.
Similar but smaller exchange balances of NH4+
and K* for H* were calculated from data for the
other observation wells during the periods when
pH was at a minimum.
SUMMARY
Recharging the Magothy aquifer with tertiary-
treated sewage resulted in a degradation in water
quality with respect to iron concentration and pH.
Iron concentration increased from the range 0.14
to 0.30 mg/1 for native water to 3.00 mg/1 at the
20-, 100-, and 200-ft (6.1-, 30-, and 61-m)
observation wells, as the reclaimed water displaced
native water. The increase was presumably a result
of pyrite dissolution. The pH of the water decreased
from the range 5.22 to 5.72 for native water to a
low of 4.50, predominantly as a result of cation-
exchange reactions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Prepared in cooperation with the Nassau
County Department of Public Works.
, REFERENCES
Brown, Eugene, M. W. Skougstad, and M. J. Fishman. 1970.
Methods for collection and analysis of water samples
for dissolved minerals and gases. U.S. Geol. Survey,
Techniques Water-Resources Inv., book 5, ch. Al,
160pp.
Cohen, Philip, and C. N. Durfor. 1966. Design and construc-
tion of a unique injection well on Long Island, N.Y.
In Geological Survey Research, 1966. U.S. Geol.
Survey Prof. Paper 550-D, pp. D253-D257.
Cohen, Philip, and C. N. Durfor. 1967. Artificial-recharge
experiments utilizing renovated sewage-plant effluent—
a feasibility study at Bay Park, New York, U.S.A: In
Artificial recharge and management of aquifers-
Symposium of Haifa, 1967. Internat. Assoc. Sci.
Hydrology Pub. 72, pp. 193-199.
Cohen, Philip, O. L. Franke and B. L. Foxworthy. 1968.
An atlas of Long Island's water resources. New York
Water Resources Comm. Bull. 62, 117 pp.
Faust, S. D. and John Vecchioli. 1974. Chemical problems
associated with the injection of highly treated sewage
into a deep sand aquifer. Jour. Am. Water Works
Assoc. v. 66, no. 6, pp. 371-377.
Koch, Ellis, A. A. Giaimo and D. J. Sulam. 1973. Design
and operation of the artificial-recharge plant at Bay
Park, New York. U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 751-B,
14pp.
Pearson, F. J., and Irving Friedman. 1971. Sources of
dissolved carbonate in an aquifer free of carbonate
minerals. Water Resources Research, v. 6, no. 6,
pp. 1775-1781.
Perlmutter, N. M., F. J. Pearson Jr. and G. D. Bennett. 1968.
Deep-well injection of treated waste-water—an
experiment in re-use of ground water in western Long
Island. New York State Geol. Assoc., Guidebook 40th
Ann. Mtg., pp. 221-231.
Peters, J. M. and J. L. Rose. 1968. Water conservation by
reclamation and recharge. Am. Soc. Civil Engineers,
Sanitary Eng. Div. Jour. v. 94, no. SA4, pp. 625-639.
Ragone, S. E., John Vecchioli and H.F.H. Ku. 1973. Short-
term effect of injection of tertiary-treated sewage on
iron concentration of water in Magothy aquifer, Bay
Park, New York. In Underground Waste Management
and Artificial Recharge, v. 1. Preprints of paper
presented at the Second International Symposium on
Underground Waste Management and Artificial
Recharge, New Orleans, La., Sept. 26-30, 1973,
pp. 273-290.
Ragone, S. E., H.F.H. Ku and John Vecchioli. 1975.
Mobilization of iron in water in the Magothy aquifer
during long-term recharge with tertiary-treated
sewage, Bay Park, New York. Jour. Research,
U.S. Geol. Survey, (in press).
Scope of Public Water-Supply Needs. 1972. Temporary
state commission on the water supply needs of south-
eastern New York, Albany, N.Y.
U.S. Public Health Service. 1962. Drinking water standards.
U.S. Public Health Serv. Pub. no. 956, 61 pp.
Vecchioli, John, G. D. Bennett, F. J. Pearson Jr., and L. A.
Cerrillo. 1974. Geohydrology of the artificial-recharge
site at Bay Park, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geol.
Survey Prof. Paper 751-C, 29 pp.
149
-------
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by Stephen
E. Ragone after delivering his talk entitled
"Chemical Interaction During Deep Well Recharge,
Bay Park, New York."
Q. by Don Langmuir. How did you determine your
Fe2* values—by filtration through 0.45 M? Might the
iron increases have been in colloidal suspension?
A. Samples were filtered through 0.45 ju filters and
analyzed for Fe*2 and total iron using the bipyridine
method. It was found that iron in the native water
and water collected at the observation wells during
recharge was in the Fe+2 form. Fe*3 in the reclaimed
water, presumably in the colloidal form was retained
at the well-screen/aquifer interface (Ragone and
others, 1973). As filters smaller than 0.45 ju were
not used to filter the water from the observation
wells, the presence of iron polymers or colloids
smaller than this size may have been present but not
detected.
Q. by Lyle V. A. Sendlein. Did you make any
mineralogical analysis of the aquifer materials?
A. Some x-ray analyses of clays and microscopic
analyses of sands were performed and are reported
in greater detail in Vecchioli and others, 1974 (see
References). Both the crystalline and amorphous
phases in the aquifer are important considerations
in understanding the chemistry of the system.
Q. by Donald Whittemore. What is the time
involved during the passage of the mixing front
past a given point in the aquifer?
A. Native water was displaced from the vicinity of
the 20-ft well within several tens of hours after the
start of mixing, and from the vicinity of the 100-ft
well within about 20 days. Native water wasn't
completely displaced from the vicinity of the
200-ft well even after 84.5 days of recharge.
Q. by Martin J. Allen. What was the bacteriological
quality of the tertiary-treated water prior to
injection?
A. Reclaimed water was chlorinated to a 2.0-2.5
mg/1 total residual at the point of injection. Total
bacteria counts were generally less than 10 per 100
ml and total coliform counts were generally less
than 1 per 100 ml.
Q. by K. Bradley, Jr. What form of tertiary treat-
ment is used—sand filter or carbon?
A. The tertiary-treatment process involves
(1) aluminum sulfate treatment to precipitate
phosphate and suspended solids; (2) dual-media
filtration; (3) activated carbon filtration; and
(4) chlorination.
Q. by M. K. Botz. What relationships did you find
for manganese?
A. Manganese concentration in native water ranged
from 10 to 50 Mg/1 and averaged 75 ±31 Mg/1 in the
reclaimed water during the 84.5-day test. No
significant changes in the concentration of this
constituent were observed during the recharge
experiment.
Editor's Note: John J. Mickey's paper, "Deep Well Injection and the Protection
of Fresh Ground-Water Resources, West Central Florida, "does not appear here
because it has not as yet been approved for publication by the U.S. Geological
Survey.
150
-------
Development of Fresh Ground Water
Near Salt Water in West Virginia"
by Benton M. Wilmoth
ABSTRACT
Salt-water migration into relatively shallow rocks in
the western half of West Virginia is already rather far
advanced. Because of the wide distribution of salty ground
water and connate brine at various depths, it is difficult to
determine how much of the contamination is natural and
how much is the result of subsurface industrial activities.
Although some local salt-water problems are the result of
oil and gas operations, much of the regional near-surface
salt water is a natural condition unrelated to deep drilling
or other industrial activities.
Ground water is usually more abundant from
consolidated aquifers beneath the valleys than from beneath
the ridges. However, the presence of shallow salt water
beneath the valleys imposes limitations on the availability
of fresh water from a single well. Because most well fields
must be located along the populated valleys, the problem
of interception of salt water is the most important factor
limiting development of consolidated bedrock aquifers. By
utilizing the history of development and operation of well
fields, an estimate of the availability of fresh water can be
made, and test drilling and new well field construction
guided accordingly.
During 1971 to 1974, more than a dozen small
communities in Logan and Boone Counties started develop-
ment of public-water supplies from wells. Existing water-
supply problems in these areas are being solved by using the
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974.
DGeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
303 Methodist Building, Wheeling, West Virginia 26003.
cumulative experience of other communities in the area.
Ground water is currently being developed in valley areas of
Logan County such as Man to Lorado, Essie to Big Creek,
and Huff Creek to Mallory. Adequate well fields have
recently been successfully constructed just above shallow
salt water in bedrock aquifers at Hattie in Calhoun County,
near Madison in Boone County, near Southside in Mason
County, and at Prichard in Wayne County. In all of these
areas of successful construction, the essential information
for initial test drilling was obtained by detailed hydro-
geologic work at the prospective sites. Most important was
the determination of the maximum depth of fresh water,
well spacing and pumping rates.
During the next few years, new small com-
munities and industries in West Virginia will need
to develop water supplies and some existing
communities will have to consider additional sources
of supply because of increase in water use. Such
water-supply problems can be solved by using the
experience of others in ground-water development
and the history of operation of both existing and
abandoned well fields.
Ground water has historically been regarded
as a quantitatively minor water source with the
principal users being rural residents. In fact, how-
ever, this resource represents more than 90
percent of the available fresh water in the State.
Ground-water systems are used by more than 300
communities and most rural residents, which totals
55 percent of the State's population. In addition,
some 400 industries and 8,000 businesses,
151
-------
institutions, and dairy farms also utilize well
systems for all requirements. Although ground
water is known by geologists to be an imperative in
water resources development, this major resource
is, at times, not considered by developers (Lehr,
1972). Reasons for this appear to be that ground
water cannot be seen or estimated during initial
planning and reconnaissance, and that subsurface
hydrologic conditions present a strange and
bothersome unknown. This unfortunate lack of
knowledge on the part of water developers and
planners is being corrected as rapidly as possible by
those involved in ground-water conservation
programs.
One important aspect of the water conservation
effort is to determine the amounts of water that can
be obtained from the available local aquifers on a
sustained basis.
The most productive consolidated aquifers are
sandstone, conglomerate, and limestone. Although
shales are not as productive, the near-surface
fracturing usually allows development of well fields
of small to moderate yields.
The yield of wells depends upon the local
hydrogeology. Most important is the permeability
of the aquifers, but topography and the shape of
the water table also have an effect. Relatively
shallow wells drilled in valleys tend to produce
more water than deeper wells drilled higher on
ridges, because in valleys the zone of fracture
enlargement and weathering is more likely to be
saturated by ground water. Shallow rocks on
ridges are as permeable, but usually occur above the
zone of saturation and therefore do not contribute
to well yield.
The depth of existing water wells ranges from
less than 25 to about 300 feet; however, the
average depth is only about 115 feet. Many public
supplies have been pumped daily for more than 45
years with no record of water shortage during
drought periods. This indicates that the practical
sustained yields of these systems have never been
exceeded. Records of ground-water storage show
that over long periods the recharge to aquifers
equals the amount of discharge. Only in heavily
pumped or overdeveloped local aquifer areas or
during periods of extreme drought has discharge
exceeded recharge to affect storage temporarily
(Wilmoth, 1965).
The quantity of ground water discharged
naturally from both consolidated and unconsoli-
dated aquifers greatly exceeds the quantity of
water that is withdrawn by wells. In many areas,
the potential for development of ground-water
supplies exceeds the projected industrial and
community development.
Consolidated bedrock aquifers underlie most
of the land surface of the State and are the principal
source of water for more than 250 communities,
many industries, and rural businesses, schools, and
farms. A particularly favorable area for ground
water is a large section of predominantly sandstone
aquifers of lower Pennsylvanian age that extend
200 miles through the central part of the State
(Figure 1). The area is about 25 miles wide in the
north and 50 to 75 miles wide in the south. These
water-bearing rocks from oldest to youngest include
the Pottsville Group, the Allegheny Group, and the
lower part of the Conemaugh Group. Yields of
industrial and public supply wells range from less
than 50 to 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) and
average about 200 gpm. Supplies of 0.5 to 1 million
gallons per day (mgd) have been developed locally
from these aquifers with 3 to 5 wells (Wilmoth,
1967). Salty ground water has invaded parts of
these aquifers along the western edge of the area
of outcrop.
In the typical shale and interbedded sandstone
areas, the uppermost or shallowest weathered or
fractured beds are the most favorable aquifers.
Few wells yield large supplies from deeper
predominantly shale zones. Ground-water availa-
bility of shale areas, although not high, is still
adequate for private rural business and farm
supplies. Most shale sections have some siliceous
zones or fine-grained sandstone beds. The extent
of development of near-surface fractures appears
to be most important in the storage, transmission,
and availability of water. Yields of industrial and
public supply wells range from less than 20 to
more than 150 gpm with an average of about 30
gpm. Supplies of 0.1 to 0.5 mgd have been
developed with 3 to 5 wells tapping zones of
relatively high permeability. The aquifers of the
upper Conemaugh Group and the Monongahela
Group of Pennsylvanian age and the Dunkard
Group of Permian (?) age crop out in the western
part of the State (Figure 1). Relatively shallow salt
water occurs beneath the major stream channels.
In eastern West Virginia, the shallow shale and
sandstone aquifers of pre-Pennsylvanian age have
not been invaded extensively by salt water.
Water-bearing carbonate rocks of pre-
Pennsylvania age of the eastern part of the State
have good local productive aquifers (Figure 1).
However, the water-saturated cavernous zones are
very erratic requiring study and test drilling to
develop moderately large supplies. Yields of
152
-------
SCALE
LEGEND
Alluvium of Quaternary age.
Yields 50 to 900 gpm, avg. 2 00 gpm.
__ Shale and sandstone of pre- Perm,
upper Penn., and Permian ages. Yields
less than 20 to ISOgpm., avg.30gpm.
— Sandstone and conglomerate of lower
Penn. age. Yields less than 50 to I.OOOgpm,
avg. 200gpm.
— Limestone and dolomite of pre-Penn. age.
Yields 25 to more than SOOgpm. avg. ISOgpm.
Fig. 1. Availability of ground water from industrial and public water-supply wells in West Virginia.
industrial and public supply wells range from less
than 25 to more than 500 gpm with an average of
about 150 gpm. Supplies of 1 mgd have been
developed in areas where 3 to 5 wells penetrate
interconnected water-bearing cavernous zones.
These shallow aquifers have not been invaded by
natural salty ground water. Locally, however,
unnatural contamination has occurred from salt
used on highways and from salt piles exposed to
weather.
A highly productive water-bearing rock unit is
the unconsolidated glacial outwash sand and gravel
alluvium of Pleistocene age (Carlston and Graeff,
1955). These aquifers border the Ohio River Valley,
the lower half of the Kanawha River Valley, and a
few miles upstream from the mouth of Big Sandy
River, Guyandotte River, Coal River, and Little
Kanawha River (Figure 1). The alluvium varies in
width from a few hundred feet to several miles and
in thickness from 40 to 150 feet. Many large
industrial plants and about 50 communities use well
fields tapping these rocks.
Although unconsolidated sand and gravel
aquifers constitute some of the best aquifers in the
State, they underlie only about one percent of the
total land area. At established well fields, yields of
wells range from less than 50 to more than 900 gpm
and average about 200 gpm to standard vertical
screened wells. Well fields of 3 to 5 wells commonly
produce 0.5 to as much as 3 mgd of good quality
water. Yields of large-diameter radial collectors
range from 1,000 to 3,000 gpm or more and single
installations produce 1 mgd to as much as 4 mgd
where induced infiltration of the Ohio River is
part of the system.
The alluvial aquifers along the Ohio River
also contain salt water in places. Small segments of
ancient stream channels cut in the bedrock of the
153
-------
present valley are now filled with alluvium. Along
the valley in Hancock, Brooke, Tyler, and Cabell
Counties certain of these filled depressions have
been intercepted by salt water that has migrated
from the adjacent bedrock. High-capacity wells
installed nearby have induced the migration of
the salt water.
Sedimentary rocks of Pennsylvanian and
Permian (?) ages of the western half of the State
form a complex, alternating series of sandstone,
shale, conglomerate, siltstone, limestone, and coal
strata. The rocks are gently folded along subparallel
axes that trend generally northeastward. These
flexures tend to obscure the general regional dip of
the strata toward the northwest. Because of their
structural folding and the subsequent erosion over
geologic time, some of the older brine-bearing
rocks are now relatively near the land surface along
the axes of some major anticlines.
The developed fresh ground water usually
has a chloride concentration in the range of 10 to
100 mg/1, although in places, ground water
containing 250 to as much as 500 mg/1 is utilized
by necessity. However, salty ground water is
defined as that containing more than 250 mg/1
chloride concentration.
Table 1 shows concentrations of chloride in
ground water as related to depth of wells located
along major valley areas. The Table presents data
to show that chloride concentration in the ground
water tends to increase with depth as the effects of
fresh meteoric ground water decreases. At depths
of 1,000 to 5,000 feet, connate brines are usually
encountered that contain 30,000 to 100,000 mg/1
of total dissolved solids (Price, et al., 1937, pp.
28-32). These brines were derived from sea water
trapped in the original rock-forming sediments. At
depths of 1,000 to 5,000 feet, the natural migration
apparently is extremely slow. The various processes
of chemical concentration and modification of the
original sea water are not completely understood.
In areas where there has been no deep drilling,
the natural vertical migration of brine and salty
ground water appears to be extremely slow. Natural
changes in the quality of both fresh and salty
Fig. 2. Valley areas in West Virginia where fresh ground
water is limited to less than 300 feet below stream channels.
ground water in these rocks appear to be minor
over several hundred years. The few historical data
available for specific aquifers indicate no large-scale
natural variations in chloride content (Wilmoth,
1970). Most of the salt-water migration into the
near-surface rocks occurred naturally from a long
period of interformational migration of artesian
brine. The migration apparently has occurred during
several million years of geologic time.
Relatively shallow rocks throughout the
western half of the State have been invaded in the
geologic past by connate brine (Figure 2). The
magnitude of this encroachment has been realized
principally from the development and operation of
industrial and public water-supply wells. Examples
of fresh ground-water development near salty
ground water include both natural occurrences of
salt water and unnatural encroachment of salt water
caused by stresses placed on the subsurface
environment by man. Salt-water encroachment into
existing fresh-water aquifers is usually the result of
some industrial activity. Both vertical and lateral
encroachment can be caused by (1) reduction of
fresh-water head due to heavy pumping, (2) drilling
Table 1. Concentrations of Chloride in Ground Water as Related to Depth of Wells Located in Major Valleys
Number of samples of
well water analyzed
319
238
116
43
Range in depth Percentage of samples exceeding
of wells (feet) 250 mg/l chloride in each range
20 to 99
100 to 149
150 to 299
300 to 600
5
13
26
65
Average concentration of chloride
higher than 250 mg/l
700
900
1,300
8,300
154
-------
too deep and intercepting salt-water zones, and
(3) imposing greater head on salt-water zones
from injection of waste brine, repressuring of oil-
producing zones, and hydraulic fracturing of rock
units at oil and gas operations (Wilmoth, 1970).
Local areas of these shallow fresh-water
aquifers have been contaminated by vertical migra-
tion of salt water through unplugged test holes
and improperly abandoned wells. In areas of oil,
gas, water, and coal development over the past 75
years, many hundreds of such test bores and wells
were put down and still exist as essentially open
holes. These holes represent a large increase in local
vertical permeability that allowed rapid migration
upward of brine under artesian pressure.
Because salty ground water also occurs
naturally at relatively shallow depths, it has been
difficult to determine unnatural conditions except
for the characteristic of extreme variation in
chloride content within short periods. The available
historical data for specific aquifer areas indicate no
large-scale natural variations in salt content. Prior
to pressure disposal of produced waste brine, the
natural salty ground water occurring immediately
below fresh-water aquifers posed no problem to
shallow water well fields pumped at low rates.
During the period 1971 to 1974, several small
communities in Logan and Boone Counties started
development of new water systems from ground-
water sources. A considered major factor was that
the cost of treated ground water at the household
tap is usually only 10 to 30 percent of the cost of
treated surface water at the tap.
Salty ground water is commonly encountered
at depths of less than 300 feet beneath the Ohio,
Kanawha, [Big Sandy, Coal, and Little Kanawha
Rivers (Figure 2). The natural fresh ground-water
head in these areas has not been great enough to
keep salty ground water from migrating into shallow
rocks beneath the valleys. In areas of extensive well
field development where large amounts of fresh
water are extracted, a reduction in the head of
fresh-water aquifers can cause upward migration of
the salt-water interface. As a result, the salt water
tends to migrate into the fresh water zones of
lower head.
In the Charleston area of Kanawha County,
along the Kanawha River Valley and the mouth of
the Elk River, withdrawal of large amounts of fresh
water from the principal aquifer was a significant
factor in accelerated encroachment of salt water. In
1930, the salt-water interface was about 400 feet
above mean sea level, but by 1950, the interface
had moved upward 75 to 100 feet beneath major
pumping centers. Chloride content of ground water
in the principal sandstone aquifer increased from
less than 100 mg/1 to-more than 300 mg/1 in several
well fields and to more than 1,000 mg/1 at individual
wells (Wilmoth, 1972).
Similar encroachment also occurred at well
fields in South Charleston and in the Kanawha City
area of Charleston.
At Ashford, Boone County, along Big Coal
River, the salt-water interface lies at about 570 to
580 feet above mean sea level. High-capacity wells
initially penetrated the interface 50 feet or more,
depending on the topographic location of the wells.
Each well in the field is pumped periodically at a
rate of 250 gallons per minute (gpm). Records of
chloride content during 1971 show that chloride
increased from 880 mg/1 to 933 mg/1 at one well
and from 630 mg/1 to 938 mg/1 at another well. In
order to reduce this salt-water encroachment,
consideration has been given to experimentally
decreasing the pumping rates perhaps to as low as
25 gpm. In order to have the same amount of water
available, pumping time will be longer, storage
facilities will be enlarged, and finally more wells
that do not interpret the salt-water interface have
to be considered for the well field.
Three miles west of Southside, Mason County
in an upland area, the salt-water interface is at an
elevation of about 500 feet. Wells drilled through
the hill from elevation 720 feet, 262-feet deep
encountered salt water. New wells drilled 160-feet
deep produce adequate supplies of fresh water.
At Prichard, Wayne County, in the Big Sandy
River Valley a well field was constructed to serve
as a semi-public supply. In this area the salt water
occurs about 175 to 200 feet below the land
surface. Three wells of extremely low yield have
been successful in producing a sufficient amount of
fresh water. This has been accomplished by using
longer pumping periods and larger storage tanks.
The maximum depth of these wells is 130 feet.
A successful well field for semi-public water
supply was constructed at Hattie, Calhoun County,
early in 1974. The land surface is at an altitude of
710 feet and the estimated altitude of the salt-water
interface was 575 to 600 feet. Adequate wells of
30 gpm each were drilled to a depth of 130 feet.
In 1974 near Madison, Boone County, another
semi-public supply well field was successively
constructed near salt water. The site is at an
elevation of 750 feet and the top of the salt-water
zones were estimated to be at 550 to 590. Two
wells, 150-feet deep were drilled and produce 40
and 20 gpm of fresh ground water.
155
-------
In the Man to Kistler area of Logan County,
the salt-water interface lies at about 600 to 625 feet
above mean sea level. Therefore, wells drilled along
Guyandotte River can be no deeper than about
150 feet to avoid intercepting salt water. Along
Buffalo Creek tributary to the Guyandotte in the
Accoville to Amherstdale area, wells can be drilled
as deep as 200 feet. In the Lorado area, wells as
deep as 500 feet have not encountered salt water.
This tends to substantiate the general concept
that the stream channels act as areas for the natural
discharge of all ground water and that the salt-water
interface tends to cone up more toward the lowest
drainage levels. Construction of wells in this area
has proceeded with no problems of salt-water
contamination.
In the Huff Junction to Mallory area of Logan
County, the salt-water interface lies at about 125
to 150 feet below the channel of Huff Creek;
consequently wells located near Rt. 10 along the
valley cannot be drilled much deeper than about
100 feet. Along nearby Riddle Branch, the land
surface rises considerably within a short distance.
Here, wells can be drilled as deep as 200 to 250
feet and still produce fresh water. Similar elevation
of land surface, depths of wells, and quality of
ground-water relationships exit along other
topographically higher tributaries to Huff Creek.
In the Essie to Big Creek area of Logan
County, along the Guyandotte River, the
salt-water interface is extremely shallow and lies
at about 550 feet above mean sea level. Conse-
quently, most fresh-water-producing wells must
be no deeper than about 80 feet if they are located
near Route 10 that follows the valley. In order to
test a greater thickness of fresh-water aquifer, wells
should be located at higher elevations on valley
slopes and nearby small tributary valleys that lie
topographically higher. Recent extensive test
drilling in this area has confirmed the general
aspects of the topographic and hydrogeologic
controls on natural shallow salty ground water.
Possibly the most difficult problem in ground-
water quality control is to predict within narrow
limits the movement of a pollutant in an aquifer
when concentrations of the pollutant are decreased
by dilution. The problem is even more complex
when the pollutant is natural salt water, which
occurs in adjacent rocks at a wide range of concen-
trations, depths, and velocities. Therefore, it is
difficult to ascertain when salt water has occurred
naturally and what future subsurface conditions
will be.
All of the hydrogeologic conditions that have
made shallow fresh-water aquifers subject to con-
tamination by salty ground water are not known.
The best available information has been from
records at well fields that were contaminated after
some period of successful operation. While the
subsurface conditions cannot be described with
extreme accuracy, it is possible to define the general
occurrence of the salt water.
It is important to note that most of the
unnatural salt-water contamination of fresh-water
aquifers has been detected only because of the
deterioration of the water quality pumped by wells.
Had there been no water well developments in
these areas, the aquifer contamination might never
have been defined. Therefore, serious aquifer
contamination can occur in numerous places and
not be known until attempts are made to develop
the ground water.
Within the past 8 years (1967-74) in the oil-
producing areas of Kanawha and Roane Counties,
pressure injection of waste brine into the Salt
Sandstone of the Pottsville Group of Pennsylvanian
age has raised the piezometric levels of natural
fluids in the formation. Because the overlying
fresh-water zones are hydraulically connected to
the injection zone, there has been extensive salt-
water pollution of the fresh-water aquifers.
Unnatural cyclic changes in quality have occurred
in many private water well supplies. Monitoring
of the water quality in developed aquifers has
revealed unnatural fluctuations in chloride content.
Extreme changes have been detected within a few
days. Chloride concentrations in some places
increased from less than 100 mg/1 to as much as
900 mg/1.
In the area of Walton in Roane County,
produced waste brine was injected into sandstones
of the Pottsville Group at a depth of about 1,500
feet. Many uncased and improperly plugged
abandoned oil wells in the area provided additional
permeability for vertical movement of the salty
ground water. Apparently the artificial raising of
the piezometric level of the natural brine triggered
the salt-water contamination because the fresh-
water aquifers are hydraulically connected to the
salt-water zones. At certain water wells in the
Walton area, contamination was rapid with chloride
content increasing from less than 25 mg/1 to more
than 1,500 mg/1 within a few months. During 1968
and 1969, unnatural cyclic changes in chloride
content occurred at many wells. In one part of a
shallow fresh-water aquifer, the chloride concen-
tration of less than 50 mg/1 increased to 1,150 mg/1
in 19 months. After brine disposal operations were
156
-------
altered in 1970, the chloride content of water in
this part of the aquifer declined to 68 mg/1 within
17 months, but other wells in Walton remain
highly contaminated by salt water.
Planning, design, and construction of an
adequate well field in these relatively shallow
consolidated aquifers require detailed hydrogeologic
data with expert interpretation. Before the initial
test drilling is started, expert advice on the local
hydrogeology and quality of ground water should
be obtained. This will help to assure successful
development where shallow salt water is present.
Large monetary losses and failure of test wells have
been common where this guidance was not utilized.
In addition, some initially successful well fields
have decreased in value because of water quality
deterioration from excessive pumping rates. Where
well-field withdrawals are expertly managed, up-
ward migration of the underlying salt water is not
a problem. With adequate controls on subsurface
activities, much of the unnatural salt-water con-
tamination iof fresh-water zones can be prevented.
The general extent of brine intrusion into
shallow aquifers is known, and water-supply
developers can plan construction of a well field in
advance if they obtain the necessary hydrogeologic
guidance. Before production wells are planned, it is
important to know the depth of the shallowest salt
water and the maximum depth of fresh water in
each prospective test site. Ideally the property
should not be purchased until an adequate water
supply is assured, but unfortunately, this procedure
is rare.
Although high iron, manganese, sulfate, and
total dissolved solids present problems in treatment,
they are generally solved at an acceptable cost. High
chloride content, however, tends to limit develop-
ment of the consolidated aquifers, because of the
high treatment costs involved and the extreme
corrosiveneSs of the salt on pumping and trans-
mission equipment. The best approach is to avoid
production of salty water if at all possible.
Where the salt water lies less than 100 feet
below the base of the stream channel, test wells
should be located on a higher terrace or slope. In
some places, it may be necessary to locate test wells
some practical distance along nearby tributary
valleys. These tributary channels usually lie
topographically higher, and consequently a greater
thickness of fresh-water aquifer will usually be
available.
Industrial and community expansion will
increase ground-water use in most areas. Develop-
ment of new well fields over larger areas and
reduction of pumpage in existing well fields near
salt-water zones will help to reduce encroachment
of salt water and conserve fresh-water aquifers in
critical areas. In order that overdevelopment may
be detected before depletion or salt-water
encroachment become critical, pumpage inventories
and chemical analyses should be made pejiodically
and correlated with records of ground-water
storage. These procedures can provide enough data
to indicate where contamination is occurring and
offer a basis to begin remedial work.
REFERENCES
Carlston, C. W., and C. D. Graeff. 1955. Ground-water
resources of the Ohio River Valley in West Virginia.
W. Va. Geological and Econ. Survey, v. 22, part 3,
131pp.
Lehr, ]. H. 1971. Ground water—an imperative in water
resources planning. News Journal, National Water
Well Association, Jan.-Feb., pp. 26-31.
Price, P. H., C. E. Hare, J. B. McCue, and H. A. Hoskins.
1937. Salt brines of West Virginia. West Virginia
Geol. and Econ. Survey, pp. 28-32.
Wilmoth, B. M. 1965. Natural equilibrium in ground-water
storage reestablished at Charleston, W. Va. Proc.
W. Va. Acad. Sci. v. 37, pp. 167-173.
Wilmoth, B. M. 1967. Hydraulic properties and history of
development of lower Pennsylvanian aquifers. Proc.
W. Va. Acad. Sci. v. 39, pp. 337-342.
Wilmoth, B. M. 1970. Occurrence of shallow salty ground
water in West Virginia. Proc. West Virginia Acad. Sci.
v. 42, pp. 202-208.
Wilmqth, B. M. 1972. Salty ground water and meteoric
flushing of contaminated aquifers in West Virginia.
Ground Water, v. 10, pp. 99-106.
157
-------
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by Benton
M. Wilmoth after delivering his talk entitled
"Development of Fresh Ground Water Near Salt
Water in West Virginia."
Q. Do you use a drawdown-depth to salt-water
relationship to limit pumping rates?
A. Yes. The pumping rates can be experimentally
reduced to half and then half again if necessary. In
general, with the relatively shallow wells, it is
prudent to conserve half of the available drawdown.
Q. Doesn 't removal of oil and brine result in less
fluid to return to the aquifer—the net result being
less pressure to salt aquifers?
A. Yes, and generally over the years there has
been reduction in pressures from production of oil,
brine, and natural gas.
Q. What is the origin of the brine in deeper bedrock
in West Virginia?
A. Brine in deeper bedrock is the natural connate
brine and can be associated with oil and gas
production.
Q. Does the saline water in the upper saline zone
derive from the brine? If so, what is the nature of
the hydraulic continuity?
A. Saline ground water in the upper saline zone is a
mixture of brine and fresh meteoric ground water.
The hydraulic continuity can be natural fracture
systems in conjunction with many abandoned open
holes from oil and gas production that were
improperly plugged.
Q. How does the generalized occurrence of salt
water relate to the geology?
A. Relatively shallow salt water occurs throughout
the western half of the State in rocks of Pennsyl-
vanian age and of Permian (?) age. In general, the
salt-water—fresh-water interface cuts across geologic
contacts.
Q. Have you developed a method of determining
the injection brine from native mineralized water?
A. No. The injection brine and the native mineral-
ized water usually are associated with the same
general rock sections, and therefore the chemistry
can be rather similar.
Q. The fresh-water—salt-water contacts in diagrams
are mostly horizontal. What kind of control data
do you have?
A. The elevation of the fresh-water—salt-water
interface at particular locations is based on data
from water wells that actually penetrated the inter-
face. In local well fields this may appear to be
horizontal.
158
-------
Subsurface Biological Activity in Relation
Q
to Ground-Water Pollution
bv James F. McNabb and William J. Dunlap
ABSTRACT
Biological activity occurring in subsurface regions
below the soil zone may be of considerable importance in
determining the fate and effect of pollutants in ground
water, but this possibility has received little previous
attention. This paper comprises a discussion of subsurface
biological activity in regard to ground-water pollution as
reflected by available literature references. The subsurface
environment is discussed in terms of factors likely to be of
greatest significance in regard to the development of
biological systems, and previous investigations of subsurface
microbial activity are reviewed. Available information indi-
cates the presence in the upper continental crust of the
earth of numerous regions, particularly those of sedimentary
origin, which are probably suitable habitats for many
microbial species. Previous investigations of subsurface
microbial activity clearly show the presence of diverse
microbial populations in many subsurface regions below the
soil zone. Hence, microbial activity appears both possible
and probable in most subsurface regions of importance in
regard to ground water. Further elucidation of the extent
and nature of microbial activity in subsurface regions is
needed in developing memoes fur predicting the impact
on ground-water quality cf pollutants released into the
earth's crust.
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974.
t>Microbiologist and Research Chemist, Subsurface
Environmental Branch, Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, P.O. Box 1198, Ada,Oklahoma 74820.
INTRODUCTION
Pollutants are most likely to enter ground
waters by either of two principal pathways:
percolation through the unsaturated portion of the
earth's crust above the water table or discharge
directly into ground water without passage through
the upper soil layers. Both during percolation
through the crust of the earth above the water table
and within saturated ground-water zones, pollutants
are subject to possible sorption, abiotic chemical
alteration, and chemical alteration resulting from
biological activity. Of the three possibilities,
biological alteration may well be of greatest
potential importance in determining the ultimate
effect of a pollutant on ground-water quality.
The topmost layers of the earth's crust,
comprising that region considered by the soil
scientist as true soil as opposed to subsoil and
underlying substratum, have been rather thoroughly
studied, principally because of their importance to
agriculture, and have been shov/n to comprise a
region of relatively intense biological activity.
Hence, pollutants percolating through the soil zone
are known to be subject to potential degradation
as the result of the metabolic activities of a multi-
tudinous population of biochemically diverse
microorganisms within this region. However, those
regions of the earth's crust lying below the soil
zone have received much less attention in regard to
their biological activity. Consequently, the
possibility of biological alteration of pollutants in
159
-------
these regions, 'as well as possible effects of pollu-
tants on subsurface ecosystems, has been given
little serious consideration.
Knowledge of the biological activity which
occurs or can be expected to occur in the subsur-
face environment is important in determining the
fate and effect of pollutants in ground water. This
paper comprises a discussion of currently available
information concerning subsurface biological
activity and those environmental factors likely to
be most significant in regard to development of
biological systems. Principal attention has been
devoted to those regions of the earth's crust lying
below the soil zone, since numerous compilations
of information concerning biological activity in the
soil are widely available.
THE SUBSURFACE AS A
BIOLOGICAL HABITAT
The subsurface environment is a highly
structured environment which is not homogeneous
but varies from point to point, encompassing a
wide range of environmental conditions. Organisms
inhabiting the subsurface will be essentially restrict-
ed to the "living space" provided by the voids, or
interstices, of the rock comprising the upper portion
of the crust of the earth. (The term rock is used
here in the broad sense, meaning any solid constitu-
ent of the earth's crust). These interstices differ
widely in size, shape, arrangement, and aggregate
volume. They range in size from large solution
cavities through all gradations to minute pores. They
may be closely interconnected or relatively isolated.
Porosity data (Walton, 1970; Todd, 1959)
indicate that the total interstitial space per unit
volume of rocks comprising the upper crust of the
earth, with the possible exception of massive
crystalline rocks containing no joints or fractures,
is adequate to permit at least some microbial
activity, provided the sizes of the individual inter-
stices are sufficient to accommodate the dimensions
of the microorganisms. Although the sizes of inter-
stices in most rocks have not been quantitatively
determined, various studies involving the transport
of bacteria through rather dense rocks suggest that
bacteria might find adequate space to exist and
function in wide regions of the subsurface (Kalish
etal., 1964; Myers and McCready, 1966). Certainly,
spatial limitations would not appear likely to
exclude as microbial habitats those subsurface
regions of sufficient porosity and permeability to
permit transmission and storage of appreciable
quantities of water. These are, of course, the regions
of greatest interest in regard to ground-water
pollution control.
Spatial limitations are also of concern in the
transport of microorganisms into and within sub-
surface regions by moving water. Obviously, physical
difficulty in negotiating small interstices as well as
possible sorption on solid substances are likely to
greatly impede the movement of microbes through
the interstitial space of subsurface formations.
Investigations of the transport of bacteria through
subsurface materials have primarily pertained to
the movement of pathogens and indicator bacteria
from sewage and not necessarily microorganisms
likely to have a long life span in the subsurface
environment (Mallmann and Mack, 1961; McGauhey
and Krone, 1967). These studies suggest that the
principal deterrents to movement of the bacteria
studied often were factors other than physical
impediment and suggest that bacteria which are
capable of surviving in the subsurface environment
might be able with time to travel great distances
with percolating water.
Within the unique habitat provided by the
interstices of the earth's crust, any native or intro-
duced microorganisms will be subjected to various
environmental extremes. The ability of these micro-
organisms to cope with subsurface conditions will
determine not only whether the microorganisms
merely survive, but will also determine whether an
active biological community will develop capable
of modifying its environment.
One potential problem will be high osmotic
pressures. Because of the great solvent power of
water, ground water usually reflects to some extent
the chemical composition of the rock formations
through which it moves. In general, the mineral
content of ground waters increases with depth and
may reach levels in excess of 20 percent total
mineral content in deep formations, particularly
those which appear to be hydrogeologically
isolated (Kuznetsov et al, 1963; White et al., 1963).
Ground waters of high mineral content are also
found in relatively shallow rock formations which
are partly composed of salt beds deposited from
ancient seas. In those regions of the zone of
saturation where ground waters are highly mineral-
ized the availability of water to many microbes
would, in effect, be severely restricted because of
high osmotic pressures. However, bacteria differ
greatly in their ability to withstand and adapt to
high osmotic pressure, and many species have been
found to grow in highly mineralized waters, includ-
ing some which tolerate as much as 30 percent
salt (Zajic, 1969).
160
-------
Temperature is one of the most important
environmental factors controlling the metabolic
activity of microorganisms in any type of habitat,
and considerable information has been developed
concerning the relationship of temperature to the
growth and survival of microorganisms. For meso-
philic organisms, which comprise by far the greatest
number of microbes, the optimum growth range is
25-40° C. Thermophilic organisms have an optimum
growth temperature of 55-60°C, but some can
continue to grow at temperatures as high as 75-90°
C at atmospheric pressure. The maximum tempera-
ture that all but a few heat-resistant spore-forming
bacteria can tolerate without being killed is
normally considered to be 100°C, but most micro-
organisms are actually killed by temperature much
above 50° C (Rose, 1968). The minimum tempera-
ture limits at which microorganisms grow may be
as low as -1'5°C in waters with a high concentration
of solutes (Vallentyne, 1963). Many psychrophilic
bacteria are found in nature which can grow fairly
rapidly between 0° and 5°C, although the optimum
growth temperatures for many psychrophiles are
often in the same range of 25-40°C (Rose, 1968;
Brock, 1964).
The temperature tolerances of microorganisms
may be affected by other environmental factors.
For example, high acidity seems to lower the maxi-
mum temperature at which growth may occur
(Brock and Darland, 1970). Pressure and
temperature are definitely interrelated, the maxi-
mum temperature for growth being raised 5-20° C
by compression according to ZoBell (1958).
Temperatures in the earth's crust rarely fluctu-
ate, except in the topmost layer of approximately
10 m (33 ft) which may be affected by seasonal
temperature variations (Kuznetsov etal., 1963).
The normal ground-water temperature at depths of
9-18 m (30-60 ft) roughly corresponds to the mean
annual air temperature of the given region and
ranges from about 3°C (37°F) to 25°C (77°F) in
the United States (Geraghty, 1967). As the depth
increases, the temperature of the subsurface rocks
and waters increases; this increase is roughly •
estimated to be 30°C per 1,000 m (3,281 ft)
(Sanders, 1967).
Based on "upper temperature limits of 80° C
and 100°C, respectively, for microbial growth and
survival, and assuming a 30°C increase in
temperature per 1,000 m of depth, it would appear
that high temperatures would likely prevent most
microbial activity in subsurface environments lying
below approximately 1,800 m (5,900 ft) and
virtually preclude the existence of microbes in those
environments at depths below about 2,500 m
(8,200 ft). These values are, however, only very
rough guidelines subject to wide variation, since
temperature within the earth's crust at any particular
geographical location are likely to reflect not only
depth but also geologic structure and geothermal
activity. Hence, high temperatures may sometimes
occur at relatively shallow depths, while tempera-
tures considerably lower than predicted may be
encountered in deep formations.
It is obvious, therefore, that temperature
extremes sufficient to preclude microbial activity
are not likely to occur in those regions of the sub-
surface that are of greatest concern in regard to
ground-water pollution, with the possible exception
of a few regions of extreme geothermal activity and
some very deep strata which may be employed for
subsurface disposal of waste waters. In fact, the
elevated constant temperatures of 25-40° C which
are likely to occur in many subsurface regions
would be ideal for growth of mesophilic organisms.
Hydrostatic pressure has been considered as a
limiting factor on biological activity in the subsur-
face. The hydrostatic pressure within rock inter-
stices, in which any subsurface microbial activity
must occur, usually approximates the pressure
which would be produced by a column of water
extending from the surface to the depth of the
measurement. Hence, interstitial hydrostatic
pressure generally increases downward at an average
rate of 0.1 atm per meter or about 0.43-0.47 psi per
ft, although pressures considerably higher or lower
than predicted may be encountered with some
frequency (Russell, 1951; Cannon and Craze, 1938).
Hence, as Kuznetsov et al. (1963) concluded,
hydrostatic pressure should not exceed 300-400
atm in the majority of subsurface regions where
temperatures are not too high-for microbial activity,
although there may well be exceptions in regions of
low geothermal activity.
Microorganisms differ considerably in their
response to hydrostatic pressure. Most microbes
which normally are found growing in habitats near
atmospheric pressure appear capable of at least
some growth at 200-300 atm at 30°C, although
some species are completely inhibited or killed by
these or even lower hydrostatic pressures (ZoBell,
1958; ZoBell and Johnson, 1949; ZoBell and
Oppenheimer, 1950). At higher pressures the growtl
of organisms from surface or near-surface habitats is
usually severely to completely retarded, and the
survival of such microbes for significant periods at
pressures of 500-600 atm is doubtful. On the other
hand, many microorganisms isolated from deep sea
161
-------
habitats have exhibited the ability to grow readily
at pressures above 400 atm during laboratory
studies (ZoBell, 1970). These observations indicate
that hydrostatic pressures are not likely to exclude
microbial activity in subsurface regions which are
otherwise suitable as microbial habitats. However,
pressure in deep formations employed for subsurface
disposal of liquid wastes may be sufficiently high
to kill or to severely affect the metabolic activity
of microbes from surface habitats which may be
indigenous to the injected wastes.
Environmental factors other than those dis-
cussed above may also affect microorganisms in
subsurface regions but do not seem likely to
preclude microbial activity in such regions except in
rare cases. For example, pH may limit the types of
organisms which find various subsurface regions to
be suitable habitats, and large solid surface areas
characteristic of the highly structured subsurface
environment may influence microbial activity
through sorptive effects on extracellular enzymes,
nutrients, and the microbes themselves.
It should also be noted that the various
environmental factors, while discussed individually
above, are interacting, as illustrated by the inter-
relation between temperature and pressure noted
previously. Definitive experimental data concerning
subsurface environmental factors are relatively
scarce and incomplete and are not sufficient to
define completely the total potential effect of these
interacting factors on subsurface microbial activity.
Nevertheless, available evidence indicates strongly
that the upper continental crust of the earth is
generally not a hostile environment for micro-
organisms.
For an active microbial population to develop,
a microbial habitat must provide to resident micro-
organisms the nutrients which they require for
synthesis of protoplasmic constituents and for
generation of energy needed for conduct of life
processes. For synthesis of protoplasm a carbon
source, either carbon dioxide or organic matter,
must be available, along with smaller quantities of •
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur in either organic or
inorganic form, and low levels of various minerals.
Generation of energy by chemotrophic organisms
(the absence of solar radiation obviously excludes
phototrophs from subsurface environments)
requires the availability of: (1) suitable electron
donors, such as oxidizable organic compounds, or,
for growth of chemolithotrophs, oxidizable
inorganic substances such as molecular hydrogen,
reduced sulfur compounds, ammonia, nitrite, and
ferrous iron; and, (2) suitable electron acceptors
including molecular oxygen, nitrate, sulfate,
carbon dioxide, and simple organic compounds.
Potential sources of carbon for microbial
utilization are relatively plentiful in many subsur-
face environments, since the upper continental
crust of the earth is variously estimated to contain
in the neighborhood of 1019-1020 kg of carbon
(Rubey, 1951; Alexander, 1971). Most of this
carbon is present as inorganic compounds,
principally carbonates, but an appreciable portion
occurs as organic matter, much of which was
incorporated into sedimentary deposits at the time
of their formation and has not been completely
mineralized over geological ages. Large quantities
of organic compounds are found concentrated in
petroleum deposits but vastly greater amounts are
dispersed throughout sedimentary rocks in a
finely disseminated state (Trask and Patnode,
1942;Trask, 1939).
Organic matter in sedimentary rocks may be
grossly classified as bitumen, comprising organic
substances which are extracted by neutral organic
solvents, and kerogen, consisting of organic materi-
als which are not readily soluble in such solvents.
The bitumen fraction usually contains numerous
hydrocarbon materials, fatty acids, porphyrins and
many other substances; its composition is likely
dependent to some extent on the organic solvent
employed for extraction. The kerogen fraction
constitutes the bulk of the organic matter in sub-
surface environments, usually comprising 90
percent or more of the total organic content of
sedimentary materials (Davis, 1967). The composi-
tion of this fraction is very complex and subject
to considerable variation; but, in general, it appears
to consist in large part of humus-like materials.
A review of available data also indicates that
essentially all subsurface waters probably contain
significant quantities of dissolved organic matter
(Dunlap and McNabb, 1973). This organic matter
probably results both from leaching of organics
from sedimentary rocks into ground water and
transport of fresh organic matter from the surface
by recharge water. Humic substances, naphthenic
acids, fatty acids, and phenols are known to com-
prise part of the dissolved organic matter in ground
waters near petroleum deposits, but the specific
composition of the naturally occurring organic
matter of ground waters generally remains largely
unknown.
The growth of heterotrophic (chemoorgano-
trophic) bacteria may often proceed when very
low levels of organic matter are available (ZoBell
and Grant, 1942; ZoBell et al, 1943). It would
162
-------
appear likely, therefore, that the organic substances
present in most subsurface environments of sedi-
mentary origin are sufficient in quantity to support
microbial activity, both as sources of carbon for
synthesis of protoplasm and as electron donors for
generation of energy. However, microbial activity
in the subsurface may be limited by the quality,
rather than the quantity, of subsurface organic
matter. For example, much of this material may,
as noted above, consist of substances resembling
soil humus components which yield to microbial
degradative processes only very slowly, even under
the most favorable conditions. Also, some com-
pounds may not be utilized by microbes in the
absence of oxygen per se (Alexander, 1965), and
some may even be microbial inhibitors.
Carbon dioxide is potentially available as a
carbon source for chemolithotrophic (autotrophic)
microorganisms in many subsurface regions.
Inorganic electron donors which might be oxidized
by such microbes for generation of energy are also
encountered with some frequency in subsurface
environments. For example, molecular hydrogen is
often present in subsurface gases (Kuznetsov et al.,
1963), and elemental sulfur and hydrogen sulfide
are not uncommon in the earth's crust.
Nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur are probably
present in essentially all sedimentary formations as
constituents of organic and/or mineral matter,
albeit the concentration of one or more of these
elements, most likely nitrogen and phosphorus,
may be extremely low in specific locations.
However, since the amount of carbon in microbial
protoplasm exceeds the quantity of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sulfur, respectively, by approxi-
mately five-, twenty-, and one hundredfold, and
the latter elements are likely to be recycled in-place
in subsurface environments, the levels of these
elements required to maintain a minimum level of
microbial activity in such environments would
appear very low. Hence, it seems unlikely that
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur concentrations
would oftCjn be so low in subsurface environments
as to completely preclude all microbial activity,
although the probability appears high that limited
availability of one or more of these elements in a
readily utilized form will restrict the level of micro-
bial activity which can possibly occur in many
subsurface regions.
Inhibition of microbial activity in subsurface
environments solely because of unavailability of
mineral elements would also likely be exceptional,
since all subsurface waters are mineralized to some
extent due to leaching of the rocks with which they
come in contact, and the concentrations of inorganic
ions required for microbial growth are usually
extremely low. In this connection, Kartsev states
that the presence of mineral compounds necessary
for growth of hydrocarbon-utilizing microbes has
been established in a wide variety of subsurface
formations, although clay interbeds deficient in the
minerals required for development of these bacteria
have been observed in rare cases (Kartsev et al.,
1959).
Determinations of both molecular oxygen
concentrations and oxidation-reduction potentials
in subsurface environments are subject to formi-
dable methodological problems because of the
difficult accessibility of these regions. Consequently,
definitive data concerning subsurface oxidation-
reduction conditions are scarce. However, those
data which have been reported, coupled with
general observations concerning the probable
availability and consumption (reduction) of
molecular oxygen and other reducible substances in
subsurface regions, provide a limited insight regard-
ing probable oxidation-reduction conditions in
subsurface zones.
In the zone of aeration, gas in the rock
interstices is for the most part in direct communica-
tion with the atmosphere and, hence, is potentially
subject to constant interchange with atmospheric
gases. Interchange results from molecular diffusion
of gases through the rock interstices and from actual
displacement of interstitial gas due to diurnal
heating and cooling of the earth's surface, changes
in barometric pressure, and intermittent filling of
interstices of gravitational water with subsequent
displacement of this water by fresh atmospheric
gas. It has been widely assumed, therefore, that high
oxygen tensions generally prevail within the zone
of aeration. However, the situation is probably not
so simple as this assumption implies.
Regions of oxygen deficiency are known to
occur with some frequency in the soil water
subzone of the zone of aeration, even though
oxygen replenishment by gas interchange should be
most effective in this region by virtue of its close
proximity to the atmosphere. These oxygen-
deficient regions probably occur because of an
unfavorable balance between oxygen replenishment
by gas interchange, which appears to be restricted
by interstitial spatial limitations, and oxygen
utilization by soil microorganisms.
Microbial activity and, hence, oxygen con-
sumption is almost certainly significantly less in the
intermediate and capillary subzones of the zone of
aeration than in the soil subzone in most situations.
163
-------
However, the rate of gas interchange with the
atmosphere must surely be related to depth and to
permeability of the rock comprising the zone of
aeration and is therefore likely to be low in these
deeper regions, particularly in formations of low
permeability. Also, the probability of survival of
molecular oxygen during movement through the
rock interstices towards the deeper regions of the
zone of aeration could be relatively low if microbial
activity in the soil zone were high. It would appear,
therefore, that regions of oxygen deficiency may be
at least as likely to occur in the deeper subzones of
the zone of aeration as in the soil water subzone.
Oxidation-reduction conditions in the zone of
saturation likely will reflect the balance between:
(1) the rates of processes which result in the
reduction of molecular oxygen and other reducible
substances in ground water; and (2) the rates of
entry into ground water of recharge water
containing oxygen and other reducib'e substances
and of diffusion into ground water of oxygen from
the zone of aeration. Hence, redox conditions at
any specific point in the zone of saturation will
likely depend on (1) redox conditions in the
overlying zone of aeration, (2) the distance from
the air-water interface between the zones of
aeration and saturation, (3) the level of microbial
activity, (4) the rate of movement of ground water,
and (5) the rate of ground-water recharge.
Since the deeper regions of the zone of
saturation are far removed from the zone of
aeration and the rates of ground-water movement
within these regions and the rates at which they are
recharged range from very low to essentially zero, it
appears unlikely that appreciable oxygen and other
easily reduced substances could be present in them.
This supposition is supported by data obtained in
the USSR during studies related to the genesis of
and exploration for petroleum (Kuznetsova, 1960;
Al'tovskiietal., 1961).
On the other hand, considerable variations in
rates of reductive processes and replenishment of
oxidized substances appear possible in the upper
regions of the zone of saturation. Hence, it seems
likely that oxidation-reduction conditions in these
regions may vary over a significant range of possi-
bilities, although somewhat reducing conditions
would appear to be generally favored.
The oxidation-reduction conditions in which
microorganisms can grow have been cited by
Vallentyne (1963) as ranging from an upper Ej,
limit of +850 mv at pH 3 for iron bacteria to a
lower limit of -450 mv at pH 9.5 for sulfate
bacteria. Limited observations of redox potentials
in subsurface samples (Al'tovskii et al., 1961;
Stewart et al., 1967) indicate that the total exclu-
sion of microbial activity in subsurface environ-
ments by unfavorable oxidation-reduction
conditions therefore seems unlikely, although the
possibility exists that some deep regions of the
zone of saturation might become so reduced as to
preclude microbial growth. However, since different
species of microorganisms usually are able to grow
well only within a relatively narrow range of redox
values, the oxidation-reduction conditions that
prevail within a subsurface region will limit the
species of microbes which may successfully inhabit
that region and will often control the metabolic
pathways and products of these microbes. For
example, sulfate-reducing bacteria require an
environmental Eh of-200 mv or less for initiation
of growth (Postgate, 1959), and reduction of
nitrate by facultative microbes in soil has been
found not to proceed unless the redox potential
is less than +338mvatpH 5.1 (Patrick, 1960).
Also, metabolic activity in soils apparently changes
from aerobic to anaerobic, with concomitant
accumulation of partially oxidized organic
compounds, when the concentration of oxygen
declines below 3 X 10"6 M (Greenwood, 1961).
Molecular oxygen, the electron acceptor
required by obligate aerobes and usually preferred
by facultative microbes, is undoubtedly absent from
the deeper regions of the zone of saturation and is
likely available in variable and often limited
quantities in the upper regions of the zone of
saturation and in the zone of aeration. However,
other substances which serve as terminal electron
acceptors for anaerobic organisms or which may
be utilized as alternate electron acceptors by
facultative organisms are widely distributed in
subsurface regions. Sulfate, the required terminal
electron acceptor of the obligately anaerobic
sulfate-reducing bacteria, is probably present to
some extent in most subsurface waters, often in
relatively high quantity. Carbon dioxide, as previ-
ously noted, is present in many subsurface
environments and may be utilized as terminal
electron acceptor by several species of methane
bacteria. Nitrate, the alternate electron acceptor for
many facultative microbes, occurs often in subsur-
face waters, particularly at relatively shallow depths.
Simple organic compounds which may serve a
number of microbes as electron acceptors via fermen-
tative metabolic pathways are also likely present in
many subsurface environments, although such sub-
stances probably become progressively more scarce
with increasing depth (Meinschein, 1971).
164
-------
In total, the availability of electron acceptors
is probably sufficient in many subsurface regions to
support at least a minimum level of microbial
activity. However, the rates at which electron
acceptors' can be replenished in various subsurface
environments appear, likely to limit the levels of
microbial proliferation which may be sustained
therein. Such replenishment rates are undoubtedly
very low in many subsurface regions, particularly
in deeper strata of the zone of saturation. Insuffi-
cient availability of suitable electron acceptors to
sustain significant microbial activity may well be a
principal factor in the survival for geological ages of
organic matter, particularly petroleum deposits, in
the earth's crust.
The observations presented in this section
concern mostly subsurface environmental factors
in natural environments unaffected by human
activities. Unquestionably, such activities could
profoundly alter the environmental conditions in
many subsurface regions. For example, low levels
of readily utilizable carbon sources, electron
acceptors, and possibly phosphorus and nitrogen
appear most likely to limit microbial activity in
many subsurface environments. Disposal or ground-
water recharge activities which result in the entry
of liquid or solid wastes into regions below the soil
zone would be likely to considerably alter this
situation in the surrounding subsurface
environment.
INVESTIGATIONS PERTAINING TO
SUBSURFACE BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY
Subsurface regions of the earth's crust have
never been studied extensively by microbiologists.
Early investigations by soil microbiologists on the
distribution of microbes at different soil depths
indicated the presence of relatively large populations
near the surface with numbers decreasing with
depth and-attaining extremely low levels at the
lower boundaries of the soil zone (Waksman, 1927;
Waksman and Starkey, 1931; Alexander, 1961).
From these studies, many microbiologists formed
the assumption that biological life below the upper
soil zone was either nonexistent or extremely
limited. This assumption, when coupled with the
immense technical problems and expense involved
in subsurface investigations, resulted in many sub-
sequent workers ignoring the subsurface as an area
of investigation.
The problems involved in studying subsurface
environments and the resultant expense have always
been the main deterrent to subsurface investigations.
Obviously, terrestrial environments far below the
earth's surface cannot be directly examined because
of their inaccessibility. Instead, biological activity
in subsurface environments must be characterized
by examining natural spring waters or by drilling
wells and examining the resultant cores and well
waters. Spring waters give an indication of the
chemical nature of the producing aquifer, but are
not necessarily biologically or chemically repre-
sentative of deep stratal waters (Davis, 1967; Hem,
1959). In essence, they may provide meaningful
information concerning the biological situation in
the vicinity of the outcrop where the spring occurs,
but are unlikely to accurately reflect microbial
activity deeper within the aquifer formation.
Well waters are considered to provide more
representative information concerning subsurface
ecosystems than spring waters, but they are likely
to reflect contamination resulting from drilling
operations, and they may not be quantitatively
indicative of the microbial population in an aquifer
since the movement of water from the surrounding
aquifer rocks into a well during pumping is likely
to be much more rapid than the movement of
microbes. Samples obtained aseptically from
undisturbed cores undoubtedly provide the most
representative information concerning subsurface
microbial activity, but the acquisition of such
samples is fraught with difficulties. Also, since
subsurface strata are not homogeneous, both cores
and water from a single well may not accurately
reflect the microbial population of the adjacent
rock formation.
Well drilling operations alter and contaminate
the subsurface environment, especially with wells
of any depth because of the need for circulating
drilling fluids or muds to remove the cuttings and
keep the walls of the borehole from collapsing.
Drilling fluids often contain various sorts of addi-
tives and are a definite source of bacterial contami-
nation (Davis, 1967; Smirnova, 1957).
The possibility that surface microbes can be
introduced during drilling and sampling operations
has caused many to question whether microbes
isolated from subsurface samples were actually
native to that environment. This has often been a
valid question, particularly where samples were
obtained from old boreholes or producing wells,
since such samples are hardly representative of
nondisturbed, uncontaminated formations.
Despite the possibility of contamination,
many workers are convinced that uncontaminated
samples can be and have been obtained from sub-
surface regions and, hence, microbes isolated from
165
-------
such samples are indeed native to the subsurface
formations sampled (Davis, 1967; Kuznetsov et al.,
1963; Al'tovskii et al., 1961; Beerstecher, 1954;
ZoBell, 1958).
If an uncontaminated sample can be obtained,
determining the number, type, and activity of any
organisms present is also extremely difficult. The
technical problems involved in such determinations
have been discussed in detail by a number of micro-
bial ecologists who all point out that it is presently
impossible to accurately enumerate the microbial
population of any ecosystem and measure the extent
of its activity in the in-situ environment (Brock,
1966; Alexander, 1971; Hungate, 1962; Brock,
197 l;Weibe, 1971).
Therefore, it must be understood that microbes
found in subsurface samples may not give a true
indication of the total microbial community existing
in the sampled habitat and the processes occurring
there. However, the repeated presence of certain
microorganisms in samples from the same kind of
habitat is highly indicative that they are native to
that habitat and their metabolic capabilities provide
some idea of their role there and the existing
conditions.
A review of investigations pertaining to micro-
bial activity in subsurface environments has been
recently published (Dunlap and McNabb, 1973).
Such investigations have proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that many subsurface regions are not hostile
to microbial life and, in fact, contain a varied and
apparently active microflora.
Sulfate-reducing bacteria were the only micro-
organisms isolated in many initial studies because
they were the only microbes which the experiments
were designed to detect. Eventually, investigators
examined the subsurface for other microbial groups
and found a biochemically diverse microflora
existing not only near petroleum and sulfur
deposits, but also elsewhere in the subsurface.
Various denitrifiers, methane formers, sulfur
oxidizers, and hydrocarbon utilizers have been
isolated, including members of the genera Thio-
bacillus, Pseudomonas, Methanomonas, Mycobacteri-
um, Actinomyces, and Pseudobacterium. Although
determinations of all numbers are inaccurate and
undoubtedly do not reflect actual population
densities in the in-situ environment, counts of
several million bacteria per milliliter have been
reported in some samples.
That sulfate reducers are not the only micro-
bial group native to subsurface environments is
illustrated by a study in which the pattern of
distribution of hydrocarbon-oxidizing and gas-
producing microflora within Pliocene and Paleocene
deposits of the USSR was investigated (Bogdanova,
1966). Although both core and water samples were
examined, the results from cores are most significant
because the outer layer of each core was carefully
pared off and only the theoretically uncontaminated
interior of the core was examined. Hydrocarbon-
oxidizing, sulfate-reducing, and methane-producing
bacteria were found in cores of various types of
sandstones, marls, and clays mixed with limestone,
siltstone, and argillite from depths of 87-504 meters
(285-1,654 feet). No apparent relationship between
the distribution of various bacteria and depth was
observed, and different types of microbes were
invariably found in the same core sample. Only one
of twenty-nine cores examined did not contain any
microbes which could be detected by the methods
employed.
The presence in subsurface environments of
nearly all the organisms which have been reported
as residing in such regions is not contraindicated by
available knowledge concerning their physiological
capabilities. Reviews on the ecology of sulfate-
reducing bacteria point out that sulfate reducers,
primarily the vibrio Desulfovibrio desulfuricans,
are uniquely adapted to grow in subsurface environ-
ments, and it would not be surprising if they were
almost ubiquitious in such regions (Kuznetsov,
1963; ZoBell, 1958; Postgate, 1959; Davis, 1967;
Postgate, 1965). Sulfate-reducing bacteria are often
found in association with other bacteria, a relation-
ship which may be mutually beneficial (Kuznetsov,
1963; ZoBell, 1958; Davis, 1967). Ironically,
sulfate reducers evidently are adversely affected by
conditions such as high temperatures not directly
inhibitory to them but which are inhibitory to
associated organisms (Kuznetsova and Gorlenko,
1966).
In general, bacteria such as Pseudomonas, Myco-
bacterium, and Actinomyces species found in sub-
surface samples are also commonly found in upper
soil layers. They are capable of growth in anaerobic
environments by using nitrate or organic compounds
as electron acceptors instead of oxygen. As a group
they utilize a wide range of organic compounds as
nutrients. A number of different species have been
isolated from subsurface samples which in laboratory
studies could oxidize hydrocarbons ranging from
naphthalene to alkanes containing from one to ten
carbons (Naumova, 1960; Telegina, 1961;Smirnova,
1961; Slavnina, 1965; Norenkova, 1966; Raymond,
1961). The number of compounds that organisms
such as various Pseudomonas species are able to
attack and degrade is vast, although they may be
166
-------
able to attack many substances only under aerobic
conditions.
It is impossible to determine how long micro-
organisms have been in subterranean formations
where they are found, especially since micro-
organisms isolated from such formations do not
differ from surface microbes to any obvious extent.
The microorganisms found in deep stratal waters
may have been deposited with the sediments
millions of years ago or they may have migrated
into such strata from the surface over an undeter-
mined period of time (ZoBell, 1958; Al'tovskii et
al, 1961; Reiser and Tasch, I960; Messineva, 1962;
Dombrowski, 1963). Bacteria are not only carried
by underground waters moving through fractures,
fissures, channels, solution cavities, and pore spaces,
but they are also often able to propel themselves
through water, perhaps to reach better conditions or
to escape unfavorable environments. Such move-
ment is extremely slow, ranging from a few microns
to a few centimeters per day (Rose, 1968). It is
possible that organisms could migrate outward
from drilled wells over a period of years, contribut-
ing to colonization of some formations, since pro-
liferation of microbes in the immediate vicinity of
wells often causes severe corrosion and clogging
problems (Davis, 1967; Baumgartner, 1962; Rebhun
and Schwarz, 1968; Vecchioli, 1970). The extent to
which such growth radiates from wells is uncertain,
however.
DISCUSSION
The information obtained in the previous
investigations of subsurface microbial activity clear-
ly illustrates the presence of a diverse microbial
population in many regions of the earth's crust
lying below the soil zone. This information, in
conjunction with available information concerning
the suitability of subsurface environments as micro-
bial habitats, indicates strongly that microbial
activity is both possible and probable in most sub-
surface regions which are of importance in regard to
ground water. The significance of such activity to
ground-water pollution and pollution control, of
course, resides in the potential interactions of
pollutants and microorganisms in subsurface
regions and the ultimate effect of such interactions
on the quality and availability of ground water.
Subsurface microbe-pollutants interactions are
likely to be mainly beneficial, producing such
desirable results as elimination of organic pollutants
from subsurface waters by mineralization or removal
of nitrate by denitrification. Such interactions might
also sometimes be detrimental, resulting in produc-
tion of undesirable metabolic products which enter
and pollute ground water or reduction of aquifer
permeability through clogging of interstitial space
by cells and polymeric products of metabolism.
Previous investigations of subsurface microbial
activity have been concerned primarily with delinea-
tion of the types and numbers of native microbes
in essentially undisturbed subsurface environments,
mostly in formations deep within the zone of
saturation. These investigations provide a limited
indication of possible microbe-pollutant interactions
which might be expected to occur in some subsur-
face environments. However, they provide practical-
ly no information concerning: (1) the extent and
nature of native microbial activity in the zone of
aeration below the soil zone and in the upper
regions of the zone of saturation; and (2) microbial
activity in subsurface environments altered by the
introduction of pollutants.
Microbial activity in the zone of aeration below
the soil and in the upper portions of the zone of
saturation is obviously of very great potential
importance in regard to ground-water pollution and
pollution control. Systematic studies to define the
extent and nature of native microbial activity in
these regions, correlating microbial data with
environmental characteristics, particularly
geological and oxidation-reduction conditions, are
needed. These studies would provide data which
would be useful in preliminary efforts to predict
the fate of pollutants in these regions of the earth's
crust, and which would serve both as a basis and
complement to more extensive investigations
pertaining to the movement, fate, and effect of
pollutants in subsurface waters.
Microbial populations, and hence microbe-
pollutant interactions, in subsurface regions receiv-
ing pollutants are likely to be profoundly affected
by the nature and quantity of pollutants introduced
and their effect on the native subsurface environ-
ment. For example, microbial species which are
very minor members of the native ecological com-
munity may become dominant in the environment
created by entry of pollutants. Also, microbes
indigenous to the pollutant-containing waste
introduced into a subsurface region may proliferate
there, becoming the dominant species and control-
ling the fate of pollutants entering that region.
The above observations indicate the need for
thorough, integrated investigations of microbe-
pollutant interactions in subsurface regions receiv-
ing pollutants. In-situ investigations should be
employed where possible, but laboratory simulation
work utilizing core samples would probably often
167
-------
be required, particularly in the study of deep
formations. Such studies should seek to correlate
native microbial populations, environmental
situations (geology, oxygen and nutrient availability,
pressure, temperature, etc.), nature of pollutants,
and microbial populations subsequently developing
after the introduction of pollutants, with the fate
of pollutants and their effect on ground-water
quality and availability. Investigations of this type
would necessarily be complex and expensive, but
they would provide infofmation needed in
developing methods which would permit prediction
of the probable impact on ground water of various
activities entailing release of pollutants in to the
earth's crust, including waste disposal, agricultural,
and ground-water recharge activities, and which,
therefore, would provide the basis for logical
regulation and control of such activities. Such
studies might also indicate how microbial activity
in subsurface regions below the soil zone could
best be managed and utilized to achieve maximum
degradation of pollutants in subsurface waters. For
example, improved knowledge of the factors
controlling subsurface microbial activity might
permit alteration of subsurface environmental
factors and/or microbial populations to bring about
mineralization of hydrocarbons or other organic
compounds accumulating in aquifers as the result of
accidents involving transport or storage equipment,
or to achieve beneficial alteration of wastes
intentionally introduced into deep formations.
CONCLUSIONS
Currently available information permits the
following conclusions concerning subsurface
biological activity in relation to ground-water
pollution.
1. The upper continental crust of the earth
comprises a highly structured and complex environ-
ment, characterized by limited open space and a
myriad of environmental possibilities. In most
subsurface regions, particularly those of sedimentary
origin, these environmental possibilities do not
appear so severe as to preclude microbial activity
until depths are attained where temperatures exceed
microbial tolerance levels. These depths are
apparently in excess of 2,000 m in most regions.
2. Field investigations pertaining to subsurface
microbial activity are difficult due to the inaccessi-
bility of subsurface regions and the consequent
difficulty in obtaining uncontaminated, representa-
tive samples from such regions. Nevertheless, a
number of credible investigations reported in the
literature clearly show the presence of diverse
microbial populations in many subsurface regions
lying below the soil zone.
3. Available information indicates strongly
that microbial activity is both possible and probable
in most subsurface regions below the soil zone which
are of importance in regard to ground water. Hence,
possible biochemical alteration of pollutants in
these regions, as well as possible effects of pollutants
on subsurface ecosystems, must be considered in
attempting to control pollution of ground water.
4. Investigations to further elucidate the
extent and nature of microbial activity in subsurface
regions below the soil zone should be included in
general studies pertaining to the movement, fate,
and effect of pollutants in subsurface waters if
these studies are to provide an effective basis for
assessing the probable impact of human activities
on the ground-water resource and for regulating
and controlling the conduct of such activities to
minimize the threat to ground-water quality.
REFERENCES
Alexander, M. 1961. Introduction to soil microbiology.
New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Alexander, M. 1965. Biodegradation: problems of molecular
recalcitrance and microbial fallibility. Advances in
Applied Microbiology, v. 7, pp. 35-80.
Alexander, M. 1971. Microbial ecology. New York, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Al'tovskii, M. E., Z. I. Kuznetsova, and V. M. Shvets. 1961.
Origin of oil and oil deposits. New York, Consultants
Bureau.
Baumgartner, A. W. 1962. Sulfate-reducing bacteria—their
role in corrosion and well plugging. Producers
Monthly, v. 7, pp. 2-5.
Beerstecher, E. 1954. Petroleum microbiology. New York,
Elsevier Press, Inc.
Bogdanova, V. M. 1966. Distribution of microflora in rocks
and waters of tertiary deposits of northern part of
Caspian lowland (Furmanova area). Microbiology (a
translation of Mikrobiologiya). v. 35, pp. 300-303.
Brock, T. D. 1966. Principles of microbial ecology. Engle-
wood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Brock, T. D., and G. K. Darland. 1970. Limits of microbial
existence: temperature and pH. Science, v. 169,
pp. 1316-1318.
Brock, T. D. 1971. Microbial growth rates in nature. Bact.
Reviews, v. 35, pp. 39-58.
Cannon, G. E., and R. C. Craze. 1938. Excessive pressures
and pressure variations with depth of petroleum
reservoirs in the Gulf Coast region of Texas and
Louisiana. In: Petroleum development and technology.
American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical
Engineers, pp. 31-38.
Davis, J. B. 1967. Petroleum microbiology. New York,
Elsevier Publishing Company.
168
-------
Dombrowski, H. 1963. Bacteria from Paleozoic salt deposits.
Ann. N.Y. Acad. ScL.v. 108, pp. 453-460.
Dunlap, William J., and James F. McNabb. 1973. Subsurface
biological activity in relation to ground-water pollu-
tion. Environmental Protection Agency Report
EPA-660/2-7 3-014.
Geraghty, J. J. 1967. Ground water—a neglected resource.
Journal AWWA. v. 59, pp. 820-828.^
Greenwood, D. J. 1961. The effect of oxygen concentration
on the decomposition of organic materials in soil.
Plant Soil. v. 14, pp. 360-376.
Hem, J. D. 1959. Study and interpretation of the chemical
characteristics of natural water. U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 1473.
Hungate, R. E. 1962. Ecology of bacteria. In: The bacteria,
vol. IV, the physiology of growth. Gunsalus, I. C., and
R. Y. Stanier (ed.). New York, Academic Press.
pp. 95-119.
Kalish, P. J., J. E. Stewart, W. F. Rogers, and E. O. Bennett.
1964. The effect of bacteria on sandstone permeabil-
ity. J. Petrol. Technol. v. 16, pp. 805-814.
Kartsev, A. A., Z. A. Tabasaranskii, M. I. Subbota, and G.
A. Mogilevskii. 1959. Geochemical methods of
prospecting and exploration for petroleum and
natural gases. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Kuznetsov,; S. I., M. V. Ivanov, and N. N. Lyalikova. 1963.
Introduction to geological microbiology. New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Kuznetsova, V. A. 1960. Occurrence of sulfate reducing
organisms in oil-bearing formations of the Kuibyshev
region with reference to salt composition of layer
waters. Microbiology (a translation of Mikrobiologiya).
v. 29, pp. 408-414.
Kuznetsova, V. A., and V. M. Gorlenko. 1966. Effect of
temperature on the development of microorganisms
from flooded strata of the Romashkino oil field.
Microbiology (a translation of Mikrobiologiya).
v. 35, pp. 274-278.
Mailman, W. L., and W. N. Mack. 1961. Biological
contamination of ground water. In: Ground-water
contamination, proceedings of 1961 symposium.
Cincinnati, USDHEW, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engi-
neering Center. Technical Report W61-5. pp. 35-43.
McGauhey, P. H., and R. B. Krone. 1967. Soil mantle as a
wastewater treatment system. University of California.
SERL Report No. 67-11.
Meinschein, W. G. 1971. Occurrence of organics in rocks.
In: Organic compounds in the aquatic environment.
Faust, S. I., and J. Hunter (ed.). New York, Marcel
Dekker, Inc. pp. 41-50.
Messineva, M. A. 1962. The geological activity of bacteria
and its effect on geochemical processes. In: Geologic
activity of microorganisms. Kuznetsov, S. E. (ed.).
New York, Consultants Bureau, pp. 6-14.
Myers, G. E., and R.G.L. McCready. 1966. Bacteria can
penetrate rock. Canadian Journal of Microbiology.
v. 12, pp. 477-484.
Naumova, R. P. 1960. A comparative study of naphthalene-
oxidizing organisms in underground waters. Micro-
biology (a translation of Mikrobiologiya). v. 29,
pp. 302-304.
Norenkova, I. K. 1966. Mycobacteria isolated from water
underlying the petroleum deposits of northeastern
Sakhalin. Microbiology (a translation of Mikro-
biologiya). v. 35, pp. 755-757.
Patrick, W. H., Jr. 1960. Nitrate reduction rates in a sub-
merged soil as affected by redox potential. In: Trans.
7th International Congress Soil Sci. Madison, p. 494.
Postgate, J. R. 1959. Sulphate reduction by bacteria. Ann.
Rev. Microbiol. v. 13, pp. 505-520.
Postgate, J. R. 1965. Recent advances in the study of the
sulfate-reducing bacteria. Bacteriol. Revs. v. 29, pp.
425-441.
Raymond, R. L. 1961. Microbial oxidation of n-paraffinic
hydrocarbons. Dev. in Industrial Microb. v. 2, pp.
23-32.
Rebhun, M., and J. Schwarz. 1968. Clogging and contamina-
tion processes in recharge wells. Water Resources
Research, v. 4, pp. 1207-1217.
Reiser, R., and P. Tasch. 1960. Investigation of the viability
of osmophile bacteria of great geological age. Trans.
of the Kansas Acad. of Sci. v. 63, pp. 31-34.
Rose, A. H. 1968. Chemical microbiology. New York,
Plenum Press.
Rubey, W. W. 1951. Geologic history of sea water—an
attempt to state the problem. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am.
v. 62, pp. 1111-1148.
Russell, W. L. 1951. Principles of petroleum geology. New
York, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Sanders, H. J. 1967. Chemistry and the solid earth. In:
Chemistry and the environment. Washington, American
Chemical Society, pp. 2A-49A.
Skinner, F. A. 1968. The anaerobic bacteria of soil. In: The
ecology of soil bacteria. Gray, T.R.G., and D.
Parkinson (ed.). Toronto, Univ. of Toronto Press.
Slavnina, G. P. 1965. Naphthalene-oxidizing bacteria in
- ground waters of oil beds. Microbiology (a translation
of Mikrobiologiya). v. 34, pp. 103-106.
Smirnova, Z. S. 1957. The penetration range of bacteria
from drilling mud into cores of various rocks. Micro-
biology (a translation of Mikrobiologiya). v. 26,
pp. 717-721.
Stewart, B. A., F. G. Viets, Jr., G. L. Hutchinson, W. D.
Kemper, F. E. Clark, M. L. Fairbourn, and F. Strauch.
1967. Distribution of nitrates and other water pollu-
tants under fields and corrals in the Middle South
Platte Valley of Colorado. USDA, Agricultural
Research Service. ARS 41-134.
Telegina, Z. P. 1961. Relationship of some species of gaseous
hydrocarbon-oxidizing bacteria to hydrocarbons of
the paraffin series. Microbiology (a translation of
Mikrobiologiya). v. 30, pp. 370-373.
Todd, D. K. 1959. Ground water hydrology. New York,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Trask, P. D. (ed.). 1939. Recent marine sediments, a
symposium. New York, Am. Petrol. Inst.
Trask, P. D., and H. W. Patnode. 1942. Source beds of
petroleum. Tulsa, Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists.
Vallentyne, J. R. 1963. Environmental biophysics and
microbial ubiquity. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. v. 108,
pp. 342-352.
Vecchioli, J. 1970. A note on bacterial growth around a
recharge well at Bay Park, Long Island, New York.
Water Resources Research, v. 6, pp. 1415-1419.
Waksman, S. A. 1927. Principles of soil microbiology.
Baltimore, The Williams and Wilkins Co.
Waksman, S. A., and R. L. Starkey. 1931. The soil and the
microbe. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
169
-------
Walton, W. C. 1970. Groundwater resource evaluation. New
York, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Weibe, W. J. 1971. Perspectives in microbial ecology. In:
Fundamentals of ecology. Odum, E. P. (ed.).
Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co. pp. 484-497.
White, D. E., J. D. Hew, and G. A. Waring. 1963. Chemical
composition of subsurface waters. In: Data of geo-
chemistry, 6th ed. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 440-F. pp. 1-67.
Zajic, J. E. 1969. Microbial biogeochemistry. New York,
Academic Press.
ZoBell, C. E. 1958. The ecology of sulfate reducing bacteria.
In: Sulfate reducing bacteria, their relationship to the
secondary recovery of oil. A symposium held at St.
Bonaventure University, St. Bonaventure, New York.
pp. 1-24.
ZoBell, C. E. 1970. Pressure effects on morphology and life
processes of bacteria. In: High pressure effects on
cellular processes. Zimmerman, A. M. (ed.). New York,
Academic Press, pp. 85-130.
ZoBell, C. E., and C. W. Grant. 1942. Bacterial activity in
dilute nutrient solutions. Science, v. 96, p. 189.
ZoBell, C. E., C. W. Grant, and H. F. Haas. 1943. Marine
microorganisms which oxidize petroleum hydro-
carbons. Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. v. 27, p.
1175.
ZoBell, C. E., and F. H. Johnson. 1949. The influence of
hydrostatic pressure on the growth and viability of
terrestrial and marine bacteria. J. Bact. v. 57,
pp. 179-189.
ZoBell, C. E., and C. H. Oppenheimer. 1950. Some effects
of hydrostatic pressure on the multiplication and
morphology of marine bacteria. J. Bact. v. 60, pp.
771-781.
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by James F.
McNabb after delivering his talk entitled "Subsurface
Biological Activity in Relation to Ground-Water
Pollution."
Q. by Mike Campbell. In your investigations have
you considered dissolved oxygen at levels ofppb,
i.e. in deeper aquifers?
A. There is a scarcity of information concerning
the concentration of oxygen at which aerobic
metabolic activities cease. Greenwood (1961) felt
that metabolic activity in soils apparently
changes from aerobic to anaerobic when the con-
centration of oxygen declines below about 0.1 ppm
dissolved oxygen. What little evidence is available
indicates that oxygen would not normally be
present in the deeper regions of the zone of
saturation in concentrations great enough to allow
aerobic activity if one uses Greenwood's figure.
Q. by Steven Goldstein. Could you comment on
possible analogies with benthic (deep) marine
microbiology—optimum growth at dilute nutrient
concentrations, rise in dissolved oxygen at depth,
etc. ?
A. Most studies concerning the effect of hydrostatic
pressure on microorganisms have been conducted
using microbes from deep marine environments.
Except for high hydrostatic pressure and low oxygen
concentrations, however, deep marine environments
and deep aquifer environments are basically
different.
Q. by Stephen E. Ragone. Can microbes cause
reactions to occur in the opposite direction to that
predicted by the sterile circumstances—for instance,
can sulfate be reduced by a "bug"in an oxidizing
environment?
A. The oxidation-reduction conditions that prevail
within a habitat will control the metabolic pathways
and products of various microbes. Sulfate-reducing
bacteria require an environmental Ej, of-200 mv or
less for initiation of growth, for example.
170
-------
2
Bacteriological Criteria for Ground-Water Quality
by Martin J. Allen and Edwin E. Geldreich
ABSTRACT
Although more than 60 million individuals rely upon
the absence of microbial pathogens in their marginally-
treated or untreated ground-water supplies, an analysis of
reported waterborne disease outbreaks for the period 1946-
1970 shows that contaminated ground-water supplies were
responsible for over 50 percent of the outbreaks. Completed
ground-water studies indicate: (1) coliforms and fecal coli-
forms are present in a significant percentage of improperly
located or inadequately protected private supplies, and
(2) the apparent absence of coliforms due to the insensitivity
of currently available bacteriological methods does not
preclude pathogen occurrences. Excessive bacterial popula-
tions, normally not encountered in finished water, can
suppress coliform detection. For this reason, it is essential
that improved bacterial detection methods be developed
and other criteria for untreated ground water be explored by
comprehensive field investigations and laboratory analysis
of ground-water supplies for a variety of bacterial parameters.
INTRODUCTION
Ground water is used extensively as a source
of potable water since: (1) in some areas surface
supplies are insufficient, unavailable, or require
extensive purification and treatment; and (2) ground
waters are usually free of enteric pathogens. Some
180 million individuals are served by approximately
40,000 public water supplies (Table 1). Seventy-five
percent of these public-water supplies use ground
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium, Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974.
^Research Microbiologists, Microbiological Quality
Control, Water Supply Research Laboratory, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, National Environmental Re-
search Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
waters as a sole raw water source, and 7 percent of
the public systems use a mixture of ground and
surface waters (McCabe et al, 1970). Private
domestic water supplies, the vast majority of which
rely on ground water, serve an estimated 33 million
consumers.
In a survey of 969 public water-supply systems
serving 18.2 million people, 613 systems utilized
ground-water sources; 67 percent of this ground
water was distributed to 2.8 million consumers
without any disinfection (McCabe et al., 1970).
Further, those community water systems that used
spring or mixed spring and well-water sources were
found to have the poorest record in complying with
the U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standards. The poor water quality that these sources
produced was attributed to both improper source
protection and inadequate treatment. Thus, on a
nationwide projection for marginally-treated public
and private ground-water supplies, more than 60
million consumers rely upon the absence of
microbial pathogens in ground water.
WATERBORNE DISEASES
An analysis of the numerous documented
waterborne disease outbreaks that occurred between
1946 and 1970 indicates that contaminated ground
waters were responsible for more than 50 percent of
the 358 reported outbreaks and that over 40 percent
of waterborne disease cases resulted from consump-
tion of untreated ground water (Figure 1). Craun
and'McCabe (1973) attributed the high incidence
(49.4 percent) of waterborne disease cases primarily
to unsatisfactory well construction and improper
Table 1. Summary of Potable Water Usage
Type Water
System
Public
Private (domestic)
Number of
Supplies
40.0002
15,000,0003
Population
Served
(millions)
180
33
Surface
18
0
Percent Raw-Water Source1
Ground
75
^ 100
Mixed
7
0
1 McCabe et al. (1970).
2 AWWA estimate.
3 Todd (1970).
171
-------
PUBLIC
WATER SYSTEMS!
49.4
PRIVATE
WATER SYSTEMS^
SURFACE WATER
(UNTREATED)
GROUND WATER
(UNTREATED)
GROUND WATER
(CI2ONLY)
TREATMENT
DISTRIBUTION
STORAGE
MISCELLANEOUS
20 30
PERCENT CASES
from Craun & McCabe
Fig. 1. Waterborne-disease cases in public and private water
systems; percentage distribution by cause (1946-1970) (from
Craun & McCabe, 1973).
location of wells. In public systems using ground
water, however, both source contamination and
treatment deficiencies were responsible for 95 per-
cent of the cases of illness.
Specific waterborne disease outbreaks attrib-
uted to contaminated ground water include cholera,
salmonellosis, shigellosis, infectious hepatitis, gastro-
enteritis, and amoebic dysentery. A comprehensive
summary of the number of reported waterborne
disease cases for the period 1946-1970 is presented
in Table 2. Illnesses are grouped according to the
etiological agent, i.e., bacterial, viral, protozoan.
Although gastroenteritis accounts for a large
percentage of cases in both private and public
supplies, the specific causative agent for this illness
is usually unidentified. In contrast to the high
percentage (> 99 percent) of waterborne disease
cases that result from microbiological contamination
of water supplies, chemical-associated illness (ex-
cluding methemoglobinemia) from ground water are
rare. Some of the chemical poisonings associated
with ground water were attributed to improper
injection of pesticides into shallow aquifers. Craun
and McCabe (1973) further concluded that the
inordinately high illness rate (i.e., waterborne
disease cases per million per year) was from public
systems delivering untreated ground water or either
questionable source water quality or inadequately
protected sources.
Table 2. Summary of Waterborne-Disease Cases (1946-1970) According to Type Illness and Water-Supply System*
Illness
Private
Water-Supply Systems
Public
Total
Bacterial associated:
Typhoid
Salmonellosis
Shigellosis
Enteropathogenic E. colt
Leptospirosis
Tularemia
Gastroenteritis* *
Viral associated:
Infectious hepatitis
Poliomyelitis
Protozoan associated:
Amebiasis
Giardiasis
Chemical associated*"
507
118
1,616
188
0
6
8,970
1,094
0
50
19
52
12,620(17.4%)
103
16,612
5,784
0
9
0
36,285
739
16
25
157
59,738 (82.6%)
610
16,730
7,400
188
9
6
45,255
70,198 (97%)
1,833
16
1,849(2.6%)
75
176
251 (0.4%)
60 (0.08%)
72,358
* from Craun and McCabe (1973).
** causative agent unknown.
*** methemoglobinemia not included.
172
-------
More recently, bacterial pathogens including
Shigella flexneri, S. sonnei and Salmonella typhi
have repeatedly been isolated from well waters
(Woodward et al., 1974; Lindell and Quinn, 1973;
Center for Disease Control, 1973, 1974) and
poliovirus, an enterovirus, was isolated from well
waters that had been consumed by restaurant
patrons (VanderVelde and Mack, 1973).
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY OF
GROUND WATER
A high degree of correlation between the
presence of coliforms and the occurrence of
pathogens in surface water and water distribution
systems has been firmly established (Geldreich,
1966, 1972). This same correlation has, in general,
also been assumed to be valid for evaluating the
potential health hazards of ground-water sources.
Preliminary studies suggest, however, that the lack
of demonstrable coliform levels in ground waters,
partly because of microbial interferences and test
media limitations, does not preclude pathogen
occurrences (McFeters et al., 1974; Boring et al,
1971). A brief review of completed ground-water
studies which include: (1) a survey of community
water-supply systems, (2) Tennessee-Georgia rural
water supplies, (3) Interstate Highway drinking-
water systems (Kansas, Oregon, Virginia), and
(4) Umatilla Indian Reservation ground-water survey,
illustrates some bacteriological problems in ground
waters (Table 3). In these four surveys, 9 to 51
percent of the samples examined contained
coliforms and 2 to 27 percent of these same waters
were positive for fecal coliforms.
Bacteriological data from the Community
Water Supply Study (McCabe et al., 1970) revealed
that 9 percent of the 621 wells produced water that
contained coliforms (Table 4); 2 percent of the same
wells also contained fecal coliforms; 83 percent of
the wells produced water that contained bacteria as
Table 3. Microbiological Summary of Completed
Ground-Water Surveys
Number Percent
of Percent Fecal
Survey Samples Coliforms* Coliforms*
Community Water-
Supply Study
Tennessee-Georgia
Rural-Water Supplies
Interstate Highway
Drinking-Water Systems
Umatilla Indian
Reservation
621
1257
241
498
9.0
51.4
15.4
35.9
2.0
27.0
2.9
9.0
* 1 or more organisms per 100 ml.
Table 4. Bacteriological Quality of
Raw Ground Water from Wells'
Coliforms1
Density Percent
<1 91
1-4 6
5-10 1
11-50 1
>50 1
Fecal Coliforms2
Density Percent
< 1 98
1-4 1
5-10 < 1
11-50 <1
>50 <1
Standard
Plate Count*
Density Percent
<1 17
1-100 59
101-500 13
501-1000 4
> 1000 7
1 from McCabe et al. (1970).
2 per 100 ml.
3 per ml.
determined by the Standard Plate Count (American
Public Health Association, 1971); and 11 percent
of the wells produced water that had bacterial
densities greater than 500 organisms per ml.
Results from analyses of rural-water supplies
in Tennessee and Georgia are presented in Table 5.
Coliforms were present in approximately 50 percent
of the domestic supplies and ranged from 1 to
54,000 organisms per 100 ml; fecal coliforms were
present in 27 percent of the wells and ranged from
1 to 2,200 organisms per 100 ml. Whitsell and
Table 5. Bacteriological Summary of Tennessee-Georgia Rural Water-Supply Survey
Density
<1
1-10
11-100
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
>cnnn
Coliforms*
Number of Supplies
633
68
151
142
40
110
1 2 <
1279
Percent
49.5
5.3
11.8
11.1
3.1
8.6
1 n A
Density
<1
1-10
11-100
101-500
501-1000
> 1000
Fecal Coliforms*
Number of Supplies
940
73
113
67
20
66
1279
Percent
73.5
5.7
8.8
5.2
1.6
5.2
per 100 ml.
173
-------
Table 6. Bacteriological Summary of
Drinking-Water Systems Along Interstate
Highways (Kansas, Oregon, Virginia)
Density
<1
1-4
5-10
11-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
> 1000
Coliforms*
Number of
Samples Percent
204
17
1
10
3
2
2
2
84.6
7.1
0.4
4.2
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
Fecal Coliforms*
Number of
Samples Percent
234
4
0
3
0
0
0
0
97.1
1.7
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Table 7. Bacteriological Summary of Umatilla Indian
Reservation Well-Water Survey
Density
<1
1-4
5-10
11-50
51-100
101-500
501-1000
>1000
Coliforms*
Number of
Samples Percent
319
95
28
34
10
7
2
3
498
64.1
19.1
5.6
6.8
2.0
1.4
0.4
0.6
Fecal Coliforms*
Number of
Samples Percent
453
32
5
5
1
2
0
0
498
91.0
6.4
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
per 100 ml.
per 100 ml.
Hutchinson (1973) concluded that wells drilled
in consolidated aquifers were more likely to yield
water containing coliform bacteria than wells
drilled in unconsolidated formations. Further, the
high percentage of rural supplies contaminated with
coliforms was attributed to inadequate sanitary
safeguards and faulty construction practices.
In a study of drinking-water systems along
Interstate Highways, 241 samples from 119 systems
in Kansas, Oregon, and Virginia were analyzed
(Table 6); there are an estimated 9,100 water-supply
systems nationwide, including commercial facilities
(service stations, motels, restaurants) and safety
rest areas. The 119 systems examined included 106
with well distribution, 6 with hand pump wells, 2
with springs, and 5 with purchased finished water
(Water Supply Division, 1973). Coliforms were
detected in over 15 percent of the samples and fecal
coliforms were present in 3 percent. Eight percent
of the 114 systems were judged to have inadequate
source protection, i.e., flooding of well pit or lack of
sanitary well seal.
A fourth ground-water survey was completed
at the Umatilla Indian Reservation located in the
State of Washington. In cooperation with the Public
Health Service, 498 well-water samples were
examined for coliforms, fecal coliforms, and general
bacterial densities (Table 7). The percentage of
water samples that contained total coliforms and
fecal coliforms was 35.9 percent and 9.0 percent,
respectively.
In two of the above surveys (Interstate High-
ways, Umatilla), nearly 25 percent of the ground
waters examined contained bacterial densities
greater than 500 organisms per ml (Table 8); popu-
lations as high as 110,000 organisms per ml were
noted. Although these general bacterial densities do
not relate to a specific health hazard, elevated
microbial densities can be associated with desensi-
tization of standard coliform detection procedures
(Geldreich et al., 1972) and with the presence of a
secondary human pathogen, Pseudomonas aerugi-
nosa; this bacterium is often the cause of persistent
ear and urinary infections (Hoadley, 1968; Whitby
Table 8. Comparison of Bacterial Densities and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Occurrences*
Standard Plate
Number of
Density (per ml) Samples
<1
1-10
11-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-5,000
5,001-10,000
> 10,000
6
68
285
193
52
69
22
44
Count (48 hrs.
Percent
Samples
0.8
9.2
38.6
26.1
7.0
9.3
3.0
6.0
at 35°C)
P. aeruginosa
Occurrences
0
0
5
6
1
3
3
4
Percent
Occurrences
0.0
0.0
22.7
27.3
4.5
13.6
13.6
18.2
* Umatilla and Interstate Highway Surveys.
174
-------
and Rampling, 1972). Coliforms were not detected
in 9 (41 percent) of the 22 ground-water sources
that contained P. aeruginosa densities ranging from
1 to 2,300 organisms per 100 ml. Also, P. aeruginosa
occurrences were often associated with excessive
bacterial populations (Table 8). Similarly, Nemedi
and Lanyi (1971) noted that over 50 percent of
227 potable-water samples from various sources that
contained P. aeruginosa had no demonstrable
coliforms and would be considered satisfactory on
the basis of the coliform criterion. Twenty-one of
3 5 ground-water samples that contained P.
aeruginosa had no demonstrable coliforms. Reitler
and Seligmann (1957) examined 1,000 water
supplies in northern Israel and concluded that
varying populations of P. aeruginosa can interfere
with the detection and/or enumeration of coliform
bacteria.
BACTERIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
Presently, bacterial criteria for ground-water
supplies are the same as those applied to treated
potable water under regulations of the U.S. Public
Health Service Drinking Water Standards (1962).
These bacteriological standards limit total coliform
densities in finished waters, including storage
facilities and distribution networks, to less than one
coliform per 100 ml. In the absence of suitable
criteria for raw or marginally-treated ground waters
from private systems, the same coliform standard
has been routinely employed to assess the potability
of these waters. Although total coliform bacteria
are a valid sanitary index in finished water, their
value as a sanitary quality standard in raw ground
water has been questioned by various researchers.
Results from ground-water surveys conducted thus
far indicate that the coliform group may not be
demonstrable by standard laboratory procedures in
those water sources containing excessive bacterial
populations. Under such circumstances, ground
water that reportedly has low coliform levels as a
result of test interferences could still pose a health
hazard to those individuals consuming these waters.
For this reason, it is essential that improved
bacterial detection methods be developed and other
criteria for untreated ground water be explored.
Such criteria are especially applicable to domestic
ground-water supplies that are not routinely
analyzed, infrequently serviced, and seldom disin-
fected. Confidence in any microbial indicator can
only be established by comprehensive field
investigations and laboratory analyses of ground-
water supplies for a variety of bacterial parameters.
Initial studies necessary to develop pertinent
bacteriological criteria for these waters must first
re-evaluate the sanitary significance of total
coliforms in the ground-water environment. The
presence and persistence of both total and fecal
coliforms in water of varying hydrogeologic origin
needs to be examined.
The sources of the total coliform group of
bacteria include the feces of warm-blooded animals,
the intestinal contents of cold-blooded animals,
soils, and plants. Thus, total coliforms originate
from a variety of sources and may be of limited
significance in moderate densities (i.e., 1 to 10
organisms per 100 ml) in the ground-water micro-
flora. In using the total coliform group as a quality
criterion for ground waters, an appreciable number
of supplies would be considered unsatisfactory for
human consumption based on treated water limits,
even though the total coliforms were from a
non-fecal source, i.e., uncontaminated soils, plants.
It is, therefore, desirable to implement bacteriolog-
ical indicators that are more definitive in signaling
fecal contamination and, consequently, potential
pathogen occurrences.
More recently, fecal coliform occurrence has
been considered more significant than total coli-
forms in evaluating the recentness of fecal con-
tamination in water supplies. By elevating the
incubation temperature from 35°C (the standard
temperature for total coliform growth) to 44.5° C,
much of the non-fecal coliform population is
suppressed. An important advantage of the fecal
coliform test is the ability to screen out those
coliform bacteria that originate from soils and plants
and therefore carry little sanitary significance. A
distinct disadvantage of this procedure is that fecal
coliforms can die-off at a greater rate than some
enteric pathogens (McFeters et al., 1974). More
information is needed on survival patterns of all
proposed indicator organisms and waterborne
pathogens in ground water under different environ-
mental conditions.
Another consideration in selecting bacterial
quality criteria for ground water is the use of general
bacterial densities. Waters from undisturbed
aquifers, unlike those from surface sources,
typically have low indigenous bacterial populations.
However, in shallow aquifers where percolating
water from surface sources can provide sufficient
nutrients to support microbial growth, an unusually
high bacterial population could indicate infiltration
of contaminated water into the aquifer. More
importantly, abnormally high microbial levels in
shallow aquifers can adversely affect detection of
the more specific bacterial indicators.
175
-------
As described previously, excessively high
microbial populations can influence survival and
enumeration of the coliform group. Thus, coliforms
could be undetectable in ground water where
excessive bacterial densities occur. Also, the
presence of P. aeruginosa can, under some
conditions, suppress standard coliform enumeration
procedures (Nemedi and Lanyi, 1971; Reitler and
Seligmann, 1957). The failure to detect coliform
bacteria results, unfortunately, in the assumption
that these contaminated supplies are safe to drink.
Therefore, it could be necessary to employ addi-
tional microbial indicator groups for ground water.
These indicator organisms may supplement or
replace the coliform group when ground-water
conditions are such that erroneous results could
occur.
Ideally, any bacterial indicator that is
employed in assessing ground-water quality must be
highly correlated with probable pathogen occur-
rences due to fecal contamination of the source. It
is reasonable to select those groups of micro-
organisms that are indigenous to the microflora of
warm-blooded animals; suggested groups other than
coliforms have included P. aeruginosa, Clostridium
perfringens (Bonde, 1962), Bacteroides, and the
fecal streptococci that are known to be synonymous
with fecal pollution and tend to parallel enteric
pathogen persistence in the aquatic environment.
Additional indicator groups, such as sulfate-reducing
bacteria, could also be useful in measuring subtle
ecosystem changes in overdeveloped aquifers. The
increased occurrence of iron and sulfur bacteria in
such aquifers could ultimately result in taste and
odor problems that reduce the desirable aesthetic
qualities associated with high-quality potable water.
Finally, there is a critical need" to establish
sanitary guidelines to ensure the quality of ground-
water resources during site selection, drilling, well
construction and finishing, usage, and eventual
rejuvenation or abandonment. These guidelines
must be applicable to both the water well con-
tractor and the well owner/user. Specific concerns
include the inadvertent contamination of the aquifer
by nuisance microorganisms during drilling (i.e.,
slime, iron-precipitating, sulfate-reducing bacteria)
and the infrequency of bacteriological and chemical
analyses of water from producing wells. It is
important to stress to the consumers of domestic
ground water that a single satisfactory water
analysis of a newly completed or rejuvenated well
will not ensure a permanently safe supply. Although
consumption of contaminated ground water does
not always result in an outbreak of a specific
waterborne disease, such water can produce
sporadic subclinical gastroenteritis which can
ultimately reduce an individual's natural resistance
to disease.
Current agricultural, industrial, waste disposal,
and land-use practices that could ultimately affect
the potability of ground-water resources are of
continuous concern to those who rely upon these
source waters. The impact of the injection of
high-quality waste effluents into aquifers for later
withdrawal needs to be extensively studied; such
effluents could degrade ground-water quality by
providing nutrients necessary for bacterial growth.
The effect of surface and near-surface activities on
future ground-water quality must always be para-
mount because once an aquifer has been con-
taminated, it is exceedingly difficult and sometimes
economically unfeasible to reclaim it.
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association. 1971. Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-
water. 13th ed., New York, N.Y.
Bonde, G. J. 1962. Occurrence and sanitary significance of
Clostridium perfringens. In: Bacterial Indicators of
Water Pollution, Teknisk Forlag, Copenhagen.
Boring, J. R., W. T. Martin, and L. M. Elliot. 1971. Isolation
of Salmonella typbimurium for municipal water,
Riverside, California. Amer. J. Epidemiol. v. 93,
pp. 49-54.
Center for Disease Control. 1973. Morbidity and mortality
weekly report, v. 22, pp. 77-78.
Center for Disease Control. 1974. Morbidity and mortality
weekly report, v. 23, p. 134.
Craun, G. F., and L. J. McCabe. 1973. Review of the causes
of waterborne-disease outbreaks. J. Amer. Water
Works Assoc. v. 65, pp. 74-83.
Geldreich, E. E. 1966. Sanitary significance of fecal coli-
forms in the environment. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Water Pollution Contr. Res. Series No.
WP-20-3.
Geldreich, E. E. 1972. Water-borne pathogens. In: Water
Pollution Microbiology, R. Mitchell (ed.), Wiley-Inter-
science, New York, N.Y.
Geldreich, E. E., H. D. Nash, D. J. Reasoner, and R. H.
Taylor. 1972. The necessity of controlling bacterial
populations in potable water; community water
supply. J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. v. 64, pp.
596-602.
Hoadley, A. W. 1968. On the significance of Pseudomonas
aeruginosa in surface waters. New England Water
Works Assoc. v. 82, pp. 99-111.
Lindell, S. S., and P. Quinn. 1973. Shigella sonnei isolated
from well water. J. Bacteriol. v. 26, no. 3, pp. 424-
425.
McCabe, L. J., J. M. Symons, R. D. Lee, and G. G. Robeck
1970. Survey of community water supply systems. J
Amer. Waterworks Assoc. v. 62, pp. 670-687.
McFeters, G. A., G. K. Bissonnette, J. J. Jezeski, C. A.
Thomson, and D. G. Stuart. 1974. Comparative
176
-------
survival of indicator bacteria and enteric pathogens
in well water. App. Microbiol. v. 27, pp. 823-829.
Nemedi, L., and B. Lanyi. 1971. Incidence and hygienic
importance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in water. Acta
Microbiol. Acad. Sci. Hung. v. 18, pp. 319-326.
Reitler, R., and R. Seligmann. 1957. Pseudomonas
aeruginosa in drinking water. J. App. Bacteriol. v. 20,
no. 2, pp. 145-150.
Todd, D. K. (ed.). 1970. The Water Encyclopedia. Maple
Press Co., York, Pa.
U.S. Public Health Service. 1962. Drinking water standards.
PHS Publ. No. 956.
VanderVelde, T. L., and W. N. Mack. 1973. Poliovirus in a
water supply. J. Amer. Waterworks Assoc. v. 65, no.
5, pp. 345-348.
Water Supply Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1973. A pilot study of drinking water
systems on and along the national system of interstate
and defense highways. EPA-4230/9-73-018.
Whitby, J. L., and A. Rampling. 1972. Pseudomonas
aeruginosa contamination in domestic and hospital
environments. Lancet, v. 1, pp. 15-17.
Whitsell, W. J., and G. D. Hutchinson. 1973. Seven danger
signals for individual water supply. Trans. Amer. Soc.
Agri. Eng. v. 16, pp. 777-781.
Woodward, W. E., N. Hirschhorn, R. B. Sack, R. A. Cash,
I. Brownlee, G. H. Chickadonz, L. K. Evans, R. H.
Shepard, and R. C. Woodward. 1974. Acute diarrhea
on an Apache Indian Reservation. Amer. J. Epidemi-
ol. v. 99, no. 4, pp. 281-290.
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by Martin
J. Allen after delivering his talk entitled
"Bacteriological Criteria for Ground-Water Quality."
Q. by Mike Campbell. What criteria were used for
selecting the communities for the EPA drinking-
water study?
A. The selection of communities for the drinking-
water survey was based on: (1) defined metropolitan
communities that include large cities and their
satellite urban areas; and (2) geographic spread
throughout the country.
Q. by Leonard Halpenny. How about viruses in
water from wells?
A. The only documented viral occurrence in ground
water was published by VanderVelde and Mack, J.
Amer. Water Works Assoc. 1973, 65(5)345-348. The
authors reported isolation of poliovirus from well
waters which had been contaminated by wastewater.
Q. by Robert Mutch, Jr. Does fecal strep or the
fecal coliform/fecal strep ratio have value in the
determination of ground-water pollution as they do
in surface-water pollution studies?
Q. by Bill Pitt. Many investigators are suggesting the
use of a fecal strep to fecal coliform ratio as a better
indicator of fecal contamination. How do you feel
about this?
A. Fecal coliforms appear to be a better indicator
of low level fecal contamination in ground water.
Fecal streptococci densities below 100 organisms
per 100 ml are generally Streptococcus fecalis var.
liquifaciens which is ubiquitous in the environment
(ref. Geldreich and Kenner, Concepts of Fecal
Streptococci in Stream Pollution, 1969. J. Water
Pollution Control Fed. 41(8), Part 2, R336-R352.)
and therefore carries little sanitary significance when
present in ground waters.
Q. by Bill Weist, Jr. Do you have any data relating
the occurrence of the bacteria found to the depth
of the well or to the method of well construction?
Q. by Dave Johe. In your analysis, no mention was
made as to the number of drilled vs. dug wells. Can
you elaborate? Were not most of the contaminated
wells dug or improperly constructed drilled wells?
A. Whitsell and Hutchinson (1972) concluded
from information obtained from studies on rural
water supplies that: (1) there exists a correlation
between the method of well construction and
bacterial contamination of the water (i.e., driven
and drilled wells are less susceptible to contamina-
tion than bored or dug wells); (2) drilled wells in
consolidated aquifers are more likely to yield
contaminated water than those drilled in unconsoli-
dated formations, and (3) for all type wells, the
protection of ground water from contamination is
related to adequate casing and grouting measures.
Q. by Henry Trapp, Jr. Why were not Federal
Drinking Water Standards set up to protect the
travelling public, applied to rest-stop water supplies
on Interstate highways?
A. The Federal Highway Administration requires
that water systems at safety rest areas along Inter-
state highways be designed, constructed, and
maintained in accordance with State health regula-
tions. Thus, the State government agencies are
primarily responsible for monitoring of these
water systems. State health regulations do specify
that these water supplies meet the bacteriological
standards defined in the Federal Drinking Water
Standards.
Q. by Darrel Primeaux. Why are ground waters
from consolidated aquifers more apt to contain
coliform contamination than ground waters from
unconsolidated aquifers?
177
-------
A. Consolidated aquifers, particularly limestone and
dolomite, yield a significant percentage of water
through fractures, joints, and solution channels.
The permeability of such aquifers is basically a
function of secondary openings which readily accept
and transmit infiltrating waters. When hydrogeologic
conditions allow for contaminated water to enter
openings in these aquifers, little filtration of pollu-
tants occurs in or along the fractures. Subsequently
excessive pumping facilitates rapid movement of
the contaminated water.and can also result in
induced infiltration of contaminated surface sources.
Q. by Don Rima. In view of the many opportunities
for contamination to occur at the point of with-
drawal, why are you suggesting that the aquifer is
contaminated when samples are found to contain
bacteria?
A. Typically, undisturbed or protected aquifers
yield water containing low indigenous bacterial
populations. Ground or well waters that contain
excessive bacterial populations and/or fecal-associ-
ated microorganisms are indicative of contamination
by inadequately filtered infiltrating waters.
Q. by Don Keech. (a) Can you explain why food
processing wastes, i.e. cherry wastes, have a high
fecal coliform count, often over 10,000/100 ml?
(b) Were wells resampled that showed coliform
counts during the surveys?
A. (a) Food processing wastes can contain excessive
fecal coliform densities since: (1) some raw food
stuffs are contaminated with animal fecal material
(bird droppings), and (2) food processing plants can
provide warm temperatures and nutrients (carbo-
hydrates) necessary for the growth of coliform
bacteria, (b) Wells that were positive for coliforms
(total, fecal) were not resampled.
Q. by Jack Kooyoomjian. Have you been working
on viral, in addition to, bacteriological relationships
for ground-water quality? If not, are there any plans
to examine viral criteria in the near future?
A. To date, no virological studies on ground-water
sources have been completed by this agency. Current
virology efforts are on raw surface-water sources
used in water treatment and on finished water
quality. Although there are no plans to examine
ground water for viruses in the immediate future,
there is no reason that such a survey could not be
initiated if epidemiological data indicate an increas-
ing problem with enteric viruses in these water
sources.
Q. by Charlie Nylander. Have any of the nitrifying
and denitrifying bacteria been used as indicator
organisms? What is the potential for using these
organisms for domestic wastewater contamination?
A. Neither nitrifying nor denitrifying bacteria have
been used as indicator organisms in assessing the
potability of ground water although denitrifying
bacteria have been isolated from ground waters.
There appears to be little potential in using either
group as indicators of fecal contamination, but
these groups might be useful as indicators of eco-
system changes and chemical contaminants from
leachates.
Q. by G. Meyer. What steps were taken in sampling
to insure representative ground-water samples? Who
are the sampling authorities? Is not sampling a
tricky business?
A. Ground-water samples were collected according
to procedures in the Manual of Individual Water
Supply-Systems, 1973, EPA-430-9-73-003, pg. 137.
Sampling authorities in the studies reported were
sanitary engineers of Water Operations Programs
and their Regional Water Supply Representatives.
Sample collecting is not tricky but must follow a
specified protocol to obtain a representative sample.
Q. by Marv Sherrill. There is some thought that
even though total coliforms in the ground water
may not indicate pathogens they do indicate
essentially nonfiltered organisms from the near-
surface—please comment.
A. The presence of the total coliform group of
bacteria in ground water indicates the infiltration
of bacteria-laden surface or near-surface waters.
Thus, while coliforms do not always imply fecal
contamination of the source water, their presence
indicates a break through of organisms from surface
drainage, fecal or nonfecal.
Q. by James Pool. Injection and recovery of fresh
waters and treated sewage effluent in saline aquifers
holds much promise for certain areas of the Gulf
Coast. Would you recommend that careful deter-
minations of the influence of subsurface bacteria on
these injected waters be done before injection is
allowed? Also, could subsurface bacterial action
destroy or greatly reduce the usefulness of the
injection waters for reuse?
A. Injection of sewage effluents into aquifers
requires high-quality effluent with continuous
chlorination. Systems should be under continuous
monitoring for bacteriological quality and disin-
fection efficiencies. The injection well needs to be
incorporated with fail-safe design so that in case of
chlorinator failure or inadequate chlorination,
contamination of the aquifer will not occur.
178
-------
Natural Soil Nitrate: The Cause of the
Nitrate Contamination of Ground Water
in Runnels County, Texas"
by Charles W. Kreitlerb and David C. Jonesc
ABSTRACT
The grbund waters of Runnels County, Texas, are
highly contaminated with nitrate. The average nitrate con-
centration of 230 water samples was 250 mg/1 NOs.
The natural variations of the stable nitrogen isotopes
N14 and N15 identified natural soil nitrate as the predomi-
nant source. Nitrate from animal wastes was of minor
importance. The 6N1S range of natural soil nitrate was +2
to +8 %0. whereas the 5N15 range of animal waste nitrate
was +10 to +20 %0. (Atmospheric nitrogen was used as a
standard for mass spectrometric analysis. Experimental
error for sample preparation and isotopic analysis was
-1 %o-) More than 66 percent of the ground-water nitrates
analyzed were in the 5N15 range of natural soil nitrates.
Dryland farming since 1900 has caused the oxidation
of the organic nitrogen in the soil to nitrate. Minimal
fertilizer has been used because of the lack of suitable
water for irrigation. During the period 1900-1950, nitrate
was leached below the root zone but not to the water table.
Extensive terracing after the drought in the early 1950's
has raised the water table approximately 6 meters and has
leached the nitrate into the ground water. Tritium dates
indicate that the ground water is less than 20 years old.
Presented at the Second National Ground Water
Quality Symposium,.Denver, Colorado, September 25-27,
1974. Publication authorized by the Director, Bureau of
Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, Texas 78712.
^Research Scientist, Bureau of Economic Geology,
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712.
cSenior Scientist, Radian Corporation, 8500
Shoal Creek Blvd., Austin, Texas 78757.
INTRODUCTION
Nitrate contamination of the ground water of
Runnels County, Texas, was first recognized in July
of 1968 after several cattle died of anoxia from
drinking the water containing excessive nitrate
concentrations. Subsequent analyses indicated that
88 percent of the 230 water wells sampled contained
ground water with nitrate concentrations over the
U.S. Public Health Service recommended limit of
45 milligrams per liter (mg/1) as nitrate. The average
nitrate concentration was 250 mg/1 with a range of
less than 1 mg/1 to over 3,100 mg/1.
High nitrate waters were not restricted to
aquifers directly beneath areas of concentrated
animal wastes (e.g., barnyards or septic tanks), but
were found also in pastures and cultivated fields.
The probable sources initially considered were
nitrate from animal wastes and nitrate from the
oxidation of natural soil nitrogen due to cultivation.
Nitrogen fertilizer was not considered a probable
source because the lack of acceptable quantities of
ground water prevented extensive irrigation and
the concomitant use of fertilizers.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF
RUNNELS COUNTY
Runnels County is located in west-central
Texas and has an area of 2,741 square kilometers
(1096 square miles) (Figure 1). The Colorado River
(of Texas) flows west to east through the southern
half of the county; the topography is flat to gently
179
-------
ioo°w
San
Angela
SCALE
30 miles
Fig. 1. Location of Runnels County, Texas.
rolling. The soils are classified as mollisols (prairie
soils with high organic matter) (Wiedenfeld and
others, 1970) or Chesnut soils (Millar and others,
1958) depending on the classification used. The
average rainfall is 580 mm (23 in). The economy is
based on the production of cotton, wheat, sorghum,
corn, cattle, hogs, and sheep.
HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
South of the Colorado River, ground water is
pumped from shallow Permian carbonate aquifers
of the Wichita-Albany and Clear Fork Groups.
North of the Colorado River, ground water is
pumped from Tertiary and Quaternary calichified
gravels as well as from the Permian carbonate
aquifers.
Significant ground-water flow is restricted to
solution cavities along bedding plane surfaces, joint
surfaces and solution cavities in the dense lime-
stone beds, and to noncalichified sections of the
gravels. Analyses of 3 aquifer pump tests in the
limestones yielded transmissivities of 1.0 cm2/sec,
21.9 cmVsec, and 9.7 cnWsec, and coefficients of
storage of 4 X 10"4, 5 X 10~6, and 4 X 10~4,
respectively. One aquifer pump test in the gravels
indicated transmissivity of 119 cm2/sec and a
coefficient of storage of 1 X 10~3. Well yields are
generally less than 6 I/sec (100 gpm). Few wells are
deeper than 30 meters.
Ground-water flow is toward the Colorado
River in both the northern and southern parts of
the county except in the extreme south where
flow is toward the Concho River.
DETERMINING THE SOURCE OF NITRATE
The source of nitrate in certain natural systems
(for example, Runnels County) can now be identi-
fied by correlating the natural nitrogen isotope
ratios (N14/N15) of ground-water nitrate to the
nitrate in soils of different land-use environments.
Previously, the tracing of nitrate in natural waters
to its original nitrogenous source (whether it was
fertilizer, cattle waste, septic tank effluent, sewage
treatment effluent, or natural soil nitrogen) was an
extremely difficult task. The very soluble nature of
the nitrate ion permitted easy migration away from
its source and was commonly separated from other
identifiable tracers.
A 3-step nitrogen isotope study was devised
to determine the sources of nitrate in Runnels
County: (1) develop reproducible methods of
analysis; (2) delineate unique isotopic ranges for
nitrate from different soil environments; and
(3) compare the nitrogen isotope ratios of ground-
water nitrate to isotopic ranges of soil nitrate to
determine the predominant source. Kreitler (1974)
and Jones (1973) discussed in greater detail the
various aspects of this program.
Methods of Analysis
The stable isotopes of nitrogen are N14 and
N15 of which N14 predominates; 99.632 ± 0.002
percent of nitrogen in the atmosphere is N14 (Junk
and Svec, 1958; Nier, 1955). In other nitrogenous
compounds, these percentages vary slightly because
of isotopic fractionation. The variations of mass
are measured on a gas-source mass spectrometer in
which the sample is compared to atmospheric
nitrogen, the standard. The ratio of sample to
standard is expressed in the accepted isotopic
terminology as:
6N1S(%0) =
>Sample-(N15/N14)Standard
(N'5/N")Standard
X 1000
If N1 5 in the sample is enriched relative to N15 in the
atmospheric nitrogen standard, the sample has a
positive 5 value; if relatively depleted in N15 the
sample has a negative 5 value.
180
-------
For isotopic analysis nitrate must be converted
to nitrogen gas. Nitrate (N03~) is reduced to
ammonia (NH3) with Devardas Alloy, and then
distilled in a basic solution. The ammonia is
oxidized to nitrogen gas with sodium hypobromite.
The nitrogen gas is then purified by vacuum circula-
tion through a Cu-CuO furnace followed by circula-
tion through a liquid nitrogen cold trap, thereby
eliminating carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
nitrous oxides, water vapor, and oxygen. The gas
is analyzed by comparing the ratio of mass 29 to
mass 28 (N15NI4/N14N14). The analytical techniques
are modifications of Bremner and Keeney (1966),
Hoering (1955), and Myaka and Wada (1967).
Soil samples (1 to 2 kg) were collected every
foot to depths of 1.5 to 3 m (5 to 10 ft) from 15
holes drilled with a rotary air drilling rig. Samples
were stored in an air conditioned room (25°C)
before the summer of 1973, and in a freezer locker
at a meat packing plant (below 0°C) from the
summer of 1973 until the fall of 1973. No attempt
was made to adjust the soil moisture content or
to heat the soils as is done in soil incubation
studies.
Samples were leached overnight with deionized
or distilled water. After decanting the clear liquid,
the soil slurry was centrifuged for maximum
recovery of the nitrate solution. The nitrate was
then analyzed isotopically by the technique previ-
ously described.
The validity of this study depends on both
accuracy and precision of the values obtained for
5N15. First, the measurement of nitrogen isotopes
with the mass spectrometer must be demonstrated
to be correct; second the techniques used for
sample collection, storage, and preparation must be
both accurate and precise.
The precision of the mass spectrometer and
thus the precision of the standard was determined
by comparing four atmospheric nitrogen samples
to another atmospheric sample. An 0.27 °/oo varia-
tion was detected among samples collected at
different locations and at different times.
The accuracy of the mass spectrometry was
determined by analyzing Mathewson pre-purified
tank gas previously analyzed by Junk and Svec
(1958). The average atmospheric nitrogen sample
(Ames, Iowa air) of Junk and Svec (1958) was
3.01 %o heavier- than their Mathewson pre-purified
nitrogen tank gas. Atmospheric nitrogen from
Austin, Texas, was 2.87 %„ to 2.92 %0 heavier
than the same Mathewson pre-purified nitrogen
tank gas used by Junk and Svec in 1958. This is a
difference of only 0.11 %0, which is within the
precision of the mass spectrometer. It is assumed,
therefore, that the standards used in this study are
accurate.
To check the reproducibility of the sample
preparation techniques, 10 samples of NaN03
solution and 7 samples of NH4C1 solution were
analyzed. The NH4C1 samples had a mean 6N15 of
+1.22 %o with a standard deviation of 1.06 %o-
The NaNO3 samples had a mean 6 N15 of +1.04 %o
with a standard deviation of 0.59 %o- Experimental
error is approximately ±1 %o-
The reproducibility of 5 NIS values of soil
nitrate could not be determined by running dupli-
cate analyses because the soil samples, in general,
did not contain enough nitrogen for more than one
analysis. However, the consistency of 5N15 values
with depth in a soil profile (Figure 2) and the
consistency of 5 N15 values between a soil stored
unfrozen (profile a) and a soil stored frozen (profile
b) in Figure 2 shows that the analysis of soil nitrate
is reproducible. The data, therefore, is considered
correct, and the observed isotopic variations are
due to natural isotopic fractionations and not to
experimental error.
6N15 of Nitrate in Differential Soil Environments
The soil-nitrogen environments studied were
barnyards (4 sites, 12 samples), septic tank drain
fields (2 sites, 4 samples), cultivated fields where
cattle had never been grazed (4 sites, 15 samples),
o-i
1 -
2-
3'-
1M
6'-
8-
200 400
N03(mg/kg)
5 10
(5N'5(0/00)
15
Fig. 2. Nitrate and SIM versus depth beneath cotton fields
with no animal wastes. Samples from profile a stored
unfrozen. Samples from profile b stored frozen.
181
-------
3-
1M
a. 5-
200 400
NO (mg/kg)
0 5 10
6N"(%o)
20
Fig. 3. Nitrate and 5I\I15 versus depth beneath barnyard with
definite animal waste contribution.
cultivated fields where cattle had grazed (2 sites, 6
samples), and turnrows (narrow dirt roads between
cultivated fields used to bring farm equipment to
the fields and as turning areas for tractors) between
cotton fields (2 sites, 11 samples). Soils treated with
artificial fertilizers were not considered because of
their low usage in Runnels County. The 15 sampling
sites (48 samples) were located in as wide a
geographic area as possible and in as many
different soil associations so that the 5 N15 ranges
would represent the average for the area.
Nitrates in Soils from Barnyards and Septic Tank
Laterals
Figure 3 compares 8N15 and nitrate concentra-
tions of a barnyard soil at various depths. The value
of 6N1S, approximately +14 %0, remains relatively
constant with depth. The nitrate concentrations
are high, similar to other nitrate profiles of barn-
yards from this study (Jones, 1973).
The 6N15 values and nitrate concentrations
from 5 other barnyards (Figure 4) are consistent
with the 5 N15 values of Figure 3. Figure 4 also
shows the 6N1S and nitrate concentrations of soils
in septic tank drain fields. The 6 N15 values of these
soils are greater than +10 %o-
The frequency distribution curve on the right
side of Figure 5 shows the 6N15 range of nitrate
from barnyard and septic tank drain field soils in
southern Runnels County, Texas.
Nitrates in Soils from Cultivated Fields and
Turnrows with No History of Cattle
Figure 2 compares the 6N15 and nitrate
concentrations in soils from various depths in
cotton fields where livestock have never grazed.
These soils have low nitrate concentrations and
lower 5N15 than the 6N1S of barnyard or septic
tank nitrate. There is no apparent correlation of
5N15 with nitrate concentrations, soil type, or
geographic distribution of cotton field soils.
Figure 6 shows the 6N15 and nitrate concen-
trations in soils from turnrows where cattle have
never grazed. These soils have similar 6N15 values
1250
1000
750-
500-
250
20
25
0 5 10 15
6N'5(%0)
Fig. 4. 5N1S and nitrate from barnyards (•) and septic tank
laterals (*).
.5-
.4-
Animal waste nitrate
(15 samples)
Natural soil nitrate
(26 samples)
0 5 10 15 20
6N'5(%0)
Fig. 5. SIM15 ranges of natural soil nitrate and animal waste
nitrate. Frequency polygons have a class interval of one
SIM15 unit. Cumulative frequency of each curve is equal to
1.0.
182
-------
but higher nitrate concentrations in comparison to
cultivated fields with no history of cattle. The
difference in nitrate concentrations of the turnrow
soils and the cultivated field soils reflects the
complete lack of plant growth on the turnrows in
contrast to the nutrient assimilation by crops in the
cultivated fields. In the planted fields, some of the
soil humus is annually oxidized to nitrate which
is assimilated as plant nutrient. In the turnrow soils
there is no utilization of the nitrate by plants, thus
nitrate concentrations are high. In both turnrow
profiles, the 6N15 remains constant with depth and
is within the same range as the 6 N1S of nitrate in
soils from cultivated fields, even though the nitrate
concentrations vary greatly.
The curve on the left side of Figure 5 is the
frequency distribution of 5N1S in the cultivated
fields with no history of cattle and the turnrows
with no history of cattle. These environments
produce a lower isotopic range than the barnyard
and septic tank soils.
Nitrates in Soils from Corn Fields with Grazing
Cattle
Figure 7 is a 6N15 - NO3 profile below a corn
field where cattle have grazed on corn stubble. The
owner could not remember how long cattle had
grazed in this field, but he had a "feeling" that it
was for the past 10 to 20 years. This profile shows
lower 6 N15 values with depth, but constant nitrate
concentrations, indicating that the dominant source
of nitrogen had changed with time. The 6 N15 of
nitrate from shallow depths is within the range of
animal waste material, whereas the 5 N15 in the
deeper portion of the profile is within the range of
natural soil nitrogen. The higher values represent
nitrate accumulation during the years when cattle
grazed on the corn stubble, whereas the lower 6 N15
represent nitrate accumulation during the years
before the cattle were grazing on this field.
The soils which have a known source of nitrate
can be divided into 2 categories: (1) soils with
animal waste material as a dominant nitrate source,
and (2) soils with a natural soil nitrate source with
no contribution from animal waste material. These
isotopic ranges do not overlap. Soils from fields
with grazing cattle would be expected to have 6N1S
values between the 5N1S of nitrate of animal wastes
and the 6 Nls of natural soil nitrate, reflecting a
mixing of nitrates from the 2 sources.
6IM15 of Nitrate in Ground Water
The 6 N15 of nitrate from 31 different water
samples from water wells in Runnels County, Texas,
was determined. The water wells selected for
sampling have large geographic distribution, high
and low nitrate concentrations, and different local
land use, e.g., wells in cotton fields and wells in
barnyards. Samples were collected from 5 wells in
barnyards, 12 wells near farm houses, 2 wells in
pastures, and 11 wells in cultivated fields away from
sources of animal waste.
A plot of the ground-water nitrate concentra-
tions versus 5 N15 shows a wide spread of 6 N15
I1.
J '_
3'-
1M
4 -
p 5-
UJ
Q
6-
2M
,
7"
8'-
1
>-
b;
i
i
/
:
\
\
\
}
i
i
i
|
I
i
1
i
i
i
i /'
!
i i
/ ;
/ \
' i
i
a
200 400 -s 0 5 10 15 20
NO (mg/kg) SNI5(0/00)
Fig. 6. Nitrate and 5N1S versus depth beneath turnrows
with no animal contribution of N.
3-
IM
I
UJ
Q
200 400
N03(mg/kg)
0 5 10
-------
1000-
O 100-
10-
••:••/•
: * /
•/
/
/
/ •
-5 0 5 10 15 20
&N's(°/oo)
Fig. 8. SIM15 of nitrate in ground water from Runnels
County, Texas.
values with only a small correlation (r = 0.25) of
6N15 with the nitrate concentrations (Figure 8).
The ground waters with the highest NO3 concen-
trations have the most encriched 5N1S values.
However, even the waters with low 6 N1S values
have nitrate concentrations which exceed the limit
recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service.
With a linear correlation of nitrate and 6N15, one
source of nitrate would be predominant. High
nitrate concentrations with both high and low 6N15
values indicate that there are at least 2 sources in
the samples analyzed but the sources or their
relative importance cannot be determined with this
graph.
A comparison of the 6 N15 of nitrate in ground
waters under specific land-use areas, for example,
barnyards and cotton fields, with the 6 N15 of the
nitrate from different soil environments identifies
the 2 sources and shows their relative contribution.
By overlaying a frequency distribution graph of
6 N15 in ground waters beneath cultivated fields
with no cattle on the graph of 2 5 N15 soil nitrate
ranges, there is a remarkable coincidence between
the 6 N1S of natural soil nitrate and the 5 N15 of
ground-water nitrate (Figure 9).
An overlay of the frequency distribution of
5 N15 of ground-water nitrate from wells near farm-
houses, but not in barnyards, on the 2 6 N15 soil
nitrate ranges shows an isotopic shift toward the
animal waste nitrate (Figure 10). The predominant
source in this case is still nitrate from cultivated
fields because the average 6 N15 of the ground-water
nitrate is below +9 %0 (tne average of the means of
the 2 isotopic ranges).
The frequency distribution of 5N1S of ground-
water nitrate from barnyard wells shows a wide
range of 5N15 values, indicating that both natural
soil nitrate and animal waste nitrate are contaminat-
ing the ground waters beneath barnyards (Figure
11). The predominant source of nitrate in ground
waters beneath barnyards may depend on the
influence of the regional hydraulic gradient and on
the pumping history of the barnyard well. The 3
' high 5 N15 samples are from barnyard wells located
on topographic highs. The potentiometric surface
generally follows the topography. Ground-water
flow, and thus nitrate migration, should be away
from the barnyard rather than toward it. The soil
and water samples from a hilltop farm illustrate
this point (Table 1). The farmhouse-barnyard
complex is at the top of a slight hill and the
direction of ground-water movement should be
downslope. The soil and water samples from this
barnyard are enriched in 5N'5. A water sample
from a field well downslope from the farmhouse-
barnyard complex is also enriched in 6N15. On the
other side of the hill, the shallow water table
intersects the land surface forming a seep where
continual evaporation of ground water precipitates
nitrate which is also isotopically heavy. Movement
of nitrate is away from the barnyard and toward
the field because of its topographic position.
: Animal waste nitrate (15 samples)
• Natural soil nitrate (26 samples)
Groundwater nitrate (II samples)
6 5 10 \5 20
5N'»(%<,)
Fig. 9. 5IM15 of nitrate in ground water from wells in
cultivated fields compared to the 6N1S of natural soil
nitrate and animal waste nitrate.
184
-------
Table 1. 6N15 of Nitrate from Ground Water
and Soils of Hilltop Farm
Source 6N
House well
Barnyard well
Field well
Barnyard soil (depth 1 m)
Septic tank drainfield (depth .7 m)
Septic tank drainfield (depth 1 m)
Soil seep
+14.1
+10.4
+13.1
+14.6
+10.3
+12.4
+ 9.8
The 2 barnyard water samples (Figure 11)
with low 6 N15 values are on slopes. Water wells
would be pumping, in part, ground waters that had
been recharged upslope. Therefore, barnyard wells
could be pumping ground waters with natural soil
nitrate rather than ground waters with animal waste
nitrate.
The 5 N15 of ground-water nitrate from wells
in barnyards may also be related to how often a
well is pumped. If a well is not pumped frequently,
the major nitrate source may be animal waste.
Frequently pumped wells will create cones of
depression and draw ground water from a more
extensive area than just beneath the barnyard. Much
of the nitrate in these ground waters may be from
natural soil nitrogen. Of the 3 high 6 N15 samples,
2 wells had been pumped infrequently over a period
of one year. The samples with lower 6 N15 values
were from wells that are pumped daily.
DISCUSSION
Figures 9, 10, and 11 demonstrate that the
5N15 of the ground-water nitrate can be used to
identify sources of NO3 in Runnels County, Texas.
The 2 sources are natural soil nitrogen, the
predominant source, and animal waste nitrogen.
The relative contribution of each source can be
calculated by making certain assumptions and by
comparing the ratio of acreage for different land
uses. The assumptions are: (1) 20 percent of the
ground-water nitrate beneath farm complexes
originates from animal waste material, whereas 80
percent originates from natural soil nitrogen
(Figure 10 shows that the source of nitrate beneath
the farmhouse-barnyard complexes is predominantly
natural soil nitrate); (2) the volume of ground water
per unit area is the same under farmhouse-barnyard
complexes as under cultivated fields; (3) the nitrate
concentrations in the ground water are relatively
constant under both conditions-, (4) the total area
of an average farm is 400 acres, of which the farm-
house-barnyard complex occupies 2 acres. The
acreage producing nitrate from natural soil nitrogen
is 200 times greater than the acreage producing
nitrate from animal wastes, and only 20 percent of
the nitrate in the ground waters beneath the
farmhouse-barnyard complexes is from animal
wastes. The estimated contribution of nitrate from
soil nitrogen is then 1,000 times greater than the
nitrate contribution of animal wastes.
To use natural soil nitrogen as a source of
nitrate contamination for Runnels County, 3
additional problems must be considered: (1) Was
there enough organic nitrogen in the original soils
to account for the nitrates in the ground water?
.3-
o
z
UJ
Animol waste nitrate (15 samples)
: Natural soil nitrate (26 samples)
Groundwoter nitrate 114 samples)
05 lb l'5 2*0
6N'5(%0)
Fig. 10. 6N1S of nitrate in ground water from wells near
farmhouses, but not in barnyards compared to the 6I\115 of
natural soil nitrate and animal waste nitrate.
Animal waste nitrate (15 samples)
Natural soil nitrate (26 samples)
Groundwate.r nitrate (5 samples)
<5N'5(%o)
Fig. 11. 6IM15 of nitrate in ground water from barnyard
wells compared to 5N15 of natural soil nitrate and animal
waste nitrate.
185
-------
(2) When was the organic nitrogen oxidized to
nitrate? (3) When was the nitrate leached below the
root zone and then leached into the ground water?
(1) The total organic nitrogen in the original
soils can no longer be determined because the soils
have all been cultivated for the last 50 years. The
soil type, texture, type of vegetation, and rainfall
regime of Runnels County, however, imply that the
original total nitrogen must have been high.
Schreiner and Brown (1938) found that
different soil types had different total nitrogen
concentrations. Chernozem, Prairie, and Chesnut
soils have high concentrations (0.12%, 0.12%, and
0.08%, respectively), whereas soils in progressively
wetter or drier climates have progressively lower
concentrations of nitrogen. In the wet climates, the
soil organic matter is rapidly mineralized and
leached. In the desert climates there is inadequate
plant growth to develop much soil organic matter.
The semiarid climate [510 to 640 mm (20-25 in) of
rain per year] provides a happy medium between
increased plant growth and minimal decomposition
and leaching. The soils in Runnels County, Texas,
are Chesnut soils (Millar and others, 1958) or
mollisols (Wiedenfeld and others, 1970) which form
under average rain of 360 to 610 mm (14 to 24 in).
Oxidizing 50 percent of the nitrogen in these soils
would theoretically create nitrate concentrations
of at least 500 mg/kg.
Before 1900, Runnels County was covered
with buffalo grass, which favored a high nitrogen
content in the soils. Soils under grasslands develop
higher nitrogen concentrations than similar soils
beneath forests. As annual grasses die, their roots
are rapidly added to the soil humus, whereas in
forests, the root systems do not decay annually,
nor do they occupy such a large fraction of the
soils volume as the grass roots (Villenski, 1957).
The nitrogen content also is related to the clay
content. Soils with high clay content can have
much higher nitrogen contents (Millar and others,
1958). The texture of the soil in Runnels County
is typically clay loam or silty clay loam.
(2) The oxidation of soil nitrogen has been
occurring since the first days of cultivation. After
1900 there was a steady immigration of European
farmers to Runnels County. The farmers put nearly
every arable acre into crop production. The high
nitrate concentrations of the turnrow soils are
probably the result of the oxidation of natural soil
nitrogen and the lack of nitrogen assimilation by
plants over the 50 to 70 years of cultivation. The
amount of nitrate in these soil profiles is consistent
with the amount of nitrate that can be oxidized
from the organic nitrogen in a Chesnut soil in the
same time period. Reinhorn and Avnimelech (1974)
use a similar model of oxidation of soil nitrogen as
a source of high nitrates in a coastal aquifer in
Israel.
(3) The problem of determining when the
nitrates were leached below the root zone and into
the ground water has not been completely resolved.
Nitrate at shallow depths in cropland soils will be
assimilated by plants; thus, for nitrate to be a
potential ground-water contaminant, it must first
be leached below the root zone and then leached
to the water table. Nitrate has probably been
accumulating below the root zone since 1900. The
winter fallow season permitted both the generation
and the leaching of nitrate. The amount of winter
rains was adequate to leach nitrate below the root
zone.
In the mid 1950's there was extensive terracing
of the fields to improve retention of soil moisture.
According to many of the farmers, the water table
rose appreciably, more than 6 meters in some
places. The increased infiltration of water and the
ground water which rose to near the ground
surface, leached the nitrates from the vadose zone
into the ground water. Tritium analyses indicate
that the nitrates were leached into the ground water
after the drought of the early 1950's. Using tritium
dating techniques of Dincer and Davis (1968),
ground waters from 4 of the deepest wells in the
county were dated at 13 to 17 years old, 8 to 13
years old, 9 to 12 years old, and 16 to 19 years old,
relative to 1974. These samples, which represent
the deepest ground waters in the area, are all
post-terracing waters, thus the leaching also appears
to be post-terracing.
The nitrates in the ground waters of Runnels
County are the result of the oxidation of part of
the humus of semiarid grassland soils and the
subsequent leaching of the nitrate to the saturated
zone by extensive terracing in the 1950's. This
conclusion is disturbing because there are no
inexpensive measures which would alleviate the
problem. Contamination of the shallow ground
water is ubiquitous in the cultivated areas of the
county and is not restricted to halos surrounding
animal waste sources. However, most of the nitrate
may have been leached away by the rising ground
water. Analyses of ground waters over a 3-year
period show an apparent gradual decrease in the
nitrate concentration. Even if this trend continues,
though, it will be many years before the nitrate
concentrations are reduced to U.S. Public Health
Service recommended limits of 45 mg/1.
186
-------
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Nitrogen isotope ratios of nitrate rons
from soil and water samples can be analyzed
reproducibly with an experimental error of
±l°/c
'00-
(2) There are 2 isotopic ranges of soil nitrate
in Runnels County, Texas. Nitrate derived from the
decomposition of animal waste nitrogen yields a
5N1S of +10 %o to +22 %„. Nitrate derived from the
mineralization of organic nitrogen in soil humus
has a 6 N15 of +2 %o to.+8 %„•
(3) In Runnels County, Texas, the major
source of nitrate in the ground water is natural soil
nitrate. The 6 N15 of the ground-water nitrate
beneath cultivated fields corresponds well with the
5N15 of natural soil nitrate. Ground water beneath
farmhouse-barnyard complexes has a higher 5N1S,
indicating a contribution of animal waste nitrate.
Ground water from wells in barnyards has a wide
range of 5N'S values.
(4) The natural soil nitrate in the ground
water is the result of cultivation which causes the
oxidation of some of the organic nitrogen to nitrate.
Natural soil nitrogen may contribute as much as
1,000 times more nitrate to the ground water than
animal wastes. Extensive terracing during the
1950's in Runnels County caused the water table
to rise, allowing the ground water to leach the
soil nitrate into the aquifer system.
(5) The identification of the source of ground-
water nitrate in Runnels County, Texas, indicates
that the techniques developed in this study are
applicable for identifying sources of nitrate in other
polluted waters.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are indebted to Jan Turk for his
help with the hydrogeologic aspects and to Lynton
Land for his help with the nitrogen isotope program.
This investigation was sponsored by the Texas Water
Development Board and by the Environmental
Protection Agency. Financial assistance for manu-
script preparation was received from the Owen-
Coates Fund of the Geology Foundation (The
University of Texas at Austin).
REFERENCES
Bremner, J. M., and D. R. Keeney. 1966. Determination and
isotope-ratio analysis of different forms of nitrogen in
soils: 3. Exchangeable ammonium, nitrate, and nitrite
by extraction-distillation methods. Soil Sci. Soc.
America Proc. v. 30, pp. 577-582.
Dincer, T., and G. H. Davis. 1968. Some considerations on
tritium dating and the estimates of tritium input
function. Internat. Assoc. Hydrogeologists Memoires.
v. 8 (t. 8), Congress of Istanbul, 1967, pp. 276-280.
Hoering, T. C. 1955. Variations of nitrogen-15 abundance
in naturally occurring substances. Science, v. 122,
pp. 1233-1234.
Jones, D. C. 1973. An investigation of the nitrate problem
in Runnels County, Texas. Environmental Protection
Technology Series, EPA-R-2-267, 214 pp.
Junk, G., and H. J. Svec. 1958. The absolute abundance of
the nitrogen isotopes in the atmosphere and
compressed gas from various sources. Geochim. et
Cosmochim. Acta. v. 14, pp. 234-243.
Kreitler, C. W. 1974. Determining the source of nitrate in
ground water by nitrogen isotope studies. Ph.D.
dissert., Univ. of Texas, Austin. Published as: Univ.
Texas, Austin, Bur. Econ. Geology Rept. Inv. 85.
Millar, C. E. L. M. Turk, and~H."D. Foth. 1958. Funda-
mentals of soil science. London, John Wiley and Sons,
526pp.
Myaka^ Y., and E. Wada. 1967. The abundance ratio of
15N/14N in marine environments. Records of Oceano-
graphic Works.in Japan, v. 9, no. 1, pp. 37-53.
Nier, A. D. 1955. Determination of isotopic masses and
abundances by mass spectrometry. Science, v. 121,
pp. 737-744.
Reinhorn, T., and Y. Avnimelech. 1974. Nitrogen release
associated with the decrease in soil organic matter in
newly cultivated soils. J. Environ. Quality, v. 3, no. 2,
pp. 118-121.
Schreiner, O., and B. E. Brown. 1938. Soil nitrogen. U.S.
Dept. Agriculture Yearbook 1938, pp. 361-376.
Villenski, D. G. 1957. Soil science (Burron, A., trans.).
Jerusalem, Israel Prog. Sci. Translation, 488 pp.
Wiedenfeld, C., L. Barnhill, and C. Novosad. 1970. Soil
survey of Runnels County, Texas. Washington, D.C.,
U.S. Dept. Agriculture, 60 pp.
187
-------
DISCUSSION
The following questions were answered by Charles
W. Kreitler after delivering his talk entitled "Natural
Soil Nitrate: The Cause of the Nitrate Contamination
of Ground Water in Runnels County, Texas."
Q. by B.P.C. Sinha. Could nitrate in rain water
contribute to high nitrate ground waters?
A. Junge (1958) found that neither nitrate or
ammonia concentrations were more than 1 or 2
mg/1. This source is insignificant to the amount of
nitrogen in soil humus.
Q. by D. D. Runnells. Is there any isotopic fraction-
ation of N by ion-exchange in soil or dissolving of
ammonia in water?
A. Isotopic fractionation of nitrate in high anionic
soils is relatively small. Delwiche and Steyn (1970)
found an approximate 2 %0 fractionation of nitrate
on an anion exchange resin. High anion exchange
soils would not be expected to be found in pedocal
soils either. Kirshenbaum et al. (1947) measured a
34% fractionation between gaseous ammonia and
ionic ammonium at equilibrium. This is an important
fractionation controlling the nitrogen isotope range
of animal waste nitrate.
Q. by M. Campbell. What special techniques were
used for ground-water sampling?
A. Nearly all water samples were collected from
pumps already on the wells. Frequently pumped
wells were used in preference to wells rarely used
over the previous years. For those wells where no
pump was available, samples were bailed.
Q. by R. G. Kazmann. Would you recommend
reverse osmosis to produce drinking water cheaply?
A. A private company tried this technique for a
single farm. The average nitrate from the farmer's
well was 1000 mg/1. They found that reverse
osmosis was too expensive.
Q. by G. M. Powell. Did you make any mass balance
of total N in ground water?
A. No. For one, total N was not a problem,
because organic nitrogen, ammonium and nitrite
were generally very low. A mass balance of the
nitrate was not determined either, because we did
not know the total volume of the aquifers (either
the gravels or the limestones) nor know enough
about the porosity (especially the limestone
aquifer).
188
-------
Bull Session — The Impact of Zero Discharge
Legislation on Ground Water
Session Moderator: Kent Ballentine, U.S. EPA,
4th and M Streets, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Kent Ballentine, Moderator: This is the Bull Session
on The Effect of Zero Pollutant Discharge on
Ground Water. I have put out some extracts from
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.
This extract is my idea of the requirements of the
legislation that talks about zero discharge. In addi-
tion, I have 2 reports that EPA has put out in
compliance1 with the Act. One of these is "Evalua-
tion of Land Application Systems," which is a
draft report prepared by Metcalf and Eddy, Con-
sulting Engineers. I don't think it's available for
distribution yet but it's out in draft form. The other
describes the Best Available Treatment (BAT)
requirements put out this past March for comments
and it's not out as a final document yet. It is
entitled "Alternative Waste Management Tech-
niques for Best Practical Waste Treatment."
As a review of the legislative history of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, it should be
pointed out that the earlier versions required the
EPA to evaluate land disposal as the primary
method of treatment and then conventional treat-
ment as an alternative. In the version that was
finally passed, it does not specifically mandate
that, although the legislative history does indicate
this was Congress' intent. So, with these few
comments and the extracts from the legislation, we
might as well open this session up. The way it was
expressed today was that the results from this group
would express people's feelings about the concepts
of zero pollution discharge. Is there a viable
alternative, or is it technologically unfeasible?
Kenneth E. Webb, Colorado Department of Health,
4210 E. 11th Ave., Denver, Colorado 80220: Under
the 201 facilities plan, we have some environmental
organizations and also professional people in the
State of Colorado who think the way to achieve
zero discharge is to apply secondarily-treated
effluent to land surfaces, either for purposes of
irrigation or as advanced waste treatment. I think
that application is a viable alternative; I think it is
extremely site selective; I think it must be very well
engineered and even operated much better than
most of the advanced wastewater or secondary
wastewater treatment plants are operated. If it
isn't, I think we've swept our problems under the
rug. I don't know who it was that decided that we
had to consider land treatment as an alternative.
That's like saying that you have to consider
activated sludge or a physical-chemical treatment
process. Why they singled out one particular
method is beyond me because I think it has led to
some misunderstanding by people who aren't well
informed about the situation, and being concerned
about the quality bf ground water, I'm concerned
about 201 requirements and the zero discharge
statement or goal in the Act. What I'm saying is
that we have groups in Colorado who say, "This is
the way to go. If we spread it on the alfalfa field,
it's zero discharge." I don't personally agree with
that, but these are environmental groups, and they
are very persuasive and influential.
Kent Ballentine: Of course, this process ignores the
hydrological facts that the base flow of most
streams is ground water, and when you get polluted
ground water, you subsequently get polluted
surface water.
Kenneth Webb: Well, although Colorado doesn't
have a lot of surface water, we do have the Colorado
River. But as you fly over Colorado, you're not
going to see big rivers like you have in the eastern
U.S. Nevertheless, it's a fact of life that our com-
munities were settled along what little water there
is. Most of our communities on the East and West
Slopes were settled along the South Platte,
Arkansas, Rio Grande, San Juan and the Colorado.
Since the towns are there, naturally the sewage
treatment plants are along the rivers and most of
your treatment plants are in the flood plain. If we
would go to land treatment, in all probability that
land treatment is going to be over an alluvial aquifer.
This really worries me. We've got a thousand square
189
-------
miles of pasture out there in eastern Colorado where
you can discharge secondary effluent and it would
not contaminate ground water but unfortunately,
it's going to cost a bundle of money to pump it out
there.
Kent Ballentine: I'm not familiar with western
water law, but what does that do to your
appropriated water rights?
Kenneth Webb: That's a go.od question. This is
something that we have to consider. If you change
the point of discharge, you're looking at Colorado
water law, you might have to buy water rights to
replace, or you might have to trade off. In other
words, there would have to be a legal arrangement
or you could be in violation of State water laws. In
other words, land treatment is not God's answer to
what our problem is. It represents many problems.
Norman Lovejoy, Nelson, Haley, Patterson and
Quirk, Inc., 102 N. Cascade, Suite 202, Colorado
Springs, Colorado 80902: I'm a project director on
a 208 study and I'm looking for help. The question
of zero pollutant discharge is an extremely serious
one in Colorado and particularly in our 208 area
because of the requirement that some of the flow be
returned to the stream. There's just no way out of
it that I see. I'm not a lawyer and I hate to make a
statement as arbitrary as that, but we have irrigation
ditches that are located right at the point of the
effluent discharge of existing plants who have great
seniority. So, there's no way that you could do it
without buying that ditch company out, and it
would cost more than the tertiary plant. Does zero
pollutant discharge mean that the water has to.be
drinking water quality? I'm looking for guidance on
what is meant in terms of the zero pollutant dis-
charge for that portion of the flow which must be
returned to the stream. There's no alternative to it,
because of western water law, unless we change the
constitution of the State of Colorado.
Kent Ballentine: One thing to remember is that
zero pollutant discharge is a goal. It doesn't say it's
mandated. It's just a goal to move in that direction.
I dpn't think the agency has really defined zero
pollutant discharge, and I don't think they're able
to at this time, and this is the kind of forum in
which they'd like to gage the public's reaction.
Norman Lovejoy: Perhaps we should direct this
discussion at the impacts then of the zero pollutant
discharge: the social, economic and institutional
impacts, so that we can get a better idea of the
meaning of the loopholes in the Act. What are some
of the impacts that go into a zero pollutant
discharge? Institution is one. In any area you have
the conflict—Chicago has already experienced this—
between the rural area who sees the sludge and the
city. Are institutional impacts an excuse? No. Are
they a basis for exemption?
Arnold Schiffman, Water Resources Administration,
580 Taylor Ave., Annapolis, Maryland 21401: Is
the term "zero pollutant discharge" or "zero
discharge"?
Kent Ballentine: It's "zero pollutant discharge." As
you look in the Act there at Section 101(a)(l), it
states that the national goal is that the discharge of
pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated
by 1985.
Arnold Schiffman: Who is defining—pollutants can
be anything, right?
Kent Ballentine: Well, if you look at the last page
of that handout, there is a definition. Congress has
defined pollution and the term pollutant as pretty
much anything that does not have to do with oil
and gas production.
Arnold Schiffman: I think the subject of this
session is the effect of zero pollutant discharge on
ground water. Since this country as a whole
basically deals with surface water, maybe it would
be helpful to look at the concepts of surface water,
which are very disturbing when applied to ground
water. First of all the concept with the streams. The
old concept was that you could put waste into
streams which have a certain assimilative capacity.
That's a dirty word now. Now we're looking at an
effluent limit on the goal toward zero discharge.
The effluent limit is based on protecting in-stream
uses including the fish, etc. If you look at water
supply, as we're going to look at ground water,
you basically look at increasing or improving treat-
ment technology. All right, we apply these same
concepts to ground water. For one thing, there are
no in-stream ground-water uses.
Kenneth Webb: Of course there are in-stream
ground-water concepts.
Arnold Schiffman: Well, maybe you can invent
some. It's not in-stream ground-water uses in the
same sense as in-stream surface-water uses, which
190
-------
effluent standards are designed to protect. What I'm
afraid of is that to a lot of people outside this
room, there is no such thing as ground-water
pollution. You can extend it even further. For
example, if you look at use, I guess ground water
has 2 basic uses. One is water supply, the other is
assimilating waste water. If you look at the water-
supply angle, is ground water polluted if you put
something in it and there isn't a well field pro-
ducing water from it? Is there ground-water
pollution?
What I'm saying is that inside this room it's
fine, we all know what the story is. But outside
of this room, I think there could be a very good
case made by saying that there is no such thing as
ground-water pollution. There are no in-stream
uses as most people would recognize them. And as
for water supply, if it's not affecting a well field,
as far as anybody is concerned, nothing has
happened. Of course, we can go and delineate
polluted areas; we can put in test wells; we can
collect samples, etc., and show that there has been a
change in ground-water quality. The concept of
zero pollutant discharge can go for both air quality,
I guess, and surface-water quality. That implies or
strongly suggests that it is the national policy to
degrade ground water. We have to figure out what
is pollution of ground water. I guess if we use
"water supply" we can define it as Drinking Water
Standards. I guess some people might have the idea
that that's the best ground-water standard. There's
an awful lot of ground water of higher quality than
Drinking Water Standards; so, if we're going to
protect the streams, not degrade them at all, not
degrade the air quality, by definition we are now
talking about degrading ground-water quality.
Norman Lovejoy: But EPA in that regulation they
issued August 27, recognized ground water as a
significant source to be protected. That's the first
time I've seen ground water recognized as a signifi-
cant source and to be inventoried and protected.
Arnold Schiffman: Treating ground water on the
same level as surface water and air quality is
incompatible with the Federal program, unless you
go through some complete recycling. I'm saying by
definition we are now going to degrade ground-
water quality.
Kenneth Webb: Well, 1 think your concern is the
same as my concern, because I can see a tendency
for people to say, "We'll go to secondary treatment,
but if it requires better than that, we'll just put it
out on the ground and raise crops with it," and of
course we've got a 90-120-day growing season, so
what are we going to do with the other 8 months
out of the year? I'm concerned that some of our
heavy metals, our nitrates and so forth are going to
leach into the ground water.
Kent Ballentine: What would be the difference,
assuming that over the winter you'd have to store
water? Many of your sugar companies do that
already, right? They store in lagoons, and then they
can release it when the streams open in the spring.
Don't you get a certain amount of infiltration under
those conditions?
Kenneth Webb: I think probably we do. The thing
that I object to is endorsing land treatment as a
cure-all for advanced waste treatment because I
think if we do that, we're going to sweep our
problems underground. It's going to degrade the
ground water. We have documented cases—a
documented case here in the South Platte basin
which the NWQA did back in 1967.
Kent Ballentine: Of course, EPA has had some
problems with their nondegradation policy for
surface waters because it's almost impossible to have
any kind of economic development at all without
degrading surface-water supplies slightly.
Kenneth Webb: My idea is that even if you only
have secondary treatment, you put that effluent
into the stream, in Colorado at least, it's going to
go on down the stream, and if that thing is full of
nitrates, in all probability you're not going to
degrade anybody's well field to be used for
municipalities. It's going to go downstream and be
diverted for agriculture, irrigation purposes and
spread on the field, and it may or may .not find its
way back into the hydrological cycle. However, if
you've got a land disposal system over here and
those nitrates leach into that ground water, I'm not
at all sure at what point in time or if ever, that
stuff is going to come back in and be surface water.
It's extremely site selective. I am not 100% against
it. I think there are places where it will work, but
the way the Mineral Act and the other Acts read,
I'm afraid people are going to have a tendency to
sweep the problem under the rug.
Norman Lovejoy: They'll be required to meet the
law. They'll be required to finish the study based
upon certain criteria and they'll dump it upon the
191
-------
land to get rid of it to meet the law. So, that's the
danger to ground water.
Kent Ballentine: Which guidelines are you reading
here, are you referring to the BPT or BAT?
IMorman Lovejoy: Well, the whole set of
circumstances.
Kenneth Webb: I'm specifically referring to your
201 guidelines. What's the policy goal that is in
section 101, the preamble to the 72 amendments?
Unknown Speaker: Is ground water going to be the
victim of all of this because it's not specifically
spelled out in the Act as a navigable waterway? Or
is there a way we can look at the waste water as a
part of our total resources, as a part of the total
resource system? Then we end up back with the
recycle question.
Kent Ballentine: Of course, I think if you read
through the goals, the idea of recycling was also
inherent in the Act and this is what Congress was
trying to encourage. I don't think it's deliberately
laid out in the Act that we're going to pollute
ground water rather than pollute surface water or
deteriorate air quality or anything else. I would
say that the possibility of ground-water pollution
was probably more of an oversight than anything
else. If you look at the history of land disposal,
much of it came from some of the Corps of
Engineers studies. I think they had done some
studies that indicated that land treatment was
desirable, especially in areas where ground-water
levels were declining severely. EPA has .probably
considered one of the areas in Florida where there
is planning for the use of secondary effluent for
recharging ground water—either to avoid salt-water
intrusion or to raise the water table.
Unknown Speaker: The nitrate question I think
came up after the initial Corp of Engineers studies.
Is the nitrate question being blown out of propor-
tion?
Paul Plummer, Miami Conservancy District, 38 E.
Monument Ave., Dayton, Ohio 45402: Well, I
think the nitrate question is a western problem.
We're not worried about nitrates in the East.
Arnold Schiffman: We're worried about it to
protect stream quality, not—in many cases, in the
quality-limited streams, the nitrate standards
would be lower than Drinking Water Standards,
say 3 parts versus 10. If you put the stuff on the
ground, the loading is going to be the same,
except maybe for some losses. It's going to be
moving to the stream anyway. So, we may be self-
defeating on our stream standards.
The other thing is, we are talking about waste
water. There's no such thing as waste water. We
have wastes, water used as a transport medium, so
what are we doing? We are taking the stuff out of
the transport medium, we do something with the
transport medium, and we still have a whole bunch
of stuff, whether it be municipal treatment sludge
or worse yet, the industrial sludges that we're
creating. So, we're not just talking about diverting
the waste source from the streams to the land,
we're concentrating it and putting it on the land.
All the industrial sludges that are being formed—the
States and the Federal government are cleaning up
the surface waters in this country. They're doing
it and they're doing a good job. But they're
removing the stuff from the water, which is the
transport medium. They have to pile it, then. I
don't know if anyone else knows where it goes.
There's all sorts of strange things in that industrial
sludge. Municipal sludge, we know. I think every-
body has a handle on it. At least we know it goes
on the land.
We've arbitrarily said that we're going to let
one resource take the brunt, even though the Act
doesn't say that, that's what it does. We should
look at a problem and say, "Okay, with this waste,
how do we treat it, what's the cheapest way, and
where do we put it?" Maybe it's better to go into
the stream; maybe it's better to go into the air,
maybe it's better to go into the land. But those
choices are not being made. By definition, it's better
to go into the ground.
David Johe, Ohio EPA, 361 East Broad St.,
Columbus, Ohio 43215: I think I have a good case
in point. One of the problems that we are currently
faced with'is air quality standards. As a result of
these, both federal and State, the power plants are
being required to install lime scrubber systems to
remove SO2 from the air. Now, in our situation,
these plants exceed the air quality standards only a
few days a year. But these scrubber systems have to
operate 365 days a year. As a result of this, we are
creating literally billions of tons of calcium sulfate,
which is going to be deposited anywhere the utility
can get away with it. As I understand it, for every
ton of coal that is burned, there will be half a ton of
sludge produced. Now, this is a monumental
192
-------
problem as we see it. If you could operate these
scrubbers only on the days that they were exceed-
ing standards it would be one matter. But, they have
to operate them year around.
Kent Ballentine: Let me ask you to comment on
this one item. I was talking to a colleague of mine
who is a microbiologist, and he was saying that
there are certain areas of the country now where
with the new regulations limiting SO2 and other
sulfur fumes, that they're running into sulfur
deficiencies now in soils. And they're having to
consider adding sulfate now to fertilizer, where
they didn't have to in the past, because enough
rained out from air pollutants. Would there be any
market for that calcium sulfate by adding it to
fertilizer compounds to make up for such a
deficiency?
David Johe: I don't think so—that is, we don't
have a sufficient market for it. This might take
care of some small amounts.
Frank Titus, Ebasco Services, Inc., 21 West St.,
New York, New York 10006: We in Ebasco have
an environmental study. Considering your suggestion
that these sludges could be put to a use of this sort,
let me point out that along with the sulfur dioxides
and gases, a very, very large percent fall into the
category of toxic metals.
Kent Ballentine: I have had some familiarity with
some of the slaking of the ash, and the runoff from
that operation is pretty high in metal, too.
Frank Titus: The ash, per se, is really not so bad,
as long as you don't put scrubbers sludge into it.
The ash is for the most part a glass material.
Kent Ballentine: What are you recommending now,
disposal in special landfills?
Frank Titus: We find it difficult in working from
State to State in what we will be permitted to do,
or what is really to be expected in the way of solid
waste disposal and in the way of protecting solid
waste disposals from contaminating ground water.
EPA regulations clearly mandate certain require-
ments for air pollution. They clearly mandate
protection of surface water, but they do not clearly
mandate protection for ground water. We find that
for practical purposes we have to solve many kinds
of problems of what to do with the solid waste.
The final authority is how we are permitted to
construct solid waste disposal.
Kent Ballentine: This particular set of regs defining
BAT states that discharges have to meet the
raw water standards that the Public Health Service
used in their evaluation study of the nation's public
water supplies several years back. They're saying
that the best practicable treatment would treat
water to the extent that it would meet those raw
water requirements. That's not Drinking Water
Standards per se.
Frank Titus: But does it state that the leachate in
ground water per se, that leachate must be —
Kent Ballentine: No, it just says the fluid applied
to the land must meet those requirements. *
Frank Titus: Suppose we applied the fluid to the
land, and EPA approves and the State approves of
the solid waste disposal, we can find no clear state-
ment anywhere in the Federal regulations that
specifies how we must construct that solid waste
disposal, or how we must operate it.
Bill Walker, Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana,
Illinois 61801: Somebody should be looking at
the total picture. Obviously if we take their
standards, it's going to be at the expense of
ground water. We have to look even beyond that.
At one particular power plant in Ohio, to create
this scrubber system is going to increase the cost of
electricity by more than 25%, that's one factor.
Second, to obtain the lime that they need, this will
require that they develop a deep mine. Then this
lime will have to be quarried, barged up the Ohio
River, unloaded and trucked to this power plant.
Apparently, nobody has looked at the total picture.
The total fuel that you're burning in trucks and
barges. Then of course, the biggest problem is the
sludge itself.
Kent Ballentine: We've heard some of the negative
aspects of land disposal; what about some of the
positive? Certain costs are quite minimal in land
disposal—probably more so than other ways of
treatment—it could be the most economical way.
Are you knocking land disposal, per se, or is it on a
site by site, case by case basis? The regs themselves
come out and say you still have to consider the
most economical treatment system. We're not
locked into land disposal, but we have to consider it.
193
-------
Kenneth Webb: Who thinks land disposal is very
site selective?! guess the thing that hurts is the
emphasis that was put on land treatment. I don't
like the term disposal, but the emphasis was put
on land-treatment by EPA.
Unknown Speaker: Don't you think, Kent, that
it's too late, that maybe it was feasible a hundred
years ago when land was sparsely settled? Isn't it
Melbourne, Australia, that has this tremendous
system that produces and raises cattle, and they
probably pay for their own sewage system, I don't
know. But, today like so many ideas that were
successful 50 or 100 years ago, it's too late because
of the population pressures and ideas on values of
land and what they want that land to be used for.
Clyde S. Conover, U.S.G.S., 325 John Knox Road,
Tallahassee, Florida 32303: What would be
accomplished if all the pollutants by man were
taken out of the streams—what would be the result
on the surface waters? Rivers and streams under
natural conditions are nature's sewers. They receive
all the by-products of all the chemical and
organic actions of nature. This is where all the
wastes of nature go, into the streams.
So the alternative to not spending a lot of this
money is discharging wastes on the land surface.
Now we are upsetting nature's hydrological sewers—
I mean the streams are nature's sewers—that's what
we need to replace. We're now forcing man with his
waste products to put these products on the land
which is a source of the fresh waters. I think we're
trying to legislate against nature's laws.
Arnold Sen iff man: I'd like to have you clarify what
products are normally in the stream and I'm
wondering in terms of putting man's by-products
in the stream, how this is living with nature since
to me it looks like it's a short circuit of nature.
Primarily, man's waste—we're thinking of residential,
not industrial wastes—would be a matter of food
products. We generally don't get them out of the
stream. We generally get them off of the land and it
seems to be a more reasonable approach to put
them back on the land and recycle it that way
rather than dumping it into the streams.
Clyde Conover: Well, assuming these are beneficial
to the land —
Arnold Schiffman: Well, they are certainly not
beneficial to the stream.
Clyde Conover: Well, that's nature's sewer. It is
there anyway.
Arnold Schiffman: I beg to differ. I don't quite
see how you equate the natural streams, lakes and
so forth as nature's sewer.
Clyde Conover: Well, they are nature's sewers.
There is no question about it. All the erosion from
all the lands eventually get into the streams. The
excesses either must run off into the stream, be
evaporated, or go into the ground water. If the
water is not good enough to put into the stream, I
don't understand why it's good enough to put into
our drinking-water supplies.
Arnold Schiffman: You don't recognize any
renovation of waste water by filtering it through
the soil —
Clyde Conover: There isn't that much renovation-
there is some, but those nitrates . . . you go into an
agricultural area where farming leaches the soil, the
quality of underground water is deteriorated
tremendously. This is natural. This would be a
natural process of putting water on the ground. It's
just as fallacious to say that water is purified by
going through the ground, as it is to say that it's
purified by going 50 feet down the stream.
Paul Plummer: Is that true? Are both of those
statements true? There is some purification of
water by simply putting it into the stream and
allowing reoxygenation to take place?
Clyde Conover: There is some purification in the
stream. These things are axiomatic. Just because
you put it on the ground doesn't mean that it will
be purified. There are certain filtrations that have
to go on, and some of the nitrates still get into the
ground.
Arnold Schiffman: You're going to have that
directly in the streams rather than going into the
streams indirectly through ground water?
Herbert B. Eagon, Jr., Moody and Associates, Inc.,
1631 N.W. Professional Plaza, Columbus, Ohio
43220: It appears to me that what we've got right
here is possibly one of the objectives we're getting
at. We've demonstrated that the stream has certain
qualities or capabilities to purify the water. The
ground also has certain capabilities. Now, what
we're really pointed towards is finding the cost-
194
-------
benefit and the capacity of each, and using it to the
full extent, rather than saying that land disposal is
a panacea. Dumping in streams is a panacea. I think
it's got to be the proper balance of each, and that's
really what we're pointing toward.
Kent Ballentine: Most everybody is making a tacit
assumption that if you put it on the ground, it's
lost to the stream, and this doesn't jibe with the
hydrological cycle. Most of these sites are going to
be close to surface water and you're obviously
going to get some infiltration.
Unknown Speaker: Do you really see at this time a
move toward land treatment?
Kent Ballentine: Well, the way that we interpret
the regulations is that it must be considered. There
are certain cases, for instance, New York City,
where it's just not practical at all. But for certain
small communities where perhaps the selection may
be between a lagoon or land disposal, then maybe it
is a viable alternative. I don't think it's intended for
all situations. I guess that Corps report concerning
Chicago's waste is due out pretty soon. Anyway, '
that's what they're talking about, putting water on
land in Indiana.
Paul Plummer: Is taking 3 counties in Indiana out
of economic production a really viable alternative?
I would say no. That's Jasper, Newton and Starr
Counties or something like that. Anyway, it's
western Indiana.
Unknown Speaker: They might do all right in the
sand hills, because in that way it would be "out of
sight, out of mind." If they are going to try to
apply extensive or concentrated application to
something like the Val Pariso—which consists
primarily of clay hills, all they're going to get is a
lot of runoff.
Kent Ballentine: I don't know what the Corps is
recommending, but I know that land disposal is a
consideration.
Unknown Speaker: Well, isn't there a lot of safe-
guards built into your EPA standards to protect
against this sort of thing?
Kent Ballentine: Well, yes, as I said, the waste must
meet the requirements for raw water that the PHS
used for their evaluation studies of domestic treat-
ment plants. The water has to meet these require-
ments before it is applied to the land surface.
Paul Plummer: If that is the case, there is no land
application that is feasible. There is no way that
you can apply sewage to the land and have it meet
Drinking Water Standards.
Kenneth Webb: Well, I don't think that this rules
out land application. But each and every applica-
tion, or the place that you try to apply this, you've
got.to be careful how you make use of the
hydrology and hydrogeology.
Kent Ballentine: It says in the guidelines that "the
criteria for the best practical treatment in a land
application system require reducing chemical and
organic pollutants to raw or untreated drinking
water supply source levels." This requirement would
apply to both effluent and sludge. I think they're
just talking about applying it. They're not assuming
that it's going to be an underdrain system.
Unknown Speaker: What is the criteria, say, for
nitrates in the raw water supply, and dissolved
salts?
Kent Ballentine: Nitrate nitrogen levels are 10 mg/1.
I don't think dissolved salts are in here. They've
limited chloride to 250 mg/1, but they don't have
TDS, per se. Sodium is 270 mg/1, sulfate is 250 mg/1,
but no TDS, per se. I want to reiterate, though,
that these are proposed; I don't know what the final
regs will look like.
Clinton Hall, EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460: If the
•water has to meet raw drinking water standards to
put it on the ground, what's the purpose of putting
it on the ground? Why not just put it right back into
the stream?
Kent Ballentine: Of course, this is saying chemical-
organic, they are not saying bacterial or viral. EPA
has taken the position that they will not go along
with direct recycling of waste from the plant to the
raw water intake.
Clinton Hall: But it is of comparable quality?
Kent Ballentine: That's what they say.
John W. Bauer, U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene
Agency, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland :
I believe that the standards we are talking about do
not really apply to the water that you are applying
195
-------
to the land. Let's assume just for a minute, we're
talking about ground-water quality. Should they be
applied to the water monitoring a certain well, on
site, perimeter of the site, or just before you might
enter a certain stream? Where do you want to apply
standards?
Kent Ballentine: How would you control that? If
you don't control it at the point you discharge onto
the land, vhere else are you goirg to control it?
John Bauer: At the monitoring wells. Assuming
that is the way we're going to do it. I'm asking
where is the appropriate place to monitor against
any given criteria?
Kent Ballentine: According to these regulations,
apparently the point they selected is at the
discharge plant. *
Rollin W. Harden, Consultant, 3409 Executive
Center, Suite 211, Austin, Texas 78731: What
about all those places that the naturally produced
ground water will not meet the PHS standards? Do
we use it and then treat it?
Unknown Speaker: This would be the problem in
northwestern Ohio also. At least half, probably
more, of the municipal systems up there, have
sulfate concentrations that exceed Drinking Water
Standards. They are 250 to 500 mg/1, and higher.
Many municipalities up there now use this water.
If they had to meet zero discharge, they'd have to
shut down their water plants because the raw water
that they put through their plants can't meet those
standards.
The base flow of the streams are the same
water. It's not ground-water quality, so the base
flow of the stream itself does not even meet those
standards. And so how can you apply zero dis-
charge standards where the ambient quality in those
streams doesn't meet the requirements?
Duane L. Whiting, Kennecott Copper Corp., 1515
Mineral Square, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111:
I believe that the answer to part of that question is
to allow a consideration so that you are allowed to
discount or subtract the amount of contaminant
from the amount that you are discharging. In this
way, you are not penalized for the amount of
contaminants in the raw water.
Wallace D. Robison, The Anaconda Company, Star
Route 1, Box 140, Heber, Utah 84032: Presently,
we are operating in Utah where we have natural
ground-water flow out of the mine about 8,000
gpm. It doesn't meet class C standards for the
State of Utah which means the water can be used
for recreational purposes other than swimming, fish
raising, livestock raising, pasture. Class C standards
are a lot more lax than our Drinking Water
Standards. But presently, this water that's going
out of the mine would flow even if the mines were
shut down. It's been doing this for the past 8 years.
It doesn't meet the requirements in terms of
sulfates, manganese or iron and yet the EPA
classifies this as a discharge, as an industrial dis-
charge, and the route that we're taking with that,
and the EPA is working along with us, is a non-
degradation policy. In other words, we can't do
anything to that water to decrease the present
quality. We're not going to be required to clean it
up and there's nothing we could do even if we
shut it down. With this zero discharge thing coming
in, I think that the law is going to have to be more
specific to a particular industry. It can't be a blanket
thing across the nation. You have to treat industry
different than you have to treat municipalities. You
have to treat mining different than manufacturing.
Kent Ballentine: I believe the effluent guidelines do
that. They go industry by industry to define what
BPT is and what BAT is.
Unknown Speaker: The heat standards require that
the water temperature not be raised more than,
what, 5 degrees, something like this. If this in fact is
the case, there are an awful lot of people that would
have to put coolers on their effluents because the
ground water they're pumping in the winter time is
warmer than the water they're pumping in the
spring! It just seems like somebody had their head
in the sand when they were writing these things.
Harold E. Thomas, Resources Development
Associates, P.O. Box 239, Los Altos, California
94022: Are there generally rules for zero discharge?
For instance if you have a farm with 9 cows, is that
zero discharge?
Kent Ballentine: As I understand it, if a farmer has
a certain number of animal units, he would have to
have a permit. He'd be classified as a feedlot and
he'd have to have a permit for discharge of waste.
Harold Thomas: Even when he's doing this on his
own land?
196
-------
Kent Ballentine: Well, from his own land to
navigable water. In other words, the permit program
is for discharges to the navigable waters of the
country. If they have no discharge, they don't need
a permit. There is no permit required right now for
that type of thing—at least not that I'm aware of.
Harry LeGrand, U.S.G.S., Box 2857, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27602: I can foresee in the future the
concept that might be called acceptable or tolerable,
which might be adopted as far as the ground
environment is concerned. If we could put all of
our waste into saturated zones all over the world, I
think that would be a nice place to put it. But, of
course, we can't do that. Our wastes are
concentrated where the people are. So, I think that
we are going to,have to set aside certain local
standards where the wastes are and use some sort
of philosophy of tolerance or sanction. This comes
back to the idea that perhaps each waste site in the
population center is an entity in itself.
E. W. Ramsey, Virginia State Water Control Board,
2111 N. Hamilton St., Richmond, Virginia 23230:
One alternative for the future for some wastes—I'm
not saying always—would simply be to dedicate a
certain area, carefully defined geologically,
geographically and engineeringly, which might be
defined to receive these wastes at the expense of a
hazard to ground water. We have heard quite a bit
of comment about the way the legislation presently
exists.
Kent Ballentine: What would you recommend
changing in the legislation to protect ground water?
Would you want to say zero pollutant discharge to
the navigable waters or ground waters?
Unknown Speaker: I think that what you have to
do is evaluate the 'resource in the particular area,
wherever it happens to be and whatever wastes you
have and to deal with these in an intelligent manner,
in a total systems analysis. 1 can envision that you
could call it environmental zoning. You can look at
it and decide that this area is dedicated to waste
disposal. This area over here is going to be dedicated
to growing forests, etc.
Richard M. Tinker, General Electric 816 State St.,
Santa Barbara, California 93013: There have been
several comments alluding to a lot of economic
factors here. I'm working on a project now with 3
economists working on these questions of the
economy involved in monitoring ground-water
quality. Questions are being raised here, and it was
brought up that AWRA might pass a resolution
saying, "Thou shalt not pollute." But, realizing
what the costs involved in going from zero dis-
charge approach might be, I think this is a very
dangerous approach.
Kent Ballentine: The requirements are for the best
available treatment. That's technologically feasible.
Now, the goal is still zero pollutant discharge. The
legal requirements themselves are still best available
technology and I think there is an economic require-
ment on that goal too.
Unknown Speaker: I think that the big problem
here though is that what is a problem in one area
may not be anywhere near that in other areas.
Kent Ballentine: What do you mean by " in other
areas"—do you mean as between 2 different plants?
Unknown Speaker: Well, yes, 2 different plants
perhaps in different locations. One in an arid
environment and one in a humid environment. One
in an area where evaporation is a very viable method
of getting rid of some commodity and in a humid
environment where you're not going to evaporate
anything.
Kent Ballentine: Well, by definition, then, one
would be available to you and one wouldn't. I mean,
the effluent standards that are being developed are
not coming out and saying, "the best available
treatment is this," per se. There are alternatives
available. At least that's the way I understand it.
Paul Plummer: Aren't the best available technology
guidelines for the industries throughout the United
States rather than for various regions?
Kent Ballentine: Yes, but that's not a sole
technology, is it?
Unknown Speaker: We talk about the water pollu-
tion control act as being zero discharge, and you
ask what we can do to prove this thing. Well, what
we ought to say is zero discharge, and exclusively
say that discharge is for ground water also, or
however you want to define that. We say it's zero
discharge to the stream, surface water. Let's include
zero discharge to ground water. We've got to change
the things to where the impact on ground water is
recognized. \
197
-------
Paul Plummer: I think the first thing we have to
recognize is that zero pollutant discharge can never
be a reality in an industrial society. There are still
only 3 places to put wastes—in the air, on the land,
or in the water—all 3 of these must accept some
portion of the wastes. Now, to treat one portion of
the environment at the expense of the others, is
just ridiculous. Or to treat 2 portions at the expense
of the other. Now, somewhere along the line the
goal has got to be rephrased. Okay, a minimum
impact to the environment—that's a goal. Operate
this country so that we have minimum discharge to
the surface water, to the ground and to the air. It
may mean that there's going to be a lot of money
spent to recycle products simply to quit doing
things. There are any number of chemicals you can
name that have simply stopped being manufactured.
We don't make them anymore.
Kent Ballentine: You say minimum. Minimum by
what standards? Minimum means something
different to each individual. If you're going to
minimize waste discharge, how do you
quantitate a standard?
Paul Plummer: I don't know. But it seems to me,
for example, it takes about 44 tons of coal to treat
one million gallons a day of sewage at 85% pollutant
removal. And if I remember right, it's going to
probably take another 44 tons to get to 97%. We've
put the same water in the river, get a little bit of
solar energy and a little bit of gravity, and you
achieve the same result. That is, no impact on the
streams. At least nothing you can measure. We've
got to define our priorities.
Gerald Meyer, U.S.G.S., Reston, Virginia 22092:
Well, it seems to me that management's toying with
this zero discharge mission, and I think anyone of
us in the same position would have set the same
goal and used the same language and hoped for the
best. It's a standard management tool that you
shoot higher than one can achieve. To do otherwise
admits defeat at the start. It seems to me also that
the ground-water industry should adopt the same
philosophy, an unrealistic, unattainable goal of zero
discharge to the ground-water environment, and
enjoy the same benefits that the surface-water
system enjoys.
Kent Ballentine: Zero always gives you something
you can compare against.
Unknown Speaker: I think Jerry's got a good
198
point. I'd like to distinguish,between the goal of
zero discharge and the application of technology
to the concept of discharge to the surface water and
discharge to the air. The important legal factor that
distinguishes ground water and concerns the EPA
is that the ground-water regime is not being used, in
realistic terms, to recognize what the geological
restraints are and therefore, I would try to get
legislative action or review the definition of the
terms to recognize the ground-water quality as it
exists, and then allow certain acceptable levels of
discharge of pollutants through the ground water
just as certain levels of pollution are now being
allowed to discharge through the air and streams.
Furthermore, we all know that dispersion is an
important factor in ground-water quality and that
the same factor of dispersion is acceptable in
discharging through the surface water.
Jerry O'Brien, Singer-Layne Northern Division,
5520 S. Harding St., Indianapolis, Indiana 46277:
Phraseology is the case here tonight. We talk about
zero discharge in the streams and zero discharge into
the ground water and I'm a little puzzled here about
what we mean by zero discharge in the ground
water. We certainly don't mean the zero discharge
in the ground itself?
Kent Ballentine: Yes, we're talking about general
zero pollutant discharge, not zero water discharge.
Jerry O'Brien: The ground water—the ground, it
makes a lot of difference.
Unknown Speaker: We're back to the point where
I questioned before. Where do we measure the
chemical characteristics of the discharge?
Kent Ballentine: As I read the proposed regs, it's
at the end of the pipe. *
Harry LeGrand: Coming back to my point again,
if we say that we can't contaminate the ground
water in Akron, to me, that means that we can't
drill a well and put waste in it. This doesn't mean
that we can't put waste on the ground. I'm afraid
that some regulation might be read that might be
rephrased.
Kent Ballentine: These regs are talking about land
disposal on the surface of the ground.
Glen L. Faulkner, 325 John Knox Road, Suite F241,
U.S.G.S., Tallahassee, Florida 32303: We all agree
-------
that there should be no discharge directly to ground
water. At the same time he's saying let's don't
wipe out any legal discharge to the land surface
because there is treatment between the land surface
and the water tank. Because if you eliminate the
discharge to the land surface, then what do you
have?
Unknown Speaker: How do you resolve the
situation of irrigation? You're discharging perfect
quality water and still degrading ground water
through concentration of salts and so forth. To me
this doesn't fit. I'm not one to stop all the irrigation
in the West, because it's a valuable use. But, you've
got to take into consideration these uses which
tend to degrade ground water.
Gerald Meyer: When you start using technical
intelligence and good reasoning in trying to balance
allowable pollution of ground water and discharge
of pollutants to ground water as compared with zero
pollution goals of surface water, then we're adding
an intelligence to our discussion that was not present
when the zero discharge goal was instituted for
surface water. I think we should meet it on the
same grounds, and discard all the technical
items for protecting ground water. Discard the
standards approach which is a hairy one, and
simply carry picket signs around petitioning for zero
discharge of pollution of the ground water, as a
comparable goal, and then get beaten back from that
solution.
Kent Ballentine: You assume you're going to lose
before you start.
Gerald Meyer: You have everything to gain that
way.
Clinton Hall: It seems obvious to me that you
cannot legislate an environmental law that will
specifically address each individual user situation
and define the best solution for that situation. On
the other hand, you cannot simply write a law that
says that we're evaluating situations eventually and
do what is best for God and country because if
you do, you have a law that you cannot implement.
So you have to do something in between. And this
is when you come to standards. I don't care what
kind of standards you set, you're always going to
have the man from Texas whose native water is of
a lower quality than the standards you set. He's
not going to be happy. You have to draw a line
somewhere and apply the standards as best you can.
Gerald Meyer: Or change the law.
Clinton Hall: What are you going to change it to
that's not going to have the same inherent problems?
Unknown Speaker: Well, I think the zero pollution
discharge goal is unrealistic and everyone here seems
to agree with that, and yet if it is unrealistic, isn't
that a goal you can change?
Clinton Hall: What would you put in its place that
wouldn't open up more loopholes?
Kent Ballentine: Jerry, do you think we should try
to protect all ground waters with the same degree.
that we're trying to protect all navigable waters?
Unknown Speaker: I don't see that there's any
reason for equating the 2 in those terms—because
we're doing it for one we should do it for the other.
I think we should use the ammunition or the weak-
nesses of zero discharge to surface water as a tool
for accomplishing some reasonable measure of
protection to ground water.
Jay Lehr, Executive Director, National Water Well
Association, Columbus, Ohio 43215: One of the
problems that ground water faces in trying to be
protected, that has been an easier road for 'surface
water, is that there are so many vested interests
that care about surface water—the fishermen, the
voters, the waters users and even the —
Kent Ballentine: They're recognized as public
waters.
Jay Lehr: That's right, and there are so many
groups that are involved that care. If you do some-
thing wrong you are liable'to step on a variety of
toes. Ground water has very few friends. We've got,
an absolutely invisible lobby of individual home-
owners that have no collective voice. You've got a
few cities that have their own thing going and use
massive quantities of ground water. You've got
small rural areas that don't have much more voice
than the vested owners. So we've got a resource
that really when stepped on, you can't hear it say
"ouch" very loudly. And this is to me tremendous
cause for concern. It needs a much greater
champion than it has. It's not inconceivable to me
that ground water as a viable water supply in the
future, could be totally destroyed. This could
happen.
199
-------
Kent Ballentine: Let me amplify one thing you said
there. Surface water has been recognized as public.
The law does not apply to the private lake on a
man's property. Ground water hasn't had that
benefit. It's always been looked upon as private
property. So, the public has not had the concern for
somebody else's private property. If it's ever
recognized as a public resour.ee, then you may
have a different legal approach.
Harry LeGrand: We talk about the ultimate of zero
pollution of streams, but we can never get zero
pollution for ground water. It's absolutely impos-
sible to get zero pollution.
Kenneth Webb: You're never going to get zero
pollution in the streams either, Harry, you know
that.
Harry LeGrand: The only thing you're going to
accomplish is the cleaning up of a few pipes that
are going out into the streams. When you equate
the total pollution load with what you can manage
under any law like this, certain things are excluded.
There's certainly no control of land runoff from
any broad-based agriculture. What are you going to
accomplish when you spend a tremendous amount
of money? Now, you're putting all this back in the
ground. What you need to do is get something that's
realistic.
Unknown Speaker: For the record, and for those
who might read the transactions of this meeting, I
think it is important that we reemphasize and
reinforce what Jay Lehr said. If these provisions of
this bill set up a situation that sets in motion those
conditions that contaminate a large part of the
aquifers of our country, I think our children and
our grandchildren are going to be pretty sore at us.
Harold Thomas: When you consider the people
who are commanded to make zero discharge, you
wonder "where are they?" They must be somewhere
close to the stream.
Unknown Speaker: I would like to say that
certainly our investigations by EPA show that an
awfully large part of the pollution in the aquifer
comes from what we call non-point sources,
correct? And I think this is what Dr. Thomas was
referring to.
Kent Ballentine: Of course, there are now control
techniques to reduce non-point sources of pollution.
You're not going to eliminate them perhaps, but
you can reduce them.
David Johe: I think one of the problems is we're
all sitting here discussing this and we all agree.
But, we're talking to the wrong people. We should
go on record as saying, number one, this zero
discharge is not impossible, but it's impractical and
it's ridiculous. We should go further and say we
realize wastes will be discharged, so let's minimize,
let's come up with the best solution we can for all
3 regimes, let's come to a happy medium.
Jay Lehr: The purpose of this meeting I think is
to talk to each other and come up with a body of
knowledge, which is today's thought in ground-
water science. Hopefully, what we say here—if we
do our job—may be read by someone who isn't here;
any ideas as to how to get it read will be appreciated.
Gerald Meyer: This may be off the record. Jay,
you mentioned getting the group opinion of ground-
water science, but in what way is the collective
wisdom of ground-water science so valuable to the
question that's posed here? I'm not clear on that
point at all. What are the qualifications of someone
with a ground-water background, whatever it may
be, to decide what's good and bad with respect to
ground-water pollution? I would like very much to
hear a little discussion of that point as to how
ground-water people can take such a firm stand
on such a complex social and economic issue, and
what there is in their job descriptions that makes
them so freely make this position their own.
Kent Ballentine: Let me ask Jay a question
first—it concerns your observations of the water
supply bill. Now there is no reference in that bill
that I can find about zero pollution discharge. The
standards that are mandated in that bill, are
primarily to meet drinking water standards. So, if
you discharge pollutants that don't cause the ground
water to exceed those standards there's no problem.
Is that right?
Jay Lehr: That's right.
Kent Ballentine: Will the water supply bill in effect
undercut the goals of P.L. 92-500?
Jay Lehr: Well, if one was to think that P.L. 92-500
addresses itself to all water, sure. I am not aware
that P.L. 92-500 figures where we are going to put
any of our wastes. I never read, to my way of think-
200
-------
ing, that it applied to ground water, but it certainly
is not that impractical approach of saying zero
discharge. It is, I think, a much more practical
approach. It doesn't say that there would be no
waste disposal. It just says that it has to be regulated
so that it won't destroy potentially potable water.
Kent Ballentine: But the ground-water supply
standards, per se, don't mandate that nobody put
any pollutants on the ground?
Jay Lehr: Absolutely not.
Unknown Speaker: We should educate people in
hydrology, because it's all clear to us that we
recognize the relationship between surface water
and ground water. When people are educated in
hydrology, then decisions can be made as to what's
best for the water, what's best for the environment.
Kent Ballentine: Well, the public is welcome to
comment on documents like this report on best
practicable treatment—it's put out for comment.
Unknown Speaker: I think ground-water scientists
play a role in emphasizing the fact that water
pollution does exist. One of the reasons why ground
water has been left out of a lot of legislation is the
fact that so many people don't really understand or
believe that ground water can even be polluted.
I'd like to see more agencies at least bringing these
problems to the public's attention.
Kent Ballentine: I believe that some of the Section
208 areawide studies will address ground water now.
It's up to the planning agency to make certain that
it's done.
G. F. Hendricks, Sieio Inc. Consulting Engineers,
309 Washington St., Columbus, Indiana 47201:
The ground-water people have a responsibility to
talk about these things and make sure that the
public or John Q. Congressman knows the
difference between surface water and ground water.
Kent Ballentine: The Drinking Water Standards
are not cast in concrete; they change periodically,
as new evidence comes in. If the allowable concen-
tration is suddenly changed, how do you handle
something like that?
Jay Lehr: Practically speaking, the standards don't
change. They haven't changed since—what's the
last standard, '65?
Kent Ballentine: Well, there are interim standards
that are out. But what I'm saying is that, for
instance, if new evidence is found, and arsenic or
something may have its allowable concentration
changed.
Jay Lehr: Sure, it means adjusting practices that
may have been going on that weren't considered to
be polluting; all of a sudden they're polluting.
They're shut down.
Kent Ballentine: But I'm saying, should you just
meet drinking water standards, or do you want to
say, we only want to have 50% of the allowable
value? Do you want to put a factor of safety in
there just in case something changes?
Jay Lehr: Well, I think that's an alternate
possibility. I just thought of 2 words that might
answer Jerry's argument, why the ground-water
community, ground-water scientists think they
should be ruling the roost in this particular area in
determining how ground water should be managed.
The 2 words would be, "by default," because
nobody else has ever attempted to..
John Wilson, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts
02142: I'd like to comment on what Jay was
saying relative to Drinking Water Standards for
ground-water supplies. My comment is that this
seems to be doing exactly what was done relative
to surface water some years ago. We used stream
standards, perhaps one day when we're econom-
ically in control, we will find that zero discharge
can be a practical means. Shouldn't we now
attack ground-water supplies from these more
advanced stages rather than going exactly the same
course as was taken earlier for surface water? We
could have a systematic assessment of ground-water
supplies which we could use—rather than using a
set standard—in this case Drinking Water Standards.
Unknown Speaker: Why are we trying to protect
surface water? All I read in here is "propagation of
fish, shellfish and wildlife." I don't know where
health comes into it.
Unknown Speaker: I go back to a classic. There is
a classic that everybody should read, a book called
the "Conversation of Ground Water," published
by Resources for the Future in 1947. Is that the
right author? It's not at all out of date. One of the
examples is a very exciting one. That is, it relates
some of the technical and economic aspects of
201
-------
saline water contamination of the Baltimore
industrial area, and the surrounding areas. But, if
one were to take the kind of stringent controls that
we envision here for ground water and apply them
back at the turn of the century in the Baltimore
industrial area, there would perhaps be no more
Baltimore industrial area and Bethlehem
Steel stock would be on the way down. Thousands
upon thousands of families would have had to live
elsewhere. So there are a tremendous number of
benefits that have accrued to this country from the
Bethlehem Steel plant and the entire Sparrows
Point complex that would have been
perhaps stopped or certainly greatly slowed if
we'd been concerned about the contamination of
ground water.
Arnold Schiffman: I'm from Maryland and the
salt water was really not that great. Some of it was
defined as 15 mg/1. For another thing there was
another alternative. They were pumping during
World War II. A choice could have been made and
wasn't because, let's don't forget, no one knew
about the problem of salt-water intrusion. They
took an easy way out.
Unknown Speaker: Could you clarify a point for
me? I worked in the Baltimore industrial area. We
were called into the area in 1941 or so because there
was a very serious ground-water contamination
problem. So, I don't know what your point is.
Arnold Schiffman: What I'm saying was that with
sufficient knowledge, there was an alternative to
it. They didn't have to cause intrusion. They could
have pulled from deeper strata.
Unknown Speaker: Well, one of the problems was
corrosion of well casings—contamination of the
fresh-water aquifer. The whole system was involved.
Arnold Schiffman: I agree that had the ground-
water resources not been developed, we wouldn't
have had the industrial wastes. I got the impression
that you said just go ahead and contaminate it
without thinking about it.
Unknown Speaker: No, what I'm saying is that
once they realized that it was contaminated that it
did not deter them. They continued with their
pumping when some alternate sources were
available to them. Without that long-range thinking,
I don't think the Bethlehem Steel plant would be
where it is today.
Jay Lehr: I'd like to try one more answer at Jerry
about what makes ground-water scientists think
they're capable of answering these things. I think
with proper education and this kind of discussion,
we can bring" ground-water scientists to the under-
standing that we don't need zero discharge, or we
can have zero discharge, then go a step further and
actually do some purposeful, I won't call it
polluting, let's say storage of wastes. It doesn't
necessarily have to be detrimental, but I strongly
feel that ground-water scientists have to be in
charge because first of all as a body of scientists
they're as intelligent as any other discipline-
probably too softly spoken, but just as intelligent.
Obviously we need interdisciplinary work. We need
input from a lot of organizations. But I don't
think that there's any other particular group that
has any better right to, let's say, lead in the
making of these decisions as to how we're going to
use and abuse our ground-water resources.
Ultimately, it's the thorough understanding of
the ground-water environment that I think will
dictate more of the decisions than, let's say, any
unique economic factors. I think we have probably
a better knowledge of other people's fields than
they do of ours.
Kent Ballentine: I'm just curious as to how many
ground-water people have commented on these
regulations, even though they don't directly apply
to ground water. I bet there's very, very few.
Unknown Speaker: On the same line, you point
up what a small part anybody in the ground-water
discipline had to do with the drafting of P.L.
92-500. Ground water was put in very obviously by
interlineation. There is no ground-water language
in this thing at all. It's an insert throughout and no
ground-water man was allowed in that drafting.
Kent Ballentine: EPA makes comments to the
committee on the various drafts.
Unknown Speaker: But the language of that law
doesn't include any ground-water terms, no
treatment with respect to knowledge or input to
ground water at all.
Kent Ballentine: If you read the committee's
report, ground water was a deliberate omission.
The Senate committee comes right out and says
that. Their reasoning is rather obscure, but they
say they deliberately omitted ground water because
it was so complex.
202
-------
Unknown Speaker: Well, we agree with them that
it's complex, but if they're going to write acts that
'affect us, then that's a premature act which puts us
in a spot.
Kent Ballentine: Well, this is one reason why Jay is
working so hard on the drinking water bill because
this gives you an opportunity to get some input.
Jay Lehr: In 1864, the judge said it was a
mysterious cult, and in 1972 the Senate-said it was
too complex. Nobody understood.
Arnold Schiffman: What do you think of a plan to
tie together surface-water permits with "ground-
water discharge permits." You hit them with the
surface water, and you hit them with the ground
water. Not on a different level, but on the same
level as the surface water.
Unknown Speaker: As a scientist, it's rather
arbitrary for you to package in one bill that's
concerned with abatement or prevention of
pollution or whatever, because that's only one side
of the coin. The other side of the coin is the need
to dispose of wastes. So to be an objective scientist,
it's rather arbitrary for you to take a strong adamant
position on one side of it, without taking a look at
the other side.
Unknown Speaker: We've heard a lot about the
deficiencies of P.L. 92-500. And I think we all agree
that there are a lot of deficiencies, but I don't think
we've heard very much about what you need to
replace those deficiencies. This would be a proper
area for NWWA to get involved in.
Jay Lehr: We've talked to many senators and
congressmen about drafting a companion bill, so to
speak, or aground-water bill. There's a growing
interest, but it's got a long way to go. Our initial
feeling was that we need a broad ground-water law,
but a lot of people I've talked to in the last week
have made me recognize the alternate possibility
that we can also look at having no federal law as
being a blessing and that we might have time to
go one by one to the States. We might improve
things by going to councils, State governments;
working out a State law that would not have the
automatic drawbacks that a federal law has with the
czar that is always an agency in the federal
bureaucracy. We've already got a project, a State
law, that might bring something like this to
fruition in a couple of years.
Kent Ballentine: Well, I think as a final summary
statement, we can say that zero pollutant discharge
is still an unresolved issue. There is some question
of whether it's technologically feasible or whether
it's even desirable. I think each person here owes it
to his profession and to himself that when the
various regulatory agencies such as EPA, the State
EPA's and other agencies, come out with these kind
of regulations, that you comment on them. Those
of us who work at agencies well know, if you don't
get the comments in, you don't get the attention.
You may not think it helps but it really does.
Jay Lehr: The most important thing that might
come out of this meeting tomorrow is that people
who came here go away feeling that they are really
a part of something that they never felt a part of
before. To be very honest, the National Water Well
Association Technical Division exists by and large
as a group of subscribers to the Journal of Ground
Water, and they have never been to meetings as a
group before and never really been involved as a part
of any national organization working with any
single-minded goal. We might achieve a beginning to
that. If we do, we'll begin to feel more guilty when
part of that group don't read and comment on
standards like this. Maybe there will not be another
P.L. 92-500 come by without massive comments
by our segment of scientific endeavor on legislation
like that. Because we've been so splintered and had
no feeling of being a part of something like that,
we've been able to be totally divided and completely
conquered by other interests.
Kent Ballentine: As one example right now, the
Section 106 regs on monitoring are out for public
comment and there's a section in there on ground-
water monitoring including what EPA is going to
require. I don't know if anybody here has seen them
or read them, but I would advise you to. I'm not
sure of the date they were published in the Federal
Register, but they're out.
Horace Sutcliffe, Jr., U.S.G.S., 232 Rawls Ave.,
Sarasota, Florida 33574: How many of you
gentlemen sitting here tonight in the last 30 days
have spoken to a Lion's Club or a Rotary Club?
Anybody? Two, three. I'll put my hand up—5. We're
talking now about regulations of an industry and
dissemination of information from a body of
scientists through a political body which consists
of shoe salesmen, real estate, a few lawyers, and
these are the people that control our dollars at
home, in your hometown or wherever you work.
203
-------
They know absolutely nothing about ground water
99% of the time, but all of them belong to some
civic organization, including economists and
senators. Believe me if you want something to
happen, this is the place to start it. Now, Jay has
started this with the drillers; formed a speaker's
bureau at least in Florida which is active. This is
one of our answers to education, but it takes
individual efforts.
Jay Lehr: We have an editorial in the October
issue of the Water Well Journal about how easy it
is to get on a civic association program and give
them a few minutes of very basic education and
open their eyes and get them involved. In the
legislative area, the Association has to take a more
active role in prodding members to read and
comment on these things. I don't think we've done
it before. Maybe more people will look up and
listen. I think Jerry Meyer has a point about who
gave us the right to do it. I think we really do have
a right. We've absolutely got to do it and obviously
nobody is going to do it for us. I think that general
public education is critically important in the next
couple of years. One point that's brought up
tomorrow will be to change the name of the
National Water Well Association to the National
Ground Water Association.
Kent Ballentine: Is that one word or two?
Jay Lehr: It's definitely two!
Kent Ballentine: On that little argument, I think
we'll stand adjourned.
* Editor's Note: Mr. Ballentine cites his error here. The point for application
of the drinking-water source criteria at a land disposal site is where the effluent
enters the saturated zone.
204
-------
Bull Session — Lesser Known Ground-Water
Pollution Hazards
Session Moderator: Robert C. Minning, President,
Keck Consulting Services, 4903 Dawn Avenue,
East Lansing, Michigan 48823.
Robert Minning, Moderator: The Bull Session this
evening is Lesser Known Ground-Water Pollution
Hazards and the connotation of that I'm sure is
open to as many opinions as there are people in
this room. And so this evening if we can, let's just
try and exchange some thoughts, ideas, what have
you, on some of your ideas about what lesser
known ground-water pollution hazards may be. -
And to start it off, I'd like to throw one out
for discussion. It's a personal matter that we have
been involved in, in that a municipality has put in
some municipal wells and furnished water supply,
non-municipal water supply, to a local system.
Previous to that, there was no system, but all the
residents' needs at that time had been furnished
by private wells. There is no provision, at present,
for the maintenance or abandonment of the private
wells for all these homeowners, and we're talking
in the order of about 3,000 wells, which penetrate
and draw water from the same aquifer as the
municipal system. Although it's a widely-known
pollution hazard, I'm not really sure how you go
about handling it or if these things have been taken
into consideration in any other area of the country.
If statutes are written, should this be part of the
ordinance?
Joseph W. Miller, Jr., New Jersey Bureau of
Geology and Topography, 4151 Princeton Pike,
Princeton, New Jersey 08540: About a 2-square
mile area in, a coastal plain, I can't go any further
on that, was contaminated by chemical pollution.
The town fathers passed an ordinance, that all wells
of the affected area had to be abandoned. They are
putting in city water for the people.
Robert Minning: But this was an ordinance that
was passed by the people?
Joseph W. Miller, Jr.: Yes, last week.
Thomas Ahrens, 240 Jersey Street, Denver,
Colorado 80220: There is another way they
handled it in California, across the bay from San
Francisco—they put in an improvement system.
Then they proceeded to require all existing wells
to have a permit and since they would not give any
permits, they sealed them. A friend of mine up there
had a well out in the back yard and it was sealed;
they couldn't use it.
Robert Minning: Who paid for that?
Thomas Ahrens: The State paid for it.
Robert Minning: The State paid for the sealing
and abandonment of all wells?
Thomas Ahrens: No, they did not seal them or
anything, they just could not use them.
Unidentified Questioner from the Floor: What is
the reason for abandonment of these, if they had to
break up cross connections so that they could use
these wells to water grass or something like this?
Or are you just trying to seal up the abandoned
wells with pumps (inaudible) or do you want to
fix it so they cannot even use the ones that have
pumps on them?
205
-------
Robert Minning: No, I feel that all the wells will
be abandoned simply because the lowering of the
water table in the area will force the abandonment
eventually of all the wells. Yet there is no provision
to have these things sealed, plugged, or what have
you.
Thomas Ahrens: But on the other hand, I would
agree with Bill, I do not see why they should; after
all, that is personal property and I do not see
why that law—what they did in California— is
constitutional, unless they —
From the Floor: I would say, the thing is, ground
water is public property, not private property in
California.
Thomas Ahrens: Yes, but a well is private property.
From the Floor: But you are using a public
resource. And they can control you in the use of
that resource.
Thomas Ahrens: Not without just compensation.
From the Floor: Is this a law?
Thomas Ahrens: I am not sure what the law is, I
was just there. I saw their well and asked them if
they were using it and they told me what had
happened. They said all the wells in that area had
been sealed and there are no private wells and they
all had to go into the public system.
Robert Minning: Have you had any experience,
Wayne, on this?
Wayne Pettyjohn, Ohio State University, Depart-
ment of Geology and Mineralogy, Columbus, Ohio
43210: Well, in a part of Columbus now, they are
putting in some water lines. Of course, a lot of
people had wells and septic tanks before and the
people can still use those wells for watering the
yard. If I had one I would certainly do that instead
of paying for city water, because you are paying a
sewer charge for filling swimming pools, and so on,
and as long as the wells are maintained, and water
cannot be withdrawn from them, I do not see why
they could not be used. I would be very much
opposed to a blanket plating of wells just because
there is a public water system.
Robert Minning: Is there a cross connection
stipulation?
From the Floor: That is the thing they have to
worry about because if there is a cross connection,
then the Health Department can close them down
in almost every State, I think you will find, and so
there is danger that if people have their own well,
a lot of times they will just stick a valve on it so
that they can go on and use their own water. So
there should be some law on that.
Thomas Ahrens: I know they do have a law or two
in New Mexico.
Joseph Miller: In New Jersey, you cannot have
cross connections.
Thomas Ahrens: They have a law in New Mexico,
where if the well is leaking or is not properly
sealed, they are told to repair it. If they do not,
the State comes in and does it and that goes on their
tax bill and has the same status, you might say, as a
land tax. In other words, if they do not pay it,
they can sell the property and collect the money
that way.
From the Floor: Tom, can they do this on oil wells
too, in that State?
Thomas Ahrens: It does not apply to oil wells.
From the Floor: Isn't that cute?
Thomas Ahrens: Yes.
Robert Minning: Only to water wells?
Thomas Ahrens: Just to water wells.
Robert Minning: This is a local ordinance or a
State statute?
Thomas Ah/ens: State statute. And the State
Engineer administers it.
Robert Minning: Does anyone else have any experi-
ence? Greg, have you had any in Ohio?
Greg Stockert, Stockert Drilling Co., Inc., 1372 N.
Wooster Ave., Strasburg, Ohio 44680: As far as
the mass plugging of wells in an area, not as yet.
The Health Board is taking a look (inaudible) and
they are constantly checking on it but as far as
mass (inaudible).
Dale Vern: There are several of the States in the
206
-------
West, of course, that have this kind of a law.
Hawaii, for instance, is one of the leaders in this
sort of thing, particularly in their artesian zones on
Oahu, where they have a very tight control. Any
well that is taken out of use at any time must be
either sealed or re-equipped according to specific
instructions from the State Engineer. I think even
in the New Mexico case, the oil wells are subject
to the same law, within that zone of fresh water.
This is pretty general in most of the States, at least
that I am aware of.
Robert Minning: We don't have to stay on this
particular item—the idea of the session is to let
anybody talk about anything they want to. If you
have something to say or have a question you
would like to, ask, let's just keep it open and
informal.
William H. Walker, Illinois State Water Survey,
Urbana, Illinois 61801: I notice that we are going
more toward hazardous spill concern in this
country, with laws and things. It seems to me this
might fit into this unusual category because they
are hauling everything over the roads and railroads
in this country. We had 2 hazardous spills recently
in Illinois, for example. One was 25,000 gallons of
cyanide that was dumped out into a corn field in a
railroad accident. They contained this within a
levee, half-moon-wise, around the railroad. That
was in November 1969. They are still working to
clear it up. They have spent well over a million
and a half dollars on it so far. They thought they
could put HTH on top of the ground and let this
take care of it; however, they found cyanide is
down in this clay on top of the water-bearing
formation and they are having to dig up this clay
and pulverize it to get the HTH to work with the
cyanide type of stuff. So some of the spills like this
are very long-lasting and can be potentially
hazardous from a ground-water standpoint. Another
thing too, had this wreck occurred just a quarter
mile down the track, it would have fallen into a
stream that fed the lake that feeds this town, so it
seems to me that even though this is not the kind
of thing maybe we are concerned with, it is in one
sense, in that it affects ground water indirectly, or
could conceivably do so. In the other sense, I think
we ought to look at hazardous chemical hauling
over the roads, from our profession, with a little
bit more concern than we have in the past. And
along that line, I would like to see somebody
submit some good laws on this, with our input
into it, because everybody is passing laws right
now, without input.
Jim Howard, Moody and Associates, Inc., R.D. 4,
Cotton Road, Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335:
We have spent a great deal of time on the legal
aspects—perhaps we should get back to the
lighter things. It is a very worthwhile continuing
endeavor, and I am not sure what the other
peoples' experience has been, but as far as actually
handling those accidents that occur, we are doing
very little about dispensing technology and
procedures on how to do it. We have been working
in our company with hydrocarbons and with
hazardous materials for a couple of years now, and
during that time, I have bounced off EPA and
several other organizations that did not want to
hear about it. The first paper I have heard yet that
dealt even in a general sense, with some of the
mechanisms—although there are a few papers—API
has one out—the first paper I have heard about
hydrogeology concerning potential mechanisms
and geologic interaction adequate to analyze
movement, other than leaching, was today. Now
there are a lot of other things for example, ethylene
glycol, which are heavier than water, and interest-
ing to handle. In a stream, it drops down through it
nicely, having high specific gravity. It is heavier
than water, it has a high specific gravity, it has
completely different requirements for handling.
Yet, we are not even working among ourselves or
concentrating on letting each other know what
techniques and procedures may work. So we are
talking about laws when we are not even attacking
the situations that exist. Now again today, I think
Osgood said that since 1971, we have had 300
reported occurrences in Pennsylvania. In other
States, I know, that are near Pennsylvania, there
are a number of the American Petroleum Institute
people who are attempting to handle this problem
without high public relations emphasis. This is
admirable, no problem with that. You fight for
yourself and these guys, the ones I know, are
qualified to tackle it. But, in one State I know, the.
State has heard of 12 spills approximately in a year.
The man who handles it for API receives nearly 45
a month and on that basis, I would feel that very
probably even the ones that are really serious could
be up to 100 a year. Three hundred reports in
Pennsylvania sounds like a rather large sum;
however, 45 times 12 is a little larger. At any rate,
the mere fact is that we are not communicating or
emphasizing among ourselves the context of how do
you tackle this thing. I have mentioned too, only
207
-------
one thing—hydrocarbons—there are 5,000 of these
things coming out, sooner or later from the EPA.
Somehow we have got to get together on our own.
William Walker: Over in Britain, Harwell, which is
the Atomic Energy Commission sort of thing over
there, they have an emergency hook-up such that
people all over the British Isles are on duty 24
hours a day in case of a spill. They have the labels
so that they can go out and, for example, if a
policeman sees a truck overturned, there is labeling
on it so that he can call in immediately on this red
telephone. They have a helicopter rigged with all
sorts of emergency gear and testing equipment and
everything else. They can fly to the site. They
have a trailer rigged up so that they do this same
sort of thing. These people are schooled in how to
do this, and they must notify these people. This
started because a woman came upon a wreck a few
months ago over there and she did not know what
it was; she saw the driver was in trouble and got
out of her car and walked across the road. The
wreck was some vile acid and there was a pond of
it there by this time, the acid fumes overcame her,
she fell into the acid and was practically consumed.
After that, well, they got more concerned about
this type of thing. So here are the kinds of things
being hauled over the road, and there is no way of
standardizing all of Europe. I tried to check on
this, they have a different system all over, but
there should be a way of looking at a truck that is
turned over; for instance, just have one simple
numbering system and a color code maybe, so that
the police can say I've got a red 5 and they know
that a red 5 is something. And then he can read a
number off of that truck that is on a computer, for
instance, and then call a red 5 number truck
at the end and any truck that is shipped has to be
listed for that day on what it was carrying. That
way, then, he would know to evacuate the area or
whatever. One fellow told me that gasoline by
itself, if you have a wreck, is not too harmful, but
it makes a pretty good boom. Then he named some-
thing else, and I do not know the chemical, he says
.that one makes a pretty good boom, but, he says,
with all of these trucks on the road carrying both
of those things, sometime, somewhere in the world,
something is going to happen and they are going to
come together. He says, if those two ever come
together, it is going to look almost like a hydrogen
bomb blast, because it would pulverize everything
for a half-mile to a mile around. This is the kind
of thing, it seems to me, that if each one of these
people are trying to take care of their own, I think
it is a bigger job than that. I think we owe more
to this thing than to say that they are doing a
good job. I think something should be done
tomorrow so that they —
Jim Howard: I might not rebut but add a little bit
to that. I think my point is the fact that we need to
keep control over attacks on legislation. No matter
what laws are passed, we cannot abolish carelessness
or accidents 100 percent and until we ourselves
have developed the technology and approaches, to
make sure that as technologists, consultants,
company people, whoever we are, we are able to go
out and handle those emergency situations, you are
going to continue to have the things happen like
block-long elements of New York City blow up,
which happens fairly regularly, according to a buddy
of mine in New York City. Or you are going to have
the communications system for Indianapolis and the
Army payroll center wiped out because of gasoline
contamination that eats through all insulation and
their materials. But the problem is to know how to
tackle those things. There is one job where they
pulled in an electrical engineering firm to handle
the recovery of the hydrocarbons. So they are now
becoming experts at hydrocarbon recovery on Bell
System money. We are not even saying we can do
it, but those of us who have had a little experience,
pooling with the others who have had it, can make
the job a lot more effective.
Robert Minning: One problem from a private con-
sultant's viewpoint, you get a client who hires you,
sometimes you are hired with the understanding
that the State agencies or Federal agencies do not
know a thing about the problem yet. And written
in your contract is that you will not divulge any
information on the project until authorized to do
so. How do you go about exchanging technology
on this basis, and a second thought is—even when
you do develop that, it does take your time and
your effort to write that up and to contact other
people in our profession about that. And how do
you justify that?
Jim Howard: May I answer that as another private
consultant? You may not, under the rules and
ethics of a consultant operation, divulge invorma-
tion concerning a project in which you are involved.
You may, after 5 or 6 or 10 or 12 of these jobs,
put together manuals and discussions of the pro-
cedures for handling this type of situation. You
may ask the company for release of information, or
you may, if you are in Pennsylvania, for example,
208
-------
and are required to submit full reports to the State
because they require the man who hired you to do
so, assume that is not privileged information. Now,
as to how and why you put it out, if I may be
relatively blunt, you, Dick, the other people here
and I are here for a number of reasons. One, be-
cause we wanted to contribute to the profession.
There is a second reason, the practical reason, in
that there are clientele with which we may
eventually w6rk scattered throughout the people
here. There are also competitors. Now in terms of
providing model situations, as I see it, the expertise
which I can bring to bear, or my people can
bring to bear on a given situation, is not going to
be answered by a model situation. Model
situations will give an approach. It must be
modified in view of my own experience and my
own knowledge as a consultant. Therefore, by
giving a model, I am not telling someone how to do
it, I am telling them that it can be done and that
there are methods and technology to handle it or
that there are not methods and technology to
handle it because we blew it, or the USGS blew
it, or the EPA blew it, or Illinois blew it. Again, I
am speaking as a personal opinion, but unless we do
begin to let both ourselves and other people know
that they can be handled, that there are ways of
attacking it, or identify those that we do not know
yet how to attack and learn how to, then, all the
legislation in the world isn't going to help that
much, because even if legislation exists it is going
to be considered that there is no way to solve the
problem.
Bob Scott, U.S. EPA/100 California Street, San
Francisco, California 94111: Do you have a case
history in mind?
Jim Howard: Well, I can take a generalization,
perhaps, although I am not sure that it is com-
pletely valid. I'll take the EPA opinion towards
ground water and hydrocarbon contamination. As
of the conference in Washington a year and a half
ago, when I went to a 4-day meeting on oil spills
and hazardous materials and handling, in which one
paper from Mississippi, as a side issue, mentioned
the fact that some of the spills had gotten into a
gravel deposit. For the purpose of determining
federal market for my company, in terms of
handling hydrocarbons in which 5 projects
were underway with oil companies at that time, I
approached about 4 officials that I feel were
reasonably well up in the areas of EPA, and was
told effectively that they had no authority and were
not really able to talk about it. And at the San
Francisco meeting, dealing with the same subject, I
know at least 2 papers were submitted dealing with
ground-water contamination with hydrocarbons,
but were not accepted because they were not
relevant. That would suggest that the past 2 years
have not made that much change. This means that
they cannot do anything about it, under the law,
therefore it is of no interest. In my opinion, present-
ing papers at a meeting has no reflection on whether
or not there is a legal authority to handle it. That
is not to say that information should not be
disseminated for States, for example, who do have
laws requiring procedures. Again, I am speaking as
an individual.
William Walker: There is a grey area. The State of
Nevada has a hydrocarbon pollution of a ground-
water factor right now. It has been going on since
1971. They have been unable to abate or even
decide the specific cause. They have come to EPA
for assistance and through our technical assistance
responsibilities, I am helping them on with this. In
no other way could I get1 involved with it. In other
words, the States are responsible for ground-water
pollution.
From the Floor: I agree, I am not (inaudible) the
EPA. Are you saying they should assume the
responsibility?
William Walker: No way. They do the laws just
like everybody else.
Jim Howard: Right. The feeling that, since there
was no authority, that even permitting or having a
non-relevant paper dealing with the problem itself
in handling it, within a general symposium, strikes
me as carrying that interpretation of the law a little
too far.
Bob Scott: I did not go to the symposium.
Jim Howard: It was not my paper that was sub-
mitted. I was going to and for other reasons —
From the Floor: Whose symposium was it?
Jim Howard: EPA, API, and the Coast Guard, as
I recall.
Bob Scott: It was surface-water oriented.
Jim Howard: I think the title was "Oil Spills and
209
-------
Hazardous Materials Handling." The last one was
held in Washington about a year and a half ago.
Bob Scott: I am the region 9 hydrologist and I
was not even invited.
From the Floor: The problem is that the environ-
ment people are concerned is not my problem
(inaudible) at the symposium. It is difficult to get
authorization to present a paper that had cleared
(inaudible). It is not that we are not concerned
ourselves but a lot of times it is difficult to get
clearance—the kind we need, even though we have
data which is pertinent both to government, State
and utilities.
Jim Howard: I would not argue with that. He
asked for a case example, I presented one, and that
I think has reinforced my feeling that in NWWA, if
we feel a gap exists, we should make efforts within
our own organization to fill those gaps we can
identify—because of red tape or other problems—I
am not arguing that these problems exist, I was
only using it to point out the gaps which must be
filled and no one else is filling them.
From the Floor: Are you familiar with part C
of the House bill, I think it's HR 13002. That
indicates a gap exists—if that bill does not pass,
perhaps NWWA should move into the vacuum.
Jim Howard: I would suggest that if it passed or
not, in terms of translation of technology, NWWA
should move in anyway to supplement the bill.
From the Floor: I was wondering—Jay Lehr
mentioned in the keynote address about the bill
pending—why there was not a telegram or such
sent from this organization to this meeting in
Washington. I sort of expected something.
Jim Howard: Very simple, there are a number of
reasons. Number one, not everyone agrees with
every facet or portion of the bill which is visible.
There are facets of the bill which may, depending
upon the interpretation of the EPA, provide a
hardship for the drillers, a hardship in terms of
income. As a whole, the NWWA, as I understand
it, is behind this bill. There are provisions of
portions of the bill with which many do not concur
and I do not know what the policy is on organiza-
tional factors. Jay Lehr is serving as a spokesman
for NWWA for that bill. Now I am not too sure
that a telegram would be much more effective
than testimony before Congressional committees
who are responsible for passage of that bill.
Robert Minning: Let me ask a question here—the
discussion was brought up revolving around hydro-
carbons, that Jim brought up. How many people
here have had any experience in hydrocarbon
contamination of ground-water aquifers? Can we
get a discussion going on this? What happened?
What occurred? Why? And how were they solved?
William Walker: I would like to charge this
discussion, though, with the fact that why worry
about little silly things like hydrocarbons that
every one of us can be experts on by smelling or
tasting, unless we want to put chlorinated hydro-
carbons in front of us. Why are we arguing about
these little salts and chlorides and nitrates and
hydrocarbons—you know, sure there are a lot of
them and they are irritating and all that—but are
they all that important when you get down to it?
Everyone that I have ever seen has been in contact
with one isolated well or series of wells that have
been affected, but I think we could cop out on
that one too. I should not have said that maybe,
but I would like to have that addendum studied.
Thomas Ahrens: We had a town that was sitting
on top of a million plus gallons of high octane
gasoline, rising and falling with the tide. One house
caught fire (inaudible). They never found out whose
gas it was, but there is one woman in that town, the
man tells me, that had a pitcher pump. When she
wanted to run her lawnmower, she would go out
and pump. One of the (inaudible) took on the job
of removing the gasoline for the industry and is now
down (inaudible) one-half an inch of water, gasoline,
on top of the water. They did this by pumping and
they are just finishing up after 2 years.
William Walker: There are several gas industries in
this area or just one?
Thomas Ahrens: There are 5 pipelines, and 4 large
oil companies, one major and the major company,
and I cannot say the name did all of the work and
they were reimbursed by the other oil companies.
But this was really a major spill.
California: You say they did not know whose gas
it was. But they had to find out where it was
coming from.
Thomas Ahrens: They know where it was. The
210
-------
State Bureau of Geology went out and with the
head geologist of the oil company, we set out a
pattern and put down observation wells so we
could delineate the area and get cracking on the
pumping job. That would pinpoint the general
area which it came from, right in the middle of the
5 pipelines and right behind them were 3 rings
where great big oil tanks or gasoline tanks had
been removed in the last 5 years. But the
companies said they were not leaking..
California: Mr. Walker doesn't seem to think that
oil, or nitrates or sulfates or chlorides, or anything
along this line are worthy of study. What are
worthy of study?
William Walker: Basically, I think we ought to set
priorities putting the most hazardous at the top
of the list and spend more money and effort and
time on those and spend a minimum of time on
these others. Now granted, you have to work a
little bit in chlorides and nitrates and things to
perfect technology but once you get it done, and
here I have asked a question, how much of this
do we have to do before we prove to everybody
that that is a viable method. But let us accept
some of these as viable methods we know would
work, that we have proved on these cheap ones,
and then get into some of these, because if we can
divert some of these 400 people in here into
working on the real hazardous ones and solve them
first, then these others will kind of take care of
themselves, and even if they did not they would
not kill anybody.
From the Floor: Aren't they localized problems
just as well as the nitrate?
William Walker: They might well be but a localized
problem, such as phenols is much more serious a
problem than a localized problem of nitrate.
Because I have pictured little girls, born and bred,
and raised and everything else on 500 ppm nitrate.
Now, sure, maybe she did not have some brothers
and sisters because of this, but what I am saying
is that one at least made it. I do not think you
would have that much with 500 parts of phenols.
From the Floor: Mr. Walker, the most hazardous
material is radioactive, do you want to get into
that?
William Walker: I think someone should, but I
don't. I tell you, I would not know how to sample
that stuff, quite frankly and it frightens me to
death, I am going to have to pass on it.
From the Floor: You sample it like you do the
chloride.
William Walker: Yes, you might lose a family there.
No but seriously, this kind of thing is hazardous. In
Illinois, for instance, they are dumping one curie
per cubic foot type of stuff and calling it low level.
Over in Germany, they took one look at that and
were horrified, and they said that is high level. So
you see, what are we calling this, high level and low
level -
From the Floor: How many people are involved?
William Walker: There are not many people around
there to speak of, thank goodness, but, I mean,
how many people were involved over some of these
others. It seems to me that —
From the Floor: Now in the United States today,
there are about a million people drinking ground
water from public infested water supplies that
exceed KHS standards of radium. This is natural,
this is not man pollution.
William Walker: That is like my Epsom Salts thing
I read today. We try to blame God for all these
things, but man added part is what I was trying to
infer there. Man is causing some addition, we can't
do anything about God's part, but man surely we
can control. That is the point that I was trying to
make awhile ago. Or we can quit dumping that
stuff out there on the ground.
From the Floor: That area I-spoke of earlier was
2 square miles. An unscrupulous trucker dumped
about 6,000 fifty-five gallon drums of solvents of
all types in sand, with no clay barrier above the
ground water, and the problem is now to
put activated charcoal in to make the water
palatable. But what did the solvents carry along
with them? And if you pump it out, you can't put
it in the bank. What do you do with it?
Robert Minning: I would like to interject here on
some of the comments passed over earlier, and I
guess it goes about how you define hazardous and I
get the 2 different impressions from the comments
that have been passed around here, one of the
attitudes seems to be that the degree of severity of
the material that is spilled constitutes the hazard
211
-------
and the other is the amount, and the frequency of
a certain type of spill, constitutes a degree of
hazardousness. First thing, I do not think you
can neglect either and when you start setting up
priorities and say that we are only going to study
this because we already know how to solve hydro-
carbons, does not negate the fact that the amount
of damage caused by hydrocarbon spills may in fact
be much more, I don't know what the order would
be and I have no idea, but I will say for example,
5 to 1, hydrocarbon spills versus toxic chemical
spills. Now, how do you resolve that? Do you just
say that we are going to forget about the
hydrocarbons?
William Walker: Well, I think, when you say there
is much more damage done, it is so nebulous, Bob,
in that we do not even know the subclinical effect
of some of these hazards. That arsenic case I
pointed out in "Where Have All the Toxic Chemicals
Gone?" the doctors treated those people for 3 weeks
for something else before they happened to even
think about arsenic, and then they started looking
for where the arsenic came from. This thing is
happening all over the world and so when you say
then, the effects, we do not know. Some of these
people who are dying early could be from these
other things, I am not fooling around now. I am
just saying we do not know and the doctors do
not know a typhoid fever case before, they have
never seen one. They tell me that in hospitals
when a typhoid fever case comes along, the doctors
come from everywhere to see it, just to see what
typhoid fever looks like. So if we do not know the
tolerance level of some of these hazardous
chemicals and do not know how to recognize them
when they come along, how can we say that more
people are being affected by hydrocarbons than we
can some of these others?
From the Floor: You talk about chronic effects,
though, along with the things you would like to
dismiss are in that level of possibly related to
chronic effects. I mean, nitrates in Norway have
been banned because of the potential carcinogenic
relationship. Papers have recently come out from
the 'British Bureau of Cancer showing high nitrate
waters relating to the increase in stomach cancer.
(Inaudible) down in Texas shows that the High
Plains runs 30% to 50% lower stomach cancer than,
say, central Texas. A reasonable mechanism for that
can be nitrate.
Roy Spalding, Conservation and Survey Division,
212
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68428:
I would like to interject a couple of thoughts. First.
of all, the hydrocarbons may also be the solvent by
which you carry things like ECB and EET in the
ground water, so the 2 are pretty well intertwined.
Secondly, in Nebraska, we have one place where we
have 50 miles of nitrate, high nitrate salts—of that
25 miles of it is averaging above 15 tpm nitrate
nitrogen. Some wells, the highest one is about 400,
and in zones where you have got 20 tpm nitrate
nitrogen—well, in these zones of high nitrogen,
farmers are reporting that their pigs suffer from
vitamin A deficiencies. It has been fairly well
documented that there is nitrate toxicity in the
vitamin A formation in the liver and there also has
been some reports of (inaudible) in that area. Now
what, I do not know how well they are documented
but there have been reports of them.
I agree with you that the (inaudible) a lot more
research and a lot more study in that area.
Jim Howard: I agree quite strongly with Bill. As I
say, there are a great many hazardous materials that
we are not at present handling, many of which we
do not even recognize as existing in potential harm-
ful levels in the environment. I am not sure how
logical this may be, but the fact that we recognize
the problem exists and have been able to handle it
in some cases, to me, does not mean that situation
should now be dropped and all effort placed on
something about which we know less. Rather, to
me, it would mean that priorities established, those
we can handle we handle, and immediately trying
for research on those we cannot handle, simultane-
ously.
William Walker: Could I make one statement and
then I promise not to say any more? Speaking on
the nitrate thing, and what he just said. We have
nitrate up to 9000 ppm we found in ground water.
Now, we found that trees are centered in this stuff,
this very type of soil. We found 6000 ppm in wells
that people tried to drink for awhile until it got too
bad-tasting. With this kind of nitrate problem,
sure, we have a problem with nitrate, but, you
know, the veterinarians in some colleges will prove
to you that this vitamin A deficiency cannot be
traced to nitrate. They will prove to you that scour
in pigs comes from something else other than
nitrate, or could, and it would throw enough
shadow of doubt on it that you are bucking a whole
university's veterinary college that has some very
sharp people in it. Now then, if you want to go
over to another State, they do not agree with us at
-------
the university, then you can get agreement, you
know, but now, here is the kind of thing we are
talking about even with nitrates, and when he says
15 ppm, we do not worry about that. California
didn't, they had 45 and they raised it to 90 when
too many supplies got over 45. This is nitrate we are
talking about now. Now if we start talking about
something that is nebulous so that you could argue
through subclinically, and even the veterinary
experts disagree among themselves, for God's sake,
let's get off of some of those things, at least
partially, and get on to some of these things we
know, for instance, so many parts of arsenic will
kill. Let's establish the tolerance levels, somehow.
From the Floor: Some of that nitrate contamination
is becoming such a ubiquitous problem. If you look
at Texas, nearly every shallow aquifer has nitrate
in it.
Jim Howard: You also have many areas which are
extremely high in sulfate. There are areas in Ohio
which as a basic natural quality, because of
gypsum and anhydrite composition in the entire
northwestern part of Ohio will exceed the PHS
limits. So it is not necessarily a man-made problem.
The key is that those factors which are recognizable
and may be attacked first, should be attacked first,
while priorities are to be placed on those items
about which we know least. But, in west Texas,
some people consider that the finest quality water,
and they automatically assume that if they have
half a glass of water they are going to keep a quarter
of it (the sulfate) in their stomach for about 3 days.
From the Floor: I think there is some confusion.
I said nitrate nitrogen, but now I do not know if
that makes any difference.
Thomas Ahrens: I want to get off the nitrate. In
Jersey, in our coastal plain, we have some very bad
problems. We have what we call the Pine Barrens
and they are uninhabited mostly. The big 5000-
gallon or bigger tank trucks and trailers come
rolling into the State, through metropolitan New
Jersey, New York, Connecticut, you name it. They
run out in the Pine Barrens, the driver jumps out
and runs around the back, opens the valve and
dumps it right into the sand. And the next thing,
some poor devil who has a shallow well, darned
near kicks the bucket. And we do not know what is
getting into the ground, where it's coming from, or
how it gets there. I do not know whether the other
States have that problem or not.
Van Brahana, U.S. Geological Survey, 430 Bounds
Street, Jackson, Mississippi 39200: I think this is a
topic that we really ought to kick around. The tone
that has been going on here for the last 15 minutes
or so has almost scared you to death, if you are
dealing at all with ground water. It sounds like
ground water is verboten. Let's forget it because it
is so darned complex. But this particular problem
exists all over the country and it is because we in
the profession have not really done our homework
and have really not been providing any significant
input to our States or those kinds of agencies who
have been trying to give some attention to these
hazardous waste disposal sites. We have gotten so
scared the last few years because of the radioactive
materials that we quit even thinking about other
kinds of hazardous waste disposal sites and we
have pushed it off into the closet somewhere.
Consequently, many of the industries that are
generating these fantastic hazardous materials are
dumping the stuff, as you say, in the Pine Barrens
of New Jersey, in the deserts of California, Arizona,
New Mexico. Almost any time that you go into
the back country, where they think that nobody is
watching them, you will see these big tank trucks
dumping stuff that is just unbelievable. We need
very strongly, in this organization, or some
organization—and this is one of the best organiza-
tions now that could possibly attack this problem—
we need very strongly to get this kind of input into
these people who must establish some of these
highly hazardous waste sites that can be acceptable
in terms of ground-water hazards.
Thomas Ahrens: The trucks coming in from New
York could not bring garbage and chemicals over
and dump them in New Jersey, we need some kind
of a law. This law was broken down and dropped
out because it was interstate commerce.
From the Floor: To second this, what he is talking
about is that we need controls on the management
of these hazardous materials because industry is
making chemicals faster than we can learn how to
analyze them after they get into the ground water.
Texas Water Quality Board, P.O. Box 13246, Austin,
Texas 78711: I think all of us have probably had
experience in spills, and we all play detective trying
to determine the source of the contaminant and
eliminate it. But I would like to know if some of
you here have had experience in renovating the
gravel water. I know in Texas this is a-big problem.
To see just what we can do to bring it back to its
213
-------
other condition—I wonder if some one has had some
experience with that.
From the Floor: Are you talking about hydrocar-
bons?
Texas: Anything, except for a very small local
nature.
From the Floor: Well, we can give you some case
histories if you are interested in that. Renovation,
in a sense, in terms of recovery of the material. Is
this what you mean, how do you get it out of the
ground once it's there?
Texas: Yes, I am talking about any ground water
that would not come back into the stream, or
through a stream.
From the Floor: Well, there are some case histories
that are or can be documented. One case that comes
to mind is the case of a military fuel tank farm,
where over a weekend someone cut the fence,
went in, opened all the valves they could get to
within presumably 15 or 20 minutes, on all the
big tanks. By the time it was discovered, there was
something over 600,000 gallons of aviation fuel
dumped into the ground water. The water table
was, at that location, about 40 feet below land
surface; it was in a coastal area which was quite
permeable, and fortunately it was on a military
reservation where they had sufficient distance and
a little bit of time to design it. Within three days,
there was a contract let for $600,000 for every
drag line that could be found in the area to start
excavating interception trenches. The trenches
were cut along the downgrade side of the reserva-
tion below the tank line. Vinyl chloride film was
laid in the trenches at the water table and below the
water table to intercept the gasoline which was
floating on top of the water table, and for about a
year and 3 months, the military continuously
skimmed the gasoline back off of these trenches
with snifters—everything they could possibly
devise to pick the stuff that was floating on films
anywhere from one centimeter to 2 or 3 inches
thick. All together there was pretty close to
$2,000,000 spent to try to recover that gas. All
together in terms of liquid volume, they recovered
43% of the spill. The rest they assumed either
evaporated or is still locked up in the sediment.
Now there are surely several of these kinds of things
that would have happened but it can be done
successfully if the water table is close enough that
you can physically get to it. How you would get to
real deep aquifers I do not know unless you could
develop some kind of a skimming method. In the
middle of Los Angeles, in the southern part, I have
operated a Mayhew 1000 for 2 days on the gasoline
that I skimmed off of the mud pits when we were
drilling a geological exploration hole. This gasoline
was floating on the ground water from the middle
of that city as a result of spills from the refineries,
stuff like this. As far as I know it is still there. But
it can be intercepted, it can be cleaned up if you
can get to it.
William Walker: Along this line, was there any
consideration given in that particular case in Texas
to just putting a deep well in and start pumping?
And then put a skimmer well on top—it seems to
me that $600,000 could dig a big trench.
From the Floor: They cannot get enough volume
of the material into the cone to intercept it.
From the Floor: Let me ask about another case
history you mentioned a few minutes ago, the
gasoline spill where the lady had her pitcher pump.
You said there was one company of the 5 that did a
lot of pumping for a long time. What type of wells
were used? The special wells to skim or existing?
From the Floor: Shallow, large-diameter wells,
especially drilled for that purpose. They drilled one
down 600 feet.
Jim Howard: There are a number of those. You
mentioned one method of approach. What Bill was
talking about was usable very nicely in a homoge-
neous system with very coarse gravel where you
could set up a parasite well system. It can also be
done in solid rock wells under certain types of
conditions. I could give a couple of case histories.
In terms, for example, those of you who heard
Osgood mention fracture systems—you were
probably thinking about rock fractures or joints.
He was not talking about rock fractures or joints.
He was talking about zones of high-density
fractures and this is a case history of one of the
cases we have covered or handled last year. The
situation involved a gasoline station with a single
pump that provided pressure in the tank for the
batteries of pumps around the station. This fellow
had what I call an ideal system—he had a valve
blow. They did not know it and lost 5,000 gallons
of high octane gasoline in the ground. Now, the
geologic system in the area involved had about 8
214
-------
feet of glacial or alluvial material with low permea-
bility over shale bedrock. The ground-water system
during normal conditions was such that it moved
below the alluvial material into a storm sewer,
because of existing relatively high relief. Then it
rained. They did not know the leak had happened
until it rained. It then ponded and appeared to
move upslope about 600 feet where it intercepted
a water well which had a defective casing. At that
point it dropped 60 feet to a regional water table
and began migrating along 2 separate directions
of fracture patterns. That loss was recovered and
handled in 3 months by knowing what the system
was. Interceptor wells allowed recovery of water
quality to a point less than one quart per million
in 3 months. They properly located, analyzed the
system and handled it, which was good because the
area in which that spill took place has 500 houses
on private wells, 2 churches, a high school and a
grade school, all of whom were fed by water wells.
So it can be done if you know, or have some feel
as to what the mechanisms or hydrologic controls
are. It is not perfect. Out of that 5,000 gallons we
do not know how much went down the sewer. We
recovered about 2,000 from the ground waters but
the ground-water quality was renovated to a level
where all wells, except 2, were renovated and able
to be used. The others were handled by double
casing and sealing off the upper zone of contamina-
tion and recompleting wells about 30 feet deeper.
So well construction and handling can be a-factor
of technology with which we should all at least
have some familiarity. That was my point. We
share what we know and make sure that people
know we are doing it, as a profession, whether it
be NWWA or as geologists or engineers or
hydrologists, we have to handle it. We are doing
them a favor and ourselves a favor and laying the
groundwork for the next level of research and
activity that we are going to have to hit. Because if
we do not hit it, and we do not make a noise, then
there is nobody going to hit it until somewhere half
a city is going to blow sky high or you are going to
lose half a county of people. And actually, I guess
in some places, we have almost lost half and it
never did receive enough publicity. And if we have
done it already, that makes me even worry more.
From the Floor: You mentioned just briefly about
tank trucks hauling hazardous waste. Do we know
what this material is? Do we know what effect it
has on the ground-water system?
William Walker: You try to get an analysis of some
of the chlorinated hydrocarbons, they cost $50 to
$100 or so for an analysis, if you can find a labora-
tory that can do it and then it is very hard, but
there are a few that will identify those accurately.
Universities have most of these laboratories. We did
a survey not long ago on laboratories in this country,
of the ones that could take virological, radiological,
biological, and chemical. There is not a laboratory,
commercial laboratory in the country, to my knowl-
edge, that can analyze all of them—no one. So here
is a problem that we are running into, you can distill
some of this junk, you do not know what the junk
is, trying to find out what it is so that you can
trace it back to the guy.
From the Floor: Generally, you do not know what
the actual material is that is being dumped because
it is being dumped illegally and therefore no one is
going to tell you, even if you catch them at it
redhanded, and unless you have the authority or
you are an authority that has some controls over
them, they are not going to do anything. As he says,
the ability to analyze the material once it is in the
ground and you get a sample back out, is extremely
difficult to find. There are very few laboratories
that have that capability so we know that it is highly
concentrated industrial waste. We have in many
cases, and I can speak only for southern California,
southwestern part. We have taken samples and
analyzed for the trace metals, things like this, and
have identified the highly toxic material. We do not
know what the original material was that was
dumped. We do know that it is this classic material.
Robert Minning: O.K. How do you perceive that
this can be regulated?
William Walker: One possibility that I would like
to suggest would be to make it-easier for the
industries that must get rid of this material to have
an approved place to dispose of it. The problem
largely comes from the fact that there are not
sufficient properly approved disposal sites that are
economically reachable by some of these industries.
In California today, I think there are only 13
approved, so-called Class One, dumps and of those
13, there are at least 4 that are either shut down or
about to be shut down because it is now determined
that they are at the wrong location, and that they
are hazardous to the area; therefore they may no
longer be used. When you start thinking of the
600-mile length of the State of California and the
distribution of industry in this, and if they only
have 8 or 9 Class One dump sites, most of which
215
-------
are in the southern end of the State, there are many
industries that just plain cannot reach those dumps.
Therefore, they are going to dump this stuff, get rid
of it some other way. It either goes into a stream
or goes into somebody's sewer through an illegal
connection, or they are going to haul it out and
dump it at night in somebody's pasture. That is the
major problem.
What I was trying to say awhile ago is that we
need as an organization, a profession, to provide
more assistance to our local governmental agencies
to, hopefully, provide the capabilities to the
industries that are generating the economy of the
world that we are all dependent upon, that have
the ability to dispose of the materials they are
generating. What we have got to do is to decide
which hazardous wastes can be stored, and which
needs to be disposed of. And it becomes incumbent
upon us, hydrologists, geologists, to help as waste
managers in identifying and selecting hazardous
disposal sites. Storage sites are not too bad. Disposal
sites get into the environment and are lost forever.
From the Floor: One thing, I have noticed, is a
2-pronged program that we are trying to develop.
One is to develop an inventory of all cases of
hazardous waste spills that are actual public health
problems, and those that are potential public health
problems. And secondly, once the inventory is
developed and we have the proper strategy, we
hope to recommend those sites that could be usable
perhaps as hazardous waste disposal. I am sure that
all of us are interested in the same subject, and if
anyone here can get any of this information to me
or to anyone in the EPA, we will channel it the.
right way, to try to develop a proper inventory. We
do not have any legislation right now on the books
to control hazardous wastes in any way, shape, or
form, and right now it is very low-key effort. Right
now we are working on developing inventory; we
are not trying to point an accusing finger at anyone.
But we would like to get a good handle on this,
and I know one thing, myself and other people will
be on the phone trying to talk with people that
have knowledge of this problem and try to develop
a good case history study of all these problems that
have come up. So if you get a call from me or from
someone else, this is what we are trying to do, to
develop an inventory. Try to keep track of what is
going on in the country and make a logical approach
to it. But right now it is very low-key. I wish there
were legislation but just from the lack of knowledge
of the subject, it is treading on very thin ice, let
us say, to even suggest legislation at this time.
Greg Stockert: I would like to know how much
constitutes a hazardous spill. I have a case study
right now. Two years ago a small town called
Dundee, Ohio, population around 600 people, had
one gas station and then they had a State supply
plant where they cut salt out in the open, where
they let the salt go right down into the ground.
On the complaint of the people, we had a client
talk to us about how they had some kind of a foul
smelling water that irritated the skin. And we had
originally drilled a well in the alluvial type of
(inaudible) and when we tested the water, took it
to the State Health Board, it came back as an ethyl
(inaudible). And we started to further investigate
it and found out it was going to the gas station that
was no more than 50 feet from the house, so
obviously it was leaking through whatever kind of
tank they had it in. The client was quite upset and
called the State Health Board about anything that
she could do to get something to pay for her new
well that we drilled deeper and that type of stuff.
Then she got to thinking about all the other people
in this small town that have wells by their houses
and I started to say that we cannot fund a study,
we cannot do a study without some kind of money,
and she went around the town trying to get some
kind of money together. The people were rather
lackadaisical about it. Now 2 years later, they
haven't done anything at all. But about 2 or 3 miles
south of the town, they have called in a big con-
tractor to install a city system. But yet they are not
going to plug those wells up. Those people are still
going to drink that water or have it on their lawn,
or something like that and it is still going to migrate.
Jim Howard: One thing I would like to throw out.
Now tonight this is what is called a bull session.
Having been a college professor for 6 years, I have
been to a great many bull sessions, but we never
accomplished anything. Would it be possible as a
bull session to provide some positive input toward
policies, activities, considerations or evaluations, to
the group in which most of us or all of us are
members, as to what we should do to tackle some .
of the problems? We have had 2 so far, one State
operation capping wells and the second—some of
us feel is more important, it may not be in other
opinions—hazardous materials. Can we not use this
bull session as a positive method for beginning
something?
Robert Minning: That is a good point. Can we do
something to make it worthwhile, as a group?
Because I think there is enough expertise and
216
-------
experience in varying fields, government, consulting,
State, whatever you wish, that input can be gener-
ated and directed toward a useful goal, which we
may not reach this time. Can we start something to
make worthwhile all our discussion, debate? I think
it is possible. 1 think we all have our own ideas as
to what can be done. I would appreciate hearing
from some more people involved in this.
From the Floor: I have been employed by private
industry for about 6 years. I have seen the bull
sessions there too. And I am struck by the tenor of
meetings like this that I come to, the tenor being
established by people from government agencies,
and from universities and State agencies, from
papers presented that are largely from those people.
The industrial types, which I can understand, do
not say very much. They ask questions but they do
not contribute. I have counted the papers that are
being presented. There are 20 papers here and 2 are
being presented by private industry. Now I have
learned a lot tonight; I have heard a number of
cases from consultants. If perhaps we could hold a
section on ground water, very brief in case histories,
where industrial types can publish this information
without divulging the confidential information
itself. So perhaps one concrete thing that could be
done would be that. Because I find it very informa-
tive to hear from people who normally do not have
the freedom to speak up.
Robert Minning: That is a very valid point and I
will say this, last year that very topic was discussed
in terms of ground water. Trying to get some case
histories developed through consultants, private
industry, anyone engaged in a project could say,
look, I have this problem and this is the way I solve
it. I used these techniques. It is only as good as the
people who submit papers, and the majority of the
people who submit papers for publication are the
same majority of people that we see here at the
convention, mainly this is their profession. I would
say people engaged in government work, they are
engaged in a study and the culmination of that
study is a report, and the report is subject to
publication. That is not the case, I do not feel, in
the private sector. Certainly, you culminated the
study but that study is not written for publication.
From the Floor: I agree, exchange of information is
the only way we are going to progress.
From the Floor: It takes time to write this up for
publication, time which means money for the
consultant. But I would wonder if a section on
ground water for case histories with a limit of one
page would require too much time. If a consultant
can do that he would not have too much—
From the Floor: It is something, I think some of
the international pollution journals have letters or
short papers, and some mechanism for letters or
short papers could be put into the journals, even if
it were on an information basis—it would probably
be a sufficient measure dealing with these case
studies.
Jim Howard: But several things could happen. A
client will quite often consider the entire project as
privileged information, which is why the client is
involved. After a series of cases, I could give a model
of what happened and how we approach it. I cannot
give specifics of where, when, who and so forth.
But there was one paper, I'd like to mention, in
yesterday's session of NWWA—it was a government
paper, a USGS paper. It did not say it was com-
pletely successful. It said what they tried and what
did not work and why. Most papers only publish
that which worked. You know, nobody wants to
know a failure, be it a government man or a con-
sultant, it is money in the bank, his reputation, or
whatever you live on. But if you can go into some-
thing and tell what happens and why, nobody is
perfect. That paper except for a few master's
theses that I have read, which by now you are
saying they had to make a negative result, but that
paper to my knowledge, in about 15 or 16 years
of listening to papers, giving some, and writing
others, to me was the first one I have seen which
has the raw element of reality. We tried this, we
spent a heck of a lot of money on this, it blew up,
do not try this there anymore. I agree. The company
I'm with is considering a policy that every man,
over project manager and above, will be required
each year to publish at least one paper that has
releasable information or a summary of informa-
tion that is not confidential. We have not adopted
this but it is in our philosophy whether we do or
not. This means that in my company a man could
write that paper. Each paper is going to cost us,
just in man-time alone, a minimum of $2,000-
$3,000, just for my company alone. Until the
profession decides that it is worthwhile, as a
professional obligation rather than a business obliga-
tion, to maintain and develop technical coopera-
tion, this procedure will be difficult to implement.
And if we do too much of it, it is possible that we
may not be in existence next year. But, I mean, it is
217
-------
a feasible element. That is money out of my pocket.
The profession as a whole most decide, because we
are professionals. The argument with which most
of us have been attacked is the fact that we are not
a profession, we are an avocation. We are not
scientists. Physicists and chemists feel that we are
not scientists. Engineers feel that we are scientists.
So we are somewhere in that nebulous half-world.
And until we begin to prove that we are profession-
als by both contributing to society and contributing
to our profession the technology which we develop
in our own unique sessions. And add, to a certain
degree, the engineers who deal with the same
system. Then we are going to be second rate, out in
left field. We are going to be called in as a last
resort, when it is too late to do anything much.
Robert Minning: It was mentioned that perhaps we
can provide some positive input as a group to
ground-water pollution hazards, and we have heard
from a few people here. There are obviously some
more people here in the room who have had some
experience with lesser known ground-water pollu-
tion problems or hazardous wastes, who have done
something about it or at least been involved in
some type of regulatory activity towards some kind
of recovery process, study investigation. I would
ask that you share these with us. How do you solve
hazardous waste problems? What were they? Is there
something that you could not solve?
From the Floor: I would like to suggest one thing.
One other topic that might be worthy of discussion.
This relates to our ability and procedures for
actually sampling or keeping track of certain kinds
of unusual waste disposal activities that may seem
very innocent, but suddenly we find out that we
have a real problem.
One of the major problems we are faced with
in our business is trying to identify various kinds of
chemical compounds in the ground-water resource.
What are the concentration levels that we are really
concerned with in terms of the specific compounds
and how do you actually tool up to make sure that
you can sample in a manner that will give you
analyses that have any acceptance or any validity?
Now, let me give you one example, just to
illustrate my point.
In some industrial processes, it is necessary to
steam clean metal parts that are coated with or
that contain rather exotic nitrate compounds. And
I am not trying to get back into this nitrate con-
tamination business. The effluent from the steam
cleaning process goes into a collecting pond where
the solids settle out and are reclaimed and dis-
posed of, but the liquid part of the steam cleaning
fluid percolates into the ground water. These
nitrate compounds have been demonstrated to be
extremely toxic to human beings. Now we have
not been able to discover, within the well drilling
profession, more than 2 or 3 people in the western
part of the United States who are willing to tackle
the job of constructing observation wells or
constructing or doing drilling into this ground-
water percolation environment, in a manner that
they can guarantee that they can give us samples
that are not contaminated by the drilling process
itself, if you are talking in the microgram per liter
range. Now I use this as an illustration of some of
the kinds of problems we are going to be facing if
we are really going to start getting involved in the
problems of unusual contamination in the ground-
water regime that most people think about.
We have a very broad range of what can usually
be classed as everyday activities that are throwing
toxic, hazardous materials into the shallow water of
the ground-water system, that many, many people
are dependent upon for their individual domestic
wells. And the water well industry must develop
some better techniques, better attention to the
ability to provide samples of the aquifer materials
or samples of the water, that they could use with
confidence as a reliable analysis.
Dick Rhindress, National Audobon Society, 2501
Garrison Avenue, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110:
Up until June 1, I was with the Pennsylvania State
Department of Ground-Water Resources, Pollution
Control Group. In answer to a couple of your
points, it seems to me that when it comes to
identification of these complex organics, it gets to
be a never-ending thing because I think they are
registering something like 80 new compounds a
week, and we are up in the tens of thousands now,
and Lord knows where we are going. It is hopeless
to expect a lab to identify some of these things and
the way industry is going, they are not even
registering a lot of their compounds. I agree that
there is a need for better labs and better services
from the labs, and so forth, and perhaps some of
the EPA labs certification might do us some good, I
am not sure, but that is a possibility. On the other
hand, the drillers getting up to construct a decent
well for want of water sampling, how we found it
in the last 6 years with the State, that after a long
hard battle we got one drilling company in
Pennsylvania to come around and really start
getting serious about doing this kind of work. It
218
-------
was sort of a partnership, we asked them and they
helped us, we helped them and we finally got there.
But it is an education problem. If I can back up now
a little bit, it is his company by the way (Jim
Howard's company). If I could back up, we were
talking when I first came into the room, about
hazardous wastes. To me there are 2 kinds. There
is the accidental spill and there is the other kind,
which is the waste which never should be thrown
away. We have got to stop throwing things away.
There ain't no "away." It is always here on old
planet Earth. Unless we can put it in rockets, send
it that way. We have got to stop talking about
throwing things away, hiding them underground,
all these sorts of stupid things. We have got to
recycle, back to the old word and there is a big
generic word for recycle, but there is only so much
left on this old planet Earth. We cannot deal with
it, we shouldn't have to be worrying about deep
injection wells to store, that is a nice euphuism but
I do not think we are really storing, I think we are
throwing away stuff when we talk about deep
injection wells. We have got to get off this kick.
Somebody today, made the point that we ground-
water people have got to get a unified law, not a
surface law and a land bill law and an air pollution
law, and so forth. We have got to have a unified
environmental law so that ground water, which is
about the only one left, does not take it all. We
have got to have it. I am in ground water and I have
been for about 8 or 9 years, and I still will be even
though I am in conservation.
From the Floor: What do you mean by drillers not
sampling properly? Is it, would education help?
What do you mean by a sampling? Would you be
more specific? I would like to know because I am
in a company which does this type of work.
From the Floor: They do not have the equipment
nor do they have the inclination or the training to
understand the actual geology of the subsurface
and the need for certain types of procedures to get
materials that will yield analysis, yield determina-
tions within these kinds of concentrations.
From the Floor: I will skip over this and backtrack
to our gentleman from the Audobon Society. I did
not identify myself the last time that I addressed
the floor, but my name is Ralph Preble and I work
for the consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee,
One Center Plaza, Boston, Mass. 02108, and at the
present time, we have a company, a private
company, backing us to the tune of about two
billion dollars for the complete recycle.
From the Floor: I have been wanting to say some-
thing. The fellow sitting right here, coming up with
all the problems we have had to deal with as well
drillers and we work to try to solve them, but if
the engineer hands me a piece of paper and all he
asks for is a bid, he doesn't ask. I put on the
bottom the last few words—no guarantee as to
quality or quantity. I will put in a hundred new
casings, drill a thousand new holes a year. But it is
up to you people and geology experts to tell the
engineers, let them know that they are responsible.
From the Floor: I would like to go back also to the
man from the Audubon Society. I also am a member
of the Audubon Society, incidentally. I agree with
him that we have to start thinking of waste in his
terms, but I have heard this from environmentalists
and others for quite awhile, and it takes time to
start new techniques and I am sure you will be
working quite hard because the less waste they
have, the more problems they make. So we have to
consider that there is going to be a lot of waste
generated and have to be disposed of certainly
within the next generation and I think the injection
well has a place as one of the methods of waste
disposal, particularly for radioactive wastes. It is
very good for malodorous waste or for certain
refractory waste. I think the important thing about
injection wells is proper regulation. I believe our
State has it and of course, I happen to be the one
who administers the law. But I think we do have
a good law and we have a good method down
there. We do not, as the gentleman said this
morning, use it as a last resort, so to speak.
Bob Scott: We need to know more about the fate
and behavior of the waste we put underground and
on Audubon, there have to be exceptions. Your
generality, you cannot color everything. For
example, on the Snake River plain in Idaho, we
are encouraging (inaudible) to inject attriated
water, stripped of all other radionuclides. The
reason we try to surface dispose of attriated water,
it will come back to you in rain or snow (inaudible).
It has a half life of about 12!/2 years. Which means
if it moves 125-250 years it is gone because it has
decayed. Put it into a ground-water aquifer, it is
going to be feet per year instead of feet per day.
In some of the deeper zones of the Snake Plain
aquifer, by the time it discharges you will not
find any tritium in it. Some of your organic wastes
may have similar self-destruct capabilities, so know
219
-------
your wastes before you put them underground.
From the Floor: When a geologist comes in or a
State agency contracts a drilling company, it seems
to me an awful lot of the time that the State agency
is way off as far as thinking he is above that person
or that drilling company. There is a real friction
developing between the two. Now, a lot of the
time, if that friction is strong enough, that driller
does not care what goes on in those samples. I
would say that if anybody works, and everybody
does, with drilling companies and stuff like that,
that through common talk, and understanding,
that he has a job that is just as important as what
you are doing, then things would come off good,
and you would have a good friendly relationship.
Then things will go the way you want them to go.
Dick Rhindress: A lot of things we found in the
State agency, when I worked for the State of
Pennsylvania, was that we just about had to hire
people straight out of college with zero experience,
because that is the level of pay that civil service
would let us give. Where are you going to find a guy
that is experienced in drilling and everything else
at that point? I would make a suggestion to any one
of you that is with a State agency, that you start
running the people through the NWWA driller
courses. They are not too bad. I should have taken
them on the side on my own, just to beef up my
own education so I can talk intelligently with a
driller. And it would not hurt at all—I know
everyone on the staff of Pennsylvania at the time I
left, sure could have used them.
Jim Howard: I do not think the company that I
am with is probably unique in the country but it is
an 85-year old drilling firm that now has 23
geologists in it as a consulting component. One of
the things in the NWWA, as a profession, that we
are not using is the fact that—I will give examples.
I can go out to our drillers and say, hey, I have got
to get this from there and I need it in this form.
And he says why? And I tell him why. I would
venture to say that most engineers or most
geologists walk out to a driller, federal or State
government, and say I want to have this from there,
you do it this way, he would say Yes, sir, as long
as you pay my check. In our company, we have a
relatively unique situation. We sit and drink beer
and throw the bottles at each other. If I want
something done and it is feasible, then I can get a
driller who has 20 years experience in finding a way
to help me do it. As long as we think, as geologists,
that we are superior because we have been to
college, for 10 years in my case, and because of
that education, we are not ready and willing to ask
them for help, rather tell them what we want, you
are going to wind up exactly like a computer
program, garbage in and garbage out. Until we
recognize the fact that we have to work as a team
in every case, every category, where we use what
we know and where they can provide what they
know, we are going to wind up arguing whether
deep well disposal may or may not be feasible,
whether the sample we got was from this method
is worth a darn versus this sample. And the basic
contribution that we can make as a profession and
as an organization is to begin to integrate what we
know, how we know it, where we know it and in
any way we can get it. And, another thing, we are
going to have to take the initiative, because the
drillers look to us, I speak from experience, as
know-it-alls who are telling them their business.
The best contribution we can make is to try as an
organization, to blend. That means to stop being
so egotistical as ourselves and recognize that other
people can do some things better than we can,
whether we are engineers or geologists.
John Logan, Hillsborough County Water Resources,
Box 1110, Tampa, Florida 33611: I came in here
to listen to lesser known hazards but this actually
is of great interest to me. I have to say that I have
just heard some things that are quite obviously not
true. We are working with the drillers. We are not
superior. We can all prove it with the fact that we
are not members here of the American Association
of Ground-Water Hydrologists, we are here as
members of the National Water Well Association. We
are a minority group and we are in it voluntarily
because we need to work with drillers, we have
over many years and the drillers have worked with
us. There have been notable advances. There are
more to go. But the original charge, I think, was
quite well founded. It was not a charge against
drillers, it was a charge against drilling technology.
And this is true, if we cannot sample in the micro-
gram range, particularly, and this is the fault because
we do not have the methodologies to do it. We
cannot sample 3 inches below the ground and get an
undisturbed sample. It is a phrase that exists in the
textbook but we all know that we cannot get such
a thing in the microgram range, particularly done
at 2,000 feet. Maybe, in a generation, we might
know how to do it but we certainly do not today.
But the charge was not against the drillers. It was
against the technological methods.
220
-------
Bob Scott: I would say that the better drillers
belong to NWWA. The best ones are here at this
meeting. We still have some (inaudible) in some
areas in some States on the less cooperative
productive drillers.
Bruce Yare, Woodward-Moorhouse & Associates,
Inc., Clifton, New Jersey 07012: In terms of
analyzing the contamination induced by the drilling
method itself, you have to analyze the drilling
methods in themselves—you have to compare the
advantages and the disadvantages of each technique.
As you associate with drillers you become accus-
tomed to their ways of drilling, the techniques that
are used and you evaluate them in terms of the
type of sampling you need to perform.
In my paper I have compared the technique of
jetting, cable tool and hydraulic rotary—the
advantages and disadvantages in terms of obtaining
in situ water samples. One of the things which
should be avoided is bentonitic drilling mud because
of the possible adverse effect that these muds may
have on formation water—in particular the
absorption of particular chemical species by the
mud itself. To overcome this possible drawback, we
use an organic based drilling — Johnson Revert.
Prior to starting a drilling program a decision
must be made on the particular type of samples or
the use of the samples that they are going to be put
to and then in light of this information, a particular
drilling process should be used. A great deal of time,
effort and money is involved in determining whether
or not the samples you obtain are from a known
horizon. In the paper I presented yesterday, we
used a cluster of wells to establish that these
samples we obtained were indeed from a specific
horizon. In order to do this we used a cluster of
wells with one center well and 5 peripheral wells.
The 5 peripheral wells were completed at depths of
20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 feet and provided water
samples from known horizons. Samples from these
horizons were compared to samples obtained in the
center well by our drilling sampling technique,
developed in the course of our investigation, were
indeed representative of in situ ground water at a
specific horizon. This comparison for establishing
that these samples were indeed from a specific
horizon or was representative of a specific horizon
was an extremely costly and indeed time-consuming
technique. This well cost approximately $5,000 but
in terms of establishing that the samples were
representative of in situ hydrochemistry at a known
horizon, it was an invaluable and necessary
procedure. This type of comparison is indeed
necessary to establish that the samples you obtain
are indeed what you say they are.
Bob Galbraith, Kennecott Explorations, 2300 W.
17005, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104: I was under
the impression that last Friday we took samples
from parts of the (inaudible) in Arizona and I was
wondering how you could determine that they were
not contaminated, the sample (inaudible) on the
basis of conductivity.
From the Floor: I do not know of any better way,
and I do not know how you are going to prove that
what you got was what you were after.
Bob Galbraith: This is part of the problem. There
may not be a better way that we know of now until
we look for it.
From the Floor: If you find the answer you are
looking for you were right.
Wayne Pettyjohn: One of the problems is how you
find an undisturbed sampling, as I understand it,
and I am fairly new to ground-water work. I am a
geologist. As I understand it, the criterion is usually
conductivity. Is there any other standard criteria
you could use?
Donald 0. Whittemore, Kansas State University,
Department of Geology, Manhattan, Kansas 66506:
I am involved in a project where I am looking at
trace metals at background levels, presently, in
preparation for seeing what happens when a large
coal-burning power plant begins to start its
operation. I would be very interested to see a study
where somebody used standard drilling techniques
and actually analyzed some of these different trace
elements to establish what sort of contamination
you could expect from the standard drilling tech-
nique. Has anybody done this sort of study—just
on the drilling technique itself and what sort of
contaminants are produced?
Wayne Pettyjohn: I am coming in in the middle,
so I do not know what is going on so I will probably
put my foot in my mouth again, as usual. For the
last three years, we have been conducting studies
on heavy metals in surface water, ground water and
(inaudible) site sediment, as well as public supplies
and I think the scare of heavy metals is gone
overboard. I do not think that there is nearly the
significance here that many of us think there are.
We have analyzed over 10,000 individual samples
221
-------
and rarely in the water do we find enough that is
even measurable/And furthermore, we did one
sort of interesting study, looking at certain heavy
metals in tap water. And we found that in a faucet
that had not been used for somewhere between six
months and a year, that if you turned it on and
collected the sample immediately, and it was an old
plumbing system, that the content of zinc, copper
and lead would be quite high. In one example, the
tap in my office, the lead concentration was about
10 times above PHS limits. Of course, that attacks
the brain and I drink that a lot, which explains
something. But, anyway, if the tap is allowed to
discharge 2 minutes, at least we collected samples
after 2 minutes, and in nearly every case the con-
centrations of these things dropped down to a
level that was not detectable. So the point I am
trying to make is, when we find a sample of ground
water, or surface water that contains a lot of metals
we are looking at a very exceptional case, gross
contamination or very weird geochemical condi-
tions, and under the natural conditions, there
generally is not enough to even worry about and
we are getting more from drinking beer out of cans
or water out of the faucet, or coffee out of a pot or
coffee out of a dispenser, than we are from normal
ground waters. Did I put my foot in my mouth?
Wayne Pettyjohn: I will agree with that. But in the
samples that we have run, and obviously I have
looked at a very small area, in none of the samples
in this 8,000-square mile area did we find enough
lead to even register on a machine. And another
thing that has bothered me, when you talk about
limits in water, people do not drink any water.
That is a rarity. They do not look at the amount of
lead that you find in a can of tuna fish or in beer.
It seems like we have another double standard.
The first double standard that has always bothered
me is that we expect surface water to be con-
taminated so we chlorinate all supplies. We find a
well which shows up with a positive coliform test
then that has to be taken off the line; it is a bad
scene.
From the Floor: But we in the water business try
to protect the water to our standards, hoping that
the FDA protects the food. The total ingestion, the
total volume, is less than what is toxic to the
human.
Wayne Pettyjohn: Well, there is another little
problem. We really do not know what the signifi-
cance of these things are.
From the Floor: Some of them.
From the Floor: There was a recent article in
Newsweek that suggested that some work done at
Dartmouth would require that you flush your
system out in the morning with the first cup of
coffee. We are finding problems with salt waters. It
seems to have greater leaching power than the hard
water. And we have a problem in the Pacific North-
west where some galvanized type of (inaudible)
reacts with the cutting fluids, releasing large
amounts of heavy metals into the plumbing
system in houses of subdivisions. There is work
being done by a private water company in San
Jose, in their own lab, to indicate that lead can be
caught into the water system through galvanic
action where they solder the joints of the copper
tubing. The drinking-water standards are set up for
lifetime ingestion. If you take that first cup of
coffee and your 10-minute flush including that,
cleans your system. You are building for the rest
of the day. You should not be getting a lifetime
exposure. If you drill a well into an aquifer that
is getting this material continuously, then you
may get a lifetime exposure if you stay there the
rest of your life. So there can be a difference
between the 2.
Wayne Pettyjohn: Well, I would say, a good share
of them. Now, for example, we have a limit on
chromium, and I did a rather extensive research
and I really could not find much of anything. And
then Schroder comes out with his book, Trace
Elements in Hell, or something like that and he says
the major thing we are lacking in our diet, and the
reason that we are in such poor physical shape, is
because we do not take enough chromium. So what
they are trying to do now is find some method
whereby the chromium can be absorbed.
From the Floor: Sure, there might be an optimum
chromium ingestion concentrate. Like we have
fluoride for teeth.
<
Jim Howard: I am going off after this one. Awhile
ago there was a question brought up. Now, I think
the statement Bob made which led up to some of
this was "Something should be done or decided that
we could make a positive contribution," because
we got sidetracked into 3 other areas there, quickly.
It is easy to do. I think that Bob's group, or this
group, should make a suggestion about that
contribution.
222
-------
Now, I am going to spread some hot air in
other areas, but I would say that, other than being
chairman or something, that if I could be of any
help if you decide something, I would be more than
happy to do so.
Robert Galbraith: I want to add to his comments
about using Revert for elimination of one of your
sources of contamination. We have found, in our
investigation of how to take these samples without
contaminating (inaudible) final analysis. The
lubricants that the drillers use on their pipe joints
are one of the various things as far as metals are
concerned, that you never want to come across.
There are some teflon products, lubricants, which
have an analysis printed on the label, and I forget
the brand name right off hand, that can be used to
avoid a large part'of this problem of introducing
trace elements. The other big problem we ran into
was just drippage of hydraulic fluid, grease, oil,
what have you, off the drill rig, and this stuff
getting into the mud around the hole and getting
kicked into the hole. This sort of thing, we need to
clean up housekeeping, but you cannot do too
much of it.
Jim Rouse, U.S. EPA, Field Investigations, Bldg. 53,
Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225:
I have been involved in some work in Florida which
involves an unknown ground-water pollution
problem which should not have been unknown. This
problem Devolves around radium pollution resulting
from phosphate rock mining and milling.
Everyone has known for years that phs rock,
especially Florida phosphate rock, contained
uranium; that was one of the prospecting techniques
used to find the uranium. When the phosphate rock
is reacted with sulphuric acid the Ur goes with the
Ph fertilizer but the radium, the K product of Ur,
precipitates with the by-product gypsum.
As far as I was able to find, there was only
one sample which was ever run for radium in
phosphoric acid plant waste, although radium was
commercially recovered from phosphate plants
during the 1950's. Work we have done reveals the
liquid water from Ph acid plants contains 100
picocuries per litre of radium. This is from 3 to 30
times any possible standard for radium in water.
We have found approximately 400 square miles
in central Florida contain high values of radium in
the shallow ground water. At least a portion of this
appears to result from the mining and milling of
phosphate rocks to produce phosphate fertilizers.
The by-product, gypsum, derived from Ph
rock mining and milling is extremely radioactive
and many people are now proposing to use this
material for construction of wall-board. Such use
would expose all those living in houses containing
this wall-board to high levels of radium decay
products. This raises the spector of having a Grand
Junction, Colorado situation being scattered all over
the world and I would think that is something we
need to speak out against very strongly.
John Logan: I am Water Resources Director for
Hillsborough County and we just permitted some
28,000 acres of phosphate mining. The phosphate
ore of west central Florida contains enough U308,1
remember is the basic (inaudible) of the Atomic
Energy Commission and Geological Survey of the
1950's spent several millions of dollars in a very
large program to see if uranium could be extracted
as a by-product of phosphate. Now we are going
to tear this up, recycle water all the way through
it, develop an increased solubility, and get them
into our ground waters a little farther to the west
of the problem Mr. Rouse is talking about. It is
going to go into the Florida aquifer, probably,
which is one of the most productive things we
know in the United States. And I am worried as
hell about it and I want to see you right after
this meeting.
Bob Scott: If this is in a sulfate effluent, radium
sulfate has a lower solubility product than barium
sulfate, how are you going to get it into your ground
water?
John Logan: The sulfate is part of the chemical
process of making fertilizer. It is not part of the
mining process, because we in Hillsborough County
are not going to permit any fertilizing processes. We
are just putting up a steel wall around our county,
and this can happen in the neighboring county. We
are downstream, unfortunately.
Bob Scott: Then the radium would come through
in a soluble fertilizer form, not remain in sulfate
in retainage ponds?
Jim Rouse: What we do, Bob, is the liquid is an
extremely acid liquid that is used for transporting
the gypsum. And this will during the recycle be
built to an equilibrium concentration of about 100
picocuries per litre. We do not see high values in
the mining operation, except during slime pond
failure. The slimes are hot. The last slime failure
223
-------
that occurred released about 161A curies of radium
to the receiving bay.
Bob Scott: Also it is in the particulate in a solid
form.
Jim Rouse: The bay is now at mpc. And at
maximum permissible concentration. We are seeing
wells in the mining/milling area as high, the highest
value we have seen is 79 picocuries per liter.
Bob Scott: Is this dilution down to mpc or is this
desorption? (inaudible)
Jim Rouse: From the dissolution.
Robert Minning: Wayne, did any of the samples
that you took to be analyzed for heavy metals
come from areas of metal ground-water pollution?
Wayne Pettyjohn: Well, in this particular study, we
collected samples from most of the municipalities
and some industries and some private wells. Right
offhand, I just cannot remember. There was .a
problem of contamination undoubtedly, in some of
them, but most of them were related to surface-
water contamination. Plating metal wastes, Fort
Wayne, Lima, Findlay, and some oil refineries,
things like that. But I cannot recall offhand signifi-
cant ground-water contamination problems in those
sites. But the study is continuing another 3 years.
Robert Minning: (inaudible) concerning sludge
remaining on the ground. Have you had any more
work with that in terms of heavy metal?
Jerry Hill, Stremmel & Hill, La Fontaine, Indiana:
No, I do not have a report here. It will be available.
Paul Plummer, Miami Conservancy District, 38 E.
Monument Ave., Dayton, Ohio 45402: Talking
about lesser known ground-water pollution
hazards, I would like to know if anyone is doing
anything on trace organics, particularly PCB. I
think it has been shown that there is a significant
quantity of PCB in the environment. To my
knowledge, I do not think there has ever been any
work in terms of whether they are in the ground
water.
Bob Scott: Can you find out if they are being
leached out of a plastic pump? I think it was
announced in the paper recently, on a recent speech
by Russell Train, that they would be looking at
these types of organics in drinking water. If the
drinking water has a ground-water source, you
would be looking at it there.
Robert Minning: Does anyone else have a project?
Wayne Pettyjohn: How about a motion for
adjournment?
224
-------
Bull Session — New Technology
for Ground-Water Protection
Session Moderator: Richard H. Pearl, Colorado
Geological Survey, Room 254,1845 Sherman St.,
Denver, Colorado 80203.
Dick Pearl, Moderator: This is the Bull Session on
New Technology for Ground Water Protection.
However, I think it should be titled the same old
thing, New Technology.
Let's set some of the ground rules right now.
We've got a court reporter over here. The first time
you get up to speak, identify yourself and your
affiliation, and next time you get up to speak just
identify yourself. It's informal. Take off your coats,
your ties.
I don't know where the rest of our panel is,
our speakers. There's two of us here, so rather than
all the questions coming this way, let's have the
questions going every which way. So if you've got
anything to say, speak up.
Well, let me throw a question now to Bill
Weist, since you reported on your studies of the
Indianapolis landfill yesterday at the technical
session of NWWA. Have you done any modeling?
Bill Weist, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46202: You mean the modeling of the
landfills?
Dick Pearl: Right.
Bill Weist: No, we've not done any modeling of
landfills. We are working on modeling of the
hydrologic system of the Indianapolis area. This
is for a different study. This will be an analog
model rather than a digital, because we have
multilayer drums.
Dick Pearl: Have any of the rest of you been
involved in modeling of pollutant, effluent waste
fronts moving through an aquifer?
Bill Weist: Lynn, was your model of a fairly
homogeneous aquifer or a heterogeneous aquifer?
Lynn Gelhar, New Mexico Tech., Socorro, New
Mexico 87801: Well, the system we are repre-
senting, I would say, was highly heterogeneous—
maybe a hundred different aquifer units. That's a
regional representation and just average condi-
tions. It's not in the classical sense an individual
unit.
Dick Pearl: I'm not familiar with all your work,
where you're from or who you are. Maybe some of
you could state what you've been doing in your
areas with new technological advances that are being
used for ground-water protection of the aquifers
from waste disposal sites, gasoline spills or any of
the other things that we discussed today.
One of the things we have done here in
Colorado to try to tie down the culprits of gasoline
spills—the State Health Department now has
assigned a specific dye to each one of the major oil
companies and their gasoline has to contain this
dye. So when we do get a spill all they have to do is
go out and take a sample, take it back to the Health
Department and run it through an analyzer and it
can pretty well tie down which gas station it may
have come from. That goes a long way toward
solving some of these problems that occur when
gasoline shows up in ground-water sources and you
may have 3 or 4 gas stations on the same corner.
Lawrence Peters, Dept. Fisheries and Environment,
Water Resources Board, P.O. Box 6000, Centennial
Bldg., Frederickston, New Brunswick, Canada:
We've run into the very same problem where we
have open sources. Just how much pressure do you
have to put on these people to get such a thing as a
dye and what sort of concentrations do you think
the dye ought to be?
Dick Pearl: I can't answer your questions. However,
I don't think there's been much pressure brought
upon the oil companies to accept this dye method. I
knew the Health Department had a way of pinpoint-
ing which gasoline stations the leak was coming
from. I just heard about it today, that they were
putting in dyes. So it wasn't enough of a contro-
versial issue where it got in the newspapers. So they
must have been able to do it with a minimum of
arm twisting.
225
-------
Lawrence Peters: We have a problem of fixing a
source. We usually get a complaint about gasoline
or whatever in a basement or in a well. Do you know
of any new methods that can be used to fix the
source of the gasoline other than digging a mighty
big trench?
Dick Pearl: A lot of times all you have to do is
look through the gas station's tax records. You
laugh, but there's one station that I've been involved
with, that put in for a tax rebate because it didn't
sell as much gasoline as what its record showed.
The station lost about 5,000 gallons of gasoline. So
he asked for a tax rebate. Well, they had him pinned
right there. He must have been losing gasoline. The
nearby damaged homeowners sued and took him to
court. The case was settled out of court.
Lawrence Peters: We have trouble getting any kind
of settlement. Our policy up to now has been to try
and solve it by civil action between the plaintiff
and the polluter, but we haven't had any real success
that way. I'm interested in what goes on out here,
for instance.
Dick Pearl: Well, this one instance that I'm familiar
with is the only one I've been called to testify on.
The damaged parties were quite successful on it. I
think the out-of-court settlement required the oil
company to connect the damaged houses in question
up to the city water supply. Surprisingly, while
they were part of one of the suburban towns here
in the Denver metro area, they were using water
from a shallow aquifer, which had all kinds of
horses and everything running over it. This was no
place where they should have been using water
wells. It could have been polluted just in the normal
course of events. Also, the city main ran almost
through their front yard, but they didn't want to
hook up with city water. Well, the company hooked
them up .o the city water as part of the settlement.
Lawrence Peters: Talking about technologies, have
you found any good method for casing out gasoline?
Do you have a standard technique which you
recommend?
Harlan Erker, Division of Water Resources, Room
300,1845 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203:
We do not specifically deal that much with
gasoline. We do deal with pollution occurring in
some shallow aquifers. We have a policy of requiring
solid or blank casing, whatever you want to call it,
to a certain depth. There are certain aquifers in the
State where we uniformly require so much casing
in order to keep the pollution, which is just septic
tank effluent, lying on top of the ground water
being pumped. It's actually a combination of
casing programs and a limitation on the amount
of water that can be pumped. If you put a small
enough casing in and put the blank casing down far
enough, they can't pump enough water to cause a
cone of depression down to the perforations. So
we do follow that practice in some of the aquifers.
We don't have that much of a problem. Gasoline
pollution is not that widespread, but we do use this
method in dealing with other types of pollution
here in the-State.
Dick Pearl: It's more in the Denver metro area
where this is such a prevalent problem. The
gasoline will get into a shallow aquifer, in which
basements of houses are constructed. Then the
gas or the gas fumes will get into the house. There
isn't that great a usage of water wells in the Denver
area anymore like there was a few years back.
Lawrence Peters: Well, we're faced with an opposite
problem. I'd say the bulk of the rural community
in New Brunswick gets its water from wells and
probably very shallow wells, and this is a very real
problem. Of course, the associated problem of the
phenols is quite dangerous. We do run into the same
problem that you have with fumes and gas vapors,
but it's not as widespread as the contamination of
wells.
T. Jay Ray, EPA, 1735 Baltimore, Kansas City,
Missouri 64119: A little philosophical question
about the modeling—how much practical usage have
you seen of your pollution models? Can you give
some examples where you can state some inroads?
Lynn Gelhar: Well, the use has been limited to the
areas in which we tried to apply them, just because
I don't think this kind of approach has been
necessarily logical for ground water. We've applied
to the estimates of septic tanks, effluent inputs to
suburban areas where 4 persons per acre would be
kind of a limitation under those conditions. We
also looked at the land waste disposal problem in a
hypothetical way, and our conclusion was that, at
least from the nitrate point of view, it's not as
serious as you might think. One of the reasons that
we're here is that we'd like to see them used a
little bit more. Maybe John Wilson could find out.
226
-------
Do you have some additional comments on that?
We have had discussions with people in State
agencies in Massachusetts on the use of it but
other than indicating interest there hasn't been any
real results from this.
John Wilson, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142:
The models have been supplied to a number of
organizations. In Massachusetts and much of New
England the water resources community 'as far as
the State is concerned is not nearly as well
developed and not nearly as well funded as it is out
in the West. And these organizations have very little
interest in modeling of any kind thus far. We have
provided the interest but have not been in a position
to do anything about it.
Unknown Speaker: When you say they're not in a
position to do anything about it, what do you mean?
They don't have the funds or they don't have the
need?
John Wilson: They simply don't have the funds
and the personnel to do anything. Perhaps one
might say they have very little expertise. It's a very
small operation.
Jay Ray: I'd like to question Bob Crowe. You're
going around the country putting on seminars for
the training of people primarily in the area of waste
disposal problems, primarily addressed to surface
water. How much of a sophisticated mathematical
approach are you using in your area of technological
transfer or when you get down to the nitty gritty of
working with the engineering audiences, that I
imagine that you have, do you find yourself working
on a much lower level? Let's say in this case,
mathematics, either because people don't under-
stand it or because in practical situations it doesn't
work?
Bob Crowe, U.S. EPA, Technology Transfer,
Washington, D.C. 20460: Well, technology transfer
up to now has addressed itself towards processes of
engineering design for waste water treatment
primarily and air pollution control. I think it's too
sophisticated, or it has not entered into the
picture. So we really haven't transfer technology in
this area at all.
Drew Comer, State Water Control Board, Northern
Virginia Regional Office, P.O. Box 307, Springfield,
Virginia 22150: How applicable is your model in
areas where values for transmissibility are hard to
come by, such as in fractured igneous rock?
Lynn Gelhar: They were hard to come by where
we applied the model as well. It's really a range of
parameters that one can introduce to see how
sensitive the system is to those parameters. So we
didn't determine the transmissibility by testing
maybe several hundred independent aquifers and
different zones. We selected some reasonable figures
and it's a question of judgment. The same idea
applies if you're interested in just regional
information.
Drew Comer: Yes, but I assume you're still talking
about a sand aquifer.
Lynn Gelhar: Not necessarily. On a large scale in a
fractured system you could have the same
properties, response, and characteristics. The trans-
missibility we used was arbitrary and it was
reasonably good, but that's the extent of it.
John Wilson: Conceptually, this long parameter
model we discussed has been used in fractured
bedrock by some people of the University of Con-
necticut's Department of Geology, without actually
constructing a mathematical model, but rather
looking at a conceptual viewpoint and they found
for their purposes, it could be fairly good. The
model, in fact, has an advantage in such a system
where one doesn't have—you're familiar with the
extensive models that have been developed by
USGS and other various organizations and
universities around the country of the finite differ-
ence or finite element type. They usually require
fairly good field data which one must assume is
fairly accurate.
Lawrence Peters: Would you say that your model
just indicates a mode of behavior rather than
giving actual prediction?
Lynn Gelhar: To some extent you could say that.
However, I believe for the highway salt situation
we looked at, the kind of confirmation that you
get, gives some confidence in predictions you can
extract now. In other situations where you don't
have the information, it's highly speculative. That's
what you'd have to say for it. You still need the
information to confirm the structure that's
involved and it has to be the proper kind of average
information. To just take one well and try to use
that to characterize the behavior of this model,
you're doing the wrong thing.
227
-------
Lawrence Peters: I'm concerned with highway
deicing extensively up north and I was wondering
if you could show me what your model can do? I
mean, I'm using it particularly in very small cases.
It's definitely not a regional basis. Could I use your
model?
Lynn Gelhar: I'd use a different model. Part of
that work that we did for that study was a local,
or what we call the local model—just a study
convection of the individual well. You just have to
make the proper judgment if you're interested in
the effect of the individual well. You can use that
approach. We haven't perfected that in every detail
as yet, but I think John is working on it.
John Wilson: Yes. We're trying to avoid a very
complicated model that I was referring to earlier.
We're looking at local problems; this is what these
numerical models will do, by developing some very
simple analytical models that can be applied by
your hydrogeologist to analyze the problems of a
local nature.
Unknown Speaker: In our section, we don't have
the expertise or the manpower to put to this
particular kind of approach. If it could be
somehow simplified and given to us as a method or
a procedure rather than having to sit down and do
something original on each case.
John Wilson: Curiously enough, I have a master's
student who started to work for me for his thesis
which will be completed in June. He just started
yesterday. He is going to write a user's manual of
very simple models that can be used here in the
United States for normal impact assessments and
for analyzing ground-water contamination problems
in relatively simple geometry. So, yes, we have
made the effort in that direction.
Dick Pearl: I want to ask Wayne Pettyjohn a
question in light of his talk this afternoon on strip
mining. There's a lot of thought being given to using
old strip mines for waste disposal sites. What are
your feelings on this? Do you think they can be
used safely?
Wayne Pettyjohn, Ohio State University, Dept. of
Geology and Mineralogy, Columbus, Ohio 43210:
Well, I think the case history that I cited shows
that liquid and semiliquid waste very definitely
should not be put in these sites. And on the other
hand, I think that they probably could be used for
certain types of waste such as solid waste, and
perhaps sludges once the site was examined carefully.
In this particular example that I used, the site was
examined but not that carefully and it was
examined only by a consultant to the firm. It
seems almost ludicrous that there weren't some
State agencies out there protecting their own
interest.
But, yes, I do think that in many situations a
strip mine can indeed be used safely for storage of
certain types of waste.
Bill Weist: You said you shouldn't use it for liquid
waste but was it mainly because of that unknown
mine head or whatever it was down in the South
that polluted the area?
Wayne Pettyjohn: No.
Bill Weist: If it hadn't been that, I didn't notice
any sign of pollution going to the west side.
Wayne Pettyjohn: That's right. There weren't
any noticeable contaminants moving to the west
but I think there was a slight dip to the east and
had the proven underground workings not been
there, and had the one that I assume is there, not
been there, there still would have been a problem
only not as significant. But because there were
significant springs issuing from the joints and
seepage all around, it was a bad scene to start with.
But it didn't get really bad until the southern
part was open.
John Wilson: Do you think associated with strip
mining that there's a feeling that one has already
destroyed the land, so that now it is okay to use it
for storage of industrial sludges and other
industrial uses which one would not have otherwise
contemplated for that particular geographic area?
Wayne Pettyjohn: I think that's true at least in
Ohio, under the lands that were stripped prior to
some legislation developed in 1972. All you have
to do is examine the land and you can see very
readily that it can't be used for much. It does have
a certain beauty of its own, though. In fact, we
drive 1500 miles to come out to the Badlands of
South Dakota and see the same type of topography
we have in the strip mines back there. There is a
little difference, though, the pH of the water is a
little better in the South Dakota Badlands than it is
here. So I think that is very true. People visualize
this is land that has no value at all. It is creating a
228
-------
problem, so let's use it for something, we'll put
various goodies in it.
Unknown Speaker: One of your conclusions was
that the strip mining pits wouldn't be a good place
to put the kind of waste they contained so people
couldn't live there. Where would be a good, place
to put that sort of stuff?
You stated that there are certain types of waste
that you know might be put in those types of strip
mine areas. What would you have in mind?
Wayne Pettyjohn: Right now, as far as the pickle
liquors themselves are concerned, there has been
quite a lot of technology developed recently to
renovate this material. And that's darn well what
they should do, and I think they will, with time.
Another possibility would be to use deep well
disposal which they are doing. Now the types of
waste that could go into these wells, I would
visualize as a waste which does not contain
substances that are readily soluble. I really can't go
much further than that. It's going to leak out as
the stuff is as permeable as anything can be. If the
substance is highly water soluble, then it will
create a problem but in many of the mines
that's already a bad problem because the water
discharging is highly mineralized. Perhaps you could
think a little differently and put in wastes like a
caustic soda or something like that, which then
would bring up the pH and maybe then the heavy
metals wouldn't be moving with the acid mine
drainage. But that's really way beyond me. I really
shouldn't be commenting on that.
Bill Weist: In commenting on your question
initially, Dick, in reply to using solid waste, I
might just mention that the City of Terre Haute,
Indiana, is utilizing a strip mine for solid waste
disposal. To my knowledge there's no study made
yet to determine whether there's any pollution
occurring. It's been in operation for several years
and there's no complaints and no evidence that
it's not working successfully.
Dick Pearl: Are there any requirements in Indiana
that the site be evaluated by a geologist and a report
turned into the State for their evaluation?
Bill Weist: I believe they're starting to do that now,
but in the past there has not been.
G. Lewis Meyer, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.:
Would the potential for leakage really be so
noticeable if you had not put the waste in there?
Did the waste, by putting it in there, serve as a sort
of collection gallery for infiltrating water and then,
was much water moving in the natural state through
that strip mine area?
Wayne Pettyjohn: Well, I'm certain that there was
some discharge of highly mineralized waters to
start with. That was one reason I collected samples
on the east side of that one tributary. Remember
that one sample I pointed out—site 15—was highly
mineralized. I'm certain that before any of the
neutralized liquors were put in there that there
was a similar type of discharge.
The sludge consists of 70 to 80% moisture and
all that is squeezed out and also there is a lot of
infiltration when precipitation is about 38 inches a
year there. So there's a lot of infiltration of the soil
surrounding that pit. Putting the sludge in there
created a problem that was different from the
problem that existed before and resulted in a great
discharge.
Jack Keeley, EPA, Kerr Research Center, Ada,
Oklahoma 79824: I have a feeling that most of the
work we do in ground water is utter nonsense. For
example, the use of BOD in ground water is utter
nonsense. Is anyone here doing work on really new
technology? Is anyone here doing work on ATP
to give an indication of gross biological activity?
Is anyone doing work on stable isotope ratios to
identify the sources the Connecticut way? Is anyone
doing work on organics and their degradation
products? You know, we can talk about pH and
nitrates for years and years and years. Is anyone
really beginning any new technology?
John Wilson: Yes, but there are different levels of
technology and it moves from the basic research
stage through the applied research stage toward
development and finally application. It would have
to be appropriate to talk about new technology
which is in idea or basic research stage or early in
the applied research stage. And we could discuss
to the moment the research we all have done in
transports of chemicals in the saturated zone but
it's in the area of basic research, perhaps much too
sophisticated to convey at a meeting like this in a
meaningful way.
Unknown Speaker: All the things you mentioned,
Jack, are in the area of water chemistry or in the
area of disposal of liquid waste. They all obviously
229
-------
bear directly on the big menace to ground water,
but I think the average ground-water geologist
and ground-water hydrologist when he thinks of
new technology, isn't geared up to focus on these
water chemistry problems.
Jack Keeley: I agree totally and that's my point.
Geologists are rock people. What are you, Dave?
Unknown Speaker: I'm a hydrologist.
Jack Keeley: My point here is that we in the
ground-water industry are decades behind our
counterparts in surface water. And I don't really see
that we're progressing. We're making the same
mistakes that they made 20 years ago. And I don't
think we have time to do that. What I'm suggesting
here is an interdisciplinary approach to ground
water which does include of all things geologists
and hydrogeologists, but we need to get some
organic chemists, some physical chemists, some
microbiologists, some biochemists to really develop
brand new technology. Now I agree that a lot of
this is very basic. We're doing some ATP work at
Ada, Oklahoma, and it's, I think, not going very
well, because it's very difficult. But wouldn't it be
wonderful if we could get one analysis that could
replace E. coli?
Lynn Gelhar: There is a need to see this kind of
work supported and we have to look to where this
kind of work is going to be supported when it's
oriented toward ground-water studies. I think that
is a serious impediment to this kind of thing. The
current federal situation is not one that encourages
emphasis on ground water. Isn't that right?
Dick Pearl: You've got a log of good ideas there,
Jack. But still the stuff you have proposed is very
expensive to run.
Jack Keeley: I maintain that pH was very difficult
50 years ago. What I'm suggesting here is that we
start and in one day 18 people have a meter that we
stick in like a pH thing, we stick in and say behold.
But we've got to start now rather than fool around
with BOD's and pH's.
Dick Pearl: I agree with you on that. It takes time
and you can't do it immediately, but it is becoming
more popular to run it now.
G. Lewis Meyer: The problem we run into, I don't
think we're using some of the common tools we
have very well even today. I think we need to do
some basic things well first.
Unknown Speaker: I'd like to dwell on that a little.
We're talking here about new technology and I
think when the average geologist and hydrologist
thinks today of new technology to aid us in
preventing ground-water pollution, we are thinking
of more basic things. This morning we're thinking
about better septic tanks or better waste disposal
systems—ways of preventing gasoline spills, ways of
deicing roads without using a lot of sodium chloride,
ways of disposing of a variety of industrial toxic
wastes that would not involve surface- or ground-
water pollution. That is what I think most of us
think of new technology. You, Jack, are primarily
concerned with new technology of monitoring the
overwhelming number of new chemicals that are
being injected into the system each year which is
certainly a facet of it, but it is almost beyond the
mundane problems that are still facing us
everyday unsolved.
Wayne Pettyjohn: While I agree with several things
that have been said, I'll disagree with you. The point
is that we have pH meters or conductivity meters
that make several analyses very inexpensively. The
thing that's bothered me for years and I shudder to
think what would happen if we had new instru-
mentation, is the fact that you can look at literally
thousands of reports and in these reports you will
notice some tables with water quality data and in
the text it will say that water quality data is shown
in Table 3. That's the end of it. That's the end of
the water quality discussion. And no one seems to
realize that every line on that table costs at least
$50. So that all of us, I think, tend to fall down on
the interpretation of the data that we have that's
readily available. Why develop new types of
instruments, which obviously we can't do, to tell us
what else is in the water, when we really won't
pay much attention to it anyway?
Unknown Speaker: I think one of the problems
that I've run into, and I don't have any great
training with water quality, is knowing what to
measure. Would anybody like to comment on that?
Dick Pearl: You've got a very big problem there.
There are new standards coming out for drinking
water. We're beginning to recognize now that there
are more and more trace elements that we should
be analyzing for. The effects that they are having
on the health and well-being of mankind and
230
-------
animals as well—it's becoming a very big problem.
What do you analyze for? How far should you go
with it?
Bill Weist: It depends on the purpose of your study.
Maybe 3 or 4 things could tell you if the water's
bad. If you knew everything that's in it, then you've
got a monumental task.
Dick Pearl: It's the trace elements that you need to
know, what's in there, what effect it's going to have
on the drinking water of the people in the metro-
politan region.
Bill Weist: That's true. Somewhere else you may
not have to worry about trace elements. You
wouldn't want to analyze it. I don't think you have
a blanket answer to help him. There's no set things
you should analyze for. It depends on your situation.
Wayne Pettyjohn: I think that the last remark was
correct. We could really not say that you should
look for these elements or these substances because
those that might be significant depend on the type
of waste you're looking at. The thing that's been
done so much in the past and will probably be done
for the next 150 years, is to run a standard analysis
which may tell you absolutely nothing, particularly
in reference to the heavy metals. We don't know
what the significance of these things are. We may
not know Where they come from. So, without a
complete analysis you don't know what to look
for. You have to be guided a little bit by the type
of waste you think is involved and then go from
there.
Unknown Speaker: I agree, but if you go out in the
field and you're faced with the products of the
pollution and you may have a number of sources
or possible sources of pollution surrounding that.
So by that you've got to analyze for all possible
sources.
Wayne Pettyjohn: Well, in some respects, yes. Even
though there may be 20 different sources, you
probably have some that are common to all of them.
Unknown Speaker: Then you still have the
unknown of the geologist too.
Jan Turk, University of Texas, Dept. of Geological
Science, Austin, Texas 78712: I think that one of
the problems when we work with some of these
lesser known contaminants, such as the trace metals,
is our tremendous lack of background data. A lot of
so-called pollution cases have been identified with-
out sampling the surrounding areas to determine
what the natural background is, you cannot
absolutely point a finger and say that contamination
has occurred or who is contaminating.
Jack Keeley: I want to agree with Jan Turk. And
this was my point a moment ago. Here we keep
fooling around with what happens to nitrates, the
calcium, and the phosphates and these things in
the subsurface when in fact we have not described
the subsurface environment as a receptor of pollu-
tion. My suggestion awhile ago was instead of
measuring E. coli, wouldn't it be nicer to have one
parameter which we would have some indication
of the gross biological activity which exists in the
subsurface? Would it not be nicer to be able to
measure the oxidation reduction potential at 50
feet and have an idea of the state of the metals
rather than run all these things that may or may
not do us any good?
Norman Lovejoy, Nelson, Haley, Patterson and
Quirk, Inc., 102 N. Cascade, Suite 202, Colorado
Springs, Colorado 80902: I'd like to pursue this
because isn't one of the principal new uses of
underground water the storage of recycled water
for later use and if so, isn't it necessary to really
begin to look at the parameters that should be
used to measure the quality of water that's being
put in there for storage for later use, and what the
effect is as it sits there over a period of time rather
than flowing down through a stream with all the
oxygen? I came late and I'm not very expert in
the subject so I may have asked a dumb question.
I'm concerned about the use of the underground
aquifer for storage for later use of winter waters
and recycled waters. What standards have been
established for those flows?
Unknown Speaker: Depending on how good a job
you do, you can have a very good container. For
example, I think the biggest work has been done
by the Chicago Sanitary District. They, in
cooperation with the Illinois Survey and a number
of consulting firms, have done extensive new
geotechnical surveys and have located very good
places to store water. Before the extensive work
was done, they came up with some preliminary
ideas of where to store it, which would have been at
shallower depths and would have been cheaper.
However, later they found that they were criss-
crossed by joints.
231
-------
Norman Lovejoy: Did they have any standards for
the water that was being placed in there, surface
water or the recycled water? Do they know the
impacts of that water on the chemical and physical
model of the underground-
Unknown Speaker: The water that they're storing
there is storm water and runoff. So it's water
whenever they have high flows and their sanitary
sewage can't handle it and then it's all pumped
down to these storage chambers. Later on it's
pumped back up to the surface for treatment. As
far as I know, I may be wrong, this is probably the
largest scale operation that deals with subsurface
storage.
Dick Pearl: As I understand it though, that's not
being put into the ground water, it's into a dry
chamber.
Unknown Speaker: Right.
Raphael Kazmann, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana:
We've been looking into this matter of storing fresh
water that might have salt water in it and we've
also been looking into the changes that surface
water undergoes when it goes into an aquifer. We
have found that although the water may be
somewhat hard when it gets into the aquifer, we can
trace the movement of the water in the aquifer.
Now when it comes to storage of fresh waters mixed
with the elements of the Mississippi, we get out
soft water.
Dick Pearl: Warren Wood of the USGS is involved
in the High Plains recharge study at Lubbock, Texas,
and they have some problems.
Warren Wood, U.S.G.S., Lubbock, Texas 79413:
Well, we have done a bit of modeling. In answer to
your geochemical questions, we're in the process.
We have a digital model now of simple things like
solution, precipitation, and ion exchange. It's
rather a straightforward model. We can predict
fairly readily what will occur, provided we're given
some initial boundary conditions as to the water
and the ion exchange capacity of the material.
Given these we can predict fairly accurately, at
least in the situations in the High Plains, what we
anticipated at any given time and the depth in one
dimension.
Unknown Speaker: Is there a way that a district or
agency that owns water can determine the quality
the water must be in order to be acceptable for
recharge into a particular aquifer? Are there
standards by which the engineer can determine the
quality that the return flow must be to be recharged
and be acceptable from a chemical and biological
point of view?
Warren Wood: Given again the basic parameters,
you also need the interstitial water which is a part
of the site selection criteria that we're developing for
recharge. Tell me what your water quality is you
want to recharge. Give me something about the
geologic section, I then should be able to tell you
what that water will look like at various points in
time and space and what it will look like 6 months
from now when you repump it.
Unknown Speaker: Is biological an important
factor in this recharge storage?
Warren Wood: It's important in terms of plugging
of the recharge facility, be it a basin or a well. It
may or may not be important in terms of the
water quality depending on the use you're going to
put this water to and the aquifer.
James McNabb, U.S. EPA, Robert S. Kerr Environ-
mental Lab, P.O. Box 1198, Ada, Oklahoma 74820:
I don't want to steal my thunder for tomorrow
because I'm supposed to speak about biological
activity in subsurface systems. If I answer his
question too much, I won't have anything to say
tomorrow! In my opinion he's correct when he said
it may or may not be important.
Unknown Speaker: I'd like to point out that a
system making use of all this water is a very
adaptive and a very hardy one. You don't have to
get down to the gnat's eye to make it go, as far as
human beings are concerned. You can take a wide
range of fluids and make good use out of it. The
only thing that we've got to really watch is the
poisons of one sort or another, the metals, complex
carbons, or chlorinated hydrocarbons. So that
actually it isn't quite as bad as everybody seems to
think. Within fairly rough limits we can use
almost any kind of water we can store as long as it
isn't poisonous. You can go too far in finding
everything out in a gnat's eye; by the time you
find everything, you've got nothing left.
Dick Pearl: If I may ask a question of Ed Gutentag.
232
-------
Bob Prill had a recharge study there at Garden
City, Kansas about 10 years ago, which never got
published. If you can remember, did he have any
problems involved in the recharge?
Ed Gutentag, U.S. Geological Survey, Garden City,
Kansas 67846: Bob used that pond. The only time
he had a problem was the time he used Roderman
Dye and he wanted to trace it down. The dye was
absorbed in the upper materials of the soil and
they couldn't even pick it up using a soil slurry.
Jay Gillespie is working on a similar project now in
western Kansas. He's had fairly good results.
Dick Pearl: We've pretty well talked this subject
to death, Does anyone want to change the subject?
Jay Lehr, Executive Director, IMWWA, 88 E. Broad
St., Columbus, Ohio 43215: I'd like to ask Ray
Kazmann a little more about his miniature model
system. You have field-use determined that one can
very successfully dispose of waste under certain
conditions that essentially will not be needed for
potable water supplies. One of the conclusions I
drew from your talk dealt very heavily with this
density concept. What are you saying to people
with waste they want to dispose of which is not as
dense as water? Should they utilize an additive to
make it denser so that it can be disposed of?
Raphael Kazmann: Absolutely. Use a weighting
agent, anything to make it denser because that
gives you a factor of safety. Admittedly it's
expensive, but on the other hand, these are the
ultimate wastes, the wastes that are just
impractical. You can't burn them, you can't do
anything with them, you can't even contain them
on the surface. So under those circumstances the
added cost to weight the wastes so they'll sink to
the bottom of your receiving aquifer, I think, is
not an important parameter.
Jay Lehr: You opened your talk by saying that
there were probably too many articles on well
technology for waste disposal. Yet, we've had so
many failures in industrial wells that were thought
to be perfectly good that failed in the sense that
pollutants started coming up around the outside
of the casing. The pollutants also were found in
higher zones than they were initially put into. This
would leave me to feel that we have not frequently
constructed the wells as well as they could have
been to produce these kind of less than perfect
results. One of the innovators in the area was U.S.
Steel in Gary, Indiana and yet they started having
troubles. It seems to me that industries that
thought this kind of waste disposal was going to
be a real panacea for getting rid of some of their
real problem wastes, are putting less emphasis on it
now because of problems coming back at them
years later.
Raphael Kazmann: You have to differentiate be-
tween 2 basic types of errors, the retrievable type
and the irretrievable type. For my money, if a man
puts a well in and it goes bad, he hasn't lost. All he
does is plug the well and drill another one. On the
other hand, if he puts a waste in and it gets away,
this is irretrievable. What I'm trying to do is avoid
the irretrievable errors as I feel technology is in
pretty fair shape as far as the actual equipment is
concerned and nobody should put a single waste
disposal well down. 1 think it's almost an essential
part of a project that there be 2 wells, so that when
one is shut down the other can operate. And wells
will have to be shut down. Water wells have to be
shut down. There is no reasonable length that a
waste disposal well will not have to be shut down,
treated, cleaned or maybe even abandoned. But
this is part of the price of handling intractable
wastes. If you're going after 10,000 years of storage,
essentially permanent storage, you have to be
prepared, and it's got to be done right and it's got
to be done thoroughly. It's not a matter of saying
$100,000. We're talking now in the $1,000,000
class and we're not going to use this for trivial
stuff. Burn it first. Do anything but deep well
disposal. But the stuff that you can't handle any
other way, that goes down the well.
Arthur Chapman: The concept of the denser the
better, keeps the mandate that you can dispose of
this waste, whoever does it by reducing the volume
and concentrating it. Is that what you're saying?
Raphael Kazmann: You can do it that way too.
You need as little as .02 gram per cc difference.
The more you can get the better. We've been running
experiments anywhere from .01 gram per cc, up to
about .45.
Sam Owens, Subsurface Disposal Corp., Suite 646,
5555 W. Loop So., Bellaire, Texas 77401: I think
we should clarify one thing. Your model is made
on an open hole completion which is really not
realistic with what is actually used in an industrial
waste application. I would have to disagree with you
on assuming that all waste should be of a heavier
233
-------
gravity than water. That assumption would only be
true if there is nothing below that aquifer that is
going to be of value sometime in the future. In
many cases, wastes are disposed of which are of a
lighter gravity and they are done so because there is
no chance of that waste moving upward into a
usable zone. Also you might consider sometime
those areas where waste is pumped into a close
aquifer which has been pumped out previously.
Raphael Kazmann: You're absolutely right as far
as there being a lot of good situations, but these
are all field situations and you have to have some
principals to go by. In principal I would feel safer
when the waste is heavier than the brine or
whatever the receiving formation is, because then
it goes down. There are geochemical reactions that
haven't been looked into. This is purely a hydro-
dynamic look at a new complicated situation.
Unknown Speaker: I don't want to repute some-
thing. What I want to do is clarify again. Yes, in
many cases you could add a brine, but in some
cases you could not because of the incompatibility
with the disposal fluids. But there are other things
that could be done to the material to weight it if
that's what you want to do. In some cases a
disposal well may not be completely compatible
with the water. In such a case it was usually
common practice to add a fluid as a buffer, to
build in a buffer zone.
Unknown Speaker: About Ray's 2-well concept, I
don't think this should be passed by so insignifi-
cantly. I know of numerous waste disposal situations
whereby an agency or even private citizens have
indicated the apparent problems stemming from
these waste disposal wells and the company
involved will fight, argue at great lengths before
admitting that there is a problem and maybe
eventually get shut down or make some repairs.
Had there been an alternate potential of another
well, they might not have had to cover up or put
up the big fight. It seems like such a simple and a
clever idea. Of course, it's used by many water-
supply people who recognize that wells have to be
serviced all the time. They have extra wells and
have to shut down when another needs service.
I'm wondering if there exists a regulation in any
State that comes close to this concept, that if you're
going to have a waste disposal well, drill 2 so that
you can shut one down in case something goes
wrong or for general maintenance work. Does
anyone know?
James Pool, Florida Dept. of Natural Resources,
115 Bloxham St., Tallahassee, Florida 32304:
Right now the Department of Natural Resources in
Florida has a policy that an experimental test well
will be drilled for any injection site. And then that
well will require at least one monitoring well separate
from the injection well. At any site there has to be
at least 2 wells.
Dick Pearl: We just had a deep well disposal
proposal presented here in Colorado for toxic wastes
coming from the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. It was a
2-well disposal system. There were also stipulations
required for back-up emergency plans. If something
happened and they couldn't handle it at the disposal
site, they had to be able to take care of the waste
elsewhere. So we do have that requirement here in
Colorado too.
Jan Turk: Professor Kazmann, what's wrong with a
fractured formation if you want to inject?
Raphael Kazmann: You'd have to fracture a
sandstone formation to inject it. Where do you find
some other place to keep the waste?
Jan Turk: I agree, but I think that to clarify the
fact that just because you fractured the sand does
not necessarily mean that you fractured the shales.
Dick Pearl: Technologically you could probably
fracture and inject into it. Politically, I don't think
you could sell it to the environmentalists or to the
State authorities who've got to approve it.
Unknown Speaker: I think I agree with Ray that
you've got to at least not go above the fracture
pressures if this is possible.
Dick Pearl: Well, if no one else wants to change the
subject, I do. Bill, do you have any idea how much
water pollution is occurring from just normal
fertilizing of our lawns? Let me give you a little
history. People in Denver take great pride in their
nice green lawns. And they go to great expense to
fertilize, water, and take care of them. You people
from the East just can't believe the care that goes
into our lawns. The family that won the best lawn
contest in Denver just lives up the street from me.
This fellow says that he fertilizes his lawn once a
month and he cuts it twice a week. What I'm
getting at is that he's putting a tremendous amount
234
-------
of 15% nitrogen fertilizer along with all the other
elements on his lawn. I doubt if the plants and
grass is taking up all this fertilizer and it must be
running off. Do you have any idea of the magnitude
of this and how much water pollution is occurring
from this?
Bill Walker, Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana,
Illinois 61801: To my knowledge, no work, at
least in Illinois or the Midwest, has been done
along this line. I do know that the nitrates are taken
up by the grass if you don't put too much water on.
Knowing how expensive water is, I daresay that
most people do not overwater lawns. So I would
suspect that once research is done on. this, Dick, I
think you're right, that much of this nitrogen is
retained up in the upper zone, in the root zone
of the plants. I think also that you'll find that this
nitrogen, if you don't take the grass clippings off,
will just remain in place. However, most people do
clean up their lawns beautifully and take the grass
clippings away which seems kind of foolish really
unless they've made a compost pile out of it.
Because they are losing all that potential nitrogen
that way. But to my knowledge, there's no research
of this one thing. I don't think, however, that it
would be very significant on a large area basis on
yards, but I do think the farm fertilizer use and
misuse might well be very significant.
Ed Gutentag: I've been using 33 1/3. We're in an
area with 18 inches annual precipitation and when
you fertilize, if you don't get any water on, that's
going to burn. So the point is that you have to put
enough water on when you do fertilize. You can't
put on too much or it burns the grass. So if your
neighbor had a nice clean lawn that meant that he
got that fertilizer on, he got the water on it, he got
it into the roots and didn't burn the grass.
John Fryberger, Engineering Enterprises Inc.,
Norman, Oklahoma 73069: I have the impression,
reading research on the question of nitrate being
leaked down from agricultural applications, that
there have been numerous cases where they have
found an increase in the nitrate in ground water.
When they studied this quite thoroughly they found
that the increase in nitrate doesn't come from the
fertilizer but comes from natural nitrates that
were in the capillary zone or the unsaturated zone
that were leached down by the application of
irrigation water. The nitrates themselves didn't
come down from the fertilizer, but were leached
out of the soil.
Bill Walker: We did a detailed study in southern
Illinois along this line and at the end of the growing
season, we took core samples in the upper 18
inches of the soil throughout a man's farm. We
found that man had at the end of the growing
season 186 pounds of nitrates per acre in that
upper 18 inches. This was after he had grown 100
bushels to the acre corn on that land. Then in the
winter, during the time when these applications
should be minimal, practically zero, we went out
again after the fall rains had taken place. We found
that all the nitrates that were in the upper 18
inches at the end of the growing season in late
fall, had been washed down to the ground-water
reservoir. So, when we go this route and try to
blame it on organic nitrogen down deep that
somehow mysteriously without oxygen converted
to inorganic nitrate form and then went on down
or did something.
Jan Turk: I'd like to ask, was that natural or
organic nitrate?
Bill Walker: This particular case had 6 sources of
nitrate, nitrogen on the farm. They had an old
privy, septic tank, an abandoned chicken yard, an .
old horse barn, an old cow barn, and a hog lot.
Jan Turk: I'm still not sure that answers the
question. He was talking about the 186 pounds of
nitrate.
Bill Walker: This was all due to farm fertilizer and
another thing that this was due to was nitrification
of the old corn stalks plowed back under. And
we've been ignoring this in the past. We've been
ignoring the fact that most of the uptake of nitrogen
in plants is not going out in the seed; instead it's
being returned to the land and plowed down and
maybe this takes 3 or 4 years to totally nitrify by
bacterial action in the soil. This I think will live to
haunt people that use spray irrigation of sewage
disposal.
Jan Turk: You do have very good data to indicate
that in some areas and various regions that natural
soil nitrate can be quite excessive. In fact, we
studied an entire county and in those areas we have
in excess of 1000 pounds per acre of nitrate within
a very shallow zone and there has never been any
fertilizer added.
Unknown Speaker: Was this actually the nitrate
form or was this a total of nitrogen determination?
235
-------
Jan Turk: This was in the nitrate form. We're
running higher in some cases, 400 mg/kg.
Unknown Speaker: Very little of this goes to the
ground-water reservoir? So this is a storing or bank-
ing of this nitrate in this upper zone just due to
evaporation taking it back up—so this could be
5000 years of accumulation in that area?
Unknown Speaker: Probably not, but it could be.
Unknown Speaker: In our prairie soils we have
some areas with 10 feet of prairie soils, it's just in
organic form. It can't convert. But once oxygen or
bacteria can get to it, then it does.
Unknown Speaker: Right. Then it's converted over
to nitrate form. But as long as it's still in the prairie
condition an awful lot of it can remain in the
organic form.
Unknown Speaker: But that is not a breach of
plants anyway. The only thing the plants can use is
nitrate. In most of the crops they have to use it in
nitrate form. So if it's in some organic nitrogen
form, it stays there. They can use it and water does
not dissolve it so there's no reason why it wouldn't
stay there. We used infrared on our hazardous
chemical study this summer and fall in Illinois,
hopeful that the infrared would give us a finger
point at least of which way these pollutants might
be moving from the stored sites. Now we know
that we can't get a complete definition of a blob
or whatever moving out because much of it will go
down below and go through underneath the reach
of the roots of the plants. But we hope that enough
of it up in the capillary zone will have been absorbed
to actually give us an arrowhead point of which way
to test for these movements. This is starting to be
used in other parts of the country too. This might
be something to think about for your study.
When I first mentioned this to the Kellogg
Center in Michigan 2 years ago, they didn't think
about that as being a method. Now I guess Cornell
and somebody else is beginning to use it before I
could get somebody to use mine.
John Osgood, Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental
Resources, P.O. Box 2063, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17120: There are a few points that I would like to
make. One is the volume of hydrocarbons lost is not
as significant as the hydrogeologic system which
they are deposited into. A lot of people at EPA I
know take great pride in being able to identify the
volume of hydrocarbons lost and that might be
significant in surface waters because there's rapid
dispersion. In ground water I'd be able to say X
amount of gallons were lost this year is not as
significant as the number of cases or the kinds of
problems that develop from those cases. We've had
situations where as much as 10 gallons were lost
for a 2-day period and it knocked out 3 wells for a
good 2 months. In other cases we've had situations
where 30,000 gallons were lost, recovered, and
there was no problem. Containment right at the site
and recovery within a matter of days or contained at
the site for long periods of time while the renovation
of the ground water continues, I think we have to
be concerned With that when we set up statistics.
We in Pennsylvania found that we had a little
difficulty at first selling the idea that there was in
fact a problem from hydrocarbon spills. The feeling
was from our surface-water people that the surface
water was where the problem was in hydrocarbon
spills. We developed some information by indicating
that we had a feeling that there were a lot of
problems. That didn't sell. So what we needed to do
is to develop statistics of ground-water problems
related to hydrocarbon spills so we can support
some of the legislation that's needed. You can't say
well we've got 20 cases here that caused a problem.
You have to have statistical support that you had a
major problem and that, of course, goes without
saying.
But it seems to be especially difficult with
governments and seems to be even more difficult
when you're working with ground water because
we have the same old thing that everyone of us
faces, that it's out of sight, out of mind. The people
who should know the most about the damage that
can be caused know the least, care the least and
unless they're really pushed, you can't get anything
out of these people. So we've got a real tough
selling job ahead of us. We have been successful in
Pennsylvania. I think a few other States have been,
but this is something that is ahead of us in this area
of legislation.
n;
Unknown Speaker: What recourses are available
now to the State to levy fines?
John Osgood: I can only discuss Pennsylvania
because I'm most familiar with that. We have the
Clean Streams Law and one particular provision of
that has to do with any spills that get down to the
ground water. Now if a spill occurs the person who
is responsible for that spill is obligated to immedi-
236
-------
ately notify DER. The majority of our cases have
not come that way; they come from problems that
have developed from the spills. But nonetheless
they are obligated according to our law to notify
us. If we get a notification and respond, then they
have 15 days in which to recover to our satisfaction
all of the pollutant that got into the ground water.
After 15 days, they can be fined up to $1,000 a
day, plus additional fines can be levied. We have an
enforcement officer in each region who issues
enforcement orders. We have a staff of attorney
generals that support us. We can take them to court
and fine them and we have. And in our State at any
rate, we are getting to the point where people take
us seriously. I think we have generally some pretty
tight regulations which permit us a great deal of
levity in the way we approach a problem. You need
specific regulations, however, and that's what
we're working on.
Unknown Speaker: Do you have a percentage
figure of the percentage of instances that have
resulted in fines that have been assessed against the
violators?
John Osgood: I really hate to get into this because
our attorney generals feel that these are rather minor
problems compared to some of the rather tremen-
dous ones they have. So we can go up to a certain
point. We usually get our own way through
persuasion. I think it's fairly easy because the
repercussions of the spill are so great. We had a
service station 2 or 3 months ago that had a leak in
their tank and we were informed. So we went out,
recognized that they had lost some gasoline, and
called up their district headquarters, which was for
the entire northeastern United States. They
thought nothing of it—so what, they lost a little bit
of gasoline! We informed them that we had some
explosions; we had several major problems con-
nected with these spills. They had absolutely no
idea that it could possibly happen. So they sent
out some people to take care of it. They didn't take
care of it properly. Within a month there were
about 6 homes who had lost the use of their wells.
They are still out and it has now been 3 months. It's
highly unlikely that they'll be able to use their
wells for another 6 months anyway. And that
station, that company is responsible to every one of
those people. They all have private suits on them.
The State has suits that they have to clean it up.
They have to continuously monitor it. The station
is closed. That's another neat thing. There is no way
they can get back in business until all that con-
taminated earth is removed and depending upon
their cooperation you can have them remove a
square mile of soil if you really want to push the
law. You can inform them of that capability. They
see dollar signs and they'd much rather put in
monitoring wells or trenches or hire consultants or
whatever.
Jan Turk: It seems to me that your discussion was
oriented entirely on detecting and how to clean up
spills. As I recall your slides today, in excess of 50%
of the cases were related to individual service
stations. Is that correct?
John Osgood: Yes, that's correct.
Jan Turk: What has your group done in terms of
setting criteria for installing these things? It seems
to me that if you could set the regulations for
installation of the storage tanks at individual service
stations you would immediately eliminate 50% of
the problems. In other words, you can make a
subsurface tank which is a fail-safe system that
cannot possibly leak, whether it is a tank within a
tank or a tank in a vault or what have you, which
would immediately eliminate 50% of your problem.
I hope that wouldn't reduce the staff from 16 to 8,
however!
John Osgood: I might say that we are working on
some regulations with respect to service stations.
The vaulting method, encasing the tank in some
sort of tank, we've thought of using concrete,
however, it does crack. You have transportation
over the concrete, over the tank, of heavy vehicles
and that would also have a tendency to weaken the
particular vaulted system.
We also have a tremendous expense. We have
some 11,000 service stations in the State. We have
2300 tanks going in every year, being replaced. We
have a lot of activity and a great deal of expense
connected with that. And I doubt that politically
we could get a concrete-type vault in.
Now something that we have just begun think-
ing about is another type of environmental isolation.
There are some on the market now that have come
on very recently. Some materials which when they
come in contact with gasoline, or any hydrocarbons,
swell. And if you put them in a confined area,
when not in contact with a hydrocarbon, they do
permit water to go through them. So you don't
have a build-up of water within this vault. But
when they come into contact with gasoline they
immediately swell and seal the entire system
237
-------
closed. And we're kind of thinking of orienting our
program towards that. It's economically practical.
We have to do a little bit more research, get a little
more information. We would like to have some sort
of a vaulted system on this level with a monitoring
well with an alarm system in there so that the tanks
can be removed.
Everybody seems to be thinking fiberglas is the
answer. There are some problems with attempting
to put fixtures on these tanks; that's where the
leaks are occurring with fiberglas tanks. They're
fairly new so we haven't gotten into any problems
with construction or how they're put in. I
imagine they'll be pretty good.
The steel tanks, of course, rust. They're begin-
ning to develop so that they can be competitive
with the fiberglas tanks. They're developing coatings
for them, both inside and out. So this may also be
something we can look forward to.
In Pennsylvania, we're oriented toward back-up
systems. The first step is environmental isolation
and if that fails, let's get a back-up system that can
alert us to the fact and hold it until we can react.
That's true for landfills or service stations or tank
farms.
Leonard Wood, U.S.G.S., Reston, Virginia 22170:
I'm wondering what experience Massachusetts was
having with their law that requires all new gasoline
tanks to be put into concrete vaults?
Unknown Speaker: I am not familiar with that. I
have no idea.
Thomas Canfield, U.S. EPA, 1839-16th St. NW,
Washington, D.C. 20460: Could you explain a little
bit about landfill isolation, the technology you're
using? How many sites do you have that are
isolated?
John Osgood: I can't give you an exact figure of
the number of sites. I would imagine there'd be
around half a dozen in the State that are going this
direction. The thing is that we started out the same
way, close up all our dumps. We've identified the
number of dumps and then tried to get them under
permit, the idea being that if they didn't turn out
to be environmentally sound facility, they would
not get a permit. We put a lot of money and effort
into examining natural renovation for these
systems. The geologic consultants filled out a
ground-water module which was quite extensive,
proving to us that there was suitable soil under-
neath the site so that natural renovation could
occur. They designed the facility for people who did
not have a very strong background in blueprint
reading or map reading or anything else. And when
they finally did get their permit, they put the
trenches any place they pleased and it forced us to
go back in and in some cases require them to
remove all the waste from the trench and put it
elsewhere. We found that, practically speaking, we
couldn't be at every site all the time and that they
were not really working. So we are heading towards
this more or less environmental isolation where we
have kind of 2 approaches. One is, you use a man-
made liner with a back-up system, in some cases
we have 4 different back-up systems to support this
environmental isolation. If one fails then the other
one can be used. The other one is controlling the
ground-water flow system in such a way as to
precipitate a viable type of collection system. In
other words, you can use the natural ground-water
flow system to transport the leachate to a collection
system and then treat that. And of course we need
a great deal of monitoring information and a great
deal of skill to design the facility in such a way
that that will be done. This is more or less the way
that we are headed.
Dick Pearl: Do you feel that manmade liners are
adequate for environmentally isolating your
landfills?
John Osgood: Compared to what? I think —
Dick Pearl: Almost anything.
John Osgood: Better than a clay, yes. We don't use
just one system. We will have perhaps a clay with a
manmade liner on top of it with a natural collection
system under that and natural renovation between
the natural collection system and the bottom of
your liners, we're rather conservative in our
approach. As a result we haven't gotten a great
many permitted.
Unknown Speaker: What's happening at the other
sites? How many sites are there total? .
John Osgood: Totally permitted? I don't know.
Unknown Speaker: How did you determine how
much fluid was lost and how do you know when
they're efficiently cleaned up?
John Osgood: It's very difficult to know how much
is lost, because, for instance, a service station can
238
-------
have a hole in its tank as I indicated and not know
if a slow leak over a long period of time can account
for a considerable amount of product and it can be
dispersed over a large area by the time it is realized.
We don't really approach the problem with the
intent of finding out the total amount that's lost.
We want to try and renovate the environment and
recover whatever is there. If we know it's there to
begin with, that's all the better because we would
keep track of how much we're recovering and relate
it to what's lost. Pipelines, for instance, lose
tremendous volumes and don't know it. They can
lose 15 to 20,000 gallons and not know it with a
small leak. And, of course, if they don't know, then
we can't know.
I want to say one other thing in the case you
mentioned, the Mechanicsburg spill we had in 1970,
there are 3 tank'farms, 3 storage depots, within a
quarter-square mile area and approximately 4
pipelines, I believe. 270,000 gallons of gas, raw
gasoline which was fed back into the pipeline, have
been recovered. We have not found any person who
has lost any product in that area in spite of the fact
that we pressure-tested every inch of the pipeline.
We checked every line and tank in the area. There
is no source for it. We feel we had a source, but
couldn't prove it in court, actually out of court.
We didn't feel we had a strong enough case. So
what we did, we have another little tricky thing in
our State law. That is, if you own some property
and there's contaminant on it, you are responsible
for cleaning it up, whether it's yours or not. So
therefore, if a service station has a spill and that
spill moves under its next door neighbor's property,
we can hold the next door neighbor responsible for
cleaning it up. We don't do it, we have it. Now
here's where it's neat. Let's take the Mechanicsburg
area. We had all these potential sources. The product
was under all of them. We felt they were all respon-
sible and we were able to set up a task force of all
these abusers. There were some 5 or 6 different
companies involved. They pitched in together and
set up a task force. They are cleaning it up under
this task force. We haven't had to go to court
because we have the necessary strength to do it if we
want to. We have a government task force as well as
a private industry task force. It's rather cumbersome.
It took quite awhile, but it's being done. Otherwise
we couldn't have done it. The State doesn't have
the resources to clean up 270,000 gallons of
gasoline.
Bill Walker: I'd like to address my question to his
previous discussion there on garbage dumps and
making them isolated from the ground-water
reservoirs and I know a lot of the literature on the
subject has been based on the West where we have
very little rainfall. But in the humid regions of the
country where you do have quite a lot of rainfall,
if we do isolate these things from the ground-water
reservoir, we are almost forced then to make the
top completely impermeable to keep the rains out.
Because if we do not and we do get leachates from
these and we say that we're going to collect this
stuff and treat it, how are we going to treat it? And
so you have leachates that are high in sulphates and
all these other little goodies and you say we can't
dump it in streams and use the streams for dilution.
Well, I would like to ask you how are they going to
treat it economically, or any other way really, to
remove these leachates?
Unknown Speaker: First of all, you know, there is
a principle where you can environmentally isolate
these landfills and then put a spray irrigation site
on it to stimulate the production, which will
stabilize the site much more rapidly.
Bill Walker: Where will the leachates go that you
are stabilizing it with?
Unknown Speaker: They'll go into a collection
system.
Bill Walker: -How can they be treated naturally,
economically? Let's be realistic. Do you have a site,
first, in the State where you're doing it?
Unknown Speaker: We have several collection
impoundments. We have aeration in one. We have
lime treatment in another. Polishing impoundment,
they usually have 3 of them. And then they go to
surface waters.
Bill Walker: And then they dilute.
Unknown Speaker: I think we're fooling ourselves
if we think that eventually we'll be able to catch
this leachate and treat it. Because if they enforce
the surface-water regulations right now, we couldn't
do it. And later on it's not going to get any cheaper
or easier because they're working toward clean
streams all the way back. That was my point in my
talk this morning when I said that all of these
various ecosystems must absorb and be capable of
absorbing by law their fair share of the pollution.
And I think that this is a very real point. We're
pushing for that and we're not pushing very
239
-------
realistically for it, I think. Eventually it has to be
somewhere and in those low concentrations about
the only place you can put it is in the surface-water
streams. But if everybody does it, then the surface-
water streams get degraded too much.
Dick Pearl: Bill, I think we can environmentally
isolate a landfill. So when you're in the process of
filling it, it's environmentally isolated and when
you're finished with it, it's environmentally isolated,
and you will not have leachates into it if you do the
proper job with final grade and design.
Unknown Speaker: I don't think you can ever say
you'll not have leachates in it.
Dick Pearl: Well, it will be a minor amount and
they won't get out.
Bill Walker: I don't even think it will be a minor
amount. And you can't speak of a minor amount
in the West. But I don't think in the East where
we get up to 10 inches of rainfall on sand and 2 or
3 inches through the tightest place we've got,
that's not a minor amount really. Because if you
get 3 inches going through there picking up
leachates, that could be very highly concentrated
stuff. And if it goes out of there in a blob or a bulb
and starts moving through, it doesn't mix with
native ground water very much. Now, here again,
I say we've got to separate our thinking from west
to east.
John Osgood: In Pennsylvania right now, the
existing State fire marshal has control over the
tanks. Every service station owner must stick their
tank in the morning and at night before he opens
and after he closes. He has to keep records on it.
Now small losses will not show up on this stick
because it's a very primitive method of identifica-
tion. What we are moving toward, what I know
other States have already done, is to develop some
sort of an annual hydrostatic pressure test. Either
annually or some interval where they have to
pressure test the tank and keep records on that.
These are much more accurate. They may go from
one pressure test time to the next, but I don't know
that we can do a whole lot more than that practical-
ly. I would imagine that we'll concentrate the
pressure testing in the earth the first quarter and
the last quarter of whatever the tank life is. And
that has to be determined since these seem to be
more or less the most sensitive periods for a tank.
We might go to an annual method. Colorado has
done that from what I understand. This is probably
the best method that you can go to for prevention.
The other is for them to check their records and
continue dip sticking every day. And identify
whether or not they find water in the tank. If there
is a hole in the tank, top of the tank or the side,
precipitation is going to add water when it infiltrates
through the soil. It's going to add water to the tank
itself and then they can identify with their gaining
water or they can identify whether they have
serious losses or not. I would imagine that would
be the best approach. Maybe somebody else has
some ideas.
G. Lewis Meyer: I'd like to pursue this secure
landfill or the liner thing a little bit further. There
are some kinds of waste you cannot treat by spray
irrigation. Now you can make impermeable liners
and you may succeed in making a bathtub. So if
you do this then you must have an impermeable
cap or it seems like you should have. Now, does
anybody know of any technology available for
making impermeable caps? I haven't heard or seen
any and it's a real need in the field of hazardous
and radioactive waste disposal.
Dick Pearl: Bill, shoot me down very vehemently.
The reason I say this is that we've got one project
out here on Clear Creek which is an experimental
landfill along these same lines, simply a bathtub.
They're taking impermeable bedrock and plastering
it on the sides about 10 to 12 feet thick. And when
they get through they will plaster impermeable clay
on the top of this thing. They have peripheral
drains all the way around it. They're collecting all
the ground-water movement through this area. Of
course, we don't have the precipitation here that
you have back east, we're only looking at 16
inches here in the Denver metro region.
G. Lewis Meyer: The normal life cycle of a
garbage dump or a landfill is that within the first 5
years or so the waste begins to compact and caps
normally start collapsing, cracking. And this
process goes on for as much as 30 years. So how will
this sort of a landfill hold up under this sort of
situation?
Dick Pearl: I think time will tell. I really don't
know. It's a sanitary landfill in the truest sense of
the word. Each fill is a cell unto itself. They are
covering and compacting each fill cell on all sides.
They have a sheep's foot roller in there to compact
it.
240
-------
Unknown Speaker: Is this clay or just native
materials they took out from somewhere else?
Dick Pearl: It's the Denver shale and siltstones. I
don't remember what the permeability rates are.
It's almost zilch.
John Osgood: I think the point is that with this
type of a system you can control leachate
production. You can hold it to a very low level or
you can stimulate it to a very high level. And by
perhaps surface-water diversion, some sort of an
interception system, you can control the rate at
which it's produced and yet not do any harmful
damage.
The thing I'm concerned with is that people
consistently try to take a waste and inject it into
the ground or put it into the ground in some way,
with only limited control on it down in that
environment. We could do the same kind of job
on the surface of the ground if nothing more than
taking the ground water out of the ground, putting
it into a large impoundment of this stuff, diluting
it on the surface and then putting it on the ground.
It would be more expensive, of course, but it
wouldn't be astronomically so, unless you're
dealing with huge volumes of water which might be
the case in some situations. But if it is, then you
shouldn't be putting it into the ground anyway.
I personally favor a more controlled
environment where you can treat the stuff and then
put it down into the ground if you want to when it
reaches a certain level. That brings us into the next
problem, which is probably the most pressing that
we have in Pennsylvania, and that is, the question
of ground-water quality criteria or standards. And
that one we've gone around in circles with
everybody in our department, everybody outside of
our department, all the surface-water people. What
is an acceptable level of control degradation of
ground water? Somebody's got to work that out.
EPA is beginning to and we are trying to do it also.
Lawrence Peters: I was very interested in your
concept of making all the known ecosystems share
their weight of out waste flow. Do you have any
comments to make about how we would go about.
this?
Bill Walker: Yes. I have a report that was published
in the July-August issue of Ground Water, "Moni-
toring Toxic Chemical Pollution from Land Disposal
Sites in Humid Regions," and I would refer you to
that. But in this sense, we have in the past at least,
just had a few wells not even knowing what depths
to put around these things, not even knowing
whether they were upgradient or downgradient and
usually 4, that's a nice number. So put 4 on a side.
We haven't even monitored the plant build-up at all.
We haven't monitored overland sheet runoff away
from them at all. We don't know how much was
taken off in the crops. So I was pointing out in my
talk today that we must find these things out
because we know not how much each ecosystem
should and could absorb. I think the air can take
more, in many areas. I think surface water can
definitely take more. And I think surface water
should take most of the load because we have the
perfect measuring indicator out there of it—fish.
People laugh about this but they shouldn't. Because
we normally can't spend enough money to con-
tinuously monitor a stream. But those fish are
monitoring it for us completely. So if we keep the
native fish alive, or keep the water pure enough to
keep the native fish living and then watch it when
they start dying, then we can track them upstream
and find out what killed them. We can see that.
There's no fish underground. So you know, it's
hard to tell when ground water's polluted. But at
least everybody's expert. Any fisherman is helping
us police surface waters. Nobody can help us police
ground water, not even ourselves.
Unknown Speaker: With one extreme, you get a
fish killed. But on the other extreme, you can get
something like sexual malfunction, which is very
hard to pick up.
Bill Walker: Here again, I think that we have been
looking down a small barrel thinking that we the
geologists or we the hydrologists, can solve all the
problems. What makes us think that we should not
have a fish biologist on our team? And so, in this
sense I think these problems are far too complex
for us to justj look at it from our little viewpoint
anymore. And I definitely think the sex life of the
fish would be an indicator here. I don't know,
because I'm no fish biologist. But I'm sure that if
we got together with a team like that and kicked
this problem around, it would be awesome to see
what kinds of solutions we'd come out with. For
instance, you take one single pollutant, then maybe,
at least, 2 or 3 ways of getting rid of it into different
ecosystems. How do you make the decision on
which one is going to bear the load? I can't, but I
say that somebody must decide real soon. All I know
is that I can see it building up in the soil. I've got
241
-------
enough sense to see that and I can see it in the
plants. You know the thing that started this mess
was over there in Pennsylvania basically. You know
they have been telling us all these years with their
data, that there was some buildup in the trees out
there of these chemicals. Nobody's even paid any
attention to this. They have been publishing their
data pointing out that the plants were building up
some. It's especially dangerous, and that's one area
I didn't even get into today. Read the paper
because I did get into these otrter areas and in this
sense I think with the sprayed irrigation of sewage
sludge that they're preaching right now, they'd
better start monitoring buildup in plants. There's
research going on right now in Illinois, for instance,
and one of the researchers told me the other day
that he is getting some buildup in plants of
hazardous chemicals that are unheard of ever before.
I said, why don't you publish it? He said, he was
afraid to. Now here is the kind of thing we must
face openly, and people that want this to succeed
are even hiding data, or not necessarily, but they're
just kind of covering it up. We must have this data.
John Fryberger: I was going to ask one more
question about the gasoline. What conclusions did
you come to in using the bugs that were developed
to eat the oil and ocean oil spills? Have you found
any bugs that would work in the ground water?
Unknown Speaker: We have one case with some
197,000 gallons of high test fuel; it was very, very
high test gasoline. The company recovered all but
90,000 gallons immediately. They recovered another
30,000 initially from their pumping program to
recover it physically. They used biological activity,
biological degradation by pumping oxygen, nitrogen
and a phosphate buffer into the limestone area, and
this supported a biological community which did
break down another 30,000 gallons, it was
computed, of product. So it has worked. The
unfortunate problem with this is that the report,
which was excellent, was not made public. There
was no way we could get them to make it public
because this particular company did not want the
bad publicity from losing all this product. They
didn't care about the good publicity from being
able to develop this method.
Unknown Speaker: Was a check of nitrates and
ammonia made after this study? Because if you put
ammonia and nitrogen and all this other stuff in
there to help cultivate the bugs, then you
regenerate some ammonia and they run in some
problems in some parts of the world, by polluting
with nitrates instead of fuel oil.
Unknown Speaker: I don't know.
Unknown Speaker: It seems to me that this is a
problem we ought to address ourselves more to-
solving one problem without creating one that's
even worse.
Jerry Hendricks, Sieio Inc. Consulting Engineers,
309 Washington St., Columbus, Indiana 47201:
The question is, from the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, what standard should be used to
evaluate ground water and I would like to answer
the question, what's wrong with the Drinking Water
Standard ?
John Osgood: Many of the parameters used in
drinking water are destructive or harmful to aquatic
life. As a result of that, for instance, EPA just
recently in connection with their spray irrigation, I
think they composed some regulations to establish
some sort of ground-water criteria connected with
it and used Drinking Water Standards. In doing so,
they violated the water quality standards for
surface water. I don't think we can just walk in and
say that we'll permit degradation up to Drinking
Water Standards. I don't think it will go. That's one
of the problems. What is acceptable? What concept
do we use when we talk about water quality
standards? Do we talk about maintaining natural
quality? Do we talk about maintaining drinking
water standards? Because that's what man uses it
for? It's not the only use of ground water by any
means.
Unknown Speaker: I don't say let's pollute the air
and surface water any more than necessary. But I
do say that hydrochlorine and hydrocarbons can
be burned easier. Along this same line, you can scrub
this stuff and end up with a residual that you can
do something with. By the same token, fuel oils
and some of these other things, the waste oil can be
done the same way. By now, when you say that the
fish life out there might be hurt, which would hurt
somebody raising oysters, for instance, that's good.
However, by putting it underground outside, you
say it isolates'it from the system. Basically, it does
not. Because they're all interconnected. And with
the ground water moving to the surface water and
surface water moving back and forth, to the plants
taking it up as it goes back and forth, we're not
really isolating it. We're getting it out where we're
242
-------
hiding it, where it's a lot more dangerous. This is
the reason I say, watch the ground-water part.
Unknown Speaker: We talk about sewage treatment
systems or we talk about spray irrigation, the Penn
State program. They may not have published their
data. You talk about putting into a surface-water
system, then we've dispersed it for how many
miles?
Unknown Speaker: If you concentrate it into
plants, then what are you going to do with the
plants? Because you can't feed it to the animals, or
you can't burn it or you'll ruin the air, or if it stays
there and it dies and decays, then that stuff is
released to the ground-water reservoir. You see,
even in the plants you've got to know how much is
there and what you're going to do with it afterwards.
David Johe, Ohio EPA, 361 East Broad St.,
Columbus, Ohio 43215: This question came up
just a little bit ago. Why not use Drinking Water
Standards? One argument against that—in our State
of Ohio arid somebody mentioned in Texas, the
natural ground-water quality cannot meet Drinking
Water Standards as it is.
Unknown Speaker: So what you're saying is that
Drinking Water Standards would be a higher
standard than naturally exist?
David Johe: So what I'm saying is that if we enforce
the Drinking Water Standards, they couldn't even
pump water through the ground because they
would have to discharge it later and they couldn't
discharge it.
Unknown Speaker: I think this is the first part of
this whole thing. Who's working on it? Who's even
thinking about it? I haven't yet met anybody
looking at all of these things in every perspective
yet. I see everyone of us looking at it from a differ-
ent angle. If you get a bunch together, it's awfully
hard to even talk among yourselves. So we've got
to do that/but I don't know what vehicle we ride
to do it.
G. Lewis Meyer: Maybe this could be one of the
useful things that could come out of this bull
session—that this is a problem that has been
identified. It could be a recommendation that we
need to have a working group, a panel, 1 don't know
what mechanism, but some mechanism to make
some recommendations on where the loading does
go, on how to balance the system out.
John Osgood: I'd like to say something relative to
that. In Pennsylvania we have a statewide water
quality management plan that was originally budget-
ed at $10 million and is now pushing $20 million;
and over 10 percent of it is going directly to
examine the interrelationships between man's
activity on the surface of the ground, on the surface
of the earth, and ground water and his use of ground
water and his activities relative to ground water. We
have 5 major ground-water consulting firms who are
involved in this. And we have technical meetings
periodically where we kick these points around.
Plus we have representatives from the State Geo-
logical Survey and other areas within the State
government who are ground-water geologists or
people who are oriented towards ground water. We
have talked and we have talked and it's just almost
impossible to get one philosophy which is satis-
factory to everybody. And then, who gives in? Do
you destroy the environment? Do you permit only
this much environment? You know, ground water's
really the last frontier in waste disposal. We as a
State regulatory agency probably have to make the
decision. It's our obligation to. But it's a tough
thing to face.
Bill Walker: Do you mean that the State has to
do it? Because we had that problem in Illinois a few
years ago. We tried to make some pretty rigid laws
and all at once Indiana started getting them. Along
this line it seems to me that the States, even though
they like to have State's rights, really shouldn't
expect to do it. Because it seems to me that
somebody big that's setting policy for all must set
this policy. I'm for EPA, in that respect.
John Osgood: The only reason I said it was up to
the State is because we've had EPA involved in this.
Our federal legislature has not really addressed itself
directly to the problem to give EPA the authority
to move in. And they have been unable to do that
really, so, if they can't and we're under the pressure,
we're going to do it.
Bill Walker: Sure, you have to. But it seems to me
the better deal would be up much higher though.
John Osgood: I agree. We have Ohio and New
Jersey which has received quite a bit of Pennsyl-
vania's waste and they're cutting it off now. And
as a result, people are now going to have to spend a
little money.
243
-------
Unknown Speaker: We have a State law, and I
think most States do, that says unless you can
prove they are polluting, you can't stop them.
Now they have been smart enough to buy enough
land around here. And you remember that this
stuff moves only a few feet per year. So they're
safe until they go bankrupt a few years from now or
go out of business. And in the meantime the State
could not turn them down on the next 40-acre
permit, because we couldn't get into the 20 acres
to see. They couldn't turn them down because
they have complied with every rule.
Unknown Speaker: Don't you have the control
over where the monitoring facilities are supposed
to go?
Unknown Speaker: You do. And you know what?
They put the monitoring facilities in. They had
some beautiful experts in there, mind you, before
they did this. And these experts are beyond
question sort of thing. And they passed through a
tight clay down about 40 feet level and put their
wells below that. They did not monitor any wells
at all.
Unknown Speaker: But don't you have the right to
say, monitor this parameter?
Bill Walker: Well, I don't know about your State.
You guys got some pretty good ground-water
people and ours does too now. But the trouble is
many EPA boys on the State level tell me, look
Bill, quit trying to get this ground-water protection.
We've got enough trouble protecting surface water.
And we don't have any people that know ground
water. And if we did pass some good ground-water
protection laws today, fellows, in your States, what
kind of ground-water people do you have that
could enforce it?
Let's take this situation where we've got 100
feet of saturation. Now then, we know that a glob
of this stuff moves in, it's got a different specific
gravity. Now then, it's going to go in some
permeable zone. But yet you're going to slop this
kite down all the way. Now you've got 100 feet of
saturation and you've only got one foot of pollution.
And 100 feet of water comes into that hole that
has a very low chemical concentration with one
foot that has a very high. You get a composite
sample. Now where are you going to set your
pump? Up at the top? Yes, usually you do and that
means you're going to get the fresh water off the
top probably. Or maybe you do pump it long
enough to pump all the water out, but you've got
a mixture of 100 to 1 dilution right off. So when
we start trying to monitor all the way up
and down the hole, which we usually do, or else
we.measure just the top. That's usually the best, it's
cheaper. We put all our monitor wells shallow, even
though this stuff is heavy and it's going to go down
to the bottom maybe. So, here's the thing that I
think we ought to face real strongly here. What does
constitute a good monitoring system?
Unknown Speaker: Bill, why don't you put your-
self a pump outside the property line and pump the
waste over to it?
Bill Walker: We're planning on doing this sort of
thing. We can move within 150 feet of their
property. And even though we don't think it's had
time to move, we are going to put observation wells
in the zone we know it's moved in. And it's on
State property and we will monitor.
Charles Kreitler, Bureau of Economic Geology,
University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712: You
comment that you'd just as soon have EPA set up
some sort of nationwide standards. The people of
Texas sure don't want to see that.
Bill Walker: People in Illinois don't either but
they have to, I believe.
Charles Kreitler: And I think they're right. The
problems in Texas are not the same problems as
they are in Illinois or in California.
Unknown Speaker: What problems are not the
same? Give me just one problem that's not the
same.
Charles Kreitler: Our air pollution problems are
not the same. Let's just take an SO2 coming off the
four corners. We have a completely different set of
problems out there as they have in New York City.
Unknown Speaker: But you have air pollution.
Now they can set certain standards on air pollution
with certain percentages or whatever.
Charles Kreitler: Right. If we can develop a flexible
system which deals with the problems of Texas in
relationship to the climate, the geography and the
geology and all this sort of thing, which are
applicable to Texas, fine. The standards that are
244
-------
applied to Illinois should not be the same standards
applied toi Texas.
Lawrence Peters: I'm from Canada so maybe I'm
talking a little bit out of turn. I think it would be a
good thing to define not only geographic areas but
to define beyond State boundaries, and to really
get down to the nitty gritty and say, okay, what
ecosystems are being disturbed? Use the same
boundaries that nature is using.
Bill Walker: I wrote a report last year, "Where Have
All the Toxic Chemicals Gone?" And I pointed out
at that time that they better soon get a big meeting
together with all the States, because at that time we
were shipping ours out to somebody else. Now it's
come to haunt me because I found out that every-
body's coming back. I also pointed out in that
report that Canada and Mexico should be in on
this conference. Because if they stopped them from
doing it in the U.S., pretty soon you guys would
be getting it.
Unknown Speaker: I'd like to address that question
to the EPA. What would happen if you had such a
conference internationally speaking? You couldn't
make laws that would pertain to them, but if forced
over on them what would happen there?
Unknown Speaker: I'd assume that they'd work on
a similar basis as they work out agreements on the
Great Lakes and the Colorado River.
Unknown Speaker: It's going to take the goodwill
of all parties, and the States surrounding the Ohio
River have gotten together. They seem to be doing
a good job.
Unknown Speaker: To further amplify Bruce's
comments, it's not a water quality problem but a
ground-water problem. They are going to have a hard
time getting something through the legislatures in
the form of a bill which will regulate ground-water
pumping in Houston. Because the people in the High
Plains are going to object because they feel it's
going to regulate them. And if we have these type
problems in Texas, what about the whole United
States?
Bill Walker: This hazardous chemical thing is so
nationwide, and international wide, in scope. We
must set priorities first and not worry about nitrates
and some of these other spurs. Let's worry about
this real hazardous one. And worry about where
we can put them, whether the ocean or wherever.
Unknown Speaker: I'm under the impression that
an awful lot of work is being done on heavy metals.
Unknown Speaker: I'm not worried about them
too much because they don't move too far it seems.
I'll know more after I do this study. But some of
these others are known to move a lot, so heavy
metals should be under something, chlorinated
hydrocarbons, for instance, it seems to me.
Unknown Speaker: Just for the record, which
hazardous materials are you overly concerned about?
Unknown Speaker: Well, EPA's got about 7 dirty
heavy metals, I guess. That's zinc, lead, cadmium,
arsenic, nickel, copper, and mercury. Now some of
the others are coming into the picture. Those ECB's
haven't even been looked at and organophosphates
haven't been looked at.
Unknown Speaker: These have been looked at. As
for their movement and their attenuation capabilities
in various kinds of soils under the various kinds of
climatic conditions, not really. In the labs they
have, and they're not getting any movement in the
labs. We've got 2 sites we're going to study heavy
metals on, that have been there for over 100 years.
And they have all the dirty sevens in them and we
are going to find out. And we suspect that
nickel will move further, say, than zinc. We suspect
that some of these others will have different
attenuation capabilities. You know, the unfortunate
part, once we get all through with that study, we'll
just know it for one geographic climate, geological
condition, one site area and then we've got the
second sight 20 miles away, we're going to check
our procedures on. But even there, how many of
these case histories do we have to have? Or do we
finally say, hey, it's moved this far and set up some
criteria?
Unknown Speaker: We're faced with that basic
problem that we're not trained in political systems.
I think everyone of us runs across that system.
Unknown Speaker: I've been pi saching for years,
we need a seminar between lawyers and ground-
water people. So that we'd learn how to talk the
lawyers' language and they in turn would learn how
to talk yours.
Dick Pearl: Here it is 11:00-guess we will bring
this to a close as all the others are through.
245
-------
These Persons Attended the Second National
Ground Water Quality Symposium
Thomas P. Ahrens, 140 Jersey Street, Denver, Colorado
80220.
Leonard Albrecht, Albrecht Well Works, Long Lake, South
Dakota 57457.
Lawrence E. Allen, Larry Water District, 381 Palmer Blvd.,
Fortuna, California 93540.
Martin J. Allen, U.S. EPA, National Environmental Research
Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
John T. Anderson, Anderson Well Drilling, 1502 Lisbon
Road, Morris, Illinois 60450.
Clement Audet, Environmental Protection Service,
Quebec, Canada.
Donald B. Aulenbach, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
Troy, New York 12121.
Omar F. Baki, F. Ronstadt Co., 70 North 6th Avenue,
Tucson, Arizona 85703.
Kent Ballentine, U.S. EPA, 4th & M Streets, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
John W. Bauer, U.S. Army Env. Hygiene Agency, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Md.
David C. Bayha, Kentucky Geological Survey; 3458-B
Lansdowne Drive, Lexington, Kentucky 40500.
Paul M. Beam, Florida Dept. of Nat. Resources, 115
Bloxham Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32304.
Henry V. Beck, Dept. of Geology, KSU, Thompson Hall,
Manhattan, Kansas 66506.
Elwood I. Bell, Larimer County Health Dept., 200 West
Oak, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80521.
J. Allen Bell, Las Vegas Valley Water District, P.O. Box
4427, Las Vegas, Nevada 89106.
Dan W. Bench, U.S. EPA, Suite 900, 1860 Lincoln, Denver,
Colorado 80203.
Timothy J. Bergin, U.S. Public Health Service, P.O. Box G,
Window Rock, Arizona 86515.
Victor A. Berte, Dept. of Interior National Park Service,
Washington, D.C. 20240.
Morton W. Bittinger, M. W. Bittinger & Associates, Inc.,
P.O. Box Q, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80521.
George L. Bloomsburg, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho
83843.
M. K. Botz, Water Quality Bureau, Helena, Montana 59601.
Perry C. Brackett, Office of Environmental Health, U.S.
Public Health Service, Indian Health Service, 500 Gold
Ave., SW, Room 4005, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87101.
Kenneth A. Bradley, Jr., Water and Sewage Treatment
Enterprises, Inc.,4 Downing St., Concord, New Hampshire
03301.
Van Brahana, U.S. Geological Survey, 430 Bounds Street,
Jackson, Mississippi 39206.
Kelly Breeding, Virginia State Water Control Board, 5306 A
Peters Creek Road, Roanoke, Virginia 24019.
Robert E. Brogden, Leonard Rice Engs., 2785 N. Speer
Blvd., Denver, Colorado 80211.
Dawn Brown, Univ. of Colorado, Dept. of Geology,
Boulder, Colorado 80302.
Richmond F. Brown, U.S. Geological Survey, P.O. Box 3355,
Lubbock, Texas 79410.
W. L. (Will) Burnham, U.S. Geological Survey, WRD, 345
Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025.
Rex A. Burns, Larimer County of Colorado, P.O. Box 1458,
Ft. Collins, Colorado 82521.
Ray Burtrum, Nebraska State Health Dept., 1315 "G" St.,
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508.
David Butterfield, Vermont Dept. of Water Res., P.O. Box
765, Montpelier, Vermont 05602.
Donald M. Callan, 1165 Smythe Street, Frederickton, New
Brunswick, Canada.
Michael Campbell, NWWA Research Facility, Rice University,
Houston, Texas 77000.
Robert Campbell, Jr., Resources Development Associates,
P.O. Box 239, Los Altos, California 94022.
Thomas N. Canfield, U.S. EPA, 1839 16th St. NW,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Thomas A. Carothers, Dames & Moore, 6 Commerce Drive,
Cranford, New Jersey 07016.
W. Bradford Caswell, Maine Bureau of Geology, Marden
Bldg., Augusta, Maine 04330.
Michael A. Cazes, Dept. of Public Works, P.O. Box 44155,
Capitol Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804.
Larry Cerrillo, Geraghty & Miller, Inc., P.O. Box 1041,
Evergreen,Colorado 80439.
Mark E. Chandler, U.S. EPA, 1600 Patterson St., Dallas,
Texas 7 5 201.
K. E. Childs, Michigan Dept. of Water Resources,
-------
Mason Building, Lansing, Michigan 48926.
Arthur W. Clarkson, Water Quality Bureau, State Dept.
Health & Env. Sciences, Helena, Montana 59601.
Roger J. Clissold, Hydrogeological Consultants, 7606
150 St., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5R 1C8.
Gilbert F. Cochran, Deputy Director, Center for Water
Resources Research, Desert Research Institute, Univ.
of Nevada System, Reno, Nevada 89507.
C. Drew Comer, State Water Control Board, Northern
Virginia Regional Office, P.O. Box 307, Springfield,
Virginia 22150.
Clyde S. Conover, U.S. Geological Survey, 325 John Knox
Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32303.
William R. Cooke, Bureau Reclamation, 2800 Cottage,
Sacramento, California 95825.
William E. Cox, Virginia Water Research Center, VPI & SU,
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061.
Fred J. Crates, Hancor, Inc., Box 1047, Findlay, Ohio 45840.
James W. Crooks, Environmental Protection Agency, 1421
Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30309.
Robert E. Crowe, U;S. EPA, Technology Transfer,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Bruce F. Curtis, Dept. of Geological Sciences, Univ. of
Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302.
James F. Daniel, U.S. Geological Survey WRD, 1459
Peachtree St. NE, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30309.
Russell E. Darr, Wright Water Engineers, Inc., 2420 Alcott,
Denver, Colorado 80211.
Richard W. Davis, Independent Consultant, 1003 West
Sycamore, Carbondale, Illinois 62901.
James W. Dawson, Virginia State Water Control Board,
Roanoke, Virginia 24010.
Truett V. DeGeare, Solid Waste Office, U.S. EPA, 1835 K
St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
P. Dale Diamond, Boyle Engineering Corporation, P.O. Box
178, Santa Ana, California 92702.
D. E. Donaldson, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, 1209 Orca, Anchorage, Alaska.
Norman Dondelinger, Larimer County, 200 W. Oak, Ft.
Collins, Colorado 80521.
F. L. Doyle, Geological Survey of Alabama & Univ. of
Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama 35807.
John G. Dudley, Environmental Improvement Agency, P.O.
Box 2348, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503.
James Duffield, Robscott Building, 153 Chestnut Hill Road,
Newark, Delaware 19711.
A. Kenneth Dunn, Idaho Dept. of Water Resources,
Statehouse, Boise, Idaho 83702.
Herbert B. Eagon, Jr., Moody and Associates, Inc., 1631
N.W. Professional Plaza, Columbus, Ohio 43220.
Leo F. Emmett, U.S. Geological Survey, WRD, Box 340,
Rolla, Missouri 65401.
Harlan Erker, Div. of Water Resources, Room 300, 1845
Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203.
Daniel S. Evans, Texas Water Development Board, P.O. Box
13087, Austin, Texas 78711.
Robert P. Evans, Southwest Florida Water Management
District, P.O. Box 457, Brooksville, Florida 33512.
Lome Gordon Everett, General Electric—Tempo, 816 State
St., Santa Barbara, California 93102.
Verne E. Farmer, Jr., Exxon Company, USA, P.O. Box
2180, Room 3952, Houston, Texas 77001.
Glen L. Faulkner, U.S. Geological Survey, 325 John Knox
Road, Suite F241, Tallahassee, Florida 32303.
James M. Ferguson, South Carolina Dept. Health & Env.
Contr., 2600 Bull St., Columbia, South Carolina 29201.
John B. Fernstrom, Georgia Dept. of Nat. Res.,
Environmental Protection Div., 47 Trinity Avenue,
Atlanta, Georgia 30334.
Bruce E. Fink, Texas Water Development Board, P.O. Box
13087, Austin, Texas 78711.
Robert D. Fletcher, Paul Fletcher & Sons, Inc.,R. 1,
Palmer Lake, Colorado 80133.
Thomas F. Fletcher, Paul Fletcher & Sons, Inc., R. 1,
Palmer Lake, Colorado 80133.
Frank Fonte, Vance Skinner Company, Inc., Vineland, New
Jersey 08360.
William Franko, Saskatchewan Dept. of Agriculture, 1318
Winnipeg St., Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
John S. Fryberger, Engineering Enterprises Inc., Norman,
Oklahoma 7 3 069.
Bernard J. Gajewski, U.S. Public Health Service, Box G,
Window Rock, Arizona 86515.
Robert M. Galbraith, Kennecott Explorations, 2300 W.
17005, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104.
William C. Galegar, R. S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab.,
P.O. Box 1198, Ada, Oklahoma 74820.
Rod E. Gardner, Boulder County Health Dept.,3450 N.
Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302.
Jean Gauvin, Hydrogeo Canada, Inc., 615 Dorchester W,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Lynn W. Gelhar, New Mexico Tech., Socorro, New Mexico
87801.
James R. Gentry, Memphis/Shelby County Health Dept.,
814 Jefferson Aven., Memphis, Tennessee 38105.
Richard L. George, Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources,
Box 176, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101.
Arthur E. Gerhardt, Larimer County Health Dept., 200 W.
Oak St., Fort Collins, Colorado 80521.
Prabhas Chandra Ghosh, U.S.G.S., WRD, Room 2222,
Federal Center, Bldg. 25, Denver, Colorado 80225.
Jim Gibb, Illinois State Water Survey, P.O. Box 232,
Urbana, Illinois 61801.
Todd Giddings, Todd Giddings & Associates, 140 West
Fairmount Avenue, State College, Pennsylvania 16801.
Nola P. Gillies, Geraghty & Miller, 44 Sintsink Drive East,
Port Washington, New York 11050.
Kimball E. Goddard, U.S. Geological Survey, Box 1524,
Pueblo, Colorado 81005.
Charles Goethel, State of Wisconsin/Madison, Wisconsin
53701.
Steven Goldstein, NDWP, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Helen F. Gram, New Mexico Environmental Improvement
Agency, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503.
Ernest L. Grasty, M. C. Nottingham, 4922 Irwindale Ave.,
Irwindale, California 91792.
Dennis E. Gray, Southwest Idaho Health Dept., P.O. Box
489, Caldwell, Idaho 83605.
Donald K. Greene, Water Development Corporation, 3938
Santa Barbara, Tucson, Arizona 85711.
William M. Greenslade, Dames & Moore, 411 N. Central
Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85000.
Dean O. Gregg, Dames & Moore, 1550 Northwest Highway,
Park Ridge, Illinois 60068.
Edwin D. Gutentag, U.S. Geological Survey, Garden City,
Kansas 67846.
W. R. Hail, W. A. Washier and Associates, P.O. Box 10023,
1023 Corporation Way, Palo Alto, California 94303.
247
-------
Clinton W. Hall, EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Leonard C. Halpenny, Water Development Corporation,
3938 Santa Barbara Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85711.
Eugene R. Hampton, U.S. Geological Survey, WRD,
Lakewood, Colorado 80225.
Rollin W. Harden, Consultant, 3409 Executive Center,
Suite 211, Austin, Texas 78731.
Alva R. Harmon, McGregor Pump Co., Inc.,6034 McGregor
Blvd., Ft. Myers, Florida 33901.
Otto J. Helweg, Colorado State Univ., 1205 Fuqua Drive,
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521.
G. F. Hendricks, Sieio Inc. Consulting Engineers, 309
Washington St., Columbus, Indiana 47201.
Wooding N. Henry, Penn State University, Agr. Eng. Bldg.,
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802.
John J. Hickey, U.S. Geological Survey, 500 Zack
St., Tampa, Florida 33602.
Jerry T. Hill, Stremmel & Hill, LaFontaine, Indiana 46940.
Robert Hill, Texas Water Quality Board, P.O. Box 13246,
Austin, Texas 78711.
K. R. Hinkle, Virginia State Water Control Board, P.O. Box
268, Bridgewater, Virginia 22812.
Robert J. Hitt, Sanitary Engineer, Univ. of Idaho,
Moscow, Idaho 83843.
Jack W. Hoffbuh, P.E., Water Supply Section, U.S. EPA,
1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80203.
Rudolph K. Hogberg, Univ. of Minnesota, 1633 Eustis St.,
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108.
Anthony K. Holmes, Dayton and Knight Ltd., 1865 Marine
Drive, P.O. Box 91247, West Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Natalie Holmes, Ground Water Council, 221 N. LaSalle,
Chicago, Illinois 60601.
Ronald C. Hore, Water Resources Branch, Ontario-Ministry
of the Environment, 135 St. Clair Avenue W., Toronto,
Ontario M4V1P5, Canada.
James F. Howard, Moody and Associates, Inc., R.D. 4,
Cotton Road, Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335.
Ronald C. Howes, Dept. of Environmental Protection,
Hickey Hill Bldg., Augusta, Maine 04330.
Jon Hradsky, Hradsky Water Systems, 3836 Henry Street,
Muskegon, Michigan 49441.
Morel Seytoux Hubert, Colorado State Univ., Engineering
Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521.
Neil Jaquet, Woodword-Thorfinnson & Associates, Inc.,
2909 West 7th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80204.
James L. Jehn, E. D'Appolonia Consulting Engs., 10 Duff
Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15200.
Michael E. Jensen, U.S. Public Health Service, NPS Denver
Service Center, 655 Parfet St., P.O. Box 25287, Denver,
Colorado 80225.
David E. Johe, Ohio EPA, 361 E. Broad St., Columbus,
Ohio 43215.
Yash Pal Kakar, U.S.G.S., Federal Center, Bldg. 25, Room
2222, Denver, Colorado 80225.
Brian G. Katz, Dept. of Geological Sciences, Univ. of
Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302.
Raphael G. Kazmann, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Louisiana
State Univ., Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.
Joseph T. Kearns, Ground Water Consultant, 311 Boston
Blvd., Sea Girt, New Jersey 08750.
Donald K. Keech, Michigan Dept. of Health, 3500 N. Logan
St., Lansing, Michigan 48914.
Jack W. Keeley, EPA, Kerr Research Center, Ada, Oklahoma
79824.
Joseph H. Kenny, Ebasco Services, Inc., 12th Floor—21 West,
New York, New York 10006.
Douglas C. Kent, Oklahoma State Univ., Dept. of Geology,
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074.
Robert T. Kent, Texas Water Quality Board, Stephen F.
Austin Bldg., P.O. Box 13246-Capitol Station, Austin,
Texas 78711.
Susie B. Kent, Texas State Dept. of Health, 1602 Houston
St., Austin, Texas 78756.
Richard W. Ketcham, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1709
Jackson St., Omaha, Nebraska 68102.
Grant E. Kimmel, U.S.G.S., 1505 Kellum Place, Mineola,
New York 11501.
Richard Kirby, Lane County Environmental Health Div.,
Eugene, Oregon 97401.
John M. Klein, U.S. Geological Survey, Box 1524, Pueblo,
Colorado 81002.
David Kleinecke, General Electric, Tempo, 816 State St.,
P.O. Drawer QQ, Santa Barbara, California 93102.
R. Gordon Knight, Dayton and Knight Ltd., 1865 Marine
Drive, P.O. Box 91247, West Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Porter C. Knowles, Dames & Moore, 455 E. Paces Ferry
Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30305.
K. Jack Kooyoomjian, EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Charles W. Kreitler, Bureau of Economic Geology, Univ. of
Texas, Austin, Texas 78712.
N. Krishnamurthi, 10A Aggie Village, Fort Collins, Colorado
80521.
John Michael Kupko, Nelson, Haley, Patterson, and Quirk,
Inc., 12075 E. 45th Ave., Suite 207, Denver, Colorado
80239.
Rein Laak, Univ. of Connecticut, Civil Engineering, Dept.
U-37, Storrs, Connecticut 06268.
Nicholas Lailas, EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Donald Langmuir, Pennsylvania State Univ., University
Park, Pennsylvania 16801.
Eric G. Lappala, U.S. Geological Survey, 901 N. 17th St.,
Room 12F, Lincoln, Nebraska 68500.
David A. Lawrence, CH2M Hill, P.O. Box 2088, Reddins,
California 96001.
Emery C. Lazard, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste Manage-
ment Programs, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Lowell E. Leach, U.S. EPA, Box 1198, Ada, Oklahoma
74820.
Harry LeGrand, U.S. Geological Survey, Box 2857, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27602.
Jay H. Lehr, Executive Director, NWWA, 88 East Broad
St., Columbus, Ohio 43215.
Donald H. Lennox, Environment Canada, Place Vincent
Massey, Ottawa, Ontario KZA OE7, Canada.
John Leo, Indian Health Service, 500 Gold Ave., SW,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87101.
Donald H. Lewis, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Chang L. Lin, Nova Scotia Dept. of the Environment,
P.O. Box 2107, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
David Lindorff, Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Res.,
1875 New Hope St., Norristown, Pennsylvania 19401.
Frederick G. Lissner, Oregon State Engineer, 1178
Chemeketa St. SE, Salem, Oregon 97310.
John Logan, Hillsborough County Water Resources, Box
1110, Tampa, Florida 33611.
W. F. Lorang, El Paso Natural Gas Company, El Paso,
Texas 79978.
Norman P; Lovejoy, Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk,
248
-------
Inc., 102 N. Cascade, Suite 202, Colorado Springs,
Colorado 80902.
Ernest J. Malovich, Ernie's Drilling Service, P.O. Box 357,
Evergreen, Colorado 80439.
Joe Marcinuk, Alberta Dept. of Environment, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada.
Ronald R. Marquart, Lincoln Lancaster County Health Dept.,
2200 St. Marys, Lincoln, Nebraska 68500.
Charles H. Martin, Virginia State Water Control Board, 2111
Hamilton St., Richmond, Virginia 23230.
William F. Martin, Indian Health Service, Tucson, Arizona
85700.
George B. Maxey, Director, Center for Water Resources
Research, Desert Research Institute, Univ. of Nevada
System, Reno, Nevada 89507.
John W. McCarthy, El Paso Natural Gas Company, P.O. Box
1492, El Paso, Texas 79978.
James R. McGill, Hurlbut, Kersich & McCullough, 937 Grand
Ave., Billings, Montana 59102.
Leslie G. McMillion, EPA, Box 15027, Las Vegas, Nevada
89114. J
James E. McNeal, Florida Dept. Pollution Control,
Tallahassee, Florida 32303.
James F. McNabb, U.S. EPA, Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Lab, P.O. Box 1198, Ada, Oklahoma 74820.
C. Don McReynolds, High Plains Water District, 1628 15th,
Lubbock, Texas 79401.
William E. Mead, Dames & Moore, Suite 200, 250 E.
Broadway, Salt Lake City, Utah 84070.
Andrew A. Mellary, Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
150 Ferrand Drive, Don Mills, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Frank Merrill, M. C. Nottingham County of California,
4922 Irwindale Ave., Irwindale, California 91706.
Gerald Meyer, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia
22092.
G. Lewis Meyer, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460.
David W. Miller, Geraghty & Miller, 44 Sintsink Drive E.,
Port Washington, New York 11050.
Joseph W. Miller, Jr., New Jersey Bureau of Geology &
Topography, 4151 Princeton Pike, Princeton, New
Jersey 08540.
Andrew C. Mills, Dames & Moore, 1961 Granville Road,
Scotch Plains, New Jersey 07076.
Leland L. Mink, Idaho Bureau Mines & Geology, Boise,
Idaho 83725.
Robert C. Minning, Keck Consulting Services, East Lansing,
Michigan 48823.
Luis S. Mitos, Environmental Quality Board, P.O. Box
71488, Santurce, Puerto Rico 00924.
Fred J. Molz, Civil Engineering Dept., Auburn Univ.,
Auburn, Alabama 36830.
Garland Moore, National Park Service, P.O. Box 728, Santa
Fe, New Mexico 87501.
Joe G. Moore, National Commission on Water Quality,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
John E. Moore, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Building 25, Denver Federal Center, Lakewood,
Colorado 80215.
Hubert Morel-Seytoux, Colorado State Univ., Eng. Research
Center, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521.
John A. Moser, Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Res.,
Bureau of Water Quality Management, 124 Cedar Ridge
Dr., Apt. 15, Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146.
Dale C. Mosher, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Ward S. Motis, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Massachusetts 01002.
Mike M. Mukae, Ventury County Flood Control District,
1151 Ratel Place, Ventura, California 93003.
Walter S. Mulica, Jason M. Cortell & Assoc., 194 Worcester
St., Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts 02181.
Robert D. Mutch, Jr., Wehran Engineering Corporation,
E. Main Street Extension, Middletown, New York 10940.
Harry I. Nightingale, USDA Agricultural Research Service,
4816 E. Shields Ave., Fresno, California 93726.
Stanley E. Norris, U.S. Geological Survey, 975 W. Third
Ave., Columbus, Ohio 43212.
Charlie L. Nylander, New Mexico Environmental
Improvement Agency, P.O. Box 2348, Santa Fe, New
Mexico 87503.
Walter S. Dutch Oakes, Water Res. Div., U.S. Geological
Survey, Box 340, 103 West 10th St., Rolla, Missouri
65401.
Jerry O'Brien, Singer-Layne Northern Div., 5520 S. Harding
St., Indianapolis, Indiana 46227.
Perry G. Olcutt, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History
Survey,1815 University Ave., Madison, Wisconsin 53706.
Fred L. Osborne, Jr., Texas Water Development Board,
P.O. Box 13087 Capital Station, Austin, Texas 78711.
John O. Osgood, Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Res., P.O. Box
2063, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120.
Richard J. Otis, Univ. of Wisconsin, 3201 Engineering,
Madison, Wisconsin 53706.
Sam R. Owens, Subsurface Disposal Corp., Suite 646,
5555 W. Loop So., Bellaire, Texas 77401.
Willard G. Owens, Willard Owens Assoc. Inc., 7391 W. 38th
Ave., Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033.
Thomas J. Padden, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Robert C. Palmquist, Dept. of Earth Science, Iowa State
Univ., Ames, Iowa 50010.
Jerry C. A. Pascale, U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee,
Florida 32303.
Richard H. Pearl, Colorado Geological Survey, Room 254,
1845 Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado 80203.
Jon M. Peckenpaugh, Nebraska Nat. Res. Com., 7th Floor
Terminal Bldg., Lincoln, Nebraska 68508.
Richard Peckham, U.S. EPA, 1600 Patterson, Suite 1017,
Dallas, Texas 7 5 201.
James A. Pendleton, City of Boulder, Engineering Div.,
P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80302.
Earl L. Penry, Elkhorn Valley Drilling, Atkinson, Nebraska
68713.
Lawrence P. Peters, Dept. Fisheries & Environment, Water
Res. Board, P.O. Box 6000, Centennial Bldg.,
Frederickston, New Brunswick, Canada.
Robert A. Pettyjohn, U.S. Geological Survey, 1819 N.
Meridian, Indianapolis, Indiana 46032.
Wayne A. Pettyjohn, Ohio State Univ., Dept. of Geology &
Mineralogy, Columbus, Ohio 43210.
Jim P. Phimister, Dept. Mines Res. and Eng., 693 Taylor
Ave., Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
William A. J. Pitt, U.S. Geological Survey, 901 S. Miami
Ave., Miami, Florida 33130.
Paul Plummer, Miami Conservancy District, 38 E. Monument
Ave., Dayton, Ohio 45402.
James R. Pool, Florida Dept. of Natural Res., 115 Bloxham
St., Tallahassee, Florida 32304.
G. Morgan Powell, CH2M Hill, 12000 East 47th Ave.,
4th Floor, Denver, Colorado 80239.
249
-------
Ralph E. Preble, Camp Dresser & McKee Ltd., One Center
Plaza, Boston, Massachusetts 02108.
Andrew Darrel Primeaux, Dept. of Public Works, P.O. Box
44155, Capitol Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804.
Robert D. Rafelski, Wright Water Engineers, Inc., 2420
Alcott St., Denver, Colorado 80211.
Steven Ragone, U.S. Geological Survey, 1505 Kellum
Place, Mineola, New York 11501.
Dale R. Ralston, Idaho Bureau of Mines & Geology, Univ.
of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83843.
E. W. Ramsey, Virginia State Water Control Board, 2111 N.
Hamilton St., Richmond, Virginia 23230.
Theodore M. Randmetz, CR 3 Inc., Avon Park North, Avon,
Connecticut 06001.
T. Jay Ray, EPA, 1735 Baltimore, Kansas City, Missouri
64119.
Raymond Rea, Environment Ontario, 985 Adelaide St. S.,
London, Ontario, Canada.
Eugene R. Reahl, Carborundum, St. Road 32 West, Lebanon,
Indiana 46052.
Bruce J. Reichmuth, Johnson Div. UOP, 3314 E. 115th Ave.;
Denver, Colorado 80233.
John W. Reinke, Johnson Division UOP, P.O. Box 3118,
St. Paul, Minnesota 55165.
Richard C. Rhindress, National Audubon Society, 2501
Garrison Ave., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110.
Claire A. Richardson, U.S. Geological Survey, c/o Johns
Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, Maryland 21218.
Donald R. Rima, U.S. Geological Survey, Room 144,
Federal Office Bldg., Nashville, Tennessee 37203.
Edwin A. Ritchie, California Dept. of Water Res., 3812
Payton St., Sacramento, California 95821.
Phillip R. Roberts, Baker Manufacturing Company, 12165
Albrook Drive, 1212, Denver, Colorado 80239.
Wallace D. Robison, The Anaconda Company, Star Route 1,
Box 40, Heber, Utah 84032.
Carlos A. Rodriguez, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins,
Colorado 80521.
John Romero, Div. of Water Res., 1845 Sherman St., Room
300, Denver, Colorado 80203.
G. A. Ronsen, Babson Bros. Co., 2100 S. Yerr Road, Oak
Brook, Illinois 60521.
Joseph S. Rosenshein, U.S. Geological Survey, Room 410,
Federal Bldg., Tampa, Florida 33602.
Edwin H. Ross, Minnesota Dept. of Health, 717 Delaware
St., SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55112.
Jim V. Rouse, U.S. EPA, Field Investigations, Bldg. 53,
Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225.
Larry W. Rowe, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District, 1350 So. "E" St., San Bernardino, California
92412.
Donald D. Runnells, Univ. of Colorado, Dept. of Geological
Sciences, Boulder, Colorado 80302.
Fred C. Saxon, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 160 W. 1st
North, Provo, Utah 84601.
Marion R. Scalf, EPA, Box 1198, Ada, Oklahoma 74820.
Jack E. Sceva, EPA.1200 6th Ave., Seattle, Washington
98101.
Arnold Schiffman, Water Resources Administration, Tawes
State Office Bldg., 580 Taylor Ave., Annapolis,
Maryland 21401.
Roger W. Schmid, State Water Commission, 900 E. Blvd.,
Bismarck, South Dakota 58501.
Richard G. Schuff, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources,
Box 950, Madison, Wisconsin 53701.
Robert C. Scott, U.S. EPA, 100 California Street, San
Francisco, California'94111.
Robert Scovill, Colehamer & Fellows, Inc. 295 First St.,
Troy, New York 12180.
Lyle V. A. Sendlein, Dept. of Earth Science, Iowa State
Univ., Ames, Iowa 50010.
Charles R. Sharman, DuPont, Engineering Dept. L13W8,
Wilmington, Delaware 19898.
Marvin G. Sherrill, U.S. Geological Survey, 1815 University
Ave., Madison, Wisconsin 53711.
D. Craig Shew, U.S. EPA, P.O. Box 1198, Ada, Oklahoma
74820.
Bat Shunatona, U.S. EPA, P.O. Box 1198, Ada, Oklahoma
74820.
Donald C. Signor, P.O. Box 3355, Lubbock, Texas 79410.
George Simard, Min. of Natural Resources, 1620 Boul de
L'entente; Quebec City, Canada.
James L. Simpson, C. A. Simpson & Son, Bisbee, North
Dakota 58317.
Frank Singleton, Town of Greenwich Health Dept., Town
Hall Annex, Greenwich, Connecticut 06830.
Buxi Puresh Chandra Sinha, UN Fellow, c/o U.S. Geological
Survey, 975 W. Third Ave., Columbus, Ohio 43212.
William J. Siok, Vermont Dept. Water Resources, State
Office Bldg., Montpelier, Vermont 05602.
Steven W. Sisk, U.S. EPA, 25 Funston Road, Kansas City,
Kansas 66115.
William V. Skinner, Vance Skinner Company, Inc.,
Vineland, New Jersey 08360.
Richard Slade, Geotechnical Consultants Inc., 101 W.
Alameda Ave., Burbank, California 91502.
George M. Slaughter, Georgia Tech, School of Civil Engineer-
ing, Atlanta, Georgia 30332.
Edwin L. Small, Small's Well Drilling, 95 S. Kansas, Russell,
Kansas 67665.
Gary G. Small, Salt River Project, P.O. Box 1980, Phoenix,
Arizona 85001.
Ronald J. Smaus, Nebraska Natural Resources Commission,
7th Floor, Terminal Bldg., Lincoln, Nebraska 68508.
Donald D. Smith, High Plains Water District, 1628 - 15th,
Lubbock, Texas 79401.
Ralph E. Smith, U.S. Geological Survey, WRD, Bldg. 25,
Room 1818, Denver Federal Center, Colorado 80225.
Roy F. Spalding, Conservation & Survey Div., Univ. of
Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68428.
C. Ross Sproul, Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc., P.O. Box
1647, Gainesville, Florida 32602.
Craig Starr, Lane County Dept. of Environmental Manage-
ment, 135 E. 6th Ave., Eugene, Oregon 97401.
Dan Stephens, Fugro Inc.,4799 E. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach,
California 90803.
Dave Stephenson, Univ. of Wisconsin, 1815 University Ave.,
Madison, Wisconsin 53706.
Robert J. Sterrett, Univ. of Wisconsin—Extension, Environ-
mental Resources Unit, Madison, Wisconsin 53703.
David E. Stewart, Univ. of Wisconsin, 1815 University
Ave., Madison, Wisconsin 53703.
William P. Stilson, Stauffer Chemical Company, Geology
Dept., 1415 S. 47th St., Richmond, California 94804.
Greg Stockert, Stockert Drilling Co., Inc.,1372 N. Wooster
Ave., Strasburg, Ohio 44680.
Robert L. Stollar, Geraghty & Miller Inc., 44 Sintsink Drive
East, Port Washington, New York 11568.
250
-------
Sanford I. Strausberg, Harza Engineering Company, 150
S. Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606.
Calvin K. Sudwegges, Utah State Div. of Health, 44 Medical
Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108.
Paul L. Summers, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1600
Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80215.
Horace Sutcliffe, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, 232 Rawls
Ave., Sarasota, Florida 33574.
H. R. Sweet, Oregon State Engineer, 1178 Chemeketa NE,
Salem, Oregon 97310.
Robert D. Tafelski, Wright Water Engineers Inc., 2420
Alcott St., Denver, Colorado 80211.
Kiyoshi J. Takasaki, U.S. Geological Survey, 5th Floor,
1833 Kalakaua Ave., Honolulu, Hawaii 96816.
Harold E. Thomas, Resources Development Assoc., P.O. Box
239, Los Altos, California 94022.
William E. Thompson, EPA OWPO, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Richard M. Tinker, General Electric, 816 State St., Santa
Barbara, California 93013.
Frank B. Titus, Ebasco Services Inc., 21 West St., New
York, New York 10006.
T. J. Tofflemire, New York Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, 80 Wolf Road, Room 514, Albany,
New York 12201.
Padoon Torranin, Northwest Florida Water Management
Dist., 325 John Knox Road, C-135, Tallahassee,
Florida 32303.
H. M. Townsend, J. Sargent Reynolds Comm. College,
P.O. Box 6935, Richmond, Virginia 23230.
Henry Trapp Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, 325 John Knox
Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
Bryson D. Trexler Jr., Univ. of Idaho, Dept. of Geology,
Moscow, Idaho 83843.
L. Jan Turk, Univ. of Texas, Dept. Geological Science,
Austin, Texas 78712.
Bruce M. Turnmire, Stiles Kem Corporation, 801 Sheridan
Road, Zion, Illinois 60099.
Somendra Kumar Tyagi, U.S. Geological Survey, UN Fellow,
c/o USGS, Room 315, Federal Bldg., 700 West Capital
St., Little Rock, Arkansas 72200.
Sampson O. Ukpaka, Nebraska Natural Resources Com-
mission, 7th Floor Terminal Bldg., Lincoln, Nebraska
68508.
Eugene A. Ulring, Staples Area Vocation Technical Inst.,
Staples, Minnesota 56479.
Dan E. Verwoert, Williams & Works, Inc., 611 Cascade
West Parkway, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49509.
W. Philip Wagner, Univ. of Vermont, Geology Dept.,
Burlington, Vermont 05401.
Lawrence E. Waldorf, Appalachian Regional Commission,
1666 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20235.
William H. Walker, Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana,
Illinois 61801.
Donna Wallace, Environmental Geologist, Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Division of Land Pollution
Control, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706.
Tom I. Wamura, Santa Clara Valley Water District, 5750
Almaden Expressway, San Jose, California 95118.
Porter E. Ward, U.S.G.S., Reston, Virginia 22092.
James C. Warman, Director, Water Resources Research
Institute, 205 Samford Hall, Auburn Univ., Auburn,
Alabama 36830.
Kenneth W. Webb, Colorado Dept. of Health, 4210 E.
llth Ave., Denver, Colorado 80220.
William G. Weist, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46202.
Lewis R. West, Bechtel, 50 Beale Street, San Francisco,
California 94409.
Duane L. Whiting, Kennecott Copper Corp., Metal Mining
Div., Engineering Center, 1515 Mineral Square, Salt
Lake City, Utah 84111.
Wilbur J. Whitsell, U.S. EPA, Water Supply Div., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Donald O. Whittemore, Kansas State Univ., Dept. of
Geology, Manhattan, Kansas 66506.
Karl H. Wibbe, J. M. Montgomery, 555 E. Walnut, Pasadena,
California 91100.
Ginia Wickersham, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2241
N.W. 40th St., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 93112.
Karl H. Wiebe, J. M. Montgomery, 555 East Walnut,
Pasadena, California 91100.
John Wilkinson, Provincial Government, 2885 Foucault,
Quebec, Quebec G1P1W7, Canada.
Allen H. Williford, Jr., Texas Electric Service Company,
P.O. Box 970, Fort Worth, Texas 76101.
Benton M. Wilmoth, U.S. EPA, 100 Bettmar Lane, St.
Clairsville, Ohio 43950.
J. L. Wilson, Koppers Co., Inc., Research Dept., 440
College Park Drive, Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146.
John L. Wilson, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142.
Edward H. Woo, U.S. EPA, Region 1, Boston,
Massachusetts 02165.
Leonard A. Wood, U.S.G.S., Reston, Virginia 22180.
Warren W. Wood, U.S.G.S., Lubbock, Texas 79413.
Jack Woodard, SRWMD, P.O. Box 1544, Live Oak, Florida
32060.
Alex Woods, Dayton & Knight Ltd., 1865 Marine Dr.,
P.O. Box 91247, West Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Harold U. Yandell, Santa Clara Valley Water District, 5750
Almaden Expressway, San Jose, California 95118.
Bruce S. Yare, Woodward-Moorhouse & Associates, Inc.,
Clifton, New Jersey 07012.
Robert Yoshimura, Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power,
Room A-18, 111 N. Hope St., Los Angeles, California
90012.
Ken Young, Midway Mfg. & Supply, Inc., Box 4269,
Odessa, Texas 79760.
Chester Zenone, U.S. Geological Survey, WRD, Anchorage,
Alaska 99501.
251
------- |