the regional ground-water flow pattern).

Although ground water travels through an aquifer slowly, it
is in constant motion and must eventually discharge to the
surface because all aquifer systems are being recharged to
some degree. In humid areas, discharge of contaminants is
relatively quick for shallow water-table aquifers and slow
for deep artesian aquifers. In arid regions, recharge and
discharge are so slow that some aquifers can actually be con-
sidered sinks similar to the ocean. Points of discharge in-
clude wells and springs used for water supply, and surface-
water bodies such as rivers and lakes. In fact, the base
flow of most streams is supported by ground-water discharge,
and the quality of the surface water during low flow periods
is dependent upon ground-water quality. The usefulness to
man and his environment of both surface water and ground wa-
ter is severely limited if ground-water quality is degraded.

The way the ground-water system works controls the methodolo-
gies available to prevent, monitor, and abate instances of
contamination. Prevention must be directed toward the source
where proper design, construction and siting can help protect
the resource or at least minimize problems. If the aquifer
becomes contaminated, then the resource has already been de-
graded, and efforts must be shifted toward preventing the
ground-water user from being damaged. Controls involve such
actions as regulating pumpage patterns in order to contain or
isolate the contaminant. When the contaminant reaches the
point of discharge, it is too late except for such expensive
alternatives as treatment or condemnation of a water supply.

Again, in monitoring, the most effective place to devote the
greatest effort is at the source, where observation of water
quality degradation allows enough time for minimizing the
problem and for establishing a warning procedure. After con-
tamination has affected enough of the aquifer, monitoring no
longer becomes a protective measure but simply informs the
regulator or the user of long-term changes. Also, random
placement of monitoring wells on a regional basis can provide
misleading information, because important plumes and individ-
ual bodies of contaminated ground water are overlooked. Mon-
itoring of discharge points serves as a safety precaution and
helps define trends. For this reason, it cannot be elimi-
nated from the monitoring program.

The principal abatement procedure for surface-water problems
is to eliminate or correct the source of contamination. Be-
cause streams are subject to the cleansing action of turbu-
lent flow and the purifying effects of air, light, and bio-
logical organisms, they can recover quickly. The opposite is

14


the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
and thus may be required to have a permit as a "point source"
under the NPDES. State animal-feedlot regulations typically
apply to the situation where the ratio of the number of ani-
mals to land area is high.

PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION

NOT RELATED TO WASTE-DISPOSAL PRACTICES

Aside from the possibility of contamination of ground water
from present-day, waste-disposal practices, there are numer-
ous other sources that can cause degradation of water quality.
Few regional and national assessments of ground-water contam-
ination problems have been undertaken. However, without ex-
ception, the number of documented cases reported is evenly
divided between incidents related to waste-disposal practices
and those related to non-waste disposal problems. Spills

rank highest in reported incidents, with abandoned oil and

gas wells, water wells, and highway deicing salts also of
prime importance. Only salt-water encroachment in coastal re-
gions has received major attention from regulatory agencies
and because of this is adequately controlled in most critical
areas.

EXISTING FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Conscious effort and legislation toward comprehensive water
pollution control began with the Water Pollution Control Act
of 1948. This Act was primarily concerned with abatement of
stream pollution, and it directed the Surgeon General to "pre-
pare or adopt comprehensive programs for eliminating or re-
ducing the pollution of interstate waters and tributaries
thereof and improving the sanitary conditions of surface and
underground waters."

Several other pieces of Federal legislation since 1948 pro-
vide further legal methods to protect ground water from con-
tamination.

1. Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) establishes a planning
function which provides for areawide and statewide waste
treatment management. This planning must specifically in-
clude a process to identify and control pollution from
surface and underground mine runoff, the disposal of re-

35


*ZL6L ‘(wiNajosjyad pun jpoo Buipnjoxa) suoyouedo Buyssaooud
210 pup Buyusw wory paBoyosip aip 49jDM a\SDM Jo SOWNJOA jUDDIyIUBIS YOIYyM Ul seyDS +g asNBI4

TIVAS G3WNSS¥ LNG GaSO1NSIQNN YO
YA/ WO NOINTIG S NVHL SS37 Sv Galyoday

39YV7 GAWNSSY Lng G3SO19SIGNN aWNI0A
¥A/ WS NOITII€ O2-S Sv GaLyOdaH
YA/ WO NOITTIG OZ NVHL 3YOW S¥ GaLyOdgy

SuaLaNOTIN
009 0
=_—
=
oor °
S37IN

ON3937

& CO wav

o
su31anoun °
209 00% 002 oo
——————
my 00% Of 002 O01 0
_ satin

= .

’ o



APPENDIX A = ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FACILITIES, VOLUMES OF WASTE, AND
LEAKAGE TO GROUND WATER.

Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
total total amount leakage
Waste disposal practice number size of waste to ground
Industrial impoundments
Treatment lagoons NA NA 1,700 bgy 100 bgy
All impoundments 50,000 NA NA NA
Land disposal of solid wastes
Municipal 18,500 500, 000 acres 135 mty 90 bgy
Industrial NA NA NA NA
Septic tanks and cesspools
Domestic 16,600, 000 - 800 bgy 800 bgy
Industrial 25,000 - NA NA
Municipal waste water
Sewer systems 12,000 470, 000 mi 5, 000 bgy 250 bgy
Treatment lagoons 10, 000 20, 000 acres 300 bgy 18 bgy
Land spreading of sludge
Municipal NA NA NA NA
Manufacturing NA NA NA NA
Petroleum exploration and
development
Wells 60, 000 - 260 bgy 260 bgy*
Pits NA NA 43 boy 43 bgy
Mine waste
Coal
Waste water 277 - 77 bay 8 bgy
Solid waste NA 173, 000 acres 100 mty 600 m Ibs/y acid
Other 691 - 860 bgy 100 bgy
Disposal and injection wells
Agricultural, urban run-
off, cooling water and
sewage disposal wells 40, 000 - NA NA
Industrial and municipal
injection wells < 400 - NA NA
Animal feeding operations
Cattle 140, 000 50, 000 acres 83 mty NA
Other NA NA 7 mty NA

bgy —- billion gallons per year
mty — - million tons per year
m Ibs/y - million pounds per year

~ = not applicable
* —~ almost all retumed to salt-water aquifers
NA - insufficient data for estimate

40


*waysds Jajpm—punos6 ayy ajpuiwojuos sadlyopid |psodsip ass

DM MOH} *Z a4NBiy

(37v98 01 LON SNIMVY)

LN3N3AOW

WRLYM-ONNOYS JO NOILOSYIO | VS

NOILo3eNI

4o

a

rn

AMdNi TWNOLLNALNIND

AMANI WNOILN3LNI

<>
ss

39NVHOSIG

BI

(aniqvs) yasinow NVISaZLeV
an3037
pa oe
3NOZ — SNINI4NOD
(Hs3¥4)  -d34INOV -NVIS3LUY WS
BNOZ ONINISNOD iin =
(HS3ud) YadINOW 27avi = 431lvM
we 1 <w gorsuns
aovxvay wownwroousa swinitiven

=

E> powws7

p——____.

zonswns
SULINOLING Od

NOlLvI09N3d

FeV. wTLVM

L

Whwar

uid 3snazy Yo
AWG ‘TIL4GNYT

NOLLVMIGSNYMLOGVAR

13m ONIGNNE

43M3S 40048839 ¥O

WNUL 911438
3134

NOILVOINY! YO
ONIGV3NdS NYT

avsoasia

‘Notvildioawe

Ly



nation because of leakage of waste waters into shallow aqui-
fers. Potential contaminants cover the full range of inor-
ganic chemicals and organic chemicals normally contained in
industrial waste waters. Those documented as having degraded
ground-water quality include phenols, acids, heavy metals,
and cyanide.

United States' industries treat about 5,000 billion gal./yr
{18 billion cu m/yr) of waste water before discharging it to
the environment. Of this volume, about 1,700 billion gal.
(6.4 billion cu m) are pumped to oxidation ponds or lagoons
for treatment or as a step in the treatment process. Unknown
quantities of industrial wastes are also stored or treated in
other types of impoundments, such as basins and pits. Based
on standard leakage coefficients and volumes of waste waters
discharged, it is estimated that more than 100 billion gal./
yr (380 million cu m/yr) of industrial effluents enter the
ground-water system. This source of contamination is one of ©
the most frequently reported, in spite of the almost complete
lack of formal ground-water monitoring programs. Figure 5
shows principal regions in which waste water is discharged to
industrial impoundments.

One option to correct leaking impoundments is the use of an
impermeable barrier or liner. A second is to replace waste-
water treatment operations now performed in ponds and lagoons
with such alternatives as clarifiers, filtration or centrifu-
gation equipment, and digestion (anaerobic, aerobic).

Impoundments of industrial wastes are normally not subject

to any special regulations unless it is shown that they may
affect surface- or ground-water quality. In order to over-
come this burden of proof, a few states have developed spe-
cific regulations covering such aspects as design of the fa-
cility to guard against or minimize leakage, reporting types
and volumes of effluent, and installation of monitoring wells.

LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES

Solid waste land disposal sites can be sources of ground-
water contamination because of the generation of leachate
caused by water percolating through the bodies of refuse and
waste materials. Precipitation falling on a site either be-
comes runoff, returns to the atmosphere via evaporation and
transpiration, or infiltrates the landfill. Contamination
problems are more likely to occur in humid areas, where the
moisture available exceeds the ability of the waste pile to
absorb water.

18


sidual waste, and the disposal of pollutants on land or
in subsurface excavations. EPA's role, as set forth by
Section 304(e) is to provide guidance and information,
but EPA has no implementation authority.

Section 402 of PL 92-500 establishes the National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is a pro-
gram for issuing permits for point source discharges of
pollutants. Section 402 also requires states to control
the discharge of pollutants into wells. However, Section
502 excludes from the definition of pollutants "water,
gas, or other material which is injected into a well to
facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in
association with oil or gas production and disposed of in
a well, if the well used either to facilitate production
or for disposal purposes is approved by authority of the
state in which the well is located, and if such state de-
termines that such injection or disposal will not result
in the degradation of ground or surface water resources."
This exclusion therefore removes wells used in associa-
tion with oil and gas production from regulations under
Section 402.

The Solid Waste Disposal Act of ]965, as amended in 1970,
contains no specific reference to ground water. However,
guidelines developed under the Act provide for ground-
water protection resulting from polluting activities and
surface drainage and also for site development to mini-
mize the impact on ground water. These guidelines are
only mandatory for Federal agencies, but they serve as
recommended practices for non-Federal agencies.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969

(PL 91-190) requires that all Federal agencies prepare en-
vironmental impact statements on major Federal or Federal-
ly regulated actions significantly affecting the quality
of the environment. EPA has promulgated regulation for
implementation of NEPA which lists ground-water protec-—
tion as a significant parameter in determining the need
for an EIS.

The discharge of radioactive wastes has been regulated
from the beginning. However, there have been many signif-
icant problems, and an Interagency Work Group consisting
of representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), the Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA)
and EPA has been formed to evaluate radioactive waste man-
agement and disposal.

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (PL 93-523) requires

36


CONTENTS

FINDINGS. 2. 6 6 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee
INTRODUCTION. © 2 6 6 6 2 6 ee ee ee we ee
IMPORTANCE OF THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCE ......
NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE RESOURCE . ...-.- ++...
HOW GROUND WATER IS CONTAMINATED. . .... +. + ee

INDUSTRIAL WASTE-WATER IMPOUNDMENTS . .......

LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES . ...... +4...

SEPTIC TANKS AND CESSPOOLS. . . . «2+ «+ 2 6 © © we

COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL

WASTE WATER. . «© 2 6 6 6 ee ee we we ee

LAND SPREADING OF SLUDGE. . . . 6. 6 2 2 ee se eee

BRINE DISPOSAL FROM PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND

DEVELOPMENT. . 2 2 6 6 6 6 ee ee ew ew ew ee

DISPOSAL OF MINE WASTES . . . 2. 6 6 6 6 ee ee we

WASTE DISPOSAL THROUGH WELLS. . . » . . « « » ew ©

DISPOSAL OF ANIMAL FEEDLOT WASTE. ......-...

PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION

NOT RELATED TO WASTE-DISPOSAL PRACTICES. ...

EXISTING FEDERAL LEGISLATION. . . .. . 2. eee ee

STATE AND LOCAL ALTERNATIVES FOR GROUND-WATER

QUALITY PROTECTION . . «© 2. 2 ee ee ee eee

FIGURES

Waste-disposal practices and the routes of con-
taminants from solid and liquid wastes. ....

How waste-disposal practices contaminate the
ground-water system. ....+....4.2e+8.e.

15
15
17
17
18
22

24

26

27
29
32
34

35
35

37


past decade.

Most oil-field brines today are returned to oil-producing
zones or deep saline aquifers through old production wells or
brine injection wells for the purpose of water flooding, or
just as a disposal method. However, many of these wells are
poorly designed for injection, and they offer the opportunity
for the salt water to enter fresh-water formations through
ruptured or corroded casings.

A tremendous volume of oil-field brine is produced every day.
Some states keep detailed records, others none at all. In
1963, the Interstate Oil Compact Commission made a study to
determine the production and ultimate fate of brine. Of the
24 states for which data were obtained, almost 24 million bbl
(3.84 million cu m) were produced daily that year. About 8
million bb1/day (1.28 million cu m/day) were reinjected for
water flood and 9 million bbl/day (1.44 million cu m/day)
were reinjected for disposal only. Unlined pits received
about 3 million bbl/day (480,000 cu m/day). Brine production
in some states has increased significantly since 1963. For
example, brine production in California had increased by
about 2 million bbl/day (320,000 cu m/day) by 1974.

Enactment of state oil and gas laws has been primarily moti-
vated by recognition of the need for orderly development of
oil fields in order to prevent waste of petroleum resources
and to stop losses that result from unregulated competition.
Although such laws reveal an awareness of the close relation-
ship of petroleum activities to ground-water resources, they
are principally concerned with economics of petroleum produc-
tion and not environmental considerations. In almost every
state, disposal of brines to streams, rivers, ditches, and
unlined pits is prohibited. Many states allow use of lined
evaporation pits and most regulate the use of brine injection
wells.

DISPOSAL OF MINE WASTES

All forms of mining can result in products and conditions
that may contribute to ground-water contamination. The pat-
terns of ground-water recharge and movement responsible for
the distribution of contaminants are highly variable and al-
most entirely dependent upon the mining practice itself and
such local conditions as geology, drainage, and hydrology.
Although every mine is a potential contamination hazard, few
studies of the effects on ground-water quality have been car-
ried out.

29


true for ground water. Removal of the source prevents the
problem from becoming worse but does not lead to a cleansing
of the aquifer. In addition, clean-up procedures such as re-
moval of the contaminant by means of pumping wells followed

by treatment of the water is almost never economically or
technically feasible. For example, pumping may require the
use of an inordinate number of wells and a complex collection
and treatment system, which is only temporary and difficult

to support with either private or public funds. Although con-
tainment of contaminants within a selected portion of an aqui-
fer has been achieved to various degrees in certain instances,
complete removal is rarely attempted and has not been success-
ful.

IMPORTANCE OF THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCE

At least one half of the population of the United States de-
pends upon ground water as a source of drinking water. Of
the total population, 29 percent use ground water delivered
by community systems and another 19 percent have their own
domestic wells. In addition, millions of Americans drink
ground water from wells serving industrial plants, office
buildings, restaurants, gas stations, recreational areas, and
schools. Practically none of the domestic wells in the na-
tion are subject to routine or even initial evaluation of wa-
ter quality. Few of the several hundred thousand small water
systems supplying industrial establishments, schools, etc.,
are monitored. Figure 4 shows those states where ground wa-
ter represents the source of drinking water for more than
half the population.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE RESOURCE

At almost any location, ground water may be tapped to provide
a supply sufficient for single-family domestic use, and more
than one third of the nation is underlain by aquifers general-
ly capable of yielding at least 100,000 gpd (380 cu m/day) to
an individual well. In many regions, ground water is the
only economic and high quality water source available. In
others, ground water can be developed at a fraction of the
cost of surface water.

Ground water in aquifers across the nation is generally suit-
able for human consumption with little or no treatment neces-
sary, except for disinfection where large, piped water-supply
systems are involved. Salinities tend to be higher in arid

15


Table 2. SUMMARY OF DATA ON 42 MUNICIPAL AND 18 INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL
CONTAMINATION CASES.

Type of Londfill

Findings Municipal Industrial
Assessment of principal damage

Contamination of aquifer only 9 8

Water supply well(s) affected 16 9

Contamination of surface water 7 1
Principal aquifer affected

Unconsolidated deposits 33 uw

Sedimentary rocks 7

Crystalline rocks 2 4
Type of pollutant observed

General contamination 37 4

Toxic substances 5 14
Observed distance traveled by pollutant

Less than 100 feet 6 te)

100 to 1,000 feet 8 4

More than 1,000 feet uv 2

Unknown or unreported 7 12
Maximum observed depth penetrated by pollutant

Less than 30 feet W 3

30 to 100 feet VW 3

More thon 100 feet 5 2

Unknown or unreported 15 10
Action taken regarding source of contamination

Landfill abandoned 5 6

Landfill removed 1 2

Containment or treatment of leachate 10 2

No known action 26 8
Action taken regarding ground-water resource

Water supply well(s) abandoned 4 5

Ground-water monitoring program established 12 2

No known action 26 W
Litigation

Litigation involved 8 5

No known action taken 34 13

2h


regions and areas where drainage is poor.
HOW GROUND WATER IS CONTAMINATED

Innumerable waste materials and natural and man-made products,
with the potential to contaminate ground water, are stored or
disposed of on or beneath the land surface. Contaminants
found in ground water cover the entire range of physical, in-
organic chemical, organic chemical, bacteriological, and ra-
dioactive parameters.

Contaminants that have been introduced into ground water can
move horizontally or vertically, depending on the comparative
density and natural flow pattern of the water already con-
tained in the aquifer. They tend to travel as a well-defined
slug or plume but can be reduced in concentration with time
and distance by such mechanisms as adsorption, ion exchange,
dispersion, and decay. The rate of attenuation is a function
of the type of contaminant and of the local hydrogeologic
framework, but decades and even centuries are required for
the process to be completely effective.

Under the right conditions and given enough time, contami-
nating fluids invading a body of natural ground water can
move great distances, hidden from view and little changed in
toxicity by the processes of attenuation. The eventual point
of discharge of the contaminated ground-water body can be a
well used as a drinking water source.

INDUSTRIAL WASTE-WATER IMPOUNDMENTS

Industrial waste-water impoundments are a serious source of
ground-water contamination because of their large number and
their potential for leaking hazardous substances which are
relatively mobile in the ground-water environment. In some
heavily industrialized sections of the nation, regional prob-
lems of ground-water contamination have developed where the
areal extent and the toxic nature of the contaminants have
ruled out the use of ground water from shallow aquifers. Con-
taminated ground water originating from impoundments at iso-
lated industrial establishments can be even more important be-
cause of the potential for migrating to local water-supply
wells with no warning.

Either by design, or by accident or failure, surface impound-
ments of industrial effluent can cause ground-water contami-

17


With both surface and underground mining, refuse piles and
slurry lagoons are probably the major potential sources of
ground-water contamination. Where aquifers underlie these
sources, water with a low pH (except in arid regions) and an
elevated level of total dissolved solids can percolate to
ground water.

Coal mining is a major industry in the United States. In
1973, 592 million tons (537 million tonnes) of bituminous
coal were produced. Another 108 million tons (98 million
tonnes) were rejected from the preparation plants. Between
1930 and 1971, almost 200,000 acres (81,000 ha) were used for
disposal of coal mining wastes, less than 27,000 acres
(11,000 ha) of which have been reclaimed. Past surface min-
ing has affected 1.3 million acres (0.5 million ha) of land,
and about 4,900 active mines were disturbing 75,000 acres
(30,000 ha) annually.

According to the U. S. Census Bureau figures, five states --
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Alabama, Illinois, and Kentucky
-- each have coal mining operations which discharged more
than 5 billion gal. (19 million cu m) of waste water in 1972.
Other states discharging high volumes of waste water are Ohio,
Indiana, and Virginia.

Metal mining in the United States has also been substantial,
and in 1972 the number of active mines producing crude metal
ore was about 800. The quantity of tailings disposed of in
ponds by the metal mining industry alone is estimated at 250
million tons (230 million tonnes) per year. Phosphate rock
mines dominate the non-metal category and produced over 137
million tons (124 million tonnes) of crude ore and 426 mil-
lion tons (387 million tonnes) of total material handled.
Figure 8 indicates those states in which significant volumes
of waste water are discharged from metal and non-metal mining
and ore processing operations.

Procedures for the abatement of ground-water contamination
from mining waste disposal practices can be divided into two
broad categories. The first consists of methods for control
of seepage and infiltration of surface water and ground water
into the mine. The second is treatment to reduce levels of
contaminants in the waste. All are very costly processes and
have not been practiced to any significant degree.

Most states must rely on all-encompassing water pollution con-
trol statutes in order to regulate disposal of mine wastes.

There are Federal regulations which pertain solely to the dis-
posal of coal mine wastes. However, these focus primarily on
worker safety and have little mention of water pollution, es-

30


Estimating the economic impact of technological or institu-
tional controls was not one of the objectives of this survey.

The report is based on an evaluation and analysis of avail-
able data, a major portion of which has not been published.
About 40 technicians in the ground-water and pollution-
control fields contributed directly to this effort. Many
more were contacted and provided the researchers with essen-
tial information. In addition, a working group consisting of
representatives of various offices of EPA, plus personnel of
state environmental agencies, periodically reviewed the re-
port and contributed significantly to its content.

Ground-water contamination is the degradation of the natural
quality of ground water as a result of man's activities. The
term "contaminant" is defined in the Safe Drinking Water Act
as "any physical, chemical, biological or radiological sub-
stance or matter in water." In this report, only those con-
taminants which result from waste disposal activities are con-
sidered in detail.

In order to appreciate the magnitude and severity of ground-
water contamination, the hydrologic system itself, mechanisms
of ground-water contamination, and environmental hazards must
be understood. Figure 3 illustrates these concepts.

The contamination process begins with sources of contaminants;
the waste disposal practices. The type of contaminant, of
course, depends on the source and can range from hazardous or-
ganic chemicals in landfill leachates to high concentrations
of salt in oil-field brines. Either deliberately (septic
tanks) or unintentionally (industrial waste-water impound-
ments), contaminants can leak, percolate, be discharged to,

or injected into water-supply aquifers.

As the contaminant travels through the soil and into the
ground-water system, it can be modified by various attenua-
tion processes. These processes are very complex and not all
are completely effective. In fact, once in an aquifer, cer-
tain toxic substances, such as some heavy metals, are highly
mobile. Attenuation in an aquifer is extremely slow as is
the movement of ground water (typically less than 2 ft/day or
0.6 m/day). Therefore, contaminants within the ground-water
system do not mix readily with native water and move as: (1)
individual bodies or slugs (e.g., caused by intermittent fill-
ing of and seepage from waste-water impoundments) ; (2) local
plumes (e.g., caused by continual flow of leachate from be-
neath a landfill toward a pumping well); and (3) masses of
degraded water (e.g., caused by a large number of septic
tanks discharging nitrate-enriched water which travels with

12


\.

pal sludges; and (4) municipal waste treatment facili-
ties planning for areas where septic systems pose poten-
tial adverse ground-water impacts.

FWPCAA do not address the discharge of contaminants to
ground water from surface impoundments, land disposal of
solid wastes, septic systems, or most wells.

The SDWA provides for a Federal/state cooperative effort
to prevent endangerment of underground drinking water
sources from industrial and municipal waste disposal
wells, oil-field brine disposal wells and secondary recov-
ery wells, and engineering wells. At present, surface im-
poundments are not included in this program, but some
types of impoundments may be included at a later time.
SDWA also provides that EPA may review any commitment of
Federal financial assistance in an area designated as
having a sole source aquifer.

SDWA cannot be used to regulate land disposal of solid
wastes, land application of sludges and effluents, or sep-
tic systems except under the emergency powers provisions
of the Act.

The Solid Waste Disposal Act contains no specific refer-
ence to ground water, however, guidelines developed under
the Act provide for ground-water protection from pollu-
tion activities and surface drainage. There are also

site development guidelines which consider the impact on
ground water. These guidelines are only mandatory for
Federal agencies.

The NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare environment-
al impact statements on major actions. Ground-water pro-
tection is a significant need for writing an EIS.

While site selection is an important parameter in prevent-
ing ground-water contamination, there are no direct Fed-
eral controls in this area. States are encouraged to de-
velop site selection programs within the context of their
land-use planning and control authorities.

Most state laws give broad authority to protect all wa-
ters of the state, including ground water. Such language,
plus deficiencies in budget and staffing, force state and
local agencies to act on cases of contamination only af-
ter the fact.

States are beginning to develop programs which encourage
prevention of contamination from some waste disposal
sources.

Because clean-up of contaminated ground water is rarely
economically or technically feasible, action by the

states has been directed toward condemning the affected
water supply.

Legal action is seldom taken against a specific source of
contamination because individuals, private organizations,
and public agencies seldom have the resources required to
prove a specific source as the source of contamination.

4


contributors of residues and account for over half of the to-
tal production. Industrial expansion and growing pollution
control activities should increase the volume of industrial
sludges dramatically over the next 10 years.

The key to correct management combines site selection with
sludge composition, application rates, and land use (crops).
Of major importance to ground water is the availability of
soil, such as a loam or silt loam, that is the most efficient
for attenuating contaminants.

In most states, the basic provision of law applicable to land
spreading of municipal and industrial sludges is the all in- +
clusive prohibition against polluting watérs of the state.
Before action can be taken, the presence of a contamination
problem must be established. In a few instances, control

over sludge disposal can be asserted where states have en- &
acted "potential pollution" statutes which include sludge
spreading in the same provisions as those that apply to waste
lagoons and landfills. Other states have developed special
laws that apply to disposal of hazardous or general indus-
trial process wastes including sludges.

BRINE DISPOSAL FROM PETROLEUM

EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Disposal of brine from oil and gas production activities has
been a major cause of ground-water contamination in areas of
intense petroleum exploration and development (see Figure 7).
The principal problem has been related to the long-term prac-
tice of discharging to unlined pits, which is now almost uni-
versally prohibited. The large number of instances of ground-
water contamination from brine disposal stem mainly from days
when there was very little regulation of oil exploration and
development. Today, the major problem is discharge of saline ,
water from abandoned oil and gas wells rather than disposal 7
of waste brine through injection or secondary recovery wells
at active petroleum recovery fields.

The first method of brine disposal was uncontrolled discharge

to streams and ditches, and later to evaporation pits. These fo
pits were unlined shallow excavations which could leak salts

and minerals into shallow fresh-water zones. Evaporation

pits range in area from tens of square feet to a few acres.

It is impossible to even roughly estimate the total number,

areal extent, and brine input to such sources of contamina-

tion, especially since so many have been abandoned over the

27


COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL

OF MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER

Municipal waste water follows one of three direct routes to
reach ground water: leakage from collecting sewers, leakage
from the treatment plant during processing, and land disposal
of the treatment-plant effluent. In addition, there are two
indirect routes: effluent disposal to surface-water bodies
which recharge aquifers, and land disposal of sludge, which
is subject to leaching. Although the volume of waste water
entering the ground-water system from these various sources
May be substantial, there have been few documented cases of
hazardous levels of constituents of sewage or storm water af-
fecting well-water supplies. However, the impact on ground-
water quality resulting from the collection, treatment, and
disposal of municipal waste water has not been studied in de-
tail.

Untreated sewage is principally composed of domestic wastes.
In areas where manufacturing is also served by the community
system, the waste products of industry can add important po-
tential contaminants. Storm runoff from streets, parking
lots, and roofs contributes salts, inorganic chemicals, and
organic matter which have been deposited on exposed surfaces.

According to the 1970 U. S. Census of Housing, the domestic
waste from 71 percent of housing units is collected by public
sewer lines and piped to central treatment facilities. Fig-
ure 6 shows the distribution of population served by public
sewer systems.

About 160 million people are served by 500,000 mi (800,000
km) of sewer lines. The total volume of sewage is approxi-
mately 15 bgd (57 million cu m/day). More than 5,000 of the
almost 22,000 treatment plants in the nation have waste sta-
bilization ponds, which are seldom lined and almost never
monitored with wells. Of the more than 2 bgd (7.6 million
cu m/day) of sewage treatment plant effluent discharged to
the land, a large proportion does not meet secondary treat-
ment standards.

About the only control of potential ground-water contamina-
tion related to leaky sewers is the specification by many
states of minimum distances between a proposed public supply
well and a sewer line. Conformance with pressure test re-
quirements on new sewer line installations in many areas aids
in minimizing exfiltration problems. Municipal lagoons and
ponds for the retention of waste water are parts of sewage

24;


FINDINGS

Ground water is a high quality, low cost, readily available
source of drinking water.

- Half of the population of the United States is served by
ground water.

- In many areas, ground water is the only high quality, eco-
nomic source available.

- The use of ground water is increasing at a rate of 25 per- »
cent per decade.

Waste disposal practices have affected the safety and availa-
bility of ground water, but the overall usefulness has not
been diminished on a national basis.

- Current data indicate that there are at least 17 million
waste disposal facilities emplacing over 1,700 billion
gal. (6.5 billion cu m) of contaminated liquid into the
ground each year. Of these, 16.6 million are domestic
septic tanks emplacing about 800 billion gal. (3 billion
cum) of effluent.

- Ground water has been contaminated on a local basis in
all parts of the nation and on a regional basis in some
heavily populated and industrialized areas, precluding
the development of water wells. Serious local economic
problems have occurred because of the loss of ground-
water supplies.

- Degree of contamination ranges from a slight degradation
of natural quality to the presence of toxic concentra-
tions of such substances as heavy metals, organic com-
pounds, and radioactive materials.

- More waste, some of which may be hazardous to health,
will be going to the land because of increased regulation
against, and the rising costs of, disposal of potential
contaminants to the air, ocean, rivers, and lakes.

- Removing the source of contamination does not clean up
the aquifer once contaminated. The contamination of an
aguifer can rule out its usefulness as a drinking water
source for decades and possibly centuries.

Almost every known instance of ground-water contamination has
been discovered only after a drinking-water source has been
affected.

- Few state or local agencies systematically collect data
on contamination incidents, water supply wells affected,
and drinking-water supplies condemned as unsafe.

- Effective monitoring of potential sources of ground-water


FIGURES (Continued)

The hydrologic system controlling ground-water
contamination and its constraints on methodolo~
gies for prevention, monitoring, and abatement. . .

Dependence of United States population on
ground water as a source of drinking water. ....

Total industrial waste water treated in ponds
and lagoons, 1968... ....-4 2 2 2 2 ee eee

Number of people using public sewer systems
for disposal of domestic waste (by county). ....

Major oil producing states (more than 5,000
barrels per day in 1974)... ...... 2. ee ee

States in which significant volumes of waste

water are discharged from mining and ore
processing operations (excluding coal and
petroleum), 1972. 2. 2. 1 6 we we ee ee ee ee

Rock aquifers, containing potable water, most

likely to be used for disposal wells. .......
TABLES

Waste disposal practices and their relative impact.

Summary of data on 42 municipal and 18 industrial
landfill contamination cases. ...... +...

Counties with more than 50,000 and counties with
more than 100,000 housing units using on-site
domestic waste disposal systems .....+-+..-e

Classification of sources and causes of ground-
water pollution used in determining level and kind
of regulatory control... . 2. 6 6 2 ee ee ee

APPENDIX

Estimated Number of Facilities, Volumes of Waste,
and Leakage to Ground Water... . 2. 6 © e+ 2 ee

13

16

19

25

28

31

33

21

23

39

49


+juawayngn pup ‘Bulioyzucw ‘uoljusaesd 104 sa]bojopoyjaw
UO sJU1DIysUOD S41 PUD UO!}DUIWOJUOS JayoM—puNo‘B Bur] jo1juod wayshs o16ojoupdy ay] “€ 24nB1 4

14!) Ays2quousee 2 fyoosuy204
"ous uayiebo pou yoUn-uoe) . cL ANaNBLVeW
WAST
1 01 pu 040694
aay . swesed anon faut muciaeid 0} [ays . ONIMOLINON
——— 2 aAEUEHIO ALO
a weROOTST,
Bane MH
suajgord oxjuqutu 0 wonoid of Buje
surepucd 0 yp 26 et) oe, . uo “voyanieics "USiap [oun «
. NOLLN3Aaud
Trey TO BHA BER PTOID mag WS Sno ay ETE TE
ANAWNOMIANS aouvHosia W31SAS Y3LVM ONNOHS 30unos
on sno) 9094-7970 fou018y
NOMWAYDIY uoe7Q + sauin|g [090]
cm PUD 214 9004 Jouluy 30 fom
souaHisay em peiouyucwo nai
usnant oe : “junotoyenag pu u
syd unayoniog wo
3DO1S2ANT vonty ig waning
BNLINWOV sods 5
mol sem +
Nv

a39NVHOSIC GALVNIWVLNOS
AN3WNOMIANS SLNVNIWVLINOO ¥31VM ONNONS aaHsitevis3 39uNOS

S$ 3ZISONOGOHLAW

W3LSAS JHL

13


nation related to the disposal of mine wastes do exist,
adequate documentation of the problem is unavailable.

- Ground-water contamination from the disposal of animal
feedlot wastes is a relatively new environmental problem,
and few cases of ground-water contamination have been re-
ported.

Existing technology cannot guarantee that soil attenuation
alone will be sufficient to prevent ground-water contamina-
tion from a waste disposal source.

- Proper site selection as well as proper operation and
maintenance of facilities, is the principal technique
available for minimizing ground-water contamination prob-
lems.

~ Such technology as advanced treatment and physical con-
tainment play a major preventive role where economics dic-
tate that sites be located in areas of critical ground-
water use.

~ Land disposal of wastes is not environmentally feasible
in many areas and such alternatives as waste transport,
resource recovery, ocean disposal, and surface-water or
air discharge should be investigated and may be more envi-
ronmentally acceptable.

- Federal demonstration grants and technical assistance are
provided to assist the development of new technology and
facilitate the application of existing technology.

Existing Federal and state programs address many of the
sources of potential contamination, but they do not provide
comprehensive protection of ground water.

- Existing Federal programs administered by EPA which ad-
dress ground water are (1) the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972; (2) the Safe Drinking
Water Act of 1974; and to a lesser degree (3) the Solid
Waste Disposal Act of 1965; and (4) the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969.

- The FWPCAA provide for a statewide and areawide waste
treatment management planning function which may include
identifying and controlling pollution from mine runoff,
the disposal of residual waste, and the disposal of pol-
lutants on land or in subsurface excavations.

- FWPCAA also include (1) a program to issue permits for
point sources of water pollution, including some wells;
(2) best practicable treatment standards for municipal
sewage effluent disposal which must address ground-water
protection; (3) guidelines for land spreading of munici-
pal sludges; and (4) municipal waste treatment facili-
ties planning for areas where septic systems pose poten-


*896| ‘suooBp] pun spuod ul payoedy Jayom afspm [DIYSNpU! [O}O] *¢G eunB1y

su3.aKorm

gele< ool< es #
Geze-og6l OOl-1IS ZZ ee
zesl-eze os-0l Ex oe oe Ow tN

ele > Ol?
WO SNOITIW “Ivo SNOITNIG
aN30931

suaLaWOK
9 ow oz
SS
——————
oor O0f 0Oz 001 0
saw

Li
oR BOS

G

19


EPA-570/9-77-002

THE REPORT TO CONGRESS

WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
AND THEIR EFFECTS ON
GROUND WATER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
January 1977

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Office of Water Supply
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs


APPENDIX A (continued) - ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FACILITIES, VOLUMES OF WASTE, AND
LEAKAGE TO GROUND WATER.

MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER

Sewer Systems

There are currently about 12, 000 sewer systems in the United States using approximately 470, 000
miles of pipe. Approximately 144 million persons were served by sewer facilities in 1970. Based

on an estimated 100 gpd/person sewerage flow (including infiltration-inflow, combined sewer flow,
illegal drain hook-ups and industrial waste flow to sanitary sewer lines), the total sewerage flow in
sanitary sewers is estimated at 5,000 billion gallons per year. Based on available information, sewer
leakage on the average is probably around 5 percent of the total, with wide variations from system to
system. Thus, the total leakage for all sewer lines in the U.S. is estimated at 250 billion gallons per
year.

Treatment Lagoons

There are approximately 5,000 municipal treatment plants in the U.S. which use lagoons as a treat~
ment procedure. Assuming each plant has an average of two lagoons, there would be about 10, 000
municipal treatment lagoons. Assuming each lagoon is roughly two acres in size, there would be
about 20,000 acres of municipal lagoons in the country.

Municipal treatment plants using treatment lagoons receive an inflow of approximately 300 billion
gallons per year. Leakage from these lagoons is estimated at 6 percent. Thus, it is estimated that
municipal lagoons leak 18 billion gallons per year into the ground.

LAND SPREADING OF SLUDGE

Municipal

The number and average size of sludge spreading operations for municipalities is not known. It has
been calculated that about 4 million dry tons of municipal sludge is generated each year. How much
of this quantity is land spread and how much goes to solid waste land disposal sites and lagoons are
unknown.

Industrial
The manufacturing sludge category includes effluent treatment sludge, stack scrubber residue, fly
and bottom ash, slag and numerous other manufacturing residues. The total number of industrial

sludge spreading sites and typical sizes are unknown. Most industrial sludge presently goes to
solid waste land disposal sites and lagoons.

42


INTRODUCTION

On December 14, 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act became law
(PL 93-523). Under Sec. 1442(a)(4) of the Act, the Adminis-
trator of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
was directed to conduct a survey of "(A) disposal of waste
(including residential waste) which may endanger underground
water which supplies, or can reasonably be expected to supply,
any public water systems, and (B) means of control of such
waste disposal." This Executive Summary describes the re-
sults of the investigation. The information contained in the
summary is covered in more detail and referenced in the Re-
port to Congress.

Waste disposal practices included in this study are those ac-
tivities which result in the actual collection and disposal
of liquid, semi-solid, and solid wastes. Such materials in-
clude: (1) industrial waste water that is contained in sur-
face impoundments (lagoons, ponds, pits, and basins); (2) mu-
nicipal and industrial solid refuse and sludge that are dis-
posed of on land; (3) sewage wastes from homes and indus-
tries that are discharged to septic tanks and cesspools; (4)
municipal sewage and storm-water runoff that are collected,
treated, and discharged to the land; (5) municipal and indus-
trial sludge that is land spread; (6) brine from petroleum
exploration and development that is injected into the ground
or stored in evaporation pits; (7) solid and liquid wastes
from mining operations that are disposed of in tailing piles,
lagoons, or discharged to land; (8) domestic, industrial,
agricultural, and municipal waste water that is disposed of
in wells; and (9) animal feedlot waste that is disposed of
on land and in lagoons. The sources of potential contami-
nants and their various routes to the ground-water system are
shown on Figures 1 and 2. Table 1 lists the waste disposal
practices discussed in this report and their relative impact
on the ground-water environment. Appendix A is an estimate
of the numbers of facilities, volumes of waste, and leakage
to ground water.

The first few sections of the Report to Congress describe the
use and occurrence of the ground-water resource along with

the mechanisms of contamination. These are followed by a dis-
cussion of each of the major waste disposal practices. In

the next section of the report, there is a discussion of the
importance of non-waste disposal practices as they affect
ground-water quality. The final two sections define the pres-
ent status of Federal legislation that applies to ground-
water quality protection and the various regulatory alterna-
tives and strategies available to state and local agencies.


A national strategy of ground-water protection will require a
better understanding of the environmental, legal, technical,

and

economic complexities of dealing with the resource.

Better coordination of existing regulatory programs and a
better understanding of the impact of all regulatory ac-
tions on ground water is necessary. Regulatory programs
need to reflect the close relationship between land,
ground water and surface water.

Inventories of ground-water contamination cases have

shown that other contaminant sources including spills,
salt-water intrusion, and highway deicing, have a signif-
icant impact on ground water. Many of these sources are
not included within the scope of Federal/state ground-
water protection programs, but may be addressed on a case-
by-case basis.

The most effective means for protecting ground water is

to control and monitor the potential source of contamina-7
tion and not the aquifer or point of withdrawal.

New potential sources of contamination should be evalu-
ated on a case-by-case basis.

Existing potential contamination sources should be re-
viewed in order to develop control strategies that are in-
stituted in accordance with local priorities.

Increasing Federal regulation of surface-water and air
discharge and ocean disposal may result in land disposal
practices (particularly of sludge) which could contami-
nate ground water.

At the present time, there does not exist a comprehensive
Federal program for sludge management. However, EPA is
developing a comprehensive program to address this issue.


A second approach is to take into account the ability of aqui-
fers to treat and store wastes and to consider these charac-
teristics as the prime resource to be managed or controlled.
The second method is not in common usage, but may become more
popular as ground-water technology becomes more sophisticated.
An example of this approach could be based upon the possibil-
ity of states and local governments acquiring ownership of
aquifer pore space (storage capacity) through eminent domain
proceedings or other methods.

When faced with the multiplicity of ground-water contamina-
tion causes and sources, the question becomes "to permit or
not to permit." To deal with this problem, these sources and
causes have been divided into four categories (Table 4). The
first two categories concern discharges of contaminants that
are wastes or waste waters, the third category concerns dis-
charges of contaminants that are not wastes, and the fourth
category consists of those causes of ground-water quality deg-
radation not related to discharges. Some of the sources or
causes of ground-water contamination could fall under more
than one category, for example, some lagoons may be designed
to discharge to land and ground waters.

As a general rule, all Category I causes will require a dis-
charge or injection control permit for each project. Excep-
tions can be made, for example, on the basis of existing per-
mit systems. A regulatory agency can also decide for politi-
cal or economic reasons, to simply exempt the discharge activ-
ity from permit requirements if the impact on aquifers and
underground waters is not considered significant. Category

II causes will require approval of construction standards
(again, exceptions can be made). A permit for Category II
could be required for activities which posed an exceptional
threat of ground-water contamination such as lagoons and land-
fills. Category III causes will require facility construc-
tion standards and/or guidelines and manuals (e.g., tons/mile
limits on highway deicing salts, corrosion-proof buried stor-
age tanks, covered stockpiles). For Category IV causes,

other types of regulatory controls will be needed in addition
to facility construction standards, guidelines and manuals
(e.g., controls on ground-water withdrawals, limits on dis-
charges of contaminants to streams, and constraints on land
use).

38


treatment facilities, the construction and operation of which
are supervised by state health or environmental departments.
In addition, where Federal grants are involved, the design of
the impoundment comes under the scrutiny of the EPA. Thus,
in the construction of new lagoons and ponds, potential ef-
fects on ground-water quality are given consideration. A num-
ber of states also require permits for municipal sewage im-
poundments. Spraying of sewage effluent and other forms of
land disposal of sewage wastes are specifically regulated in
only a few states. Most states review such practices on a
case-by-case basis.

LAND SPREADING OF SLUDGE

Municipal and industrial sludge is the residue remaining af-
ter treatment of waste water. The impact of diffuse land
spreading of municipal and industrial sludge on ground water
is not documented even though the potential for contamination
exists. Less than one percent of the present municipal

sludge disposal facilities are monitored for effects on water
quality. Even fewer industrial sludge sites are monitored be-
cause this potential source of ground-water contamination has
received less attention than municipal sources.

Sludge may be a product of physical, biological, or chemical
treatment or a combination thereof. Ground-water quality deg-
radation can be caused by land spreading of sludge because
organisms (such as viruses) and chemical ions and compounds
can be leached by precipitation and carried in percolate to
ground water.

Land and air (through incineration) remain the depositional
areas for an ever increasing volume of sludge from a growing
population and from higher degrees of waste-water treatment,
the latter brought on by more stringent environmental protec-
tion of rivers, lakes, the ocean, and the atmosphere. Most
municipal and industrial sludge now goes to landfills and im-
poundments. As controls over these two methods of disposal
become more restrictive with respect to type of waste accept-
ed, the amount of sludge diverted to land-spreading sites
will increase rapidly.

In the United States, municipal sludge production amounts to
about 5,000,000 dry tons/yr (4,540,000 dry tonnes/yr). Accu-
rate data on quantities of industrial sludge are not avail-
able. However, the total volume certainly exceeds municipal
sludge production by many times. The organic and inorganic
chemicals industries and coal-fired utilities are the largest

26


APPENDIX A (continued) ~ ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FACILITIES, VOLUMES OF WASTE, AND
LEAKAGE TO GROUND WATER,

PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Disposal Wells

An estimated 60, 000 brine injection wells are in use in the U.S. The total estimated brine disposal
is 260 billion gallons per year. Almost all goes into salt water aquifers. The volume which finds its
way into fresh aquifers is unknown.

Pits and Basins

An estimated 43 billion gallons per year of oil field brine is disposed of into pits and basins, most of
which enters the ground; usually a fresh water aquifer.

MINE WASTE
Coal

Waste Water -

The volume of waste water discharged by the 277 coal mining establishments reporting water consump~
tion in 1972, including processing water and collected mine drainage, totalled 77 billion gallons.
The volume of this waste water which entered the ground is not known, but based on the typical geol-
ogy of the major coal mining regions and what is known about disposal practices, it is estimated at
roughly 10 percent, or 8 billion gallons.

Solid Waste -

Between 1930 and 1971, almost 200,000 acres have been used for the disposal of coal mining wastes.
Of this area, only 27,000 have been reclaimed. A study in IIlinois found that each acre of unreclaimed
coal waste could generate 198 Ib of acidity (as CaCO3) per day. Assuming half the total acreage of
refuse was still producing acid, about 3.6 million tons of acid would be generated each year. On com-
parison of the location of coal waste dumps with ground-water aquifer types, it is estimated that approx-
imately 10 percent of this total, 600 million Ibs of acid/year, might enter the ground-water system,

Other

There were about 1,300 active mines (excluding coal, clay, sand, and stone mines) in the U.S. in
1972. The total solid waste from these mines include some 1.5 billion tons of waste rock plus a large
volume of other waste materials from various processing procedures. Of the total number of mines,
691 reported substantial water use in 1972. Total waste water discharged was about 860 billion gal-
lons for that year. A rough estimate of the portion of this volume which would have entered oquifer
systems is 10 percent or about 100 billion gallons.

43


*(Ayunos Aq) ayspm o1jsawop
JO Josodsip soy swajsks Jamas o1qnd Buisn ajdoad yo Jequnyy *9 einBiy

Coo‘oos< sammy
000'00s - o00'0¢ Ey
ooo'os > CH

QNn3937

25


contamination is almost non-existent.

- Typical water-well monitoring programs traditionally have
not been directed toward protecting public health because
water analyses normally do not include complete coverage
of such significant parameters as heavy metals, organic
chemicals, and viruses.

- There are potentially millions of sources of contamina-
tion and isolated bodies of ground-water contamination
nationwide.

- While detailed national inventories of all potential
sources of ground-water contamination have not been car-
ried out, EPA and some states have begun some inventories
and assessments of some waste disposal sources.

Waste disposal practices of principal concern are those re-
lated to industrial and urban activities.

- For every waste-disposal facility documented as a source
of contamination, there may be thousands more sited, de-
signed, and operated in a similar manner.

- The opportunity for severe contamination of ground water
is greatest from industrial waste-water impoundments and
sites for land disposal of solid wastes.

- Septic tanks and cesspools discharge large volumes of ef-
fluent directly to the subsurface. In many cases, the
degree of treatment is not adequate to protect ground-
water supplies.

- Contamination resulting from the collection, treatment,
and disposal of municipal waste water exists but the mag-
nitude is unknown.

- Because there is a known potential for contamination from
the land spreading of industrial and municipal sludges,
there is concern about the expected increase in sludge
generation over the next decade.

- There have been far fewer reports of contamination of po-
table ground-water supplies by the several hundred indus-
trial and municipal wells injecting into saline aquifers
than from thousands of shallow wells used to dispose of
sewage, runoff, and irrigation return flow to aquifers
containing potable water.

Other waste-disposal practices, whose distribution is depend-
ent upon geology, climate, and topography, have also contam-
inated ground water.

- Contamination from oil and gas field activities is caused
primarily by improperly plugged and abandoned wells and,
to a lesser degree, poorly designed and constructed oper-
ating production and disposal wells.

- Although specific case histories of ground-water contami-


(L *494OM BuLULUp JO @duN0s D so JayoM punosB Uo UoI4yDjNdod S@4D4S paylup Jo eouapuadag *p ainBry

4a1VM ONNOYD NO
SONVITTY YOPVN HLIM SaLvIs

GN3037
a SUILINOTIN
Fs 008 009 Cor oof 0
———— I
SSS
00S OO” OO& COZ OO! O
sain
&*

16


*S}]9M |psodsip Joy pasn aq o4 Ajar!] Jsow “4ayoM ajqojod Bususoyu0D ‘ssajinbo yo0y * 4 anBuy

S.LINO100 GNV 3NOLS3W/7 som
iivsva fa

PEEFELT OID °
008 00» 002 oO

I

“\00% 008 002 oor 0
> sayin

“an!
f

33


drainage wells, and storm-water disposal wells.

DISPOSAL OF ANIMAL FEEDLOT WASTE

The generation and disposal of large quantities of animal
waste at locations of concentrated feeding operations is a
relatively new environmental problem. Case histories of ac-
tual contamination of ground water caused by animal feeding
Operations are almost non-existent. However, because such
practices are relatively new, assessment of potential prob-
lems is still underway.

There are three primary mechanisms of ground-water contamina-
tion from animal feedlots and their associated treatment and
disposal facilities: (1) runoff and infiltration from the
feedlots themselves, (2) runoff and infiltration from waste
products collected from the feedlots and disposed of on land,
and (3) seepage or infiltration through the bottom of a waste
lagoon. The principal contaminants are phosphate, chloride,
nitrate, and in some cases, heavy metals.

Cattle are the most serious potential problem in terms of the
volume of waste produced, but sheep, poultry, and hog feeding
operations also represent potential sources of ground-water
contamination. During its 120- to 150-day stay in the feed-
lot, each beef animal will produce over one-half ton (0.45
tonne) of manure on a dry weight basis. In January 1975,
there were almost 10 million cattle in feedlots of more than
1,000-head capacity.

The two leading cattle feedlot regions, the Corn Belt and the
Northern Plains, form a grain-farming and livestock-growing
belt that extends easterly from the south-central part of the
Northern Plains, traverses the Missouri and Mississippi Riv-
ers and terminates in western Ohio. Other significant feed-
lot areas are found in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas,
and Washington. Principal states for poultry raising are lo-
cated in the south, for hogs in the midwest, and for sheep in
the southwest and in the far west.

Application of manure to land for its fertilizer and soil con-
ditioner value is the classic system through which manure has
been utilized. Several methods have been proposed for con-
verting manure to energy products, the principal one involv-
ing thermochemical processes for conversion to methane, oil,
and/or synthesis gas.

“Concentration animal feeding operations" are regulated under

34


SEPTIC TANKS AND CESSPOOLS

Septic tanks and cesspools rank highest in total volume of
waste water discharged directly to ground water and are the
most frequently reported sources of contamination. However,
most problems are related to individual homesites or subdivi-
sions where recycling of septic fluids through aquifers has
affected private wells used for drinking water. Except in
situations where such recycling is so quick that pathogenic
organisms can survive, the overall health hazard from on-site
domestic waste disposal is only moderate, with relatively
high concentrations of nitrate representing the principal con-
cern.

Twenty-nine percent of the population, representing about
19.5 million single housing units, dispose of their domestic
waste through individual on-site disposal systems. Almost 17
million of these housing units use septic tanks or cesspools.
Regional ground-water quality problems have been recognized
only in those areas of the greatest density of such systems,
primarily in the northeast and southern California. Table 3
lists those counties that have 50,000 or more housing units
with on-site domestic waste disposal systems.

Where the density of on-site disposal systems has created
problems, collection of domestic waste water by public sewers
and treatment at a central facility is the most common alter-
native. Other alternatives, which are generally limited to
special situations where natural conditions or restrictive
codes rule out conventional septic tank systems, include
aerobic treatment tanks, sand filters, flow reduction devices,
evapotranspiration systems, and artificial soil (mounds) dis-
posal systems.

Where sewer systems are not economically feasible, prevention
of ground-water quality problems has normally been attempted
by low density zoning at the local government level, although
increased regulation of septic tank siting, construction and
design is emerging at the state government level. More than
half the states now participate in septic tank permitting or
regulation of some type, and a large number are providing lo-
cal agencies with data to aid in land-use planning as applied
to septic tank density.

22


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

M4 owe WASHINGTON, D.C 20460

THE ADMINISTRATOR

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I am pleased to transmit the Report to Congress "Waste Disposal
Practices and Their Effects on Ground Water" presenting the results
of a survey and study carried out pursuant to Section 1442(a) (4) of
Public Law 93-523, the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The Report is an evaluation of the impact of waste disposal
practices upon present and future underground sources of drinking
water. The Report also assesses the ability of Federal, State and
local authorities to control such practices. The Report does not
reflect the impact of the recently enacted Toxic Substances Control
Act. (P.L. 94-469) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
(P.L. 94-580) which will provide added protection of ground water
as they are implemented.

The Report is transmitted in two volumes. One volume is an
Executive Summary and the second is the Report itself. All the
material presented in the Executive Sumvury is duplicated in the
full Report so that it will stand alone as a complete document.

Sincerely yours,

Russell F. Train

Honorable Carl Bert Albert
Speaker of the House
Washington, D. C. 20515


APPENDIX A(continued) - ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FACILITIES, VOLUMES OF WASTE, AND
LEAKAGE TO GROUND WATER.

EXPLANATION,

INDUSTRIAL |MPOUNDMENTS

Within this category, available data make necessary the separation of secondary treatment lagoons
from other impoundments such as settling ponds, pits and basins. The total number of all impound-
ments in the United States is estimated at 50,000. The flow to these impoundments is not known.
The total flow to treatment lagoons alone is calculated at 1,700 billion gallons per year. Average
leakage to ground from treatment lagoons is estimated at 6 percent. Thus, the total leakage of in-
dustrial waste water from secondary lagoons is estimated at 100 billion gallons per year.

LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES

Municipal

An estimated 18,500 municipal solid waste land disposal sites in the U.S. cover a total area of ap-
proximately 500, 000 acres (estimate based on 25 acres per site). Approximately 135 million tons of
refuse per year is landfilled. The volume of leachate generated can be estimated based on average
infiltration of precipitation in water surplus areas and on site size. It is estimated that 70 percent
of the land disposal sites in the U.S. are in water surplus areas and that the average infiltration is
10 inches per year. Thus, municipal sites would generate a total of 90 billion gallons of leachate
per year, most of which goes into the ground.

Industrial

The number of and typical size of industrial solid waste land disposal sites are unknown. A large
portion of industrial solid waste, including that which is considered hazardous, presently goes to
municipal solid waste land disposal sites.

SEPTIC TANKS AND CESSPOOLS

Domestic

There were an estimated 16,600, 000 septic tanks and cesspools in the U.S. in 1970. Annual flow to
a septic tank or cesspool from an average house is 49,275 gallons (45 gpd/person x 3 persons/house x
365 days/year). Thus, the total flow to septic tanks and cesspools in the U.S. is about 800 billion
gallons per year, virtually all of which enters the ground.

Industrial

It is estimated that about 25,000 industrial septic tanks are currently in use, based on the number of

industrial establishments in the U.S. using water. However, little information is available regarding
flow rates to these systems and no estimate can be made as to total leakage to ground.

4l


(Bujwany pun; Ap /*6*9)
~ SIDILOVYd ON Wad

S113M d3NOG

SONHIVE
GNV S31ld 1OdS JNIW

JOVNIVEG INIW AIOV

saNi0

ST1IdS TWLNIGIDDV

SMO]} WN4as UOIOBIII! ‘sap
~l4Ssed pup siazij 14494 = S31 11
~AILDV TWYNLINDWOV

SGNOd JOWYOLS LONGO

-NV8V YO GIONS
~NOD AlvsdOUdW1

NOILVYLTIAN] YdATY

dayom punos6
aurjps yo Bujuos puomdn
‘yuawyoDo19ue 4Ja,0M Das

S11WS ONIDIG AVM
~HOIH JO NOWVOMNdd Vv

sajidyooys
aso *sajidy04s 4)0s Burs)

~ap AomuBiy = S3TIdADOIS

SINI13dId GNV SYN VL

YAMS AYVLINVS AXV3T

$L010444 1VWINYV

(}}2048@A1] JO JOLINg ssow
4*6%3) suoljpApoxa sayjo
‘4saBpnys jupjd juauynady
240M 34SOM puD JayDM [Dd
~OluNw 4104 StjtypuD] ‘saysom
P!JOs jOdrorunw soy s))1ypuD]
Aapjiups /saysom [O1ysnpur Joy
S{JPUOL - SNOILVAVDXI
YaHLO GNV STIISGNV1

syid puo
suoobpo) ‘spuod Buypjoy aysom

SURED
NOUD3CNI ING INV
ST13M 1VSOdSIG I1SVM

(stuaysds o1sdas)
~ SWALSAS NOHd¥OSav
MOS JDvsINS-ENs

MO|} PUD]ABAO ‘suIsDg UO!
~djoosad-uoljouyj1yur /uo1DB
~ ty Aipids ~ ¥31WM BISVM

~ NOISAYLNI Y3LVM-LTVS

JOVYOLS LONGOYd G3lYyN

- SLNAWONNOdWI JOW49NS

4O NOW VONdd¥ GNV1

sebsoyosip
4Ou aD YO!IYM UOLYN} Jod
dayom punoi6 yo sasno>

ALAYODALYD

S1ajDM punoiB pud pup) euy
0} S8ySOM JOU a1D yOUF SpUDU!
~WD4UOd JO aB:DYIS!Ip D asnDd
40 aBipyosip Aow Yyo!ym sais!
-AIVDD JO Salty] 190} ‘swaysds

Hl AMODAU VS

S$4ay0m punosB pud pun}

BUF Of SIBJDM |4SOM JO SaySOM
aBinyosip Aow Yyoiym saiy!
=A}JOD JO sayy Dy “swiayskS

tl AYOOalYD

siayom punoib

puo punj ayy of (sjonprsas)
SJBJOM BJSOM JO BySOM
aBipyosip of pauBlsap saiyt
=ALJOD JO S: py “sways

|AYOOILVD

S4LSVM-NON

SILSVM

“TOYLNOD AYOLVINOW JO GNIX GNV T3A37 ONINIWY3L 3G .
NI Gasn NOILNT1IOd Y4LVM-AGNNOYSD JO SASNVD ANV SIDYNOS JO NOILVIISISSVID “FP FI9GPL

39


“wl
(27
x ‘ATL

X “XE ‘HA ‘ATI

~~

I
Hl

I
iT]

N ‘W/L ‘y “4H

d “WH LD
v‘d “4H

420
B}HOD
suoljoiado Burpaay jowluy
uoyoalu! jouysnpuy
aBomas puo /19j0m Bu!jooo
4yyouns uogun “|ouny|No1IBy
s]]@m uorjsalu! pup josodsiq
rte}
[90
a4SDM au

quaw
-do|anap puo uoyjo1ojdxa wnajoueg
jonusnpul

a6pnys jo 6
suooBp| juawyoas)
swiaysks Jamas

J940m 940m [OdIoIUAy)
Jorysnpuy
DysWog

sjoodssa> pup syuny 2ydog
|P4ysnpu|
| NW

a1SDM pijos Jo josodsip puny

syuawpunodwi SPU]

q P2H9240
suo 664

soupyodwir
{ouo1you
aunyny

“LOWdWI AAILV134 YIFHL GNV SIDI Wad TWSOdSIG JLSWM * L AIGOL

soupjodwy
ypuo14j0u
AyD] ay

paid
payoayjo
jo azis
foordky

4134

OF

puozoy
joordAy

pajoden
‘SjUDU IWOJUOD
Jodyoug

pajodar
Aauanbasy

aaiyooid josodsip ayspjy


*suo Bay Aouaby uoloajody jojUeWUOIIAUZ *S*~) *(panulyuos) | ajqo]

weswiy x1 NOI834

- x NOISaa ro hae

tL Not8aa 1

7a

WA NOISau



he

4)

gee tay,
By

&

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL, PROTECTION AGENCY
ae agate WASHINGION. DC 20480

ps ONI
Wagen®

TNE ALMINISTRATCS

Dear Mr. President:

I am pleased to transmit the Report to Congress "Waste Disposal
Practices and Their Effects on Ground Water" presenting the results
of a survey and study carried out pursuant to Section 1442(a) (4) of
Public Law 93-523, the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The Report is an evaluation of the impact of waste disposal
practices upon present and future underground sources of drinking
water. The Report also assesses the ability of Federal, State and
local anthorities to control such practices. The Report does not
reflect the impact of the recently enacted Toxic Substances Control
Act (P.L. 94-469) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(P.L. 94-580) which will provide added protection of ground water
as they are implemented.

The Report is transmitted in two volumes. One volume is an
Executive Sunmary and the second is the Report itself. All the
material presented in the Executive Summary is duplicated in the
full Reporc so that it will stand alone as a camplete document.

Sincerely yours,

Russell E. Train

Honorable Nelson A. Rockefeller
President of the Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510


pecially as related to ground water.

WASTE DISPOSAL THROUGH WELLS

Industrial waste, sewage effluent, spent cooling water, and
storm water are discharged through wells into fresh- and
saline-water aquifers in many parts of the United States.

The greatest attention in existing literature has been given
to deep disposal of industrial and municipal wastes through
wells normally drilled a thousand feet or more into saline
aquifers. A total of 322 such wells have been constructed in
25 states, and 209 are operating. They pose a comparatively
small potential for contamination when compared to the tens
of thousands of shallow wells injecting contaminants directly
into fresh-water aquifers.

Irrigation and storm-water drainage wells and septic tank ef-
fluent disposal wells total about 15,000 in Florida, Oregon,
and Idaho alone. On Long Island, New York, approximately
1,000 diffusion wells inject about 80 million gpd (300,000 cu
m/day) from air conditioning or cooling systems into two of
the principal aquifers tapped for public water supply. Thou-
sands more are used for disposal of storm-water runoff. Ina
few areas, principally in limestone and basalt regions where
openings in the rock are large enough to transmit high vol-
umes of liquid (see Figure 9), the practice of discharging
raw sewage and sometimes industrial waste in shallow fresh-
water aquifers has not been uncommon.

Of wells used for disposal of industrial and municipal wastes
in saline aquifers, few failures have been reported. This is
due to the strict regulation and permit system generally en-
forced by public agencies in those states which allow con-
struction of this type of well. On the other hand, shallow
wells completed in potable-water aquifers and used for waste
disposal have received little attention. This has resulted

in a number of documented cases of severe ground-water contam-—
ination, frequently from the illegal use of wells for the dis-
posal of various types of hazardous wastes.

Under general water pollution control laws, most states auto-
matically rule out the use of wells for injection of either
sewage or industrial wastes into fresh-water aquifers. Ina
few states, where drainage wells have been a popular means

for disposal of domestic waste water, storm runoff and irriga-
tion runoff, programs are underway to eventually eliminate
this practice. Federal regulations only cover industrial in-
jection wells, municipal sewage disposal wells, irrigation

32


Leachate is a highly mineralized fluid containing such con-
stituents as chloride, iron, lead, copper, sodium, nitrate,
and a variety of organic chemicals. Where manufacturing
wastes are included, hazardous constituents are often present
in the leachate (e.g., cyanide, cadmium, chromium, chlorin-
ated hydrocarbons, and PCB). The particular makeup of the
leachate is dependent upon the industry using the landfill or
dump. Another problem is the disposal of low-level radioac-
tive wastes.

There are about 18,500 land disposal sites which accept mu-
nicipal wastes, of which only about 20 percent are "“auth-
orized." Most are open dumps, or poorly sited and operated
landfills, and most receive some industrial wastes. There is
no national inventory available on privately owned industrial
land disposal sites. However, it is estimated that 90 per-
cent of industrial wastes that are considered hazardous are
landfilled, mainly because it is the cheapest waste-manage-
ment option. Table 2 summarizes the data on 60 selected
cases of ground-water contamination in the northeastern
United States caused by leachate from land disposal sites.

Problems presently associated with existing or abandoned
dumps and landfills should not be considered in the same cat-
egory as potential problems at new, properly designed san-
itary landfills because there are methods available for mini-
mizing environmental effects and managing leachate production.
Proper siting in locations where potential contamination of
ground water is limited is one method. Reduction of leachate
formation by use of selected cover materials and surface
grading of the refuse pile is another. Also promising but
costly are such techniques as pre-treatment capable of re-
ducing the volume or solubility of the waste, detoxification
of hazardous wastes prior to disposal, and collection of the
leachate by means of impermeable barriers or liners, fol-
lowed by treatment.

There is no effective Federal regulatory control of land dis-
posal of solid waste except as it may enter navigable waters.
Forty-four states have statutes which prohibit the disposal

of solid waste without a permit. The range of requirements
for state permit systems extends from simple notification

that a facility exists to detailed site descriptions includ-
ing the results of soil borings and sampling of baseline
ground-water quality. About 15 states have regulations limit-
ing land disposal of hazardous wastes.

20


THE REPORT TO CONGRESS

WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
AND THEIR EFFECTS ON

GROUND WATER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

January 1977

U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water Supply

Office of Solid Waste Management Programs

Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Librery

230 South Dearborn Street
Chicags, Illinois 69608


APPENDIX A (continued) - ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FACILITIES, VOLUMES OF WASTE, AND
LEAKAGE TO GROUND WATER.

DISPOSAL AND INJECTION WELLS

An estimated 40, 000 agricultural, urkan runoff and sewage disposal wells are in current use in the
U.S. The volume of waste water injected into the ground cannot be estimated. In addition, there
are less than 300 industrial injection wells currently in use. The volume of waste injected through
these wells is not known,

ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
Cattle

There are currently about 140, 000 cattle feeding operations covering some 50,000 acres in the
United States. The total waste deposited in these feeding operations was estimated at 83 million
tons in 1975. There are insufficient data in the literature to allow a reasonable estimate of the
volume of contaminated runoff from these feedlots which enters the ground.

Other

Very little data are available on the effects of other types of feeding operations, such as sheep,
hogs and chickens, on ground-water quality. It is estimated that the total volume of waste from
these three sources is 7 million tons per year.

44


“(PZ6| Ul Adp Jad sja.iog 999 ‘Gg UDY eiow) sayoys Buronpord 10 Joloyy *7 eunB14

Aop/w no 008 81269 A0P/|qq 000‘S —10N

Salvis ONIONGOdd T10 YorwW [__]
: aNa9a7

ee

}

be i
oe i
t

ot



the regulation of underground injection which may endan-
ger underground drinking water sources. The provisions
of the Act will produce a Federal/state cooperative ef-
fort which is based on Federally set minimum standards
and regulations administered by the states. The prac-
tices to be covered under the Act include "deep" and
"shallow" waste disposal wells, oil-field brine disposal
wells and secondary recovery wells, and engineering wells.

Section 1424(e) of the Act (the Gonzalez Amendment) pro-
vides that if EPA determines an area has an aquifer which
is the sole or principal drinking water source and which,
if contaminated, will cause a significant hazard to
health, EPA may delay or stop commitment of any Federal
financial assistance to projects which may result in con-
tamination of the aquifer.

STATE AND LOCAL ALTERNATIVES FOR

GROUND-WATER QUALITY PROTECTION

There are a number of requirements that are basic to all
state and local ground-water protection programs. Similar to
Federal activities, control over ground-water quality has
been given a low priority when compared to surface water.
This has been due to deficiencies in existing legislation,
the lack of funds available for proper staffing, and the di-
verse interests and priorities of existing agencies.

For maximum effectiveness, rules and regulations for protect-
ing ground water should be designed to: (1) prevent and con-
trol unwanted contamination and degradation of both ground-
and surface-water quality; (2) provide data necessary to
evaluate the nature and areal extent of ground-water contami-
nation and the number of sources of contamination; (3) pro-
vide a basis for correcting or mitigating existing cases of
ground-water contamination; and (4) provide a regulatory
framework within which aquifers can be used for waste treat-
ment and storage.

There are two approaches to the problem of protecting ground-
water resources. One is to look at the underground water it-
self as the resource to be managed and to concentrate on lim-
iting waste discharges and preventing causes of contamination.
This first method is the one used to control air and surface-
water pollution. It is also the most popular basis for
ground-water control regulations.

37


Table 3. COUNTIES WITH MORE THAN 50,000 AND COUNTIES WITH MORE
THAN 100,000 HOUSING UNITS USING ON-SITE DOMESTIC
WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS .

Jefferson, Alabama
Riverside, California

San Bernadino, California
Fairfield, Connecticut
Hartford, Connecticut
New Haven, Connecticut
Broward, Florida

Duval, Florida
Hillsborough, Florida
Jefferson, Kentucky
Bristol, Massachusetts
Middlesex, Massachusetts

Los Angeles, California
Dode, Florida

More than 50,000

Norfolk, Massachusetts
Plymouth, Massachusetts
Worcester, Massachusetts
Genesee, Michigan
Oakland, Michigan
Monmouth, New Jersey
Multnomah, Oregon
Westmoreland, Pennsylvania
Davidson, Tennessee
King, Washington
Pierce, Washington

More than 100,000

Nassau, New York
Suffolk, New York


*S24S0M PINbI] PUD P!]OS Wosy S}UDUWOJUOD JO SA}Nos B4y PUD Sad1yoDId josodsip ajsDAQ *| 21NBI4

440d3¥ 3HL NI 03Y9A09 S3DILOVUd TvSodsia 3LsvVM C=

BLNOY WNOILN3LNINAD — — >
3LNOY TWNOLLN3LN| —— >
ON3937

YijILVTM

NNOdD

Balm
3Dvgans

T
nN

Wa

aL
2D vgUns

!
A
>—L—-+-4

I~ — — — — —__ » — — —__ 4

| |
A
waive | | |
ADVANNS
lk
| | THA
I | Wwsoesia
| t= Wy
NIS¥@
YO id \
NOOO) A
WILSNGNI

T
|
Nv390 t
|

(300n

ONIGVBdS
ONVT

AN3N1433
30
TWws0dsia
Nv

f

INW1d
INIW1V Ra

ivaldINAW HI

4 ft __

-—+»——1—~—l —__ ._ _

Lid [ id
ar anne } [sen
| THM A
Nooovt NOWD3¢NI | Nisva
101034 WOM
NOOovT
ONINIW
ainon
ainon | anos ainon]aiios |
aiais
1010334 sv9 ONY 10 aNiw |

tt
LW!
Le

i

Wl INOW
z}
aS

twee |S ie
ota suo sa
4A a
f |
ainon | anos anos Jainon

INVid
ONIALIWINNW

asnOH


TECHNICAL REPORT DATA

(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)

1, REPORT NO, 2.
EPA-570/9-77-002

3, RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION‘NO.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Executive Summary

iS. REPORT DATE
January, 1977 (date of issue

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

7 AUTHOR(S)

Is. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

70. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2CH226

77. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

OC 68013215

12, SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Supply
401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

13, TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report to Congress

74. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

75, SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT

stand alone as a complete document.

This document summarizes the report, "Waste Disposal Practices &
Their Effects on Ground Water". All material presented in the
Executive Summary is duplicated in the full Report so that it will

n7. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

a DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS |c. COSATI Field/Group

Water supplv, water quality
surveillance, underground injection,
contamination, waste disposal.

128. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19, SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 21, NO. OF PAGES
i Unclassified 49
Unlimited 20, SECURITY CLASS (This page) 22, PRICE
Unclassified

EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)



*yuauijied a1aym /A60[0spAy puo AB0]0aB jo $404904 pu suo!Ba1 snols0n
uy UL 4N© palssod s1 B91420Id jOsods1p a4som ayy YO!Ym of BasBap ayy juNodD0 OU! BUIxO, “yDodW! aatyD[a1 Uasaid UO pasoq aio suo OUBIS9q
“ainB1y payoo}4o a4j UO UMOYS So X YBNosYs | sUOIBay s,AdUaBYy UO!}99401g |JUAWLOLIAUZ AY) B10 pajst| suo|Ba1 — payoa}jo sudIBay |odiouisg

*suo1jojnBa: pasodoid pup mau jo j20dw!
@Yy JO SUO]}ON| DAS PUD SajsOM jo joSodsip pu jusWyDady ayy U! spUaly JOo!Bo;oUYDa} yUasaid PUD ysod yUNDI0 Oju ayO4 SBUIyOI BY] “SDAA UY
Aj apouyxoiddo u ag ||! 22142010 josodsip aysom Yona jo aouD}Jodwit joUC!JOU eAlyo]as ays yoym BuLyoIpaid UC pasog - SouDjOdw! joUoHOU aIn\ny

*aounjiodus! jouc}yDu 04 pupBai yjIm 6u}401 MO] 0 UBAIB aq OS]D pjnom /pajo1UBDUCD a1D Us
swa|qoud snoisas 240919 you saop y>!4ym 2214901d poasdsapim Asan y *BU1jO1 [OUG!{OU YBIY 0 UaA!6 aq Jou Pjnom ad14D01d ay) UdYy
sD@J0 Yons jo Jaquinu ay} 4! nq !s091D UDJIa9 UL Wa}qosd snol1as D aq AoW a21490Id josodsip aysom Y 5°] a4 80190 aD1490Id Josodsip a4som ays Jo

014g 1445p B44 puD “p2}22}40 DaID Buy Jo az!s JdIdAy ay ‘sjUDLIWOJUED ay} Jo PIOZDY Yj|DBy JoD1dA} By) UO pasog - SoUDLIOdW) [OUOOU BATIO|Oy

pjUOD Jo sauNos alaym UAAa
‘yous A}aaojeu 51

*pajoadxe souinjon jooidAy ay) 04 UaAi6 UoIjosapIsuoD AsDPUODAS YIM S{UDUIWOJUOD ayy JO anyoU ayy UO A|!JOWLId pasog ~ Uy]Oaq OF psOZDY [OdIGAL

+yuasaid aq Ajjonys0 Aow yoy) sjuaWa}a aA!jo001pD4 Jo ‘sjoD!VIAYD D1UDB10 ‘sjojaW AAday so soouD;s
=qns snopsezoy Yyans apnjou! uajjo you op paylodas sjuoUIWojUOD jod)suLd ay) 7810J9184) *S9S09 UO!JDUIWO;UOD Jayom—PUNOE ysow UI Pawsojsad
ai sashjpun ajajdwioou! ‘suosoas o1woUor. Joy ‘AjajounyJoyUN) *sjUanyi4sUOD pazdjoUD 4||oWLOU Uo A|Uo pasog - Pajiodai sjuDUIWOIUOD jodISULNg

*seounos paysijqndun pup paysijgnd u! paqisasap sa1s0js!y asoo jo Jaquinu aayojas ay) uo pasog - pajiodsi Aouanbaiy
aunjouadway - | svaw - W
Aysadosd au uo paujojuod - z plo sunying ~ 06 uo4] = |
uo Wo saljodoud yuaon|po 499440 uo> ~ 4 waipos - s sjojaw Anoay ~ wy
=N|Daa {oud !Ba1 40} BYP yua!oigynsuL (> saunos sjouayg - 4 apuojy> - > oy =
payoojyo any 2as ‘suoBey yg3 403 (q — jonprarpul yo Ay!suap yB1y oy anp 10-0 D1ajo0g - g aypiapow ~
X6ojo12uw 090; uedn yuapuadap (0 — ouE/Bas aq UD> yng /DaID |jouls - x SIO4IN - N splay - ¥ yBiy ~ |

NOILVNV14X3

“LOWAWI SAIL V13¥ YISHL ONY S3D1LD Vad TvSOdSId aLSvM “(Pen

15