v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 15027
Las Vegas NV 89114
EPA-600/7-80-089
May 1980
Research and Development
Groundwater Quality
Monitoring of Western
Oil Shale Development:
Monitoring Program
Development
Interagency Energy-
Environment Research
and Development
Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad categories
were established to facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster
technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields. The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY—ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the effort
funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and Development
Program. These studies relate to EPA'S mission to protect the public health and welfare
from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy systems. The goal of the Pro-
gram is to assure the rapid development of domestic energy supplies in an environ-
mentally-compatible manner by providing the necessary environmental data and
control technology. Investigations include analyses of the transport of energy-related
pollutants and their health and ecological effects; assessments of, and development of,
control technologies for energy systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range
of energy-related environmental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
EPA-600/7-80-089
May 1980
GROUNDWATER QUALITY MONITORING OF WESTERN OIL SHALE DEVELOPMENT:
Monitoring Program Development
Edited by
G.C. Slawson, Jr.
General Electric Company-TEMPO
Center for Advanced Studies
Santa Barbara, California 93102
Contract No. 68-03-2449
Project Officer
Leslie G. McMillion
Advanced Monitoring Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory-Las Vegas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
Protection of the environment requires effective regulatory actions
based on sound technical and scientific data. The data must include the
quantitative description and linking of pollutant sources, transport
mechanisms, interactions, and resulting effects on nan and his environment.
Because of the complexities involved, assessment of exposure to specific
pollutants in the environment requires a total systems approach that
transcends the media of air, water, and land. The Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory at Las Vegas contributes to the formation and enhancement
of a sound monitoring-data base for exposure assessment through programs
designed to:
• develop and optimize systems and strategies for moni-
toring pollutants and their impact on the environment
• demonstrate new monitoring systems and technologies
by applying them to fulfill special monitoring needs
of the Agency's operating programs
This report concludes the initial phase of a study to design and implanent
groundwater quality monitoring programs for Western United States oil shale
operations. An earlier report described development of a preliminary priority
ranking of the potential pollution sources and the pollutants associated with
these sources. This report provides a preliminary monitoring design
assessment based on that priority ranking.
This study, considers the type of oil shale operation proposed for Federal
Prototype Oil Shale Lease Tracts U-a and U-b in eastern Utah. Proposed
development plans, which include room-and-pilar mining and surface retorting
and waste disposal, form the case-study evaluation presented in this report.
A field and laboratory testing and verification program based on this
preliminary design assessment will lead to development of final monitoring
design recommendations. These recommendations are to be generic in nature and
constitute a decision-design framework for groundwater quality monitoring of
the general type of oil shale operations proposed for Tracts U-a and U-b.
Such a framework will provide for cost-effective monitoring based on location-
specific characteristics.
This planning format may be used by industrial developers and their
consultants, as well as by the various local, State, and Federal Agencies with
responsibilities in environmental monitoring and planning.
m
-------
Further information on this study and the subject of groundwater quality
monitoring in general can be obtained by contacting the Environmental
Monitoring Systans Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las
Vegas, Nevada.
Glenn E. Schweitzer
Director
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas
IV
-------
PREFACE
General Electric-TEMPO, Center for Advanced Studies, is conducting a
5-year program dealing with the design and implementation of groundwater qual-
ity monitoring programs for western oil shale development. The type of oil
shale operation evaluated in this report is that presently proposed for Fed-
eral Prototype Lease Tracts U-a and U-b in eastern Utah. This type of opera-
tion includes room-and-pi liar mining, surface retorting (utilizing Paraho and
TOSCO II processes), and surface disposal of processed oil shale.
This study is following a stepwise monitoring methodology developed by
TEMPO. The initial report in this study described the development of a pre-
liminary priority ranking of potential pollution sources and their associated
pollutants. This priority ranking has been used to develop the preliminary
monitoring design assessment presented in this report.
This report provides a preliminary design format for monitoring design.
The assessments include consideration of monitoring needs, monitoring alterna-
tives, :and a format for program design based on cost-effectiveness judgments.
This study focuses on proposed developments on Tracts U-a and U-b as a case
study for development of the monitoring design framework. A field and labora-
tory testing program based on this preliminary design assessment will lead to
development of final monitoring design recommendations. Such future verifica-
tion studies may result in reevaluation of monitoring priorities and designs.
As originally conceived, the final product of this design and verifica-
tion study will be a generic planning document that provides a technical basis
and a methodology for the design of groundwater quality monitoring programs
for oil shale industrial developers and the various governmental agencies con-
cerned with environmental planning and protection. Delays in construction of
Tracts U-a and U-b have resulted in postponement of the verification and test-
ing phase of this project. Thus the monitoring design strategy presented
herein must be considered preliminary.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Preface v
Figures ix
Tables xii
Abbreviations and Symbols xiv
Acknowledgments xvi
Section
Summary of Monitoring Program Development 1
Introduction 1
White River Shale Project 3
Priority Ranking of Sources of Impact 3
Monitoring Design Approach 7
Monitoring Program Development 8
General Monitoring Recommendations 8
Priority Trade-Offs 9
Cost Information 10
Monitoring Design Development for the Processed-Shale
Disposal Area 16
Introduction 16
Proposed or Existing Monitoring Programs 16
Monitoring Deficiencies 20
Alternative Monitoring Approaches 27
Monitoring Program Development 67
Monitoring Design Development for the Process Area , 84
Introduction 84
Proposed or Existing Monitoring Programs 84
Monitoring Deficiencies 84
Alternative Monitoring Approaches 89
Monitoring Program Development 101
Monitoring Design Development for the Southam Canyon
Retention Dams 111
Introduction 111
Proposed or Existing Monitoring Plans 111
Monitoring Deficiencies 113
Alternative Monitoring Approaches 115
Monitoring Program Development 116
-------
Page
References 124
Appendices
A English/Metric Conversions 126
B Monitoring Cost Data 127
C Report on Processed-Shale Leachate Studies 152
vi ii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1-1 Map locating study area in eastern Utah 1
1-2 General development of plot plan of Tracts U-a and U-b 4
2-1 Groundwater monitoring sites on Tracts U-a and U-b
proposed by White River Shale Project 19
2-2 Possible monitoring facilities for spent-shale pile
during construction 50
2-3 Possible monitoring facilities in the completed
spent-shale pile 51
2-4 Possible monitoring facilities in soil trenches 52
2-5 Possible monitoring facilities during leaching of
spent-shale pile for salinity control 54
2-6 Possible monitoring facilities in the toe of the
spent-shale pile 55
2-7 Proposed monitoring facilities in the spent-shale
pile and Uinta Formation 56
2-8 Sanitary landfill with PVC collector manifold 57
2-9 Possible monitoring facilities in the landfill 59
2-10 Map showing Phase II monitoring well sites 75
2-11 Map showing Phases III and IV monitoring well sites 77
3-1 Process area for Oil Shale Tracts U-a and U-b 85
3-2 Pollutant mobility monitoring in the process area 106
4-1 Southam Canyon retention-dan sites 112
4-2 Monitoring of retention-dam sites 119
IX
-------
Number Page
C-l Discharge vs. time plot for column experiments 161
C-2 Electrical conductivity vs. cumulative discharge volume
plot for column experiments 162
C-3 Chloride vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 163
C-4 Sulfate vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 164
C-5 Fluoride vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 165
C-6 Magnesium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 166
C-7 Calcium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 167
C-8 Potassium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 168
C-9 Sodium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 169
C-10 Copper vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 170
C-ll Nickel vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 171
C-12 Selenium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 172
C-13 Strontium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 173
C-14 Zinc vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments , 174
C-15 Barium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 175
C-16 Lead vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 176
C-17 Chromium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 177
-------
Number Page
C-18 Iron vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for
column experiments 178
C-19 DOC fractionation results from shaker experiments using
process water and processed shale 179
C-20 DOC fractionation results from shaker experiments using
product water and processed shale 179
C-21 DOC fractionation results from shaker experiments using
deionized water and processed shale and retention pond
water and processed shale 180
C-22 Inorganic analyses of leachate from processed shale
columns 180
C-23 Trilinear diagram showing plot of chemical analysis of
initial leachate samples from column experiments 181
C-24 Sorption of 150-ton retort water organic fractions on
TOSCO II processed shale 181
XI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1-1 Stepwise Process of TEMPO Groundwater Quality Monitoring
Methodology 2
1-2 Preliminary Ranking of Pollutant Sources and Pollutants
for Oil Shale Tracts U-a and U-b 6
1-3 Priority Trade-Offs Within and Between the Three Source
Areas 11
1-4 Summary of Preliminary Cost Estimates for Recommended
Monitoring Activities 13
1-5 Example 5-Year Program Development and Costing Taken
from Priorities and Cost Data Given in Table 1-4 15
2-1 Preliminary Ranking of Pollutant Sources Incorporated in
Spent-Shale Disposal Area 17
2-2 Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Program Proposed by
White River Shale Project 18
2-3 Relative Priority Ranking of Monitoring and Information
Deficiencies Identified for the Spent-Shale Disposal Area 28
2-4 Options for Analysis of Solid Wastes Concluded to be not
Adequately Characterized 32
2-5 Options for Analysis of Liquid Wastes, Including Leachates
Concluded to be not Adequately Characterized 33
2-6 Alternatives for Chemical Analyses 34
2-7 Outline of Preliminary Chemical Analysis Program for
Monitoring Processed-Shale Disposal Area 75
2-8 Summary of Monitoring Program Development Activities for
the Processed-Shale Disposal Area and Priorities for
Accomplishing Those Activities 81
Xll
-------
Number Page
2-9 Preliminary Cost Estimates for Monitoring Program
Activities Described in Table 2-8 for Processed-Shale
Disposal Area 82
3-1 Preliminary Ranking of Pollutant Sources in the Process
Area 86
3-2 Relative Priority Ranking of Monitoring and Information
Deficiencies Identified for the Process Area 89
3-3 Chemical Sampling Alternatives for Process Area Source
Characterization 91
3-4 Summary of Monitoring Program Development Activities in
the Process Area and Priorities for Accomplishing These
Activities 109
3-5 Preliminary Cost Estimates for Monitoring Program
Activities Described in Table 3-4 for Process Area 110
4-1 Relative Priority Ranking of Monitoring and Information
Deficiencies Identified for the Retention-Dams Source Area 116
4-2 Summary of Monitoring Program Development Activities for
Retention-Dam Areas and Priorities for Accomplishing
These Activities 122
4-3 Preliminary Cost Estimates for Monitoring Program
Activities Described in Table 4-2 for the Retention-
Dams Source Area 123
B-l Monitoring Program Costing Data—Processed-Shale Pile
Source Area 135
B-2 Monitoring Program Costing Data—Process Area 143
B-3 Monitoring Program Costing Data—Retention Dams 149
C-l Experimental Design for Flow and Leachate Tests 159
C-2 Results of Organic Fractionation Analysis of Samples
from Shaker Experiments 160
xm
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
bbl barrel (42 U.S. gallons)
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
CEC cation exchange capacity
COD chemical oxygen demand
DDP detailed development plan
DMA designated monitoring agency
DO dissolved oxygen
DOC dissolved organic carbon
EC electrical conductivity
Eh oxidation reduction potential
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESP exchangeable sodium percentage
FC fecal coliform
gpm gallons per minute
mg/1 milligrams per liter
MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
ppm parts per million
SAR sodium adsorption ratio
SVI sludge volume index
TC total coliform
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TPC total plate count
TPD tons per day
WRSP White River Shale Project
xiv
-------
SYMBOLS
As arsenic
B boron
BAP benzo(a)pyrene
Ca calcium
CaS04 calcium sulfate
Cd cadmi urn
Cl chloride
Co cobalt
Cu copper
F f 1uori de
Fe iron
HC03 bicarbonate ion
Hg mercury
Mg magnesium
Mo molybdenum
Na sodium
NaHC03 sodium bicarbonate (nahcolite)
Ni nickel
N03 nitrate ion
Pb lead
P04 phosphate ion
S sulphur
Se selenium
504 sulfate ion
Sr stronti urn
Zn zinc
xv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. Guenton C. Slawson, Jr. and Dr. Lome G. Everett of General Electric-
TEMPO were responsible for management and technical guidance of the project
under which this report was prepared. Mr. Fred M. Phillips, Department of Hy-
drology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, and Dr. L. Graham
Wilson, Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, were
major authors of the report. Supporting TEMPO authors were:
Dr. Lome G. Everett
Dr. Guenton C. Slawson', Jr.
Mr. Edward W. Hoylman
Supporting consultant authors were:
Dr. S.N. Davis
Dr. Kenneth D. Schmidt
Dr. David K. Todd
Technical consultation and review for this study were provided by Mr.
Glen A. Miller, U.S. Geological Survey, Conservation Division, Area Oil Shale
Supervisor's Office.
xvi
-------
SECTION 1
SUMMARY OF MONITORING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
INTRODUCTION
This report is the second in a series dealing with monitoring the
groundwater quality impact of western oil shale development. This particular
study has addressed the impacts of oil shale operations that include deep
mining, surface retorting, and surface disposal of processed or spent oil
shale. The case study addressed is the proposed development of Federal Oil
Shale Lease Tracts U-a and U-b in eastern Utah (Figure 1-1). The study pro-
gram follows the systematic approach for groundwater quality monitoring
listed in Table 1-1.
WHITE RIVER BASIN
SCALE 1 : 1,000,000
Figure 1-1. Map locating study area in eastern Utah
(White River Shale Project (WRSP), 1976).
-------
TABLE 1-1. STEPWISE PROCESS OF TEMPO GROUNDWATER QUALITY
MONITORING METHODOLOGY
Step Description
1 Select area for monitoring
2 Identify pollution sources, causes, and methods of disposal
3 Identify potential pollutants
4 Define groundwater usage
5 Define hydrogeologic situation
6 Describe existing groundwater quality
7 Evaluate infiltration potential of wastes at the land surface
8 Evaluate mobility of pollutants from the land surface to water table
9 Evaluate attenuation of pollutants in the saturated zone
10 Develop a priority ranking of sources and causes
11 Evaluate existing monitoring programs
12 Identify alternative monitoring approaches
13 Select and implement the monitoring program
14 Review and interpret monitoring results
15 Summarize and transmit monitoring information
As originally developed, this study was divided into three phases. The
initial study was to develop a preliminary priority ranking of potential
sources of impact on groundwater quality by evaluating the development plans
and baseline studies for Tracts U-a and U-b; and other available more general
information sources on oil shale development. The results of this initial
effort have been published (Slawson, 1979; Slawson and Yen, 1979). The sec-
ond study phase was to examine proposed monitoring programs for Tracts U-a
and U-b, to identify information deficiencies, and to develop a monitoring
design program. This work is summarized in this report.
The final study phase was to include testing and verification of pro-
posed monitoring approaches, possibly including field tests, more intensive
data analysis, and consultation with various experts involved in oil shale
development and groundwater monitoring. The goal of this last study phase
was to provide a basis for generalization of results of the first two phases
(which, in detail, may not be characteristic of locations distant from Tracts
U-a and U-b). However, recent legal questions on land ownership in the Utah
oil shale region have resulted in a delay in development on Tracts U-a and
U-b. As a result, these efforts have been postponed.
This report presents a preliminary framework for monitoring design using
the proposed development plans for Tracts U-a and U-b as a case study.
-------
WHITE RIVER SHALE PROJECT
Two mines, one under each lease tract, will provide raw oil shale to a
common processing plant located near the boundary between the tracts (Figure
1-2). Three retort types (Paraho direct heat mode, Paraho indirect heat
mode, and TOSCO II) are planned to be used for shale oil recovery. Mining
and refining development is scheduled in four phases:
1. Phase I - Settle lease agreement; undertake mineral explora-
tion; formulate and get approval of the Detailed Development
Plan (DDP); conduct environmental baseline studies
2. Phase II - Sink mine access shaft to Mahogany Zone; mine maxi-
mum of 10,000 tons* per day; operate single Paraho retort;
decide feasibility of commercial operation
3. Phase III - Develop commercial operation of 84,000 tons per
day mining from U-b and refinery capacity of 50,000 barrels
per day
4. Phase IV - Develop additional operation of 84,000 tons per day
mining from U-a and increase refinery capacity of 100,000 per
day.
These phases are projected to cover some 10 years before initial commer-
cial mine operation commences and to span approximately 20 years in total.
The estimated total oil shale resource recoverable during this program is
244.4 million barrels from Tract U-a and 265.8 million barrels from Tract U-b.
A more complete description of the White River Shale Project, including
characteristics of potential sources of groundwater quality impact, site
hydrogeologic framework, and evaluation of potential pollutant mobility, is
presented by Slawson (1979). A set of compendium reports dealing with the
various oil shale mining and processing techniques and environmental consid-
erations is provided by Slawson and Yen (1979). Information on Tract U-a and
U-b development plans and monitoring programs was compiled from the White
River Shale Project (1976).
PRIORITY RANKING OF SOURCES OF IMPACT
A priority ranking of potential sources and causes of groundwater qual-
ity impact has been developed (Slawson, 1979). This ranking was developed
from existing information on the hydrogeologic framework of the disposal
area, the characteristics of the individual sources, and evaluations of
See Appendix A for conversion to metric units. English units are generally
used in this report because of their current usage and familiarity in in-
dustry and the hydrology-related sciences. Certain units, expressed in
commonly used metric units (e.g., concentrations), are expressed as milli-
grams per liter or similar units.
-------
OIL SHALE LEASE TRACTS U-a AND U-b, UINTA COUNTY, UTAH
INCLUDING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED WHITE
WASTE WATER
HOLDING POND
PROCESS\ \
AREAU-J
° U-b PORTAL
WATER STORAGE
PHASE tl PROCESSED
SHALE DISPOSAL
PHASE III & IV PROCESSED SHALE DISPOSAL
1 MILE
s
1 KILOMETER
MAP LOCATION
Figure 1-2. General development plot plan of Tracts U-a and U-b.
-------
of potential mobility of the various waste constituents. Three criteria were
used to develop the preliminary priority ranking (Table 1-2):
1. Volume of waste, persistence, toxicity, and concentration
2. Mobility
3. Potential for impact on existing potential water users.
Table 1-2 lists the three general source areas (spent-shale disposal area,
process area, and retention dams) in order of overall priority for monitor-
ing. Also, within each source area, a priority ranking of the individual
potential pollutant sources is presented. These latter rankings also indi-
cate the relative priority ranking among sources in different source areas.
For example, the highest priority sources in the process area (e.g., effluent
holding pond, raw shale, and tankage area) have higher priority for monitor-
ing than the intermediate or lowest priority sources in the spent-shale
disposal area.
A great deal of effort has been expended on the study of hydrogeology of
the study area, and a large amount of research has been conducted on oil
shale development and environmental effects. However, significant deficien-
cies in information exist with regard to potential pollutant characterization
and the mobility of these materials in the hydrosphere. Hence, professional
judgment plays an important role in proposing this preliminary pollutant-
source ranking. The uncertainties associated with this priority ranking,
developed from existing information, result from several sources:
• Information deficiencies on source characteristics
• Information deficiencies on disposal operations (compaction,
wetting, permeability achieved, placement and scheduling, etc.)
• Information deficiencies on the hydrogeology of the source areas
• Uncertainties in evaluating mobility processes (infiltration,
pollutant attenuation, etc.).
The first three of these factors relate to deficiencies in background
information needed to design an adequate monitoring program. These factors
are very site specific. Although clearly interrelated to the other three,
the fourth factor is also associated with pollutant-source monitoring di-
rectly. Addressing such deficiencies or uncertainties is the function of
monitoring design development presented in this report.
Following development of the priority ranking, the next step in the
development of a monitoring program is to assess existing or proposed moni-
toring programs with regard to capability for addressing these information
deficiencies. In the following sections, each of the major source areas
(spent-shale disposal area, process area, and retention dams) will be con-
sidered and existing or proposed monitoring plans for Oil Shale Tracts U-a
and U-b will be presented. Information deficiencies with regard to source
-------
TABLE 1-2. PRELIMINARY RANKING OF POLLUTANT SOURCES AND POLLUTANTS FOR OIL SHALE TRACTS U-a AND U-b
CT>
Source
Source priority
area ranking
Spent shale Highest
disposal area
Intermediate
Lowest
Process area Highest
Intermediate
Potential
pollution
source
Spent shale
High IDS waste water
Sour water
Retort water
Spent catalysts
Storm water runoff
Water treatment plant
sludges
Miscellaneous landfill
materials
Sulfur byproducts
Oily waste waters
Spent filters
Sewage sludge
Mine water
Sanitary waste water
Surface disturbance
Effluent holding pond
Raw shale
Tankage area
Storm water runoff
Miscellaneous process
Highest
TDS, Na, S04, As, Se, F,
organics (PAH)
TDS
Armenia, phenols
As, Cl, S, organics (POM,
carboxylic acids, phenols)
As, Mo
TDS, organics, As, Se
TDS
Organics
Sulfides, sulfates
Organics
Organics, As
Organics
TDS, oil and grease
Organics
Calcium salts, TDS
TDS, organics
TDS, As, Se, organics
Miscellaneous fuels, oil
additives, ammonia, TDS
TDS, organics
TDS, organics, ammonia
Potential pollutant ranking
Intermediate
CA, Mg, Zn, Cd, Hg, B,
organics (e.g., phenols)
—
Organics
TDS, organics (amines, etc.)
Zn, Ni
Na, Ca, S04, HC04, organics
Major inorganics
—
Trace metals
Trace metals
Nutrients
Trace materials, organics
Nutrients
Major inorganics
Trace metals, nutrients
Major inorganics
—
Major inorganics
Major inorganics,
Lowest
Pb, Cu, Fe
—
—
Carbonates, P04, NOs
Fe, Cu, Co
Zn, Cd, Hg
Trace metals
—
—
—
—
—
Major inorganics
Major inorganics
—
—
Trace metals
—
—
Nutrients
Lowest
waste streams
Surface disturbance
Retention dams
(Sources same as spent shale disposal
area)
Calcium salts, TDS
TDS, organics (PAH, phenols,
etc., As, Se, Mo, ammonia,
Na, S04
trace metals
Major inorganics
Ca, Mg, Zn, Ni, Cd, Hg,
organics
Pb, Cu, Fe, nutrients
-------
characterization, development plans, the hydrogeologic framework of the
source areas, and monitoring of pollutant mobility will be identified for
each of the source areas. Design of a recommended monitoring program will
include consideration of alternative measures for addressing these deficien-
cies. The design and implementation of the recommended program calls for
selection of the most cost-effective alternatives. A framework for this
decision process is presented in this report.
MONITORING DESIGN APPROACH
The implementation of the ranking scheme calls for three iterations
through the steps of the monitoring methodology. Each consideration of the
methodology sequence is at a different level of detail and is intended to
accomplish different goals. With each iteration, the overall monitoring de-
sign program progresses further toward attaining the ultimate monitoring
goals embodied in Public Law 92-500, Public Law 93-523, and other legislation.
Level One Ranking
The priority ranking presented in Table 1-2 represents a first pass
through the monitoring methodology and is termed the level one ranking.
The first time through the ranking scheme, several objectives are met:
• Review of the existing data and information on known and poten-
tial sources and causes of impact on groundwater quality
• Identification of potential pollutants associated with these
sources and causes
• Evaluation of the hydrogeologic framework in the project insofar
as it relates to these sources and causes
• Superimposition of these potential sources and causes of impact
on the hydrogeologic framework to evaluate mobilities of poten-
tial pollutants.
Level Two Ranking
Implementation of the monitoring program will require a return to the
beginning of the ranking steps. This time the objective will be to verify
the preliminary ranking sources with hard data. Considerable time may be
involved in this exercise, depending on the number of sources involved and
the size of the area; several years to a decade or more may be needed for
this program to mature. These monitoring efforts may result in a revision of
the original priorities. Some monitoring activities may have to be decreased
or eliminated, while others may need to be intensified.
Utilizing the results of the second pass through the ranking scheme, a
much more accurate estimate of the threat to the area's groundwater quality
will be available, and controls can be devised to deal with the threat. If
the need for instituting controls is obvious after the first preliminary
-------
ranking, controls should be implemented at that time. The implementation of
controls will again require funding by the appropriate State agency-
Level Three Ranking
The final iteration of the ranking steps will involve monitoring to
check on the effectiveness of the controls that are implemented. If these
controls prove effective, then the intensity of monitoring can be reduced and
eventually dropped if the threat can be shown to no longer exist. New sources
of potential pollution may continually appear. The monitoring program should
include evaluation of these sources.
MONITORING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
The following sections present the development of the groundwater qual-
ity monitoring program for oil shale development as proposed on Tracts U-a
and U-b. Monitoring of the processed-shale disposal area is presented in
Section 2; the process area is considered in Section 3; and the retention
dams are considered in Section 4. For each of these source areas, proposed
or existing monitoring plans are presented and an assessment of monitoring
deficiencies is developed (methodology step 11). Then alternative approaches
for addressing these deficiencies are presented (methodology step 12). Fi-
nally a monitoring program plan is developed based on perceived monitoring
deficiencies and the priority ranking of pollutant sources and causes pre-
sented in the preceding discussion.
The evaluations resulting in monitoring program development plans for
each of the three major source areas included consideration of trade-offs
among the various recommended monitoring activities within each of the three
areas (see Tables 2-8, 3-4, and 4-2). Obviously, similar trade-offs between
activities in the different source areas may also be made for finalizing mon-
itoring plans for the project as a whole. The bases for making such trade-
offs, both within and among the source areas, are the preliminary priority
ranking of potential pollutant sources and causes (methodology steps 1
through 10), the perceived deficiencies in existing knowledge and proposed
monitoring plans (methodology step 11), and the evaluation of alternative
approaches for satisfying these monitoring deficiencies (methodology step
12). Cost considerations are also a key part of the finalizing priorities
for monitoring program development activities. These technical considera-
tions (i.e., capability for satisfying the monitoring goals of pollutant
detection, evaluation, and control) and cost considerations essentially
constitute a cost-benefit or cost-risk evaluation. Such an evaluation is
presented in the following discussions as an illustration of the decision
framework and process. >
GENERAL MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the application of the monitoring approaches presented in this
report have not been verified, several general monitoring guidelines are im-
plicit in these results. Many of the information deficiencies identified
relate to characterization of the site hydrogeologic framework. Preliminary
monitoring recommendations are as follows:
8
-------
• Baseline studies need to focus closely on the locations of po-
tential sources of groundwater impact including:
-- Infiltration
-- Characterization of soils and alluvial system
•£
— Identification and characterization of deep aquifers
— Interrelationship between different aquifer zones and between
surface waters and groundwater bodies
• Pile construction, irrigation, revegetation, etc. will signifi-
cantly influence infiltration potential and monitoring needs for
surface disposal operations
• The unsaturated zone in surface disposal piles and underlying
soils, alluvium, or consolidated formations should be a major
focus of monitoring programs
i
• Modifications in the hydrogeologic framework from mine-induced
subsidence or reservoir filling may appreciably alter subsurface
flow dynamics and hence should be monitored closely.
In addition, monitoring programs should be flexible and responsive to the
changes observed. Such responsiveness may result in alteration of monitoring
needs and priorities. For example:
• Sampling frequencies should be adjusted in response to the
interpretation of monitoring data: less frequent sampling is
indicated where a low probability of change or impact is con-
cluded; more frequent sampling is warranted should changes
(e.g., in moisture content, water level, or water quality) be
observed.
• Initial monitoring may best be focused on monitoring of the
sources themselves (e.g., within the spent-shale pile) and shal-
low hydrogeologic strata (e.g., alluvium or Uinta Formation in
this case study) with lesser emphasis on deeper aquifer units
(e.g., Bird's Nest or Douglas Creek Aquifers).
• Observed water quality impacts at sources or in shallow hydro-
geologic strata or changes in the hydrogeologic framework may
require more intensive monitoring of these deep aquifers.
Thus monitoring programs should be continually subject to review and adjust-
ment of priorities.
PRIORITY TRADE-OFFS
Priority trade-offs among the various monitoring activities within each
of the three source areas are presented in Tables 2-8, 3-4, and 4-2. Drawing
-------
from these, priority trade-offs between the source areas may also be devel-
oped. The basic process here is to take the ranked items within each area
and to develop a ranking (from highest to lowest priority) for this total set
of activities for each of the methodology steps. For example, consider the
following illustration. Within each source area:
• From Table 2-8, the highest priority items for the processed-
shale disposal area for pollutant-source characterizations are:
-- Surveys of development activities
— Waste chemical analyses
• From Table 3-4, the highest priority items for the process area
for pollutant-source characterization are: N
-- Surveys of development activities
~ Waste chemical analyses (waste-water holding pond and raw
shale
• From Table 4-2, the highest priority items for the retention-
dams area for pollutant-source characterization are:
-- Surveys of development activities
r
— Chemical analysis of retention basin water.
These monitoring activities as a set can then be ranked from highest to
lowest, constituting a ranking between source areas. The general basis for
this ranking is the same as that used to rank activities within each source
area.
Continuing this process for each set of monitoring activities results in
an overall priority trade-off matrix, such as illustrated in Table 1-3. This
matrix provides a listing of relative priority of each monitoring activity,
the descending order of priority being from top to bottom of Table 1-3.
COST INFORMATION
Evaluation of cost is a key aspect of monitoring program development.
Preliminary cost estimates for the various monitoring activities ranked in
Table 1-3 are presented in Table 1-4. Details of the derivation of these
cost data are provided in Appendix B of this report. These cost estimates
are provided here for two reasons.
1. To provide an approximate measure of the costs of the various
recommended monitoring activities
2. To provide an illustration of a format for cost-benefit
assessments.
10
-------
TABLE 1-3. PRIORITY TRADE-OFFS WITHIN AND BETWEEN THE THREE SOURCE AREAS
Priority
ranking-
trade-offs
within a
source area
Priority
ranking-
trade-offs
between
source areas
Overal 1
relative
priority
ranking
Pollutant-source
characterization
Surveys of development
activities:
Monitoring methodology steps
Hydrogeology and
Water use water quality Infiltration
Geophysical surveys and Infiltrometer tests
test drilling of alluvium:
Pollutant
mobility
Monitoring in pro-
cessed shale pile
Highest
Highest
Inter-
mediate
a. Processed-shale dis-
posal area
b. Process area
c. Retention-dam areas
Waste chemical character-
ization: [general, major
inorganic, trace metals,
organics]
a. Processed shale
b. High IDS waste water
c. Sour water
d. Spent catalysts
e. Process area waste water
holding pond
f. Retention basins
a. Processed-shale dis-
posal area
b. Process area
c. Retention-dam areas
Installation and testing
of new wells
Sampling of new wells
a. Processed-shale pile
b. Retention basins in
Southarn Canyon and
in process area
Sensor evaluations in
processed shale
Infiltrometer tests:
a. Alluvium of Southam
Canyon
b. Tankage area
c. Stockpile areas
(process area)
Monitoring within
the retention dams
Chemical characterization
as above:
a. Water treatment plant
sludge
Surveys of fracturing in
the Uinta and Green River
Formations
Evaluate water quality
Infiltration tests
Uinta formation
a. Processed-shale
disposal area
in Monitoring in allu-
vium of the process
area
Lowest 3 b- Sulfur byproducts
c. Oily waste waters
d. Spent filters
e. Raw shale
f. Tankage products
g. Mine water
Waste chemical character-
ization as above:
a. Product streams in
Inter- mnhoc* t process area
sampling procedures for b. Process area
deep aquifers „ , . . . , .
c. Retention dam basins
Identification and char-
acterization of saturated
zones above Bird's Nest
Aquifer
Sampling of existing
alluvial wells in the
processed-shale disposal
area
Monitoring in the
alluvium of the
processed shale
disposal area
b. Runoff (.washoff) in
process area
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1-3 (CONTINUED)
Priority
ranking—
within a
source area
Inter-
mediate
Priority
ranking-
trade-offs
between
source areas
Inter-
mediate
Lowest
Overall
relative
priority
ranking
5
6
Monitoring methodology steps
Pollutant-source Hydrogeology and
characterization Water use water quality Infiltration
Infiltrometer tests:
a. Near plant facilities
b. Near waste water
treatment plant
Regional Infiltrometer tests:
water use a. Water supply holding
survey basin
b. Near soils stockpile
Pollutant
mobility
Monitoring In the Uinta
Formation and Green
River Formation above
Bird's Nest Aquifer in
the process area
Monitoring of the Uinta
Formation and Green River
Formation above Bird's Nest
Aquifer in the processed-
shale disposal area
Highest
Waste chemical charac-
terization as above:
a. Waste water treat-
ment plant
b.
Water storage
basin
ro
DOC fractionation
analysis of above
potential pollution
sources
Inter-
mediate
Lowest
Radiological and bacte-
riological analyses of
above potential pollu-
tant sources
Lowest
Test existing wells (if
possiblejin Bird's Nest
Aquifer:
a. Processed-shale dis-
posal area
b. Process area
Install and test new
wells in Bird's Nest
Aquifer in processed-
shale disposal area
Test existing wells (if
possible) in Bird's Nest
Aquifer in retention dam
areas.
Install and test new
wells in Bird's Nest
Aquifer:
a. Process area
b. Retention-dam area
Install and test new
wells in Douglas
Creek Member:
a. Processed-shale dis-
posal area
b. Process area
c. Retention-dam areas
Monitoring in the Uinta
Formation and Green River
Formation in the retention-
dam area
Monitoring in the
Bird's Nest Aquifer
of processed-shale
disposal area
Monitoring in Bird's
Nest Aquifer:
a.
b.
Process area
Retention-dam areas
Monitoring in the
Douglas Creek Member
-------
TABLE 1-4. SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR RECOMMENDED MONITORING ACTIVITIESa
CO
Priority
ranking— Overall
Priority ranking — trade-offs relative
trade-offs within between priority
a source area source areas ranking
Highest
Intermediate
Lowest
Highest 1
Intermediate 2
Lowest 3
Highest 4
Intermediate 5
Lowest 6
Highest 7
Intermediate 8
Lowest 9
Estimated annual costs in 1978 dollars for each phase and year of development (thousands of dollar:
First year Thereafter First year Thereafter First year Thereafter
Phase II Phase II Phase III Phase III Phase IV Phase IV
61 22 42 29 35
83 11 68 12 8
150 32 62 32 28
16 8 11 14 5
8 27 22
5 25 15
7 17 11
198 7 124 9 8
435 b 115 97
23
8
28
5
2
1
1
8
7
Detailed information used to develop these estimates is provided in Appendix B of this report.
^See Table 1-3 for description of monitoring activities for each relative ranking level.
-------
General management and data management costs have not been included in these
estimates because these cost items will vary greatly depending on the level
of effort and funding finally determined for the monitoring program. In
addition, inflation effects have been ignored for this exercise. Table 1-4
then provides a "first-cut" costing for the monitoring activities ranked in
Table 1-3.
The selection of a monitoring program may proceed as follows: Given a
proposed level of funding (or more likely a funding schedule over some de-
fined planning horizon), tables such as Tables 1-3 and 1-4 provide a basis
for identification of the monitoring activities allowed by that funding
schedule. This is essentially equivalent to a cost-benefit statement (i.e.,
for this defined expenditure, the types of monitoring data obtained are
identified).
The monitoring activities not provided by a proposed level of funding
can be identified in the same manner and increments of additional funding
needed to include various additional activities can be estimated. This is
essentially a basis for a cost-risk assessment (i.e., by not spending some
indicated amount, we risk not having certain defined types of monitoring
data).
For example, given a budget of $100,000 per year, a 5-year plan of ac-
tion (ignoring inflation) for Phase II monitoring can be developed from the
initial-year and o per at ion-year costs for each monitoring item ranked in
Table 1-4. A preliminary program and costing is provided in Table 1-5.
Because of the manner in which the priority rankings were developed, the
most important pollution sources are addressed (funded) first. In this fa-
shion, the quality of cost-effectiveness is embodied in the final design; for
a given economic constraint, the most important monitoring data are collected.
Another important consideration is that monitoring needs or priorities
can be expected to vary over time. Initial monitoring activities (based on
assessments such as presented in Slawson (1979) and the following sections of
this report) will provide new insight into definition of the1 potential for
pollution from the various sources identified, identification of chemical
constituents likely to be mobile and thus needing to be monitored most
closely, and determination of appropriate sampling sites and frequencies.
Changing regulatory requirements may also lead to modification of monitoring
requirements. For example, regulations and State implementation programs
addressing the hazardous-waste-handling aspects of the Resources Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 may have an appreciable impact on waste-disposal
programs and monitoring needs for oil shale development. In addition, de-
velopment of new monitoring technologies (e.g., new analytical methods or
field instrumentation) and the results of research on oil shale may lead to
modification of monitoring requirements. Hence, monitoring design must be
viewed as a continuing process rather than a singular task of evaluation,
design, and implementation. Continuing reassessment is required in order to
achieve continuing cost-effectiveness.
14
-------
Table 1-5. EXAMPLE 5-YEAR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND COSTING TAKEN FROM
PRIORITIES AND COST DATA GIVEN IN TABLE 1-4.
Monitoring
program
year
1
2
3
4
5
Monitoring program description
Item3
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
Discussion
Initiate totally
Initiate partially
Year 1 subtotal
Operate
Operate segment initiated year 1
Initiate segment deferred year 1
Initiate partially
Year 2 subtotal
Operate
Operate
Operate segment initiated year 2
Initiate an additional segment
Year 3 subtotal
Operate
Operate
Operate segments initiated
years 2 and 3
Initiate an additional segment
Year 4 subtotal
Operate
Operate
Operate segments initiated
years 2, 3, and 4
Initiate deferred segment
Initiate totally
Initiate totally
Initiate partially
Year 5 subtotal
Estimated cost
(thousands of
1978 dollars)
61
39
100
22
5
44
29
100
22
11
6
61
100
22
11
19
48
100
22
11
29
12
16
8
2
100
altems: Sets of monitoring activities defined by relative ranking numbers,
Tables 1-3 and 1-4 (column 3 in each table).
15
-------
SECTION 2
MONITORING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
PROCESSED-SHALE DISPOSAL AREA
INTRODUCTION
The spent-shale disposal area, as described by the White River Shale
Project (1976), will be a conglomeration of several potential pollution
sources. Waste products include spent shale /Paraho and TOSCO II), high total
dissolved solids (TDS) waste waters, retort waters, spent catalysts, treat-
ment plant sludges, and numerous other solid and liquid wastes. A prelimi-
nary ranking of these waste components in the spent-shale disposal area has
been developed (Table 2-1).
PROPOSED OR EXISTING MONITORING PROGRAMS
The Detailed Development Plan (White River Shale Project, 1976) includes
a monitoring plan for oil shale operations proposed for Tracts U-a and U-b.
The proposed hydrologic monitoring program is presented in Table 2-2 and Fig-
ure 2-1. The following summarizes those plans for monitoring the proposed
oil shale operation:
• Quarterly water quality sampling of major inorganic, trace metal,
and general organic measures in the alluvium:
— Generally upgradient from the main disposal area
— At two locations downstream from the Phases III and IV reten-
tion dam
— Along the White River upstream from its junction with Southam
C anyon
• Water quality sampling from temporary, shallow alluvial wells
near the toe of the spent-shale pile; temporary wells will be
removed when encroached upon by pile development
• Monitoring of Bird's Nest Aquifer, generally up- and downgradi-
ent from the disposal area, and the Douglas Creek Aquifer to the
east of the disposal area; this monitoring includes water-level
measurement at several sites and water quality sampling at se-
lected wells
16
-------
TABLE 2-1. PRELIMINARY RANKING OF POLLUTANT SOURCES INCORPORATED IN SPENT-SHALE DISPOSAL AREA
Source
priority
ranking
Highest
Potential
pollution
source
Spent shale
Highest
TDS, Na, S04, As, Se,
Potential pollutant ranking
Intermediate
F, Ca, Mg, Zn, Cd, Hg, B,
Lowest
Pb, Cu, Fe
High-TDS waste water
Sour water
Retort water
Spent catalysts
Intermediate Storm water runoff
Water treatment
plant sludges
Miscellaneous
landfill materials
Sulfur byproducts
Oily waste waters
Spent filters
Lowest
organics (PAH, carcinogens) organics (phenols, etc.)
TDS
Ammonia, phenols
Sewage sludge
Mine water
Sanitary waste water
Surface disturbance
As, Cl, S, organics (POM,
carboxylic acids, phenols)
As, Mo
TDS, organics, As, Se
TDS
Sulfides, organics
Sulfides, sulfates
Organics
Organics, As
Organics
TDS, oil and grease
Organics
Calcium salts, TDS
Organics
TDS, organics
(amines, etc.)
Zn, Ni
Na, Ca, $04,
organics
Major inorganics
Sulfides
Trace metals
Trace metals
Nutrients
Trace metals, organics
Nutrients
Major inorganics
Carbonates,
P04, N03
Fe, Cu, Co
Zn, Cd, Hg
Trace metals
Major inorganics
Major inorganics
aFrom Slawson, 1979
-------
TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM PROPOSED BY WHITE RIVER SHALE PROJECT (WRSP, 1976)
00
Well
Wei 1 a depth
identification(s) Aquifer (feet)
AG-1 Upper Ub Alluvial 12
Lower U 44
AG-2 Upper Dc
Lower D
AG-3 Upper D
Lower D
AG-6 D
AG-7
AG-8 U
AG-9 U '
21
40
20
38
27
37
20
20
G-2A D Alluvial 41
P-2 Upper D Bird's Nest 378
Lower D
P-3 U
6-11 U \
G-21 D Bird's
P-l Bird's
519
540
650
Nest 611
Nest 488
P-4 Douglas Creek 400
X-5 Bird's
6-5
G-8A
6-8
6-10 J
6-12 '
G-14 Bird's
Shallow well(s)
of spent1 ^ Alluvi
shale pile
Nest 936
620
100
127
400
100
Nest 90
al Shallow
•
Sampling
frequency
Quarterly
i '
Quarterly
Semiannual6
Semiannual
Quarterly
V
Quarterly
Quarterly
Parameters measured
Hacroinorqanics:
Ca, Mg, K, Na, Cl , F, S04
General :
pH, specific conductance,
temperature, total alkalinity,
IDS
Trace:
As, B, Hg, Mo, Se, Si, sulfide
Organic:
TOC, total carbon
Depth to water
Depth to water
,
Water chemistry as listed above
Sampling methods and
miscellaneous information
Sampling and treatment:
as per USGS methodsf
Analysis:
as per APHA methods9
Sampl ing:
Pump for large wells,
bailer or thief sampler
for small wells
Steel tape or electric
probe
Steel tape, electric probe,
or continuous recorder
Wells abandoned as encroached
upon by shale disposal
Sampling locations are shown in Figure 2-1.
U: upgradient from processed shale deposit
c D: downgradient from processed shale deposit
Quarterly sampling periods: February-March, May-June,
August-September, and November-December
Semiannual sampling periods: Hay-June and November-December
f U.S. Geological Survey (1970)
9 American Public Health Association (1976)
-------
OIL SHALE LEASE TRACTS U-a AND U-b, UINTA COUNTY, UTAH
INCLUDING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED WHITE RIVER DAM
WASTE-WATER
HOLDING POND
'G-5
PROCESS
AREA
X-5
•U-b PORTAL
WATER STORAGE
•U-a PORTAL
PHASE II PROCESSED
SHALE DISPOSAL
I \
PHASE III & IV PROCESSED SHALE DISPOSAL
MAP LOCATION
UTAH
1 MILE
i
1 KILOMETER
Figure 2-1. Groundwater monitoring sites on Tracts U-a and U-b proposed by White River Shale Project
(WRSP, 1976) (see Table 2-2).
-------
• Precipitation monitoring, stream gaging, and surface-water qual-
ity sampling (when stream-flow observed):
-- Upstream of the main disposal area
— Downstream from the Phases III and IV retention dam
• Periodic (at least semiannual) subsidence surveys.
MONITORING DEFICIENCIES
Since operational monitoring programs have not been initiated on Tracts
U-a and U-b, this evaluation of monitoring deficiencies must be qualified to
some extent. The following paragraphs summarize perceived deficiencies in
the information base needed for design and implementation of an adequate
groundwater quality monitoring program in the processed-shale disposal area.
Toward this end, the discussion returns to the initial nine steps of the mon-
itoring methodology (Section 1). Potential information gaps exist with re-
gard to source and pollutant characterization (methodology steps 2 and 3),
water use (step 4), the hydrogeologic framework and existing water quality
(steps 5 and 6), infiltration potential (step 7), and pollutant mobility
(steps 8 and 9). These data deficiencies are to be identified and evaluated
as to their relative importance for groundwater quality monitoring program
development in the processed-shale disposal area.
Pollutant-Source Characterization
Information on source characteristics is required for defining the phys-
ical, chemical, and biological nature of waste streams, for determining waste
loading, for assessing chemical analysis needs for monitoring, and for exam-
ining the potential mobility of pollutants. Although a great deal of infor-
mation is available on the various wastes to be disposed of in the spent-shale
disposal area, the chemical characteristics are not completely known, and the
interaction of the various waste products with infiltrating waters is unclear.
Consequently, the following items may need to be addressed prior to finaliz-
ing the monitoring program. Consideration of these items would be an inte-
gral part of the initial implementation phases of the monitoring program:
• Characterization of waste products
-- Solid wastes
(1) Processed shale
(2) Water treatment sludges
(3) Spent filters
-- Liquid wastes
(1) High-TDS waste water
20
-------
(2) Sour water
(3) Retort water
(4) Water mixtures used to moisturize waste shale
(5) Oily waste waters
(6) Mine water
• Waste-water interactions
-- "Soil" moisture (or soil-water) characteristic curves for
spent shale and other solid wastes
— Leaching potential (qualitative and quantitative assessment)
under saturated and unsaturated conditions.
The details of construction and operation procedures greatly influence
the potential for pollutant mobility. The design of the spent-shale pile is,
in many ways, conceptual at this time. Pile design features that need to be
known prior to finalizing monitoring efforts include the following:
• Actual procedures (time sequence) for spreading, contouring, and
compacting "of spent shale
• Placement of other solid wastes, including timing, location
(localized or diffuse), treatment, and covering
• Details of revegetation program
— Timing
-- Details of trench construction and filling
— Leaching program (if any)
— Irrigation practice (if any)
— Type and survival of sealants for water harvesting.
Water Use
An important aspect of the monitoring program should be provision for
periodic regional water-use surveys. Although use of groundwaters in the
immediate project region is limited at this time, increased use of both sur-
face waters and groundwater can reasonably be expected with future accelera-
tion of oil shale development.
21
-------
Hydrogeologlc Framework and Existing Water Quality
Site hydrogeology is a determining factor in natural water quality and
is a key influence on pollutant mobility. Thus hydrogeologic data play an
important role in the design of a monitoring program. The hydrogeologic
framework can be described in terms of the alluvium, the Uinta Formation, the
Bird's Nest Aquifer, and the Douglas Creek Member. In constructing the
processed-shale pile, the vadose zone locally is substantially thickened.
Hence evaluation of the hydraulic properties of the disposal pile, as well as
underlying strata, is also needed. Such evaluations are presented in later
discussions of infiltration and pollutant mobility. Data deficiencies in the
spent-shale disposal area include the following:
• Characterization of alluvium
— Thickness and subsurface extent of alluvium
~ Moisture status (e.g., existence of saturated layers)
~ Spatial heterogeneity in physical properties (e.g., particle-
size distribution, clay content) and chemical properties
(e.g., cation exchange capacity, pH, etc.)
— Aquifer characteristics (e.g., transmissivity and storage
coefficient)
— Depth to water and direction of groundwater movement
• Soil mositure characteristic curves for alluvium, soils, and
Uinta sandstones
• Fracturing in the Uinta Formation
• Presence and characteristics of saturated zones in the Uinta
Formation (e.g., near the White River)
• Aquifer characteristics of Bird's Nest Aquifer; three wells were
pump tested and only one of these is near the potential pollu-
tion source areas
• Aquifer characteristics of the Douglas Creek Aquifer.
Alluvium--
Several observation wells have been installed in the alluvium of the
White River, Evacuation Creek, Southam Canyon, and Asphalt Wash. On a re-
gional basis, there are several deficiencies. First, the boundary conditions
for the alluvium are not well known; that is, the thickness of alluvium is
known at only a few locations along the major floodplains. Second, insuffi-
cient data are available from which to construct water-level contour maps and
thus determine flow patterns; that is, only a few wells have been drilled to
tap alluvium beneath the major floodplains. Third, no aquifer tests have
22
-------
been been reported for wells tapping the alluvium; thus the aquifer charac-
teristics are unknown. Lastly, water quality data are sparse for the al-
luvium, also because of the few wells. In addition, these data are quite
variable: Southam Canyon has the greatest density of alluvial wells in the
project region, but water quality data were reported for only one well.
Unita and Green River Formations—
The Uinta Formation is largely uncharacterized. Fractures are expected
to be the major flow paths within the Uinta Formation. No data are available
at this time on the location or extent of such fracturing. In addition, the
Uinta Formation is probably saturated near the White River. The presence,
extent, and characteristics (e.g., transmissivity and gradient) of this zone
and its interaction with the deeper Bird's Nest Aquifer are unknown. This
zone and the Green River Formation above the Bird's Nest Aquifer could be of
central importance as a route of pollutant mobility, particularly in light of
likely modification of the hydrogeology as a result of subsidence over the
mine zone and filling of the White River reservoir adjacent to Tracts U-a and
U-b. For these reasons, the Uinta formation and the Green River Formation
above the Bird's Nest Zone require further analysis and characterization.
Bird's Nest Aquifer—
Numerous observation wells have been installed in the Bird's Nest Aqui-
fer throughout the tracts. In general, the density of wells is suitable on a
regional basis except for two locations. The first is along the south bound-
ary of Tract U-a. The second is the area across the White River north of
Tracts U-a and U-b. Additional data in these areas would provide information
on subsurface geology, water levels, aquifer characteristics, and groundwater
quality. Data on subsurface geology, water levels, groundwater flow, and
groundwater quality are adequate for the existing wells on a regional basis.
However, aquifer tests have been reported for only three wells (P-l, P-2, and
P-3); thus data on aquifer characteristics are sparse. Because of the small
casing diameter on most existing wells, construction of new wells would be
necessary to allow aquifer -testing. The types of casing used (steel) may
also limit determinations of the trace metal and organic chemical content of
the groundwater. Lastly, suitable sampling procedures for water from wells
have not been established, and optimal sampling frequencies have not been
defined.
Douglas Creek Aquifer-
Two wells (P-4 and G16A) have been drilled into the Douglas Creek Aqui-
fer. Since this formation was indicated to be potentially a significant
aquifer, additional drilling may be appropriate to ascertain the (1) subsur-
face geology; (2) water levels; (3) aquifer characteristics; and (4) water
quality. Any hydraulic connection of this zone with the Bird's Nest Aquifer
has not been clearly established.
23
-------
Infiltration
Infiltration is the key process in the production of leachate from wastes
deposited in the processed-shale disposal area and movement of pollutants
into the alluvium or Uinta Formation. Limited data on the infiltration po-
tential of native soils were collected during the environmental baseline
studies. Knowledge of the potential for infiltration into the Uinta Forma-
tion through fractures is less complete. Potential for infiltration into the
processed-shale pile during construction and after completion has been evalu-
ated (Slawson, 1979), but appreciable uncertainties exist with regard to this
predictive analysis concerning:
• Infiltration before final compaction, sealing, and stabilization
of the disposal pile
• Infiltration potential created by revegetation efforts:
~ Irrigation or leaching of surface layer of process shale
-- Infiltration through revegetation trenches during water har-
vesting
-- Longevity of surface sealants
• Infiltration during and following short-term, intense precipita-
tion events and during snow melt.
Pollutant Mobility
The rationale for the proposed groundwater monitoring plan (White River
Shale Project, 1976) is that the sampling sites designated will provide in-
formation on aquifer zones both upstream and downstream from the spent-shale
pile. The constituents to be analyzed are identified as either basic indica-
tors of water quality or potential contaminants from processed shale. Water-
level monitoring is intended to measure changes in groundwater storage and
flow (rate and direction). With the exception of several planned alluvial
wells, the existing network of wells is intended to be used for monitoring.
In general, the White River Shale Project proposes no source monitoring,
vadose-zone monitoring, or direct determination of infiltration potential.
The rationale is that sampling of wells alone can provide adequate informa-
tion. However, because of the long travel times of percolating water in the
vadose zone and saturated zone, decades may elapse before pollutants reach
wells. In addition, in order to adequately interpret water quality data from
wells, the entire sequence of events from infiltration at the land surface to
the well discharge must be understood.
Spent-Shale Pile--
One of the key issues in the environmental evaluation of spent-shale
disposal is the potential mobility of pollutants within the shale pile. Such
24
-------
mobility is a function of several factors:
• Retorting processes
• The physical characteristics of waste placement (wetting, com-
paction), purposeful leaching, permeability, cracking, etc.)
• Water application (e.g., precipitation, irrigation)
• The chemical environment with the spent-shale pile
• Biological activity, including microbiological activity and
revegetation.
A need to monitor the moisture status and water quality within the spent-
shale pile itself is indicated. The proposed sampling program is deficient
in this regard.
Existing Vadose Zone—
The proposed monitoring effort focuses on saturated mobility within the
alluvium. Since unsaturated flow may be an important mobility process in the
alluvial system of Southam Canyon, Uinta Formation, and the Green River For-
mation, a need for monitoring this process exists.
Saturated Zone-
Pollutant mobility monitoring in the saturated zone can be broken into
indirect methods and direct sampling methods. The proposed monitoring does
not include the use of indirect methods such as surface resistivity tech-
niques to trace movement of high-salinity water in the alluvium. Direct
sampling from wells is emphasized.
The proposed sampling of water from wells is considered inadequate in
several regards: (1) well location; (2) well construction; (3) sampling pro-
cedures; and (4) sampling frequency. For the Phase II spent-shale pile,
there would be sufficient coverage for the alluvium if additional downgradi-
ent wells are installed. However, there are no wells tapping the Bird's Nest
Aquifer or Douglas Creek Aquifer in an upgradient or downgradient direction
in close proximity to the shale pile. For the Phase III and IV pile, no
upgradient alluvial wells have been specified. Again, upgradient and down-
gradient wells in the Bird's Nest Aquifer and Douglas Creek Aquifer may not
be sufficient in number": There is only one existing well tapping the Bird's
Nest Aquifer upgradient of the proposed pile and one well downgradient.
There are no wells tapping the Douglas Creek Aquifer near the spent-shale
pile.
The primary limitation with existing wells for water quality sampling is
the small diameter of the casing. For "P" wells, reported casing diameters
are:
P-l 2.5-inch
25
-------
P-2 4.5-inch (pilot hole)
P-2 1.5-inch (core hole)
P-3 4.5-inch (core hole)
P-3 8.0-inch (pumping hole)
P-4 4.5-inch.
K
For "6" wells, 4-inch casing was reportedly used. If submersible pumps
are selected for water sample collection, a minimum 4-inch casing is neces-
sary. If some of the deeper holes are not straight, even this diameter will
be too small. Steel casings were apparently used for all monitor wells. The
use of steel casing may render the wells unsuitable for sampling for trace
metals and organic chemicals because of the possible adsorption of these con-
stituents on casing-corrosion products. PVC would be preferable to avoid
such adsorption, but it may lack strength.
Water samples have been collected from wells on the tracts by numerous
methods in the past. Bailing, using an airlift, and pumping for different
time periods may provide water of different chemical quality from the same
well. Cost (of well construction and labor), as well as capability of col-
lecting representative samples, are the key decision factors for selection of
sampling method. An additional complication for wells tapping the deeper
aquifers on the tracts is that gas is produced with the water. Upon escape
of gas from the water sample, changes in chemical composition of the water
are likely to occur. In order to successfully monitor groundwater pollution,
a uniform method of collecting water samples from wells must be established.
Sampling frequencies have been somewhat arbitrarily chosen. Such frequencies
may be best determined by frequent sampling for the first year or so of the
monitoring program followed by an analysis of constituent variability.
Analysis—
Another key consideration is the selection of the chemical constituents
to be sampled. The inorganic constituents included in the White River Shale
Project program generally encompass those given highest or intermediate rank-
ing in the preliminary priority ranking (Tables 2-1 and 2-2). Exceptions in-
clude certain trace metals, such as zinc, cadmium, and nickel, which may be
of intermediate importance. In addition, measurement of carbonate and bicar-
bonate provides a better characterization of water quality than the total-
alkalinity determination proposed by White River Shale Project. Organic
analysis in the White River Shale Project program is restricted to general
measures—total organic carbon and total carbon. Dissolved organic carbon
analysis may be preferable to these measures. Although these measures pro-
vide a general screening of organics, a more detailed characterization may be
warranted, particularly if changes in gross organic levels are observed in
groundwater samples.
It is not clear that analytical work has been documented as to sample
collection techniques, preservation of samples, laboratories used, methods of
26
-------
analysis, and quality control procedures. Applicable quality control and
quality assurance procedures should include duplicate sampling, using stan-
dards for checking analyses, spiking or blink reference samples, calculating
cation-anion balances, comparing total dissolved solids content (residue
determinations), and other data checks.
Summary of Monitoring Deficiencies
The preceding paragraphs have provided a discussion of data deficiencies
and uncertainties that exist for monitoring program development in the
processed-shale disposal area. Uncertainties exist in information on source
characteristics, in details of disposal and other operational plans, in
knowledge of the hydrogeologic framework, and in sampling and projecting
mobility of potential pollutants. Many tract-operation monitoring deficien-
cies result from the utilization of existing wells, which were not drilled
for the purpose of operational monitoring.
Table 2-3 presents a summary and relative priority ranking of monitoring
deficiencies associated with the monitoring methodology steps. The priority
ranking shown here is within each methodology step as well as between these
information categories. Monitoring deficiencies for each of the methodology
steps are listed in order of relative priority or importance for monitoring
program development. With regard to trade-offs between methodlogy-step data
deficiencies, the table should be interpreted to mean that highest ranked
items for one methodology step have relatively greater priority than lower-
ranked items for other steps.
ALTERNATIVE MONITORING APPROACHES
Pollutant-Source Characterization
Monitoring deficiencies with regard to pollutant and source character-
ization include characterization of waste products and definition of details
of construction, operation, and disposal procedures.
Indirect Sampling Approaches—
The DDP (White River Shale Project, 1976) stipulates that solid wastes
being disposed of in landfills will be routinely inventoried by tract devel-
opers. The records to be kept include types, and approximate quantities, of
solid wastes, the disposal area being employed, and special provisions for
chemical waste disposal. Alternatives for monitoring include compilation and
summarization of data collected by the developers and independent inventories
of solid-waste types, quantities, and methods of disposal. Options for in-
ventorying include onsite inspection surveys and remote sensing.
Mathematical simulation models are a possible approach for evaluation or
prediction of waste-product characteristics. However, mathematical simula-
tion capabilities for evaluating oil shale retorting operations are in a
rather embryonic state. The ability to project waste-product characteristics
does not exist at this time.
27
-------
TABLE 2-3. RELATIVE PRIORITY RANKING OF MONITORING AND INFORMATION DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED FOR
THE SPENT-SHALE DISPOSAL AREA
Monitoring methodology steps
PO
00
Relative Hydrogeo logic
priority Pollutant-source framework and existing
ranking characterization Water use water quality Infiltration
Hie
i
Lov\
jhest Details of disposal Measurement of alluvial Infiltration in processed-
and revegetation materials and aquifer shale pile
operations characteristics
Water-solid waste Presence and character-
interactions istics of saturated
zones in Uinta Formation
and in the Green River
Formation above Bird's
Nest Aquifer
Solid-waste Survey of Survey fracturing in Infiltration in fractures
characterization regional the Uinta Formation in in Uinta Formation
water use cleared areas (if any)
Liquid-waste Aquifer testing in
characterization deep aquifers
est
Pollutant
mobility
Mobil ity in
processed-shale
pile
Mobil ity in
Southam Canyon
alluvium
Mobility in the
Uinta Formation and
Green River Forma-
tion above deep
aquifers
Effectiveness of
confining layers
above the Bird1 s
Nest Aquifer
-------
Onsite inventory and inspection of construction and operation are needed
for definition of the details of development plans. Many of these factors
greatly influence placement of monitoring equipment and planning of monitor-
ing activities in general.
Of additional utility for source characterization is the maintaining of
contact with current research and development in oil shale. In this regard
contact with the following groups may prove valuable:
• Governmental agencies
-- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
— U.S. Department of Energy
-- U.S. Geological Survey
• Research groups
-- Battelle Pacific-Northwest Laboratories
— Colorado State University
-- Denver Research Institute
— Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
-- Oak Ridge National Laboratory
-- Texas Tech University
— TRW
-- University of Colorado
— University of Wyoming
• Private industry
-- C-b Shale Oil Venture
-- Equity Oil
— Geokinetics, Inc.
-- Occidental
— Paraho Development
— Rio Blanco Oil Shale, Inc.
-- TOSCO
29
-------
— Union Oil
-- White River Shale Project.
Direct Sampling Approaches--
Direct sample collection for pollutant-source characterization can be
approached in several ways. Alternative approaches for obtaining samples for
analysis include the use of pilot or demons tr at ion-scale (semi works) facili-
ties and onsite collection at commercial-scale facilities. The major short-
coming in the use of pi lot-scale studies is the uncertainty in extrapolating
results to larger commercial-si zed facilities. The detailed nature of diffi-
culties that may be encountered in making this extrapolation have yet to be
demonstrated for oil shale operations. However, the monitoring deficiencies
defined in the preceding discussion were so designated after making such an
extrapolation to the proposed commercial operation.
Onsite information collection at a commercial-si zed operation is prob-
ably the best source for characterization of sources and potential pollu-
tants. Possible locations of data collection on waste products are the site
of generation within the plant and the site of waste disposal. Because
waste-product streams are mixed before or during disposal in the processed-
shale disposal area, characterization of waste products prior to mixing and
disposal is probably preferred. This will provide a capability of identify-
ing the individual source of chemical constituents that may be observed in
leachate from the "mixed" source of the processed-shale pile.
Sampling Frequency--
Sampling frequency requirements for pollutant-source characterization
are largely determined by the variability of the waste-product characteris-
tics. Such variability will result from variations in raw-shale (feedstock)
composition and plant operation conditions. Once a facility is operational
and the various "startup" problems are overcome, somewhat steady-state opera-
tional conditions may be assumed and waste-product variation will be largely
the result of feedstock composition variability.
Maximum "operation variability" can be expected during the initial
stages of development Phase II, III, and IV as defined by the White River
Shale Project (1976). Hence, maximum waste-product sampling frequency will
be required during these initial stages. Once steady-state operation is
achieved, sampling frequencies can be decreased significantly. For example,
initial sampling may need to be weekly or more frequently (e.g., daily) for
some waste streams. Sampling may evolve to semi annually under steady-state
operational conditions. Decisions with regard to sampling frequency should
be specific for each waste product to be characterized.
Analytical Methods--
In the following paragraphs, analytical approaches for characterizing
solid and liquid waste products are identified. There are two opposing forces
active in the evaluation of analytical requirements of a monitoring program:
30
-------
1. Need or desire to minimize effort or cost
2. Need or desire to minimize environmental risk.
The first of these tends to push the monitoring effort to zero, the
obvious minimum-cost state. The latter tends to force the effort to some
ill-defined "infinity" level. Obviously some compromise will be developed.
Solid waste-water interactions—This type of analysis deals with meas-
urement of soil-moisture characteristic curves and leachate characterization.
These characteristic curves are prepared on solid-waste samples by a method
that uses a modified Haynes apparatus. The principles of this method are
presented by Day (1965).
Sorption and leachate analyses can be carried out using either beaker
(slurry) tests or column tests (using either saturated or unsaturated condi-
tions). Beaker tests are conducted by slurrying a known mass of solid mate-
rial (e.g., processed shale) with a known volume of liquid (e.g., retort
water, distilled-deionized water, or native groundwater or surface water).
Chemical analyses of the liquid fraction before and after contact with the
solid can provide a rough assessment of mobility or attenuation of various
chemical components. Studies using this approach to examine the sorption of
various organic fractions on TOSCO-processed shale are reported by Stuber and
Leenheer '(1978).
Column (or larger scale lysimeter) tests of sorption or leachate pro-
duction are conceptually similar to beaker tests except that solid-liquid
contact is accomplished by the liquid flowing through a column packed with
the solid material. Although probably more time-consuming (and costly), col-
umn tests can be a more realistic representation of water movement in the
processed-shale disposal area and, hence, may provide a more realistic ap-
praisal of potential pollutant mobility. Column experiments can also include
unsaturated flow conditions, which are the most likely mode of pollutant
transport in the processed-shale disposal area. Unsaturated flow experiments
are, however, more time-consuming than saturated flow tests. Such experi-
ments may also include wet-dry cycles to simulate precipitation or irrigation
conditions. However, the difficulties in duplicating field conditions in
relatively short-term tests are great. Contact times must be long enough to
approach equilibrium.
Characterization of solid wastes—Characterization of solid wastes in-
cludes analyses of bulk or solids properties and leachate properties. Analy-
ses of solids properties are considered here. Leachates are discussed in the
following segment. Analyses of the solid wastes identified in this study as
not adequately characterized are summarized in Table 2-4. Types of analysis,
the applicability of various analyses to the solid-waste products, informa-
tion to be gained from the analysis, and cost are the major decision factors.
Characterization of liquid wastes—Analysis options for liquid-waste
products identified as being inadequately characterized are presented in
Tables 2-5 and 2-6. Criteria for selection of analyses include:
31
-------
TABLE 2-4. OPTIONS FOR ANALYSIS OF SOLID WASTES CONCLUDED TO BE NOT ADEQUATELY CHARACTERIZED
Analysis
Potential applicability to:
Water
Processed Spent treatment Spent
shale catalyst sludge filters
Type of information obtained
from analysis
to
ro
Particle-size analysis:
— sieving
- hydrometer
X-ray diffraction analysis
Surface area
Water content:
- 1/2 atmosphere
- 15 atmospheres
- in situ
Bulk density-in situ
Base exchange capacity
Cation exchange capacity
Hydrous oxides
Saturated extract analysis
Beaker-sorption tests
Column experiments:
- saturated flow
- unsaturated flow
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Inference of permeability and
porosity
Identification of clay particles
Inference of sorptive properties
Inference of sorptive properties
Inference of general hydraulic
properties particularly with
regard to unsaturated flow
Inference of permeability and porosity
Attenuation mechanisms
Attenuation mechanisms
Attenuation mechanisms
Potentially mobile constituents
Mobility-attenuation evaluation
Mobility-attenuation evaluation
-------
TABLE 2-5. OPTIONS FOR ANALYSIS OF LIQUID WASTES, INCLUDING
LEACHATES CONCLUDED TO BE NOT ADEQUATELY CHARACTERIZED
Potential applicability
Waste product
of
Major
analyses9:
Trace
inorganics elements
Spent shale (leachate)
High TDS wastes
Sour water
Retort water
Spent-shale moisturizing mixture
Spent catalysts (leachate)
Water treatment sludge (leachate)
Oily waste water
Spent filters (leachate)
Mine water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Organics
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
See Table 2-6 for detailed listing of major inorganics,
trace elements, and organics analyses
33
-------
TABLE 2-6. ALTERNATIVES FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSES
Analysis Category
Alternative Analyses
General water quality:
Major inorganics:
Trace elements:
Organic analysis:
PH
Eh
Specific conductance
TDS
Ca
Mg
Na
K
SO,
Cl
HC03
co3
F
Se
As
Mo
Zn
Cd
Hg
Ni
B
TOC
DOC
COD
BOD
DOC—fractionation3
Oil and grease
Benzene-soluble organics
Phenolic compounds
Organic nitrogen
Benzo (a) pyrene
hydrophilic-hydrophobic, acid-neutral-base
34
-------
• The existence and accessibility of analytical capability
• Costs (including sample collection, handling, and laboratory
analysis)
• The information to be obtained from the analytical data (i.e., '
approaches to interpret the data must exist).
A preliminary study dealing with data interpretation is presented in Appen-
dix C.
Inorganic chemical sampling requirements for the spent-shale disposal
area are readily identifiable from the results presented in Table 2-1. Moni-
toring based on the three evaluation criteria discussed above is expected to
include:
• Basic or general water quality measures such as pH, specific
conductance, and total dissolved solids concentration
• Major inorganic constituents (Ca, Mg, Na, K, $64, Cl, HC03,
€03, F, N (compounds, etc.)
• Selected trace constituents (Se, As, Mo, Zn, Cd, Hg, Ni, B).
These constituents include the measures commonly used to evaluate the
quality of waters used for domestic, agricultural, and industrial purposes.
Thus, the interpretation of monitoring data obtained with regard to water use
would be somewhat straightforward using available water quality standards and
criteria. In addition, analytical procedures for these constituents are
readily available, are widely accepted, and are relatively inexpensive. Some
caution should be exercised with regard to the use of standard analytical
procedures for analysis of raw process waters. For example, studies by Fox
et al. (1978) concluded that standard analytical methods cannot be used for
many water .quality parameters in such complex waters. Instrumental methods
produced more accurate results because fewer interferences were encountered
than with chemical methods. General recommendations and conclusions (from
Fox et al. (1978)) included:
• Extensive methods development work is needed for analysis of
cyanide, chemical oxygen demand (COD), phenols, orthophosphate,
solids, and sulfide in process waters
• Existing methods for sulfate, inorganic carbon, and some sulfur
species may be adequate, but more testing should be conducted
• Of the instrumental methods evaluated, spark-source mass spec-
trometry produced the lowest detection limits but the poorest
precision; X-ray fluorescence and neutron activation and analy-
sis produced precise and accurate results; and atomic absorption
spectroscopy was acceptable for analysis of Ca, Mg, Fe, Na, Si,
As, K, Se, and Zn.
35
-------
Sampling and analysis of radiological constituents is also a monitoring
option. Constituents to be considered include radium-226, radium-222, radio-
nuclides of uranium, thorium and potassium, alpha activity, and beta activity.
Lee et al. (1977) provide a summary of potential radioactive pollutants for
oil shale, coal, potential geothermal, and nuclear energy industries. Their
conclusion was that radiological problems from oil shale operations are ex-
pected to be relatively insignificant.
Organic constituent monitoring needs are less well defined than are mon-
itoring needs for inorganics. This situation exists because many organic
wastes are not completely characterized quantitatively or qualitatively, the
mobility of the various constituents is not well understood, and the poten-
tial deleterious effects of organic components in oil shale wastes are not
well known in many instances. These uncertain or unknown factors are key
elements addressed in the planning and implementation of the monitoring
program.
The spectrum of alternative organic sampling schemes ranges from analy-
sis of specific compounds to analysis of lumped parameters, such as chemical
oxygen demand (COD) or total organic carbon (TOC).
In order to address the development of an organic sampling scheme, con-
sider the following analytical approaches:
• Gross measures of organic content, such as
— COD
— TOC or DOC
-- Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
-- Organic solvent extracts (e.g., carbon-chloroform or carbon-
alcohol extracts (CCE or CAE, respectively) benzene-soluble
organics)
• General fractionation, such as
-- Hydrophobic-hydrophilic fractions
— Acid-base-neutral fractionation of hydrophobic and hydro-
philic fractions
— Aliphatic-aromatic fractions
-- Molecular weight fractionation
• Specific fractionation, such as
— Phenolic compounds
36
-------
— Nitrogen heterocyclic compounds (e.g., maleimides, succini-
mides, carbazoles)
— Organic acids
• Benzo(a)pyrene
— Benz(a)anthracene (1,2-benzanthracene)
— 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
-- 3-methylcholanthrene.
The following paragraphs present a brief discussion of the benefits
(gain of information) associated with each of these categories. The costs
(analytical effort) for these categories generally increase from the gross
measures to specific compounds in the order listed previously. Design of a
groundwater quality monitoring program must include consideration of not only
what is sampled and cost, but the interpretive utility of the information
obtained.
The gross measures provide a coarse view of the level of organic mate-
rial present in samples but provide little information on the characteristics
of the compounds included. BOD indirectly measures the biodegradable organics
over a given time period at a specific temperature. Although BOD analysis is
a standardized procedure, the results are still rather variable and not very
sensitive. COD measures that portion of organic matter digested within 2
hours by dichromate acid reagents. However, some inorganic materials are
also oxidized, and certain organic compounds, such as straight-chain alipha-
tics and aromatic hydrocarbons, are not readily oxidized during the COD test
unless catalyzed. The TOC test attempts to quantify the organic matter that
is converted at high temperature to carbon dioxide. The test is completely
nonspecific as to compound type, and no inference as to hazard can be made.
This is a shortcoming common also to BOD and COD measures, as well as to the
various organic solvent extraction techniques. However, TOC is preferable to
BOD or COD as the determination is independent of microbial effects, toxic
substances, and variability with diverse organic constituents. DOC analysis
shares this advantage and is commonly more precise and accurate than the TOC
determination (Baker, 1976).
Sampling programs that include general fractionation procedures would
offer some information on the types of organics that are mobile. With this
approach, the general character of the organic complex would be identified
(e.g., dominance of hydrophobics or hydrophilic acids, etc.), and hence "can-
didate compound types" could be inferred through the use of information on
more detailed source characterization.
The interpretive utility of fractionation data would be greatly enhanced
if the potential toxicity, carcinogenicity, etc. were nonuniformly distributed
among the various general organic fractions. For example, if hydrophobic
bases were extremely carcinogenic relative to hydrophobic acids, then an ob-
servation of the increasing dominance of the former fraction would offer more
37
-------
information than if no such toxicological difference existed. Some research
(e.g., at Battelle Pacific-Northwest Laboratories, Oak Ridge National Labora-
tory, etc.) is presently underway to address the potential biological effects
of various organic fractions of oil shale wastes. The type of information
will clearly enhance the potential utility of fractionation schemes for moni-
toring. However, the extent to which these data on differential fraction
toxicity are process-dependent must also be assessed.
Molecular weight fractionation may also have some potential for use as a
monitoring tool. The variation of acute toxicity of organics with molecular
weight has been demonstrated for a few classes of compounds (Herbes et al.,
1976). Bioaccumulation, another important factor in assessing the potential
environmental hazards of materials, may also vary with molecular weight
(Herbes et al., 1976).
The analytical costs associated with more specific fractionation are de-
pendent upon the fractions selected. For example, analytical procedures for
"phenolic compounds" are relatively inexpensive. Other approaches, which
require chromatographic or spectroscopic methods, would be more expensive in
general.
The major advantage of analysis of specific fractionation over general
fractionation as a monitoring procedure is that much more information is al-
ready available as to the potential deleterious effects of many of these com-.
pound groups. For example, phenolics have been associated with potential
carcinogenic effects of oil shale products (Loogna, 1972). Also, many nitro-
geneous organic compounds, such as N-nitroso compounds, hydroxylamines, and
hydrazines (Varma et al., 1976), have been labeled as potentially carcinogenic
or mutagenic. Thus, specific fractionation data may be more readily useful
than the general fraction because of the existence of data on biological
effects.
Identification and quantification of specific organic compounds is prob-
ably the most expensive of the approaches considered here. Sophisticated
instrumentation and sample-hand!ing procedures are usually needed. There
are, however, probably several thousand organic compounds to be found in the
various waste streams associated with an oil shale mining and retorting oper-
ation. Thus, one would have to be highly selective »in the choice of compounds
for such monitoring to be feasible. In addition, compound-specific data on
biological effects would be required for the data to be useful.
The spatial and temporal layout of the monitoring program will be de-
signed to identify the presence, extent, and rate of pollutant mobility. One
of the key criteria in the selection of the chemical analytical program is
its potential for interpreting environmental hazard. This hazard can be a
use limitation for domestic, industrial or agricultural use, an increased
treatment requirement for these uses, or related biological "harm" categories
of toxicity, carcinogen!city, teratogenicity and mutagenicity.
Except for a few selected pesticides and halogenated hydrocarbonst> water
quality standards have not been promulgated for organic constituents. Only a
few criteria have been proposed. The desire to use monitoring data to infer
38
-------
potential environmental hazard creates a possible role for direct measures of
impact potential. Options include general toxicity, bioassay procedures,
such as fish or mammal toxicity, or more specific procedures, such as the
Ames assay (a cell-culture technique using a specific strain of Salmonella)
or other cell-culture techniques. The monitoring approach using these tech-
niques would include field collection of samples and the use of these samples
in bioassay tests.
An advantage of such a monitoring program is the direct inference of
potential effects without the need for detailed chemical characterization.
Disadvantages are that some approaches are time-consuming and, thus, expen-
sive (some cell-culture techniques are, however, fairly rapid—a few days).
Also, questions of dosage used and the interpolation of results to real-world
(e.g., human) exposure must be addressed. These types of tests are, however,
presently being used for environmental screening of chemicals. Their utility
for monitoring purposes deserves consideration.
Water Use
Water use patterns in the project area play an important role in deter-
mining monitoring needs. This is because "pollution" can only be defined
relative to restrictions or limitations placed on various water uses by water
quality factors. Individual oil shale facilities will be operating for peri-
ods of several decades; waste products, such as processed shale, will be
present as potential pollution sources indefinitely.
Water use patterns must be periodically reevaluated to assess the extent
to which changes in water use may be affected by oil shale development.
Sources of information for the Tracts U-a and U-b region include:
• Uinta County government
• State governmental agencies (e.g., Water Quality Bureau, Natural
Resources Department—Water Rights and Water Resources Division)
• Local governmental units (e.g., Vernal, Bonanza, Ouray)
• Federal Governmental agencies (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Bureau of Land Management)
• Uinta and Ouray Indian tribes
• Major industries (e.g., American Gilsonite, White River Shale
Project).
Phone or mail surveys may be conducted on an annual or biennial frequency
to obtain water use data. Direct compilation of records of the above data
sources by monitoring program personnel can also be employed. Although more
effective than indirect (i.e., phone or mail) contact, costs would be greater.
39
-------
Hydrogeologic Framework and Existing Water Quality
Portion of the System to be Monitored—
As previously noted, certain data deficiencies exist with regard to the
hydrogeologic characteristics of the area soils, alluvium, the Unita Forma-
tion, the Green River Formation above the Bird's Nest Aquifer, the Bird's
Nest Aquifer, and the Douglas Creek Member (in the Green River Formation).
Thus, certain aspects of all portions of the hydrogeologic system of the
project area are included in the following discussion.
Alternative Approaches—
Alluvium and watershed characterization—To address the previously iden-
tified data deficiencies, studies should be conducted in Southern Canyon to
determine thickness, area! extent, and physical-chemical properties of the
alluvium, and the presence and nature of saturated zones. Studies may include
a drilling program for the collection of drill cuttings and preparation of
lithologic logs, and for characterizing the depth to bedrock (the Uinta For-
mation). Observation wells may be installed to supplement existing wells.
Holes from the drilling program can be used for installation of equipment to
monitor the moisture status of the alluvium. Alternatives include: (1) neu-
tron soil-moisture logging; (2) tensiometers; (3) soil-moisture blocks;
(4) thermocouple psychrometers; and (5) salinity sensors. These installa-
tions may be used to characterize baseline moisture conditions within the
alluvium and to monitor water-content changes during operation.
Seismic refraction and gravity surveys could be utilized to more accur-
ately determine the subsurface extent of the alluvium in Southam Canyon and
the White River. This information would be useful for selection of drilling
sites for monitor wells and for interpretations of aquifer test results. For
example, in some areas it is not known at present if saturated alluvium is
present. These surveys would also be necessary to allow successful use of
surface resistivity surveys to trace the movement of saline water in the
alluvium.
Additional monitor wells may be constructed in the alluvium of Southam
Canyon. Such wells will allow collection of additional information on lithol-
ogy of the alluvium, such as by geologic logging during drilling. Second,
they will provide additional points of measurement for water levels and a
determination of groundwater flow patterns. Third, if constructed prior to
operation, they will provide additional information on the quality of ground-
water in the alluvium under undeveloped conditions. Construction of the
proposed monitor wells may thus remedy a number of present deficiencies in
knowledge of the hydrogeologic framework of the alluvium. If alluvial mate-
rial is removed before construction of the disposal pile, surface fracturing
in the underlying Uinta Formation could be mapped.
Runoff in on-tract and off-tract watersheds, potentially creating pond-
ing conditions behind the spent-shale pile, can be estimated via a suitable
model. Examples of alternative runoff models include:
40
-------
• Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method
• Rational formula
• Infiltration indices method
• Hydrograph methods
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) regional drainage and general
characteristic methods.
The rainfall-runoff characteristics for various segments of the
processed-shale disposal area may thus be estimated. The White River Shale
Project has employed the SCS and USGS methods.
Physical-chemical characterization—Drilling or coring programs can be
conducted to obtain samples of soils, alluvium, and geologic materials in the
processed-shale disposal area. Options for physical-chemical characteriza-
tion of these materials are the same as previously listed for solid-waste
materials (Tables 2-4 and 2-5). Samples may be collected for particle size
analysis, moisture content, base and cation exchange capacities, and other
physical-chemical characteristics, including development of soil-moisture
characteristic curves and other hydraulic properties. Beyond parameter sam-
pling alternatives, optional spatial configurations (grid size and depth) for
sampling of these characteristics also may be proposed.
During aquifer tests or at existing wells (where possible), evaluation
of water quality sampling procedures can be accomplished. For example, wa-
ters can be frequently sampled during pumping to aid in determining appropri-
ate sampling procedures for future water quality monitoring and to assess
data collection during baseline studies by bailing wells or using thief sam-
plers. This sequential sampling during pumping can include field measure-
ments (such as pH, conductivity, or specific ion electrodes) or periodic
collection of water samples for more detailed chemical analyses.
Aquifer Characterization—Aquifer tests can be conducted in saturated
sections of the alluvium, the Bird's Nest Aquifer, and the Douglas Creek
Aquifer.
Alluvium—A number of aquifer tests could be conducted on alluvial mon-
itor wells (existing or new). The small diameters of existing wells may pro-
hibit proper aquifer testing. Larger diameter (perhaps 6- or 8-inch) casing
may be needed for new monitor wells to be tested. The casing size should
allow installation of a suitable submersible pump, as well as an access tube
to permit water-level measurements during pumping. Aquifer tests may be con-
ducted in the following areas:
• Southam Canyon (Phase II), below the retention reservoir and
upstream from the retention reservoir, along the main drainage
• Southam Canyon (Phases III and IV), upstream of the retention
dam, downstream of the spent-shale pile along the main drainage,
41
-------
downstream of the spent-shale pile along the tributary to the
main drainage, and upstream of the spent-shale pile along the
main drainage.
Existing wells would be useful as observation wells for these tests.
For example, it may be advisable to determine aquifer parameters near the
confluence of Southam Canyon and the White River. This would require instal-
lation of a new alluvial well with a larger diameter casing than existing
wells. Such a well could be placed near existing well AG-6 or G-1A. One of
these wells could be used as an observation well during aquifer testing.
In all cases, discharged water should be piped a sufficient distance
away from the pumped well and observation wells so as not to adversely affect
the aquifer test results. A suggested period of continuous constant dis-
charge pumping for alluvial wells is 24 hours (if possible). The appropriate
pumping rate would be determined during the initial stages of the aquifer
test. Drawdown and recovery water-level measurements should be made and dis-
charge carefully measured as a basis for determination of aquifer parameters.
uinta and Green River Formations--Characterization of the Uinta Forma-
tion and the Green River Formation above the Bird's Nest Aquifer should em-
phasize evaluation of fracturing in the Uinta Formation and of the suspected
saturated zones near the White River. Surface fracturing in the Uinta For-
mation may be assessed in areas cleared of alluvium or soil cover. Test
drilling near the mouth of Southam Canyon would be needed to identify and
characterize saturated zones in these two formations above the Bird's Nest
Aquifer. Sufficient wells (e.g., three) should be installed to determine
gradients and groundwater flow patterns.
The evaluation of hydraulic interconnection between the White River and
the Bird's Nest Aquifer should be part of this study element. This would
also provide a basis for assessment of modification of the hydrogeologic sys-
tem from subsidence or White River reservoir development.
Bird's Nest Aquifer—Numerous additional monitor wells may be proposed
for the Bird's Nest Aquifer near the spent-shale pile. As for the alluvium,
these wells would allow collection of supplemental data on subsurface geology,
water levels, and water quality. The variability of available data results
in significant uncertainty with regard to the hydrologic characteristics of
the aquifer beneath the spent-shale disposal area. Thus, the present site-
specific knowledge of the Bird's Nest Aquifer could be greatly expanded.
Aquifer tests have been conducted on three wells tapping the Bird's Nest
Aquifer. The small diameter of existing wells virtually prohibits proper
aquifer testing. Relatively large-diameter (e.g., greater than 8 inches)
casing is preferred for monitor wells to be tested. Additional aquifer tests
may be needed in the following areas:
• Southam Canyon (Phase II), upgradient and downgradient of the
spent-shale pile
42
-------
• Southam Canyon (Phases III and IV), upgradient and downgradient
of the spent-shale pile.
Proper aquifer test procedures should be followed as for alluvial wells.
In this case, existing wells in the Bird's Nest Aquifer could be used as ob-
servation wells. The recommended period for aquifer testing of wells in'the
Bird's Nest Aquifer is one week.
As previously mentioned, new wells across the White River north of the
tracts would provide a better indication of the relation of groundwater in
the Bird's Nest Aquifer to that in the alluvium. From a strictly hydrogeo-
logic point of view, good locations include the SE1/4 Section 8, T10S/R24E,
and near the center of Section 10, T10S/R24E. Practical considerations such
as access would, of course, influence the exact location. These wells should
be equipped with casing sufficient to allow aquifer testing.
Douglas creek Aquifer—Numerous additional monitor wells may be pro-
posed for the Douglas Creek Aquifer near the spent-shale pile. These wells
would allow collection of supplemental data on subsurface geology, water lev-
els, aquifer characteristics, and water quality, which are not available for
the Southam Canyon disposal site. Presently, there is only one well (P-4)
tapping the Douglas Creek Aquifer for which this information is available.
Because only one well has been tested, new monitor wells would need to
be constructed with sufficiently sized casing (e.g., greater than 8 inches)
to allow aquifer testing in the following areas:
• Southam Canyon (Phase II), upgradient and downgradient of the
spent-shale pile
• Southam Canyon (Phases III and IV), upgradient and downgradient
of the spent-shale pile.
Proper aquifer test procedures should be followed as for alluvial wells.
In this case, existing wells in the Bird's Nest Aquifer and Douglas Creek
Aquifer could be used as observation wells. The recommended period for aqui-
fer testing in the Douglas Creek Aquifer is one week.
Sampling Frequency--
Many of the characterization efforts discussed in the preceding para-
graphs are single-time studies. Examples of this type of survey include
description of alluvium cross sections, analysis of physical-chemical char-
acteristics of soils, alluvium and other geologic materials, and aquifer
testing.
Monitoring of moisture content, water levels, and water quality are
likely to be ongoing studies that are eventually incorporated into pollutant
source monitoring programs. Moisture-content monitoring frequency would be
best determined after an initial set of observations under natural or experi-
mental conditions have been made (see following discussions of infiltration
and pollutant mobility monitoring). In a system not heavily pumped, the
43
-------
quarterly sampling presently proposed (White River Shale Project, 1976) may
be adequate if not excessive. Changes in area water use or need for mine
dewatering may affect pumping of the Bird's Nest Aquifer and should be con-
sidered in periodic reviews of the monitoring program.
Determination of groundwater quality monitoring frequency is dependent
upon the results of the pumping versus bailing evaluation. If sampling by
bailing has not biased the results obtained during the baseline period, then
frequencies proposed by the tract developers (quarterly for alluvial systems
and semiannually for the Bird's Nest Aquifer) may be appropriate. If bailing
is not an adequate sampling procedure, then an appropriate sampling frequency
both for baseline characterization and for operational monitoring will have
to be developed.
Analytical Methods--
Analysis procedures for soils, alluvial, and other geologic materials
are as previously outlined for solid-waste characteristics (Tables 2-3 and
2-4). Water quality analyses presented in Table 2-6 are also applicable to
characterization of groundwater quality in the alluvial and deep aquifer
zones associated with the processed-shale disposal area.
Infiltration
Portion of the System to be Monitored—
Infiltration can be studied for the surface of the processed-shale dis-
posal pile, landfills of other materials, the alluvium of Southam Canyon, and
the bedrock under the disposal area. The Phases III and IV processed-shale
pile abuts the southern boundary of Tract U-a. Upstream drainage in Southam
Canyon may become impounded behind the disposal piles leading to leachate
production. Monitoring of the Uinta Formation (indigenous vadose zone) in
the disposal pile area could be at locations developed during the hydrogeo-
logic studies outlined in the preceding discussions.
The processed-shale pile constitutes an extension of the indigenous
vadose zone. When completed, the pile will be 500 feet high, so that the
entire vadose zone will be about 1,100 feet in thickness (Slawson, 1979).
Since infiltration potential may change with the progress of development,
infiltration into the pile may need to be evaluated during construction or
upon completion.. Water movement into soils within trenches used for revege-
tation may also be monitored.
Particular attention should be paid to monitoring within the sloping
faces of the disposal pile, particularly in the regions at lower elevation
near the natural land surface. It is in these regions that leachate will
most likely be generated during flooding for salinity control and during
water harvesting. For example, using a water-balance approach, it has been
estimated that if 5 feet of water is applied for salinity control about 30 to
40 feet of underlying shale would be moistened to field capacity. On the
sloping face, excess water at elevations less than 30 to 40 feet above the
base of natural ground surface would be available to saturate the spent shale,
44
-------
leading to leachate production. Similarly, during water harvesting, water
has been projected to move about 10 feet below the trenches. These estimates
of infiltration are for average conditions; the effect of, for example, a
series of wet years is uncertain although leaching would clearly be enhanced.
The Uinta Formation is composed of dense, fine-grained sandstone inter-
bedded with thin claystone layers. Near the surface, weathering has created
a softer, more permeable zone. It is expected that because of low porosity
of the sandstone it will not transmit large volumes of water. However, nu-
merous deposits of evaporite salts on outcrops of the Uinta Formation have
been noted along the White River. These salts accumulate on exposures of the
claystone interbeds, indicating that meteoric water has moved down through
the sandstone and then down-dip along claystone bedding planes. In addition,
the Uinta Formation is cut by large but infrequent fractures and joints.
These fractures might conduct water down toward the underlying Bird's Nest
Aquifer or, if they close at depth, horizontally toward the White River. Sub-
sidence from mine operations may result in more extensive fracturing within
the Uinta Formation.
Because of the heterogeneous nature of the Uinta Formation, the monitor-
ing programs need to be specifically designed for this situation. Sensors or
sample collection devices would have to be located in those specific locations
where percolating water might occur. In order to facilitate this process of
location, several research efforts, as outlined below, would be helpful.
Infiltration and lysimeter studies, such as those discussed herein, may
be very useful in isolating pathways of groundwater movement, such as frac-
tures, bedding planes, clay layers or the interface between weathered and
unweathered sandstone, if these features are present or in close proximity to
the test sites.
Alternative Approaches--
Infiltration processes in the spent-shale disposal area can be examined
through direct water-application/moisture-mobility monitoring tests or through
monitoring of water mobility resulting from natural precipitation. Approaches
for preliminary testing of infiltration potential are discussed here. Alter-
natives for monitoring water movement in the actual spent-shale disposal area
are presented in subsequent discussions of alternatives for monitoring pollu-
tant mobility.
Infiltration simulation studies may be conducted on alluvium, bedrock,
or spent oil shale using double-ring infiltrometers. Rainfall simulators may
also be employed. A sufficient number of locations should be selected to
overcome errors introduced by spatial variability of infiltration properties.
Results of such tests may be presented by plotting on a base map of the tract
area.
Infiltrometer studies may be conducted at several sites on the spent-
shale pile, during construction and after pile completion, to determine rep-
resentative intake rates. In addition, values from long-term infiltration
tests can be used to estimate hydraulic conductivity. Infiltration studies
45
-------
can also be conducted as part of lysimeter studies and will be outlined later
as an alternative approach for evaluating pollutant mobility.
Sampling Frequency--
Because the rates of subsurface water movement in the processed-shale
disposal area are not well known at present, sampling frequencies for various
moisture monitoring activities cannot be defined in detail. Sampling fre-
quency should be based on observed rates of change in moisture level in var-
ious parts of the natural subsurface and the waste disposal pile. Thus, the
appropriate sampling frequency may vary with seasonal or operational (e.g.,
irrigational changes). Infiltrometer or lysimeter studies can be helpful in
determining hydraulic conductivity rates and thus in assessing sampling fre-
quency requirements.
Pollutant Mobility
Pollutant mobility monitoring deals with detecting and measuring the
movement of chemical constituents in the subsurface. These monitoring ef-
forts are closely interrelated with infiltration and subsurface water move-
ment monitoring.
Portion of the System to be Monitored--
Possible locations for monitoring pollutant mobility include: the land
(or disposal pile) surface; unsaturated or saturated layers within the
processed-shale disposal pile and separate landfill sites; the alluvium of
Southam Canyon; within the Uinta Formation; Green River Formation above the
Bird's Nest Aquifer; the Bird's Nest Aquifer; and the Douglas Creek Member.
Mobility monitoring within the spent-shale disposal pile may be addressed
during pile construction (spreading, grading, and compaction), during leach-
ing of surface layers to remove salts, within and below soil trenches during
water harvesting, and within the toe of the spent-shale pile.
Alternative Approaches—
Processed-shale pile—Laboratory testing, field testing, and monitoring
of actual disposal operations are the basic options for evaluation of pollu-
tant mobility for the processed-shale disposal pile. Many of the methods
discussed for infiltration monitoring may be used to infer movement of poten-
tial pollutants. Visual surveys of landfill and the processed-shale pile
areas can also be conducted to observe the presence of runoff or seepage.
Small weirs can be installed to meter flows if they occur.
Remote sensing techniques may be used to monitor snow cover and perhaps
soil moisture on the tracts, to determine the growth and aerial location of
the spent-shale pile, and to detect the presence of leachate and waste-water
flow in washes.
Laboratory testing—Column experiments such as previously described can
be used to obtain leachate breakthrough curves. Columns filled with spent-
shale samples moistened with various waste waters would be flooded with
46
-------
deionized water. Methods suggested by Phillips (1977) can be used in an at-
tempt to identify specific water sources in elutriated samples from columns
moistened with blended waste waters (see Appendix B). Such experiments would
be useful for the development of data evaluation approaches for the monitor-
ing program.
As indicated for infiltration monitoring program development, laboratory
studies are necessary to determine the effect of high salinity levels in
spent oil shale on the functioning of equipment used for obtaining soil water
samples and for measuring soil water pressure. For example, "salt sieving"
may occur across ceramic cups used to extract water samples during unsatur-
ated flow (Nielsen et a!., 1974). Consequently, salinity in extracted sam-
ples may be lower than actually present in the pores of the surrounding media.
Another possible difficulty in the operation of ceramic-cup samplers is that
salts may be adsorbed or may precipitate within the pores.
If solute is somehow restricted by the porous media (i.e., the spent
shale), water movement may occur in response to osmotic pressure gradients in
addition to hydraulic gradients. Tensiometers, used to measure soil water
pressure, will not reflect osmotic gradients, and therefore estimates of soil
water flux will be in error. Such effects are expected, however, to be minor.
In addition, the operation of tensiometers may be affected by differences in
solute concentrations between the inside of the tensiometer cup and the soil
solution.
The operation of other instruments such as salinity sensors, moisture
blocks, and psychrometers may be markedly affected by high salt levels. For
example, thermocouple psychrometers operate on the principle of a relation-
ship between soil water potential and relative humidity of soil water. High
salinity levels will affect the vapor pressure of soil water and, hence, the
relative humidity.
Laboratory (or field) studies can be conducted to determine the effect
of salt sieving at the air-water interface on evaporation rates from spent
shale. As discussed by Nielsen et al. (1974), the air-water interface behaves
as a perfect semi permeable membrane. Solutes concentrate at the surface, re-
ducing the vapor pressure of the water and consequently the evaporation rate.
Field testing—Several sites should be selected to measure moisture
flux in spent shale using methods reported by Nielsen et al. (1974) and
Bouwer and Jackson (1974). These methods require using tensiometers and
moisture logging in test basins to determine unsaturated hydraulic gradients
and water-content changes. Test basins are flooded until an instrumented
depth of underlying spent shale is brought to near saturation. The basins
are covered with plastic to reduce evaporation, and records are obtained of
tensiometer and moisture-logging data. This technique is also useful in de-
termining the areal distribution of hydraulic parameters of the spent-shale
disposal pile. These studies would be integrated with investigations on the
flux of solutes. Results of these onsite studies can be correlated with
those from similar studies conducted in lysimeters.
47
-------
Onsite lysimeters can be constructed to simulate water and pollutant
movement within the vadose zone. This procedure also allows the testing of
sampling devices under field conditions. Possible lysimeter tests include:
(1) spent shale overlying Southam Canyon alluvium; (2) spent shale overlying
bedrock; (3) solid waste (e.g., garbage) overlying alluvium; (4) solid waste
overlying bedrock; and (5) spent shale overlying other solid wastes and allu-
vium or bedrock.
Lysimeters can be of various designs. For example, wooden boxes approx-
imately 10 x 10 feet and several feet high can be constructed directly above
alluvium or bedrock sites. For alluvium sites, lysimeter walls should extend
several feel below the land surface. The inside walls of the lysimeters
should be lined with plastic or butyl rubber to eliminate side flow.
The aboveground portion of the lysimeter is backfilled with test mate-
rial (e.g., spent shale or garbage). These materials should be moistened and
compacted to simulate, to the extent possible, waste-disposal conditions
within the spent-shale disposal area. Lysimeters can be variously instru-
mented with water-sampling devices, such as suction-cup lysimeters, salinity
probes, or small-diameter wells or piezometers. Equipment to monitor water
content or soil water pressure includes tensiometers, psychrometers, moisture
blocks, and access wells (for neutron moisture logging). Access wells should
be installed to the total depth of the lysimeter. Other devices may be in-
stalled at various depths.
Moistened spent-shale samples can be obtained by test boring in lysime-
ters or in the processed-shale disposal pile. Laboratory analyses of these
samples should include water content, soluble salts, electrical conductivity
(EC) of the saturated extract, etc. These data can then be correlated with
in-situ neutron moisture logs, salinity sensor data, etc. to evaluate and
calibrate these monitoring techniques.
Adjunct studies can be conducted on the lysimeters, including determina-
tion of the relationship between tritium levels in natural rainwater and in
cores taken in depthwise increments within the spent shale. Comparison of
tritium profiles in the spent shale with precipitation input of tritium would
provide a measure of the actual infiltration of precipitation. The use of
this technique for examination of recharge in semi arid regions and for trac-
ing the movement of groundwater pollutants is discussed by Smith (1976).
Operational studies of monitoring equipment can also be conducted in
conjunction with lysimeter studies. These studies will determine operational
difficulties of using various types of sampling equipment (suction-cup lysim-
eters) and other monitoring gear, such as neutron moisture loggers, tensiome-
ters, and moisture blocks in the spent-shale disposal area.
Monitoring in landfill—Depending on the results of the lysimeter stud-
ies, the following units may be installed in cover material between cells
(individually covered units) within landfills during construction: access
wells, tensiometers, moisture blocks, thermocouple psychrometers, and salin-
ity sensors. These units would then be monitored to detect the flow of water
and salts within solid waste and cover material of the landfills. Similar
48
-------
units could also be installed in allumium or bedrock underlying the landfill.
During construction of the landfills, and later as the landfills become en-
veloped by spent shale, care will be taken to add additional tubing or casing
to permit accessing the units. The cooperation of operators of earth-moving
equipment will be required to avoid damage to these units. An alternative
that minimizes potential interference with disposal operations is to install
suction-cup lysimeters, moisture blocks, etc. in a horizontal array rather
than in a vertical array (via vertical access tubing) as outlined above.
Monitoring in the processed-shale pile--During construction of the
spent-shale pile, access wells may be drilled into the pile and underlying
Uinta Formation and monitoring via a neutron moisture logger (see Figures 2-2
and 2-3). It should be noted that the disposal-pile concept shown here is as
described in the Detailed Development Plan (White River Shale Project, 1976).
Alternatives include stockpiling of alluvium before pile construction for
later use as soil cover on the disposal pile. Additional wells may be in-
stalled in the alluvium channel downstream of the advancing pile, within the
pile at the upstream face, and within the downstream foot of the pile to in-
clude monitoring of all segments of the disposal pile. As alternatives or
additions to neutron logging, moisture blocks, salinity sensors, and thermo-
couple psychrometers can also be installed within the spent-shale pile. Both
the access wells and accessories for other units will be added as the
elevation of the pile increases. This need may be overcome to some extent by
a horizontally oriented array of sensors.
Access tubing may also be logged to determine the development of saturated
or near-saturated zones. Access wells completed in saturated zones could be
used for collection of neutron moisture logs, temperature profiles, water
levels, and water quality samples. Note that the saturated zone would provide
moisture calibration. Particular attention should be paid to the interfacial
region between the spent shrale and native soils, allumium, or bedrock. Data
from thermocouple psychrometers are also helpful in determining water
movement. Suction-cup lysimeters are installed in regions suitable for their
operation—that is, where the pore water pressure is greater than -0.8
atmosphere (see Figure 2-2). These units may fail as the disposal pile grows.
Piezometers can be installed in saturated regions should such regions be
observed, for example, at the interface between different lifts or layers of
spent shale or between spent shale and native sediments. Piezometers can also
be used for neutron logging. Observation wells abandoned by the White River
Shale Project, or specially constructed wells, can be used to sample saturated
allumium should such zones develop.
As the spent-shale pile expands and increases in elevation, the units
installed during early phases of construction will have to be extended up-
ward. Additional suction-cup lysimeters will need to be installed in regions
of favorable water pressures (e.g., perched groundwater). In time, it may be
necessary to construct wells to house these units, using construction tech-
niques reported by Apgar and Langmuir (1971). In addition, the lowermost
units will eventually fail as suction capabilities are exceeded. When the
spent-shale pile reaches its final elevation at a given sampling location,
the monitoring units should be enclosed in protective shelters to minimize
49
-------
SPENT
SHALE
SCREEN
ONE-HOLE
RUBBER
STOPPER
Figure 2-2. Possible monitoring facilities for spent-shale pile
during construction.
50
-------
Figure 2-3. Possible monitoring facilities in the completed
spent-shale pile.
vandalism. Figure 2-3 shows a possible collection of monitoring units in the
completed pile.
Plans by the White River Shale Project indicate that, as the spent-shale
pile advances into Southam Canyon, completed sections will be graded and pre-
pared for revegetation. Trenches will be constructed and backfilled with
soil. The objective of a revegetation program is to promote lateral growth
of vegetation away from the trenches. Because of the high salinity in spent
shale, it may be necessary to leach salts from the root zones prior to ini-
tiating a revegetation program. Access wells, moisture blocks, salinity sen-
sors, psychrometers, and tensiometers should also be installed within and
below the soils of the revegetation trenches at representative sites (Figure
2-4). The access wells should extend well below the revegetation trenches,
into the underlying spent shale, to permit observing water-content changes
during irrigation of the trenches, water harvesting, and high-intensity pre-
cipitation events. In addition, suction-cup lysimeters can be positioned at
51
-------
SOIL TRENCH
Figure 2-4. Possible monitoring facilities in soil trenches.
The spatial distribution of sensor sites would be
wider than depicted in this schematic.
52
-------
three or four locations down to about 50 feet to permit sampling of downward-
flowing leachate (Figure 2-5). Thermocouple psychrometers should be located
near the suction-cup lysimeters to measure the pore water pressure for oper-
ating the suction-cup units.
Along with monitoring at the revegetation trenches, an intensive sam-
pling program may also be initiated in the vicinity of the toe of the
completed spent-shale pile. Lower reaches of the pile may become saturated
as a result of leaching for salinity control or because of subsurface move-
ment of water from trenches. Leachate produced by saturated conditions may
flow out of the pile into downstream alluvium or downward into the Uinta
Formation.
A schematic representation of the toe of the pile and possible monitor-
ing units is shown in Figure 2-6. This schematic shows several access wells
installed from the surface to the base of the pile. These wells may be logged
to determine the presence of a free surface. One access well is shown ex-
tending downward to the Uinta Formation. If saturation is detected in basal
regions of the pile and underlying alluvium, small-diameter wells (piezome-
ters) with screened well points would then be installed at staggered inter-
vals. In addition to the small-diameter wells, a multilevel sampling well
may be constructed within alluvial water-bearing material near the toe of the
pile. Sampling these wells would identify vertical gradations in quality of
leachate beneath the water table.
Suction-cup lysimeters can also be used to sample leachate flowing in
unsaturated and saturated regions of the toe. Locations and numbers of these
units should be based on results of moisture logging in access wells. Psy-
chrometers or tensiometers can be used to determine the vacuum to apply to
the suction cups.
A further check on possible infiltration can be accomplished by the
examination of outcrops of claystone partings below the shale pile for signs
of undue seepage. If infiltration does occur through the shale pile and is
not detected in the monitoring wells, the water will very likely discharge
somewhere downgradient.
Initial monitoring can be used to design subsequent monitoring sites for
the processed-shale disposal pile. Neutron moisture-logging wells can be in-
stalled to locate possible water-conducting zones (Figure 2-7). If such zones
are detected, a sampling well equipped with suction-cup lysimeters or other
sensors can then be installed at several depths in the sampling well. One
method for installing suction cups is to grout or otherwise seal off a region
of the well near a water-conducting zone, emplace a suction-cup lysimeter,
backfill with sand, and seal off the top of the sampling region. In this
manner, three or four suction cups can be installed in each well. As pre-
viously described, access wells can also be perforated and used to collect
water samples.
As another method of sampling within the disposal piles prior to con-
struction of landfills, manifold collectors can be placed in trenches slightly
below the ground level at several locations (Figure 2-8). Such collectors
53
-------
SL
Figure 2-5. Possible monitoring facilities during leaching of spent-shale
pile for salinity control.
54
-------
tn
en
PSYCHROMETER
ACCESS WELLS
PIEZOMETE
SUCTION-CUP LYSIMETER ^
OBSERVATION WEL
x^
o
0 0
o
o
7 -7- __
L
X
0
s
R
'
o
o
BEDROCK
Figure 2-6. Possible monitoring facilities in the toe of the spent-shale pile.
-------
" °ALLUVIUM
x: UlNTA FORMATION :::::::::::::::::x:
FRACTURE
Figure 2-7. Proposed monitoring faciities in the spent-shale pile
and Uinta Formation.
56
-------
•MANIFOLD
PEA GRAVEL
Figure 2-8. Sanitary landfill with PVC collector manifold.
containing slits or openings to permit inflow of water or leachate are cov-
ered with clean pea gravel during installation. The manifold tubing is in-
stalled at a slight slope to permit drainage into a sump with an upright
collector pipe. This pipe can be located far enough from construction activ-
ities to avoid damage. Later, as the spent shale envelops each landfill,
joints would be added to the collector pipe to ensure surface access. This
"horizontal collector" scheme would avoid many of the problems associated
with heavy equipment work and vertical wells extending through the surface of
the pile. However, a manifold will operate only under saturated flow
conditions and should be underlain by an impervious layer or membrane.
Alluvium—Proposed White River Shale Project monitoring programs include
installation of shallow alluvial observation wells near the foot of the
processed-shale pile. Results from such a program would also provide infor-
mation on leachate contamination of the shallow water table (if present).
As the pile advances, the test wells are to be abandoned and new wells con-
structed downstream.
An alternative monitoring program would supplement these activities by
installing additional alluvial monitor wells at sites determined by thorough
studies on alluvium in Southam Canyon (see hydrogeologic framework studies
outlined earlier in this section). Wells can be installed upstream and down-
stream of proposed landfill locations and within alluvium underlying the
sites. Installation of multilevel sampling wells can provide data on verti-
cal gradations in quality (Figure 2-2). Alternately, clusters of piezometers
can be installed to permit vertical sampling.
Depending on the results of preliminary studies on water movement be-
neath proposed landfill sites and assuming that soils and alluvium are to be
left in place, suction cups may be installed in underlying soils, alluvium,
57
-------
or weathered zone (see Figure 2-9). Three or four suction-cup lysimeters may
be installed in a common bore hole as described earlier.
The need exists for a method to trace the movement of leachate-containing
water through alluvium, which would enable optimal location of monitor wells.
One applicable method for tracing the subsurface movement of high-salinity
water, such as leachate from the spent-shale pile, would be surface resistiv-
ity surveys. The depth to water is shallow and the alluvium is relatively
thin, conditions conducive to use of this method. Alluvium could be surveyed
downgradient from the spent-shale pile and retention reservoir in Southam
Canyon. The alluvium should be intensively surveyed prior to project opera-
tion and periodically thereafter. Variability between initial surveys will
indicate the need for seasonal surveys or the adequacy of annual surveys.
This determination could be used for locating additional monitor wells.
Phase II operation—There are a number of existing monitor wells in the
alluvium of Southam Canyon (Figure 2-1). Wells G-4A and AG-7 are upstream
from the proposed spent-shale pile. Wells G-2A, G-1A, and AG-6 are downstream
of the spent-shale pile, and well AG-3 is along a tributary to the main drain-
age in Southam Canyon. A number of additional alluvial monitor wells are
planned by the White River Shale Project near the proposed retention reser-
voir. Additional monitor wells are needed along the main drainage just up-
stream from the proposed reservoir and spent-shale pile. However, it is
unknown if a sufficient thickness of saturated alluvium is present in the
latter areas. This can be determined by test drilling or possibly by geo-
physical surveys.
Alternatives include placing wells downstream from the retention reser-
voir, upstream of the reservoir, and along smaller drainages upstream from
the proposed spent-shale pile.
A typical monitor well would be a relatively large-diameter (e.g., up to
12 inches) hole drilled to the base of the alluvium. Somewhat smaller diame-
ter (e.g., 6-inch) PVC casing would be installed to the bottom of the hole.
However, since data on aquifer characteristics of the alluvium are sparse,
several larger wells (equipped, perhaps, with casing up to 8 inches in diame-
ter) may be needed. This would require a 14-inch-diameter hole. However,
the low capacity of wells in this alluvial system may make smaller wells
acceptable for use in these assessments. The casing should be perforated
opposite the interval from below the static water level to the bottom. Clean
pea gravel of known inert composition should be used to pack the well. The
upper several feet should be filled with cement to form an annular seal. The
wells should be logged by a geologist during drilling and developed by using
an airlift or pump upon completion. A locking cap should be installed along
with a suitable barrier to prevent destruction. Where bailing or or other
nonpumping methods are employed, smaller diameter wells can be installed.
Water samples may best be obtained by installation of suitable submersi-
ble pumps for the reasons discussed in the segment of this section addressing
monitoring deficiencies of the program proposed by the White River Shale
Project. However, it should be noted that well yields may be too low to use
pumping. Assuming pumping is utilized, a submersible pump should be installed
58
-------
tn
FRACTURE
Figure 2-9. Possible monitoring facilities in the landfill
-------
upon completion of development and field tests performed during continuous
pumping for several hours or days (if possible). Temperature, electrical
conductivity, and pH of the discharged water could be measured periodically
during the test. After completion of this phase, a determination could be
made as to the period of pumping necessary before collection of a water sam-
ple. This procedure will allow collection of water samples typical of the
alluvium near the monitor well.
Phases III and iv operations—Existing monitor wells 6-2A, G-1A, and
AG-6 would still be present downstream from the spent-shale pile and reten-
tion reservoir. Additional wells may be needed downstream of the spent-shale
pile along the main drainage in Southam Canyon, downstream of the spent-shale
pile along a tributary to the main drainage, near the confluence of this tri-
butary with the main drainage (above the retention dam), and along the main
drainage upstream from the proposed spent-shale pile.
The same procedure should be used for well construction as previously
discussed for alluvial monitoring wells during Phase II operation. Gener-
ally, the same sampling procedures should be followed as for wells previously
presented for alluvium monitoring. However, the experience gained from moni-
toring near the Phase II spent-shale pile and retention reservoir should be
used, particularly for determination of the sampling frequency and selection
of analytical determinations.
Uinta Formation—During the initial hydrogeological studies on the oil
shale tracts by the White River Shale Project, access wells were installed in
the Uinta Formation for use in conjunction with a neutron moisture logger.
Wells were grout encased. Inconclusive moisture data were obtained (White
River Shale Project, 1976), possibly because the wells did not intersect
fractures or bedding planes. In addition, the grout seal may have moderated
the epithermal neutrons from the source, or infiltration quantities may have
been insignificant near the wells.
Suitable construction procedures should be utilized for installing ac-
cess wells in the Uinta Formation. To the extent possible, methods will be
used to ensure a tight contact between the access-well casing and the sand-
stone (i.e., to minimize side leakage). Several test wells may be installed
at representative locations within bedrock outcrops and also within alluvium.
For the study of infiltration and percolation, small basins can be sprinkled
to simulate natural precipitation. After water application, access wells can
then be logged using neutron probe techniques to follow changes in moisture
with depth and time. Particular attention will be paid to the development of
perched groundwater, for example at the interface between weathered and un-
weathered materials.
Suction-cup lysimeters may also be useful for sampling fractured zones
up to a depth of about 125 feet. An alternative technique is to drill angle
wells in areas found to be highly fractured. The wells would be perforated
in regular intervals. For sampling, a packer pump, such as the Casee Sample
(Fenn et al., 1975) can be used.
60
-------
Green River Formation—The DDP indicates that groundwater samples will
be obtained in wells upstream of the spent-shale disposal area (wells P-3,
G-ll) and in downstream wells (wells P-2, G-2A, G-21). Ostensibly, samples
from these wells would also be used to detect the presence of both spent-shale
and landfill leachate. In addition to sampling of deep aquifers, wells con-
structed near the White River in the Green River Formation above the Bird's
Nest Aquifer during characterization of the hydrogeologic framework should be
included for monitoring pollutant mobility.
Phase ii operation—Despite the presence of an apparent confining bed
above the Bird's Nest Aquifer, sampling may be needed to allow direct deter-
mination of groundwater pollution. There are two existing wells (P-3 and
G-7) about 1 mile from the proposed spent-shale pile (Figure 2-1). Well G-15
is about 1/2 mile from (and is neither upgradient nor downgradient from) the
proposed spent-shale pile. Wells G-5 and G-21 are within 1 mile of the pro-
posed reservoir and pile, but are not upgradient or downgradient. Any number
of wells are possible, depending on economic considerations and other fac-
tors. Options include additional wells upgradient of the spent-shale pile,
downgradient of the spent-shale pile, and downgradient of the retention res-
ervoir. Since additional data are necessary on hydraulic characteristics of
the Bird's Nest Aquifer, all of these wells should be constructed so as to
permit aquifer testing.
The monitor wells would comprise a large-diameter (e.g., 14-inch) hole
drilled to the base of the Bird's Nest Aquifer. A smaller diameter (e.g.,
8-inch) PVC casing would be installed to the bottom of the hole and should be
perforated opposite the Bird's Nest Aquifer. Because of the great depths of
the Bird's Nest Aquifer (and Douglas Creek Aquifer), steel casing may be ne-
cessary. Clean pea gravel of known composition should be used to pack the
hole. The upper 20 feet should be filled with cement to form an annular seal.
The wells should be logged by a geologist during drilling and the well devel-
oped using an air lift or pump upon completion. A locking cap and barrier
should be installed.
Despite the relatively great depth of the Douglas Creek Aquifer, sam-
pling is necessary because Douglas Creek is potentially a major aquifer and
because hydraulic head relations between the Bird's Nest Aquifer and ground-
water in the Douglas Creek Aquifer are poorly known at present.
There are no wells effectively penetrating the Douglas Creek Aquifer
within 3 miles of the proposed shale pile. For monitoring purposes, addi-
tional wells may be placed upgradient of the proposed spent-shale pile, down-
gradient of the shale pile, and downgradient of the retention reservoir.
Similar construction techniques should be followed as for the new monitor
wells in the Bird's Nest Aquifer. However, in this case, the casing should
be perforated opposite the Douglas Creek Aquifer. The well should be gravel
packed opposite this interval and bentonite or cement added opposite the
Bird's Nest Aquifer so that interaquifer flow does not occur.
Phases ill and IV operation—Existing wells G-15 and G-21, and possibly
other additional monitoring wells that may be constructed in the Bird's Nest
Aquifer or Douglas Creek Aquifer, are in the area to be covered with spent
61
-------
shale in Phases III and IV. These wells can be preserved by extending the
casing upward as the spent shale is placed. However, extreme care must be
taken to prevent damage to the casing.
Existing wells P-3 and G-7 are upgradient and P-2 is downgradient of the
proposed pile. Considering the large size of the spent-shale pile, a number
of new wells in the Bird's Nest and Douglas Creek Aquifers may be necessary
along the periphery of the spent-shale pile. Construction procedures similar
to those previously discussed should be used.
The same monitoring procedures presented previously for Phase II are
applicable here. However, the experience gained from monitoring the Phase II
spent-shale pile should be used, particularly for determination of sampling
frequency and selection of analytical determinations.
Sampling Frequency--
Requirements for sampling frequency in the processed-shale pile are de-
pendent upon several factors, including observation of runoff or seepage, ob-
served changes in moisture content within disposal piles or landfills, and
phase of operation (e.g., pile construction, leaching of surface layers for
salinity control, surface sealing (water harvesting), and breakdown of sur-
face seal). Location will also influence sampling-frequency needs. For
example, downstream alluvial wells should probably be sampled on a frequency
depending on closeness to the waste-disposal pile, with those near or within
the pile being sampled most frequently.
During construction of disposal piles, samples of runoff can be collected
in and around the disposal area. Similarly, seepage flows from the pile
should be sampled as observed. Such observations are expected to be seasonal
and infrequent. If flows continue for extended periods (several days), col-
lection of daily samples may be indicated.
Sampling in unsaturated zones will be closely associated with monitoring
of moisture content. In other words, sampling frequency will be governed by
availability of water. Samples should be collected wherever water is avail-
able. Collection of samples from suction cups is a function of pore water
pressure (or the rate at which water enters the porous cup). At pressures
less than -0.8 atmosphere, samples cannot be obtained.
From the preceding discussion, it does not seem appropriate at this time
to define a detailed sampling schedule for pollutant mobility monitoring in
the processed-shale disposal area. Frequencies would be best defined after
field monitoring of moisture content and of subsurface water movement has
been initiated, and as a response to those observations. Initial assessment
of potential rates of mobility would allow definition of basic sampling fre-
quencies for pollutant mobility monitoring. These frequencies may designate
the final sampling program; alternatively, the program could be designed for
variable frequency sampling, depending on the nature of observed results.
Determination of well-sampling frequency is dependent upon the results
of the pumping-versus-bailing evaluations discussed earlier. If it is
62
-------
concluded that bailing has not biased the results obtained during the base-
line period, then frequencies such as proposed by the tract developers (quar-
terly for alluvial systems and semiannually for the deeper aquifers) may be
appropriate. If bailing is not an adequate sampling procedure, then an ap-
propriate frequency will have to be developed.
Options for sampling frequency thus include:
• Sampling at all sites on a basic schedule (e.g., quarterly)
• Sampling certain sites (e.g., sites nearer the disposal pile) at
a frequency greater than that used at other sites
• Sampling only in response to indicated changes in water content
in the unsaturated zone
• Sampling only runoff or seepage when visually detected
• Sampling at more frequent intervals if water quality changes
warrant.
Certain combinations of these options may also be appropriate. Alterna-
tives also exist with regard to the frequency at which a given chemical con-
stituent analysis is performed on water samples collected. This is discussed
further in the following paragraphs.
Analytical Methods--
Analysis programs—Alternative analytical procedures, discussed earlier
with regard to characterizing potential pollution sources, are also appropri-
ate for the monitoring of pollutant mobility. Constituents considered for
monitoring have been categorized as general measures of water quality (e.g.,
pH or IDS), major inorganic constituents (e.g., Na, Cl, or Sfty), selected
trace elements (e.g., As or Se), organics (e.g., DOC, COD, or specific or-
ganic compounds), radiological constituents, and bacteriological parameters.
Alternatives for analysis can be outlined as follows:
• Alternative category or categories to be analyzed
-- General water quality measures
— Major inorganic constituents
— Trace elements
-- Organics—general measures (e.g., DOC)
— Organics—more specific measures (e.g., organic fractiona-
tion, phenolic compounds, etc.)
— Radiological parameters
63
-------
— Bacteriological parameters
-- Various combinations of the above categories
• Alternative sampling and analysis sequences
~ "Basic program" of general water quality measures followed by
more detailed analysis if changes are noted
— "Basic program" at some defined frequency with more detailed
analyses at less frequent but defined frequency
— Analyses for both general and individual constituents at some
defined frequency
-- Some combination of the above sequences.
Quality control and quality assurance—Quality control procedures are
implemented as part of a monitoring program to insure the reliability of the
data collected. Because monitoring data are used as the basis for various
decisions (e.g., determining compliance with regulations or need to implement
environmental control measures), quality control procedures for both field
and laboratory segments of the monitoring programs are essential. In addi-
tion, quality assurance proceedings are implemented to provide documentation
of the quality control efforts.
Quality control activities included as part of the field monitoring and
sample collection include the following:
• Instrument calibration (e.g., use of proper standards, proper
number of standards, and appropriate frequency of recalibration)
• Use of appropriate sample handling procedures
-- Appropriate bottle type (e.g., clear glass, dark glass,
sterile bottles, PVC)
-- Measurement of conductivity, pH, etc. during pumping of wells
for sampling to obtain representative samples
— Proper field processing and preservation (e.g., filtration,
addition of chemical preservatives, and cooling)
— Proper packing and shipment to analytical laboratory
• Proper training of personnel involved in field activities, in-
cluding actual data collection activities as well as quality
control and quality assurance procedures.
Quality control procedures are also required in the analytical labora-
tory. Procedures include:
64
-------
• Use of standard, accepted analytical methods
• Use of analytical grade reagents, good pure-water source, etc.
• Instrument calibration
• Use of standard reference samples
• Use of spiked samples
• Duplication of analysis
• Training of personnel.
Details of laboratory quality control procedures are presented by the
Analytical Quality Control Laboratory (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1972). Predefined standards of performance are an essential component of
these programs.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a program
to audit analytic laboratories. Audits include analysis of standard samples
and laboratory inspection by EPA personnel to evaluate analytical methodol-
ogy, data validity, and various aspects of the laboratory quality control
program. Although they do not constitute a certification, such audits can be
useful for evaluating and selecting a laboratory for chemical analysis.
Quality control programs for monitoring programs may include periodic repeti-
tions of independent audits, such as that conducted by the EPA, analysis of
blind (i.e., not identified to the laboratory) duplicates, and analysis of
blind standard samples (such as can be supplied by EPA). Such procedures
should be implemented as part of the overall monitoring program design.
Data analysis—Data analysis procedures include checks on data validity
and methods for presenting data for interpretation for environmental descrip-
tion or control purposes. Data checking procedures include:
• Cation-anion balance
• TDS-conductivity comparison
• Conductivity-ion (milliequivalent/liter) comparison
• Diluted-conductance method.
The cation-anion balance check involves considering the theoretical
equivalence of the sum of the cations (expressed in mi Hi equivalents per
liter) and the sum of the anions. Because of variations in analysis that may
be unavoidable, exact equivalence is seldom achieved. In general, the ob-
served inequality can be expected to increase as the total ionic concentra-
tion increases. When using this method, it is assumed that analysis of all
significant ions have been included and that the nature of the ionic species
is known. In addition, it should be noted that compensating analytical
65
-------
errors can fortuitously produce a close ion balance. Hence, a combination of
quality control and data-checking procedures should be employed.
Given the above listed assumptions, the cation and anion concentrations
should be relatively close. Brown et al. (1970) indicate that the deviation
between the cations and anions should not exceed 1 or 2 percent of the total
concentration for analyses of waters with more than 150 milligrams per liter
dissolved solids. American Public Health Association (1976) shows a control
chart indicating acceptable limits of ±1 standard deviation. This "stan-
dard deviation" is not defined, but the illustration indicates acceptable
limits equivalent to about 2 percent difference in total cations and total
anions, relative to the sum of the anions.
The acceptance limits for analytical accuracy used by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency in laboratory audits with standard samples as de-
scribed above are also ±1 standard deviation (the 68 percent confidence
level). This standard deviation for individual analyses is computed from
results obtained by submitting samples to a number of State, Federal, and
private laboratories and is typically on the order of 5 to 12 percent. Using
±1 standard deviation as an acceptance limit for the cation-anion balance
would result in limits also in the 5 to 12 percent range (relative to the
total ionic concentration).
The U.S. Geological Survey has indicated ion differences typically in
the range of ±7 percent at the 84 percent confidence interval (somewhat
greater than ±1 standard deviation) on waters of high salt content (John
Wallace, Denver Research Institute, personal communication). The USGS ion
balance calculations include results of analysis of about 18 constituents.
For other analysis checks, samples can be evaporated to dryness at
180°C and the weight compared to the total solids determined by calcula-
tion. This check is approximate because losses may occur during drying by
volatilization and other factors may cause interference (Brown et al., 1970).
Another recommended check on analyses involves multiplying specific conduc-
tance (micromhos per centimeter) by a factor ranging from 0.55 to 0.75. The
product should approximately equal total dissolved solids in milligrams per
liter, for water samples with TDS below 2,000 to 3,000 milligrams per liter.
Also, the specific conductance divided by 100 should approximately equal the
mi Hi equivalents per liter of anions or cations. This relationship is useful
in deciding on which sum, cations or anions, is in error. A more refined
method for checking TDS by the EC relationships, called the diluted-
conductance method, is given by American Public Health Association (1976) and
by Brown et al. (1970).
Data presentation—Data presentation and interpretation are key aspects
of monitoring for environmental detection and control. Needs for data inter-
pretation have been discussed earlier. Several methods are available for
organization and presentation of chemical data. These include:
• Tabulation (e.g., with accompanying tabulation of appropriate
water quality criteria or standards)
66
-------
• Graphical presentation
-- Time-series plots (perhaps with accompanying plot of water
quality criteria)
-- Control charts (similar to time-series)
-- Trilinear diagrams
-- Stiff diagrams
~ Histograms, circular diagrams, etc.
-- Contour maps
• Statistical or computer measures (e.g., water quality indices).
Data handling and processing capabilities are another important aspect
of monitoring. Data that can be easily and rapidly accessed are clearly ad-
vantageous for interpreting and planning purposes.
MONITORING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
In the following discussion, a plan for development of a recommended
groundwater quality monitoring program is presented.
Pollutant-Source Characterization
Details of Disposal and Revegetation Operation--
V
During the development and operation of the oil shale facilities, onsite
inspection of disposal procedures is recommended on a regular basis. Obser-
vations should include the following:
• Preparation of Southam Canyon before disposal (removal of soils
down to the Uinta Formation, storage of removed materials, etc.)
• Procedures for transport, spreading, contouring, and compaction
of processed shale
• Placement of other solid and liquid wastes in or on the
processed-shale pile
• Surface sealing of processed-shale pile
• Construction of revegetation trenches
• Irrigation or imposed-leaching activities.
Observations should be documented in writing and by photographs. The docu-
mentation should be transmitted to the designated monitoring agency (DMA),
tract developers, and USGS for comment and discussion.
67
-------
The frequency of these onsite surveys will vary according to the inten-
sity of activities. For example, during project initiation (start of Phase
II and start of Phases III and IV) weekly or biweekly tours should be made.
As operations reach a steady state (during each development phase), survey
frequency can be extended to perhaps monthly or even quarterly. As revege-
tation activities are initiated, more frequent (again perhaps weekly) ob-
servation would be required. The conduct of these surveys should be closely
coordinated with pollutant mobility monitoring activities (e.g., instrument
installation and sampling).
Waste Characterization—
Waste characterization activities include analyses of water-sol id-waste
interactions, solid-waste physical and chemical properties, and liquid-waste
physical and chemical properties. These analysis categories are listed here
in order of monitoring priority (Table 2-3).
Water-sol id-waste interactions in the processed-shale disposal area may
be addressed directly during infiltration and pollutant mobility monitoring
evaluations. These are presented in detail in a later discussion and are not
repeated here. At this time, predictive capabilities do not exist for the
extrapolation of laboratory (e.g., development of soil-moisture characteris-
tic curves or column or beaker tests for examination of sorption and leachate
formation) or small-scale field test (e.g., lysimeter) results to a large-
scale disposal problem such as found in the processed-shale disposal area.
Development of this capability would greatly enhance the design of future oil
shale monitoring activities. However, this research activity is considered
to be beyond the scope of the monitoring development program discussed herein.
For the monitoring program, it is important to know the chemical charac-
teristics of liquid wastes and of the soluble components of solid wastes.
Development of the monitoring program should include analysis of liquid wastes
and solid-waste-saturated extracts for the same chemical characteristics that
will be presented later in discussions of pollutant mobility. Waste products
to be included are (in decreasing order of priority):
1. Processed shale (saturated extract)
2. High-TDS waste water
3. Sour water
4. Spent catalysts (saturated extract)
5. Water treatment plant sludges (saturated extract)
6. Sulfur byproducts (saturated extract)
7. Oil waste waters
8. Spent filters (saturated extract)
68
-------
9. Mine water.
Sampling frequency will be established during Phase II operation and
will be reevaluated at the start of Phases III and IV operation. Initially,
samples will be collected weekly for analysis. After 6 months (or approxi-
mately 25 samples), the variability between sampling periods will be evalu-
ated and a frequency (such as quarterly) selected.
Water Use
Contact with the various agencies in Utah concerned with water resources
and economic development yielded the following information:
1. Although no computer files or regular publications on water
appropriation or water use exist, all new water appropriations
are published for three consecutive weeks in the Vernal, Utah,
newspaper. This information is published under the heading of
"Notice for Water Users."
2. Water-use data (well permits, appropriations, etc.) are also
on file (noncomputerized) with Utah Water Rights Division in
Vernal.
3. The Utah Oil, Gas, and Mining Division issues monthly and
yearly reports on these types of development activities.
These publications are free.
4. The Utah Water Quality Bureau analyzes and evaluates water
quality for all new domestic and public water supplies. These
data are published in yearly report.
5. The Utah Industrial Development Division publishes "The Pros-
pector" (free), which lists all industrial development activi-
ties in Utah.
Suggested water-use surveys of the project region include the following
activities:
• Subscription and review of "Notice for Water Users" in the
Vernal newspaper, Oil, Gas, and Mining Division reports, Water
Quality Bureau publication of analyses, and "The Prospector"
• Annual review of these data with tract developers, the Utah
Water Rights Division, Utah Bureau of Water Quality, and USGS.
Hydrogeologic Framework and Existing Water Quality
The three major monitoring deficiencies identified under this category
are characterization of the alluvial system, fracturing in the Uinta Forma-
tion, and testing and sampling of the aquifers in the Green River Formation
(Table 2-3). These items are listed here in descending order of priority for
69
-------
monitoring program development. Recommended approaches for monitoring pro-
gram development are presented in the following paragraphs.
Characterization of Alluvium—
Recommended activities for monitoring program development are as follows:
• Geophysical surveys supplemented by test drilling to define the
boundary condition for the alluvial system (i.e., thickness,
subsurface extent, location of saturated zones)
• Aquifer testing of saturated zones identified
• Sampling of water quality of alluvial aquifer.
The purpose of these efforts would be to define the occurrence and movement
of water in the alluvium.
Uinta and Green River Formations--
Fracturing in the Uinta Formation may create pathways for the mobility
of pollutants from the processed-shale disposal area to the White River or to
deep aquifers in the project region. Identification of the density and char-
acter of this fracturing is thus the key to evaluating pollutant mobility and
development of the monitoring program.
As the materials in the alluvial channels and canyon slopes are cleared
for construction of the processed-shale pile, visual surveys should be made
of the surface of the Uinta Formation. Fracturing should be mapped and used
for locating monitor sites for following mobility in the processed-shale dis-
posal area. Test holes should be drilled into the Uinta Formation and the
Green River Formation above the Bird's Nest Aquifer near the mouth of Southam
Canyon. As saturated strata are identified, data on flow characteristics
(gradients and tranmissivity) should be collected by installing and testing
wells.
Deep Aquifers—
Testing recommended for the aquifers in the Green River Formation
includes:
• Evaluation of water quality sampling procedures at existing and
proposed wells to establish suitable sampling methods and sam-
pling frequency
• Additional aquifer testing at existing wells
• Installation, aquifer testing, and water quality sampling on new
wells in the Bird's Nest Aquifer and Douglas Creek Aquifer.
The new wells recommended are described in more detail in a later dis-
cussion of pollutant mobility monitoring. Construction of these new wells
70
-------
would provide more information on the subsurface geology, water levels, aqui-
fer characteristics, and water quality in the Bird's Nest Aquifer and in the
Douglas Creek Aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the processed-shale dis-
posal area. The relationship of the Douglas Creek Aquifer to the Bird's Nest
Aquifer would also be more clearly established.
Where casing size permits, aquifer testing in existing wells is also
appropriate to better define aquifer characteristics in the project region.
Water quality sample collection procedures could also be evaluated as an
assessment of baseline water quality data and to determine sampling frequency
requirements for monitoring.
Infiltration "~
Infiltration potential is to be evaluated to examine the water balance
for the processed-shale pile and to provide a basis for monitoring pollutant
mobility in the processed-shale disposal area. The two areas where infiltra-
tion is to be assessed are the surface of the disposal pile itself and the
surface of the Uinta Formation (i.e., in fractures). For these assessments,
it is recommended that double-ring infiltrometers be used as follows:
• At various stages of the construction of the processed-shale
pile including:
— As shale is spread before compaction
— After compaction
-- After surface is sealed
— During revegetation (i.e., in revegetation trenches)
• At the surface of cleared areas where the Uinta Formation is
exposed.
In conjunction with these infiltration tests, monitoring of subsurface
mobility should also be employed as presented in the following discussions.
This program would then offer the opportunity for assessing infiltration, for
estimating subsurface hydraulic conductivity, for testing various pieces of
monitoring equipment (e.g., moisture blocks, suction-cup lysimeters, and neu-
tron probes), and, via sample collection, for analyzing leachate formation
and composition.
Pollutant Mobility
Pollutant mobility monitoring needs in the processed-shale disposal area
include monitoring in the processed-shale pile itself, in the Southam Canyon
alluvium, in the Uinta Formation, in the Green River Formation above the
Bird's Nest Aquifer, and in deep aquifers (Bird's Nest Aquifer and Douglas
Creek Aquifer). This listing is in diminishing order of priority for moni-
toring pollutant mobility. Specific recommendations are provided in the
following paragraphs.
71
-------
The general approach for pollutant mobility monitoring in the processed-
shale disposal area is a sequence of sensing and response activities. There
are significant uncertainties with regard to water movement (and hence solute
mobility) within the processed-shale pile. Initial monitoring activities
should address the potential for water movements through the use of infiltra-
tion testing and subsurface moisture sensing (within the spent-shale pile)
during these tests and during natural precipitation events. If this monitor-
ing indicates mobility within the pile, then more intense direct sampling of
water within the pile, in the alluvium, and in the Uinta Formation may be
indicated depending on the nature and extent of the indicated mobility. Fi-
nally, if appreciable pollutant mobility is sensed in the Uinta Formation or
the Green River Formation above the Bird's Nest Aquifer, more extensive moni-
toring in the deep aquifers may be required.
Processed-Shale Pile—
The monitoring of the processed-shale disposal pile includes the sensing
of changes in moisture content (thus potentially inferring movement of water
and solute materials) and the collection and characterization of these solute
materials. The development of the monitoring program should be initiated
with the infiltration evaluations presented above. Infiltration test sites
should be instrumented as follows:
• Water content (or soil water pressure) sensing:
— Access well for neutron moisture logging
— Soil moisture blocks (at various depths)
— Salinity sensors
• Water quality should be sampled via suction-cup lysimeters (ten-
siometers should be used to appropriate suction levels).
The goal of these testing and monitoring efforts would be to address the fol-
lowing issues related to monitoring design:
1. Can neutron logging follow changes in moisture content in a
processed-shale pile?
2. What is the response of moisture blocks, salinity sensors, and
tensiometers to water movement in processed shale?
3. Can suction-cup lysimeters be used to collect water samples?
4. What is the quality of percolating waters?
5. What is the rate of potential pollutant mobility in the
processed-shale pile?
These data would be used to verify preliminary assessments of groundwater
quality impacts and to test procedures for monitoring.
72
-------
As indicated above, a sequence of infiltration tests during the various
stages of pile construction is recommended. The initial testing of spent
shale before and after compaction forms the basis of initial monitoring of
the disposal pile. The test sites should be maintained as long as possible
during pile construction. As benches are formed in the disposal pile, perma-
nent monitoring sites should then be established on the benches with access
(neutron logging) tubes, tensiometers, or other sensors demonstrated to be
applicable to infiltration testing. Tests conducted after pile construction
(i.e., after surface sealing, and associated with revegetation efforts) will
be used to "fine tune" monitoring efforts for these final modifications of
the processed-shale pile.
Monitoring installations in completed segments of the processed-shale
pile would include selected infiltration test sites as described above and
selected sites associated with revegetation trenches such as depicted in
Figure 2-4. These trench sites are appropriate because water-harvesting
efforts make these the most likely initial locations of infiltrating water.
Access tubes for neutron logging, tensiometers, suction-cup lysimeters, or
other monitoring devices shown to be suitable during the infiltration testing
would extend below the trenches into the processed-shale pile itself. Should
appreciable pollutant flux be indicated by monitoring within the processed-
shale pile, monitoring in the natural hydrogeologic realm would be indicated
as described in the following paragraphs.
Alluvium--
Monitoring in the alluvium in the processed-shale disposal area is pre-
sented below. Phase II and Phases III and IV of tract operation are consid-
ered separately. This monitoring would support monitoring of proposed (White
River Shale Project, 1976) temporary wells near the toe of the processed-shale
pile. Monitoring of the alluvial unsaturated zone is considered in Section 4
along with the retention-dams evalution.
Phase II operation—The applicable indirect sampling approach for trac-
ing the subsurface movement of high-salinity water, such as leachate from the
spent-shale pile, would be surface resistivity surveys. The depth of water
is shallow and the alluvium is relatively thin. Alluvium should be surveyed
downgradient from the spent-shale pile and retention reservoir in Southam
Canyon. There are a number of existing monitor wells in the alluvium of
Southam Canyon. The alluvium should be surveyed at least twice prior to
project operation and at least annually thereafter. The initial surveys
should be conducted during wet and dry seasons. These data should be sup-
plemented by measurement of water levels, pH, and conductivity of water in
piezometers installed in test holes drilled during initial characterization
of alluvium.
Should surface resistivity surveys or piezometer sampling result in pos-
itive indications of leachate formation, additional samples from the piezome-
ters for more complete analysis would be collected. The survey results would
also be used to locate monitor wells to sample the quality and movement of
the potential pollutants. Sampling and analysis procedures are presented in
following paragraphs.
73
-------
There are a number of existing monitor wells in the alluvium of Southam
Canyon (Figure 2-1). Wells G-4A and AG-7 are upstream from the proposed
spent-shale pile. Wells G-2A, G-1A, and AG-6 are downstream of the spent-
shale pile, and well AG-3 is along a tributary to the main drainage in
Southam Canyon.
Initial drilling and geophysical studies will characterize the Southam
Canyon alluvium and identify the content of any saturated layers. If satur-
ated layers are observed, the following array of monitor wells is proposed
(Figure 2-10):
• Four wells downstream from the Phase II retention reservoir
• One well in the main Southam Canyon drainage channel upstream of
the retention reservoir
• Four wells along smaller drainages associated with the
processed-shale pile.
Procedures for constructing monitor wells were discussed earlier.
Water samples are probably best collected by installation of suitable
submersible pumps. After well development, a submersible pump should be
installed and field tests performed during continuous pumping for several
hours or days. Temperature, electrical conductivity, and pH of the dis-
charged water could be measured. After completion of this phase, a deter-
mination should be made as to the length of pumping necessary before collec-
tion of a water sample. In locations with small water yields, water samples
may be collected via bailing. At least two or three well volumes should be
pumped or bailed before sample collection. This procedure will allow collec-
tion of water samples typical of the alluvium near the monitor well.
Sample collection should include field measurement of pH, specific con-
ductance, and oxidation-reduction potential (Eh). Water samples should be
filtered and preserved at the time of collection (U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1972; U.S. Geological Survey, 1970). Laboratory analyses are
presented in Table 2-7. The priority measures listed here are taken from the
preliminary priority ranking developed in Slawson (1979). It is recommended
that initial monitoring include at least the constituents listed as having
high and intermediate priority in the highest priority analysis category.
Appropriate sampling frequencies should be developed during the initial
sampling program and adjusted in response to changes in water quality. Ini-
tially, depth to water and field measurement of pH, specific conductance, and
Eh (or dissolved oxygen) should be monitored on a monthly basis. More de-
tailed chemical analyses (Table 2-7) would be performed on a quarterly basis
except if appreciable water quality changes are noted during the monthly
sampling. Sampling frequency should be reevaluated at least after each
sampling year.
74
-------
EFFLUENT HOLDING
BASIN AREA
TANKAGE AREA
RETENTION ?
BASIN AREA
PHASE II PROCESSED
SHALE DISPOSAL PILE
PROCESS AREA
KEY: ALLUVIAL WELLS
O EXISTING
• NEW
BIRD'S NEST AQUIFER WELLS
D EXISTING
• NEW
DOUGLAS CREEK AQUIFER WELLS
A EXISTING
A NEW
^ WELLS IN SATURATED ZONES IN UINTA
FORMATION AND IN GREEN RIVER
FORMATION ABOVE BIRD'S NEST
AQUIFER (IF SUCH ZONE IDENTIFIED)
? APPLICABILITY DEPENDENT ON PRE-
SENCE OF SATURATED CONDITIONS
VX/5 PROCESSED SHALE PILE
Figure 2-10. Map showing Phase II monitoring well sites.
75
-------
TABLE 2-7. OUTLINE OF PRELIMINARY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR
MONITORING PROCESSED-SHALE DISPOSAL AREA
Analysis
category
pri ori ty
Highest
Analysis
category
General paramaters
Moni
tori
ng
Highest
pH,e
.c.,
Eh
priority
for
Intermedi
TDS
ate
constituents
Lowest
—
Major inorganics Na,SO^,Cl Ca,Mg,K,HC03, N03
C03,F, Sulfides
NH3
Trace elements As,Se,Mo Zn,Cd,Hg,B, Pb,Cu,Fe
Ni
DOC fraction-
Organics DOC ation, pheno-
lics, specific
compounds (BAP)
Intermediate Radiological gross a Ra-226,228 U,Th
activity
gross 6
activity
Lowest Bacteriological TPC TC FC
Phases III and IV operation—As discussed for Phase II monitoring, peri-
odic surface resistivity surveys and field sampling of test-hole piezometers
would be appropriate for Phases III and IV for detecting and tracing water
quality changes in the alluvium. The results of these surveys would be used
for placement of monitor wells for direct monitoring of pollutant mobility.
One survey before Phase III expansion of the disposal area should be conducted
and at least annual surveys thereafter depending on the experience of Phase
II operations.
Should these surveys indicate leachate formation and movement, direct
monitoring of pollutant mobility should be through wells. Existing monitor
wells G-2A, G-1A, and AG-6 would still be present downstream from the spent-
shale pile and retention reservoir. Test-hole piezometers should also be
sampled, and more complete chemical analyses performed. Additional wells
would be needed immediately downstream of the spent-shale pile and above the
retention dam, as well as upstream from the spent-shale pile (Figure 2-11),
as follows:
76
-------
RETENTION BAS N AREA
PHASES III AND IV
PROCESSED SHALE
DISPOSAL AREA
G-7D
P-3
D
KEY: ALLUVIAL WELLS
O EXISTING
• NEW
BIRD'S NEST AQUIFER WELLS
D EXISTING
• NEW
DOUGLAS CREEK AQUIFER WELLS
A EXISTING
A NEW
t WELLS IN SATURATED ZONES IN UINTA
FORMATION AND IN GREEN RIVER
FORMATION ABOVE BIRD'S NEST
AQUIFER (IF SUCH ZONE IDENTIFIED)
&?) PROCESSED SHALE PI LE
Figure 2-11. Map showing Phases III and IV monitoring well sites.
77
-------
• Two wells downstream of the processed-shale pile along the main
drainage channel
• Two wells downstream of the processed-shale pile along a tribu-
tary drainage
• Two wells near the confluence of this tributary with the main
drainage (above the retention dam)
• Two wells along the main drainage upstream from the proposed
spent-shale pile.
The same well-monitoring procedures used during Phase II operations are
also appropriate for Phases III and IV. However, experience gained during
Phase II with regard to selection of sampling frequency and analytical deter-
minations will guide the program design for Phases III and IV.
Unita and Green River Formations-
Monitoring in the Uinta Formation includes areas beneath or downgradient
of the processed-shale pile where fracturing (and hence the potential for
mobility) are identified in initial hydrogeological surveys. In these areas,
access wells should be installed and neutron logging used for monitoring
changes in moisture content and the development of perched layers. Should
such changes be observed, water samples would be collected for chemical
analysis.
Depending somewhat on the location, extent, and flow characteristics of
saturated zones in the Uinta Formation and Green River Formation (above the
Bird's Nest Aquifer) monitoring of water levels and water quality of these
zones should be continued for monitoring pollutant mobility. Annual or semi-
annual surveys would be appropriate unless water quality impacts were detected
in these strata or in overlying alluvium or disposal piles.
Bird's Nest Aquifer--
Despite the presence of an apparent confining bed above this aquifer,
sampling is appropriate to allow direct determination of groundwater quality
effects of oil shale operations. Sampling would be accomplished through the
use of existing and new monitor wells.
Phase II operations—There are two existing wells (P-3 and G-7) about 1
mile generally upgradient from the proposed spent-shale pile (Figure 2-1).
Well G-15 is about 1/2 mile from, and is neither upgradient nor downgradient
from, the proposed spent-shale pile. Wells G-5 and G-21 are within 1 mile of
the proposed reservoir and pile but are not upgradient or downgradient. De-
pending on economic factors, a number of monitoring designs may be appropri-
ate. The following are listed in order of priority for inclusion in the
monitoring program (Figure 2-10):
78
-------
• One additional well downgradient of the spent-shale pile
• One additional well downgradient of the retention reservoir
t Two additional wells upgradient of the processed-shale pile.
Because additional data are necessary to determine aquifer characteris-
tics of the Bird's Nest Aquifer, the wells should be constructed so as to
permit aquifer testing. Such wells should be a large-diameter (e.g., 14-inch)
hole drilled to the base of the Bird's Nest Aquifer. This would allow an
8-inch-diameter PVC casing to be installed to the bottom of the hole; the
casing should be perforated opposite the Bird's Nest Aquifer. Clean pea
gravel of known composition should be used to pack the well. The well should
be properly sealed at the ground surface at the top of the Bird's Nest Aqui-
fer, during drilling and developed properly.
The same sampling methods and program for water quality analysis should be
followed as for wells in the alluvium. The frequency of sampling should be
quarterly for the first year. Thereafter, the frequency can be altered based
on previous experience. It is likely that annual sampling would be sufficient
if proper sampling procedures are established.
Phases III and IV operation--Existing wells G-15 and G-21 and the four
proposed new monitor wells in the Bird's Nest Aquifer are in the area to be
covered with spent shale in Phases III and IV. These wells can be preserved
by extending the casing upward as the spent shale is placed. However, ex-
treme care must be taken to prevent damage to the casing. Existing wells P-3
and G-7 are upgradient, and P-2 is downgradient, of the proposed pile. Con-
sidering the large size of the spent-shale pile, construction of a number of
new wells is appropriate. For purposes of this phase of the monitoring de-
sign, four additional wells are proposed, all of which would be along the
periphery of the spent-shale pile.
Well construction, sampling, and analysis programs for Phases III and IV
are presented above. However, the experience gained from monitoring the
Phase II spent-shale pile and retention reservoir should be used, particu-
larly for detennination of sampling frequency and selection of analytical
determinations.
Douglas Creek Aquifer—
Despite the relatively great depth of this aquifer, sampling is neces-
sary because Douglas Creek is potentially a major aquifer and because hydrau-
lic head relations and flow between the Bird's Nest Aquifer and groundwater in
the Douglas Creek Member is poorly known at present.
Phase II operation—There are no wells effectively tapping the Douglas
Creek Aquifer within 3 miles of the proposed spent-shale pile. Additional
wells are thus needed to adequately monitor this aquifer (Figure 2-10):
• One additional well downgradient of the processed-shale pile
79
-------
• One additional well downgradient of the retention dam
• Two additional wells upgradient of the processed-shale pile.
These are listed here in decreasing order of priority for inclusion in the
monitoring program. The wells should be spaced to allow determination of
flow patterns.
Because additional data are needed on the aquifer characteristics of the
Douglas Creek Aquifer, the wells should be constructed so as to allow aquifer
testing. Similar construction techniques should be followed as for the pro-
posed new monitor wells in the Bird's Nest Aquifer. However, in this case,
the casing should be perforated opposite the Douglas Creek Aquifer. The well
should be gravel packed opposite this interval and bentonite or cement added
opposite the Bird's Nest Aquifer so that interaquifer flow does not occur.
The large voids in this aquifer indicate that cement may be the preferred
sealant material.
The preceding discussions on sampling methods, sampling frequency, and
analytical program for the Bird's Nest Aquifer are also appropriate for moni-
toring the Douglas Creek Aquifer.
Phases III and IV operation—Monitoring in the Douglas Creek Aquifer
during Phases III and IV can be accomplished by preservation and upward ex-
tension of the casing of wells constructed for Phase II monitoring. Consid-
ering the large size of the Phases III and IV spent-shale pile, construction
of additional wells may be appropriate. Two additional wells along the peri-
phery of the disposal pile (Figure 2-11) would be adequate for this purpose.
Well construction techniques, sampling procedures, frequency, and chemi-
cal analysis presented for Phase II monitoring is also appropriate here.
Summary of Monitoring Development Activities
Monitoring program development activities for the processed-shale dis-
posal area are summarized in Table 2-8. The various proposed activities are
also ranked relative to their priority for developing an effective monitoring
program. Cost of implementation and the results of initial monitoring within
the disposal pile will determine the ultimate selection of monitoring activi-
ties. Estimates of annual costs for the activities outlined in Table 2-8 are
summarized in Table 2-9. Details of these cost items are presented in Appen-
dix B of this report.
The combination of the priority ranking of the monitoring activities
(and potential pollution source) and costing data provide a framework for
developing an effective monitoring program given defined budgetary con-
straints. For each of the methodology steps, monitoring program activities
are listed in Table 2-8 in the order of relative priority or importance for
monitoring design and for monitoring of groundwater quality impacts. With
regard to trade-offs between activities for different monitoring steps, the
table should be interpreted to mean that highest ranked items for one step
have relatively greater priority than lower ranked items for other steps.
80
-------
TABLE 2-8. SUMMARY OF MONITORING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE
PROCESSED-SHALE DISPOSAL AREA AND PRIORITIES FOR ACCOMPLISHING
THOSE ACTIVITIES
Monitoring step
Pollutant
source
Priority characterization
Highest Surveys of
development activities
Waste chemical
analyses:
— General
— Major inorganic
-- Trace metals
— Organics
Hydrogeology
Water and water
use quality Infiltration
Alluvium: Inf iltrometer
— Geophysical surveys es s
and test holes Sensor evaluations
-- Sample new wells
-- Pump tests at new
wells
-- Determine flow
patterns
Uinta and Green River
Formations:
-- Geologic mapping
(e.g., fractures)
-- Identification and
characterization of
saturated zones near
mouth of Southam
Canyon
Pollutant
mobility
Monitoring in
processed-shale
pile
Monitoring in
alluvium
Bird1s Nest Aquifer:
-- Evaluate sampling
methods
Intermediate
Lowest
Waste chemical
analyses:
-- Radiological
-- Bacteriological
Regional Alluvium:
surveys __ Water quality samp.
ling at existing
wells
Bird's Nest and Douglas
Creek Aquifers
-- Test existing wells
-- Install and test
new well s
Monitoring in
Uinta Formation
and Green River
Formation above
the Bird's Nest
Aquifer
Monitoring in
Bird' s Nest
Aquifer and
Douglas Creek
Aquifer
81
-------
TABLE 2-9. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR MONITORING PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN TABLE 2-8 FOR PROCESSED-SHALE
DISPOSAL AREA
Assigned
monitoring
priority
Highest
Intermediate
Lowest
Phase and
year of
development
Phase II:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase III:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase IV:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase II:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase III:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase IV:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase II:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase III:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase IV:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Cost estimate
Pollutant
source
characterization
57
9
57
9
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
2
2
(annual costs in thousands of 1978 dol
for each monitoring step
Water
use
0
0
0 •
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hydrogeology
and water
quality
83
0
21
0
2
0
8
6
3
3
0
0
370
0
219
0
0
0
Infiltration
19
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
lars)
Pollutant
mob i 1 i ty
15
21
26
27
26
22
6
<4
5
<4
5
<4
5
3
8
5
5
5
82
-------
This does not mean that low ranked items (e.g., new Bird's Nest Aquifer wells)
should not be included in the monitoring plan or that existing monitoring
(e.g., in the deep aquifers) is completely adequate.
83
-------
SECTION 3
MONITORING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROCESS AREA
INTRODUCTION
The process area is contained in a watershed northeast of the processed-
shale disposal area located in the Southam Canyon drainage (Figure 1-2). Po-
tential pollution sources in the process area include a waste-water holding
pond, raw shale storage, tankage area, miscellaneous process and waste
streams, and surface disturbances (Figure 3-1). The nature of these sources
is described in Slawson (1979) along with a priority ranking of these sources
(Table 3-1). Much of the information on proposed monitoring and alternative
monitoring approaches discussed in Section 2 for the processed-shale disposal
area are also applicable to the process area. These discussions will not be
repeated here.
PROPOSED OR EXISTING MONITORING PROGRAMS
Proposed or existing monitoring programs are described in Figure 2-1 and
Table 2-2. Groundwater monitoring plans include quarterly sampling of water
quality in the Bird's Nest Aquifer beneath the tankage area and water-level
monitoring to the west of the process area. Monitoring within the plant or
treatment facilities by tract developers has not been specified at this time.
MONITORING DEFICIENCIES
Perceived monitoring deficiencies in the process area include background
information needed for the design of a cost-effective groundwater quality
monitoring program (e.g., data on pollutant-source characteristics and site
hydrogeology) and capabilities for monitoring pollutant mobility.
Pollutant-Source Characterization
Source Characteristics--
The general characteristics of the potential pollution sources associ-
ated with the process area are known. This is true for much of the tankage
area (e.g., fuels, oil additives, etc.) and for many of the process waste
streams. Other potential sources may be subject to greater variability in
characteristics and thus are less well characterized. The effluent holding-
pond water and storm water runoff are examples of this type of source. Source
characterization efforts that may be associated with implementing a monitor-
ing program in the process area include the following:
84
-------
CXI
en
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
i \
RETORTING \_M
AND JPGRADING *"
Figure 3-1. Process area for Oil Shale Tracts U-a and U-b.
-------
TABLE 3-1. PRELIMINARY RANKING OF POLLUTANT SOURCES
IN THE PROCESS AREA3
Source
Priority
ranking
Potential
pollution
source
Potential pollutant ranging
Highest
Intermediate
Lowest
Highest Effluent TDS, organics
holding pond
Raw shale TDS, As, Se,
organics
Tankage area Miscellaneous fuels,
oil additivies,
ammonia
Intermediate Storm water TDS, organics
runoff
Process waste TDS, organics,
streams ammonia
Trace metals, —
nutrients
Major inorganics Trace
metals
Major inorganics
Major inorganics, Nutrients
trace metals
Lowest
Surface
disturbance
Calcium salts,
TDS
Major inorganics —
aFrom Slawson (1979)
• Characteristics of waste products (including spatial and tem-
poral variability)
-- Waste-water holding pond water
-- Storm water runoff
• Runoff and leaching of raw shale stockpiles and soils stockpiles.
Many of the waste streams present in the process area are utilized or
disposed of in the spent-shale disposal area (see Section 2).
Development PIans--
The details of construction and operation of the various process-area
facilities will greatly influence the monitoring needs for this area. Design
features that need clarification prior to finalizing a monitoring program
include the following:
• Effluent holding pond design
-- Depth-area-volume relationship
86
-------
— Sealants used, if any
« Design of pond retention dam
• Details of chemical and flow monitoring conducted by plant oper-
ators for purpose of process control
• Runoff control design feature's (diversions, dikes, culverts,
etc.)
-- Process pad area
-- Tankage area
-- Stockpile (soil and raw shale).
Water Use
The need for periodic reevaluation of project region water use, as dis-
cussed in Section 2, is also applicable to the process area.
Hydrogeologic Framework and Existing Water Quality
Basic categories of data deficiency for the hydrogeologic framework and
existing groundwater quality in the process area are essentially those pre-
sented for the processed-shale disposal area (Section 2). Specific informa-
tion needs in the process area are as follows:
• Characterization of the alluvium of the process area
-- Thickness and subsurface extent
— Presence of saturated layers and groundwater flow patterns
-- Aquifer characteristics (transmissivity, storage coefficient,
water quality
• Presence and characteristics of saturated zones in the Uinta
Formation and the Green River Formation above the Bird's Nest
Aquifer
• Aquifer characteristics of Bird's Nest Aquifer and Douglas Creek
Aquifer under the process area
-- Transmissivity
~ Groundwater flow patterns
-- Storage coefficient
-- Water quality.
87
-------
At present, the hydrogeology and groundwater quality of the process area
have not been directly measured or have only been partially sampled.
Infiltration
Infiltration in the process area through the surface of soils, alluvium,
and the Uinta Formation is an important hydrologic process for evaluating
potential pollutant mobility. Direct measurement of infiltration in the
process area was not included in baseline studies. Specific sites for con-
sideration of infiltration potential include:
• Waste-water holding pond
• Various tankage sites
• Areas adjacent to plant pads
• Raw shale storage area
• Water supply storage area.
Pollutant Mobility
The general features of the discussion of pollutant mobility monitoring
deficiencies presented for the processed-shale disposal area are also rele-
vant here. In general, the White River Shale Project proposes no source
monitoring, vadose zone monitoring, or direct determination of infiltration
potential. The rationale is that sampling of wells alone can provide ade-
quate information. However, because of the probably long travel times of
percolating water in the vadose zone and saturated zone, decades may elapse
before pollutants reach wells. In addition, in order to interpret water
sampling from wells, the entire sequence of events from the land surface to
the well discharge must be understood.
Summary of Monitoring Deficiencies
Uncertainties exist in information on source characteristics, in details
of disposal and other operational plans, in knowledge of the hydrogeologic
framework, and in sampling and projecting mobility of potential pollutants.
Many monitoring deficiencies result from the proposed utilization of existing
wells that were not drilled for this purpose. Table 3-2 presents a summary
and relative priority ranking or monitoring deficiencies in each of the moni-
toring methodology steps. Monitoring deficiencies for each of the methodol-
ogy steps are listed in order of relative priority for monitoring program
development. With regard to trade-offs between methodology steps, the table
should be interpreted to mean that highest-ranked items for one methodology
step have relatively greater priority than lower ranked items for other steps.
-------
TABLE 3-2. RELATIVE PRIORITY RANKING OF MONITORING AND INFORMATION
DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED FOR THE PROCESS AREA
Monitoring methodology steps
Relative
priority Pollutant-source
ranking characterization
Water use
Hydrogeologic framework
and existing
water quality
Infiltration
Pollutant
mob i1i ty
Highest
Design and
construction
procedures
— Waste-water
holding basin
— Runoff control
and diversion
Process monitoring
plans
Source chemical Regional
characteristics water use
- Holding surve*
ponds
-- Runoff and
leacate in
stockpiles
— Product and
process
waste
streams
Lowest
Characterization of
alluvial streams
Seepage from
holding or
storage
basins
Mobility in soils
and alluvium
Infiltration
in tankage
and raw shale
storage
Survey of fracturing Infiltration Mobility in Uinta
in Uinta Formation
Characteristics of
saturated zones in
Uinta Formation and
Green River Formation
above the Bird's Nest
Aquifer
Aquifer testing in deep
aquifers
in Uinta
Formation
Formation or
Green River
Formation above
the Bird's Nest
Aquifer
Mobility in deep
aquifers
ALTERNATIVE MONITORING APPROACHES
Pollutant-Source Characterization
Data deficiencies for pollutant-source characterization include analyses
of holding pond and process-area runoff waters, process and product stream
monitoring plans, and details of construction of the holding pond and runoff
control structures.
Alternative Approaches—
The characteristics (including spatial and temporal variability) of
effluent-hoi ding pond waters and process-area runoff waters could be evalu-
ated through the use of simulation models. Although such models could be
formulated, data do not exist at this time to adequately calibrate and vali-
date the models. Hence a direct sampling approach is probably needed to
characterize these sources.
89
-------
Alternative approaches for examining the details of construction include
obtaining blueprints or other drawings from tract developers and onsite exam-
ination during site development. Clearly, direct interaction with tract de-
velopers would be an asset for implementation of either or both approaches.
Specific items of interest are:
• Construction of retention dike for waste-water holding pond
(materials used, construction of cutoff wall, etc.)
• Pond construction (excavation depth--e.g., to bedrock—sealants
used, survey of pond dimensions)
• Clearing and construction in general plant area and tankage area
(depth of excavation, nature of diking or diversions, etc.)
• Runoff diversions in raw shale storage and soil-stockpile areas
• Design and operation of waste-water treatment plant (e.g., lin-
ing of basins, elevation of 100-year flood line, etc.)
• Plans by developers for monitoring the characteristics of prod-
uct and waste streams.
Characterization of contents of waste-water holding pond, runoff from
the process area, and the various other waste streams that lead to the hold-
ing pond is needed to adequately assess potential pollution from the process
area. This assessment is, in turn, needed to develop a cost-effective moni-
toring program for the process area. Alternatives for sampling the various
process and waste streams include grab sampling, composite sampling, and con-
tinuous sampling (e.g., in-place conductivity or other sensors).
Sampling Frequency-
Sampling frequency requirements for pollutant-source characterization
are determined by the variability of the waste-product characteristics (see
Section 2).
As previously discussed, maximum "operation variability" can be expected
during the initial stages of development Phases II, III, and IV as defined by
the White River Shale Project (1976). Hence, maximum waste-product sampling
frequency will be required during these initial stages. Once steady-state
operation is achieved, sampling frequencies can be decreased significantly.
The role of initial intensive sampling would be not only to define appropri-
ate frequencies but also to define an operational range of waste-product
characteristics. Decisions with regard to sampling frequency should be spe-
cific for each waste product to be characterized and will also be dependent
upon plans for process-stream sampling by tract developers.
Sampling of runoff from natural precipitation of pad-washing operations
will naturally be governed by the frequency of occurrence of these events.
Initially, an effort should probably be made to sample all runoff events.
90
-------
From these initial data and the observed variability in the analytical re-
sults between events, the sampling program can be finalized.
Analytical Methods--
Alternative sampling approaches are listed in Table 3-3. More detailed
listings of possible chemical analyses are provided in Table 2-6. In addi-
tion to these analyses of potential liquid pollution sources, analyses of
samples from stockpiles of soil and raw shale can be undertaken to character-
ize these sources. Alternative analyses of solids are outlined in Section 2
(Table 2-4) and include the following:
• Particle-size analysis (sieving and hydrometer methods)
• X-ray diffraction analysis
• Surface area
TABLE 3-3. CHEMICAL SAMPLING ALTERNATIVES FOR PROCESS AREA
SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION
Potential
source
Holding pond
Potential
Major
inorganic
X
appl icabil ity of
Trace
elements
X
analyses
Organics
X
Sewage treatment
plant effluent
Sour water
X
X
Wash water from
plant area and
shops
Tankage retention
basins
Precipitation runoff:
- raw shale storage
- soils stockpiles
- miscellaneous
materials stock-
piles
X
X
X
X
91
-------
• Water content (1/2 atmosphere, 15 atmospheres, and in-situ
measurements)
• Base exchange capacity
• Cation exchange capacity
• Hydrous oxides
• Saturated extract analysis (major inorganics, trace metals,
organics)
• Beaker-shaker or column tests (leachate characterization).
The discussion in Section 2 of analytical alternatives and the informa-
tion to be obtained from the various analyses is also applicable to this
evaluation of the process area.
In addition, operation data from the waste-water treatment plant may be
needed to evaluate this source. Beyond the items discussed above, the fol-
lowing data may be relevant: flow rates; incoming and effluent BOD and COD;
DO; temperature; total suspended solids; mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS),
if applicable; and sludge volume index (SVI), if applicable. The selection
is dependent upon the type of treatment processes employed.
Mater Use
Water-use patterns should be periodically assessed to evaluate the ex-
tent to which water use may be affected by oil shale development. The dis-
cussions of alternative water-use surveys provided in Section 2 are also
applicable to monitoring program development for the process area.
Hydrogeologic Framework and Existing Water Supply
Needed information on the hydrogeology and existing water quality in the
process area and alternative approaches for addressing those needs are essen-
tially the same as those presented in Section 2 for the processed-shale dis-
posal area. These previous discussions are summarized in the following para-
graphs for the process area.
Alternative Approaches--
A1 luviurn—Characterization of the alluvium of the process area may
include determination of thickness, subsurface extent, physical-chemical
properties, and existence and nature of saturated layers. Approaches for
examination of the alluvium include:
• Dril1 ing program
-- Collection of drill cuttings
-- Preparation of lithologic logs
92
-------
— Definition of depth of bedrock (Uinta Formation)
-- Identification of saturated zones
• Installation of sensors to examine moisture status
' — Neutron logging
-- Tensiometers
-- Soil-moisture blocks
-- Thermocouple psychrometers
-- Salinity sensors
-- Piezometers
• Geophysical methods to determine subsurface characteristics
-- Seismic refraction surveys
-- Gravity surveys
-- Surface resistivity surveys
• Measurement of aquifer characteristics to determine groundwater
flow patterns.
More detailed discussion of these alternatives is presented in the discussion
in Section 2 of alluvial characterization.
Uinta and Green River Formations--The existence of saturated zones in
the Uinta Formation or in the Green River Formation above the Bird's Nest
Aquifer is uncertain. Test drilling of the area between the process area and
the White River may be appropriate to identify such zones. Additional in-
stallation of monitor wells and aquifer testing would be needed to character-
ize groundwater flow patterns in these zones.
Bird's Nest Aquifer—Monitor wells in the Bird's Nest Aquifer can also
be constructed near the process area. The installation of alluvial wells
would allow collection of supplemental data on subsurface geology, water
levels, and water quality beneath the process area. Thus, present knowledge
of the Bird's Nest Aquifer could be expanded. Aquifer tests have been com-
pleted on three wells in the Bird's Nest Aquifer. The small diameter of
other existing wells may prohibit their use for proper aquifer testing. Well
construction and aquifer test procedures for the Bird's Nest Aquifer are out-
lined in Section 2. Locations appropriate for such testing in the process
area are upgradient from the process area and downgradient from the effluent
holding pond.
93
-------
Douglas Creek Aquifer--Additional monitor wells can also be developed in
the Douglas Creek Aquifer to expand present knowledge of the hydrogeology of
the process area.
Analytical Methods and Sampling Frequency--
Analysis procedures for soils, alluvium, and other geologic materials
are as previously outlined for solid-waste characteristics (Tables 2-4 and
2-5). Water quality analyses presented in Table 2-6 are also applicable to
characterization of groundwater quality in the alluvial and deep aquifer
zones associated with the process area. Factors affecting selection of sam-
pling frequency are also described in Section 2.
Infiltration
Locations where infiltration may be evaluated include the alluvium, the
Uinta Formation, and the raw shale and soil stockpiles. The most important
areas are probably the area around the effluent holding pond, the area imme-
diately downgradient of the plant pads, and the tankage areas.
Alternative Approaches—
Infiltration may be evaluated by using infiltrometer tests or rainfall
simulators, or by monitoring natural precipitation events. A sufficient num-
ber of test locations should be selected to overcome errors introduced by
spatial variability of infiltration properties. Assessment of infiltration
into raw shale or soils stockpiles can be accomplished through direct testing
of stockpile areas or through construction of relatively large (e.g., 10 x 10
feet) lysimeters.
Studies of infiltration should be closely coordinated with pollutant
mobility monitoring activities. Infiltration studies may be useful for iso-
lating and evaluating zones of potential mobility such as fractures, bedding
planes, clay layers, or the interface between weathered and unweathered sand-
stone. Infiltration plots should be located close to possible sites for
monitoring pollutant mobility to assure applicability of infiltration test
results to monitoring program development, but not so close as to contaminate
monitoring sites. Methods for monitoring infiltration plots are presented in
Section 2. Options for such monitoring include installation of access wells
for neutron logging or tensiometers to evaluate unsaturated hydraulic gradi-
ents and changes in water content.
Infiltration or seepage through the bottom of the two major basins
(waste-water holding basin and water supply reservoir) in the process area
(Figure 3-1) may also be evaluated. The water balance for these basins may
be evaluated using the following method:
1. Construct staff gage or stilling well (possibly with a recor-
der) to measure water level that can be related to basin stor-
age volume
94
-------
2. Measure basin inflows, discharges, evaporation, and
precipitation
3. Estimate water budget from (1) and (2) and estimate seepage
losses.
Because of errors in the various measurements, seepage would probably have to
be appreciable to be detected by this method. Alternatives to this water-
balance approach involve instrumentation of the holding basins to directly
measure changes in water content below the basin. Optional approaches in-
clude neutron logging via access wells in or around the basins, installation
of moisture blocks in or around the basins, and installation of tensiometers
(unsaturated conditions), piezometers (saturated conditions), etc. in or
around the basins. These approaches may also be applied to monitoring around
any sedimentation pond associated with the waste-water treatment plant.
Sampling Frequency--
Many of the infiltration tests outlined above (e.g., infiltrometer
tests) would be one-time surveys to provide an assessment of this important
hydrologic process. However, infiltration monitoring activities at holding
basins may be repeated occasionally or be carried on to provide a continual
update of seepage from the basins. The water-balance components (input, out-
put, and storage) could at various times be monitored for defined time peri-
ods (perhaps a week or a month) to provide a measure of seepage over that
time period. Alternatively, the water-balance components could be monitored
continuously to provide a measure of seepage over the entire project period.
Because rates of infiltration are not well known at present, sampling
frequencies for the various alternative direct moisture measurement approaches
(e.g., neutron logging or tensiometers) cannot be defined in detail. Sampling
frequencies should be based on observed rates of change in subsurface mois-
ture level. Hence, the frequency employed may vary during different seasons.
Pollutant Mobility
The monitoring of pollutant mobility deals with the detection and meas-
urement of the movement of water and solutes in the subsurface. These moni-
toring efforts are closely related to infiltration monitoring. Alternatives
for pollutant-source monitoring in the process area include monitoring at the
land surface, in the alluvium of the process area drainage, in the Uinta For-
mation, in the Green River Formation above the Bird's Nest Aquifer, in the
Bird's Nest Aquifer, and in the Douglas Creek Aquifer.
Indirect Sampling Approaches--
Indirect sampling methods are appropriate for use in the alluvium and
possibly in the Uinta Formation of the process area. Alternative approaches
are essentially those presented in Section 2. These include:
• Moisture monitoring using neutron logging, tensiometers, mois-
ture blocks, or thermocouple psychrometers
95
-------
• Sal inity sensors
• Surface resistivity surveys.
These approaches can be implemented around the waste-water holding basin,
tankage area, waste-water treatment facilities, water supply pond, processing
facilities, and stockpile of raw shale.
Waste-water holding basin--The waste-water holding pond will be located
at the northern end of the process area, within the principal wash draining
the area (Figure 3-1). The pond will be excavated within the shallow allu-
vium, possibly on top of bedrock. A retention dike will be constructed.
Storage will be provided for the 100-year flood. Flows in excess of the
design flood may overtop the dike permitting flow into the downstream wash.
In addition, unless the dike contains a cutoff wall, seepage may occur
through the structure into the downstream alluvium. The pond will receive
storm runoff and any runoff from leaking tanks (including the high-TDS tank),
as well as treated waste water from the sewage treatment plant, sour water
from retorting and upgrading processes, and wash water from the industrial
area.
Monitoring sites can be located around the waste-water holding pond per-
imeter, beneath the pond liner, within the pond retention dike, and in the
alluvium downstream from the holding basin. Monitoring upgradient from the
basin is also appropriate to evaluate infiltration between upstream sources
and the basin. Visual inspections of seepage through or around the basin
retention dike can also be conducted. Results of indirect sampling surveys
can be used to indicate sites and the magnitude of subsurface movement. This
information can in turn be used to locate sites for water sample collection.
Tankage area—The tankage area will be located in the northeast portion
of the process area (Figure 3-1). The tankage area will include storage con-
tainers for crude shale oil, naphtha, fuel oil, ammonia, diesel fuel, water
from the sour water stripper, and raw water, as well as the high-TDS waste-
water storage tank. The high-TDS tank will be located on an unspecified site
within the tankage area. This tank will receive waste water from the follow-
ing: water-supply treatment sedimentation unit, ion-exchange regenerator,
cooling tower, tail-gas unit, sulfur plant, hydrogen plant, hydrotreating
units, and the mines. The tankage area will be constructed on bedrock out-
crops and on alluvium, draining into the proposed site of the waste-water
pond. Tankage must be located within a dike network. The dike system is
planned to be capable of containing 150 percent of the tank capacity it en-
closes plus the 100-year flood runoff volume from the drainage area of the
tanks. Soils in the tankage area range from moderately deep in alluvial
zones to nonexistent in rocky areas. The associated infiltration rates are
moderate (alluvium) to very low (rocky areas).
Alternatives for implementation of the above-listed indirect sampling
methods in the tankage area are within diked areas, within the dikes them-
selves, and in the alluvium downgradient of the tankage area. In addition,
visual inspections for tank leakage, deterioration of dikes, etc. may be
included in the monitoring program.
96
-------
Waste-water treatment plant—According to the Detailed Development Plan
(White River Shale Project, 1976), "Sanitary waste water collected from em-
ployee facilities will be routed to a sedimentation basin and then to biolog-
ical oxidation treatment units. The biologically treated effluent will be
disinfected and discharged to the waste-water and storm-runoff holding basin."
Total expected flow of sanitary waste water is 10 gallons per minute during
Phase II and 46 gallons per minute during Phases III and IV.
Detailed information on the nature of the waste-water treatment process
is not included in the DDP (White River Shale Project, 1976). Thus, the sed-
imentation pond may be lined or unlined, or it may actually consist of a ce-
ment tank. Similarly, units for "biological oxidation treatment" may comprise
trickling filters, activated sludge tanks, or extended aeration tanks. Be-
cause of the small volume expected, the latter technique will probably be
used to provide secondary treatment. Details on the operation of extended
aeration plants are given by Hammer (1977).
The treatment plant will be located near a small wash immediately above
the tankage area. Alluvial soils within the wash are deeper than other soils
in the area and are rated as having moderate infiltration rates. If the
treatment plant were to be flooded by storm runoff, raw sewage could flow in
the wash and eventually into the waste-water holding pond. The amount of
sludge produced by the waste-water treatment plant may amount to 0.5 ton per
day (dry weight) during full production. Sludge will be stored in drying
beds and used as a soil conditioner in revegetation areas.
Monitoring plans for the waste-water treatment plant area depend on the
final design of the plant. Alternative monitoring locations are likely to be
included within or around the sedimentation pond and within the treatment
plant itself. Additional sampling downgradient of the plant may be indicated
should flooding or pond failure occur.
Water supply storage basin—During Phases III and IV, fresh water will
be pumped from the White River reservoir to a water-supply storage basin lo-
cated southeast of the processing facilities (Figure 3-1). According to the
DDP (White River Shale Project, 1976):
The on-tract freshwater storage pond will be constructed to pro-
vide operational flexibility, including 3 days' reserve and addi-
tional storage to maintain a reliable supply of water during an
outage of the reservoir pumping station or pipeline and to control
drainage water. Although no subsurface exploration or material
testing have been performed, the pond will be formed by an earth-
fill dam constructed by making maximum use of local materials.
The DDP shows the site of the proposed water storage pond to be immedi-
ately south of the processing facilities, within the major wash crossing the
area. The alluvial soils in the wash have moderate infiltration potential.
Outside the wash, soils have very low infiltration potential. The latter
soils are generally shallow, overlying bedrock.
97
-------
Strictly speaking, the water storage pond is not a pollution source.
However, failure of the earthen dam may lead to flooding in the downstream
process area, the waste-water treatment facilities, and the tankage area.
Pollutants in these areas may be solubilized or entrained in floodwater and
eventually infiltrate into the shallow alluvium or discharge into the waste-
water holding pond. During normal conditions, seepage from the pond may cre-
ate a shallow water table in downstream alluvium, increasing the mobility of
infiltrating pollutants in the process area, sewage treatment plant, and
tankage area. In light of the limited pollution hazard associated with the
water storage pond, the major emphasis during monitoring should be on non-
sampling studies to evaluate seepage losses. However, a small-scale sampling
program may also be initiated to monitor inadvertent runoff or spills into
the pond.
Monitoring of this storage pond may be accomplished by implementing the
previously listed indirect sampling methods within, around, or downgradient
from the pond. Water-balance methods may also be applied to evaluate seepage
from the basin.
Processing plant—The Phase II processing plant will include the follow-
ing units: a vertical-type retort, precipitator, Stretford unit, incinerator,
boiler and feed-water treatment unit, cooling towers, and secondary crusher
and screening unit (White River Shale Project, 1976). Facilities associated
with the Phase III and IV processing plant include: the coarse-shale reactor,
fine-shale reactor, compressors, crude-shale oil hydrotreater unit, amine
regenerator, hydrogen plant, naphtha hydrogen treater unit, and the sulfur
plant. The waste-water treatment plant is also located within the processing
facilities area; features of the treatment facilities and associated monitor-
ing alternatives were discussed above. The generalized area in which the
processing facilities will be located is shown on Figure 3-1. Note that the
plant will be located on or near the wash transecting the process area.
A larger number and variety of pollutants are associated with the pro-
cessing facilities. Oily waste water produced by cleaning the facilities and
industrial area will be collected in a sewer. Similarly, the retorting and
upgrading process will produce sour waste water containing sulfides, ammonia,
phenol, and other organics. Some of this water will be stripped and reused,
and the remainder will be discharged into the oil waste sewer. High-TDS wa-
ter will be produced by other units, including the hydrotreating units and
the fine-shale retorts. Waste water from these units will be collected in a
separate sewer and stored in the high-TDS waste-water tank.
In addition to pollutants generated during normal plant operation, the
danger always exists that equipment or tank failures or flooding may release
liquid wastes. Runoff from such events would flow into downstream washes and
eventually into shallow groundwater.
The indirect sampling methods listed above may be implemented downgradi-
ent from the plant area. This will allow sensing of changes in moisture or
subsurface water movement due to runoff from the process area resulting from
natural precipitation of pad-cleaning activities.
98
-------
Materials stockpiles—Depending on the nature of runoff containment and
diversion around raw shale and any soils stockpiles in the process area,
indirect sampling methods may be implemented in these areas. Sites for lo-
cating sensors or access wells include: within the stockpiles themselves;
around the periphery of the stockpiles; within containment structures; and
downgradient of the stockpiles.
Direct Sampling Approaches--
Direct sampling of potential pollutant mobility in the process area may
be accomplished at the surface (e.g., within holding ponds), in the alluvium,
in the Unita Formation, and in the Green River Formation (Bird's Nest Aquifer
and Douglas Creek Aquifer). Sampling methods can be implemented either
(1) only after indirect sampling observations indicate subsurface mobility,
or (2) as a regular monitoring activity. The former approach may be appro-
priate for monitoring in the unsaturated zones while the latter may be more
appropriate for use in saturated strata.
Ponds—Sampl ing within ponds can be accomplished by grab sampling or by
use of an automatic composite sampler. Grab sampling at the water surface
can be done with a bottle or carboy. Sampling at depth within these ponds
would necessitate use of Kemmerer or Van Dorn samplers.
Chemical spatial variability within the various ponds found in the pro-
cess area (the waste-water holding pond, the water supply storage pond, and
the sedimentation pond associated with the waste-water treatment plant) can-
not be assessed at this time. Because of the relative small ness of these
ponds, the spatial variability is expected to be small. However, this may
need to be evaluated in order to define adequate sampling sites. This can be
accomplished by either collection of samples at numerous locations wtihin the
ponds for detailed chemical analysis or by field surveys using field measure-
ment of temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, or specific ions
(using specific-ion electrodes).
Alluvium—If ponds are underlain by alluvium, suction-cup lysimeters can
be installed around the periphery in the unsaturated alluvium. Suction cups
may be installed at several depths down to bedrock. Piezometer-sampling
wells can be constructed within or adjacent to ponds to obtain samples from
saturated strata, such as may develop at the alluvium-bedrock interface.
Such wells would contain screened well points terminating in the saturated
zone. Multilevel well samplers may also be useful.
Sampling sites are located within the retention dikes associated with
process-area ponds and tankage areas, in the alluvium downgradient from the
waste-water holding pond (including near the confluence of' the process area
drainage with the White River), and within diked areas of tankage and materi-
als stockpiles.
Uinta and Green River Format ions--1nfiltration evaluations and indirect
sampling surveys would be useful for identifying pathways of potential pollu-
tant mobility in the Uinta Formation. Such pathways include fractures and
bedding planes. Sampling equipment (e.g., suction-cup lysimeters) may be
99
-------
installed at sites where the potential for mobility has been identified or
where changes in water content have been observed (such as from neutron
logging).
Monitoring needs in saturated zones of the Uinta Formation and the Green
River Formation above the Bird's Nest Aquifer would be defined after drilling
and testing programs to describe these elements of the hydrogeologic system.
In general, such zones would need to be monitored to detect modification of
the hydrogeologic system resulting from mine-induced subsidence or filling of
the White River reservoir.
Bird's Nest Aquifer—Despite the presence of an apparent confining bed
above this aquifer, sampling of water may be necessary to allow direct deter-
mination of groundwater pollution. At present there are two wells (G-ll and
G-22) located near the process area and another well (G-5) within 1/4 mile of
the waste-water holding pond. Additional monitoring wells may be added to
enhance the pollutant mobility monitoring in the process area. Possible
sites for such wells include upgradient of the process area and downgradient
of the waste-water holding pond. Additional characterization of the Bird's
Nest Aquifer could be obtained if these new monitor wells are of sufficient
size to permit aquifer testing. Well construction, aquifer testing, and
water-samp!ing methods are outlined in Section 2.
Douglas Creek Aquifer—Only one well (P-4) at present effectively taps
the Douglas Creek Aquifer. Additional wells would aid in characterizing this
aquifer and its interaction with the Bird's Nest Aquifer and in monitoring
the process area. Locations for these new wells would be comparable to those
for new process-area wells into the Bird's Nest Aquifer. Construction, test-
ing, and sampling procedures are presented in Section 2.
Sampling Frequency-
Sampling frequency requirements for monitoring in the process area can-
not be adequately defined at this time. Frequencies would be best determined
after the evaluation of the initial monitoring design steps (e.g., pollutant-
source characterization, hydrogeologic framework, and infiltration) is com-
pleted and after initiation of field monitoring of moisture content and
subsurface water movement. This initial assessment of potential rates of
mobility would allow definition of basic sampling frequencies for pollutant
mobility monitoring. These frequencies may designate the final sampling pro-
gram, or the program can be designed for variable frequency sampling, depend-
ing on the nature of the observed results. Options for sampling frequency
thus include:
• Sampling at all sites on a basic schedule
• Sampling certain sites (e.g., sites nearer the disposal pile) at
a frequency greater than at other sites
• Sampling only in response to indicated changes in water content
in the unsaturated zone
100
-------
• Sampling only runoff or seepage when visually detected (e.g., at
retention dikes.
Analytical Methods--
The alternative analytical methods outlined in Section 2 are also appli-
cable to this discussion of sampling pollutant mobility in the process area.
MONITORING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
Pollutant-Source Characterization
Details of Development Plans--
During construction of the process area, close liaison should be estab-
lished with the tract developers. This, in concert with onsite observation
of tract development activities, is needed to provide the information base
for monitoring program development. Specific items to be clarified include:
• Design of waste-water holding pond
-- Retention dike construction (materials, cutoff wall, etc.)
-- Pond excavation (i.e., depth-volume relationship)
-- Pond seal ant
• Clearing and construction of tankage area
• Clearing and construction of general plant area
• Runoff control in raw shale storage area
• Developer/operator plans for monitoring characteristics of prod-
uct and waste streams
• Design and operation of waste-water treatment plant.
To support monitoring evaluation of these tract development activities, blue-
prints or other design drawings should be obtained. Onsite observations
should be documented in writing and by photographs. All of these monitoring
design surveys and evaluations would take place in the early part of tract
development. Initial field observations should be relatively frequent (per-
haps weekly). As process area construction advances, this frequency may be
extended to monthly or quarterly until construction is completed.
Source Characterization—
Waste characterization needs may be satisfied by direct sampling of the
materials for chemical analyses. Recommended chemical analyses are presented
later in the discussion of pollutant mobility monitoring development. Waste
products to be characterized are (in decreasing order of priority):
101
-------
• Waste-water holding pond
• Raw shale (saturated extract)
• Tankage products (waste and petroleum products)
• Storm-water runoff
• Process waste streams, including runoff from plant pads
• Soils stockpiles (saturated extract)
• Waste-water treatment plant streatm (e.g., sedimentation pond)
• Water-supply storage basin.
The need for the DMA to sample and characterize product and waste streams may
be modified once tract developer process monitoring plans are identified.
The goal of these characterization analyses is to provide an indication
of the source of pollutants should subsurface mobility be detected by the
monitoring program. The data are needed to better implement environmental
control procedures should subsurface mobility occur.
Sampling frequencies will vary during the course of tract development
and operation. In addition, sampling frequency requirements are different
for different source materials. For example, initial sampling of the waste-
water holding pond and raw shale storage pile (saturated extract) is suggested
to be weekly for 6 months (or approximately 25 samples). The variability
between samples could then be evaluated and a frequency (e.g., quarterly)
defined. Quarterly sampling of product and waste streams (including the
waste-water treatment plant) may be appropriate initially and even less fre-
quently after the systems have been characterized. Sampling of storm water
runoff and plant pad washings are dependent on the frequency of these events.
Soils extracts need to be analyzed only during a single survey, and annual
sampling of the water supply storage basin is adequate.
Sampling of these sources will be by collection of grab samples. Field
measurements of pH, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen (in holding
ponds), and Eh. If appreciable vertical differences in these field measure-
ments are observed in the holding ponds, then surface- as well as bottom-water
samples should be collected. Otherwise surface sampling will be sufficient.
Water Use
The regional water-use surveys outlined in Section 2 are also appropri-
ate for monitoring of the process area.
Hydrogeologic Framework and Existing Water Quality
Monitoring program development deficiencies identified for these method-
ology steps are characterization of the process-area alluvium, knowledge of
102
-------
fracturing in the Uinta Formation, information on existence and characteris-
tics of saturated zones in the Uinta Formation and in the Green River Forma-
tion above the Bird's Nest Aquifer, and testing and sampling of the deep
aquifers in the Green River formation. These items are listed here generally
in descending order of priority for monitoring program development.
Characterization of Alluvium-
Recommended activities for monitoring program development are as follows:
• Geophysical surveys to define the boundary conditions of the
process-area alluvium (i.e., thickness, spatial extent, etc.)
• Drilling to identify any saturated zones
• Water quality sampling in the alluvium
• Aquifer testing of saturated zones
• Determination of groundwater flow patterns.
The extent of saturated zones identified in the watershed to be occupied
by the process area will dictate the number of wells that may be appropriate
to monitor the alluvium. An example array of alluvial monitoring wells may
include:
• Four wells downgradient from the effluent holding pond
• Four wells upgradient from the effluent holding pond (e.g., be-
tween the holding pond and the tankage area, retorting area, and
waste-water treatment plant).
Construction of monitor wells would be as described in Section 2.
Uinta and Green River Formations--
Fracturing in the Uinta Formation may create pathways for the mobility
of pollutants from the process area to the White River or to deep aquifers in
the project region. Identification of the density and character of this
fracturing is thus important for evaluating pollutant mobility and develop-
ment of the monitoring program.
As the materials in the alluvial channels and canyon slopes are cleared
for construction of the process area, visual surveys will be made of the .sur-
face of the Uinta Formation. Fracturing will be mapped and used for locating
monitor sites for following mobility in the process area.
Test drilling in the general process area and between the process area
and the White River should be undertaken to identify the presence of satur-
ated zones in the Uinta Formation and in the Green River Formation above the
Bird's Nest Aquifer. Should such zones be identified, sufficient monitor
103
-------
wells (at least three) should be constructed and aquifer tests conducted to
determine groundwater gradients and flow characteristics.
Testing of Deep Aquifers--
Testing recommendations for deep aquifers of the Green River Formation
are as follows (in descending order of priority):
• Evaluation of water quality sampling procedures at existing or
proposed wells to establish suitable methods and sampling
frequency
• Additional aquifer testing at existing wells
• Installation, aquifer testing, and water quality sampling of new
wells in the Bird's Nest Aquifer and Douglas Creek Aquifer.
Evaluation of water quality sampling procedures is discussed in
Section 2. Aquifer testing in existing wells is dependent on the size of
existing casings. Such testing is appropriate in order to better define
aquifer characteristics in the project region. Water quality sample collec-
tion procedures could also be evaluated as an assessment of baseline water
quality data and to evaluate sampling frequency requirements for monitoring.
New monitor wells are described in more detail in the later discussion
of pollutant mobility monitoring. Construction of these new wells would pro-
vide more information on the subsurface geology, water levels, aquifer char-
acteristics, and water quality of the Bird's Nest Aquifer and Douglas Creek
Aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the process area. The interrelationship
between these two aquifers could also be more clearly defined. For this
testing, one well in each aquifer, upgradient and downgradient of the process
area, is recommended.
Infiltration
Infiltration potential should be evaluated in the process area to exa-
mine the potential for seepage from holding ponds to be constructed and from
tankage areas, and infiltration in other areas disturbed by construction
(e.g., around plant facilities). Infiltration should be assessed in the
alluvium or soils and at the surface of the Uinta Formation. For these as-
sessments, it is recommended that double-ring infiltrometers be employed as
follows:
• Within the waste-water holding pond after excavation but before
filling
• In the raw shale storage area
• Within diked tankage areas after clearing and construction
• Adjacent to plant facilities (pads)
104
-------
• Within the basin to be used for the waste-water treatment plant
sedimentation pond
• Within the basin to be used for the water-supply holding basin.
In conjunction with these infiltration tests, monitoring of subsurface mo-
bility should also be pursued. This offers the opportunity to provide the
infiltration assessments, to provide estimates of subsurface hydraulic con-
ductivity, and to test various monitoring equipment (e.g., moisture blocks,
suction-cup lysimeters, and neutron probes).
Pollutant Mobility
Pollutant mobility monitoring needs in the process area include monitor-
ing of the alluvium in the process area, the Uinta Formation, and the Green
River Formation including deep aquifers. These portions of the hydrologic
system are listed here in generally decreasing order of priority for monitor-
ing pollutant mobility.
The general approach for pollutant mobility monitoring in the process
area is a sequence of sensing and response activities. There are significant
uncertainties with regard to water movement and hence solute mobility. Ini-
tial monitoring activities will address the potential for water movement
through the use of infiltration testing and subsurface moisture sensing (in
the alluvium and Uinta Formation) during these tests and during natural pre-
cipitation events. If this monitoring indicates mobility, then additional
direct sampling of water within the area alluvium, the Uinta Formation, and
perhaps the Green River Formation may be indicated depending on the nature
and extent of the indicated mobility. Finally, if appreciable pollutant mo-
bility is sensed in these zones, more extensive monitoring in the deep aqui-
fers may be required.
Alluvium--
Surface resistivity surveys are proposed as an indirect sampling approach
for tracing potential pollutant mobility in the process-area alluvium. The
alluvium is relatively thin and depth to water will thus be shallow, enhanc-
ing the utility of this approach. The alluvium should be surveyed downgradi-
ent of the waste-water holding basin and downgradient of the tankage and plant
facility areas. Surveys should be conducted prior to process-area construc-
tion (only once) and annually after the initiation of project operation.
To supplement the surface resistivity, tensiometer (or piezometer) ar-
rays (e.g., 3 tensiometers in a vertical sequence or 12 in a cubic array)
should be installed in the alluvium as follows (Figure 3-2):
• Four downgradient (alluvial channel gradient) of the waste-water
holding pond
• Four downgradient of the tankage area
• Four downgradient of the plant facilities.
105
-------
O
CT»
-B-D
SURFACE
RESISTIVITY
T X"
iviSV Q °-
/.SURFACE
/! RESISTIVITY
I
TANKAGE
•sk-P
O
HIGH
TDS TANK
" a
T = TENSIOMETERS
N= NEUTRON MOISTURE LOGGING
(IN FRACTURED AREAS)
B= BIRD'S NEST AQUIFER WELL
D= DOUGLAS CREEK AQUIFER WELL
NOTE: WELLS IN SATURATED ZONES OF THE
UINTA FORMATION OR GREEN RIVER
FORMATION ABOVE THE BIRD'S NEST
AQUIFER (IF REQUIRED) WOULD BE
LOCATED (1) BETWEEN THE RETORT
AND HOLDING POND, (2) DOWNGRADIENT
OF THE HOLDING POND, AND (3) NEAR
THE WHITE RIVER (OFF MAP).
i
PRIMARY CRUSHED SHALE
STOCKPILE STORAGE
\
200 0
IOOO rT
Figure 3-2. Pollutant mobility monitoring in the process area.
-------
These installations should be implemented after construction is completed in
each of various monitoring areas. The tensiometers could be monitored monthly
to detect the changes of water content in the alluvium.
Should surface resistivity surveys or moisture monitoring indicate sub-
surface mobility, the survey results will be used to locate monitor wells to
sample the quality and movement of potential pollutants in saturated sec-
tions. Unsaturated regions where mobility is indicated would be sampled
using suction-cup lysimeters. Construction methods for alluvial monitor
wells is presented in Section 2. At present there are no existing or pro-
posed monitor wells in the alluvium of the process area. Thus monitor wells
would have to be constructed. Sampling frequencies would be determined by
the indicated rate of pollutant mobility, the magnitude of the pollutant
mass, and the concentration detected.
Sample collection should include field measurement of pH, specific con-
ductance, and Eh. Water samples should be filtered and preserved at the time
of collection (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974; U.S. Geological
Survey, 1972). Laboratory analyses are presented in Table 2-10.
Appropriate sampling frequencies should be developed during the initial
sampling program. Initially, depth to water and field measurement of pH,
specific conductance, and Eh should be monitored on a monthly basis. More
detailed chemical analyses (Table 2-11) would be performed on a quarterly
basis, unless appreciable water quality changes are noted during monthly sam-
pling. Sampling frequency should be reevaluated after each sampling year, as
a minimum.
Uinta and Green River Formations--
Initial geologic surveys and infiltration studies should be used to
identify potential mobility pathways (e.g., fractures) in the Uinta Formation
beneath the process area. Monitoring of the Uinta Formation would follow
these potential pathways, Initially, access wells should be drilled through
fractured regions, and neutron logging will be employed to monitor changes in
water content and the possible formation of perched groundwater (Figure 3-2).
Should such perched groundwater be indicated, water samples would be
collected by emplacing piezometers or suction-cup lysimeters. Sample analy-
sis approaches are described in Section 2.
Test wells developed in the Uinta Formation or in the Green River Forma-
tion above the Bird's Nest Aquifer should be monitored to detect changes (in-
cluding water quality) in these elements of the hydrogeologic system. Such
sampling should be conducted quarterly during the initial monitoring period
to define seasonal patterns and relationships with White River discharge.
Evaluation of these data may allow modification of this sampling frequency.
Bird's Nest Aquifer—
Despite the apparent confining bed above this aquifer, sampling may be
appropriate to allow direct determination of groundwater quality effects of
107
-------
oil shale operations. Sampling would be indicated should monitoring of
sources, alluvium, and the Uinta Formation show the mobility of pollutants.
Sampling should be accomplished through the use of existing and new monitor
wells.
There are two wells (G-ll and 6-22) near the tankage and plant facili-
ties and another well (G-5) within 1/4 mile of the effluent holding pond.
Additional monitor wells may be required as follows (Figure 3-2):
• One additional well downgradient of the waste-water holding basin
• One additional well upgradient of the process area.
Well construction, testing, and sampling approaches outlined for the Bird's
Nest Aquifer in Section 2 are also applicable here.
Douglas Creek Aquifer--
Pollutant mobility monitoring in the other segments of the hydrogeologic
regime of the process area may indicate a need to monitor the Douglas Creek
Aquifer beneath the process area. At present, only one well (P-4) effectively
taps the Douglas Creek Aquifer. Additional monitor wells in the process area
may be located in the same areas described above for the Bird's Nest Aquifer
(Figure 3-2). Well construction, testing, and sampling approaches are pre-
sented in Section 2.
Summary of Monitoring Development Activities
Monitoring program development activities for the process area are sum-
marized in Table 3-4. The various proposed activities are also ranked rel-
ative to their priority for developing a technically effective monitoring
program. Cost of implementation and the results of initial monitoring in the
process area will determine the final design of the monitoring program.
Estimates of annual costs for the activities outlined in Table 3-4 are
summarized in Table 3-5. Details of these cost items are presented in Appen-
dix B.
The combination of the priority ranking of monitoring activities (based
on the ranking of potential pollution sources) and the costing data provide a
framework for developing an effective monitoring program given defined budge-
tary constraints. For each of the methodology steps, monitoring program ac-
tivities are listed in Table 3-4 in order of relative priority for monitoring
design and for monitoring groundwater quality impacts. With regard to trade-
offs between activities for different monitoring steps, the table should be
interpreted to mean that highest ranked items for one step have relatively
greater priority than lower ranked items for other steps. This does not mean
than low-ranked items (e.g., new Bird's Nest Aquifer wells) should not be
included in final monitoring plans or that existing monitoring (e.g., in deep
aquifers) is completely adequate.
108
-------
TABLE 3-4. SUMMARY OF MONITORING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE PROCESS
AREA AND PRIORITIES FOR ACCOMPLISHING THESE ACTIVITIES
Monitoring activity
Priority
Highest
Pollutant-source
characterization Water use
Surveys of development and
construction activities
Hydrogeology and
water quality
Alluvium:
— Geophysical
surveys
nt i a 1 i +• i/ c amn 1 i inn
Infiltration
Inf iltrometer tests:
-- Holding ponds
-- Tankage areas
-- Stockpile areas
Pollutant
mobi lity
Monitoring in the
alluvium
Waste chemical analyses
(waste-water holding
pond, raw shale)
— General
— Major inorganic
-- Trace metal
-- Organics
Uinta and Green River
Formations:
-- Fracturing survey
-- Identification and
characterization
of saturated zones
Bird's Nest Aquifer
-- Evaluate sampling
methods
Monitoring in the
Uinta Formation
Inter-
mediate
Waste chemical analyses Regional
(products, runoff, soils surveys
stockpiles):
f^nnpfa 1
— Major inorganic
-- Trace metal
— Organics
Alluvium:
-- Aquifer tests
— Determine flow
patterns
Inf iltrometer tests:
— Other portions
of process area
Monitoring in the
Green River Forma-
tion above the
Bird' s Nest Aquifer
Lowest Waste chemical analyses
(water storage basin,
treatment plant):
— All analysis
categories
All sources radiological
and bacteriological
analyses
Bird's Nest Aquifer
and Douglas Creek
Aquifer:
— Well testing and
sampling
Monitoring in the
Bird1s Nest Aquifer
and Douglas Creek
Aquifer
-------
TABLE 3-5. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR MONITORING PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
DESCRIBED IN TABLE 3-4 FOR PROCESS AREA
Assigned
monitoring
pr i or i ty
Highest
Intermediate
Lowest
Phase and
year of
development
Phase II:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase III:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase IV:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase II:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase III:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase IV:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase II:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase III:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase IV:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Cost estimate
Pollutant
source
characterization
20
3
20
3
7
1
7
2
7
2
2
2
5
3
5
3
l\
(annual costs in thousands of 1978
for each monitoring step
Water
use
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hydrogeology
and water
qual ity
56
0
2
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
243
0
0
0
0
0
dollars)
Pollutant
Infiltration mobility
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
24
28
24
24
24
2
<1
-------
SECTION 4
MONITORING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
SOUTHAM CANYON RETENTION DAMS
INTRODUCTION
The retention dams and associated basins proposed for Southam Canyon are
intended to retain and collect any runoff or leachate from processed oil shale
disposal in Southam Canyon. As such, the preliminary priority ranking infor-
mation for the retention dams is essentially that developed for the processed-
shale disposal area (Table 2-1; Slawson, 1979).
Separate retention dams will be constructed downstream of the Phase II
and Phase III and IV processed-shale disposal piles (see Figure 4-1). The
Phase II retention dam, constructed west of the processed-shale pile, will
provide storage for the 100-year storm, in a drainage area of 500 acres
(White River Shale Project, 1976). Impounded runoff will be used for dust
control or compaction. If the project enters a commercial phase, the dam
will be abandoned and covered by the advancing shale pile.
During the initial stages of Phase III, the Southam Canyon retention dam
will be constructed near the mouth of the canyon. The purpose of this dam is
to prevent runoff from the processed-shale pile entering the White River.
According to the DDP (White River Shale Project, 1976), the retention dam
will be an embankment-type structure, constructed with local materials, with
a cutoff wall and foundation treatment to control seepage. Collected water
will be used for dust control.
Downstream of the Southam Canyon retention dam, canyon alluvium merges
with the thicker White River alluvium. After construction of the proposed
White River dam, impounded water will back up into the alluvium but will not
extend up to the dam.
PROPOSED OR EXISTING MONITORING PLANS
The details of mentoring activities proposed by tract developers are
discussed in Section 2. Monitoring plans for the retention dams include sam-
pling of water level and water quality of ponded water. In addition, allu-
vial wells will be installed downstream for the retention dam as described
earlier (Table 2-2 and Figure 2-3). Proposed sampling for water quality will
be with a quarterly frequency, or more frequently if appreciable variability
is observed. The term "appreciable" has not been defined by tract developers
at this time.
Ill
-------
FUTURE LOCATION
COMMERCIAL OPERATION
CONVEYORS I
PROCESS
AREA
CONVEVOn
LOOP ROAD
I
V EAST RIDGE
(a) Phase II
PHASES III-IV
RETENTION DAM
(b) Phases III and IV
Figure 4-1. Southam Canyon retention-dam sites for (a) Phase II, and
(b) Phase III and IV operation (White River Shale Project,
1976).
112
-------
Monitoring plans in the retention-dam areas by the White River Shale
Project include obtaining groundwater from two alluvial wells and one well
within the Bird's Nest Aquifer. The alluvial wells are designated G-2A and
AG-6, and the deeper well is designated P-2. Well G-2A is located in NE1/4
Section 20, T10S, R24E, and is 41 feet deep. Well P-2 actually comprises two
wells located in NE1/4, S20, T10S, R24E, with the upper well terminating at
378 feet and the lower well terminating at 579 feet below land surface. A
surface-water gaging station, S-13, is located in SE/14, S17, T10S, R24E,
near the mouth of Southam Canyon. Surface-water samples will be obtained at
this gage by the White River Shale Project. The Detailed Development Plan
(White River Shale Project, 1976) stipulates that surface-water samples will
be collected from the retention dams quarterly when water is ponded beyond
the retention dams.
MONITORING DEFICIENCIES
Pollutant-Source Charcterization
Source Characteristics--
The question of source characerization is addressed in the Section 2
discussion of monitoring of the spent-shale disposal area. In addition to
these factors, characterization of waters ponded by the retention dams is
advantageous for monitoring design. The proposed White River Shale Project
plan includes sampling of most of the inorganic constituents suspected to be
of major importance (Table 2-1). However, the temporal variability of pond
water quality may not be adequately characterized with the proposed quarterly
sampling frequency.
Development Plans--
The design and construction of the retention dam and associated holding
pond must be known before final recommendations for monitoring can be made.
Details of concern include:
• Retention dam design
-- Foundation
-- Construction of cutoff wall
• Pond design
-- Depth-area-volume relationship
-- Sealants to be used.
Water Use
The need for information on project-area water use and its influence on
monitoring program development is described in Section 2.
113
-------
Hydrogeologic Framework and Existing Water Quality
Monitoring information needs for characterization of the hydrogeology
and water quality of Southam Canyon are described in Section 2. These previ-
ous discussions are also applicable to the retention-dams source area. In
summary, the information deficiencies are as follows:
• Characterization of alluvium
-- Thickness and subsurface extent of alluvium
— Moisture status (e.g., existence of saturated layers)
-- Spatial heterogeneity in physical properties (e.g., particle
size distribution, clay content) and chemical properties
(e.g., cation exchange capacity, pH, etc.)
-- Aquifer characteristics (e.g., transmissivity and storage
coefficient)
-- Depth to water and direction of groundwater movement
• Soil moisture characteristic curves for alluvium, soils, and
Uinta sandstones
• Fracturing in the Uinta Formation
• Occurrence of groundwater and groundwater flow in Uinta Forma-
tion and the Green River Formation above the Bird's Nest Aquifer
• Aquifer characteristics of Bird's Nest Aquifer and Douglas Creek
Aquifer.
Infiltration
Infiltration potential of retention basins and the alluvial material
downgradient of the retention dams should be evaluated. This would allow an
assessment of the potential for seepage of collected waters from the basin
and mobility in the alluvial system in the vicinity of the dams.
Some infiltration data have been collected in the vicinity of the
proposed site of the retention dam for Phase III and IV operation. These
baseline surveys indicated relatively low (less than 2 inches per hour) in-
filtration rates in general. The exact location of these infiltration plots
relative to the proposed retention dam and basin needs to be clarified. The
Phase II retention dam site has not been directly surveyed for infiltration
potential.
The Phase II retention dam will be located in an area with soils classi-
fied hydrologically as having low-to-very-low infiltration potential. A
small band of alluvial soils with moderate infiltration potential is also in
114
-------
the vicinity of the proposed dam. The Phase III and IV retention dam will be
constructed within alluvium of the main Southam Canyon drainage channel in
soils with moderate infiltration potential. '
Potential Mobility
The Section 2 discussions of pollutant mobility monitoring in Southam
Canyon are generally applicable to this discussion of the retention dams.
Additional monitoring deficiencies that are evident and are related to the
retention dams include:
• Monitoring of unsaturated flow (and saturated flow, if detected)
around the ponded area
• Monitoring of seepage through or under the dam
• Characterization of pollutant constituents that are mobile in
alluvium downstream from the retention dams or in the Uinta For-
mation beneath the ponded area.
Summary of Monitoring Deficiencies
Uncertainties exist in monitoring design information on source charac-
teristics, in details of disposal and other operational plans, in knowledge
of the hydrogeologic framework, and in sampling and projecting the mobility
of potential pollutants. Many tract-operation monitoring deficiencies result
from utilization of existing wells that were not drilled for this purpose.
Table 4-1 presents a summary and relative priority ranking of monitoring
deficiencies for each of these monitoring steps. The priority ranking shown
here is within each monitoring step as well as between steps. Monitoring
deficiencies for each of the methodology steps are listed in order of rela-
tive priority for monitoring program development. With regard to trade-offs
between methodology steps, the table should be interpreted to mean that high-
est ranked items for one methodology step have relatively greater priority
than lower ranked items for other steps.
ALTERNATIVE MONITORING APPROACHES
Alternative monitoring approaches, dealing with methodology steps that
address pollutant source characterization, water use, hydrogeologic framework,
water quality, infiltration, and pollutant mobility are outlined in Section 2.
These approaches are also applicable to evaluation and monitoring program
development for the Southam Canyon retention dams. In addition, previously
presented (Section 3) alternatives for evaluating source characteristics,
infiltration, and pollutant mobility at holding basins in the process area
are also applicable to monitoring the Southam Canyon retention dams.
115
-------
TABLE 4-1. RELATIVE PRIORITY RANKING OF MONITORING AND INFORMATION
DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED FOR THE RETENTION-DAMS SOURCE AREA
Monitoring methodology steps
Relative Hydrogeologic framework
priority Pollutant-source and existing
ranking characterization Water use water quality
Higl
Low
lest Retention dam Characterization of
design alluvium near retention
dam sites
Retention basin Presence and charac-
design teristics of saturated
zones in the Uinta
Formation and in the
Bird's Nest Aquifer
Regional Characterization of
water use fracturing in the
Uinta Formation
Characterization of
deep aquifers beneath
est the retention dams
Infiltration
Infiltration
within
retention
basins
Infiltration
downstream
from the
retention
dams
Infiltration
in Uinta
Formation
fractures
Pollutant
mobility
Mobility in
alluvial system
Mobility in the
Uinta Formation
and Green River
Formation above
deep aquifers
Mobility in deep
aquifers
MONITORING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
Pollutant-Source Characterization
Interaction with tract developers during the design and construction of
the retention dams will be needed to finalize characterization of these po-
tential pollution sources. Blueprints or other engineering drawings of the
retention dams and the associated holding basins should be obtained initi-
ally. In addition, onsite observation during excavation and construction
should be part of the characterization effort. Specific items to be clari-
fied include:
• Nature of materials used for retention dams
• Construction details of cutoff wall
• Dimensions of retention basins behind dams (i.e., depth-volume
relationship
• Sealants used in basins
• Depth of excavation for dams and retention basins.
116
-------
Field observations should be supported with photographs. The frequency of
field observations is dependent on the construction schedule for the reten-
tion dam.
Ponded runoff and leachate waters should be sampled by collection of
grab samples at the retention dm. Field measurements should be made of
water depth, pH, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and Eh. If
ponded water is sufficiently deep (e.g., greater than 3 feet), surface and
bottom measurement of these field-measured chemical constituents should be
made. If appreciable differences are observed, then both surface- and
bottom-water samples sould be collected. Otherwise, sampling at the water
surface is probably sufficient. The depth measurement can be used to esti-
mate the volume of ponded water. Water samples should be analyzed for chemi-
cal constituents listed in Table 2-10. Sampling frequency will be dictated
by the presence of water in retention-dam basins.
Water Use
Regional water-use surveys outlined in Section 2 are also applicable to
the monitoring program of the retention-dam source area.
Hydrogeologic Framework and Existing Water Quality
The studies of the hydrogeology of Southam Canyon outlined in Section 2
may also be used to characterize the retention-dams source area. In decreas-
ing order of importance, these monitoring activities involve characterization
of the alluvium, survey of the Uinta Formation and Upper Green River Forma-
tion, and testing and sampling of aquifers in the Green River Formation.
Monitoring activities are outlined as follows:
• Characterize alluvial system in the vicinity of the retention
dams by:
— Geophysical surveys
~ Drilling and sampling of water quality
— Aquifer testing of identified saturated zones
~ Determination of groundwater flow patterns
• Survey fracturing in the Uinta Formation in areas excavated to
bedrock; identify and characterize saturated zones in Uinta For-
mation and in Green River Formation above deep aquifers
• Test the Bird's Nest Aquifer and Douglas Creek Aquifer by
— Evaluating water quality sampling procedures
— Additional aquifer testing at existing wells, where feasible
117
-------
— Installing, aquifer testing, and water quality sampling new
wells.
Methods for conducting these studies are presented in Section 2.
Infiltration
Infiltration potential should be evaluated near the retention dams at
the surface of the alluvium and at the surface of the Uinta Formation.
Double-ring infiltrometers should be employed to evaluate infiltration within
the retention basin after excavation and downgradient of the retention dam in
the alluvium. In conjunction with these infiltration tests, monitoring of
subsurface mobility should be employed as presented in the following discus-
sions. This offers the opportunity to provide the infiltration assessments,
to provide estimates of subsurface hydraulic conductivity, and to test vari-
ous monitoring equipment (e.g., moisture blocks, suction-cup lysimeters, and
neutron probes).
Pollutant Mobility
Pollutant mobility monitoring in the retention-dams source area includes
(in generally decreasing order of priority) monitoring within retention dams,
in the alluvial system near the dams, in the Uinta Formation, and in the
Green River Formation. Because of their proximity, certain aspects of moni-
toring of the processed-shale disposal area (Section 2) are also included in
monitoring recommendations for the retention-dams source areas. Applicable
segments are presented below.
As previously discussed, the general approach for pollutant mobility
monitoring is a sequence of sensing and response activities. There are sig-
nificant uncertainties in this source area with regard to subsurface water
and solute mobility. Initial monitoring activities should address the poten-
tial for water movements through the use of infiltration testing and subsur-
face moisture sensing during these tests and during natural precipitation
events. If this monitoring indicates mobility, then additional direct sam-
pling of water within the area alluvium and the Uinta Formation may be indi-
cated depending on the nature and extent of the indicated mobility. Finally,
if appreciable pollutant mobility is sensed in the Uinta Formation, more ex-
tensive monitoring in deeper zones may be required.
Retention Dams-
Monitoring of the retention dams would allow a measure of water seepage
through or beneath the dams. At the time of dam construction, one to three
access wells should be installed within the retention dams immediately down-
stream of the cutoff wall. These access wells should be installed through
the dam and into the underlying Uinta Formation of perched zones if encoun-
tered (Figure 4-2). If water movement is indicated by moisture logging,
piezometers (for saturated conditions, or tensiometers for unsaturated condi-
tions) would be installed within the dam and downstream alluvium to measure
pressure gradients (Figure 4-2). Proper sealing of access wells would be
118
-------
ACCESS
WELLS
PIEZOMETERS OR
TENSIOMETERS
RETENTION 0AM
UINTA FORMATION
Figure 4-2. Monitoring of retention-dam sites.
critical to prevent leakage. Piezometers should contain screened well points
to facilitate water sampling.
Initial moisture logging within retention dams should be on at least a
monthly basis when water is (or has recently been) present in the retention
basins. As a minimum, logging should be done whenever samples are collected
from the pond. Monitoring of pressure gradients and water sampling would be
determined by the rate of water movement. Samples should be analyzed for the
chemical constitutents listed in Table 2-10.
This program is applicable to both the Phase II and Phases III and IV
retention dams.
Alluvium--
Phase II operation—The applicable indirect approach for tracing the
subsurface movement of high-salinity waters such as may be found in the re-
tention basins is the use of surface resistivity surveys. The alluvium down-
gradient of the Phase II retention dam will be surveyed once prior to tract
operation and annually thereafter. Shallow piezometers should be installed
to support this data base. These surveys will be used to supplement the
moisture-logging survyes proposed for the dam site.
Should surface resistivity surveys result in the positive indications of
subsurface moisture movement, the survey results would be used to locate mon-
itor wells to sample the quality and movement of the potential pollutants.
Sampling and analysis procedures are presented in the following paragraphs.
There are a number of existing monitor wells in the alluvium of Southam
Canyon (Figure 4-2). Wells G-4A and AG-7 are upstream from the proposed
spent-shale pile. Wells G-2A, G-1A, and AG-6 are downstream of the spent-
shale pile, and well AG-3 is along a tributary to the main drainage in
Southam Canyon. An additional array of up to 4 wells should be installed
119
-------
immediately downgradient from the Phase II retention dam if the movement of
potential pollutants is shown by resistivity and moisture monitoring. Allu-
vial well construction, testing, and sampling approaches are provided in Sec-
tion 2.
Phases III and IV operation—As described for Phase II operation, peri-
odic surface resistivity surveys would be appropriate for monitoring the
Phases III and IV retention-dam source areas. The results of these surveys,
in concert with moisture monitoring within and beneath the retention dam,
will be used to indicate the need for, and to orient the implementation of,
direct monitoring (sampling) of pollutant mobility. One surface resistivity
survey should be conducted before Phase III expansion of the processed-shale
disposal area and annually thereafter.
Existing monitor wells G-2A, G-1A, and AG-6 located downstream from the
retention dam may be utilized for direct sampling from the alluvium. Sam-
pling frequency will be dictated by the rate and magnitude of indicated sub-
surface mobility.
Uinta and Green River Formations--
As indicated above, moisture monitoring within the retention dams should
extend into the Uinta Formation to detect changes in water content (and thus
indicate pollutant mobility). During construction of the retention dams and
basins, an assessment of fracturing in the Uinta Formation should be performed
as previously described. These assessments should be supported by infiltra-
tion testing of cleared areas. In areas where the potential for mobility
exists, access wells should be installed and neutron logging used for moni-
toring changes in moisture content and the development of perched layers.
During access well drilling, it may be possible to predict where perched
zones occur. Should such changes be observed, water samples should be col-
lected for chemical analysis.
Evaluation of saturated zones in the Uinta Formation and in the Green
River Formation above the deep aquifers is discussed in Section 2.
Deep Aquifers—
Despite the presence of apparent confining layers above the Bird's Nest
and Douglas Creek aquifers, sampling of these aquifers may be appropriate to
allow direct determination of groundwater quality effects on oil shale opera-
tions. Such sampling would be accomplished through the use of new and exist-
ing monitor wells into these aquifers.
The Bird's Nest Aquifer and Douglas Creek Aquifer are not penetrated by
existing wells downgradient of the proposed retention-dam sites. Wells G-21,
G-15, G-7, and P-3 are in the Bird's Nest Aquifer, upgradient at distances
ranging from approximately 1 to 3 miles from the Phases III and IV retention
dam. G-21 is about 1 mile to the west of the Phase II dam site. Well P-2
taps a perching layer of either the lower Uinta Formation or upper Parachute
Creek Member of the Green River Formation. The Douglas Creek Aquifer is not
penetrated in this source area.
120
-------
Should appreciable mobility in the Uinta Formation be observed, monitor-
ing of these deep aquifers may be inidicated. New monitor wells would be
needed immediately downgradient from the retention dams. Construction, test-
ing, and sampling of wells in the Bird's Nest Aquifer and the Douglas Creek
Aquifer are presented in Section 2. Monitoring of the aquifer tapped by well
P-2 would also be indicated if significant subsurface pollutant mobility is
observed.
Summary of Monitoring Development Activities
Monitoring program development activities for the retention-dams source
area are summarized in Table 4-2. The various proposed activities are also
ranked relative to their priority for developing a technically effective mon-
itoring program. Cost of implementation and the results of initial monitor-
ing in this source area will determine the final design of the monitoring
program.
Estimates of annual costs for the activities outlined in Table 4-2 are
summaried in Table 4-3. Details of these cost items are presented in Appen-
dix B of this report.
The combination of the priority ranking of the monitoring activities
(based on the ranking of potential pollution sources) and costing data pro-
vides a framework for developing an effective monitoring program given de-
fined budgetary constraints, as described in Sections 2 and 3.
121
-------
TABLE 4-2. SUMMARY OF MONITORING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR RETENTION
DAM AREAS AND PRIORITIES FOR ACCOMPLISHING THESE ACTIVITIES
Monitoring methodology step
PO
rv>
Priority
Highest
Pollutant-source
characterization
Surveys of development
activities
Characterization of
retention basin
water:
— General
— Major inorganic
— Trace metals
-- Organics
Hydrogeology and
Water use water quality Infiltration
Alluvium: Inf iltrometer
-- Geophysical sur- tests
veys and test
holes
— Install, test and
sample new wells
— Determine flow
patterns
Uinta and Green River
Formations:
— Geologic mapping
~ (e.g., fractures)
— Identification and
characterization of
saturated zones
near the mouth of
Southam Canyon
Pollutant
mobility
Monitoring within
and beneath
retention dams
Bird's Nest Aquifer
— Evaluate sampling
methods
Monitoring in the
alluvium
1 Intermediate
Regional
surveys
Alluvium
— Water quality
sampling at
existing wells
Monitoring in the
Uinta Formation and
Green River Forma-
tion above deep
aquifers
Lowest Characterization
analyses:
— Radiological
— Bacteriological
— DOC fractionation
Deep aquifers
— Test existing wells
~ Install and test
new wells
Monitoring in
deep aquifers
-------
TABLE 4-3. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR MONITORING PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
DESCRIBED IN TABLE 4-2 FOR THE RETENTION-DAMS SOURCE AREA
Assigned
monitoring
priority
Highest
Intermediate
Lowest
Phase and
year of
development
Phase II:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase III:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase IV:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase II:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase III:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase IV:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase II:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase III:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Phase IV:
Initial year:
Thereafter:
Cost estimate
Pollutant
source
characterization
8
1
8
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
(annual costs in thousands of 1978
for each monitoring step
Water
Use
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hydrogeology
and water
quality
83
0
21
0
0
0
8
6
3
3
0
0
370
0
219
0
0
0
Infiltration
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
dollars')
Pollutant
mobility
17
9
17
9
9
9
6
1
5
1
1
1
6
3
8
5
5
5
123
-------
REFERENCES
Apyar, M.A., and D. Langmuir, "Ground-Water Pollution Potential of a Landfill
Above the Water Table," Ground Water. Proceedings of NWWA-EPA National
Ground Water Quality Symposium, Vol. 1, pp. 76-94, November-December 1971.
American Public Health Association, Standard Method for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, 14th Ed., 1976.
Baker, R.A., Research by the U.S. Geological Survey on Organic Materials in
Water. Geological Survey Circular 744, Government Printing Office, 1976.
Bouwer, H., and R.D. Jackson, "Determining Soil Properties," Drainage for
Agriculture (J. van Schilfgaarde, ed.), No. 17, Agronomy Series, American
Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, 1974.
Brown, E., M.W. Skougstad, and M.J. Fishman, "Methods for Collection and
Analysis of Water Samples for Dissolved Minerals and Gases," Chapter Al,
Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the United States
Geological Survey. Book 5, Laboratory Analysis, 1970.
Day, P.R., "Particle Fractionation and Particle Size Analysis," Methods of
Soil Analyses (C.A. Black, ed.), Agronomy No. 9, American Society of
Agronomy, 1965.
Everett, L.G., K.D. Schmidt, R.M. Tinlin, and D.K. Todd, Monitoring Ground-
water Quality: Methods and Costs, EPA-600/4-76-023, 1976.
Fenn, D.C., K.J. Hanely, and T.V. DeGeare, Use of the Water Balance Method for
Predicting Leachate Generation from Solid Waste Disposal Sites. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/530/SW-168, 1975.
Fox, J.P., D.S. Farrier, and R.E. Poulson, "Chemical Characterization and
Analytical Considerations for an In-Situ Oil Shale Process Water,"
unpublished manuscript, 1978.
Hammer, M.J., Water and Waste-Water Technology, J. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, 1977.
Herbes, S.E., G.R. Southworth, and C.W. Gehns, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Presentation at the 10th Annual Conference on Trace Substances in
Environmental Health. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, June
7-10, 1976.
Lee, H., T.O. Peyton, R.V. Steele, and R.K. White, Potential Radioactive Pol-
lutants Resulting from Expanded Energy Programs. EPA-600/7-77-082, August
1977.
124
-------
Loogna, G.O., The Carcinogenic Properties of Oil Shale Products and the Possi-
bilities of Prophylaxis of Cancer, translated from Russian, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA TR76-54, 1972.
Nielsen, D.R., J.L. Starr, C. Kirda, and C. Misra, "Soil-Water and Solute
Movement Studies," Isotype and Radiation Techniques in Soil Physics and
Irrigation Studies. 1973, International Atomic Energy Agency, 1974.
Phillips, P.M., Pollution Source Separation, project report to General
Electric-TEMPO by Water Resources Research Center, University of
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 1977.
Slawson, G.C. (ed.), Groundwater Quality Monitoring of Western Oil Shale De-
velopment: Identification and Priority Ranking of Potential Pollution
Sources, EPA-600/7-79-023, 1979.
Slawson, G.C., and T.F. Yen (eds.), Compendium Reports on Oil Shale Technol-
ogy. EPA-600/7-79-039, 1979.
Smith, D.B., "Nuclear Methods," In: Facets of Hydrology (J.C. Rodda, ed.),
Wiley Interscience Publication, John Wiley and Son, 1976.
Stuber, H.A., and J.A. Leenheer, "Fractionation of Organic Solutes in Oil
Shale Retort Waters for Sorption Studies on Processed Shale," U.S.
Geological Survey, paper presented at the ACS Fuel Sciences Division
Symposium, 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Handbook for Analytical Quality Control
in Water and Wastewater Laboratories, EPA Technology Transfer, June 1972.
U.S. Geological Survey, "Recommended Methods for Water Data Acquisition," Pre-
liminary Report of the Federal Interagency Work Group on Designation of
Standards for Water Data Acquisition, 1970.
Varma, M.M., S.G. Serdahely, and H.M. Katz, "Physiological Effects of Trace
Elements and Chemicals in Water," Journal of Environmental Health, Vol.
39, No. 2, 1976.
Ward, J.C., G.A. Margheim, and G.O.G. Lof, Water Pollution Potential of Spent
Oil Shale Residues, Colorado State University, EPA Water Pollution
Control Research Series 14030 EDB 12/71, 1971.
Ward, J.C., G.A. Margheim, and G.O.G. Lof, Water Pollution Potential of Snow-
fall on Spent Oil Shale Residues, Colorado State University, Ft.
Collins, Colorado Bureau of Mines Open File Report No. 20-72 (NTIS
PB-210 930), 1972.
White River Shale Project, Detailed Development Plan for Federal Oil Shale
Leases U-a and U-b, 1976.
125
-------
APPENDIX A
ENGLISH/METRIC CONVERSIONS
1 cubic yard
1 barrel
1 ton (2,000 pounds)
1 acre
1 square mile
1 liquid quart
1 gallon
1 foot
1 inch
= 0.765 cubic meter
= 0.160 cubic meter
= 0.909 tonne (metric ton)
= 0.405 hectare (10,000 square meters)
= 2.590 square kilometers
= 0.946 liter
= 3.846 liters
= 0.305 meter
= 2.54 centimeters
126
-------
APPENDIX B
MONITORING COST DATA
COSTING DATA FOR SECTIONS 2, 3, AND 4
The bases of cost estimates for monitoring activities outlined in Sec-
tions 2, 3, and 4 are provided in Tables B-l, B-2, and B-3, respectively,
located at the end of this appendix. In addition, the cost data for chemical
analysis and for well drilling and installation are provided below.
Cost estimates for chemical analysis were taken from tables provided in
Everett et al. (1976). These analytical costs assume the use of analytical
methods commonly utilized by commercial laboratories (e.g., pH meter for pH,
atomic absorption for metals, etc.). The need to use more sophisticated meth-
ods, such as spark source mass spectrometry or neutron activation analysis,
can greatly increase costs of analysis. From recent experience with analyti-
cal laboratories, these costs were felt to be generally representative of cur-
rent costs of analysis:
Category
General parameters:
Major inorganics:
Trace elements:
Constituent
pH
EC
Eh
TDS
Sodium
C al ci urn
Magnesium
Potassium
Sulfate
Chloride
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Fluoride
Sulfides
Ammoni a
Arsenic
Selenium
Molybdenum
Zinc
Cadmium
Estimated cost
($ per sample)
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
20
5
5
10
15
10
10
10
127
-------
Estimated cost
Category Constituent ($ per sample)
Trace elements: Mercury 10
(continued) Boron 10
Nickel 10
Organics: DOC 15
DOC fractionation 130
Radiological: Gross alpha and beta 25
Ra-226 30
Uranium 18
Thorium 25
Bacteriological: Total plate count 7
Total col iform 10
Fecal col if orm 10
The following assumptions were made for developing cost estimates for
drilling and well installation:
• Depth of wells
— Uinta Formation and Green River Formation above Bird's Nest
Aquifer: 400 feet
— Bird's Nest Aquifer: 600 feet
-- Douglas Creek Aquifer: 1,400 feet
-- Southam Canyon alluvium: 35 feet
— Process area alluvium: 20 feet
• Drilling costs for deep wells (from Everett et al., 1976)
— Base costs for 8-inch well = $14 per foot, and for 6-inch
wells = $12 per foot (this latter cost used for test hole
cost estimates)
-- These base costs are for EPA Regions III and IV, October 1974
— Base costs updated for region and time using the following
Engineering News Record (ENR) materials cost indices:
October 1974 ENR index: $ 850.00
August 1978 ENR index: 1,284.00
Region III (Philadelphia) index: 200.34
Region IV (Atlanta) index: 172.97
128
-------
Study area (Denver) index: $ 163.37
Average index for Regions III and IV: 186.66
-- Updated drilling costs:
6-inch well: $12 per foot (1,248/850)(186.66/163.37) or
$20.13 per foot
8-inch well: $14 per foot (1,248/850)(186.66/163.37) or
$23.52 per foot
• PVC casing costs (from Everett et al., 1976)
— Base costs (Region IX, October 1974):
8-inch, $5.60 per foot
6-inch, $3.30 per foot
~ Updated cost, using regional indices for San Francisco (Re-
gion IX) and Denver (study area) of $178.41 and $163.37,
respectively:
8-inch, $8.98 per foot
6-inch, $5.29 per foot
• Well logging (from Everett et al., 1976) with costs updated to
present time as above
-- Bird's Nest Aquifer: $1,175 per hole
— Douglas Creek Aquifer: 1,542 per hole
• Gravel packing and well sealing
-- Assumed $9 per yard for gravel, $50 per yard for cement
sealing
— 12-inch hole for 6-inch well, and 14-inch hole for 8-inch well
« Hole void space to be filled is 0.07 cubic yard per foot for
8-inch well
-- Gravel packing (assume 200 feet per well): $126 per well and
$162 per well for 6- and 8-inch wells, respectively (for deep
wells)
129
-------
— Well sealing:
Bird's Nest Aquifer: $1,400 per well and $1,800 per well
for 6- and 8-inch wells, respectively
Douglas Creek Aquifer: $4,200 per well and $5,400 per well
for 6- and 8-inch wells, respectively
• Well development: assumed 4 hours per well at $85 per hour (for
deep wells)
• For alluvial wells, assumed the following for processed-shale
disposal area:
— Drilling costs of $9 per foot and $11 per foot for 6- and 8-
inch wells, respectively (the $9 per foot cost was used for
alluvial test holes)
-- 15 feet of gravel pack and 20 feet of seal for each well,
costed as above
-- Development time of 3 hours per well at $85 per hour
-- Alluvial wells in process area (20-foot well depth) are 57
percent of processed-shale disposal area wells.
COST DATA FOR TABLE 1-4
The data used for Table 1-4 costs of monitoring activities listed in
Table 1-3 were taken from the cost data (Tables B-l, B-2, and B-3), as sum-
marized below.
Pollutant Source Characterization
1. Highest (within sources), Highest (between sources) Priority: From
sum of activity cost data in Tables B-l, B-2, and B-3.
2. Highest (within sources), Intermediate (between sources) Priority:
For processed-shale disposal area, costing at this priority level is for 4 of
the 9 sources costed in Table B-l. Hence 44 percent of Table B-l level used
here and 56 percent used for Highest (within sources), Lowest (between
sources) priority level:
Phase:* l-II r-II l-III r-III 1-IV r-IV
High, Intermediate $22,434 $3,451 $22,434 $3,451 $ 863 $ 863
High, Lowest 28,552 4,393 28,552 4,393 1,098 1,098
*Development phases: l-II is initial year of Phase II; r-II is remaining
years of Phase II, etc.
130
-------
For the process area, two sources are included in the total costing of Table
B-2, Fifty percent (one source) is in this priority category and 50 percent
is in the Highest (within sources), and Lowest (between sources) priority
level:
Phase:* 1-II r-II l-III r-III 1-IV r-IV
50-percent costing $6,994 $1,076 $6,994 $1,076 $ 269 $ 269
For retention basins, costing is from Table B-3:
Phase:* l-II r-II l-III r-III 1-IV r-IV
Costing $4,188 $1,396 $4,188 $1,396 $1,396 $1,396
3. Highest (within), Lowest (between) Priority:
Costing outlined above under items 1 and 2 for waste-chemical
characterization.
4. Intermediate (within), Highest (between) Priority:
Product and runoff sampling in process area from Table B-2:
Phase:* l-II r-II l-III r-III 1-IV r-IV
Costing $6,877 $1,672 $6,877 $1,672 $1,672 $1,672
5. Lowest, Intermediate Priority; DOC characterization as follows:
Phase:* l-ll r-II 1-III r-III 1-IV r-IV
Table B-l $4,680 $4,680 $4,680 $4,680 $4,680 $4,680
Table B-2 864 864 864 864 0 0
Table B-3 288 288 288 288 288 288
$5,832 $5,832 $5,832 $5,832 $4,968 $4,968
6. Lowest, Lowest Priority; radiological and bacteriological analysis as
follows:
Phase;* l-II r-II l-III r-III 1-IV r-IV
Table B-l $3,232 $3,232 $3,232 $3,232 $3,232 $3,232
Table B-2 1,560 1,560 1,560 1,560 0 0
Table B-3 520 520 520 520 520 520
$5,312 $5,312 $5,312 $5,312 $3,752 $3,752
*Development phases: l-II is initial year of Phase II; r-II is remaining
years of Phase II, etc.
131
-------
Water Use
Assume one survey adequate for the entire tract monitoring program with
Intermediate, Lowest Priority.
Hydrogeologic Framework and Water Quality
1. Highest, Highest Priority: Geophysical surveys and test drilling
programs in alluvial areas. Assume surveys of Southam Canyon cover needs for
both disposal pile and retention-dams source area. Thus geophysical survey
costs are $3,400 each for Southam Canyon and process areas, all in initial
year Phase II. Test drilling costs (15 holes) listed in Table B-l are as-
sumed sufficient for entire project area.
2. Highest, Intermediate Priority: Installation, testing, and sampling
of new wells:
Phase:* l-II r-II l-III r-III 1-IV r-IV
Table B-l $22,555 $ 0 $19,786 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Table B-2 13.684 0 0 0 0 0
$36,239 $ 0 $19,786 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Table B-l data include retention-dam source area.
3. Highest, Lowest Priority: Identification and characterization of
saturated zones above the Bird's Nest Aquifer near the mouth of Southam Can-
yon and between process area and White River:
Phase:* l-II r-II l-III r-III 1-IV r-IV
Table
Table
B-l
B-2
$41,728 $
33,264
0
0
$
0
0
$
0
0
$
0
0
$
0
0
Fracture surveys of Uinta Formation: assumed retention-dam area costs are in-
cluded in survey costs for processed-shale disposal area. Data for processed-
shale disposal area and process area (from Tables B-l and B-2): $1,600 each
area, each phase initial year.
Evaluation of sampling procedures: from Tables B-l and B-2; costs
are $5,370 and $3,035, respectively, in initial year Phase II.
4. Intermediate, Highest Priority: Sampling of existing alluvial valley
wells (processed-shale disposal area only):
Phase:* l-II r-II l-III r-III 1-IV r-IV
Table B-l $ 7,776 $5,736 $ 3,469 $3,468 $ 0 $ 0
*Development phases: l-II is initial year of Phase II; r-II is remaining
years of Phase II, etc.
132
-------
5. Lowest, Intermediate Priority:
Test existing Bird's Nest Aquifer wells (processed-shale disposal and
process areas):
Phase;* 1-II r-II l-III r-III 1-IV r-IV
Table B-l $ 45,000 $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0
Table B-2 30,000 $ 0 0000
Install and test new wells (processed-shale disposal area):
Phase:* 1-H r-II l-III r-III 1-IV r-IV
Table B-l $112,540 $ 0 $112,540 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
6. Lowest, Lowest Priority:
New Bird's Nest Aquifer wells in process area: from Table B-2,
$75,945 during initial year Phase II.
New Douglas Creek Aquifer wells and testing:
Phase:* l-II r-II l-III r-III 1-IV r-IV
Table B-l $212,280 $ 0 $106,140 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Table B-2 137,088 0 0000
Infiltration
1. Highest (within sources) Priorities:
Sensor evaluations from Table B-l, $15,862 in initial year of
Phase II.
Infiltration in the processed-shale disposal area (Table B-l) is
segmented as follows:
• Disposal pile: 85 percent of total
• Southam Canyon alluvium: 5 percent of total
t Uinta Formation: 10 percent of total
Infiltration in the process area (Table B-2) is segmented as follows:
• Tankage and stockpile area: 70 percent of total
• Uinta Formation: 30 percent of total
*Development phases: l-II is initial year in Phase II; r-II is remaining
years of Phase II, etc.
133
-------
Infiltration in retention-dam areas (Table B-3) is segmented as follows:
• Dam and basin areas: 70 percent of total
• Southam Canyon alluvium: 20 percent of total
• Uinta Formation: 10 percent of total
2. Intermediate (within sources) Priorities: Costs for intermediate and
lowest (between sources) priorities; split 50-50 from cost in Table B-2 (other
process area regions).
Pollutant Mobility
Costing data for pollutant mobility monitoring activities were summed
directly from the appropriate segments of Tables B-l, B-2, and B-3, and need
not be repeated here. For monitoring of Bird's Nest and Douglas Creek Aqui-
fers, the retention-dams area was considered to be a subset (and thus not an
additional cost) of activities for the processed-shale disposal area.
134
-------
TABLE B-l. MONITORING PROGRAM COSTING DATA—PROCESSED-SHALE PILE SOURCE AREA
Cost schedule (per year)
Monitoring
design step General activity Cost items
Pollutant-source Inspection Labor
characterization of disposal
procedures
Travel (car)
Miscellaneous
(per diem, film,
postage, etc.)
Waste chemical General parameters
analyses analysis
Major inorganics
analysis
Trace metals
analysis
Organics analysis
Sample collection
(labor)
Other equipment
rental (truck,
pump, etc.)
Waste chemical DOC fractionation
analyses
Radiological pa-
rameters analysis
Bacteriological
parameters
analysis
1st year Remainder
Cost data Phase II Phase II
1 day x $160 /day - beginning $ 4,160 $ 640
each phase, survey weekly for
6 months, quarterly there-
after (26 days initial years,
4 days remainder years)
Assume $25/survey 650 100
Assume ISO/survey 1,300 200
$14/sample 3,276 504
$75/samp1e 17,550 2,700
$85/sample 19,890 3,060
$15/sample - Phases II and 3,510 540
III: beginning of each phase,
collect weekly sample of 9
sources for J*24 weeks,
quarterly thereafter during
that phase, annually for
Phase IV
1 day/survey at $160 4,160 640
Assume $100/day 2,600 400
$130/sample, quarterly 4,680 4,680
$55/sample, quarterly 1,980 1,980
$17/saraple, quarterly 612 612
1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder
Phase III Phase III Phase IV Phase IV
$ 4,160 $ 640 $ 4,160 $ 640
650 100 650 100
1,300 200 1,300 200
3,276 504 126 126
17,550 2,700 675 675
19,890 3,060 765 765
3,510 540 135 135
4,160 640 160 160
2,600 400 100 100
4,680 4,680 1,170 1,170
1,980 1,980 495 495
612 612 153 153
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Cost schedule (per year)
Monitoring
design step
Pollutant-source
characterization
(continued)
Water use
Hydrogeologic
framework and
existing water
quality
t— «
co
en
General activity
Waste chemical
analyses
(continued)
Review available
documents on
area development
and water use
Alluvium
characterization:
Geophysical
surveys
Test drilling
Install new wells
Cost items
Sample collection
Labor
Survey team
15 test holes
Phase II: 9 wells
total; 6 with 6-
inch diameter
casing, 3 with 8-
inch diameter
casing
1st year Remainder 1st year
Cost data Phase II Phase II Phase III
Assume quarterly samples from $ 640 $ 640 $ 640
9 sources for Phases II and
III, annually for Phase IV
1 day/survey at $160
1 week/year x $160/day 800 800 800
Assume 1 week at $85/hour 3,400 0 0
Hole drilling plus 1 week 8,125 0 0
at $85/hour
6- inch wells at $837 and 8- 8,181 0 7,128
inch wells at $1,053
Remainder 1st year Remainder
Phase III Phase IV Phase IV
$ 640 $ 640 $ 640
800 800 800
000
000
000
Test new wells
Sample new wells
(partially
associated with
pollutant mobil-
ity monitoring)
Phases III and IV:
8 wells total; 6
with 6-inch diame-
ter casing, 2 with
8-inch diameter
casing
Phase II: 3 tests
Phases III and IV:
2 tests
Quarterly analysis
(listed under
pollutant-source
characterization)
Phase II, each test: 24 2,880
hours x $40/hour
Phases III and IV, each test:
24 hours x $40/hour
$189/sample. Phase II: 6,804
9 wells each quarter
Phases III and IV: 8 wells
each quarter
1,920
6,804
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Monitoring
design step
Hydrogeologic
framework and
existing water
quality
(continued)
General activity
Alluvium
characterization:
(continued)
Sample new wells
(continued)
Cost items
Other equipment
rental (truck,
Cost schedule (per year)
1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder 1st year
Cost data Phase II Phase II Phase III Phase III Phase IV
Assumed $110/day at 2 days/ $ 880 $ 0 $ 880 $ 0 $ 0
quarter
Remainder
Phase IV
$ 0
submersible pump,
generator, field
instruments) for
sampling
Labor (for
sampling)
4 man days/quarter at
$160/day
2,560
2,560
Uinta Formation
and Green River
Formation
characterization:
Geologic mapping
Field surveys of
areas cleared down
to Uinta Formation
surface
Assume 2 man weeks during
initial year of each phase
at $160/day
1,600
1,600
to sample; com-
pare pumped to
bailed samples)
Sample analysis (general pa- 2,670
rameters and major inorganic
constituents) at $89/sample;
assume 30 samples total
Field instrument rental and 100
supplies at $10/day
1,600
Identify and
characterize
saturated zones
near mouth of
Southam Canyon
Bird's Nest
Aquifer
characterization:
Test drilling
Well installation
8- inch - 1
6-inch - 1
Testing
Evaluate sampling
methods (possi-
bility of pumping
3 test holes
-drilling
-logging
$7,343
4,204
5 days at
$500/day
Assume 2 man weeks during
24
3
11
2
1
initial operational year at
$160/day
,156
,525
,547
,500
,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Monitoring
design step General activity
Hydrogeologic Bird's Nest
framework and Aquifer
existing water characterization:
quality (continued)
(continued)
Alluvium
characterization:
Sample alluvial
water quality at
existing wells
(6 wells)
i— •
co
00
Determine flow
patterns
Bird's Nest
Aquifer:
Test existing
wells
Cost items
Other equipment
rental (truck,
submersible pump,
generator)
Monthly field
(pH, EC, 00)
surveys
Quarterly analy-
ses (listed under
pollutant- source
characterization)
Other equipment
rental (truck,
submersible pump,
generator)
Labor (office)
Assume 3 tests of
30-day duration
Cost data
Assumed to be $100/day
1 day/month at $160/day plus
$10/day equipment rental and
expendable supplies
Phase II: $189/sample x 6
wells x 4 quarters.
3 wells during Phase III
Assumed to be $100/day
1 man week at $250/day
30 days at $500/day x 3 days
Cost schedule (per year)
1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder
Phase II Phase II Phase III Phase III Phase IV Phase IV
$ 1,000 $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0
2,040 00000
4,536 4,536 2,268 2,268 0 0
1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 0 0
1,200 0 1,250 000
45,000 00000
Install new wells
Test new wells
Assume 4 wells (2
with 6-inch diam-
eter casing, 2
with 8-inch diam-
eter casing) at
initiation of
both Phase II
and Phase III
Assume 2 tests
each for Phase II
and Phase III (8-
inch wells tested)
6-inch wells at $18,293
8-inch wells at $22,977
82,540
30 days average at $500/
day x 2 tests
30,000
0 30,000
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Monitoring
design step General activity Cost items
Hydro geologic Douglas Creek
framework and Aquifer
existing water characterization:
quality
(continued) Install new wells Phase II: 4 new
wells (2 with 6-
inch and 2 with
8- inch diameter
casing)
Phases III and IV:
2 new wells (1
with 6-inch and 1
with 8-inch diam-
eter casing)
,_, Test new wells Test 8-inch wells
CO
10 Infiltration Inf iltrometer Labor: assume 10
tests tests during each
of 4 aspects of
pile development
for Phase II, and
a similar series
for start of Phase
III. Assume 0.5
man days/test
Sensor Access holes for
evaluations neutron logging
Neutron logger
Tensiometers
Suction cup
lysimeters
Moisture blocks
Soil moisture
meter
Cost data
6- inch wells at $37,596
8-inch wells at $47,544
30 days at $400/day average
Phase II: 40 tests at 0.5/
day at $160/day
Phase III: same
10 sites x 1 access hole at
20-foot depth; augering $45/
hour x 0.5/hour hole; casing
$5/foot
Well Reconnaissance, Inc.
$70. 50/site (3/site)
$29.50/each (3/site)
$3.80/site (3/site)
$149
Cost schedule (per year)
1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder
Phase II Phase II Phase III Phase III Phase IV Phase IV
$170,280 $ 0 $ 85,140 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
42,000 0 21,000 000
3,200 0 3,200 000
1,225 00000
10,835 00000
705 0 0 0 00
885 0 0 0 00
38 0 0 0 00
149 0 0 0-0 0
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Monitoring
design step
Infiltration
(continued)
Pollutant
mobi 1 i ty
General activity Cost items
Sensor Salinity sensors
evaluations
(continued) Salinity bridge
Monitoring in the Maintain infiltra-
processed-shale tion test plots
pile
-Monitor water
content (neutron
logging, tensiom-
eters, moisture
blocks)
-Monitor pollutant
mobility
Monitor beneath
revegetation
trenches - as-
sume 5 sites,
Phase II; 10
sites, Phase III;
10 sites, Phase
IV; established
probably after
1st year
-Installations:
Access holes
Tensiometers
Suction cup
lysimeter sets
Moisture block
sets
Salinity sensor
sets
-Monitoring sur-
veys, quarterly
Cost data
$41/each (3/site)
$795
Assume 10 Phase II and 10
Phase III are permanent:
sample monthly 1st year,
quarterly thereafter
Assume 2 man days/survey at
at $160/day
Phase II:
Phase III:
$200/each
$70. 50/ each/ site
$88.50/each/site
$3.80/each/site
$123/each/site
Phase II - 5 sites
Phase III - 15 sites
Cost schedule (per year)
1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder
Phase II Phase II Phase III Phase III Phase IV Phase IV
$ 1,230 $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0
795 0 0 0 00
3,840 1,280 1,280 1,280 1,280 1,280
0 0 3,480 1,280 1,280 1,280
1,000 0 2,000 0 2,000 0
353 0 705 0 705 0
443 0 885 0 885 0
19 0 38 0 38 0
615 0 1,230 0 1,230 0
160 160 480 480 800 800
Phase IV - 25 sites
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Monitoring
design step
Pollutant
mobility
(continued)
General activity
Monitoring in the
processed-shale
pile (continued)
Monitoring in the
alluvium
Monitoring in the
Uinta Formation
and Green River
Formation above
Bird's Nest
Aquifer
Cost items
-Monitoring sur-
veys, quarterly
(continued)
Sample analysis
Surface resistiv-
ity surveys
Monitor wells
Phase II: 6 ex-
isting wells, 9
new wells
Phases III and IV:
3 existing wells;
8 new wells
(Installation
considered under
Hydrogeologic
Framework)
Locate and install
access holes
according to frac-
ture survey
results
Cost data
5 sites/day at $160/day
(labor)
Assume 10 samples/quarter,
Phase II; 20 for Phase III;
20 for Phase IV
$189/sample
Annual surveys: assume 8
hours at $80/hour plus 2 man
days travel at $160/day
Quarterly, $189/sample (ini-
tial year considered above
under Hydrogeologic
Framework )
Annual survey, Phase IV,
assumed
Assume $l,000/hole, 4 access
holes for Phase II, 8 for
Phases III and IV
Cost schedule (per year)
1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder
Phase II Phase II Phase III Phase III Phase IV Phase IV
$ 7,560 $ 7,560 $ 15,120 $ 15,120 $ 15,120 $ 15,120
640 640 640 640 640 640
320 320 320 320 320 320
0 11,340 0 8,316 2,079 2,079
4,000 0 4,000 0 4,000 0
Neutron logging
Sample 2 wells
Assume quarterly surveys, 1
day for each set of 4 access
holes at $160/day
Quarterly surveys initial
year, annual thereafter
S189/sample
1,512
160 160
378 378
320
378
320 480
378 378
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
ro
Cost schedule (per year)
Monitoring
design step
Pollutant
mobility
(continued)
General activity
Monitoring in the
Bird's Nest
Aquifer
Cost items
Phase II: sample
2 existing and 4
new wells (see
Cost data
Phase II: quarterly surveys
for initial year (new wells),
annually thereafter
1st year
Phase II
$ 3,402
Remainder
Phase II
$ 1,134
1st year
Phase III
$
0
Remainder
Phase III
$ 0
1st year
Phase IV
$
0
Remainder
Phase IV
$ 0
Monitoring in the
Douglas Creek
Aquifer
Hydrogeologic
Framework for well
installation)
Phases III and IV:
sample Phase II
wells (6), 3 ex-
isting wells, and
4 new wells (see
Hydrogeologic
Framework for well
installation)
Miscellaneous
equipment rental
Phase II: sample 4
new wells (see
Hydrogeologic
Framework for well
installation)
Phases III and IV:
sample Phase II
plus 2 new wells
Miscellaneous
equipment rental
$189/sample
Phases III and IV: quarterly
surveys for initial year (new
wells), annually thereafter
$189/s ample
$100/day, 2 wells/day
Annual surveys, $189/sample
$100/day, 1 well/day
900
756
400
400
4,725
600
2,457
600
2,457
600
2,457
300 1,250 650 650 650
756 1,134 1,134 1,134 1,134
600
-------
TABLE B-2. MONITORING PROGRAM COSTING DATA—PROCESS AREA
CO
Monitoring
design step
Pollutant- source
characterization
General activity
Surveys of
development and
construction
activities
Waste chemical
analyses
-Waste water
holding pond
-Raw shale
Waste chemical
analyses
-Miscellaneous
products
-Runoff
-Soils stockpiles
Cost items Cost data
Labor: 1 day/sur- $160/day labor
vey. Survey weekly
for 6 months and
quarterly thereaf-
ter for each phase
of development.
Travel and mi seel- Assume $75/survey
laneous expenses
(film, photocopy,
etc.)
Analysis for gen- $189/sample
era! parameters,
major inorganics,
trace metals, and
organics
Phases II and III:
initially collect
weekly samples for
•/•24 weeks, quar-
terly thereafter.
Annual sampling
during Phase IV.
Sample collection 1 day/survey at $160
Analysis for gen- $189/sample
era! parameters,
major inorganics,
trace metals, and
organics
Assume equivalent
of 8 sources
sampled quarterly
initially, then
annually. 1 soil
survey (in Phase
ID
Sample collection 1 day/survey at $160
Cost schedule (per year)
1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder
Phase II Phase II Phase III Phase III Phase IV Phase IV
$ 4,160 $ 640 $ 4,160 $ 640 $ 4,160 $ 640
1,950 300 1,950 300 1,950 300
9,828 1,512 9,828 1,512 378 378
4,160 640 4,160 640 160 160
6,237 1,512 6,048 1,512 1,512 1,512
V
640 160 640 160 160 160
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
Monitoring
design step General activity
Pollutant-source Waste chemical
characterization analyses
(continued)
-Water storage
basin
-Treatment pi ant
Waste chemical
analyses
i_» -All potential
•£» sources above
-ft.
Water use Review available
documents on
area development
and water use
Hydrogeologic Alluvium
framework and characterization:
water quality
Geophysical
surveys
Cost items Cost data
Analysis for gen- $189/sample
era! parameters,
major inorganics,
trace metals, and
organics
Assume quarterly
sampling initially
during Phases II
and III, then
annually
Sample collection 1 day/survey at $160
DOC fractionation, $202/sample
radiological and
bacteriological
analysis. Assume
annual sampling at
equivalent of 12
sources (Phases II
and III only)
Sample collection 1 day/survey at $160
Labor 1 week/year at $160/day
Survey team Assume 1 week at $85/hour
Cost schedule (per year)
1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder
Phase II Phase II Phase III Phase III Phase IV Phase IV
$ 1,512 $ 378 $ 1,512 $ 378 $ 378 $ 378
640 160 640 160 160 160
2,424 2,424 2,424 2,424 0 0
160 160 160 160 0 0
800 800 800 800 800 800
3,400 00000
Install new wells
Sample new wells
Assume 8 wells to-
tal: 5 with 6-inch
casing, 3 with 8-
inch casing
6-inch wells at $478 and 8-
inch wells at $602
Quarterly sampling $189/sample
for general pa-
rameters, major
inorganics, trace
metals, and
organics
4,196
6,048
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
en
Monitoring
design step
Hydrogeologic
framework and
water quality
(continued)
General activity
Alluvium
characterization:
(continued)
Sample new wells
(continued)
Uinta Formation
and Green River
Formation
characterization:
Geologic mapping
Identify and
characterize
saturated zones
between process
area and White
River
Bird's Nest
Aquifer
characterization:
Cost items
Phase II initial
year only. Other
monitoring under
Pollutant Mobility
step.
Equipment for
sampling
Labor
Field surveys of
cleared areas
Test drilling
Well installation
6-inch - 1
8-inch - 1
Testing
Evaluate sampling
methods
Equipment for
sampling
Cost data
Assume SllO/day and 2 days/
quarter
Assume 4 man days/quarter at
$1607 day
Assume 2 man weeks during
initial year of each phase
at $160/ day
2 test holes
-drilling
-logging
$7,343
4,204
5 days at $500/day
Labor: 2 man weeks during
initial year at $160/day
Sample analysis: 15 samples
at $89
$110/day for 10 days
Cost schedule (per year)
1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder 1st year
Phase II Phase II Phase III Phase III Phase IV
$880$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0
2,550 0000
1,600 0 1,600 0 1,600
16,855 0000
2,362 0000
11,547 0000
2,500 0000
1,600 0000
1,335 0000
1,100 0000
Remainder
Phase IV
$ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
\J
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
Monitoring
design step
Hydrogeo logic
framework and
water quality
(continued)
Infiltration
General activity
Alluvium
characterization:
Test new wel 1 s
Determine flow
patterns
Bird's Nest
Aquifer
characterization:
Test existing
wells
Install new wells
Test new wells
Douglas Creek
Aquifer
characterization:
Install new wells
Test new wells
Infiltrometer
tests:
In holding pond,
tankage, and
stockpile areas
In other portions
of the process
Cost items
3 tests on 8- inch
wells
Labor (office)
Assume 2 tests of
30- day duration
Assume two 8- inch
wells
2 tests of 30-day
duration
Assume two 8- inch
wells
2 tests of 30-day
duration
Assume 12 test
sites for initial
year of Phases II
and III
Assume 12 test
sites
Cost data
24 hours/test at $40/hour
1 man week at $250/day
30 days at $500/day on each
test
8-inch wells at $22,977 each
30 days at $500/day on each
test
8- inch wells at $47,544 each
30 days at $700 /day on each
test
Each of 2 phases: 12 tests at
0.5/day each at $160/day
Each of 2 phases: 12 tests at
0.5/day each at $160/day
Cost schedule (per year)
1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder
Phase II Phase II Phase III Phase III Phase IV Phase IV
$ 2,880 $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0
1,250 00000
30,000 00000
45,954 00000
30,000 00000
95,088 00000
42,000 00000
960 0 960 0 00
960 0 960 0 00
area
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
Cost schedule (per year)
Monitoring
design step General activity Cost items
Pollutant Monitoring in the Surface resistiv-
mobility alluvium ity surveys
Sample monitor
wells (8 new wells
-Monthly sampling
of pH, EC, Eh
-Quarterly
sampling
Install
tensiometers
Monitor tensiom-
eters monthly
Install suction
cup lysimeters
Quarterly surveys
Sample analysis
Monitoring in the Locate and install
1st year Remainder 1st year
Cost data Phase II Phase II Phase III
Annual surveys: assume 8 $ 960 $ 960 $ 960
hours at ISO/hour plus 2 man
days travel at $160/day
2 days/month at $160/day 3,840 3,840 3,840
$189/sample 6,048 6,048 6,048
24 arrays of 3 tensiometers 1,692 0 0
each at $70.50 each
2 man days/month at $160/day 3,840 3,840 3,840
24 arrays of 3 lysimeters 2,124 0 0
each at $88.50/site
Assume ^ arrays/day at 800 800 800
$160/day
Assume 10 samples/quarter at 7,560 7,560 7,560
$189/s ample
Assume $l,000/hole, 8 access 4,000 0 4,000
Remainder 1st year Remainder
Phase III Phase IV Phase IV
$ 960 $ 960 $ 960
3,840 3,840 3,840
6,048 6,048' 6,048
000
3,840 3,840 3,840
000
800 800 800
7,560 7,560 7,560
000
Uinta Formation access holes
according to
geologic survey
results
Neutron logging
Monitoring in the Sample 2 wells
Green River
Formation above
Bird's Nest
Aquifer
holes; 4 during Phase II, 4
during Phase III
Assume quarterly surveys 1
day for each 4 access holes
at $160/day
Quarterly surveys initial
year, annually thereafter
$189/sample
640 640 1,280 1,280 1,280 1,280
1,512 378 378 378 378 378
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-2 (continued)
00
Cost schedule (per year)
Monitoring
design step
Pollutant
mobility
(continued)
General activity
Monitoring in the
Bird's Nest
Aquifer
Monitoring in the
Douglas Creek
Aquifer
Cost items
Sampling in 3 ex-
isting and 2 new
wells
Miscellaneous
equipment rental
Sampling in 2 new
wells
Miscellaneous
equipment rental
Cost data
Quarterly for initial year
for new wells; annual surveys
otherwise
$189/sample
Assume $100/day and 2 wells/
day
Annual surveys
$189/sample
$100/day and 1 well/day
1st year
Phase II
$ 2,079
600
378
200
Remainder
Phase II
$ 945
300
378
200
1st year
Phase III
$ 945
300
378
200
Remainder
Phase III
$ 945
300
378
200
1st year
Phase IV
$ 945
300
378
200
Remainder
Phase IV
$ 945
300
378
200
-------
TABLE B-3. MONITORING PROGRAM COSTING DATA—RETENTION DAMS
Monitoring
design step
Pollutant- source
characterization
Water use
Hydrogeologic
framework and
water quality8
General activity
Surveys of
development and
construction
activities
Retention
basin water
character i zati on
Retention
basin water
characterization
Review available
documents on
area development
and water use
Alluvium
characterization:
-Geophysical
surveys
-Test drilling
-Install, test,
sample new wells
-Determine flow
patterns
Uinta Formation
and Green River
Formation
character i zat i on :
Cost items
For initial years
of Phases II and
III, 1 day/ week
during clearing
and construction
Analysis of sam-
ples for general
parameters, major
inorganics, trace
metals, and or-
ganics (DOC)
Sample collection
Analysis of sam-
ples for DOC
fractionation, ra-
diological, and
bacteriological
constituents
Labor
See Table
Cost data
Assume 1 day/ week, 24 weeks
at $160/day
Assume equivalent of monthly
sampling for initial year
Phases II and III, quarterly
thereafter, and during Phase
IV
$189/sample
1 day/survey at $160/day
$202/sample. Assume quarterly
sampling.
1 week/year at $160/day
B-l for costing detail
Cost schedule (per year)
1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder
Phase II Phase II Phase III Phase III Phase IV Phase IV
$ 3,840 $ 0 $ 3,840 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
2,268 756 2,268 756 756 756
1,920 640 1,920 640 640 640
808 808 808 808 808 808
800 800 800 800 800 800
34,080 0 19,786 000
43,328 0 1,600 0 0 0
{ r-f\rt+ 4 nim«j\
-------
TABLE B-3 (continued)
en
O
Monitoring
design step
Hydrogeologic
framework and
water quality3
(continued)
Infiltration
General activity Cost items Cost data
Uinta Formation
and Green River
Formation
characterization:
(continued)
-Geologic mapping
-Identify and
characterize
saturated zones
Bird's Nest
Aquifer
characterization:
-Evaluate sam-
pling methods
Alluvium
characterization:
-Sample existing See Table B-l for costing detail
wells
Bird's Nest and
Douglas Creek
Aquifer
characterization
Infiltrometer Assume 12 test Each of 2 phases: 12 tests at
tests sites for initial 0.5/day each at $1607 day
Cost schedule (per year)
1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder
Phase II Phase II Phase III Phase III Phase IV Phase IV
$ 5,370 $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0
7,776 5,736 3,468 3,468 0 0
369,820 0 218,680 000
960 0 960 0 00
year of Phases II
and III
Pollutant Monitoring within Install access
mobility and beneath holes
retention dams
Neutron logging
Assume 6 holes at $1,000 for 6,000
each retention dam
Assume same schedule as re- 1,920
tention basin water sampling,
1 day/survey at $160/day
640
6,000
1,920
640
0 0
640 640
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-3 (continued)
Cost schedule (per year)
Monitoring
design step General activity
Pollutant Monitoring within
mobility and beneath re-
(continued) tention dams
(continued)
Monitoring in the
alluvium
Monitoring in the
Uinta Formation
and Green River
Formation above
Bird's Nest
Aquifer
Monitoring in
deep aquifers
Cost items
Other
installations:
-Tensiometers
-Suction-cup
lysimeters
Sample analysis
Surface resistiv-
ity surveys
Monitor wells:
-Phase II, 4 wells
-Phases III and
IV, 4 wells
Locate and install
access holes
according to
geologic survey
results
Neutron logging
Sample 2 wells
See Table
1st year Remainder
Cost data Phase II Phase II
6 arrays/dam at $70.50 each $ 423 $ 0
6 arrays/dam at $29.50 each 177 0
Assume 25 samples/year at 4,725 4,725
$189/sample
Annual surveys assume 8 hours 960 960
at $80/hour plus 2 man days
travel at $160/day
Assume quarterly sampling 3,024 3,024
during Phases II and III and
annual surveys during Phase
IV at $189/sample
Assume $l,000/hole; 4 access 4,000 0
holes for Phase II site and
4 for Phases III and IV sites
Assume quarterly surveys, 1 640 640
day for each access hole
See Table B-l 1,512 378
B-l for costing detail 5,458 2,590
1st year Remainder 1st year Remainder
Phase III Phase III Phase IV Phase IV
$ 423 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
177 0 00
4,725 4,725 4,725 4,725
960 960 960 960
,
3,024 3,024 3,024 3,024
4,000 000
640 640 640 640
378 378 378 378
7,709 4,841 4,841 4,841
aThe cost data presented here are a repeated listing of cost estimates presented in Table B-l for the processed-shale disposal area. Requirements
for the retention dams are a subset of requirements for the disposal area.
-------
APPENDIX C
REPORT ON PROCESSED-SHALE LEACHATE STUDIES
COLUMN EXPERIMENTS
As part of the assessments of monitoring requirements for processed-shale
disposal, a set of simple column experiments was performed. Processed shale
from the Paraho indirect retorting process was used. Columns of pro-
cessed shale obtained from the Anvil Points experimental site were moistened
to a level of 10 percent by weight with various waters associated with retort-
ing operations or with deionized water (Table C-l). The columns were then
leached, under constant head conditions, with deionized water. The purpose of
these experiments was to assess capabilities for differentiating among the ma-
terials that might contribute to leachate from processed-shale piles. Some
information on pollutant attenuation mechanisms can also be gained from such
experiments. These experiments were reconnaissance in nature since expected
field conditions were not simulated.
Although saturated flow conditions are clearly unrealistic with regard to
conditions generally expected in surface processed-shale disposal piles, some
inferences can be made from examination of discharge vs. time data (Figure
C-l). Similar patterns were observed for experimental columns 1, 2, and 4,
with initial, relatively high, discharge rates followed by slight decreases
and a gradual increase toward the end of the experiments. The initial de-
crease may be due to compaction within the columns and the gradual increase
may be due to the effect of increased pore size from dissolution of soluble
materials. However, it should be noted that the discharges (Figure C-l) were
highly variable and the results not conclusive.
The discharge from experimental column 3 initially reached levels com-
parable to column 1, but rapidly and continually decreased after the initial
few hours of the experiment (Figure C-l). This decrease may be explained by
plugging of pores with colloidal material from the simulated landfill leach-
ate or deposition of precipitates, such as iron hydroxide [Fe(OH)2]« As
will be noted below (Figure C-2), this decreasing discharge period is
associated with the observed breakthrough of the simulated landfill leachate
in the column 3 discharge. The discharge from column 5 was fairly constant
after the initial peak (Figure C-l) and was probably controlled by the lower
permeability of the soil columns.
The results of chemical analysis of discharges from the experimental
columns are summarized in the following discussion. The data are presented in
Figures C-3 through C-18, located at the end of this appendix.
152
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Major Inorganic Ions
Analysis of chloride and sulfate levels in column discharges showed the
general patterns displayed for the electrical conductivity data (Figure C-l).
From initial high levels, concentrations decreased by about 80 to 90 percent
with the first 1,000 milliliters of discharge from all columns. The levels of
these anions showed a secondary peak for column 3 as a result of the break-
through of the simulated landfill leachate.
In experimental columns 1 through 4, fluoride concentrations decreased
from initial levels of 15 to 20 milligrams per liter to about 10 to 12 milli-
grams per liter at the end of the experiment. Thus, the mobility of fluoride
within processed-shale piles would appear to be appreciable. Observed levels
in column 5 (containing both processed shale and soil layers) were always less
than 1 milligram per liter. Fluoride in processed-shale leachate was probably
precipitated as fluorite (CaF2) as a result of interaction with calcic soil
materi als.
Analysis of major cations (Na, K, Ca, Mg) shows the effect of ion ex-
change between the processed-shale leachate and the soil column. The observed
concentrations of these constituents in experimental columns 1 through 4 are
very similar. However, column 5 shows initially high (relative to the other
columns) levels of magnesium and calcium and initially lower levels of sodium
and potassium. The likely mechanism in the soil column is an exchange of cal-
cium and sodium in the soil matrix for sodium and to a much smaller extent for
potassium. With such an exchange, sodium and potassium are diminished in the
final column leachate, and calcium and magnesium are increased.
However, the difference in cation levels between processed-shale (column
4) leachate and shale-soil (column 5) leachate cannot be explained completely
by Na-K to Ca-Mg exchanges. The increase in calcium and magnesium accounts
for less than 50 percent of the decrease in sodium and potassium. The addi-
tional potential processes include:
• The precipitation of CaCOs and MgCOs after Ca-Mg to Na ex-
change process (this would aid explanation of decreased conduc-
tivity of column 5 vs. column 4 leachate and low pH (-W) of
column 5 leachate relative to the other columns (with pH over 12)
X
• The exchange of Na in processed-shale leachate for hydrogen ions
on soil exchange sites (this would decrease pH but not conductivity)
• Precipitation of gypsum (CaS04), which may be supported by ob-
served difference in sulfate levels (MOO milligrams per liter
initially) between columns 4 and 5.
These latter mechanisms may explain the substantial decline in calcium con-
centrations observed after the initial samples discussed above. Although the
nature of the processes is unclear, it would appear that movement of
153
-------
processed-shale leachate through underlying soils may provide appreciable at-
tenuation of potential pollutants. This would, of course, depend upon the
characteristics of the underlying soils.
Trace Elements
Analysis of constituents in experimental column effluents included arse-
nic, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, selenium, strontium, and
zinc determinations. All observations of arsenic were less than 1 milligram
per milliliter. Hence, it would appear that although relatively high arsenic
levels exist in process and product waters [measured at 10.3 and 22.2 milli-
grams per milliliter, respectively), arsenic was not mobile in the processed-
shale columns. It should be noted that the analytical method used during
these feasibility experiments was not very sensitive. In addition, the source
of the oil shale plays an uncertain role in determining the results observed.
Similarly, low levels of chromium (usually less than 0.03 milligram per
milliliter), iron (usually less than 0.2 milligram per milliliter), and lead
(less than 0.10 milligram per milliliter) were observed in processed-shale
leachate. A column 3 maximum of 0.05 milligram per milliliter chromium may
be due to some enhanced mobility by the acidic simulated landfill leachate
(pH = 6.3). Precipitation as hydroxides is the likely attenuation mechanism
for iron. Peak lead levels of 0.19 and 0.23 milligram per milliliter for
leachates of columns 2 and 3, respectively, may be due to mobility of lead in
product (0.40 milligram per milliliter) and process (0.15 milligram per mini-
liter) waters.
Barium concentrations in column effluents were a fairly constant 0.5 to
0.7 milligram per liter throughout the experiments, indicating moderate solu-
bility. Because similar levels were observed for columns with and without
product, process, or pond water moistening, the major source of barium is the
processed shale. The soil is also indicated to be a potential source of
barium.
The processed shale is also indicated to be the major source of copper,
nickel, strontium, and probably zinc in column leachate. The soil column also
provided significant amounts of copper, selenium, and strontium. The simu-
lated landfill leachate may also have enhanced the mobility of nickel, sele-
nium, and strontium. The pond, process, and product waters also appear to
contribute to selenium levels in column leachate.
ORGANIC CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Accompanying the column experiments described previously, a set of ex-
periments was also performed to assess potential organic interactions in
processed-shale disposal piles. In these "shaker" tests, various masses of
processed shale (from the same source used for column tests) were placed in
flasks with 30 milliliters of various liquids (Table C-2). The stoppered
flasks were than shaken for 48 hours and the samples filtered first through
glass wool and then through a 0.45 micron silver impregnated membrane filter.
Samples were then analyzed for six fractions of dissolved organic carbon as
listed in Table C-2. The major purpose of these experiments was to obtain
154
-------
some preliminary data on the differential character and adsorption of various
oil shale waste waters.
The results of these shaker tests are plotted in Figures C-19 through
C-21. Observations made from these plots and from the data in Table C-2 are
as follows:
• The organics in process and product waters (see Table C-l) were
of very similar general compositions although the process water
had somewhat greater proportions of hydrophobic acids and lesser
proportions of hydrophilic acids.
• For both process and product waters, interaction with processed
shale reduced total DOC levels appreciably, indicating signifi-
cant sorption, but the relative amounts of the various organic
fractions remained fairly constant.
• Pond water (see Table C-l) exhibited lower DOC levels than either
process or product waters. The levels observed for the pond were
similar to those observed for the processed-shale/deionized water
shaker tests.
• The composition of the pond water was also different from process
and product waters, showing relatively elevated levels of both
hydrophobic and hydrophilic neutral fractions and low hydrophobic
acid levels.
• With regard particularly to the hydrophobic acid and neutral
fractions, the deionized water-processed shale results were
quite variable, although the total DOC levels were similar for
the two samples.
• The somewhat elevated hydrophobic neutral fraction in pond water
may show the influence of processed-shale leachate; one of the
processed-shale (deionized water) leachate samples showed similar
peak in this fraction.
• The composition of the hydrophilic fraction of the pond water is
appreciably different from that observed for the processed-shale
leachate. The leachate hydrophilic fraction is more similar to
that observed for process and product waters with an overwhelming
dominance of the acid component.
• The total DOC of the pond water was increased by interaction with
the processed shale, indicating the dominance of organic leaching
processes (particularly of the hydrophobic acid and hydrophilic
acid and neutral fractions) over sorption processes.
MONITORING THE PROCESSED-SHALE PILE
One of the interesting problems that presented itself during the monitor-
ing design study was the nature of the spent-shale disposal pile. Analysis
155
-------
was initiated with consideration of over a dozen individual solid and liquid
waste sources. However, ultimately, most of these materials may be conglom-
erated in the spent-shale disposal area. Solid wastes are deposited with the
spent shale, and liquid wastes are used in dust control and compaction ef-
forts. Thus, rather than having a dozen or so individual sources to monitor,
we have one combined source.
The question then arises, if we sample (or monitor) waters running off of
or leaching through the processed-shale pile, do the solute materials come
from spent shale, raw shale, retort or other process water, or where? The
question of original or ultimate source may arise because, for environmental
control, it may be more cost-effective to address an individual source (e.g.,
via pretreatment, special handling, etc.) than to address the entire source
area (e.g., via diversions, drainage control, etc.). Hence, it seems advanta-
geous to be able to interpret data collected to identify the original individ-
ual source of the solutes collected.
Identification or separation of the sources of materials leaching from a
spent-shale pile will have to depend on differences in composition and con-
centration of the individual constituents. Two major methods of separating
the sources are available (Phillips, 1977). The first is differences in con-
centration of the major ions, and the second is identification of "tracer"
constituents peculiar to individual pollution sources. The advantage of the
first method is that it may require only standard chemical analyses of the
collected water: the commonly analyzed major inorganic constituents are cal-
cium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, and sul-
fate. If the results of these analyses are given as equivalents per liter,
the concentration of individual cations and anions can be divided by the total
anion or cation concentrations to give percentages. These percentages can
then be plotted on a trill near diagram (Figure C-22). An advantage of the
trilinear diagram is that mixtures of two waters of differing composition will
plot on a straight line between the positions of the two different waters.
Thus it is possible to estimate the contribution of various pollution sources
if their individual compositions are known.
The data plotted on Figure C-22 represent reported chemical analyses of
retort waters, raw-shale leachate, and processed-shale leachate from various
retorting processes. The trilinear plot of these data shows that these three
types of sources may be distinguishable from differences in their inorganic
ion compositions. This differentiation is most clearly shown in the anion
field, where the four processed-shale leachate samples plot in one area, raw-
shale leachate in another, and the two retort water samples in a third region.
Although some feasibility for source differentiation has been shown in
these data, additional work is obviously required to formalize the monitoring
procedure. In addition, the major ion comparison is probably insufficient by
itself to distinguish between the various pollutant sources (Phillips, 1977).
More complete knowledge of source-chemical characteristics and the mobility of
these constituents in the subsurface may identify "tracer" chemical species to
support the monitoring program.
156
-------
Figure C-23 shows the plot of some of the data collected during the col-
umn experiments described earlier. The initial leachate samples from
processed-shale columns moistened with retention-pond water (sample la) and
with deionized water (sample 4a) were sodium sulfate waters, which character-
ize processed-shale leachate. Columns moistened with product and process
waters produced leachates (samples 2a and 3a) with a sodium-sulfate-chloride
composition (Figure C-23). The plot location of sample 5a shows the appre-
ciable influence of leachates moving through a soil column.
Sampling programs that include general fractionation procedures would
offer some information on the types of organics that are mobile in the hydro-
sphere. With this approach, the general character of the organic complex
would be identified (e.g., dominance of hydrophobics or hydrophilic acids,
etc.), and hence "candidate compound types" could be inferred through the use
of information on more detailed source characterization.
Some data have been presented (Stuber and Leenheer, 1978) that indicate
that certain organic fractions of oil shale retort waters are differentially
sorbed on spent shale (Figure C-24). Also, the organic composition of organic
waste sources may be sufficiently different (Table C-2) to allow differential
detection of the ultimate pollutant source in the spent-shale disposal area.
The concept of differential detection was presented earlier in the discussion
of inorganic sampling.
The interpretive utility of fractionation data would be greatly enhanced
if the potential toxicity, carcinogenicity, etc. were nonuniformly distributed
among the various general organic fractions. For example, if hydrophobic
bases were extremely carcinogenic relative to hydrophobic acids, then an ob-
servation of the increasing dominance of the former fraction would offer more
information than if no such toxicological difference existed. Some research
is presently underway to address the potential biological effects of various
organic fractions of oil shale wastes. This type of information will clearly
enhance the potential utility of fractionation schemes for monitoring. How-
ever, the extent to which these data on differential fraction toxicity are
process-dependent must also be assessed.
The results of the column experiments presented earlier indicated some
potential for differentiation of various original sources using the six-way
DOC fractionation method. However, these few experiments are insufficient to
formulate a recommended monitoring approach for data analysis and
interpretation.
Designating the chemical sampling and analysis components of a water
quality monitoring program calls for the assessment of analytical capabili-
ties, operation costs, and the potential use or utility of the data collected.
Numerous analytical procedures are available for use in the monitoring of oil
shale development. Analytical alternatives range from very general measures
to specific elements and compounds. The interpretive utility of the results
of alternative analytical procedures varies widely as do the costs of
monitoring.
157
-------
Inorganic chemical sampling needs for monitoring oil shale operations
have been identified using a stepwise design methodology developed by GE-
TEMPO. Analytical procedures are considered standard (although some questions
have been raised on this issue), costs are moderate and, in general, criteria
for data interpretation exist.
Organic chemical sampling needs are less well defined. Of the four gen-
eral organic analysis categories (gross organic measures, general fractiona-
tion, more specific fractionation, and specific compound analysis), none alone
appears at this time to be clearly superior with regard to ease of data col-
lection and utility of data for environmental interpretation.
The best approach may thus be a "sequential" monitoring procedure. In
such a program, a basic monitoring effort includes measurement of rather gen-
eral organic parameters (e.g., COD or TOC). Appreciable changes in these pa-
rameters would indicate the need for further sampling and analysis using more
sophisticated chemical analysis approaches to more clearly define the nature
of the change.
In addition, the inclusion of such more detailed (and more readily in-
terpretable and generally more expensive) sampling and analysis on a regular
basis, but less frequently than the basic program, may be advantageous. This
would allow detection of changes in organic composition when the measured
"level" of organics is relatively constant. Direct biological measures of po-
tential environmental hazard may also be a useful component of these efforts,
enhancing the interpretive capability of the monitoring program.
158
-------
TABLE C-l. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR FLOW AND LEACHATE TESTS
in
10
Column experimental number:
Mass (gm) of processed shale
Dry bulk density (gm/cm^)
Porosity (percent)
Moistening agent (s)
Flow state
Head above column (inches)
Vertical saturated hydraulic
conductivity (m/d)
1
1,229
1.134
55.5
Pond
water13
Saturated
2.0
0.78
2
1,249
1.120
55.3
Diluted
process
plus
product
water0
Saturated
2.0
0.90
3
1,229
1.134
57.5
Diluted
process
plus
product
waterc»d
Saturated
2.0
0.09
4
1,219
1.095
52.8
Deionized
water
Saturated
2.0
1.10
5
l,230a
1.042
53.5'
Deionized
water
Saturated
2.0
0.22
aColumn of processed shale packed over 1,230 gm of soil from Tract U-a. Soil dry bulk
density was 1.48 gm/cm^ and porosity was 35.7 percent.
bPond water—from retention pond below processed-shale pile at Anvil Points experimental
site.
cProcess water—from shale oil-water separation; 1:1 mixture diluted to 7,000 umhos/cm with
deionized water.
^Simulated landfill leachate injected during experiment.
-------
TABLE C-2. RESULTS OF ORGANIC FRACTIONATION ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM SHAKER EXPERIMENTS
Experiment component
Processed
shale
(grams) Liquid
100
200
0
100
200
0
100
200
0
100
200
Deionized water
Deionized water
Process water
Process water
Process water
Product water
Product water
Product water
Pond water
Pond water
Pond water
DOC
(mg/1)
7.1
5.2
31.2
17.7
20.0
47.5
37.6
20.0
7.6
23.8
13.7
Organic
fractionation (percent of
Hydrophobics
Bases
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (1.0)
1 (0.2)
2 (0.4)
2 (0.9)
2 (0.6)
2 (0.3)
3 (0.2)
1 (0.2)
1 (0.1)
Acids
21
12
12
19
17
11
11
10
1
13
10
(1.5)
(0.6)
(3.7)
(3.3)
(3.3)
(5.1)
(4.2)
(1,9)
(0.1)
(3.0)
(1.4)
Neutral
7
25
8
7
10
4
5
5
26
10
12
(0.5)
(1.3)
(2.6)
(1.2)
(1.9)
(2.1)
(1.8)
(0.9)
(2.0)
(2.3)
(1.6)
Bases
0 (0)
2 (0.1)
5 (1.5)
12 (2.2)
12 (2.4)
8 (4.0)
7 (2.8)
5 (1.0)
10 (0.8)
3 (0.8)
5 (0.7)
DOC
(mg/1 DOC))
Hydrophilics
Acids
69
58
63
46
46
65
65
70
33
37
34
( 4.9)
( 3.0)
(19.6)
( 8.2)
( 9.1)
(30.8)
(24.4)
(14.0)
( 2.5)
( 8.9)
( 4.7)
Neutral
3 (0.2)
4 (0.2)
9 (2.8)
15 (2.6)
14 (2.9)
10 (4.6)
10 (3.8)
10 (1.9)
26 (2.0)
36 (8.6)
38 (5.2)
-------
8.0
7.5
7.0.
6.5-
60
5.5
5.0
4.5
UJ 4.0
IT
<
o 3.5
CO
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
• •O O
X"~N
A«
._•_
•
.» «. 9
A
£&-•-
O-—
o
• "
tf
A
o •
, A-O--O-
A
o
A
COLUMN I A
2 ©
3 A
4 •
" 5 Q
o
I 23 456 789 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
HOURS
Figure C-l. Discharge vs. time plot for column experiments.
-------
ro
E
u
^
to
O
O
UJ
I4p00
lapoo
10,000
8,000 -
6,000 -
4,000
2,000
::^<
IOOO 2000 3000 4000 5000 gOOO
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (ml)
7000
8000
9000
Figure C-2. Electrical conductivity vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments,
-------
2000
co
1500
O>
E
1000
UJ
Q
E
O
_l
X
O
500
1000
2000
8000
9000
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (ml)
Figure C-3. Chloride vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments,
-------
X
OC 6
UJ
O
3-
2
COLUMN I &
2 ©
3 A
4 •
5 Q
Product.
PfOC6S8
50:50
LF Leactate,
Pond'
3456
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (IN ML x I03)
Figure C-4. Sulfate vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments.
-------
en
20
18
16
14
CE
.,,
12
IO
COLUMN I A-
2 •-
3 A-
4 •-
5 Q-
-Q Q
Product^
Pond.
Process.
Process-Product •
Landfill L.
3456
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (IN ML x IO3)
Figure C-5. Fluoride vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments.
-------
O>
JII90
3OO Product .
280
260
240
220
£200
1-
_J 180
<»jg>«J»t'm»-af^«^«y»Jtfgp^*gFiijmagwr»ura>M^i
-------
CT>
14-
12-
VI
^1
O
X '°
cc
LU
1-
J 8-
QC
U 6
_l
_l
I
4
2
o
Q
\ COLUMN 1 A
\ " 2 0
\ " 4 ^____
\ "5 Q
^\—^*—-^
. — \r- ._^ "Z:^::::-.^.
\ ~-~~^ ~ "-•-.„
\ "~"-— -- - ~^^^_ """" •-•--Cr-.^.
\ o ~~~-----~^7"-:r-:«'-a
b-^'" ^^'
LF Leochate
Product.. ?***
Processi
6
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (IN ML x I04)
Figure C-7. Calcium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments.
-------
J454
00
3UU
280
260
240
220
rr
}tf 20O
Ij
\ 180
(O
I I6°
<2 wo
1 ..
100
80
60
40
20
*
c
^ COLUMN 1 &
\ " y Q .-...
^\ " 12
Vi „ JJ
\\\ " 5Q
\ \
V\
A\
\ x^x •* — ^^^
\\\ V--^^
\\
\ \\
\ \\
\\\
\ V i
\\\
v'9£^VJflVdfirJrtX£BSn&<^£lffSftif3C ..
I ~~" «-«—-.— — ~W~"%SiiHr
> | 2 3 4 5 6 7
Product .
Pond.
Process.
50:50
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (IN ML x I03)
Figure C-8. Potassium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments.
-------
oouu
3400
3200
3000
*r\r\r\r
2800
2600
2400
* 2200
i
t—
3 2000
^
to I80O
5
0: 1600
52
3j 1400
«
1200
1000
BOO
600
400
2OO
0
1
1
A\\ COLUMN 1 A
^^^ t
X '.« M _ »
\ V, 3 ^
i \ t
\\-i " 50
* \ A
\\\
\ \»
\ \ 4
% \ r
\ \1
\ u
H
1 \
\ »
\ \
\ A
\ \\
\ ; * I
\ 1 i \
\ 5- v\
\ \\\
A \ v\
'f^-A — ^ i
\ i \ ****">*.S|^
OoOffU 3HdLP£a»l^atl5^3I'ji?1S^s^'iaZrSLf -gj- •Jta.-^a-'ar^f •gT'^JSi.- t*g-'J*^-*g-*-iy^^B-*Xp.'JjrH.iiJui)ip^tfm i jr.A^iwAjrr, i-mr*^- — > V\ A
Product-
Pond-
F Leochate •
Process-s5O:50
3 4 5,6
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (IN ML x. I05)
Figure C-9. Sodium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments.
-------
o:
LU
.10-1-0-
\
t
.09
O8
.07
.06
V)
I
<2 .05 \
_l
_j
s
.04-
.03
.02
.01.
COLUMN I A
2o
5 0 -------
Product!260
Process! °23
50:50.
LF Leochote.
Pond.
3456
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (IN ML x I03)
Figure C-10. Copper vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments.
-------
Process
tl.4l
COLUMN 1
2 o
3 A
4 •
5 Q
Process,
50:50-
LF Leochate
•
Pond.
345
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (IN ML x I03)
Figure C-ll. Nickel vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments.
-------
ro
44
42
40
.38
36-1
.34
DC .32
UJ
5 .«H
CO .28
CC 26
O
d -24j
2
.22-
20-
.18
.16
.14-1
.12-
.10
COLUMN
&• -----
3 *
4
5 Q-
Product!794
Process!183
Pond.
5O:50-
LF Leachots
2 3 4 56
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (IN ML x I03)
Figure C-12. Selenium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments.
-------
CO
ou
28
26
24
22
g 20
1-
IJ 18-
v.
tn 16
1 '«•
d '2
S ,0
8
6
4
2
O
COLUMN 1 A
" O />...
2 O
^ " 5 Q
\
XM\
^x >A^_ — ^
X%.
VSs^:
\ ""^""^'^'^"il^-:-..
\ ^..-^'"'Q ^ia~~~"S-"=>i'*'^«,4i-.
^^^^^^-^--^A
*^
LF Leochate
Product.Pond
Process!
3456
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (IN ML x IO3)
Figure C-13. Strontium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments.
-------
A.63
.18
.16
Ul
CE
O
COLUMN I A
5 Q -----------
Product!149
LF LeoctKit«t-68
^jj:^ii-2?!ilH»=nis^ —7^—
Process.
50: 5O.
Pond.
3 4 5
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (IN ML x 10°)
Figure C-14. Zinc vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments.
-------
01
1.8
'
1.6
•
14.
rr
UJ
t 1.2
\
\
\
\
i
\
\
\
\ ^-^~~-~^
^x^\ ^^*
Q -i
"""V"-^..,...
^^^ * — ...»
• 1" — A^,£ •
^../" ===*_
Product.
LF Leochote
50:50.
r, Pondl
Process*
3456
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (IN ML x IO3)
Figure C-15. Barium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments.
-------
CTl
4O
.SO-
LU
cr
CD
.20
COLUMN I A
2 O-
3 A
4 •
5 O
Product
Process
LF Leochote
50:50 ,Pond
3456
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (IN ML x I03)
Figure C-16. Lead vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments,
-------
a:
LJ
.12
.11-
.10'
.09-
^ .08-1
5
QC
-i .07
.06
COLUMN
2 e
3 A
4 •-
5 Q
Product. —.
Process,
LF Leachate
SO-SO
3456
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (IN ML x I03)
Figure C-17. Chromium vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments.
-------
CO
UJ
CO
1.80
I.6&
140
1.20
IOO
.60
.20
COLUMN I A
2 O
3 A
4 •
" 5 Q
.343
LF Laachotel
Product
t3.04
Process,
50:50.
Pond.
23456
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (IN ML x I03}
Figure C-18. Iron vs. cumulative discharge volume plot for column experiments.
-------
o
u.
O
t-
o
tr
u
0.
PROCESS WATER
+ 200 g PROCESSED
SHALE
PROCESS WATER
+ 100 g PROCESSED
SHALE
HYDROPHOBICS
HYDROPHILICS
Figure C-19.
DOC fractionation results from shaker experiments
using process water and processed shale.
u
o
o
u.
O
H
U
cc
HYDROPHOBICS
HYDROPHILICS
Figure C-20. DOC fractionation results from shaker experiments
using product water and processed shale.
179
-------
o
o
a
o
K
Figure C-21.
HYDROPHOBICS
HYDROPHILICS
DOC fractionation results from shaker experiments using
deionized water and processed shale and retention pond
water and processed shale.
A: 150 TON RETORT WATER
B: OMEGA 9 RETORT WATER
C: RAW SHALE LEACHATE
PROCESSED SHALE LEACHATE:
D: USBM
E: USD
F: TOSCO
G: TOSCO (SNOW MELT PERCOLATION)
80
80
CATIONS
ANIONS
Figure C-22.
Inorganic analyses of leachate from processed shale columns
(data are from Ward, 1971, 1972; Stuber and Leenheer, 1978).
180
-------
AN IONS
Figure C-23.
Trilinear diagram showing plot of chemical analysis of initial
leachate samples (la, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a) from column experiments
(column descriptions are provided in Table C-l).
DOC FRACTIONS
HPO: HYDROPHOBIC
HPI: HYDROPHILIC
A: ACID
B: BASE
N: NEUTRAL
HPO-A
20 40 60 80
EQUILIBRIUM CONCENTRATION
(PERCENT OF INITIAL DOC CONCENTRATION)
100
Figure C-24. Sorption of 150-ton retort water organic fractions on TOSCO II
processed shale (from Stuber and Leenheer, 1978).
181
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-80-089
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
GROUNDWATER QUALITY MONITORING OF WESTERN OIL SHALE
DEVELOPMENT: Monitoring Program Development
5. REPORT DATE
May 1980 '
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Guenton C. Slawson, Jr., Editor
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
GE78TMP-90
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
General Electric Company--TEMPO
816 State Street
Santa Barbara, California 93102
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1NE833
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2449
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Las Vegas, NV
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Veyas, NV 89114
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/07
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report presents the development of a preliminary design of a groundwater
quality monitoring program for oil shale operations, such as proposed for Federal
Prototype Lease Tracts U-a and U-b in eastern Utah. The methodology used begins with
a priority ranking of potential pollutant sources and includes assessments of
existing or proposed monitoring programs, identification of alternative monitoring
approaches, and the selection of recommended monitoring approaches.
A preliminary decision framework for monitoring design for this type of oil shale
operation is presented. Included under the broad topic of the monitoring plan are
recommendations for developing background data bases on pollutant source
characteristics, the hydrogeologic framework of the study area, existing water
quality, and infiltration, as well as recommendations for monitoring pollutant
mobility. Hence needs for baseline characterization are identified and evaluated in
addition to direct operational monitoring needs. A field and laboratory testing
program based on these preliminary design recommendations will lead to development of
a final monitoring design strategy.
A preliminary priority ranking of recommended monitoring activities is developed,
based on the pollutant source priority ranking and perceived monitoring deficiencies.
These priorities, along with costing-data, provide a basis for cost-effectiveness
assessment and thus for monitoring program selection.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Groundwater
Water pollution
Oil shale
Water disposal
Groundwater movement
Monitoring methodology
Pollutant sources
08D
08H
081
15B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
193
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |