Protecting the Nation's Groundwater from

Contamination—Vol. II

October 1984

NTIS order #PB85-154219
Recommended Citation:

Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination: Volume II (Washington, DC:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-O-276, October 1984).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-601126

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Foreword

At the request of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Office of Technology Assessment has examined the current status of the Nation’s knowledge

about and experience in dealing with groundwater contamination problems. This volume

of Protecting the Nation Groundwater From Contamination presents in detail the information and data on which the analyses and conclusions of volume I are based. It is organized

into eight appendixes covering health impacts and sources of groundwater contamination;

the State framework for protecting groundwater quality based on results from the OTA

State survey; technical and nontechnical issues related to the application of corrective action alternatives; and definitions of hydrogeologic terms.

Director

. . . ///
Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination Advisory Panel

Thomas Maddock, III, Chairman

Professor, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources

University of Arizona, Tucson

Harvey Banks

Consulting Engineer

Rodney DeHan

Administrator, Groundwater Program

State of Florida Department of Environmental

Regulation

Robert Harris

Professor

Center for Energy and Environmental Studies

Princeton University

Allen V. Kneese

Resources for the Future

Jay H. Lehr

Executive Director

National Well Water Association

Perry McCarty

Chairman and Professor

Department of Civil Engineering

Stanford University

James Mercer

President

GeoTrans, Inc.

David W. Miller

President

Geraghty & Miller, Inc.

Mary Lou Munts

State Representative

76th Assembly District

State of Wisconsin

Michael A. Pierle

Director, Regulatory Management

Monsanto Co.

Anthony Z. Roisman

Executive Director

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice

Lawrence Swanson

Director

Great Plains Office of Policy Studies

James T. B. Tripp

Environmental Defense Fund

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The

views expressed in this OTA report, however, are the sole responsibility of the Office of Technology Assessment.

iv
OTA Project Staff— Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Robert W. Niblock, Oceans and Environment Program Manager

Project Staff

Paula J. Stone, Project

Joan Ham Howard Levenson

Director

Francine Rudoff

Administrative Staff

Kathleen A. Beil Jacquelynne R. Mulder Kay Senn

Contractors

Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA

Environ Corp., Washington, DC

The University of Oklahoma, Norman OK

GeoTrans, Inc., Herndon, VA

Peter N. Davis, University of Missouri-Columbia Law School, Columbia, MO
Contents

Appendix Page

A. Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

B. Federal Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

C. State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

D. Hydrogeologic Investigations of Groundwater Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

E. Federal Efforts To Detect Groundwater Contamination. .

F. Corrective Action: Technologies and Other Activities . . .

G. Federal Efforts To Correct Groundwater Contamination

H. Federal Efforts To Prevent Groundwater Contamination

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470

vii

Appendix A

Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts

A.1 AN APPROACH TO ASSESSING THE HEALTH RISKS OF CHEMICALS IN

GROUNDWATER (p. 243)

A.2 SUMMARY OF TOXIC EFFECTS OF ORGANIC AND INORGANIC

CHEMICALS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN GROUNDWATER (p. 248)

A.3 FREQUENCY OF DETECTION OF SELECTED CHEMICALS IN

GROUNDWATER (p. 262)

A.4 SUBSTANCES IN GROUNDWATER WHOSE DETECTED CONCENTRATION

HAS EXCEEDED STANDARDS AND TYPES OF STANDARDS EXCEEDED

(p. 264)

A.5 SOURCES OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (P. 267)

APPENDIX A REFERENCES (p. 289)

A.1 AN APPROACH TO ASSESSING THE HEALTH

RISKS OF CHEMICALS IN GROUNDWATER

Because of uncertainties about the relationship between exposure (e. g., to chemicals) and impacts on

human health, public health efforts are based on identifying probabilities of impacts. This process entails

identifying when exposure is likely to pose either significant health risks or, alternatively, negligible health

risks.

Predictive risk assessment is generally accepted by the

scientific community as the only currently available

method for evaluating the risks posed by exposure to

chemical contaminants under varying conditions. This

approach and its limitations are described in detail in

the literature (e. g., N.AS, 1983a; Environ Corp., 1983).

Importantly, what are deemed to be “safe” or “acceptable’ levels of risk for the protection of public health

involves subjective judgments, often including consideration of the costs of achieving those levels.

Predictive risk assessment has historically been applied to contaminants found in environmental media

other than groundwater. Its application to groundwater

is believed appropriate because many of the scientific

and technical issues that motivated the use of predictive risk assessment in the past are independent of the

environmental medium in which the contaminants occur

(Environ Corp., 1983). Some of these issues concern

the risks associated with chemical exposures that do not

produce immediately observable effects or for which the

nature and duration of the exposure cannot be readily

identified. At the same time, the occurrence of contaminants in groundwater raises questions that have not yet

been fully examined in the context of predictive risk

assessment and public health protection; these questions

are related, for example, to multiple pathways of exposure.

Conducting a risk assessment for groundwater contaminants consists of four basic steps (NAS, 1983a):

1.

2<

3.

4.

hazard evaluation, i.e., - identification of the con- ‘

taminants and their toxicological characteristics;

dose-response assessment, i.e., specification of the

‘‘no observed effect level (NOEL) for non-carcinogens and of the unit risk for carcinogens;

exposure assessment, i.e. , identification of the

pathways of exposure, dosage, concentration levels,

and exposed population; and

risk characterization, i.e., translation of the above

three steps into a determination of health risks.

Each of these steps is described and analyzed below in

the context of groundwater. Ultimate determination of

risks requires that each of the four steps be carried out

Hazard Evaluation

Hazard evaluation involves collecting and assessing

information about the inherent toxic properties of contaminants. There are two principal sources of informa243
244 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

tion about toxic properties: 1) epidemiological or clinical

studies and 2) experimental data. Molecular structure

is presently of only limited value in predicting the toxic

properties of chemicals (Environ Corp., 1983).

The limitations of epidemiological investigations in

providing information about the toxic properties of

chemicals are well described elsewhere (Environ Corp.,

1983). In the context of groundwater contamination, the

limitations would include:

Difficulties in providing proper controls on studies

so that strict cause-effect relationships can be established: Because there is so little experience in conducting epidemiological studies in the context of

groundwater, there are many unresolved methodological issues concerning controls including removing sources of bias (e. g., effects of diet, cigarette smoking, and occupation), accounting for

exposure to mixtures of contaminants that are also

site-specific and time-varying, identifying suitable

control groups, and detecting small but potentially

important risks when small numbers of people are

involved.

Difficulties in obtaining accurate data on the nature,

intensity, and duration of exposure, especially

when multiple chemicals are present at low concentrations: Many contaminants are present in

groundwater at low concentrations (e. g., parts per

billion), and exposure may occur over long periods.

Difficulties in linking adverse health impacts that

are observable only after long latency periods to

exposure: There is a general lack of data concerning possible health impacts on humans exposed to

groundwater contamination. One systematic health

investigation that was specifically oriented to groundwater suggested a relationship between high levels

of carbon tetrachloride and liver damage in Hardeman County, TN (Clarke, et al., 1982, cited in

Harris, 1983); however, this study involved a relatively short latency period and was not a controlled

epidemiological study. Epidemiological studies

related to drinking water include a set of studies

that are inconclusive about an association between

cardiovascular disease and chlorinated drinking

water (see NAS, 1980) and studies suggesting an

association between chlorinated drinking water and

certain cancers (Crump, et al., 1980, cited in Harris, 1983). A recent study linked rates of leukemia

and birth defects with the presence of chloroform

and TCE in two wells in Woburn, MA (Science

News, 1984).

Difficulties in applying the epidemiological methodology to newly introduced chemicals: Although

relatively few chemicals are widely used commercially, approximately 1,000 new chemicals are introduced into commercial production each year.

● Dificulties in interpreting self-reported symptoms:

Self-reporting of symptoms is one of the earliest

clues to a possible relationship between exposure

and health impacts and can provide the basis for

the design of testable, controlled epidemiological

investigations. Evidence for a relationship is strong

if reported symptoms are highly specific and unusual

and appear to occur in ‘‘clusters. Even so, such

evidence does not constitute proof of a causal link

between exposure and reported symptoms. At best,

reported symptoms can be checked for consistency

with known hazards and serve to strengthen or

weaken inferences about suspected relationships.

If reported symptoms are vague and/or common

(e.g., headaches, nausea, and rashes), it is unlikely

that epidemiological studies will be of value (Environ Corp., 1983).

Because of the types of problems associated with epidemiological investigations, ‘ ‘it is likely that most epidemiological investigations of populations exposed to

groundwater contaminants would lead to inconclusive

results, and there appears to be little prospect for improving this situation; these problems are inherent to

methods of epidemiology’ (Environ Corp., 1983).

However, when populations have large exposures to

high concentrations of organic chemicals, such as in

Hardeman County, epidemiological investigations may

be able to document adverse health impacts. In addition, when epidemiological data are supplemented with

laboratory data, the likelihood of establishing causeeffect relationships can increase (Harris, 1984).

In addition to epidemiological studies, a second major source of information about toxicity is experimental

data. Toxicity data derived from laboratory experiments

on animals have several advantages over epidemiological

and clinical investigations: exposures can be controlled,

biological changes can be examined in detail, and causal

relationships between exposure and toxicity can be established with high certainty.

The applicability of animal data to humans depends

on the assumption that biological activity is similar

among various mammalian species. There appears to

be substantial evidence to support the inference of

human health effects based on results from animal

studies (Environ Corp., 1983); and consequently, animal data have historically been the principal sources of

toxicity data for assessing the risks of chemicals (e. g.,

pesticides, food and color additives, and drugs) prior

to their commercial introduction. Nevertheless, inferences about human health effects from animal data are

still controversial. In addition, although efforts are

underway to develop toxicity data for various purposes

(e.g., toxicity data are available from the National Toxicology Program of the Department of Health and

Human Services), OTA’S analysis suggests that a com-
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 245

plete, uniform data base for all potential groundwater

contaminants is unlikely for many years (Environ

Corp., 1983).

Dose-Response Relationships

The second step in a predictive risk assessment is

describing dose-response relationships. These relationships link known exposure characteristics with the frequency at which toxic effects appear in exposed populations. In general, for a given duration of exposure, the

frequency at which toxic effects appear in an exposed

population increases with increasing dosage; in many

cases, the toxic effects will become more severe as exposure increases (Environ Corp., 1983).

There are various ways to express dosage. The most

common is weight of the contaminant taken into the

body per unit of body weight of the exposed recipient

per unit of time (e.g., milligrams (mg) per kilogram (kg)

per day). Because epidemiological studies rarely provide the exposure data necessary for determining exposure characteristics, experimental data are the primary source of dose-response information.

In practice, inferences must often be made about the

dose-response function for groundwater contaminants

because doses are often below the range at which experimental dose-response relationships can be observed.

Some cases of contamination, however, do involve exposures in the range for which experimental doseresponse relationships have been determined (Harris,

1984). When the relationships can be determined, the

dose-response for non-carcinogens is described in terms

of the threshold dose at which no adverse response is

observed, the ‘‘no observed effect level’ (NOEL). For

carcinogens, which do not appear to act according to

a threshold concept, experimental data are used to establish a relationship between dose and carcinogenic risk

known as the ‘ ‘unit risk, e.g., the fraction of a group

of experimental animals exposed to carcinogens that develop tumors during the experiment minus the fraction

of animals in the untreated (control) group that develop

the same types of tumors. In general, experimentally

derived measures of dose-response should be interpreted

with care in estimating human dose-response relationships (Environ Corp. , 1983).

‘ For example, human thresholds are probably lower than experimentally

derived NOELS both because the human population is genetically more di-

\erse and thus Ilkely to have a broader range of susceptibilities than laborato~

animals, and because the human population IS exposed to a broad range of

additional environmental agents. Further, because only relat i~.ely small numbers of animals can be used in carcinogenlcity experiments, the experiments

often involve high doses of agents, extrapolating 

the results to human exposures

from en~ironmental care inogens thus lnfolves prediction of low dose risk frum

high dose/high risk data.

Exposure Assessment

Exposure assessment involves determining the magnitude and duration of exposure to environmental

agents. It requires estimating the dosage of contaminants received by exposed populations, identifying the

exposed population, and identifying the body sites at

which toxic effects are produced.

The dosage of contaminants received by exposed

human populations can be estimated if information is

available about both concentration levels and the intake

(e.g., duration, frequency, and amount) of contaminants at given concentration levels. Determining the intake of groundwater contaminants, however, is difficult

because of the multiplicity of pathways along which the

contaminants can expose populations (see ch. 2).

In practice, information is most often not available

about the dosage received along these different pathways, and health scientists often assume standard average values when carrying out exposure assessments.

Only for the direct ingestion of contaminants via drinking water are there standard approaches for estimating

dosage. Although there appears to have been little attempt thus far to conduct comprehensive exposure analysis (Environ Corp., 1983), approaches for incorporating the different possible pathways of exposure have

been discussed within the scientific community.2

Table A. 1.1 lists the types of data and assumptions

that would be necessary to estimate dosage from each

possible route of exposure to groundwater contaminants.

Because many of the parameters shown in table A. 1.1

vary from site to site and thus cannot be readily standardized, exposure assessments will probably have to be

made at the site-specific level. Further, daily concentrations of organic chemicals in groundwater can fluctuate by more than an order of magnitude. Accurate

average exposures can be calculated only if a monitoring program is designed to account for this fluctuation;

most monitoring data currently available are not adequate for calculation of accurate average exposure

(Harris, 1984). This difficulty argues for careful site

analysis of contaminant concentrations, soils, and the

habits of the exposed populations.

Identification of exposed populations is important because different people exhibit different susceptibilities

to a toxic agent. In most cases, the general population

would be exposed and would exhibit the full range of

susceptibilities. At some sites, however, principally

‘For example, in the risk assessments conducted by the Safe Drlnklng Water

Committee of the National Research Councd (NRC), safe dr]nkmg wdtrr exposure Ilmits were estimated on the basis of an arbitrary assumption that onlv

20 percent of a person dady exposure to a contaminant would come Irorn

the dmect ingestion of water. (See also NAS, 1983a, NRC, 1980 )
246 • Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

Table A-1.1 .—Data and Assumptions Necessary To

Estimate Human Dose of a Groundwater Contaminant

From Knowledge of its Concentration in Groundwatea

1. Direct ingestion through drinking:

● Amount of water consumed each day (generally assumed to be 2 liters for adults and 1 liter for a 10 kg

child).

● Fraction of contaminant absorbed through wall of

gastrointestinal tract.

● Contaminant concentrations.

● Average human body weight.

2. Inhalation of contaminants:

Air concentrations resulting from showering, bathing, and other uses of water.

Variation in air concentrations over time.

Amount of contaminated air breathed during those

activities that may lead to volatilization.

Fraction of inhaled contaminant absorbed through

lungs.

Average human body weight.

3. Skin absorption from water:

● Period of time spent washing and bathing.

• Fraction of contaminant absorbed through skin

during washing and bathing.

● Average human body weight.

4. Skin absorption from contaminated soil:

● Concentrations of contaminant in soil that has been

exposed to contaminated groundwater.

● Amount of daily skin contact with soil.

● Amount of soil ingested per day (e.g., by children).

● Absorption rates (e.g., by skin and gastrointestinal

tract).

● Average human body weight.

5. Ingestion of contaminated food:

● Concentrations of contaminant in edible portions of

various plants and animals that have been exposed

to contaminated groundwater.

● Amount of contaminated food ingested each day.

. Fraction of contaminant absorbed through wall of

gastrointestinal tract.

• Average human body weight.

~he total dose is equal to the sum of the doses from the five rOUteS.

SOURCE: Environ Corp., 1983.

subgroups will be exposed (e. g., children and the elderly), and they may exhibit specific susceptibilities.

Another aspect of exposure assessment involves identifying the body site at which toxic effects are produced.

For example, some contaminants produce their toxic effects directly at the point of contact (e.g., the skin, lung,

and gastrointestinal tract). If contaminants are to produce effects at internal body sites (systemic effects), they

must first pass through physical barriers—i. e., the

gastrointestinal wall, the skin, or the lungs. The rate

and amount of absorption vary from contaminant to

contaminant; these data are most frequently not available. In the absence of data from human subjects, the

common practice among public health scientists is either

to adopt absorption rate values from experimental studies of substances having similar chemical and physical

characteristics or to assume that absorption is complete

along every pathway (Environ Corp. , 1983).

Risk Characterization

The fourth and last step in the risk assessment process is risk characterization. Once information is obtained

about contaminant toxicity, dose-response relationships,

and exposure, the risk faced by exposed populations can

be determined.

With respect to non-carcinogens, common practice

is to:

1.

2.

3.

calculate an acceptable daily intake (ADI) level by

dividing the experimentally determined NOEL by

a safety factor (to account for uncertainties in the

measurements);

modify the ADI if exposure routes other than ingestion are to be considered; otherwise incorporate

additional safety factors; and

calculate the margin-of-safety (MOS) by dividing

the experimental-NOEL by” the actual” dose and

compare the MOS to the safety factors used in calculating the ADI. (Note that the lower the value

of the MOS, the larger the risk to the exposed

population. )

For carcinogens, risk is characterized by multiplying

the actual daily lifetime dose by the unit risk. Although

an explicit estimate of risk is obtained, this estimate still

embodies uncertainty and is treated (e. g., by FDA and

EPA) as an upper limit of the true risk.

The ADI and the MOS for non-carcinogens and the

acceptable risk for carcinogens are designed to ensure

that exposed populations are not at significant risk. Although the calculation of these values for any given contaminant involves many simplifying assumptions and

approximations, an additional limitation is that these

estimates treat contaminants individually and independently of each other. In most instances, however, populations are exposed not to individual contaminants but

to complex and possibly time-varying mixtures.

How and where contaminants interact with each other

to produce toxic effects are complicated and poorly understood; some evidence suggests that such interactions

are significant.3 The health risks from exposure to combinations of contaminants may differ either qualitatively

or quantitatively from health risks from exposure to individual contaminants. Although such interactions are

3Examp1es include the marked synergism between cigarette smoking and

asbestos in the induction of lung cancer, the reaction of secondary amines and

nitrites in the stomach to form carcinogenic nitrosamines, and the synergist ic

effects between alcohol and halogenated hydrocarbons (e. g., carbon tetrachloride) to cause liver damage (see Environ Corp., 1983, for complete references).
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 247

not unique to groundwater, they do pose a significant

impediment to reaching conclusions about acceptable

levels of exposure to groundwater contaminants (Environ Corp., 1983).

There are no generally applicable protocols for testing

the effects of contaminant interactions, and there are

few data to guide the development of such protocols.

For now, risk assessments that are to take into account

possible interactions must be based on considerations

other than empirical evidence. Although the potential

importance of interactions is recognized, especially with

respect to groundwater, there is no area of standard setting that has taken interactions into account as a matter of course.4

——

4F. PA has consdered (reatmg carcinogenic nsk as additl},c, I e , that the total

carcinogenic nsk is equal to the sum of the nsk of cac h of the lncl~wdual { ontamlnants (Iln\tron Corp . 1’98’3)
x x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x

M x

w

x

x

al %’

d

al

5Ne

!2!

I

rs

248
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and its Impacts ● 249

x x

x x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x x x x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x

Xxx x

x

x

x

x x

x

x x x

x x x x

x x

x x x x x

x

x

x

xxx %

x x x x

n QJ

-a G

al w-l

d 2 .!+

4 c

iu

E

o

G

, :

d

o

G

29. 0

f-l

w

al

c

W I

3

a u

-3’ &’

39-702 0 - 84 - 2
250 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

x

%

x x x x x

x

x x

x x x x

*

x

x x

x x x

x x

x x

x

x x x

TJ

2?

$

4

Q

a“

-1- 1

m l n

m“

l-t *
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 251

m

w-l

x

x

x

x

x

n

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x x x

x

x x

x x x x

x x x

x

*XX X

x

al

c

x

x

x x

x

x
252 ● Protecting the Nation’s GroundWater From Contamination

x x x

x

x

x x x

x x

x

x

Mxx x x

x x x

Xxx x

x

x x

x

x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x

n

l-l N N
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 25.3

x x x x x

x x x

m

x x

x x

x x

x

x

Ln

x x

x x

x x

x x

x

x x x x x

x x

x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x X * x

x x x

x

x

‘x

x

* X X

x x

x x

v

H

!5:

P(

u-l

n

v-i

v I-4

..4

‘ u

.)-l

I+

n

lx

(a

c) w

m“

4

.

d

u

*

c--l u
254 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

& x x

m

ml

(w

ml

4

N

o

ml

m

co

x x x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x x

r-

*

m

u

x

x

x

x x x x x x

x x

x x x x

!i

w u

5

(n

%

w

4

.

d

m“ u

0“

In In m

*
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 255

x

x x

x

al

aJa

al

m“ *

x

x x x

x x x

x

x

x

1= 1-
256 . Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

x

x x

x x

x x

x

xx x

x x x

x

x x x x

\

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x x

x

m

x xx x

r- X x x x

x x x

x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

n

N“

N“*

z

mw

v

ml

C&

.-d

.

d

.

4

n

w

u

A’

h“

2

m“

4

9

f-
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 257

x x

x

x

x x

x

. x

x x

0

m

co

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

n

N

.

x

x

x

x

x

x x x x

x

x

x x x

x

x x

x

x

x x

x

E

!2

3w n

El

v

H

u

n

L

.

! +

.

w

w

In

.

m

*

0

d

*
258 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

-x

x x

x x

x x “

x

o

N

1-

In

.+

x x

) 4 X

*

x x

x

x x

x

0

1+ x

m x x x

00

r- X

x

m

x

m

ml x

n

w

U* Q“ *

●

❉ ✟ m“ *

h“ *

m“ U“m”

A d
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 259

*

ml x

x x

o

N x x

x

x x

m

00 x

x

x

x x

x

x x x x

x

x

d x x x x

o

x x x x

co

x x

x

x x

x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

x

1-

x

x x

x

x

In

u

m

N

x

x

x x x x

i i

g

u

Id

al

?

(n
260 . Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

%-( c c

o

t-l

&i

x x

x

●

00

$

●

m

u

m

u
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 261

u

CJ

t

1+

u &l

2

4

aJc

G

.

4Jcn

(IYI+

c u d

2 :

e

4-IO

( u s

v

m

a)w

CJo

c)

5 :

l-l

!-1

CLIG

Q o

4 n

w

o

d

1+

,-4

1+ .-4
A.3 FREQUENCY OF

CHEMICALS

DETECTION OF SELECTED

IN GROUNDWATER

SAMPLING SCHEME

CHEMICAL Random Non-random Not specifie d

0 . 2

1 .0-5.2

1.7-2, 1

<5. 0

<5. 0

AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS

Benzene 1.7-1 5 8 . 5

Ethylbenzene 0-6-4 4

Fluoranthene 6e9

Propylbenzene

Toluene

Xylene s

OXYGENATED HYDROCARK)NS

Aceton e

Butyl acetat e

Di-n-butyl phthalat e

Dichloropheno l

Diethyl phthalat e

Methyl ethyl ketone

Phthalic aci d

HYDROCARBONS WITH SPECIFIC ELEMENTS

206

< 5. 0

28- 6

17. 2

14. 3

( 5. 0

21. 4

Bromobenzene

Bromodichloromethane

Bromoform

Carbon tetrachlorid e

Chlorobenzene

Chloroform

Chloromethane (Methyl chloride )

262

0 . 4

50. 9

30. 9

3.1-7. 4

0 . 2

11-53. 2

3 . 7

69. 2

36. 3

5-5 0

7.1

70. 3
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 263

SAMPLING SCHEME

CHEMICAL Random Non-random Not specifie d

Chloroto Iuene

Dibromochlorcxnethane

Dibromochloropropane (DBCP)

Dichlorobenzen e

Dichloroiodomethan e

1,1-Dichloroethan e

1,2-Dichloroethan e

1, 1-Dichloroethylen e

1,2-Dichloroethylen e

Dichloromethan e

2,4-Dichloropheno l

1,2-Dichloropropan e

Ethyl chlorid e

Malathio n

Methyl parathio n

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)

Tetrachloroethylen e

Trichloroethanes (TCA )

T’richloroethylene (TCE)

Vinyl chlorid e

0 . 2

46. 3

2 . 6

0 . 8

2 . 7

1.9-23. 1

1.1-7. 0 1 .5-17.1

3.1

4.8-38. 5

12.9

30. 3

I-3 4

2-7 3

7.1

7.1-21. 4

607

17. 2

1 . 5

7 . 1

7 . 1

7.1

6 . 9

7 . 8

2.1-9. 4

4.3-8. 1 8.1-15. 8

1.7-11. 3 3.6-50. 1

1.3

2-3 4

2-6 6

2-7 9

1-36

Source : Office of Technology Assessment; University of Oklahoma, 1983 .
A.4 SUBSTANCES IN GROUNDWATER WHOSE

DETECTED CONCENTRATION HAS EXCEEDED

STANDARDS AND TYPES OF STANDARDS EXCEEDED

SUBSTANCE

Ambient

Water

State Stat e National D W Health Advisory Quality

DW GW Primary Secondary l-Day lo-day Long-termControl

A. 1.

A.2 .

A .3.

AROMATIC HYDROCARIXINS

Benzene

Ethyl benzene

To luene

OXYGENATED HYDROCARBONS

1 ,4-Dioxane

Phenols

HYDROCARBONS WITH SPECIFIC

ELEMENTS

Alachlor

Aldicarb

Bromacil

Bromodichloromethane

Carbofuran

Carbon tetrachloride

Chloroform

Dibromochloropropane

(DBCP)

Dibromoethane

Dichlorobenzene (-p)

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethylene

1,2-Dichloroethylene

Dichloromethane

(methylene chloride)

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)

Dichloropropane

Dioxins

Endosulfan

@ -Hexachlorocyclohexane

&-Hexachlorocyclohexane

]-liexachlorocyclohexane

(F-BHC, or Lindane)

Methyl parathion

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x x

x

x x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x x

x x x

x x

x x

264
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 265

Ambient

Water

State Stat e National D W Health Advisory Quality

SUBSTANCE DW GW Primary Secondary l-Day 10-day Long-termControl

A.3 .

A .4.

B.1 .

B .2.

HYDROCARBONS WITH SPECIFIC

ELEMENTS (cent d)

Polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBS ) x

RDX (Cyclonite)

Tetrachlorobenzene

Tetrachloroethane

Tetrachloroethylene

Toxaphene

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Trinitrotoluene (TNT)

Vinyl chloride

OTHER HYDROCARBONS

x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

Gasoline x x

METALS AND

Aluminum

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

Lead

Manganese

Mercury

Molybdenum

Nickel

Selenium

Silve r

Sodium

Vanadium

Zinc

NONMETALS

Ammonia

Chlorides

CATIONS

AND ANIONS

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x x

39-702 0 - 84 _ 3
266 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

Ambient

Water

State Stat e National DW Health Advisory Quality

SUBSTANCE DW GW Primary Secondary l-Day 10-day Long-termControl

B.2. NONMETALS AND ANIONS ( cent d)

Cyanides x x

Fluorides x x x

Nitrates x x

Sulfate s x

D. RADIONUCL IDES

Radium 226 x x

Uranium 238 x x

Abbreviations: DW = drinking water; GW = ground water.

“X” in State DW or State GW column means that the standard set by at least one State has

been exceeded.

Source: Office of Technology Assessment.

x

x

x
A.5 SOURCES OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

This appendix was compiled to supplement and/or

substantiate information summarized in chapter 2 (see

table 8). Although an extensive survey of sources was

attempted, time limitations precluded collecting some

data. Thus the information in this appendix is that

which was readily available to OTA; it should not necessarily be regarded as exhaustive or definitive.

When available and appropriate, this appendix contains the following information for each source:

general information regarding the definition, use,

and location of the source;

details of the assumptions and calculations used in

estimating the numbers of facilities or activities of

a source type;

details of the assumptions and calculations used in

estimating the amount of material flowing through

or stored in all facilities or activities of a source

type; and

information regarding the potential of both individual facilities or activities and all facilities or activities of a source type to contaminate groundwater.

Selected references on the potential of sources to contaminate groundwater are listed at the end of the appendix.

1. Subsurface Percolation:

Septic Tanks and Cesspools

Septic tank systems consist of a buried tank and drainage system designed to collect waterborne wastes, remove settleable solids from the liquid by gravity separation, and permit percolation into the soil of clarified

effluent. They are best suited for small volumes and

periodic flows.

The highest regional densities of use in the United

States occur in the eastern third of the country and along

portions of the west coast (USDA, 1981a). Septic tank

systems and cesspools serve more than 100,000 housing units in four counties (Nassau and Suffolk, NY;

Dade, FL; and Los Angeles, CA) and more than 50,000

housing units in 23 counties (EPA, 1977a).

Development of Estimates of

Numbers and Amounts

There were an estimated 19.5 million domestic onsite disposal systems in the United States in the mid1970s, of which 16.6 million were septic tanks and cesspools (EPA, 1977a); presumably the remaining 2.9

million systems were privies or chemical toilets, Little

information is available regarding the number of commercial and industrial septic tank systems. DeWalle, et

al. ( 1980, cited in DeWalle, et al., no date) estimated

that the State of Washington has at least 500 large onsite systems serving restaurants, hospitals, and larger

industrial customers. Miller (1980) estimated that

25,000 industrial septic tanks are in operation in the

United States based on the number of industrial

establishments using water, but no documentation for the

figure was provided.

Estimates of annual flow to an individual septic tank

from an average household range from 49,275 gallons

per year per household (gyh) (Miller, 1980: 45 gallons

per person per day X 3 persons per household X 365

days per year) to approximately 75,000 gyh (derived

from information in Pye, et al., 1983: 3.5 billion gallons

per day X 365 days per year ÷ 17 million tanks). Thus

a minimum estimate of the total annual flow to all domestic systems would be approximately 820 billion

gallons per year (49,275 gyh X 16.6 million systems),

and a maximum estimate would be approximately 1,460

billion gallons per year (75,000 gyh X 19.5 million

systems).

Little direct information is available about flow rates

to and leakage from industrial septic tanks. Assuming

that the use of industrial septic tanks is comparable to

domestic systems, there could be an estimated annual

flow of approximately 1.2- 1.9 billion gallons (minimum

estimate: 49,275 gallons per year X 25,000 systems;

maximum estimate: 75,000 gallons per year X 25,000

systems).

The range of estimates for domestic systems is probably very near to the actual amount because the underlying assumptions and data are based on studies of domestic systems (e. g., data are cited in: EPA, 1977a;

Miller, 1980; Pye, et al., 1983). The estimates for industrial systems could be incorrect by more than 100

percent because information is lacking on annual flow

to individual systems and no systematic surveys of

numbers have been conducted on a nationwide basis.

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

Of all the sources known to contribute to groundwater

contamination, septic tank systems and cesspools directly discharge the largest volume of wastewater into the

subsurface. They are also the most frequently reported

source of contamination (EPA, 1977a), and they contribute to both local and regional problems. Contaminants are principally from human wastes and household

piping systems and include: nitrate, chloride, and coliform bacteria (e. g., DeWalle, et al., 1980); various

metals (e. g., lead, zinc, copper, manganese, tin, and

iron; Miller, 1980); viruses (Hain, et al., 1979); and

others (e. g., see Miller, 1980).

The estimates of total annual discharge represent the

potential volume of leachate released from the source.

These figures are not equal to the volume of contaminated wastewater reaching groundwater because of ren267
268 ● Protecting the Nation’s Grourtdwater From Contamination

ovative capacities of the soil system and evaporative

losses from septic tank drain fluids (which occur even

though the tanks are located in the soil) (Canter, et al.,

1983).

Major factors affecting the potential of septic systems

to contaminate groundwater in general are the density

of systems per unit area and hydrogeological conditions.

Areas with a density of more than 40 systems per square

mile are considered regions with potential for contamination (EPA, 1977a); based on this criterion, portions

of the Eastern United States and California exhibit the

greatest potential for contamination. Local problems

with septic tank systems can occur when individual

systems are overloaded or when additives (e. g., TCE)

are used to clean and unclog septic lines. Experiments

conducted in Suffolk County, NY, confirm that organic

cleaning solvents can leach from cesspools into groundwater (Andreoli, et al., 1980). Approximately 400,000

gallons of septic tank cleaning fluids (containing TCE,

benzene, and dichloromethane (methylene chloride))

were used by homeowners in 1979 on Long Island alone

(Burmaster, et al., 1982).

The design lives of septic tank systems are typically

20-40 years, after which time deterioration is likely.

Design considerations for the percolation of effluent

relate to the soil absorption system: the flow regime, the

storage and carrying capacity of the receiving soil, the

attenuation capacity of the biological mat in the leaching

field, the subsurface soil type, and depth to the water

table (Laak, et al,, 1974).

2. Injection Wells

Several types of injection wells are used to inject or

discharge wastes into or perform other functions in the

subsurface:

● hazardous waste wells;

● non-hazardous waste wells (e. g., brine injection

wells, and agricultural, urban runoff, and sewage

disposal wells); and

. non-waste wells (e. g., wells for enhanced oil recovery, artificial recharge, in-situ recovery, and solution mining).

Hazardous waste wells are highly localized but can

be expected to be regionally concentrated near industrial generators of these wastes.

Among the non-hazardous waste wells, agricultural

wells are located in farming areas while urban runoff

and sewage disposal wells are located primarily in urban areas. Because brine is a byproduct of oil production, brine injection wells are located primarily in areas

of oil and gas production (e. g., the Southwest, Louisiana, Pennsylvania; University of Oklahoma, 1983).

Among the non-waste wells, enhanced oil recovery

(EOR, also known as tertiary) wells follow a distribution pattern similar to that of oil production wells. Artificial recharge wells are usually located in areas of

limited or vulnerable groundwater supplies; two major

areas are in the High Plains (Ogallala Aquifer) and in

coastal areas (e. g., to minimize salt-water intrusion).

In-situ recovery wells are generally located in the oil

shale regions of the Rocky Mountains. Solution mining injection wells are generally associated with uranium

resources in the Southwest.

Development of Estimates of

Numbers and Amounts

Hazardous Waste Wells.—Injection wells used primarily for hazardous waste disposal numbered approximately 280 in 1973 (Pye, et al., 1983). In 1981, 8.6

billion gallons of hazardous wastes were disposed of at

87 injection well sites (Dietz, et al., 1984).

The total number of injection wells is not known, and

the validity of extrapolating data from strictly hazardous waste injection wells to all injection wells (even if

most of them are used for hazardous waste disposal) is

questionable. Other data indicate that as much as 11

percent of the Nation’s liquid wastes may be disposed

of in underground injection wells (Feliciano, 1983).

Brine Injection Wells and Enhanced Oil Recovery

Wells.—Brine injection wells and enhanced oil recovery

(EOR) wells are treated together here (and separately

from non-hazardous waste wells and non-waste wells,

respectively) for two reasons. First, more information

is available for these wells than for other non-hazardous

waste and non-waste wells. Second, EOR wells are injection wells used in tertiary oil production, and brine

often is the injection fluid used in the EOR process.

In the early part of the century, most brine was

disposed of in simple pits and caused many groundwater

problems. Most States now ban the disposal of brine

in pits, so most brine is disposed of in injection wells;

illegal brine dumping into pits and streams and onto

roads is a problem in some areas (e. g., Ohio; Dalton,

1983). 1 In recent years, at least 17 States have reported

brine-related contamination incidents (Miller, 1980).

For example, in Texas in the 1960s, approximately 69

percent of brine was reinfected, 21 percent was disposed

of in pits, and 10 percent was discharged onto surface

1 Illegal brine dumping may be prevalent in some areas of the country, For

example, Dalton (1983) states that excessive brine is often dumped on roads

for dust control, beyond legal limits, and that some companies have been

observed dumping brine directly into streams. However, the Ohio Oil & Gas

Association (cited by Abbott, 1983) contends that some brine is legally used

on roads for dust control and disputes the allegations of illegal dumping
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 269

water; and approximately 23,000 contamination incidents were reported (University of Oklahoma, 1983).

Miller (1980) estimated that 60,000 brine injection

wells were in operation in the 1970s. A recent report

indicated that 140,000 injection wells are used either for

disposal of brine fluids brought to the surface during

oil and gas production or for the injection of fluids in

EOR processes (Kaplan, et al., 1983). EPA (1983a)

listed over 119,000 EOR wells and an additional 37,000

injection and disposal wells (not all of which were used

for brine disposal or EOR processes) in its Federal

Underground Injection Control Reporting System

(EPA, 1983a). Given these figures, it seems reasonable

to conclude at this time that the number of brine disposal

and EOR wells totals approximately 140,000.

Miller (1980) also estimated that approximately 460

billion gallons of brine per year were disposed of in injection wells. (Note that Miller indicated 260 bgy on p.

511 but 460 bgy p. 304; 460 bgy was the figure given

by Fairchild, et al., 1980, cited in University of Oklahoma, 1983). The OTA updated estimate of the amount

of brine disposal is based on estimates of brine production: although varying widely in different areas and

operations, approximately 4 barrels (bbls) of brine are

produced for every barrel of oil produced (Kaplan, et

al., 1983), and approximately 8.55 million bbls of crude

oil were produced per day in 1981 (CEQ 1982). Given

these figures, approximately 525 billion gallons of brine

would be produced annually (8.55 million bbls oil per

day X 4 bbls brine/bbl crude oil X 365 days per year

X 42 gallons/bbl), and most of the brine is injected into

wells.

The current level of oil produced from EOR processes is approximately 400,000 bbls/day (Kaplan, et al.,

1983). The number of barrels of water injected per barrel of oil produced varies greatly depending on the particular EOR production process (Royce, et al., 1982).

Assuming that 4 bbls of water are injected per barrel

of oil produced (this figure is well within the range of

figures presented in Royce, et al., 1982), then approximately 24.5 billion gallons of water per year would be

injected in EOR processes (400,000 bbl per day X 4

bbl water per bbl oil X 365 days per year X 42 galions/bbl).

Non-hazardous Waste Wells (excluding brine disposal

wells).— Miller (1980) stated that at least 40,000 agricultural, urban runoff, and sewage disposal wells were

in operation but that this estimate was probably much

too low. For example, Miller cited 15,000 such wells

in Florida; information obtained for OTA’S study indicates there may be as many as 10,000 runoff wells in

Phoenix, AZ (University of Oklahoma, 1983). Kaplan,

et al. (1983) estimated that approximately 500,000 injection wells are in existence, of which approximately

140,000 are used in brine disposal or EOR processes;

thus there would be approximately 360,000 other disposal wells in operation, presumably for agricultural,

urban runoff, and sewage disposal purposes. It is not

possible at this time to estimate the volumes of materials

flowing through these wells. An on-going EPA inventory of Class V injection wells (e. g., surface water drainage, air-conditioning return, and other wells) will not

be completed at least until 1985 (Anzzolin, 1983).

Non-waste Wells (excluding EOR wells).—At least

12,000 solution mining wells (including sulfur mining

via the Freische method) are in operation (EPA, 1983a).

No information was available regarding the amounts

of materials involved in these operations.

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

EPA (1979) estimated that at least 21,000 injection

wells in the United States require corrective action. Although injection wells can be constructed, operated, and

monitored properly, contamination of groundwater can

occur in a number of ways, primarily related to the construction, operation, and eventual closing of the wells

(EPA, 1979):

1. faulty well construction (e. g., drilling and casing);

2. the forcing upward of pressurized fluids into nearby wells and groundwater formations (see below);

3. the forcing upward of pressurized fluids into faults

or fractures in confining beds;

4. injection into or above usable aquifers (e. g., drinking water supplies);

5. the migration of fluids into hydrologically connected usable aquifers (e. g., drinking water supplies); and

6. faulty well closing.

The second item on the EPA list above maybe of major significance in regions where heavy oil and gas production and associated brine wells are located because

it includes abandoned and poorly maintained production wells. These wells are a potential source of contamination because brines injected into disposal wells

can move laterally through the injection zone into

unplugged, uncapped, or abandoned wells and subsequently leak into groundwater formations (Burmaster,

et al., 1982; Kaplan, et al., 1983; Thornhill, 1975).

Kaplan, et al. (1983) estimated that there are approximately 1.2 million abandoned wells (production wells,

and mineral exploration and testing wells; see also Gass,

et al., 1977) near areas of underground injection wells

and, further, that the location of many abandoned wells

is not known.

Depending primarily on the quality of recharge water,

artificial recharge systems can alter groundwater quality;

such alterations may also change the aquifer biologically
270 . Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

(University of Oklahoma, 1983). Soils can be clogged

by suspended matter in the recharge water and by the

associated biological activity. Even the disposal of a simple waste such as air conditioning return water can

degrade groundwater by raising the temperature and

adding chemicals (e. g., heavy metals).

3. Land Application

Land application of treated wastewater and wastewater byproducts (i. e., sewage sludge) is often used in

place of more costly disposal processes, Its primary goals

are the biodegradation, immobilization, and/or stabilization of various chemicals, and the beneficial use of

nutrients contained in the wastewater or sludge. The

wastewater itself is applied primarily by spray irrigation. Sludge is applied on agricultural or forest lands,

used as commercial compost, disposed of in landfills,

and applied in land reclamation projects (e. g., for strip

mine reclamation; Weiss, 1983). Sludge is also disposed

of by incineration and by ocean dumping (EPA, 1983 b).

Most of the information available concerns municipal sludge characteristics and production. However, industrial sludge is sometimes disposed of in landfills.

Industrial sludge includes effluent treatment sludge,

stack scrubber residue, fly and bottom ash, slag, and

numerous other manufacturing residues. In general, the

production of sludge is concentrated around major industrial and population centers but land application is

generally practiced in less populous areas (e. g., cropland) (University of Oklahoma, 1983).

Development of Estimates of

Numbers and Amounts

The exact number and average size of sludge-spreading operations for municipalities is not known, but at

least 2,463 publicly owned treatment facilities applying

liquid or thickened sludge on land and 485 using spray

irrigation were in operation or under construction in

1982 (EPA, 1983c).

About 6.8 million dry tons of sludge were produced

by municipalities in 1982 (EPA, 1983b). Between 24 and

29 percent of the sludge generated in the United States

is spread directly on crops (EPA, 1981b, 1983 b). Another 18-21 percent is distributed free or is marketed,

and most of it is subsequently deposited on cropland.

Thus 40-50 percent of the municipal sludge generated—

3-4 million dry tons per year—is used in some kind of

direct land application.

Data are lacking on the amounts of industrial sludge

produced annually and the number of sites involved but

most of it is thought to be disposed of in solid waste sites

and lagoons (Miller, 1980). During 1981, 70 hazardous

waste land treatment facilities (excluding landfills) regulated by EPA under RCRA regulations treated approximately 0.1 billion gallons of hazardous wastes

(Dietz, et al., 1984).

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

Groundwater contamination can occur when substances in sludge are leached by precipitation after the

sludge is applied to the land. The substances of most

concern include nitrogen, phosphorus, and heavy metals

(EPA, 1983 b); heavy metals also can limit the use of

sludge in agriculture because they can be absorbed into

the cover crop (Gurnham, et al., 1979).

The rate and duration of sludge application are determined by soil types, the nitrogen, phosphorus, and

heavy metal content of the wastes, length of the irrigation season, and the nutrient uptake characteristics of

the cover crop (Knox, et al., 1980; Young, 1978). Most

States consider land application of municipal sludge at

an agronomic rate (i. e., annual rate at which the nitrogen and/or phosphorus available to the crop from sludge

does not exceed the annual nitrogen and/or phosphorus

requirements of the crop) to have little potential for contamination of groundwater (EPA, 1983 b). Reduction

of application rates before planting and addition of nutrients near crop roots during the growing season (’‘sidedressing’ also may alleviate some problems (Swanson,

1983). Heavy metals in municipal sewage are contributed by industry (e. g., electroplating and metal-finishing

industries; other metal production, processing, and fabrication industries; and nominally non-metal industries),

commercial establishments, domestic water supplies,

and non-food household commodities (Gurnham, et al.,

1979). The potential for contamination by heavy metals

may be minimized if quality control procedures (e. g.,

industrial pretreatment and wastewater and sludge monitoring) are followed.

4. Landfills

The solid wastes deposited in landfills are generally

classified as hazardous or non-hazardous. Hazardous

solid wastes are specifically defined under RCRA regulations (see OTA, 1983a); various waste products are

excluded from the definition: domestic sewage wastes,

irrigation return flows, radioactive wastes, and some industrial wastes. Non-hazardous solid wastes as defined

here encompass all solid wastes not included in the

RCRA definition of hazardous wastes.

Solid waste products (e.g., from residences, small industries, and commercial activities) are generally deposited in municipal landfills; these wastes are usually, but

not always, non-hazardous. Sanitary municipal land-
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts • 271

fills are landfills that are designed to minimize adverse

environmental impacts (Miller, 1980). Industrial landfills are used for the disposal of solid wastes from large

industries; the wastes are often hazardous.

The distribution of municipal landfills is assumed to

follow the general distribution of population and thus

should be concentrated around urban population centers. Most sanitary municipal landfills are small operations: about 80 percent of the sanitary landfills handle

less than 50 tons of waste per day, and approximately

1 percent handle amounts in excess of 1,000 tons per

day (Waste Age, 1981). Industrial landfills are probably concentrated near industrial facilities.

Development of Estimates of Numbers

The number of municipal solid waste land disposal

sites is not easily determined. EPA’s 1977 Report to

Congress (1977a; see also Miller, 1980) estimated the

number to be 18,500. This figure included not only

sanitary municipal landfills but also some industrial

landfills and open dumps; only about 5,600 were licensed sanitary landfills and most of the remaining sites

were open dumps (Petersen, 1983). A recent survey estimated a total of 12,991 landfills in the United States

(Petersen, 1983). These estimates included primarily

sanitary municipal landfills but it also included nonhazardous industrial sites and 2,395 open dumps. Thus

fewer than 10,000 sanitary municipal operations are

known to be in operation (how many fewer than the

10,000 is not known because the number of industrial

sites was not specified). In addition, the number of abandoned or closed municipal landfills and open dumps

could be equal to the number of known sanitary municipal landfills (Eldridge, 1978). Thus a first approximation of the number of municipal landfills in the Nation might be 15,000-20,000 (fewer than 10,000

municipal landfills X 2, to account for both operating

and abandoned or closed municipal landfills; see the

discussion on Open Dumps, below). Conservatively,

this estimate is probably correct within a range of 100

percent.

The exact number of industrial solid waste land disposal sites is not known, but EPA has estimated that

there are 75,700 active landfill sites for industrial wastes

(CEQ 1981 b). About 199 hazardous waste landfill facilities are known (Dietz, et al., 1984). In addition, a

large portion of industrial solid wastes, including some

that are considered hazardous, are disposed of in municipal landfills (Miller, 1980).

Development of Estimates of Amounts

Approximately 138 million tons of municipal solid

wastes were handled by municipal solid waste disposal

facilities during 1978 (CEQ 1982). This figure is probably a relatively accurate estimate of the amount of solid

wastes handled annually by sanitary landfill facilities

because it is based on relatively extensive nationwide

surveys.

Estimates of the amounts of non-hazardous industrial

solid wastes and of hazardous wastes disposed of in landfills are not as accurate. The range of estimates for nonhazardous industrial solid wastes is 40-140 million wet

tons per year. The minimum estimate of 40 million wet

tons per year is derived as follows. Approximately 150

million tons of total solid wastes were generated by industry in 1980 (CEQ 1982), and approximately 45

million wet tons were hazardous (EPA, 1981 b); thus 105

million wet tons were non-hazardous industrial solid

wastes (150 mty – 45 mty). Assuming that the proportion of solid wastes disposed of in landfills is the same

for industry’s non-hazardous solid wastes as it is for hazardous solid wastes (40 percent), z then the minimum

amount disposed of is approximately 40 million wet tons

per year (0.40 X 105 mty).

The maximum estimate of the amount of non-hazardous industrial solid waste disposal is approximately 140

million wet tons per year. This estimate is derived by

applying the 40 percent rate to the higher EPA estimate

of 342 million tons for non-hazardous industrial solid

waste production in 1980 (EPA, 1981 b) (40 percent X

342 mty = 140 mty).

At least 0.81 billion gallons of hazardous wastes were

disposed of in 199 landfill facilities in 1981 (Dietz, et

al., 1984); this figure includes both liquid and solid

wastes.

Utilities generate approximately 77 million wet tons

of solid waste per year (EPA, 1981 b), most of which is

fly and bottom ash from the burning of fossil fuels (approximately 73 million tons of ash are generated annually; OTA, 1983a). Assuming that 40 percent is disposed of in Iandfills, an estimated 30 million tons of solid

wastes per year generated by utilities would be disposed

of in landfills; the applicability of the 40 percent disposal

rate assumption to utilities is not known.

Note that approximately 13-15 percent of municipal

sludge produced is disposed of at landfills (EPA, 1981b;

EPA, 1983 b), but this amount results in landfill disposal

of only about 1 million tons per year (15 percent of the

estimated 6.8 million tons of municipal sludge; see Land

Application, above). This amount is included within the

rounding errors in the above estimates.

‘Approximately 40 percent of industry’s hazardous solid wastes is disposed

of m landfills of some type (EPA, 1981 b) The remainder is disposed of by

c heroical, biolog-lea], or physical treatment, deep well injection; land treatment;

resource recovery; or Inclnerat ion
272 . Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

Considerations in the design of municipal landfills include the location, the area to be served, and plans for

different stages in the falling process (e. g., use upon completion of the fill). Provisions must be made for controlling traffic, unloading and handling different types

of wastes, placement of cover materials, fire control,

control of salvage and scavenging, and monitoring. Industrial landfills have similar design, operation, and

maintenance needs, although the nature of the wastes

disposed of may entail additional safety considerations

(hazardous waste landfills are included in this category).

Groundwater contamination can be minimized by

proper design, construction, and operation and maintenance of a facility (Brunner, et al., 1972). However,

facilities are not always maintained properly and some

landfills are allowed to deteriorate (University of Oklahoma, 1983). Further, not all contamination controls

used in landfills are effective; for example, required

liners—of both natural and synthetic materials—have

cracked or deteriorated when exposed to certain chemicals (OTA, 1983a). Abandoned landfills (the locations

of which are not usually known to regulatory authorities)

often pose a threat to groundwater quality because

geologic and hydrologic characteristics were not considered in the original site selection; the same may be true

for some active Iandfills. Many abandoned landfills were

located in sand and gravel quarry pits or in environmentally sensitive areas such as marsh lands, Only 1,609

of almost 13,000 landfills surveyed reported having

monitoring systems for groundwater, leachate, and/or

gas in 1983 (Petersen, 1983).

Leachate generation varies with time over a facility’s

life, so the age of facilities could affect the amount and

strength of the leachate. In addition, the amount of

leachate leaving the more recent facilities could be significantly less than at older facilities. Many older landfills were not lined; and leachate collection and treatment have become common practices at a number of

the more recent facilities (in the last 10 years).

Unless moisture can be totally prevented from entering a landfill, leachate will eventually be generated.

Once a landfill system reaches its disposal capacity,

leachate generation is directly related to the volume of

water added to the system (University of Oklahoma,

1983). Leachate generation also depends on the initial

moisture content of the wastes, the landfill density, the

rate of filling, and infiltration water quantities. Infiltration from the surface is not the only source of water coming into a landfill; although undesirable, some landfills

intersect aquifers, thereby creating another source of

moisture for leachate generation.

Techniques for estimating the amount of leachate

generation from landfills vary widely in their results.

Assumptions that affect the estimates include the choice

of runoff coefficients, the moisture storage capacity of

the waste, and evapotranspiration rates. Lu, et al. (1981)

found that the error range of 25 different methods for

predicting leachate generation was 1.3-5,400 percent (as

reported in University of Oklahoma, 1983).

Even if the amount of leachate generated is known,

not all of it reaches the groundwater. Depending on soil

type and the position of the water table, the soil underlying the wastes will be able to attenuate or renovate

some leachate before it reaches the groundwater. In order to develop accurate estimates of the potential for

Ieachate to contribute to groundwater contamination,

estimates must include a percentage reduction for absorption and attenuation.

5. Open Dumps

A dump is a land disposal site where solid wastes are

deposited indiscriminately, with little or no regard for

the design, operation, maintenance, or esthetics of the

site. In an ‘‘open’ dump, the wastes are almost always

left uncovered. Most often the open dump is not authorized and there is no supervision of dumping (Brunner,

et al., 1971, cited in University of Oklahoma, 1983).

Virtually every type of solid waste has been deposited

in open dumps—abandoned tires and automobiles, old

furniture and kitchen appliances, industrial and commercial wastes, agricultural byproducts, trees, vegetation, demolition and construction wastes, and various

household wastes—and virtually every type of topography has been used for this dumping. Open dumps are

frequently burning dumps as well, whether resulting

from deposition of smoldering wastes, spontaneous ignition, or intentional ignition to reduce volume.

EPA listed approximately 1,950 open dumps in its

inventory (EPA, 1982a); in a more recent survey by

Waste Age (Petersen, 1983) the figure is 2,396, Because

these two estimates include only the open dumps known

to regulatory authorities, they are minimum estimates.

It is not possible at this time to generate any reasonable estimate of the amount of material disposed of in

open dumps annually.

6. Residential (Local) Disposal

A variety of hazardous and toxic substances are commonly found in household wastes. These wastes often

are disposed of in specific facilities designed for waste

disposal or discharge (e. g., municipal landfills). However, they also are disposed of indiscriminately, without supervision, in gutters, sewers, storm drains, and

backyard burning pits—these practices constitute resi-
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 273

dential (or local) disposal. The pattern of residential

disposal follows population density and distribution.

Household wastes are composed of a wide range of

product materials: pesticides; paint products (e. g., oilbased paints, thinners, removers, and wood preservatives); cleaners (e. g., drain cleaners, furniture polish,

air fresheners, floor wax, disinfectants, chlorine bleaches,

degreasers, nail polish removers, spot removers, oven

cleaners, drycleaning fluids, detergents, aerosol sprays,

rug cleaners, and shoe care products); automobile products (e. g., antifreeze, waste oil, and brake fluid); asphalt

and roofing tar; and batteries.

Development of Estimates of

Numbers and Amounts

Little quantitative information is available about

where most household substances are ultimately disposed of, primarily because household wastes do not

usually come under Federal and State regulations and

are not investigated systematically. A few community

and government agencies have attempted to tackle this

problem; among the most noteworthy are efforts of the

Water Quality Division of Seattle (Ridgley, et al., 1982),

the Metropolitan Area Planning Council of Boston

(MAPC, 1982), and community grassroots collection

campaigns like the ones in Lexington, MA (Watson,

1983) and Seattle (Ridgley, et al., 1982).

Some quantitative information is available. Approximately 30,000 tons of household cleaners were used by

the 1.2 million people in King County (Seattle Metropolitan Area) in 1980 (Ridgley, et al., 1982). The city

of Tacoma, WA (population 150,000), uses 264 tons of

liquid household cleaners, 72 tons of toilet bowl cleaners,

and 66 tons of motor oil per year (based on TacomaPierce County Health Department, no date). If the rates

of use of household cleaners are extrapolated to the entire United States, then approximately 0.4-5.6 million

tons of such cleaners are used annually.

Over 90 percent of households in the United States

use pesticides in the home, garden, and/or yard (Savage, et al., 1980, cited in Ridgley, et al., 1982). It is

estimated that 5-10 percent of all pesticides used are applied in this manner (Seiber, 1981; EPA, 1980a). The

lower percentage (i. e., 5 percent) is derived as follows:

at least 80 million pounds of pesticides were used in

homes and gardens in 1980 (EPA, 1980b), and this figure is about 5 percent of the 1.5 billion pounds of

pesticides produced annually (see Pesticide Applications

below). The mean rate of pesticide applications by

households has been estimated to be 5.3-10.6 pounds

per acre, and urban soils often have higher levels of

pesticide residues than do croplands (vom Runker, et

al., cited in Grier, 1981-82).

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

Residential disposal has great potential for contaminating groundwater. Uncontrolled burning can cause

toxic fumes, and the hazardous materials concentrated

in ashes can be leached into groundwater. Spilled oil,

pesticides, and fertilizers are washed off driveways,

yards, and gardens into storm drains and local streams.

Toxic wastes are often poured down household drains;

the result is corroded pipes (which can cause higher

heavy-metal concentrations in sewage), septic tank malfunctions, pipeline leakage (including from sewers), and

interference with the operation of municipal sewage

treatment facilities. All these negative impacts can lead

to groundwater contamination. In addition, household

hazardous wastes that are deposited in specific facilities

designed for waste disposal (e. g., landfills) have the potential to contaminate groundwater.

7. Surface Impoundments

Surface impoundments are used by both industries

and municipalities for the retention, treatment, and/or

disposal of both hazardous and non-hazardous liquid

wastes. They can be either natural depressions or artificial holding areas (e. g., excavations or dikes); the term

“pi“ ‘‘ t is commonly applied to a small impoundment

used by industries, municipalities, agricultural operations, or households for special purposes (e. g., farm

waste storage, industrial wastewater storage, and sludge

disposal). The wastewater in impoundments is treated

by chemical coagulation and precipitation, pH adjustment, biological oxidation, separation of suspended

solids from liquids, and reduction in water temperature.

Surface impoundments operate under one of two schemes:

discharging and non-discharging. Discharging impoundments are designed to release their liquid contents

either periodically or continuously into streams, lakes,

bays, or the ocean. Non-discharging impoundments lose

their liquid by evaporation and/or seepage. Impoundments that rely on evaporation are usually lined with

low-permeability materials to prevent seepage and are

most effective in arid areas.

Surface impoundments vary in shape, and they are

operated individually or as a series (EPA, 1982 b). They

range in depth from 2-3 feet (0.6-0.9 m) to more than

30 feet (9 m) below the land surface, and their surface

area varies from a few tenths of an acre to thousands

of acres. Agricultural, municipal, industrial, and oil and

gas production impoundments are generally small—90

percent or more are under 5 acres (EPA, 1982 b). The

largest impoundments reported to EPA for the agricultural, municipal, and oil and gas production categories
274 • Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

were 665, 850, and 79 acres, respectively. Industrial impoundments, in contrast, can be quite large—20 impoundments larger than 1,000 acres were reported to

EPA, with one covering 5,300 acres. The size of mining impoundments depends on the type of mining.

Ninety percent of coal mine impoundments are less than

5 acres; the largest is 293 acres. However, the surface

impoundments of only 58 percent of metal mines and

48 percent of other non-metal mines are less than 5

acres; the largest in these categories are 1,990 and 1,229

acres, respectively.

Surface impoundments are located in proximity to the

activity creating the liquid wastes. Thus agricultural impoundments tend to be concentrated in the Central,

Midwestern, and Southeastern United States. Municipal impoundments are associated with population

centers and are most common in the East. Industrial

impoundments are most common in the East and Northeast, and along the Great Lakes and the west coast. Oil

and gas impoundments are concentrated in Texas,

Oklahoma, and Louisiana. Mining impoundments are

concentrated in coal mining areas (e. g., Pennsylvania,

Ohio, and West Virginia).

Development of Estimates of Numbers

As part of implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act

(1442(a)(8)(C)), EPA initiated a nationwide Surface Impoundment Assessment in 1978 (EPA, 1978, 1982 b).

Most of the available information about surface impoundments is the result of these efforts. Unless otherwise stated, the discussion that follows is based on the

report issued in 1982.

A total of 180,973 impoundments was located by

EPA: 27,912 industrial, 37,185 municipal, 19,437 agricultural, 25,038 mining, 65,488 oil and gas brine pit,

and 5,913 other impoundments. The most important

industrial users of impoundments are the food processing and chemical industries, each with more than 4,000

known impoundments. Other heavy industrial uses

(i.e., using more than 1,000 impoundments) are for petroleum refineries; power plants; paper products; stone,

clay, and glass products; primary metals; and fabricated

metals. Municipal impoundments are located at landfills and water and waste treatment facilities; about

33,000 were at sewage treatment plants. Agricultural

impoundments are used in crop production, animal husbandry, and other farming operations; most of them are

associated with feedlot waste operations. Mining impoundments are associated with ore extraction and treatment, washing, and sorting processes. All of the numbers

cited are thought by EPA to be conservative, especially

for industry and for oil and gas brine pits—the estimate

for oil and gas impoundments does not include burn

pits, cuttings pits, or mud pits. Further, at least 1,078

impoundments regulated under RCRA were used for

the storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous wastes

in 1981 (Dietz, et al., 1984). Whether these facilities

are included in the total of 180,973 is not known.

Development of Estimates of Amounts

The amount of liquid wastes disposed of in surface

impoundments can be estimated in a variety of ways.

Approximately 50 billion gallons of liquid wastes per

day are deposited in industrial surface impoundments

in the United States (EPA, 1980, cited in U.S. House

of Representatives, 1980), and approximately 82 billion

gallons per day are deposited in all types of impoundments (The Conservation Foundation, 1982). The

amount of wastes actually contributing to groundwater

contamination depends on leakage from the impoundments; the commonly used leakage rate of 6 percent

(Miller, 1980) is used here. Accordingly, approximately

1,095 billion gallons per year (bgy) and 1,800 bgy of

liquid waste leachate from industrial and from all types

of surface impoundments, respectively, are available for

entry into groundwater (i. e., 50 billion gallons per day

X 365 days per year X 0.06 for industry; 82 billion

gallons per day X 365 days per year X 0.06 for all

types),

The amount of liquid wastes deposited in municipal

impoundments can also be estimated. EPA (1978) calculated that 6,300 municipal impoundments had a total

flow of 4.2 billion gallons per day. Using these figures

to obtain a flow rate per impoundment and applying

the 6 percent leakage rate yields an estimate of 540 bgy

for the 37,185 municipal impoundments found by EPA.

A second estimate, of 705 bgy for municipal impoundments, can be derived by subtracting the 1,095 industrial bgy from the 1,800 total bgy; this figure is a maximum estimate because it includes all but industrial

impoundments.

Brine pits are almost universally banned in the United

States, but they were the major means of brine disposal

prior to the 1970s. Current disposal rates for brine pits

cannot be estimated because they are not monitored.

The metals mining industry puts approximately 250

million tons of tailings into ponds each year.

Thus estimates can be developed for the amount of

liquid wastes converted into potential leachate for industrial, municipal, and mining impoundments and for

all impoundments together. The latter figure, 1,800 bgy,

is in marked contrast with Miller’s (1980) estimate of

161 bgy. Miller’s estimate for liquid wastes consists of

separate estimates of 100 bgy from industrial treatment

lagoons, 43 bgy from brine pits and basins, and 18 bgy

from municipal treatment lagoons. Miller’s estimate is

almost certainly much too low, but the accuracy of the

1,800 bgy estimate is difficult to evaluate.
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts . 275

The above estimates refer to hazardous and non-hazardous liquid wastes in all surface impoundments.

Quantitative information is also available regarding the

deposition of hazardous liquid wastes (which may include non-hazardous liquid wastes) into surface impoundments regulated under RCRA (Dietz, et al.,

1984). In 1981, 5.1 billion gallons of hazardous wastes

were disposed of, 16.6 billion gallons were treated, and

14.1 billion gallons were stored in these surface impoundments (Dietz, et al., 1984).

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

In terms of their numbers and the amounts of wastes

associated with them, waste impoundments (including

pits, ponds, and lagoons) may be one of the biggest

threats to groundwater. More than 23,000 cases of

groundwater contamination have been documented in

Texas alone, primarily resulting from brine pits (EPA,

1977a). In Colorado, 37 percent of the known impoundments pose an ‘‘actual threat’ to groundwater and over

53 percent pose a ‘ ‘potential threat’ (The Goundwater

Newsletter, 1983a). The potential for health effects is

highly variable and depends on public use of affected

aquifers; most mining, oil and gas, and agricultural sites

are located in remote areas and thus are likely to have

a low potential for affecting large numbers of people if

they should contaminate groundwater, relative to other

types of impoundments, However, many impoundments are located near concentrations of people, and

almost 87 percent are located over aquifers currently

used as a source of drinking water (EPA, 1982b). About

50 percent are located over unsaturated and very permeable zones (EPA, 1982 b).

Contamination of groundwater by a particular impoundment will depend on soil permeability, depth to

the water table, rates of evaporation and precipitation

(including potential for overflow), geochemical characteristics of the soils (e. g., ion exchange and absorption),

chemical composition and volume of the wastes, and

other factors (EPA, 1978). For example, heavy metal

movement depends on incorporation of the metals into

the bottom of the impoundments, leakage rates, and interactions of each metal with different underlying soils.

The contamination potential may be reduced if natural or artificial liners are located beneath the impoundment. The 1982 EPA survey indicated that only about

15-17 percent of all impoundments had liners, with a

range of 10 percent for oil and gas impoundments to

28 percent for industrial impoundments. More recent

data presented by EPA (Inside EPA, 1983d) indicate

that 62 percent of all impoundments have at least a

single liner; less than 22 percent have a double liner.

In some States (e. g., California, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, Oregon, and Pennsylvania) use of liners

in all impoundment categories is widespread; in other

States, use is widespread in only one or two impoundment categories.

EPA analyzed 416 case studies of groundwater contamination from impoundments and found that in 78.7

percent of the cases the contamination was caused by

direct seepage, in 10.1 percent by dike failure or overflow, in 7.6 percent by liner failure, in 1.6 percent by

catastrophic collapse, and in 2.0 percent by other causes.

EPA also evaluated the impoundments’ potential to contaminate groundwater, water wells, and surface water

as shown in table A.5. 1. Overall, 93 percent were judged

to have intermediate or high potential for groundwater

contamination.

8. and 9. Waste Tailings and

Waste Piles

Mining operations generate two basic types of solid

wastes—spoil piles and tailings. Spoil piles are generally disturbed soil and overburden from surface mining or waste rock from underground mining operations

(Miller, 1980). Tailings are the solid wastes from the

on-site operations of cleaning and extracting ores. Both

types of solid wastes are often piled on the land surface

or used as fill in topographic depressions confined by

earthen dams (University of Oklahoma, 1983). They
276 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

are discussed together in this section because it is not

always clear in the literature which source category is

being referred to.

Development of Estimates of

Numbers and Amounts

Metal and non-metal mines (excluding coal mines)

produced 1.5 billion tons of waste rock in 1972 (EPA,

1977a); estimates of known amounts of tailings range

from 215 million tons at both inactive and active uranium

mining sites (Thomson, et al., 1983) to 250 million tons

deposited in ponds annually by the metal mining industry (Miller, 1980). These figures total 1.72-1.75

billion tons, approximately 86 percent of which is in the

form of waste piles (i. e., 1.5 billion tons of waste rock

in 1.75 billion tons of waste material).

Approximately 2.3 billion tons of total waste material, including radioactive tailings, are generated annually by mining operations (EPA, 1981b; OTA, 1983a); this

figure apparently includes both waste piles and tailings

(both radioactive and non-radioactive). If the 86 percent figure is applied to the total of 2.3 billion tons, approximately 2.0 billion tons are in waste piles and 0.3

billion tons are in the form of tailings. The proportion

of tailings may increase in the future; for example, the

amount of active uranium mill tailings is projected to

increase to 1.0- 1.9 billion tons by the year 2000 (Landa,

1980; also see Radioactive Disposal Sites, below).

Hazardous waste piles may also be generated by industrial operations. Hazardous waste piles at 174 facilities contained an estimated 0.39 billion gallons in 1981

(Dietz, et al., 1984). In view of the fact that these waste

sites include only those regulated under Federal laws,

the number of sites and amount of material probably

represent the lower bounds.

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

In terms of their numbers, amounts of material, and

nature of their contents, waste piles and tailings are

among the major potential sources of groundwater contamination, especially from uranium, copper, and coal

mining (Thomson, et al., 1983; Pye, et al., 1983; Johnson, 1983; Landa, 1980). Approximately one-third of

active tailings piles have contaminated nearby shallow

aquifers (EPA, 1983d).

Precipitation percolating through spoil piles and tailings carries soluble substances (e. g., arsenic, sulfuric

acid, copper, selenium, and molybdenum) and radioactive wastes (e. g., isotopes of uranium, thorium, and

radium, including radium-226 which has a half-life of

1,620 years) to the underlying water table (University

of Oklahoma, 1983; Thomson, et al., 1983). Arsenic,

selenium, lead, manganese, molybdenum, and vanadium have been found in groundwater in seven States at

distances of up to 1.5 miles from tailings piles and at

concentrations above Federal or State limits (EPA,

1983e).

The most serious side-effects are associated with sulfide minerals (Koch, et al., 1982). Sulfuric acid is often

generated from coal mining spoils by the oxidation of

the sulfides in the coal; subsequent percolation into the

water table results in acidic groundwater. Other minerals (e. g., lead, silver, zinc, molybdenum, nickel, and

copper) are commonly found as sulfide ores; mining

these minerals can also lead to the production of sulfuric

acid (Koch, et al., 1982). In addition, the acid can

dissolve other contaminants adsorbed on the soil into

groundwater.

Impacts on groundwater quality depend on several

factors: the location, size, and configuration of piles and

tailings; the composition of piles and tailings; the climate

(e. g., rate of precipitation); hydrogeological characteristics; and the control technology employed. Groundwater protection is not provided at many existing tailings disposal sites (Thomson, et al., 1983).

In some cases, certain factors can reduce the potential for groundwater contamination or the numbers of

people affected. For example, many mining and smelting operations occur in arid or remote regions (e. g., for

copper and uranium; EPA 1983e; Koch, et al., 1982;

Thomson, et al., 1983). Low-grade ore piles (e.g., copper) can be subjected to controlled leaching and the runoff collected for reprocessing (Koch, et al., 1982). Further, a low pH is often rapidly neutralized as the flow

leaves the tailings (Thomson, et al., 1983).

10. Materials Stockpiles

Development of Estimates of

Numbers and Amounts

Very little information has been obtained regarding

either the numbers or the amounts of materials in stockpiles in the United States. Approximately 3.4 billion tons

of various materials (e. g., coal, sand and gravel, crushed

stone, copper ore, iron ore, uranium ore, potash, titanium, phosphate rock, and gypsum) were produced in

1979 (Koch, et al., 1982). Stockpile size is probably proportional to production in most cases; however, data

comparing production and stockpiles are available only

for coal, iron ore, phosphate rock, titanium, and gypsum (Koch, et al., 1982). Stockpiles represent approximately 20-25 percent of production for coal, iron ore,

and gypsum (annual production is more than 700

million tons of coal, more than 240 million tons of iron

ore, and about 15 million tons of gypsum) and approximately 5-8 percent of production for phosphate rock
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 277

and titanium (annual production is about 191 million

and 20 million tons, respectively).

For a preliminary estimate of the total volume held

by materials stockpiles, assume that 20 percent of total

materials production is stored in stockpiles. The choice

of this percentage is based on an aggregation of the

above percentages for the individual minerals and is

weighted toward the higher figures because of the larger

tonnages produced for those minerals. Given the total

annual materials production of 3.4 billion tons, approximately 700 million tons per year are stockpiled. Reliability of the estimate is low but should be within an

order of magnitude.

Some descriptive information is available for coal production and stockpiling. Approximately 780 million tons

of coal were produced in 1979. Coal is stored outdoors

primarily by electric utilities, coke plants, and industrial users; the average coal pile contained 95,000 metric

tons and was 5.8 meters high. Coal stockpiles at utilities

were estimated at 185 million tons in 1980 (Koch, et

al. , 1982). Substances present in coal piles include

aluminum, iron, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, manganese, sulfur, and phosphate, with trace

amounts of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead, zinc,

uranium, copper, and cobalt (Koch, et al., 1982).

Potential for Grounclwater Contamination

Problems associated with materials stockpiles are

much the same as those associated with waste piles and

tailings (see Waste Tailings and Waste Piles, above);

the major difference is that materials stockpiles are not

wastes. But for all, the concern is the ultimate disposition of the soluble substances. Water percolating through

stockpiles can carry soluble substances to the groundwater. Chemical reactions within coal piles, in particular, can produce sulfuric acid and ferric sulfate, which

can then be carried down to the groundwater by precipitation percolating through the pile.

11. Graveyards

Decomposing bodies in graveyards produce fluids that

can leak to underlying groundwater, especially if nonIeakproof caskets are used.

The potential for graveyards to contaminate groundwater depends on several factors. Groundwater contamination is primarily a function of soils and depth to

groundwater. Areas with high rainfall and high underlying water tables are most vulnerable to contamination from graveyards. Studies of individual cemeteries

indicate that, in all cases, soil contamination occurred

in immediate proximity to the graves but not all graveyards actually contaminated groundwater (Bouwer,

1978). Although the contamination potential cannot be

accurately quantified, the magnitude of contamination

appears to be highly localized and is probably much less

than that from other sources.

12. Animal Burial

Animal burial procedures have become increasingly

sophisticated. Mass burial—less common than individual burials-occurs near large concentrations of livestock

and in local landfills or open dumps. Individual burials

are most likely to take place within sections of municipal landfills or in residential backyards.

There are no data to assess the potential contribution of this source to groundwater contamination. It is

highly site-specific and depends on disposal practices,

the surface and subsurface hydrology, the proximity of

the site to water sources, the nature and amount of the

disposed material, and the cause of death.

13. Aboveground Storage Tanks

Aboveground storage tanks are used in industrial,

commercial, and agricultural operations and at individual residences for a large variety of chemicals. No systematic information is available regarding numbers,

sizes, and locations of these tanks or of the chemicals

stored in them.

14. Underground Storage Tanks

Underground storage tanks are used by industries,

commercial establishments, and individual residences

for storage and treatment of products or raw materials,

waste storage and treatment, and piping systems (San

Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board,

1983; University of Oklahoma, 1983). Little information is available regarding treatment tanks; unless otherwise indicated, the discussion below refers to storage

tanks. In addition, information about steel and fiberglass

tanks will be distinguished whenever possible.

Industrial use is primarily for fuel storage but also

for storage of a wide range of other substances including

acids, metals, industrial solvents, technical grade chemicals,

and chemical wastes (San Francisco Bay Regional Water

Quality Control Board, 1983; California Assembly Office of Research, 1983). Commercial businesses (e. g.,

airports, corporations with car fleets, recyclers, farmers,

and trucking industries) and individual homeowners use

underground storage almost exclusively for fuel storage.

Underground storage tanks are widespread throughout

the country; gasoline storage tanks are concentrated in

areas with high population density (and therefore with

high automobile usage).
278 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

Development of Estimates of Numbers

The most numerous underground storage tanks are

those used for gasoline at service stations and for fuel

oil at residences. Based on the number of independent

and major service stations in the United States (Lundberg, 1982) and on the average number of underground

tanks per station, approximately 1.2 million steel underground tanks are found at service stations alone (Rogers,

1983).3 Approximately 100,000 fiberglass tanks also are

used for underground storage of petroleum products and

several thousand are used for non-petroleum products

(Hammond, 1983).

Many other underground storage tanks, both known

and unknown (and both active and abandoned), are

used for petroleum and non-petroleum products throughout the country (Dalton, 1983; Rogers, 1983; White,

1983). The 1.2 million steel tanks at service stations may

represent only one-fourth to one-third of the underground steel storage tanks for all products, the remainder being used by trucking companies, corporations,

farmers, government agencies, and others (Rogers,

1983; White, 1983). White (1983) estimates that about

25 percent of all steel storage tanks are used by the petroleum industry (half of them by major producers and

half by independent retailers), 25 percent by farmers,

5-6 percent by government agencies, and the remainder

by various users. Note that the estimate that one-fourth

to one-third of all steel underground tanks are used for

petroleum may be too low for two major reasons. First,

it seems to be based on data from Santa Clara County,

CA, where the number of industrial chemical solvent

storage tanks may be higher, and the relative number

of tanks used for petroleum lower, than is typical of most

of the country because of the number of high-technology

industrial firms in Santa Clara County (Donovan,

1983). Second, approximately 60 percent of the 40,000

tanks produced annually for the last 5 years (28,000 steel

and 12,000 fiberglass) have been installed at service stations (Donovan, 1983).

OTA’S study assumes that the number of steel tanks

at service stations represents about one-half of all steel

tanks. This figure is a compromise between the onefourth to one-third and the 60 percent, weighted toward

the latter because it is based on more reliable data.

Using this assumption yields an estimate of 2.4 million

steel underground tanks in the United States. The additional fiberglass tanks used for storing petroleum and

non-petroleum products bring the total estimate to 2.5

million underground storage tanks for all non-hazardous

products.

‘This is a generally accepted figure and is cited by EPA (Inside EPA, 1983c)

and by the Steel Tank Institute both in publications (e. g., Steel Tank Institute,

1983) and personal communications. Feliciano (1984) estimated that approximately 1.4 miJlion underground tanks were used for storing gasoline.

There were at least 2,031 hazardous waste storage

tanks and treatment tanks regulated under RCRA in

1981 (Dietz, et al., 1984); this figure does not include

hazardous waste tanks operating under NPDES permits. Just how many of these are underground or above-

-ground is not known, but they are considered as an

underground source in this analysis.

Development of Estimates of Amounts

It is very difficult to obtain an accurate estimate of

the amount of material stored in underground storage

tanks, but one approach involves using the average

capacity of known tanks. The average service station

underground steel tank held 4,000-6,000 gallons in the

1950s and now holds about 10,000 gallons; the largest

registered steel tank has a capacity of 50,000 gallons

(Donovan, 1983). The average capacity of fiberglass

tanks is also about 10,000 gallons (Steel Tank Institute,

1983). Assuming an average 10,000-gallon capacity for

underground tanks, the 2.5 million underground storage tanks have an estimated capacity of 25 billion

gallons. The hazardous waste storage tanks and treatment tanks contain an estimated 13.8 billion gallons

(Dietz, et al., 1984); this figure does not include hazardous wastewaters stored in tanks for less than 90 days

or in tanks operated under NPDES permits.

Design, Operation, and Maintenance

Characteristics

The installation and use of underground storage tanks

are often not regulated. Most often the only regulations

are local requirements for construction and installation,

but even in these cases follow-up or periodic checks are

rarely required to determine whether leaks have developed. Cathodic protection for steel tanks was seldom

provided until recently; most tanks more than 15 years

old are unprotected (Hammond, 1983).

There are no design requirements at the Federal level

or in many States for storage facilities that might pose

a threat to groundwater. At a minimum, design requirements should address (API, 1976): 1) tank construction—

e.g., to ensure compatibility with stored substances and

with local soil conditions; 2) reserve capacity; 3) safety

devices—e. g., cutoff devices; and 4) inspection. The

typical design life of tanks varies from 15-20 years for

unprotected steel tanks and is highly dependent on environmental conditions. Leaks typically begin within 7

years of installation in humid areas or if tanks are in

contact with salt-water, but they may not occur for more

than 30 years in arid areas (Feliciano, 1984). No information was available about the typical design life of protected steel tanks but presumably it is more than 20

years. The design life of fiberglass tanks is estimated
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts . 279

at 40-50 years (Hammond, 1983); this figure is only a

prediction—fiberglass tanks have been used commonly

only since 1970, and the oldest one that has been tested

for leaks is 13 years old.

The Pollution Liability Insurance Association no

longer insures steel tanks more than 20 years old unless

they meet stringent testing requirements (Morrison,

1983). Fiberglass tanks are warranted for up to 30 years

(Hammond, 1983), but the Underwriters Laboratories

insurance standards for fiberglass tanks do not cover

alcohol blends (e. g., ethanol; Steel Tank Institute,

1983).

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

Underground storage tanks are known to have caused

many cases of groundwater contamination (e. g., San

Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board,

1983). In particular, old corroded gasoline storage tanks

are frequently cited as sources of contamination (University of Oklahoma, 1983). As many as 77 percent of

underground steel tanks may be affected by point corrosion (Rogers, no date). Such corrosion can be caused

by impurities in the backfill, faulty installation involving surface abrasions and failure to remove shoring, and

certain soil conditions (e. g., involving acidity, electrical

resistance, presence or absence of sulfides, or moisture

content).

Many companies have installed new tanks near old

ones. When they do, a new tank often acts as a ‘‘ sacrificial anode” (i. e., metallic ions flow from the new tank

to the old tank) and it rusts faster (Dalton, 1983). In

addition, dispensing pumps can develop leaks in couplings and hoses, and delivery lines can corrode or break

(Dalton, 1983). Although new underground tanks are

usually coated with a protective or corrosion-resistant

material if they are steel or are made from relatively

corrosion-resistant materials (e. g., fiberglass), they are

still subject to corrosion-induced leakage. Fiberglass

tanks can crack if installed incorrectly, and the polyester

resins in fiberglass may be weakened by some alcoholblend gasolines (Feliciano, 1984).

Tank age may be a principal factor in groundwater

contamination (Rogers, 1983). Leaks have been observed in underground steel tanks aged 5-45 years but

about one-third occur in tanks aged 15 years or less

(Rogers, 1983). In New York, 60 percent of the leaks

are in tanks older than 16 years, and 86 percent are in

tanks more than 10 years old (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1982). Many

steel tanks in the United States are now in their midteens or older; the National Oil Jobbers Council estimates that nearly one-third are more than 16 years old

(cited in Larson, 1983). Rogers (1983) directed a study

of 46,000 steel tanks owned by major oil and gas producers and found the following age composition: 4 percent less than 5 years, 20-23 percent between 5 and 10

years, 27 percent between 10 and 15 years, 21 percent

between 15 and 20 years, and approximately 25 percent over 20 years. The age structure of this sample is

probably younger than if a comparable sample had been

taken from independent retailers because the major producers have recognized the potential for older tanks to

leak and in the 1970s began to replace their older tanks

(Donovan, 1983).

Rogers developed a model for predicting where leaks

will occur, based on tank age and local soil conditions;

it can also be used to estimate the number of leaking

tanks. The leakage rate is assumed to increase as the

tank population ages. Results from the model have been

tested for approximately 10,000 tanks. Based on the age

composition of the tanks and projected annual rates,

Rogers estimated that about 50,000 tanks were leaking

in 1982 and approximately 90,000-100,000 tanks would

leak in 1983. This figure could be low because Rogers

also estimated that approximately 25-30 percent of all

steel tanks probably leak. If so, up to 720,000 underground steel tanks could be leaking (applying the upper

figure of 30 percent to the 2.4 million steel tanks). EPA

estimates that up to 240,000 tanks may be leaking and

that the figure may increase to 75 percent of the total

in the next 5 years (Inside EPA, 1983c).

Whether a leak contaminates groundwater is highly

dependent on site-specific conditions including the concentration of the contaminant and the flow rate of the

particular leak. For example, not all leaks at service stations contaminate groundwater. In fact, Rogers (1983)

estimates that 85 percent of underground tank leaks at

service stations do not go beyond the station boundary

(because of the small amount of leakage or early detection) and do not contaminate groundwater; these incidents have typically cost $20,000-$30,000 to clean up.

Another 10 percent of the leaks are estimated to travel

beyond service station boundaries but are detected

before they contaminate groundwater; typical costs of — . .

these operations are $150,000. However,

the leaks do contaminate groundwater,

cleanup costs of $2.5-$5 million and as

million.

15. Containers

5 percent of

with typical

high as $11

Containers are storage barrels and drums for various

waste and non-waste products. They can be moved

around with relative ease, and although they may be

buried, they are not specifically designed to be. Very

little information is available about containers because
280 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

they are not covered by any Federal water quality regulations. In 1981, about 3,577 facilities used containers

for the storage of 0.16 billion gallons of hazardous wastes

(Dietz, et al., 1984. ) These figures are only for containers regulated under RCRA; actual numbers and

amounts could be considerably higher.

16. Open Burning and

Detonation Sites

Very little information is available on this source. Although there are probably many cases of waste materials

burned in backyards or at landfills, these cases are classified here under the open dump, residential disposal,

or landfill sources. Detonation sites are more structured

(i.e., designed) operations; burning grounds could be

either structured or unstructured. In 1981, 240 facilities regulated under RCRA incinerated 0.45 billion

gallons of hazardous wastes (Dietz, et al., 1984).

The Department of Defense operates a number of

burning grounds and ammunition detonation sites.

Twelve such sites have been surveyed at Army installations, and TNT (and other hydrocarbons) and heavy”

metals (e. g., cadmium and chromium) have been detected in soil and in groundwater (U.S. Army Toxic and

Hazardous Materials Agency, 1983). Several commercial and industrial sites listed on the National Priorities

List by EPA (under CERCLA) have had fires or were

operated as burning sites; groundwater contamination

has been detected at all these sites.

17. Radioactive Disposal Sites

Radioactive materials arise from the nuclear fuel cycle, commercial and industrial products and wastes, and

natural sources. They may have long half-lives, and they

can migrate with no visible evidence. Natural radiation

(e. g., radon-222) occurs throughout the United States,

with the highest concentrations in granite formations

(e.g., in Maine) and gypsum (e.g., in Florida).

Five basic types of waste products are produced in

the development and generation of nuclear fuel and

radioactive materials (DOE, 1983):

1. Spent fuel is the discharged irradiated fuel resulting

from nuclear powerplant operations. It includes

cesium-137 (half-life 28 years), strontium-90 (halflife 33 years), and cobalt-60 (half-life 6 years).

Wastes containing these isotopes may need several

hundred years or more to decay to low levels of

radioactivity, with some estimates ranging as high

as 100,000 years (University of Oklahoma, 1983).

2. High-level wastes are from the initial processing

of irradiated reactor fuels. They are extremely ra3.

4.

5

dioactive, must be stored in specially constructed

facilities, and eventually are either reprocessed or

transferred to the Federal Government for longterm storage or permanent disposal (DOE, 1983).

Transuranic wastes, defined on the basis of specific radioactive criteria (DOE, 1983), result primarily from fuel reprocessing and from the manufacture of plutonium-containing products.

Low-level wastes are generated in liquid, gaseous,

and solid forms and consist of a wide range of materials having generally low but potentially hazardous amounts of radiation (this category excludes

uranium mill tailings). Low-level radioactive

wastes are generated by nuclear reactors used for

power production, weapons production, research

(e.g., at universities and hospitals), and c o m

-

mercial products or activities (e. g., at hospitals).

They can be in the form of discarded equipment,

assorted refuse, and materials from decontamination facilities. They are either diluted until no

longer classified as radioactive, disposed of indiscriminately, or shipped to approved low-level disposal sites.

Uranium mill tailings are the earthen residues left

after the uranium is extracted from ores. Uranium

refining also generates small amounts of solid, or

semi-solid, low-level radioactive waste. Although

the chemistry of the wastes varies among refineries,

radium-226, thorium-230, and uranium-238 are

usually present in small but significant concentrations. Disposal has commonly occurred in shallow

burial grounds located near the refineries. (The

waste rock associated with these radionuclides is

discussed under Waste Tailings and Waste Piles,

above).

Development of Estimates of Numbers

Prior to the mid- 1970s, low-level radioactive wastes

were routinely packaged and shipped to commercial

shallow nuclear waste burial sites. Six commercial sites

were in operation, but three have been closed and two

are accepting severely reduced volumes; the major remaining site is in the State of Washington. The Departments of Energy and Defense also maintain 22 sites for

low-level waste disposal (DOE, 1983). High-level radioactive wastes are deposited at four regulated sites (Hanford, WA; Idaho Falls, ID; Aiken, SC; West Valley,

NY) or are contained on-site at their place of generation (see OTA, 1982). Seven sites are used for transuranic waste disposal. Commercial spent fuel is usually stored at reactor sites or at two specific disposal sites.

Because different types of wastes are sometimes sent

to the same site, the number of disposal sites is actually
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its /mpacts . 281

less than the total of 38 in the above figures. Although

recent legislation has called for State cooperation in site

development for low-level radioactive waste disposal,

commercial generators of low-level wastes are likely to

be faced with possession of these wastes for some time.

Remedial actions at inactive mill tailings sites are to be

conducted by DOE under the Uranium Mill Tailings

Radiation Control Act, but these actions have not yet

begun (DOE, 1983; see ch. 9).

Development of Estimates of

Radioactive Waste Production

A total of 4.80 million cubic yards of radioactive

wastes was contained at various storage sites as of

December 31, 1982 (DOE, 1983). This total was distributed as follows: 0.41 million cubic yards of high-level

wastes, 0.48 million cubic yards of transuranic wastes,

3.78 million cubic yards of low-level wastes, and approximately 7,400 tons of spent fuel (the first three figures

are based on DOE, 1983; the last on Hileman, 1982).

Uranium mill tailings are discussed under Waste T’ailings and Waste Piles, above.

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

Radioactivity is a major threat to groundwater

because of the longevity of isotopes and their ability to

migrate unnoticed. Much debate centers on the efficacy

of waste disposal burial methods over time; for example, disposal containers are often deposited in or above

shallow water tables. Some isotopes enter groundwater

from radioactive wastes, but other isotopes are present

because of the leaching of natural geologic substances

(e. g., gypsum). It is estimated that 10-30 square miles

of’ land are underlain by groundwater contaminated beyond potable use by radioactive wastes (USGS, 1983).

Numerous radionuclides have been detected in groundwater as shown in table A.5. 2. These radionuclides emit

three types of radiation: alpha (a), beta (~), and gamma

(T) (League of Women voters Education Fund, 1980).

Alpha radiation has the least power to penetrate skin,

but it can cause severe tissue and organ damage if it

enters the body through ingestion of contaminated

drinking water or food or through inhalation. Beta radiation is more penetrating, but it also is most serious

when ingested or inhaled. Gamma radiation has the

greatest power to penetrate skin and usually is associated with beta radiation; it too can damage critical

organs.

18. Pipelines

Pipelines are used to transport, collect, and/or distribute both wastes and non-waste products. The wastes

are primarily municipal sewage, most often located in

39-702 0 - 84 - 4

Table A.5.2.—Categorization of Known and Potential

Radionuclides in Groundwater by Mode of Decay

@ and y,

Radio nuclidea ~ p combined y

Antimony-125. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Barium-140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cesium-134 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Cesium-137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Chromium-51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Cobalt-60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iodine-129. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● iodine-131 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● iron-59. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Lead-210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Phosphorus-32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

● Plutonium-238 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

● Plutonium-243 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Radium-226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

● Radium-228 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Ruthenium-103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Ruthenium-106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

● Scandium-46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Strontium-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

● Strontium-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Strontium-131 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Thorium-270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

● Tritium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Uranium-230 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

● Uranium-238. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

● Zinc-65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Zirconium-95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

aRadionucljdes marked with an asterisk are known to have contaminated groundwater and are documented by at least two of the listed sources

Alpha (~), beta ($), and gamma (~) radiation are discussed in the text

SOURCE Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc , 1983; University of Oklahoma, 1983,

Environ Corp , 1983

densely populated areas. The primary non-wastes are

petroleum products and naturai gas, but ammonia, coal,

sulfur, and anhydrous ammonia are also transported

(University of Oklahoma, 1983). Non-waste pipelines

are located throughout the Nation; maps of major

pipeline networks are available from the Federal Energy

Administration (University of Oklahoma, 1983).

Development of Estimates of

Numbers and Amounts

Approximately 175,000 miles of pipeline carrying

9.63 billion bbls of petroleum products per year were

in operation in the United States in 1976 (Pye, et al.,

1983). Information presented in Miller (1980) indicates

that approximately 700,000 miles of sewer pipeline were

in use in 1980. In 1978, 154 million people were served

by sewer pipelines (U.S. Department of Commerce,

1981). Assuming an average sewage flow of 100 gallons

per day per person (Miller, 1980), approximately 5.6

trillion gallons of sewage were transported by sewer

pipelines in 1978.
282 . Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

Although pipelines are designed to retain their contents and thus pose no threat to groundwater, in reality

they have a contamination potential through leakage.

The major causes of leaks are ruptures, external and

internal corrosion, incorrect operating procedures, and

defective welds or pipes. In 1981, these causes accounted

for 41 percent, 22 percent, 7 percent, and 6 percent of

all reported leaks, respectively (DOT, 1981). Other

causes were surges (e. g., floods) of fluid in pipelines,

breakage or heaving of lines by tree roots, earthquakes,

loss of foundation support, and rupture due to other

loads. Miller (1980) estimated that leakage from sewer

pipelines was around 5 percent; if it is, approximately

280 billion gallons of sewage annually could be leaching

into groundwater. This estimate of leakage is based on

the unverified assumption of 5 percent leakage,

Because interstate pipelines are a major means of

transporting materials, they are regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT); and any leaks and

spills must be reported to DOT (see ch. 3 and app. B. 1).

However, collection and distribution systems, gas stations, residential users, and even relatively large intrastate carriers are not required to report leaks and

spills. Collection and distribution pipelines are not regulated other than during their initial installation to prevent the escape of combustible, explosive, or toxic

chemicals; the potential for groundwater contamination

is not a primary consideration.

About 4,100 non-waste liquid pipeline leaks and accidents were reported from 1968 through 1981 (DOT,

1981; the figure is not certain because information differs on pp. 21 and 39). Of that number, 2,813 occurred

from 1971-81, with 3.4 million bbls of material lost. In

1981, 239 pipeline failures were reported, with 214,384

bbls lost; various products were involved in the leaks:

crude oil was involved in 48.1 percent of the failures,

gasoline in 19.3 percent, liquified petroleum gas (LPG)

in 14.6 percent, natural gas liquid (LNG) in 5.0 percent,

and f’uel oil i n 4.6 percent. The remaining materials involved were jet fuel, diesel fuel, anhydrous ammonia,

kerosene, turbine fuel, oil and gas, and condensate.

19. Material Transport and

Transfer Operations

Material transport and transfer operations refer to the

movement of substances by vehicle (e. g., truck and railroad) along transportation corridors. Handling facilities

such as airports and loading docks are also included.

Development of Estimates of

Numbers and Amounts

Estimates of the number of spills vary. The National

Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimated that approximately 16,000 spills occur annually, involving a variety of substances such as paint products, battery fluids,

gasoline, corrosive compounds, flammable compounds,

various acids, and anhydrous ammonia (NAS, 1983 b).

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ (1982)

reported on 10,072 known spills of oil or hazardous

chemicals totaling 19.6 million gallons in 1981; however, these spills include leaks from storage pipelines and

drains as well as from transportation facilities. DOT

reported 9,063 incidents involving hazardous materials

in 1981 and 6,540 in 1982 (as of Apr. 30, 1983; Jossi,

1983). Almost 81 percent of the 1982 incidents involved

commercial carriers on highways, another 5 percent involved private carriers on highways, 13 percent involved

railways, and the remainder involved other forms of

transportation.

Very little information was available about the amount

of hazardous materials lost in spills, other than the CEQ

figure cited above; and no information was available regarding non-hazardous materials. NAS estimated that

about one-half of the 4 billion tons of hazardous materials transported annually in the United States is transported on highways (NAS, 1983 b). EPA (Inside EPA,

1983c) estimated that about 90 percent of all transportation of hazardous wastes is by truck. Further, EPA

also estimated that when hazardous materials are transported by truck, approximately 0.35 percent of the hazardous materials (slightly more than 38 gallons) are lost

during each shipment of 200 55-gallon drums. Assuming that the same 0.35 percent loss rate applies to the

entire 4 billion tons shipped annually in the United

States, no matter how transported, approximately 14

million tons of hazardous materials are spilled during

material transport and transfer operations. This estimate

is only a first approximation.

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

Transport and transfer of materials have the potential to contaminate groundwater contamination through

spills and leaks. Spills are generally unintentional and

can occur at random at transport facilities and along

transportation corridors. Although an estimate can be

developed for the amount of material spilled annually

(see above), it is not possible to estimate the amount

of spilled material that threatens groundwater.

Storage and transfer facilities for oil and hazardous

chemicals must be designed and certified by a registered
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts . 283

engineer if they pose a threat to surface water (University of Oklahoma, 1983). However, similar design requirements do not exist at the Federal level or in many

States for groundwater (University of Oklahoma, 1983;

see app. H.3). Design procedures that would take into

account the potential for groundwater contamination

relate to (API, 1976): drainage systems at loading and

unloading areas, containment systems for possible spills,

security measures, and tanker/tank design and interface.

20. Irrigation Practices

Water used for irrigation tends to percolate into the

subsurface and move toward discharge points. As it

does, it carries with it substances applied to and associated with the soil (e. g., fertilizers, pesticides, and

sediment).

Development of Estimates of

Numbers and Amounts

About 14 percent of cropland in the United States is

irrigated; 58 million acres were irrigated in 1977 (USDA,

1981a), and 51 million acres were irrigated in 1978

(U.S. Department of Commerce, 1982). Irrigation is

most common in the West, the Central and Southern

Plains, Arkansas, and Florida (U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1982). Approximately 169 million acre-feet

of water were used for irrigation in 1980 (CEQ 1982;

the figure includes both surface water and groundwater).

About 68 percent of the total groundwater use in 1980

was for irrigation (USGS, 1984).

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

Although salts, pesticides, and fertilizers may be present wherever crops are grown, irrigation return flows

tend to concentrate these chemicals (University of Oklahoma, 1983) and can reduce agricultural productivity.

Groundwater salinity (i.e., dissolved salts) can increase

because of evaporation, transpiration, and subsequent

leaching of saline soils. Irrigation practices have increased groundwater salinity in many parts of the West

and Southwest (Sheridan, 1981).

Data are lacking about the proportion of irrigation

water that is consumed by crops, percolates into the subsurface, and runs off the land. Salinity is difficult to reduce because the volume of irrigation water is difficult

to alter and because much of the salt in water occurs

naturally. However, various water conservation practices and the application of more efficient irrigation technology can decrease salinity significantly (USDA,

1981b; OTA, 1983 b).

21. Pesticide Applications

Pesticides are chemicals used for control of insects,

fungi, and other undesirable organisms and weeds. Agricultural operations (including but not limited to those

on irrigated lands) account for most pesticide use (69-

72 percent), government agencies and industrial/commercial organizations account for 21 percent, and home

and garden uses account for the remainder (EPA,

1980a; Seiber, 1981).

Pesticide Production and Estimates of Use

Approximately 1.4- 1.5 billion pounds of pesticides are

produced in the United States each year (USDA, 1983a;

EPA, 1977b; Forest Pest Management Institute, 1982).

Production has doubled since the mid-1960s (EPA,

1980e) and is growing approximately 1.4 percent annually (Forest Pest Management Institute, 1982). Pesticides are composed of 1,200-1,400 active ingredients in

approximately 2,500 intermediate products; these products in turn are formulated into some 50,000 registered

end-use pesticide products (Roelofs, 1983; EPA, 1977 b).

Depending on the definition, there are approximately

30-80 major pesticide manufacturers, 100 smaller producers, 3,300 formulators, and 29,000 distributors in

the United States (EPA, 1980a; USDA, 1983a).

Of the 1.43 billion pounds of end-use products manufactured in 1981, 839 million pounds were herbicides,

448 million pounds were insecticides, and 143 million

pounds were fungicides. In 1982, it is estimated that

57.8 percent of the herbicides were amides and triazines

and that 69.9 percent of the insecticides were organophosphates (Schaub, 1983).

Use of pesticides on cropland can be measured by the

pounds of active ingredients applied and by the number

of acre-treatments (i. e., the number of acres treated,

including acres treated more than once). Approximately

552 million pounds of active ingredients were applied

to major field crops in 1982 (USDA, 1983c)—451

million pounds of herbicides, 71 million pounds of insecticides, and 30 million pounds of fungicides, fumigants,

dessicants, defoliants, growth regulators, and miticides.

Pesticide applications may average as much as 2.6

pounds per acre (USDA, 1981a); in 1976, 2.2 pounds

of insecticides and 2.0 pounds of herbicides were applied per acre (CEQ 1982). However, new products

have been developed which require as little as 0.1 pound

of active ingredients per acre (Schaub, 1983); some new

chemicals may require even less (Kearney, 1983).

Approximately 280 million acre-treatments are conducted annually (Schaub, 1983; USDA, 1978). The four

major crops—corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat—
284 • Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

account for 85 percent of all herbicide use and 70 percent of all insecticide use (Eichers, 1981). Forty-seven

percent of all insecticides are applied to cotton (USDA,

1981a). About 85-90 percent of the corn, cotton, soybean, and rice acreage is treated with herbicides.

Airplane applications accounted for 65 percent of all

pesticide applications on agricultural and forest lands

in 1978 (USDA, 1978). These applications involved

some 10,000 aircraft treating more than 180 million

acres (Kearney, 1983).

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

Groundwater contamination from the use of pesticides

in agricultural operations has been found in at least 18

States (Cohen, et al,, 1984; Rothschild, et al., 1982;

Spalding, et al., 1980); at least 12 different pesticides

were involved (Cohen, et al., 1984). Contamination can

occur from common use practices, spills, accidents, disposal of excess pesticides, disposal of wastewater from

equipment and from rinsing empty containers, and

other causes (Hall, 1983; Chemical and Engineering

News, 1983). Contamination potential can generally be

reduced through methods of use, storage, and disposal

(Chemical and Engineering News, 1983).

However, airplane applications pose special problems. The disposal of wastewater from airplanes (either

before or after landing) is often haphazard and may take

place in ditches, lagoons, streams, and sewers or on the

land (Seiber, 1981). It is estimated that the operation

of one plane results in approximately 10,000 gallons of

wastewater and 44 pounds of pesticides that must be

disposed of each year (Seiber, 1981). Given the 10,000

aircraft involved, approximately 100 million gallons of

wastewater and 440,000 pounds of pesticides must be

disposed of annually.

Movement of pesticides through soil and into groundwater depends on a variety of pesticide-specific and sitespecific factors including water volubility, vapor pressure,

speciation, hydrolysis half-life, photolysis half-life, soil/

water adsorption coefficient, depth to the water table,

soil type, and rainfall (Cohen, et al., 1984; Severn, et

al., 1983). Severn, et al. (1983) list quantitative conditions under which groundwater contamination can

occur.

Many compounds do not move much with actual

groundwater flow but adhere to and move with the soil

particles themselves (e. g., many hydrocarbons; Hall,

1983). Other compounds are more soluble and move

relatively rapidly (e. g., Temik or aldicarb; Hall, 1983);

these compounds pose problems, especially in areas with

high water tables (e. g., Florida). USDA is conducting

at least 37 projects on the movement and fate of pesticides in the soil (Helling, 1983; also see ch. 3).

22. Fertilizer Applications

Farmers used 54.0 million tons of commercial fertilizers in 1980-81, 48.7 million tons in 1981-82, and 42.3

million tons in 1982-83 (USDA, 1983d). The areas covered are likely the same as those covered by pesticides

and are spread throughout much of the country (University of Oklahoma, 1983; USDA, 1982a); the five States

using the most fertilizer in both 1981-82 and 1982-83

were Illinois, Iowa, California, Indiana, and Texas

(USDA, 1983d). Fertilizers used in 1981-82 contained

11.1 million tons of nitrogen (22.8 percent of the total

48.7 million tons), 4.8 million tons of phosphates (9.9

percent), and 5.6 million tons of potash (1 1.5 percent)

(USDA, 1983d). The USDA has estimated that nutrient

application rates range from 0.03-8.4 pounds per acre

for nitrogen and from 0.01-0.08 pounds per acre for

phosphorus (USDA, 1981 b). In 1978, approximately

229 million acres were treated with commercial fertilizers and 17 million acres were treated with lime (U.S.

Department of Commerce, 1982).

The potential for fertilizers to contaminate groundwater depends on the rate of application in relation to

crop uptake (University of Oklahoma, 1983). This rate

is often difficult to control because farmers generally

apply enough fertilizer for the entire growing season

prior to planting (Swanson, 1983).

23. Animal Feeding Operations

In the last two decades the number of animal feedlots

with more than 1,000 animals has increased rapidly

(Miller, 1980). In 1982, there were 1,935 cattle feedlots

in the United States marketing approximately 16.8

million cattle; 969 of the feedlots, with a capacity of more

than 2,000, marketed 15.3 million cattle (USDA,

1983 b). The feedlots are located primarily in the Corn

Belt and High Plains. Inventories of animals on farms

and feedlots during 1978 showed a total of 106 million

cattle and calves, 59 million hogs and pigs (USDA,

1982 b), 12 million sheep and lambs, 2.2 million horses

and ponies, more than 359 million chickens, and more

than 140 million turkeys (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1982). The principal rearing region is the South

for poultry, the West for sheep, and the Midwest for

hogs.

Estimates of Manure Production

Cattle are estimated to produce 0.5 tons of manure

during their 4-5 month stay in feedlots (Pye, et al.,

1983). Thus in the larger cattle feedlots (i.e., with more

than 1,000 animals), more than 8 million tons of manure
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 285

are produced annually. The USDA has estimated that

all livestock on feedlots and farms produce 175 million

dry tons of manure annually, and 90 percent of it is returned to the land (USDA, 1981a).

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

Animal feeding operations can adversely affect groundwater if leachate enters the subsurface either directly

from the feedlots or from waste piles and wastewater

impoundments (see Surface Impoundments, above).

The most important potential contaminant in manure

is nitrogen, but bacteria, viruses, and phosphates are

also of concern (University of Oklahoma, 1983).

The potential for groundwater contamination is greatest in areas with high densities of animals and a shallow

water table. Thus even small farms have the potential

to contaminate groundwater; large numbers of animals

in a small area can stress the natural assimilative capacity of the soil (Pye, et al., 1983), Of the 718,000

farms with fewer than 300 animals, 25 percent are estimated to have the potential to degrade water quality

(USDA, 1981 b). Data are insufficient to estimate the

volume of leachate and runoff that actually reaches the,

water table from large feedlots. In any case, because

manure piles and feedlots often are near rural homes,

domestic water supply wells are vulnerable.

24. De-Icing Salts Applications

Highway de-icing salts are applied to snow and icecovered roads to improve driving conditions. The salts

consist mostly of commercial rock and marine salt, with

the addition of ferric ferrocyanide and sodium ferrocy -

anide to minimize caking of the salts when stored; other

additives include chromate and phosphate, which reduce

the corrosiveness of the salts (Bouwer, 1978). Use of

highway de-icing salts is confined primarily to the snowbelt, especially the populous areas of the Northeast and

Mideast, and is dependent on weather conditions.

Development of Estimates of

Numbers and Amounts

During the winter of 1982-83, a minimum of 9.35

million tons of dry salts and abrasives and 1.78 million

gallons of liquid salts were applied to highways (Salt Institute, 1983; data were for agencies using more than

10,000 tons of total materials annually). More than 12

million tons of salt were used in the 1978-79 winter (Pye,

et al., 1983).

Highway salting rates generally range from 355-1,065

pounds per mile (100-300 kilograms (kg) per kilometer) per application. During the course of a winter

season, roads typically receive 17.6 tons (16,000 kg) of

salt per lane per mile, or approximately 88 tons (80,000

kg) per mile for a typical highway with four lanes and

shoulders (Bouwer, 1978); this figure varies geographically and from year to year. During the 1982-83 winter, an average of 15.5 tons of dry salts and abrasives

and 2.9 gallons of liquid salts were applied per lane per

mile (based on Salt Institute, 1983).

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

Estimates of the total use of de-icing salts should be

interpreted cautiously when attempting to assess their

contribution to groundwater contamination. Although

all salts used have the potential for reaching groundwater, the amounts likely to reach groundwater are unknown and depend on hydrogeological and other factors

(University of Oklahoma, 1983).

Many cases of contamination caused by highway deicing salts have been documented in snowbelt areas

(Bouwer, 1978; Dalton, 1983; Lord, 1983). The sources

are both the leachate from stockpiles of salt and the runoff from the roads. Major problems are primarily associated with the storage of salt (Lord, 1983); salt stockpiles are maintained year-round and are often entirely

exposed.

Chloride levels in road runoff during snowmelt have

been observed to range from 1,130-25,100 parts per

million (Bouwer, 1978); drinking water is generally considered contaminated when chloride levels exceed 250

parts per million (NAS, 1980). Sodium ferrocyanide is

soluble in water and, when exposed to sunlight, can generate cyanide in concentrations in excess of maximum

drinking water limits (see app. C.3). Chromate additives

can produce excessivre concentrations of hexavalent chromium in meltwater (Bouwer, 1978).

Technology is now available to minimize leaching

from salt stockpiles, but most research is being focused

on what happens after application of de-icing salts

(Lord, 1983). For example, the potential for groundwater contamination after application can be reduced

by designing roads that require less de-icing and by collecting and disposing of the runoff, by developing

substitute highway materials for maintaining safe driving conditions, and by developing alternatives to the deicing salts now used.

25. Urban Runoff

Urbanization necessarily expands the areas that are

impervious to rainfall and thus increases the amount and

rate of surface runoff. The runoff, in turn, is channeled

by extensive drainage networks and carries with it the

contaminants associated with urban activities (e. g.,
286 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

automobile emissions, litter, deposited atmospheric pollutants, and sediments; University of Oklahoma, 1983).

Any stormwater that infiltrates the surface can also carry

these contaminants.

According to EPA (1983 c), over 21.2 million urban

acres contributed stormwater runoff in 1970, and this

figure is projected to increase to 32.6 million acres by

the year 2000. Data are insufficient to determine the

extent to which urban runoff and infiltrating stormwater

contribute to groundwater contamination.

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

Urban runoff is a primary cause of degraded surface

water quality in heavily populated areas. After flowing

into existing water bodies, contaminants originally carried in runoff may accumulate in solution or in sediments (Owe, et al., 1982). The potential for groundwater contamination from urban runoff will depend on

where the runoff is discharged, its proximity to aquifers,

and various hydrogeologic factors.

A major source of contaminants is automobile emissions, which may contribute contaminants to surface

runoff in some areas. The contaminants of most concern are suspended solids and toxic substances, especially heavy metals and hydrocarbons. Runoff can also

contain bacteria, nutrients, and other oxygen-demanding loads, and petroleum residues (USDA, 1981a; Owe,

et al., 1982). Contaminant levels in urban runoff are

often higher than established ambient levels for receiving waters (Owe, et al., 1982).

26. Percolation of Atmospheric

Pollutants

Many potential contaminants of groundwater are carried in the atmosphere and eventually reach the land

surface through either dry deposition between storms

or transport in water and snow during storms (Owe,

et al., 1982). A number of sources of atmospheric pollutants are known, among them automobile emissions

and various industrial processes. The major contaminants are sulfur and nitrogen compounds, asbestos, and

heavy metals (Owe, et al., 1982). Their ultimate distribution depends on their size when they are released

and on weather patterns while they are moving in the

atmosphere.

Percolation of atmospheric pollutants into groundwater is greatest in areas of high air pollution. One of

the better-studied cases involves acid rain. Although

widely distributed, acid rain occurs predominantly

around the Great Lakes, the Northeast, and southcentral Canada (OTA, 1984).

27. Mining and Mine Drainage

Minerals are extracted by either underground mining or surface mining. Underground mining is used to

extract deep, relatively high-grade ore from structurally

stable rock. The methods used (e. g., room-and-pillar,

block caving, and stoping; NAS, 1979) depend on topography, geology, and characteristics of the ore (e. g.,

size, shape, depth, and ore grade). In surface mining,

pits are created when the overburden and topsoil are

removed to expose large, shallow deposits (generally

covered with less than 300 feet of loose soil; NRC, 1983);

operations include quarrying, open-pit, opencut, opencast, stripping, placering, and dredging (NAS, 1979).

Deep underground mines, especially for coal, are located

primarily in the Appalachian region; and surface mines

are primarily in the West and Midwest.

Development of Estimates of

Numbers and Amounts

More than 15,000 mines were in operation in 1976

(NAS, 1979). Wirries, et al. (1983) estimate that there

are also 67,000 inactive or abandoned mines in the conterminous United States, 49,000 of them in the Midwest

and Appalachia. The total land area that has been

disturbed has been estimated at 4 million acres; the rate

of disturbance may have been as high as 5,000 acres

per week in the early 1970s (NAS, 1979). Approximately

383,000 acres have been abandoned.

Miller (1980) estimated that 3.6 million tons of acid

were generated annually from the 200,000 acres used

for the disposal of coal mining wastes (27,000 of those

acres had been reclaimed). Depending on how many

of the approximately 383,000 abandoned acres are also

used for waste disposal, the amount of acid generated

annually could be as high as 10 million tons (the additional acreage triples the total acreage and presumably

the subsequent estimate). Miller (1980) also estimated

that 10 percent of the acid generated enters groundwater; thus 0.36- 1.0 million tons of acid could enter

groundwater each year.

Potential for Groundwater Contamination

Excavation and operation of both surface and underground mines can disrupt the natural positioning of

aquifers and hence groundwater flow. As a consequence,

water can percolate through the fractured overburden

and mix with mine wastes and other materials that were

previously separated (NRC, 1983; EPA, 1981a). The

problem can be minimized by dewatering (e. g., pumping water to the surface, possibly at rates of up to 200-

3,000 gallons per minute; NRC, 1983).
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 287

The primary problem concerning groundwater relates

to the disposal of spent mill tailings, especially in

underground mining. Underground mining introduces

oxygen and water, which can result in the oxidation of

pyrite and the subsequent formation of acid mine

drainage—an acidic mixture of iron salts, other salts,

and sulfuric acid (Thomson, et al. , 1983). Acid mine

drainage is a major problem in the East; in the West,

groundwater seldom becomes acidic, usually because

carbonates in the overburden help neutralize any acid

produced. However, sulfate concentrations are often

very high in Western surface mined lands. Arsenic,

molybdenum, vanadium, and other minerals also can

become soluble in the oxidizing conditions of mining

in general and can enter groundwater.

Wirries, et al. ( 1983) studied inactive deep underground coal mines in Appalachia and the Midwest.

Drainage quality was highly variable, with most sites

exceeding Federal effluent guidelines. Trace metals

(e.g., cadmium, mercury, zinc, and nickel) were present in low concentrations. Calcareous material in the

overburden helped buffer acid drainage. The amount

and rate of acid formation and the chemical quality of

the drainage tend to be functions of the amount and type

of pyrite present, characteristics of the overburden, and

the amounts of air and water available for chemical reactions (EPA, 1981 a).

28. Production Wells

A variety of wells are included as production wells—

oil, geothermal and heat recovery, and water supply

wells. Oil wells are clustered in the Southwest, Alaska,

Louisiana, Wyoming, and the Midwest. Geothermal

activities are primarily in the West and in the heavily

populated northern States where the use of earthcoupled heat pumps is increasing (University of Oklahoma, 1983). No comprehensive information on the

location of water supply wells was collected as part of

this study, but they are likely to be most numerous in

areas with high groundwater withdrawals (the Southwest, the Central Plains, Idaho, and Florida; see Solley,

et al., 1983).

Approximately 548,000 oil wells produced an estimated 3.1 billion bbls of crude oil in 1980 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1981); the brine associated with

these wells is discussed in Injection Wells, above. Abandoned production wells may number around 1.2 million

(Kaplan, et al., 1983).

More than 376,000 irrigation wells are used to supply

water for approximately 126,000 farms in the United

States (The Groundwater Newsletter, 1983 b).

All production wells share a similar potential to contaminate groundwater. It is related to installation and

operation methods (e. g., for oil wells, the use of treatment chemicals, drilling fluids, and other chemicals),

incorrectly plugged or abandoned wells, cross-contamination, and overdraft. Corrosion of screens and casings in unrepaired or abandoned wells can result in the

wells becoming conduits for the vertical migration of

contaminants (Gass, et al., 1977; see Injection Wells,

above, for discussion of groundwater contamination

problems associated with wells).

29. Other Wells

Other wells include those used in various monitoring

and exploration activities. No systematic information

is available regarding numbers and locations of these

wells.

30. Construction Excavation

Excavation at construction sites has many purposes

including: clearing, pest control, rough grading, facility construction, and the restoration of staging and

stockpile areas upon completion of a job (University of

Oklahoma, 1983). Construction excavation is intense

in areas experiencing growth, but it is usually temporary.

Almost no data are available on the amount of materials that is excavated annually. It has been estimated that

45 million tons of junked auto, construction, and demolition wastes are generated annually (EPA, 1981b) but

how much of these wastes results from construction excavation is not known.

Excavation at construction sites can produce potential groundwater contaminants in a variety of ways.

Clearing and grubbing and pest control practices can

produce contaminants from the use of pesticides and the

decay of cleared vegetation. Heavy construction equipment used for rough grading can spill diesel fuel, oil,

and lubricants. Some construction activities can include

dust control in which oil, calcium chloride, and water

are used. The concrete used in construction is a source

of contaminants from washing, spills, and wastes (University of Oklahoma, 1983).

31. Groundwater—Surface

Water Interactions

When groundwater aquifers are hydrologically connected with surface water, the aquifer can be partially

recharged by infiltration of the surface water.4 If the sur-

~Alternatlvely, groundwater may replen]sh surface water, e g., it may pro-

\.lde the baseflow for streams and rivers, In this case, contain inants in groundw,ater could be transferred to surface water
288 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

face water is contaminated, or if it reacts chemically with

the subsurface materials as it infiltrates downward, degradation of groundwater quality can follow (Miller,

1980).

32. Natural Leaching

Natural leaching occurs on a local scale in aquifers,

or in portions of aquifers, whose geologic materials can

be dissolved into solution. No systematic information

is available about the significance of natural leaching

to groundwater contamination.

33. Salt-Water Intrusion/

Brackish Water Upconing

Approximately 21 billion gallons of groundwater per

day—26 percent of all groundwater withdrawn (USDA,

1981a)—are withdrawn in excess of recharge capabilities (i. e., overdrafting, overpumping, or overmining).

Withdrawals significantly in excess of natural recharge

are located predominantly in coastal areas (e. g., California, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and New York), the

Southwest, and the Central Plains (USDA, 1981 b).

Overdrafting can disrupt the natural hydrologic processes associated with groundwater; and subsequent impacts on aquifers and groundwater quality include: saltwater intrusion in coastal areas, brine-water intrusion

(or brackish water upconing) in inland areas, and intensified natural leaching. Land subsidence may also

result; it disrupts the natural positioning of aquifers and

has additional surface impacts (e. g., subsidence). Saltwater or brine-water intrusion is probably the major

problem associated with overdraft but it occurs only in

areas where freshwater aquifers are underlain by saltwater or brine. At some coastal areas, injection of

freshwater into aquifers is used to prevent salt-water intrusion (University of Oklahoma, 1983).

1

2.

Selected References on the

Potential of Sources

To Contaminate Groundwater

Subsurface Percolation (Septic Tanks and

Cesspools)

DeWalle, et al. (1980)

Hain, et al. (1979)

Kristiansen, et al. (1981)

Rea and Upchurch, et al. (1980)

Starr and Sawhney, et al. (1980)

Injection Wells

Cehrs, et al. (1980)

3.

4

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15,

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Reed, et al. (1980)

Rice, et al. (1980)

Roberts (1980)

Tyagi (1983)

Warner, et al. (1980)

Land Application

Peavy, et al. (1981)

Sikora (1980)

Landfills

Baedecker, et al. (1979)

Bagchi, et al. (1980)

Bruehl, et al. (1980)

Cameron, et al. (1980)

Chan, et al. (1980)

Cherkauer, et al. (1980)

Cherkauer (1980)

Ehlke (1979)

Elder, et al. (1980)

Ellis (1980)

Fungaroli, et al. (1979)

Hansen (1980)

Hounslow (1980)

Kimmel, et al. (1980)

Mather, et al. (1980)

Miller, et al. (1981)

Raveh, et al. (1979)

Rogers, et al. (1980)

Open Dumps

Residential (Local) Disposal

Surface Impoundments

Andrews, et al. (1979)

Coble (1981)

Milligan, et al. (1980)

U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment

Station (1979)

World Health Organization (1980)

Waste Tailings

Waste Piles

Materials Stockpiles

Graveyards

AnimaJ BuriaJ

Aboveground Storage Tanks

Underground Storage Tanks

Feliciano (1984)

Rogers (1983)

Containers

Open Burning and Detonation Sites

Radioactive Disposal Sites

Jackson, et al. (1980)

Pipelines

Material Transport and Transfer Operations

Kamath, et al. (1980)

Irrigation Practices

Junk, et al. (1980)

Kahn (1980)

Spalding, et al. (1980)
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 289

21

22

23

24.

25.

26.

Pesticide Applications

Fertilizer Applications

DeRoo (1980)

Animal Feeding Operations

Berman (1981)

De-Icing Salts Applications

Urban Runoff

Filippini, et al. (1983)

Percolation of Atmospheric Pollutants

27.

28.

29.

30,

31.

32,

33,

Mining and Mine Drainage

Davis, et al. (1982)

Production Wells

Other Wells

Construction Excavation

Groundwater—Surface Water Interactions

Winter (1976)

Natural Leaching

Salt-Water Intrusion/Brackish Water Upconing

APPENDIX A REFERENCES

Abbott, S., Statement of Seth Abbott on behalf of the

American Petroleum Institute on H.R. 3200 before

the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on

Health and the Environment, Committee on Energy

and Commerce, July 27, 1983.

American Petroleum Institute, ‘ ‘Suggested Procedure

for Development of Spill Prevention, Control and

Countermeasure Plans, ” Dallas, TX, 1976.

Andreoli, A., R. Reynolds, N. Bartilucci, and R. Forgione, “Cesspool Cleaner Study Final Report, ” Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Suffolk

County, NY, 1980.

Andrews, C. B., and M. P. Anderson, “Thermal Alteration of Ground Water Caused by Seepage From

a Cooling Lake, Water Resources Research 15:595-

602, 1979.

Anzzolin, R., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

personal communication, October 1983.

Baedecker, M. J., and W. Back, “Modern Marine

Sediments as a Natural Analog to the Chemically

Stressed Environment of a Landfill, ”J. Hydrology

43:393-414, 1979.

Bagchi, A., R. L. Dodge, and G. R. Mitchell, “Application of Two Attenuation Mechanism Theories to

a Sanitary Landfill, Proceedings of the Third Annual Madison Conference of Applied Research and

Practice on Municipal and Industrial Waste, University of Wisconsin, Madison, pp. 201-213, 1980.

Berman, R. B., ‘‘Effects of a Cattle Feedlot on Ground

Water Quality in the South Platte River Valley Near

Greeley, Colorado, ” Water Resources Investigations

80-83, U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, CO,

1981.

Bouwer, H., Groundwater Hydrology (New York:

McGraw Hill, Inc., 1978).

Bruehl, D. H., N. K. Chung, and W. F. Dies], “Geological Studies of Industrially Related Contamination:

Soil and Ground Water Investigations, ’ Proceedings

of EPA National Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, DC, pp. 78-84,

1980.

Brunner, D. R., and D. J. Keller, “Sanitary Landfill

Design and Operation, ” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, SW-65ts, 1972.

Burmaster, D. E., and R. H. Harris, “Groundwater

Contamination: An Emerging Threat, ” Technology

Review 85(5):50-62, 1982.

California Assembly Office of Research, “Is Our Water

Safe to Drink?” 1983.

Cameron, R. D., and F. A. Koch, “Toxicity of Landfill Leachates, “J. Water Pollution Control Federation 52:760-769, 1980.

Canter, L. W., and R. C. Knox, “Evaluation of Septic Tank System Effects on Ground Water Quality,

National Center for Ground Water Research, Norman, OK, 1983.

Cehrs, D., S. Soenke, and W. C. Bianchi, “A Geologic

Approach to Artificial Recharge Site Selection in the

Fresno-Clovis Area, California, ” Science and Education Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fresno, Technical Bulletin 1604, 1980.

Chan, K. Y., H. R. Geering, and B. G. Davey,

“Movement of Chloride in a Soil With Variable

Charge Properties: Part 1, Chloride Systems, ” J,

Environmental Quality 9:579-582, 1980.

Chase, E. G., J. E. Moore, and R. A. Rickert, “Water

Resources Division in the 1980s—A Summary of

Activities and Programs of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Water Resources Division, USGS Circular

893, 1983.

Chemical & Engineering News, “Pesticide Waste

Disposal Problems of Farmers Explored, ” pp. 43-

45, Sept. 19, 1983.

Cherkauer, D. S., “The Effect of Fly Ash Disposal on

a Shallow Ground Water System, Ground Water

18:544-550, 1980.

Cherkauer, D. S., and W. F. Kean, “Hydrochemical
290 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

and Geophysical Investigation of the Effects of Fly

Ash Disposal on Ground Water, ” Water Resources

Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1980.

Coble, L. W., Jr., ‘ ‘Influence on Ground Water From

the Bermed Infiltration Pond, ” J. Environmental

Health 44:27-31, 1981.

Cohen, S. Z., S. M. Creeger, R. F. Carsel, and C. G.

Enfield, “Potential for Pesticide Contamination of

Ground Water Resulting From Agricultural Uses,

American Chemical Society Symposium Series,

Treatment and Disposal of Pesticide Wastes, 1984.

The Conservation Foundation, State of the Environment (Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation, 1982).

Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental

Quality f981 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1981).

Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental

Quality 1982 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1982).

Dalton, M., Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,

personal communication, Oct. 7, 1983.

Davis, P, R., and W. C. Walton, “Factors Involved

in Evaluating Ground Water Impacts of Deep Coal

Mine Drainage, ” Water Resources Bulletin 18(5):

841-848, 1982.

DeRoo, H. C., “Nitrate Fluctuations in Ground Water

as Influenced by Use of Fertilizer, Connecticut

Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Connecticut, New Haven, 1980.

DeWalle, F. B., D. A. Kalman, D, Norman, J. Sung,

and G. Plews, “Trace Organic Removals in a Large

Septic Tank, ” manuscript on file at the Office of

Technology Assessment, no date.

DeWalle, F. B., and R. M. Schaff, “Ground Water

Pollution by Septic Tank Drain Fields, ”J. Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of

Civil Engineers 106 (No. EE3):631-648, 1980.

Dietz, S., M. Emmet, R. DiGaetano, D. Tuttle, and

C. Vincent, “Final Report, National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators and Treatment, Storage

and Disposal Facilities Regulated Under RCRA in

1981 ,“ prepared by Westat, Inc., Rockville, MD,

for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April 1984.

Donovan, B., Steel Tank Institute, personal communication, Oct. 3, 1983.

Ehlke, T. A., ‘‘Effects of Landfill Leaching on Water

Quality and Biology of a Nearby Stream, South

Cairo, Greene County, New York, ” Water Resources Investigations 79-13, U.S. Geological

Survey, Albany, NY, 1979.

Eichers, T. R., “Farm Pesticide Economic Evaluation , U.S. Department of Agriculture Economics

and Statistics Service, Agricultural Economic Report

No. 464, 1981.

Elder, V. A., B. L. Proctor, and R. A. Hites, “Organic

Compounds Found Near Dump Sites in Niagara

Falls, New York, ” Environmental Science and Technology 15(10): 1237-1243, 1981.

Eldridge, R. W., “ 1977 Update for Land Disposal Practices Survey, Waste Age, vol. 35, January 1978.

Ellis, J., “A Convenient Parameter for Tracing Leachate From Sanitary Landfills, ’ Water Research

14:1283-1287, 1980.

Environ Corp., “Approaches to the Assessment of

Health Impacts of Groundwater Contaminants, ”

draft report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, August 1983.

Feliciano, D. V., “Underground Injection of Wastes, ”

Congressional Research Service Report No. 83-195

ENR, 1983.

Feliciano, D. V., “Leaking Underground Storage

Tanks: A Potential Environmental Problem, Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-508

ENR, 1984.

Filippini, M. G., and N. C. Krothe, “Impact of Urbanization on a Flood-Plain Aquifer, Water Resources

Research Center, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN,

1983.

Forest Pest Management Institute, “Pesticide Production to Grow 1.4 Percent Annually Through 1985, ”

F’Pkfl Newsletter 1(3):2, September 1982.

Fungaroli, A. A., and R. L. Steiner, “Investigation of

Sanitary Landfill Behavior, Vol. I: Final Report, ”

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA-600/2-79-053a, 1979.

Gass, T. E., J. H. Lehr, and H. W. Weiss, Jr., “Impact of Abandoned Wells on Ground Water, ” National Water Well Association, Worthington, OH,

1977.

Grier, N., “Backyard Poison: A Look at Urban Pesticide Use, Northwest Coalition Alternatives to

Pesticides News 3(1):50-51, 1981-82.

The Groundwater Newsletter, vol. 12, No. 1, Jan. 19,

1983a.

The Groundwater Newsletter, vol. 12, No. 1 l,June 18,

1983b.

Gurnham, C. F., et al., ‘‘Control of Heavy Metal Content of Municipal Wastewater Sludge, ” Gurnham

& Associates, Inc., Division of Peter F. Loftus Corp.,

Chicago, IL, 1979.

Hain, K. E., and R. T. O’Brian, “The Survival of

Enteric Viruses in Septic Tanks and Septic Tank

Drain Fields, ’ Water Resources Research Institute,

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, Report

No. 108, 1979.

Hall, C., Iowa State University, personal communication, Oct. 13, 1983.

Hammond, G., Owens-Corning, personal communication, Oct. 4, 1983.

Hansen, B. P., “Reconnaissance of the Effect of Land-
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts . 291

fill Leachate on the Water Quality of Marshall Brook,

Southwest Harbor, Hancock County, Maine, ” U.S.

Geological Survey, Boston, MA, Open File Report

80-1120, 1980.

Harris, R. H., “The Health Risks of Toxic Organic

Chemicals Found in Groundwater, Princeton University, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies Report No. 153, 1983.

Harris, R. H., Center for Energy and Environmental

Studies, Princeton University, personal communication, January 1984.

Helling, C. S., “Fate of Pesticides in Soils: A Summary

of Research Activities Conducted Within, or Sponsored By, the Agricultural Research Service, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, prepared for interagency meeting at U.S.

Geological Survey, Reston, VA, Sept. 28, 1983.

Hileman, B., “Nuclear Waste Disposal: A Case of

Benign Neglect?” Environmental Science and Technology 16(5):27 1A-275A, 1982.

Hounslow, A. W., “Ground Water Geochemistry:

Arsenic in Landfills, ” Ground Water 18:331-333,

1980.

Inside EPA, Sept. 2, 1983a.

Inside EPA, Sept. 30, 1983b.

Inside EPA, Oct. 28, 1983c.

Jackson, R. E., and K. J. Inch, “Hydrogeochemical

Processes Affecting the Migration of Radionuclides

in a Fluvial Sand Aquifer at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, National Hydrology Research

Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Scientific Series

No. 104, NHRI Paper No. 7, 1980.

Johnson, C., National Solid Waste Management Association, personal communication, November 1983.

Jossi, D., U.S. Department of Transportation, personal

communication, Oct. 7, 1983.

Junk, G. A., R. F. Spalding, and J. J. Richard,

‘ ‘Aerial, Vertical, and Temporal Differences in

Ground Water Chemistry, Part II: Organic Constituents, ”~. Environmental Quality 9:479-483, 1980.

Kamath, K. I., J. Pasini, and B. J. Kush, “Contamination of Fresh Water Aquifers by Oil Spills, ’ Proceedings of the Third Annual Madison Conference of Applied Research and Practice on Municipal and

Industrial Waste, University of Wisconsin, Madison,

pp. 174-186, 1980.

Kaplan, E., M. Garrell, B. Royce, E. F. Riedel, and

J. Sathaye, ‘ ‘Assessment of Environmental Problems

Associated With Increased Enhanced Oil Recovery

in the United States: 1980-2000, Brookhaven National Laboratory 51528 UC- 92a, under U.S. Department of Energy contract No. DE-AC02-76CHOO016,

1983.

Kearney, P., U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communication, Oct. 13, 1983.

Khan, I. A., “Determining Impact of Irrigation on

Ground Water, ” J. Irrigation and Drainage Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 106,

No. IR4, pp. 331-344, December 1980.

Kimmel, G. E., and O. C. Brainds, “Leachate Plumes

in Ground Water From Babylon and Islip Landfills,

Long Island, New York, ” U.S. Geological Survey,

Syosset, NY, Professional Paper 1085, 1980.

Knox, R. C., and L. W. Canter, “Effects of Oil Extraction and Development on Ground Water Quality, ” National Center for Ground Water Research,

Norman, OK, 1980.

Koch, D. H., J. R. Stetson, and B. R. Genes, “Assessment of Ground and Surface Water Effects Around

Coal and Mineral Storage Areas, ” Bureau of Mines,

U.S. Department of the Interior, OFR 12-83, 1982.

Kristiansen, R., “Sand Filter Trenches for Purification

of Septic Tank Effluent: Part I—Clogging Mechanism and Soil Physical Environment, J. Environmental Quality 10:353-357, 1981.

Laak, R., K. A. Healy, and D. M. Hardisty, “Rational

Basis for Septic Tank System Design, ” Ground

Water 12(6):348-351, 1974.

Landa, E., “Isolation of Uranium Mill Tailings and

Their Component Radionuclides From the Biosphere—Some Earth Perspectives, ” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 814, 1980.

Larson, D., “Subsurface Strategies, Super Service

Station, February 1983.

League of Women Voters Education Fund, “A Nuclear

Waste Primer, ” League of Women Voters of the

United States, Washington, DC, 1980.

Lord, B., U.S. Department of Transportation, personal

communication, Oct. 18, 1983.

Lu, J. C. S., R. D. Morrison, and R. J. Stearns,

‘‘Leachate Production and Management From Municipal Landfills: Summary and Assessment, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Research Symposium, Land Disposal: Municipal Solid Waste,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,

OH, EPA-600/9 -81-O02a, 1981.

Lundberg, T. (cd.), “The U.S. Retail Census Can’t

Tell . . . How Big the Gasoline Station Population

Really 1s, ” Lundberg Letter 9(40): 1-8, 1982.

Mather, J. R., and P. A. Rodriguez, “The Use of the

Water Budget in Evaluating Leaching Through Solid

Waste Landfills, ’ Water Resources Center, University of Delaware, Newark, 1980.

Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), “A

Guide to the Safe Use and Disposal of Hazardous

Household Products, ” Boston, MA, 1982.

Miller, D. G., Jr., and W. J. Alexander, ‘‘Geologic

Aspects of Waste Disposal Site Evaluations, Bulletin

of the Association of Engineering Geologists 18:245-

251, 1981.
292 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

Miller, David W. (cd.), Waste Disposal Effects on

Ground Water (Berkeley, CA: Premier Press, 1980).

Milligan, J. D., and R. J. Ruane, “Effects of Coal Ash

Leachate on Ground Water Quality, ” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,

EPA-600/7-80-066, 1980.

Morrison, D., Pollution Liability Insurance Association,

personal communication, October 1983.

National Academy of Sciences, Surface Mining of NonCoal Minerals (Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 1979).

National Academy of Sciences, Drinking Water and

Health, National Research Council, vol. 3 (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1979).

National Academy of Sciences, Coaf Mining and GroundWater Resources in the United States (Washington,

DC: National Academy Press, 1981).

National Academy of Sciences, Risk Assessment in the

Federal Government: Managing the Process, National Research Council (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1983a).

National Academy of Sciences, ‘‘Transportation of Hazardous Materials: Toward a National Strategy,

Transportation Research Board Special Report No.

197, 1983b.

National Research Council, Principle of Toxicological

Interactions Associated With Multiple Chemical Exposures (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

1980).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “Siting Manual for Storing Hazardous Substances—A Practical Guide for Local Officials, ”

Albany, NY, 1982.

Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies and

Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control, OTA-M- 196 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1983a).

Office of Technology Assessment, Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in U.S. Arid and

Semiarid Lands, OTA-F-212 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1983 b).

Office of Technology Assessment, Acid Rain and Transported Air Pollutants, Implications for Public Policy, OTA-O-204 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1984).

Office of Technology Assessment, Managing Commercial High-Level Radioactive Waste, Summary,

OTA-O-172 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, April 1982); full report (in press).

Owe, M., P. J. Craul, and H. G. Halverson, “Contaminant Levels in Precipitation and Urban Surface

Runoff, Water Resources Bulletin 18:863-868,

1982.

Peavy, H. S., P. E. Stark, and T. G. Schwendeman,

‘ ‘The Effects of Rapid Infiltration of Municipal

Wastewater on Ground Water Quality, ” Water Resources Research Center, Montana State University,

Bozeman, 1981.

Petersen, N. M., “ 1983 Survey of Landfills, ’ Waste

Age, pp. 37-4o, March 1983.

Pye, V. I., R. Patrick, and J. Quarles, Groundwater

Contamination in the United States (Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983).

Raveh, A., and Y. Avnimalech, “Leaching of Pollutants From Sanitary Landfill Models, J. Water

Pollution Control Federation 51:2705-2716, 1979.

Rea, R. A., and S. B. Upchurch, “Influence of Regolith

Properties on Migration of Septic Tank Effluent,

Ground Water 18:1 18-125, 1980.

Reed, D. B., and D. L. Reddell, “Heat Transport in

Ground Water Systems, Vol. II: Laboratory Model, ” Texas Water Resources Institute, Texas A&M

University, College Station, Technical Report No.

104-VO1. II, 1980.

Rice, R. C., and P, Raats, “Underground Travel of

Renovated Waste Water, ‘J. Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 106 (EE6): 1079-1098, 1980.

Ridgley, S. M., and D. V. Galvin, ‘ ‘Summary Report

of the Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Project , Toxicant Control Planning Section, Water

Quality Division, Municipality of Metropolitan

Seattle, 1982.

Roberts, P. V., “Water Reuse for Ground Water Recharge: An Overview, “J. American Water Works

Association 72:375-379, 1980.

Roelofs, J., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

personal communication, Oct. 17, 1983.

Rogers, R. B., and W. F. Kean, “Monitoring Ground

Water Contamination at a Fly Ash Disposal Site

Using Surface Electrical Resistivity Methods, ”

Ground Water 18:472-478, 1980.

Rogers, W., “Tank Integrity Program, ” Warren

Rogers Associates, Inc., Newport, RI, no date.

Rogers, W., Warren Rogers Associates, Inc., personal

communication, Oct. 3, 1983.

Rothschild, E. R., R. J. Manser, and M. P. Anderson, ‘ ‘Investigation of Aldicarb in Groundwater in

Selected Areas of the Central Sand Plain of Wisconsin , Ground Water 20:437-445, 1982.

Royce, B., E. Kaplan, M. Garrell, and T. M. Geffen,

‘ ‘Identification of Water Requirements for Selected

Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods, ” Brookhaven National Laboratory Publication 51595, 1982.

Salt Institute, “Survey of Salt, Calcium Chloride and

Abrasives Use in the United States and Canada for

81/82 and 82/83, ” Salt Institute, Alexandria, VA,

1983.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control

Board, “Underground Tank Leak Detection Program Status Report, ” 1983.

Schaub, J. R., ‘ ‘The Economics of Agricultural Pesti-
App. A—Groundwater Contamination and Its Impacts ● 293

cide Technology, ‘‘ inJ. L. Hilton (cd.), AgricuZturd

Chemicals of the Future (Totowa, NJ: Rowman &

Allanheld Publishers, 1983).

Science News, 125: 104, Feb. 18, 1984.

Seiber, J. N., “Disposal of Pesticide Wastewater: Review, Evaluation, and Recommendations, draft report, EPA/ORD/OEPER, 1981.

Severn, D. J., C. K. Offutt, S. Z, Cohen, W. L. Burnam, and G. J. Burin, ‘‘Assessment of Ground Water

Contamination by Pesticides, ” Hazard Evaluation

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 7, 1983, prepared for the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting, June 21-23, Arlington, VA.

Sheridan, D., Desertification of the United States,

Council on Environmental Quality (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofllce, 1981).

Sikora, L. J., “Entrenchment of Sewage Sludge—A

Disposal-Use Alternative, ” Civil Engineering 52:80-

82, 1980.

Solley, W. B., E. B. Chase, and W. B. Mann IV, “Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1980,

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1001, 1983.

Spalding, R. F., and M. E. Exner, “Aerial, Vertical,

and Temporal Differences in Ground Water Chemistry: Part I—Inorganic Constituents, ” J. Environmental Quality 9:466-479, 1980.

Spa.lding, R. F., G. A. Junk, and J. J. Richard, “Pesticides in Ground Water Beneath Irrigated Farmland

in Nebraska, August 1978, Pesticides Monitoring

Journal 14:70-73, 1980.

Starr, J. L., and B. L. Sawhney, “Movement of Nitrogen and Carbon From a Septic System Drain Field,

Water, Air, and Soil PolZution 13: 113-123, 1980.

Steel Tank Institute, “Fiberglass Underground Storage Tanks—An Environmental Threat, ” Northbrook, IL, 1983.

Swanson, L. D., Great Plains Office of Policy Studies,

University of Nebraska, personal communication,

Nov. 16, 1983.

Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, “Hazardous Waste in My Home?’ State of Washington, no

date.

Thomson, B. M., and R. J. Heggen, “Uranium and

Water: Managing Related Resources, Chemtech,

pp. 294-299, May 1983.

Thornhill, J. T., ‘‘Proposed Injection Well Regulations

for Brine Produced With Oil or Gas, ” memorandum, prepared for Working Group for Development

of Underground Injection Regulations, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,

Dec. 18, 1975.

Tyagi, A. K., “Impact of Artificial Recharge on

Groundwater Quality of Gypsum Aquifer in Harmon

u

u.

County, Oklahoma, ” Oklahoma Water Resources

Research Institute, Stillwater, 1983.

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,

“Effects of Flue Gas Cleaning Waste on Ground

Water Quality and Soil Characteristics, ” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,

EPA-600/2-79-164, 1979.

S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency,

‘‘Burning Grounds—Environmental Survey Data,

June 24, 1983.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “The Pesticide Review, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service, 1978.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “ 1980 Appraisal Part

I: Soil, Water and Related Resources in the United

States: Status, Condition, and Trends, ” 1981a.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “ 1980 Appraisal Part

II: Soil, Water and Related Resources in the United

States: Analysis of Resource Trends, ” 1981b.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Commercial Fertilizers Consumption for Year Ended June 30,

1982, ’ ‘ Crop Reporting Board, SpCr 7(1 1-82),

1982a.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Hogs and Pigs, ”

Crop Reporting Board, MtAn 4(12-82), 1982b.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “The Pesticide Review, 1981, ’ 1983a.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Cattle on Feed—13

States, ” Crop Reporting Board, MtAn 2-1(1- 83),

1983b.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Inputs Outlook and

Situation, Economic Research Service 10S-2,

1983c.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Commercial Fertilizers, Statistical Reporting Service, SpCr 7(1 1-

83), 1983d.

U.S. Department of Commerce, “Statistical Abstract

of the United States, Bureau of the Census, 1981.

U.S. Department of Commerce, “ 1978 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 5: Special Reports, Part 1: Graphic

Summary, Bureau of the Census, 1982.

U.S. Department of Energy, “Spent Fuel and RadioacU

u,

tive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics, ” prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory,

DOE/NE-0017/2, 1983.

S. Department of Transportation, “Annual Report

on Pipeline Safety, Materials Transportation

Board, 1981.

S. Environmental Protection Agency, “The Report

to Congress: Waste Disposal Pr~ctices and Thei~ Effects on Ground Water, ” 1977a.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “FIFRA: Impact on the Industry, Office of Pesticide Programs,

1977b.
294 . Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Surface Impoundments and Their Effects on Ground-Water

Quality in the United States—A Preliminary

Survey, ” Office of Drinking Water, 1978.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “A Guide to

the Underground Injection Program, 1979.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Economic

Profile of the Pesticide Industry, ” Economic Analysis

Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, 1980a.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 1980 Market Estimates, ”

1980b.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Environmental Impact Guidelines for New Source Underground Coal Mines and Coal Cleaning Facilities,

EPA 130/6-81-002, 1981a.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Solid Waste

Data: A Compilation of Statistics on Solid Waste

Management Within the United States, ” prepared

byJRB Associates, McLean, VA, EPA contract No.

68-01-6000, 1981b.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Inventory of

Open Dumps, ” Office of Solid Waste, 1982a.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Surface Impoundment Assessment National Report, ” Office of

Drinking Water, 1982b.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Federal

u

u

u

Underground Injection Control Reporting System,

Condensed Summary Report, ” Nov. 18, 1983a.

S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Process

Design Manual: Land Application of Municipal

Sludge, ” Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, EPA-625/l-83-016, 1983b.

S. Environmental Protection Agency, “The 1982

Needs Survey: Conveyance, Treatment, and Control of Municipal Wastewater, Combined Sewer

Overflows, and Stormwater Runoff, ” Office of

Water, 1983c.

S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Standards for the

Control of Byproduct Materials From Uranium Ore

Processing (40 CFR 192), ” Office of Radiation Programs, EPA 520/1-82-022, 1983d.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulatory

Impact Analysis of Environmental Standards for

Uranium Mill Tailings at Active Sites, ” Office of Radiation Programs, EPA 520/1-82-023, 1983e.

U.S. Geological Survey, “National Water Summary

1983—Hydrologic Events and Issues, ’ USGS Water-Supply Paper 2250, 1984.

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations, ‘‘Interim Report on Ground Water Contamination: Environmental Protection Agency Oversight, 25th Report by the Committee on

Government Operations, House Report No. 96-

1440, 1981.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of the

Teton Uranium ISL Project, ” Uranium Recovery

Field Office, Region IV, NUREG-0925, August

1983.

University of Oklahoma, ‘‘Groundwater Contaminants

and Their Sources, draft report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, August 1983.

Warner, D. L., and M. G. Yew, “Programmable Hand

Calculator Programs for Pumping and Injection

Wells: Part III—Constant Pumping (Injection) Rate,

Fully Confined Aquifer, Partially Penetrating Wall, ”

Ground Water 18:438-443, 1980.

Waste Age, “ 1980 Land Disposal Survey, ” vol. 12,

1981.

Watson, E. L. (cd.), “Hazardous Waste Exchange, ”

League of Women Voters of the United States, No.

5, August 1983.

Weiss, R., Philadelphia Water Department, personal

communication, Oct. 14, 1983.

White, R., American Petroleum Institute, personal

communication, Oct. 3, 1983.

Winter, T. C., ‘‘Numerical Simulation Analysis of the

Interaction of Lakes and Ground Water, ” USGS

Professional Paper 1001, 1976,

Wirries, D. L., and A. J. McDonnell, “Drainage Qualit y at Deep Coal Mine Sites, Water Resources

Bulletin 19(2):235-240, 1983.

Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc., “Groundwater

Contaminants and Their Measurement, ” draft report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, 1983.

World Health Organization, “Toxicological Appraisal

of Halogenated Aromatic Compounds Following

Ground Water Pollution, ” Report of WHO Working Group, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1980.

Young, C. E., “Land Application of Wastewater: A

Cost Analysis, ” U.S. Department of Agriculture

Technical Bulletin 1594, 1978.
Appendix B

Federal Institutional Framework To

Protect Groundwater

B.1 DESCRIPTION OF SOURCES ADDRESSED BY FEDERAL PROGRAMS (p. 296)

295
x x x x

x x

-0

x

x x

4.

x x % x x

u+o

. .

a

-3

0

-5’

c

o

v

L1

L1

2

I I

m

z

&’

-0

c

m 2’

296
App. B—Federal Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 297

x

x x

x

x

.3

v

a

c

:

4

In

K!

x x x

x x x x

x x x x x

w

14

0

m .

2u

u

u

al

e

.

.

0

U4

c

4 U 4

-u

, n c

m a

+

c

o

Lo

al

u

n.

u

.4

-o

a J

L1

!7

-0

c

a

.

I I

u)

w

c“

E

2

c

‘u

:

3+702 O - 84 -
298 ● Protecting the Nation Groundwater From Contamination

——

m

L

o

c

o

.,-(

x x

x x

u)

al

.,+

CL

x x x

x

x

x

x

x
App. B—Federal Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater . 299

x x x

.x x x

x x x x x x

L,

.

.

u

c

m

g,

0. .

cc

u

.

m

:

. .

.

w

a)

u u

m

i

u

G9

a ,

u

u

m 2

0?

u u-0 u

m .+b.

al

w

Lc

u

m

c

m

c

0

u

cl.

.

al

>

0 ! !

0

.

W

0

u

c

.

w-l

T-4 .

C a l

‘ j;

c: Q j n

n . ?

0 0 7

‘m

v

m

c

o

.,+

u

u

( %

I I I

I

VI

aJ

u

.+

w,

.*

m

u

c

2
300 . Protecting the Nation Groundwater From Contamination

x x x x x x x

x x

x x

0

a

wo

m

al

a

2

m

:

u m c

.!+

0

E0

c

w+0n

-u

c

2

C a l

-+.!2

m u

k

a J

u

i

0.

- !

i

w

I

I

I

I

t

I

I

u

c

a

w

G
App. B—Federal Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 301

x x

h

c

o

m

a

. -

u-, 0

u

c

m

c

m

!-

U

u

m

3 u

0. al

u

cc

.-

Z

.2

C4

4

al

W,

I

.c

Lo

w>
302 . Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

2

u

ou

c

..-(

,

wuo

c

uo

2

‘w

c% c

a

3

v

.

.

u

x

a

u

wo

c

+

‘c

a J w

c

a J m

al

k

cl

c

o

.

:

w

w.

G

.,4

m

w-l

c

w

2

.

0

c

w

>

m

.c

c

.+

c

a

2

.

0

c

Q

$

-c

uo

2

0

.

-0

a J

u

%

w

w

. u

c

c

w

:

IJ

o

c

‘+.

o

c

o

.,-1

u

Q

c

ouw-c

4J

-0

c

m

+

c

o

u

2&

m >CL

c G

o c

‘w

2

m

w

W

c J

c

..(

u

u

m

b

o

w

w

c

o

.-t

.

u

‘w

.mcw

m

c

o

.,+

u

z

-o

u
Appendix C

State Institutional Framework To

Protect Groundwater

C.1 AGENCIES THAT RESPONDED TO THE OTA STATE SURVEY (p. 304)

C.2 OTA STATE SURVEY (p. 307)

C.3 SUBSTANCES WITH STATE STANDARDS OR FEDERAL STANDARDS OR

GUIDELINES FOR WATER QUALITY THAT MAY BE APPLIED TO

GROUNDWATER (p, 333)

C.4 OTA STATE SURVEY RESPONSES: EXAMPLES OF STRENGTHS,

PROBLEMS, AND DESIRED FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR EACH STATE

(p. 349)

C.5 OTA STATE SURVEY RESPONSES: SELECTED STATE ISSUES (p. 387)

303
C.1 AGENCIES THAT RESPONDED TO THE

OTA STATE SURVEY

Alabama Department of Environmental Management

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Arizona Department of Health Service s

Arizona Department of Water Resources

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology

California State Water Resources Control Board

California Department of Health Service s

California Department of Water Resource s

Colorado Department of Health

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

Georgia Department of Natural Resource s -- Environmental Protection Divisio n

Hawaii Department of Health

Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources

Hawaii Department of Agriculture

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare -- Division of Environment

Idaho Department of Water Resources

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Illinois State Water Survey

Indiana State Board of Health -- Division of Water Pollution Control

Iowa Department of Water, Air, and Waste Management

Kansas Bureau of Oil Field and Environmental Geology

Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet

Department of Environmental Protection

Department of Natural Resources

Department for Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Kentucky Commerce Cabinet

Department of Agriculture

Kentucky Geological Survey

Kentucky Human Resources Cabinet

Department of Health Services

Kentucky Public Protection and Regulation Cabinet

Department of Mines and Minerals

304
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater Ž 305

Louisiana.ollis Department of Natural Resources

Louisiana Department of Health and Human Service s

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development -- Division of Water

Resources

Capital Area Groundwater Commissione r

Maine Department of Environmental Protectio n

Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality and Engineerin g

Michigan Department of Natural Resource s

Minnesota Pollution Control Agenc y

Mississippi Department of Natural Resource s

Mississippi State Board of Healt h

Mississippi Oil and Gas Boar d

Missouri Department of Natural Resource s

Montana Department of Health and Environmental Science s

Nebraska Department of Environmental Contro l

Nebraska Department of Health

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commissio n

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

New Mexico Health and Environment Department

New Mexico Office of the State Enginee r

New Mexico Department of Agricultur e

New York Department of Environmental Conservation

North Carolina Department of Natural and Community Resources

North Dakota State Health Department

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Oklahoma Department of Pollution Control

Oklahoma Department of Mines

Oklahoma Water Resources Board

Oklahoma State Department of Health

Oklahoma Corporation Commission
306 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

South Carolina Water Resources Commission

South Dakota Division of Water and Natural Resources Management

Tennessee Department of Health and Environment

Texas Department of Water Resources

Utah Department of Environmental Health

Utah Department of Natural Resources and Energy

Vermont Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering

Virginia State Water Control Board

Virginia State Department of Health

Washington Department of Ecology

West Virginia Department of Natural Resources

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Wyoming Executive Department

source : Office of Technology Assessment.
C.2 OTA STATE SURVEY

Please return the following questionnaire on:

STATE ACTIVITIES ON GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

To the:

by:

include:

Office of Technology Assessment

Groundwater Contamination Project

U.S. Congress

Washington, D.C. 20510

August 1, 1983

0 State name:

o Name and title of principal contact:

o Telephone number of contact:

Questions should be directed to: Joan Ham

202-26-2155

307
308 ● Protecting the Nat/on’s Groundwater From Contamination

STATE ACTIVITIES ON GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

Objective: To learn about state efforts to detect, correct and prevent

groundwater contamination and to improve state capabilities to

deal with this problem.

To learn about state priorities among these four categories.

To learn of the impact of federal programs on state efforts to

deal with groundwater contamination.

Introduction: Actions to deal with groundwater contamination include:

detection, correction , prevention, and improving capabilities to deal

with problems. A major policy issue for the U.S. Congress is to

determine how to allocate among these 4 activities, scarce resources that

the federal government may expend on groundwater contamination. To

provide information to Congress that will help them to allocate federal

resources, OTA would like information from the states on their technical

knowledge and experience with these four activities and the relative

importance the states give to each activity. Federal efforts to address

groundwater contamination to date have taken a variety of forms:

research, data collection, technical assistance, grants and cost-sharing

programs, and regulations. To evaluate options for future federal

involvement related to groundwater contamination, information from the

states on the value of these past federal efforts is also essential.

Instructions: This questionnaire on state activities related to groundwater

contamination is divided into eight sections: Sources, Detection,

Corrective Actions, Prevention, Improving Capabilities, State Policies,

Federal-State Relations and Impacts. To the extent possible, please

answer each of the questions in the space provided. Attach additional

sheets, as needed. If you have trouble answering a particular question,

please note why you are having difficulty and move on to the next

question. A single coordinated response from each state is preferred,

however, if this is not possible, please give all appropriate agencies an

opportunity to respond directly to OTA. The questionnaire should be

returned to OTA no later than AUGUST 1, 1983. Any questions should be

directed to Joan Ham (202] 226-2155.
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater Ž 309

A. SOURCES OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

1 . For each of the sources of groundwater contamination listed below,

note whether the state has a program to detect (D), correct (C),

prevent (P) and/or learn more about (L) groundwater contamination.

Note if the state has no programs (N) for a Particular source.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g“

h.

i.

j*

k.

1.

m.

n.

0.

p.

q.

r.

s*

t.

Landfills

i. sanitary

ii. hazardous waste

Open dumps

Waste piles

Surface impoundments

Subsurface percolation systems

(e.g., septic tanks, cesspools)

Injection wells

Disposal of waste treatment by-product

(e.g., sludge)

Disposal of waste waters

(e.g., spray irrigation)

Agriculture

i. Irrigation return flow

ii. Pesticides, herbicides

iii. Feedlots

iv. Fertilizers

v. Runoff

Salt-water intrusion brackish water upcoming

Spills, accidents

Leaks from storage, pipelines, etc.

Transportation (e.g., airports, loading docks)

Drainage from active/abandoned mines “

Infiltrating stormwater, urban runoff

Percolation of atmospheric contaminants

Aquifer disruption due to construction/excavation

De-icing salts

Abandoned wells

Other (specify)
310 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

2* For each of the sources that the state does not have any programs, as

noted in #1, explain why the source is/is not considered to be a

problem. Possible reasons for a source not being considered to be a

problem include: source does not occur in the state, status of the

source is unknown, the source is very uncommon, no groundwater

contamination problems have been detected from the source, etc. If

the sources without programs are considered to be problems, or there

is insufficient information to determine whether or not there is a

problem, explain why the state does not have any programs.

3 . Describe any strengths or weaknesses in state programs to deal with

different sources of goundwater contamination.

4* Name and phone number of contacts to discuss sources of groundwater

contamination:
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 311

B . DETECTION

5. What is the state doing to detect groundwater contamination

incidents ? Check the categories that apply to your state.

o Inventories of potential sources of contamination (note source s

being inventoried)

o Monitoring program for quality assurance at point of use (note

water uses being monitored)

o Systematic monitoring of potential sources (note sources being

monitored)

o General ambient quality monitoring

o Routine comparison of monitoring data with quality standards

o Responding to complaints of suspected contamination

o No activity

o Other (specify)
312 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From contamination

60 What priorities does the state have in detecting contamination?

Check the categories that apply to your state, and if possible, rank

their importance (1 = highest priority)

o drinking water supplies

public - serving more than 75,000 persons

serving 10,000 - 75,000 persons

serving 25-10,000 persons

serving less than 25 persons

other (specify)

private

o other water supplies

industrial (self-supplied) - process water

- cooling water

- other (specify)

agricultural - livestock watering

- irrigation

- other

o particular sources of contamination (specify)

o particular types of contaminants (specify)

o particular types of contaminants (specify)

o no priorities

o other (specify)
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 313

7 . Note which of the following techniques for the hydrogeologic

investigation of groundwater flow and contaminant behavior are used by

the state: Routinely (R), in Special Situations (S), Never (N). AISO

note which techniques are preferred (P).

A. Surface Geological

Al. aerial photo

A2. satellite

A3. existing studies

A4. mapping (soils, geology, topography)

A5. other (specify)

A6.

B. Subsurface Geological

B1. test wells

B2. stratigraphy

B3. other (specify)

B4.

c . Surface Hydrology

Cl. watershed analysis

C2. climate

C3. other (specify)

C4.

D. Subsurface Hydrology

D1. tracer tests

D2. aquifer tests

D3. modeling -- groundwater flow

D4. modeling -- contaminant transport

D5. other (specify)

D6.

E. Surface Geophysical

El. surface potential

E2. electrical resistivity

E3. electromagnetic (surface penetrating radar)

E4. sniffers

E5. temperature

E6. other (specify)

E7.

F. Subsurface Geophysical

F1. borehole geophysics

F2. other (specify)

F3.

39-702 0 - 84 - 5
314 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

8. Why does the state prefer to use particular techniques for hydrogeologic

analysis ?

90 Describe any technical, legal, and institutional problems the state has

in using particular hydrogeologic techniques (e.g., cost, data

requirements, technical expertise, safety, manpower, ,accuracy,

uncertainty of possible interpretations, manpower, accuracy, uncertainty

of possible interpretations, access to site, interference with water

rights, etc.).

10. Name, title, and phone number of contacts to discuss advantages,

disadvantages and problems of techniques for hydrogeologic analysis.
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater . 315

c . CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

11. What is the state doing to correct incidents of groundwater

contamination? Check the categories that apply to your state and note

the relative frequency of use (High, Moderate, Low, Never).

A. Containment

Al. slurry wall (conventional, continuous trencher, vibrating beam)

A2. grout curtain

A3. sheet piling

A4. surface sealing

A5. diversion ditches

A6. liners

A7. gas Migration control

A8. mathematical modeling-groundwater flow

A9. mathematical modeling-containment transport

A1O. artificial recharge

All. natural containment

A12. other (specify)

A13.

B. In-situ Rehabilitation

B1. plume management (pressure troughs, pressure ridges)

B2. groundwater pumping/water table adjustment

B3. chemical immobilization

B4. bioreclamation

B5. mathematical modeling - groundwater flow

B6. mathematical modeling-contaminant transport

B7. other (specify)

B8.

C. Withdrawal/treatment

cl. withdrawal techniques

C1.io pumping

C1.ii o suction

C1.iii o gravity

C1.iv . excavation

Clovo other (specify)

Clovi.

C2. treatment

c20i.

c20ii .

c20iii .

C2.IVO

C2*V0

c2evi.

c2.vii .

c2.viii .

c20ix .

skimming

filtration

incineration

adsorption (GAC)

airstripping

ion exchange

ultrafiltration

reverse osmosis

other (specify)
316 . Protecting the Nation’s Groundwafer From Contamination

c . CORRECTIVE ACTIONS (Cont. )

D. Management Options

D1 . terminate/limit aquifer use

D2 . develop alternative water supply sources

D3 . purchase alternative water supply

D4. treat at point of end-use (e.g., faucet filtering devices)

D5. restore via natural processes (not included under A, B, or C

above)

D60 monitoring

D7. health advisories

D80 other (specify)

D9.

D1O.

12. Discuss any technical, legal and institutional problems the state has had

in the use of any of these techniques (e.g., well closings resulting in

more rapid movement or changed direction of contaminant transport,

difficulty with obtaining water rights, etc.).

13. Which techniques for corrective action are preferred? lfhy?
App. C—State Institufional Framework To Protect Groundwater • 317

14. Name, title, and phone number of cent acts for discussing advantages,

disadvantages, and problems associated with these techniques for

correcting groundwater contamination.

15. How does state decide to address contamination at one site as opposed to

another? Check the categories that apply to your state, if possible

rank their importance.

o formal criteria (specify)

o order in which contamination is detected

o public pressure

o sites where a source and responsible party can be identified

o sites qualified for special funding (e.g., Superfund)

o severity of problem (specify how determined)

o other (specify)
318 Ž Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

D. PREVENTION

16. What is the state doing to prevent groundwate r contamination from

occurring? Check categories that apply to your state. Note whether the

category has been implemented (I) or is in the process of being developed

(D) . If program is in the process of being developed, note whether new

legislation (N) is required.

o

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

permits for discharges to groundwater based on technology

requirements

permits for discharges to groundwater based on performance standards

voluntary best management practices

required best management practices

facility siting requirements

public education

classification

groundwater quality standards other than drinking water standards

well construction standards

well closing standards

non-degradation policy

policy to protect public health

policy to balance resource protection with costs of control

no action

other (specify)
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater • 319

17. What priorities does the state have for prevention? Check categories

that apply to your state, if possible rank their relative importance .

o protecting certain existing drinking water supplies (specify)

o protecting certain aquifers (specify e.g., recharge areas, discharge

areas, potential future water supplies)

o eliminating potential for groundwater contamination from particular

sources (specify)

o no prioritie s

o other (specify)

18. Name, title, and phone number of contacts to discuss prevention

activities:
320 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

E.

19.

IMPROVING CAPABILITIES

What is the state doing to improve its capabilities to deal with

groundwater contamination?

o Special studies (specify)

o Staff development and training

o Facility development (specify, e.g., laboratory certification)

o Public education

o Agency reorganization

o Coordination programs (specify)

o Other (specify)

20. Name, title, and phone number of contacts to discuss improving state

capabilities:
APP. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 321

F. STATE POLICIES

21• Check the below listed activities for which the state has formal

policies, written guidelines or procedures. Please send a copy, or

briefly describe these policies, guidelines or procedures.

o

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

22. In

Standard protocols for collecting groundwater quality samples

Standard protocols for analyzing groundwater quality samples

Groundwater monitoring for drinking water supplies (if different than

federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements)

Groundwater monitoring at waste sites (if different than federal RCRA

requirements)

Responding to complaints about possible groundwater contamination

Determining what groundwater parameters to measure at a particular

locaton

Response when groundwater quality standards are violated

Response when there is no quality standard for a contaminant that is

found in groundwater

Setting priorities for correcting groundwater contamination

Establishing the standard to which groundwater contamination will be

cleaned up

Confidentiality of certain groundwater information that is collected

by the state

Implementing policies for groundwater protection (e.g.,

classification, non-degradation, discharges to groundwater, etc.)

the absence of formal policies, written guidelines or procedures for

the items listed in #21, how does-the state determine what to do?
322 Ž Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

23. For which substances has the state established standards for groundwater

that are more stringent than federal primary or secondary drinking water

standards? What is the technical basis for these more stringent

standards (e.g., SNARL's, minimum detection levels)? Why did the state

decide to develop these more stringent standards?

24. Name, title, and phone number of contacts to discuss implementation of

formal policies on groundwater contamination:
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 323

25. Approximately how much money (i. e. , order of magnitude) is the state

devoting to each of the following activities related to groundwater

contamination:

Detect ion

Correct ion

Prevention

Improving Capabilities

If you are unable to provide an estimate of funds expended on groundwater

contamination, please explain why.

26. What is the relative importance the state gives to each of the 4

categories listed below? (1 = highest) On what basis do you make this

ranking?

Detection

Correction

Prevention

Improve capabilities
324 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

27• What do you suspect will be the relative importance of each of the

categories listed below in ten years? ( 1 = highest) On what basis do

you make this ranking? If you suspect a change from your answer, explain

why.

Detect ion

Correction

Prevent ion

Improve capabilities

28. What are the major changes that the state would like to make in dealing

with groundwater contamination?

29. What factors limit the state from making these changes?
App. C—State institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater . 325

300 Does the stat e consider groundwater to be a problem? If so, what is the

nature of the problem and under what circumstances would the state

consider the problem to be under control?

31• What types of information on groundwater contamination In other states

would be useful to your state?

32. Have you benefitted from other states’ information on groundwater

contamination? Through what mechanisms?

33. What changes would be required in your state’s information management

programs to make information listed in your response to #31 available to

other states.
326 • Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

G . FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS

34. How could the federal government be of most assistance to the state o n

groundwater contamination issues? Please be specific about the

particular topics or issues where federal resources would be beneficial.

35. Explain how each of the following federal laws and programs have helped

or hindered the states’ efforts to address groundwater contamination

issues? At a minimum, check the laws and programs the state has used to

address groundwater contamination.

Ae Laws

10 Environmental Protection Agency

o Clean Water Act (CWA)

Section 104 - [104(a)(5) - water quality surveillance system]

-- Research, Investigation, Training, and Information

Section 106 - Grants for Pollution Control

Section 201 - Grants for Construction of Treatment Works

Section 205(j) - Grants for Water Quality Management Planning
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 327

Section 208 - Areawide Waste Treatment

Section 303 - Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans

Section 402 - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

o Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Part B - Public Water Systems (Section 1412 - National Drinking

Water Regulations)

Part C - Protection of Underground Sources of Drinking Water

Underground Injection Control Program

Sole Source Aquifer Program

Part E - General Provisions

Section 1442 -- technical assistance to states and

municipalities

Section 1443 -- grants for state programs

o Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

Subtitle C -- Hazardous Waste Management

Subtitle D -- State or Regional Solid Waste Plans
328 • Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From contamination

o

0

0

0

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA/Superfund)

Section 104(c)(3) -- Cooperative Agreements or Contracts with

states for remedial actions

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA)

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

Groundwater monitoring studies

Groundwater modeling -- testing and validation

o Other EPA Laws or Programs (specify)

2. Department of Commerce

o Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

3 . Department of Interior

o Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

4. Other Laws (specify)

o Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1975
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 329

0 Water Resources Planning Act of 1965

B. Programs

1. Department of Agriculture

o Soil Conservation Service Programs

o Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Programs

20 Department of Commerce

o Grants for public works

o National Bureau of Standards Reference Materials

3. Department of Interior

o Bureau of Indian Affairs Programs

o Bureau of Land Management Programs

o Bureau of Reclamation Programs

o U.S. Geological Survey Programs

Cooperative programs for Water Resources Investigations

39-7020-84- 7
330 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

Other USGS programs

o Water Resources Research Institute Cooperative Programs

4 . Other (specify)
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater . 331

360 What types of economic and environmental impacts of groundwater

contaminat ion have been documented in the state? Check the categories

that apply, and if possible, quantify.

A. Economic Impacts

o Decreased value of industrial production

o Decreased value of agricultural production

o Avoidance of impaired uses through relocation

o Decreased values for industrial, agricultural, or residential

lands

o Damage to materials

o Costs of obtaining alternative water supplies

o Legal/administrative expenses

o Compensation payments

o Other (specify)
332 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

B. Environmental Impacts:

o Surface water

o Land/ soil

o Biota

o Air
1

1

2

5

o.m12 d
334 • Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

al

i i

U I VI

% .d

E!

E G l

tft f

n
mTE srANDAma FEmRALsTANMmsm GuIIELIFEs (rig/l)

Dridciw Water Gramlwmer @all%

Nattial Drltiw EPA Health Advisriea AmMent Water

Rargeb

~;)

Total No. Water l&gulati0n5 one Ten bg Term Quality Criteria

Chelnical States (Mg/1) stats & statea Primary S~o&~ Day Day (l-2 YrS) for Huron Health

IL Or-“c Chen.icala (Contirud)

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

Di-n-tutyl phthalate

Diazi.non

l)ibrauxhlorqmpme (DB@)

Dibrm-oethane (I!DB)

Dicanba

Dichloroknzene (ilr)

DichLorolxmzem (~)

Dichlorok~ (~)

Dxhlorcdiptenyltrichloroethane (DIX)

1 ,midikmethane

1 ,l+idlorcettylme

(Viny lidiene chloride)

1,2-Dichlormtlykm

(da and tram)

Dichlormtham

(Mettylere dlloride)

G1

&tw

C&It

C4

(2

CA

IL

CA,EL

W

C&tw

qNH

0.014

0.001; o.ooGo5/

lifetim

Limit of qusntifi(ation -0.03002

0.02-0.1 3

0.01 -0.1 3

OJXM3 -0.1 3

0.05

o.ool-o.m3

1.0/1 * - 0.07/

lifetim

Limit of qumtification; S

0.004;s

M’

NY

Ni

M

N

IL JU, FW, VA

FN,r?l

0.770

0.GO07

0.00C05/lifeti

0.0U144

0.0347

NoIn?o.05

0.02

M’J, NH, 0.005; 1.0/1 I&y -

FM 0.07/l.ifetine

NH s

NH s

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

4

3

3

2

1

Et’rl.e

PMYJe

m

e

1.0 0.07 0.07

Cis: 4.0 0.4 —

tra=: 2.7 0.27 —

13.0 1.3 0.15

34.$

o.04h

o.~h

o.4oh

o.~24d

O.cw%d

o. GocK133d

0. UIO19d,f
Cknical

SEU’E SmNn4msa FEumfL SIMMms AND -DES (I@) I 3

DJsnldrg water

@

Grardmter Quail

‘%

Natimal Drinkil’E 12A Health MviaxiEs AmKent Water

-b

21)

Taal No. Wau3r

(U@)

%zlllatism be Ten lag TeDII Qudi~ Criteria

statea Statea d Statea PrlnBry Secon&ry Da y Day (1-2 Y=) for Huron kalth

Lorjalic ChfmLda (Ccmirued)

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

2,4-Mchlorqhnol

2,4-Dichlor~tic

add (2,4_D)

1 ,2-MchlOrqmpane

McycloplKadime (DcPD)

MeL&in

M-1 phthalate

DilOIMqXopylJlayl ph@mlaX!

(ml@)

D~ttite

2,4+nmxlylp&01

1,4—MUQUE

MOxL~

Dipkw&ie

DiPhEql hy&azlne

Mthtuw

IL

CA

*IL

3.093

0.01 NY OJxw 2 0.1

0.01 1

Idlnit of qualKi- ILJJO NOIE - O.ou 5

fi@tion -0.001 Nf,VA

CA 0.14

C4 0.4

m 0.02/10 &y

(x O*(M

1

1

Pkl 0.02/10 day 1

xl kxle 1

1

NY Flake &tectable 1

W 0.00175 1

o.l12i

oO~71d

350.og

0.45L

O..(+OC

5.68 0.568 —

o030042d
Chcmical

SINE SmrlAmsa IIiOmUL sl%WdOS NW GUIDZLINLS (all)

Ddnldqg Wter Groudmter Qmll

~:

National Drinkiw, EPA Health Advimties Amlient I.lWer

-b Total No. Water I@@atiom one Ten Lo% Term QIMMty Critefla

stats (Ing/1) Statea of Statea Primary Swndary Daj Day (l-2 Yrs) for HUnHII Health

C4 0.035

NH 19.0/1 day

IL Orgaru“c Chemlda (Contimd)

55. ENkwlfan

56. !Jdrin

57. Ethmn

58. Ethyl tk~

59. Ettylene glycol

60. Ethylene rhimrea (m)

61. Fertzun

62. Flumamkme

63. Folpet

64. Foriml&ly&

b5. Gadinej M

66. Guthion

67. Hqxacidor C&IL

68. Heptachlor epxkk C&a

69. Hexaddmoknzere (WE)

Nom

UO002-o.ool

Oml - 0.G02

m

M), tW,VA

M

w

I?i

m

NH

m,tw

IL~,Ni ,VA

VA

w

o.ooa)03

NJne+3m

19.o/l day

!bne deteuable

0.00418

0.056

NOIE

0.CW31-0. UJ344

None-o.ool

0.001

0.00235

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

5

3

1

o.074h

Oooow O.oolh

1.4h

19.0 5.5 5.5

0.030 0.030 —

(Mamo2nd

0.0(XCC1372d
338l protecting the Nation’s GroundWater From contamination

.

1-1

j

1

il

J!

v

o

4

q

u

q

m

I
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater 339

%

I

0“

W “ .

}$%?J

u

I

I

I

I

(

5! !5!

I

i?

.
STATE SlxNDAma IFmRAL SmuMm ND aJmLINIs (W/ 1)

Orinkirg Water Groumkwer Qua.li

-%

Natimal Drlnldm WA Heakh Advisories AmMent Water

~1:

Total No. Wawr Wula Cm Ten Lag Texm Qdity Criteria

Ctu31d.d stateE stats (Lrg/1) d states m%=% * Day (1-2 Yra) for Hum Health

L Or@’d.c Chemtcala (G3dNed)

%.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

KY+.

105.

106.

107.

106.

!?o@m.kar araratic .

hy&ocarbtmE (PMS)J

Pr@or

Ropanil

Prqmzine

Pthalate eatemj

m (Cyclmite)

Silmzine

Styrerle (vinyl blzelle)

1,2,4,5- Tetrachlorok~

2,3,7,Wetrdd.wutibw.0

~(~)

Terrachloraxhane (1,1,1,2-

ad 1,1,2,2 )

Tetrd&xr4yb (or

perdmoethylme, Pm)

Tllirall

m cLo25/7 day w

NY

NY

I?i

K

NY

Ni

Ni

CA 0.04 FN,lw

l!L,m 0.003; s Nl,tw

M

o.025/7day

0.035

0.007

0.016

the &teUable

0.07525

0.931

OJMXKKI035

0.02

0.0035-0.02 0

0.00175

1

1

1

1

1 idivlduall

0.033681

1

1

1

3

2

1

o.~d

-e

O.omh

o.m17d(l,l ,2,2)

2.3 0.17 5 0.020 oooco8d
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater . 341

-3

l!

.4

-cm

.

u“

3

o“

N

●

N

m.

.-

.

.

.

-

0

●

4

I

I

.H.

.

.

a

5!

.1w- 1

8 .

0“

?43?

. ● % . 4 0 )

.

A A .
342 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

m

o.

Y’ 4

o“

.

E

‘s

Rj .
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 343

& a .

n

.

ijyii j

.

O %N .

0

m

o“

I n co

.

A

t-l

3B

Ln0

0“

C-4

0.

4

Za

i?

d
mm STA!lmma IEDER4L .mNInm AND QJIELJ.MS (all)

Drinkitg Wacer GrOu&ater QuaLi

%

Nathal Drinldxg WA &&h Advkxka Antient Water

-b

al)

TOtiL No. Water R!?Jlki0n3 one Ten Lag Term

ChelILull Statea (U@) states

WV CriterLa

of statea Prlsmry Sexxulary Dq Day (l-2 Yrs) for Huron Health

B. Ino~c chelIl* (Contimled)

148. (NO-j + ~w

149. PhQ@kateaj

15U* seleIIiurIl

151. Silwr

152. sodilnu

153. Sulfatd

lx. Valuxiiuln

155. zinc

C. Blolcglcal SukrarKES

156. Coliform tacteria

D. ?ladimuleicks

157. B@= plrticle .ard P~ton

radioactivity

1%. Gras alph particle aXivityJ

159. Grins &taj

v~w

NJ

Nl,Iw

TL,lw,tw

AK,FL,MI 20-250 VA

Iw,t@l,NY,v&wY

V&m

M),@M,Nf,v&wf

WI

PA

NorE K)

IUXl ~i/1 IN, IL,W,VA

0.5+0 0

Na spxified

0.02+.05

OLKLW.05

25-1oo

l&600

0.1

0.05-25

200

5G1OOO pci/1

2

2 0.01

3 0.05

4

5

2

5

2 l/mO ml

4 marl

250

5.0

O.oloh

o.050h

5*OC

I
I

I

OJ SrtXrE smNrkmsa FEDERAL s’MNDS AND QJLLELIN3S (mgjl)

Urinklrg Uarer Gromimter Qdi

%

National Drinkiw EPA Health Advimries Amlient Wwer

-b

51)

Total No. Uarer I&da tiers h Ten Lorg Teun @diry Criteria

Cheldcal Statea (W@ Statea of Statea IMmry SemmdaV DW Day (1-2 Y=) for Huuan Health

D. Radlomdel&a (CantlI_LXXI)

16U. Rzxllum 22%

161. Radium 226 ad 228, Cd

IQ. I&Ion 222

163. Strontim 93

164. Tritimn

lb5. Uranium

E. Other kures

166.

167.

168.

169.

170.

171.

IR.

173.

A.kd.itiwj

MS (alkyl b’mile sulfmate$

(XX (Ckrbm chlordonn extract)j

(RD (Charhxl oxy*n &smmi)j

Ml (Diasdwd my*nj

Hld (Bi amtmwe)

Residual carbcnate

RX (%sidwd aodim rartrnate)

P&wI None -3.0 IN, IL,VA 1.0-3.0 5

M 30 gill 1 5.0 ~i/1

PA 10

IN, TL,v&wY 2.0-10.0 4

AK,Mr 20,0W &i/l

Rl,WY,VA 0.035. 0 3

VA

PA

PA

m

I’N, KI

m’

AK

w

IU-500

0 . 5

0 . 2

10.0

1 .&6.o

5.0 Uqll

1.25

1.25 maqll

— — 10.U &i/l
.

SmrE Smukuc6a FmER& mNMms m GmlEmEs (W/l)

Drinkirg water Natinrlal Ddnkil?! EPA Health Mvimries Adi.ent Wtem

-b Total No. Water I@da One Ten Lag Tem @lily Criteria

Ckmid Stata (U@) state ~ s-t= - s = D~ Dq (l-2 YLB) for Mum lkalth

E. Ot&r ~urea (Comimed)

~w. S14R @odilml attwption rati)j w 8 . 0 1

175. Spetiic axKk3#J Iw,Mr <Ulo - >ls,oal 2

17bo ~ (Total dbxnlwd ~~da$ 14’J,NI,l14,VA 2SO-1OOO 3

177. Taal MA FN,MI,VA rmaOO 3

178. Turbi.diqj 71J,VA 0.>2.0/2 * 2 1-5 m

500.0

I
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater “ 347

..-!

$’9

3 C

m

a u

aJul

u

IQIU

u

m u

W2 I-( U

● R

<s’

.

m

mu-lu l

0 . +

..i

$

o

I

o.
348 Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

.

, 4

1-l

.

&l

u

m

al

-1
ou

‘ u m

a l s

* U

w

o

I I I I I I I

349
350 Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

m

W

l-l

i i

P4o

I I

I I

I I

I
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 351

%

i

?-(

I I I I I I

I I I I 1111 1 I

I I I I

m

2

g g
352 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

I

I I

I

g

+‘d

c

J

u-l

1111 1

I

c

o

u

c
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 353

I

G

I I I

I 1
354 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

I I

I

1

w

o

I

I

i+o

v

I

I l l
App. C—State Institutional Framewofi To Protect Groundwater “ 355

I I

II I I

c

o

I

s

:

L8

al

a

aJ w

I

1

m
356 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

w

Q %’ u

:

a

u-l

I I I I

I I I I
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater . 357

u

i k

: 0

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

:

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I~

I

o

4.I

I I I I

v

l-!

a

1+

P .

ii

I I I 1

(

I

c

0
358 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

m

al

c

w-l

I

I

111 1

I I I

w

c

I
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater Ž 359

I

I I l l

1111 1

‘g’

)4

r%

I

I l l I

v

al

u)

7

-0

c

a

,+
360 Protecting the Nation’s Grounciwater From Contamination

I l l

I

c

o

+

&lb (

V o

aJu4

I I I

$4

al

u

c

o

.+

I I I I
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater c 361

I I I I

c

l-(

:

al

C J

v

Q

al

:

m

m

al

G

w

6

I I I I l l I

‘a

u

;

Eu

m

I I

39-702 0 - 84 -
362 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

I I I I I I I

al

u

:

Id

al

. u

u r n

I I l l I I I I I I I

u

1+

c

o
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 363

1

I

I

I w u o : c 4-I

o m

c

o

r-l

u

u

al

!+

!-(

o

u

u

o 1 u-i

w

c

.+

-0

c

J

w

I I I I

E’ i

1

I

I

I

I I I I I

k

o

I

I

I

(

I

I

I
364 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

I

I I

i

I

I

i

I

I

I1

I

c o

2u
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 365

I I I

I

o

u

I
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MINNESOTA EXMIPLES OF STRENCTHS EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS EXAMPLES OF DESIRED FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Sources - St row prograns related to spil 1

reporting and cleanup, acid rain

deposition, water well construction,

and water well abandonment

Improve Capabilities

Standards

Detect Ion

Correct ion

Prevent ion

---—- — ---- ---- ------- --- _________ _____ _______ ______________________ _________ - _ -_ ______________ - _____ ___________________ ---- _- _ - _____ --- _- ________ _______ -_

- Insufficient funding

- Insufficient staff

- Insufficient public understanding

- Establish national program to assist

States in program developmwit and

implenxmtation

- Technical difficulties demonstrating that

a contamination problem is related to

a specific source

- Provide funding for dealing with nom

hazardous waste problems

MISSISSIPPI EXAMPLES OF STRENGTHS EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS EXAMPLES OF DESIRED FEDERAL

Sources

Improve Capabilities

Standards

Detection

Correction

- Monitoring related to

regulatory requirement

- Insufficient data on aquifer

characteristics

Prevention

Train State staff

Provide funding for data

ASSISTANCE

collection

Provide funding for correction of existing

contamination

Provide an information clearinghouse on

cleanup activities
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater “ 367

c

o

d

u

u

2

.-4

0

v

h

2

I I I I I I

i

I

I

In u

c

al

u t-1 Hi-1

I I l l I

i

I

! H

I &

l b

1 0

I c n

I m

I *

l x
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MONTANA EXAMPLES OF STRENGTNS EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS EXAMPLES OF DESIRED FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Sources - Insufficient prograna for agricultural

sources, pipelines, and fuel storage

tanks

Improve Capabilities - Enhsnced enforceability of program - Insufficient funding

due to recent develop~nt of - Insufficient public support

groundwater permit regulations and

quality atandarda

Standards

Detect ion

Correction

Prevent ion

- Insufficient monitoring related to

aquifer characteristic

- Insufficient funding

- Insufficient authority

- Insufficient technical expertise

- Insufficient response to complaints

- Insufficient revi- of projected impacts

of development activities on groundwater

quality

- Provide technical assistance
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater . 369

I

~

I

/

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

\

~

t

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I1

I1

I

I

I

i

~

I

I

I

I

I

I1

I

I

I

I

~

I1

I

I1

I

I1

I

I

I

I

~

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

!

;

I

1

I1

I

I

I1

~

I

I

I

:

I

I

I

I

I

I

!

!

I

I

I

I

I

i

I

i

1

I

.,m

o

4J

$P I

n

w

m

CA

!5

3M

1 111 1 I

CM

o

II I I I I I I

mal

I I I I
370 “ Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

m

I I

c

o

al

2

u

I I

I I

u

WI

a

o

CA
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 371

I

M

c

I

c

o

‘m

c

I

I I I

8

:

M

o

L1

n,

c

o

1+

c

o
372 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

I

I I

I I I

I l l I I I
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 373

G

o

I I I I I I

w

o

I I 1111 1 I I I I

c

o

d

u

m 8
374 ● Protecting the Nation’s Ground/water From Contamination

.

I

I I I

I l l

.!-(

I
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 375

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

~

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

!

I

I

I

!

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

/

I

I

I

/

I

i

I

~

I

r.h

I I
376 . Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

I

al

I

I I

w

1111 1

(a

3u

:

u

I I
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater . 377

o

u

u

al

2

0

u

a

w

%’

I I I I I I I I

t-l

I I I I I I I I I

-%’

B’

~

al

w

c

l-l

I I

u

39-702 0 - 84 - 10
378 . Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

G

o

G

I I I I I

a’

u-l

wo

c

)+

I I I I I

I

w

%-i

a

2
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater . 379

(n

w

w

w

w

m

al

u

I I

l-l

u

a

c

u

m m 2 al a)

c

o

I l l

u)

I I

I I I
380 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

4!

u

I I i I I I I I

u

8e

‘%

2?!

I I I I I I I I

1 .
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 381

I

I

I

I

I

~

~

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

i

i

I

I1

W C

0.! 4

I l l I

c

o

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

~

~

u

v

a !c

a l d

o

u

%

u

k

o t-l

I I I I I

al

w

u

b

i?

m

u

i

i

I

I

I

I

I

I1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

t

I

I1

~ I I I I

I

coG

o

co.+

m

w

v

h

sm
382 . Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

C a

0 0

u-l

o

m

c

o

I I I

2?

z

‘3w

H

I I l l I I

I I
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 383

I I 1

al

m

.,-i <

al0.

x

aJ

C/7

I I I I I I

.

+ G

i i ;

I I I

cmalCJ14

~

w
384 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

I II

(0al

wo w

oaJ

I

II
App. C—State institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 385

I I I I

u

G

a

.d

I II I I

J

al

u

IO+&

z?’: O Q tic

$:

I
386 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

I

U2

I

II

I

I

I
C.5 OTA STATE SURVEY RESPONSES:

SELECTED STATE ISSUES

This appendix lists State contacts for obtaining information on various

topics that may be relevant to the development of national policy initiatives

to protect groundwater from contamination. Principal agency contacts named in

survey responses are given. The issues presented for each State were selected

if the State appeared especially articulate or experienced with the subject,

based on its responses to the

STATE/CONTACT

ALABAMA

Department of Environmental

Management

205-271-7700

ALASKA

Department of Environmental

Conservation, Environmental

Sanitation Section

907-465-2640

ARIZONA

Department of Health Services,

Water Quality Management

Section

602-255-1180

Departmnt of Water Resources

602-255-1586

ARKANSAS

Department of Pollution

Control and Ecology, Water

Division

501-562-7444

CALIFORNIA

State Water Resources Control

Board, Toxics Special

Projects

916-322-8401

Department of Health Services,

Sanitary Engineering Branch

916-324-2216

Department of Food and

Agriculture, Environmental

Monitoring and Pest

Management

916-322-2395

OTA survey.

EXAMPLES OF ISSUES

experienced with implementation of

Underground Injection Control Program

experienced with enforcement issues related

to wastewater discharges, landfills, and

solid waste disposal sites

experienced with development of integrated

program for groundwater quality and quantity

recognizes need for Federal assistance on

establishing quality standards for

groundwater

experienced with strong State support for

protecting groundwater resources and quality

experienced with brine disposal programs

experienced with enforcement issues related

to solid waste

experienced with salt-water contamination in

agricultural areas

experienced with development of programs for

pesticides and underground storage tanks

experienced with laboratory certification

program

experienced with confidentiality of well log

daca

recognizes technical inadequacies of RCRA

regulations
388 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

STATE /cONTRACT

COLORADO

Department of Health,

Off ice of Health Protection

303-320-8333

CONNECTICUT

Department of Environmental

Protection, Water Compliance

Unit

203-566-2588

DELAWARE

Department of Natural

Resources and Environmental

Control

302-736-4793

FLORIDA

Department of Environmental

Regulation, Groundwater

Section

904-488-3601

GEORGIA

Department of Natural

Resources, Environmental

Protection Division

404-656-4713

HAWAII

Department of Health

808-548-6767

Department of Agriculture

808-548-7124

Department of Land and Natural

Resources

808-548-7643

IDAHO

Department of Health and

Welfare, Division of the

Environment

208-334-4250

EXAMPLES OF ISSUES

experienced with development of groundwater

protection program

experienced with problems with uranium

facilities

experienced with State water quality

standards and classification system

experienced with development of groundwater

quality monitoring program

experienced with coordination with USGS

experienced with development of groundwater

protection program

experienced with professional staffing

problems

experienced with agricultural, septic system,

and salt-water intrusion problems

experienced with development of groundwater

quality monitoring program

experienced with underground storage tank

problems

experienced with new State legislation to

protect groundwater quality

recognizes need for toxicology information

experienced with karst environments

experienced with development of groundwater

quality monitoring program

experienced with salt-water intrusion

experienced with development of groundwater

management plan

experienced with pesticide problems

recognizes need for toxicology information

experienced with development of groundwater

management plan

recognizes need for adequate and guaranteed

long-term funding

experienced with problems with irrigation

injection wells
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 389

STATE/CONTACT

ILLINOIS

Environmental Protection

Agency, Division of Public

Water Supplies

217-782-9470

INDIANA

State Board of Health,

Division of Water

Pollution Control

317-862-9360

IOWA

Department of Water, Air, and

Waste Management

515-281-8692

KANSAS

Department of Health and

Environment, Bureau of Oil

Field and Environmental

Geology

913-862-9360

KENTUCKY

Department for Environmental

Protection

502-564-2150

LOUISIANA

Department of Natural

Resources, Office of

Environmental Affairs

504-342-1265

MAINE

Department of Environmental

Protection, Division of

Management Planning

207-289-2437

EXAMPLES OF ISSUES

experienced with statewide mapping of

potential for contamination of shallow

aquifers by waste-related sources

experienced with use of 208 and 205j funds

for groundwater management issues

experienced with problems with laboratory

analytical capabilities

experienced with problems from insufficient

water use information

experienced with non-point sources of

contamination

experienced with statewide inventory of

active and abandoned wells

experienced with evaluation of groundwater

contamination in karst region of the State

experienced with use of 208 funds for

groundwater issues

experienced with implementation of brine

disposal program

recognizes technical inadequacies of RCRA

regulations

experienced with

activities

experienced with

problems

experienced with

issues

problems with mining

on-site sewage system

State agency coordination

recognizes problems with Federal judicial

interpretations of SMCRA and CWA (NPDES)

recognizes conflicts and inconsistencies

among Federal statutes

experienced with karst environments

experienced with State priorities for surface

water rather than groundwater problems

experienced with industrial sources of

contamination

experienced with recharge area mapping

recognizes need for experienced staff

experienced with problems with widespread

sources including agricultural practices and

underground gasoline storage tanks
390 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater from Contamination

STATE/CONTACT

MARYLAND

Department of Health and

Mental Hygiene, Off ice of

Environmental Programs

301-383-7328

MASSACHUSETTS

Off ice of Environmental

Affairs, Department of

Environmental Quality

Engineering

617-292-5529

MICHIGAN

Department of Natural

Resources, Groundwater

Quality Division

517-373-1947

MINNESOTA

Pollution Control Agency

612-296-7339

MISSISSIPPI

Department of Natural

Resources

601-961-5099

MISSOURI

Department of Natural

Resources

314-751-3195

EXAMPLES OF ISSUES

experienced with mapping to assess potential

for groundwater contamination

recognizes that CWA transfers surface water

contamination problems to groundwater

experienced with salt-water intrusion

experienced with mapping to assess potential

for groundwater contamination

experienced with development of comprehensive

monitoring program

experienced with development of environmental

emergency response plan

experienced with development and

implementation of funding program for

municipalities to purchase land for aquifer

protection

experienced with use of 208 and 205j funds

for groundwater protection

experienced with State priority system to

rank sites requiring cleanup

experienced with assessing the magnitude of

groundwater contamination

experienced with development of draft

response and incident tracking procedures

expressed interest in non-regulatory

approaches to prevention such as

environmental impairment liability insurance

experienced with use of 208 and 205j funds

for groundwater protection

recognizes that CWA transfers surface water

contamination problems to groundwater

recognizes limitations of Federal funding

sources

experienced with development and

implementation of statewide groundwater

monitoring network

recognizes need for national program and

national goals to assist States

experienced

experienced

Underground

experienced

experienced

with use of groundwater mdeling

with implementation of State

Injection Control Program

with karst environments

with need for trained personnel
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 391

STATE /CONTACT

MONTANA

Department of Health

and Environment

406-449-3948

NEBRASKA

Department of Environmental

Control

402-471-2186

NEVADA

Department of Conservation

and Natural Resources

702-885-4670

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Water Supply and Pollution

Control Commission

603–271-3503

NEW JERSEY

Department of Environmental

Protection

609-292-1185

EXAMPLES OF ISSUES

experienced with development of groundwater

permit regulations and quality standards

experienced with problems with dryland

farming and saline seeps

experienced with problems with agricultural

sources

experienced with problems over lack of State

authority for groundwater quality and

quantity interactions

experienced with problems over limited scope

of groundwater protection programs

experienced with use of 208 funds for

groundwater protection

experienced with problems with septic tanks

experienced with the development and

implementation of a groundwater permit

program

experienced with program for annual sampling

of water supplies for industrial contaminants

and pesticides

experienced with problems due to insufficient

personnel

experienced with use of health advisories as

drinking water and groundwater quality

standards

concerned about interstate groundwater

quality

recognizes need for storage tank legislation

experienced with use of State NPDES Program

for discharges to groundwater that are both

intentional (e.g., from injection wells) and

unplanned (e.g., from landfills and lagoons)

experienced with aquifer mapping

experienced with use of more stringent

groundwater standards for the ecologically

sensitive Pinelands

experienced with use of 208 funds to

establish State groundwater program
392 “ Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

STATE /cONTACT

NEW MEXICO

Health and Environment

Department

505-984-0020

NEW YORK

Department of Environmental

Control

518-457-3495

NORTH CAROLINA

Department of Natural

Resources and Community

Development

919-733-5083

NORTH DAKOTA

State Health Department

701-224-2354

EXAMPLES OF ISSUES

experienced with development and

implementation of groundwater quality

protection program

experienced with problems with mining and

milling facilities, hydrocarbon fuel

facilities, and dairies

experienced with use of a priority listing of

violations of groundwater quality standards

experienced with use of State groundwater

quality standards for selected substances

experienced with problems in obtaining water

rights for some corrective action

alternatives

experienced with technical deficiencies of

liners

experienced with an improvement program for

State laboratories

experienced with use of 208 funds for

groundwater protection

experienced with problems of surface water

contamination being transferred to

groundwater

experienced with development of bulk storage

program

experienced with trying to target groundwater

program to protect key aquifers

experienced with problems with pesticides and

fertilizers

experienced with development of groundwater

management program

experienced with development of groundwater

quality standards for organic chemicals

experienced with use of 208 funds for

groundwater protection

experienced with development of groundwater

classification system

experienced with development of groundwater

protection program

experienced with development of groundwater

classification system

experienced with problems with current

Federal approach to groundwater protection

experienced with conflicts between

groundwater and surface water management

experienced with natural contamination

problems

experienced with establishment of State task

force to develop groundwater protection

strategy
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 393

STATE / CONTACT

OHIO

Environmental Protection

Agency

6 14-455-83(-)7

OKLAHOMA

Department of Pollution

COntrol

405-271-4677

OREGON

Department of Environmental

Quality

503-229-6065

PENNSYLVANIA

Department of Environmental

Resources

717-787-2666

RHODE ISLAND

Department of Environmental

Management

401-277-2234

SOUTH CAROLINA

Department of Health and

Environmental Control

803-758-5213

EXAMPLES OF ISSUES

experienced with problems with non-hazardous

industrial lagoons

recognizes need for Federal funds

specifically designated for groundwater

programs

experienced with development of program to

plug abandoned wells

experienced with problems with oil

development and nitrate contamination

recognizes benefits of Underground Injection

Control Program

experienced with use of 208 funds for

groundwater protection

experienced with development and

implementation of on-site waste program

experienced with use of 205j and 208 funds

for groundwater protection

experienced with use of State NPDES Program

to protect groundwater

experienced with adverse effects of nitrate

contaminated groundwater on surface water

experienced with development of groundwater

quality standards

experienced with development of groundwater

quality monitoring strategy

experienced with use of 208 funds for

groundwater protection

experienced with problems of losing trained

personnel to industry

experienced with use of State NPDES Program

to protect groundwater quality

recognizes lack of applicability of Sole

Source Aquifer Program to State hydrogeologic

conditions

experienced with problems with State agency

coordination

experienced with strong laboratory analysis

program

experienced with implementation of analytical

assistance program for private well owners

experienced with use of 208 funds for

groundwater protection

recognizes need for a comprehensive national

policy to protect and improve groundwater

quality

experienced with problems of surface water

contamination being transferred to

groundwater

39-702 0 - 84 - 11
394 ● protecting the Nation’s GroundWater From contamination

STATE /CONTACT

SOUTH DAKOTA

Department of Water and

Natural Resources

605-773-3351

TENNESSEE

Department of Health and

Environment

615-741-7206

TEXAS

Department of Water Resources

512-475-2786

UTAH

Department of Natural

Resources and Energy

801-533-5771

VERMONT

Department of Water Resources

and Environmental

Engineering

802-828-2761

VIRGINIA

State Water Control Board

804-257-6384

EXAMPLES OF ISSUES

experienced with development of State

groundwater strategy

experienced with use of 208 funds for

groundwater protection

experienced with septic tank problems

experienced with enforcement problems

experienced with use of 205j funds for

groundwater protection

experienced with problems associated with

obtaining water use information, water

rights, and site access

experienced with development and

implementation of Underground Injection

Control Program for Class I, 111, IV, and V

wells

experienced with development and

implementation of programs for active and

abandoned mining operations

experienced with problems of coordinating

programs of numerous State agencies

experienced with development of State

groundwater protection strategy

experienced with development of program to

protect recharge areas of community drinking

water supplies (Aquifer Protection Areas)

experienced with program to monitor dairy

water supplies

experienced with development of formal

procedures for reporting and handling of

groundwater contamination incidents

experienced with use of 205j and 208 funds

for groundwater protection

experienced with implementation of State and

Federal hazardous waste management programs

experienced with evaluation of groundwater

quality of non-community water supplies

experienced with program for 24-hour

emergency response
App. C—State Institutional Framework To Protect Groundwater ● 395

STATE/CONTACT

WASHINGTON

Department of

206-459-6704

WEST VIRGINIA

Department of

Resources

304-348-5935

WISCONSIN

Department of

Resources

608-267-9350

Ecology

Natural

Natural

WYOMING

Department of Environmental

Quality

307-777-7781

EXAMPLES OF ISSUES

experienced with development of groundwater

protection strategy

experienced with use of 205j funds for

groundwater

experienced with development of groundwater

protection strategy

experienced with program to map recharge

areas

experienced with use of State NPDES Program

for groundwater

experienced with development of State

groundwater program and legislation

experienced with problems of surface water

contamination being transferred to

groundwater

experienced with pesticide problems

experienced with development of State

groundwater quality standards

Source: Office of Technology Assessment.
Appendix D

Hydrogeologic Investigations of

Groundwater Contamination

D.1 INFORMATION ON THE HYDROGEOLOGIC

INVESTIGATIONS: DEFINITION OF TERMS

ENVIRONMENT

(p. 397)

USED IN
D.1 INFORMATION ON THE HYDROGEOLOGIC

ENVIRONMENT USED IN INVESTIGATIONS:

DEFINITION OF TERMSa

Term

TOPOGRAPHIC DATA

VEGETATIVE DATA

CLIMATIC DATA

1. Precipitation

2. Evapotranspiration

3. Site temperature

GEOLOGIC DATA

1. Surficial deposits

2. Subsurface stratigraphy

3. Lithology

4. Structural geology

Definition

Data describing the relief and contour of the land

surface.

Information about types and extent of vegetation

covering the land surface at and adjacent to the

site of interest.

Data concerning precipitation, evapotranspiration, and

temperature at the site of interest and surrounding

region.

Precipitation history including spatial distribution, temporal variance, long-term averages, and

records of short-term events of great magnitude

(e.g., record rainfalls).

Movement of water to the atmosphere by evaporation

from the soil surface, evaporation from open bodies

of water, and transpiration by plants.

Temperature ranges for different periods of the

year as well as long-term averages.

Data concerning the rock and soil makeup of the

hydrologic system including information on the

thickness of different units and fracture patterns.

Unconsolidated deposits resulting from fluvial

(i.e., river), lacustrine (i.e. , lake), glacial,

deltaic, and aeolian (i.e. , wind) processes.

Describes the gectnetrical configuration of and

temporal relationships among various lenses, beds,

and formations of sedimentary origin.

Describes the sediments or rocks that ccmprise the

hydrogeologic system including mineralogy, grain

size, grain shape, and packing of sediments and

rock grains.

Describes the features produced by rock movement

after deposition (e.g., due to consolidation or

plate tectonics) including tension cracks (i.e. ,

joints), faults, and folds.

397
398 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

Term Definition

SURFACE HYDROLOGY DATA Data concerning the properties, distribution, and

movement of water o n t h e land surface.

1. Overland flow Downgradient flow of surface water to an

established surface channel.

2. Stream discharge Quantity of water flowing through a stream.

3. Stage Height of the water surface i n a stream above an

arbitrary zero point.

4. Recurrence interval Average time (e.g. , number of years) that

hydrologic events of a given or greater size will

be equal led or exceeded.

5. Baseflow discharge

UNSATURATED ZONE DATA

1. Unsaturated zone

(or Vadose zone)

2. Water table

3. Geometry of the

unsaturated zone

4. Hydraulic properties

a. Effective porosity

b. Permeability

Groundwater discharge contribution to streamflow;

also called dry weather flow.

Data concerning the properties, distribution, and

movement of water in the unsaturated zone.

Zone between the land surface and the water

table. Generally, any water contained in the void

spaces of this zone is under less than atmospheric

pressure; some of the voids contain air (at

atmospheric pressure).

Surface separating the saturated and unsaturated

zones. At the water table, water pressure is equal

to atmospheric pressure. (See Unconfined aquifer,

GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY DATA, below.)

Describes the location of the upper (land surface)

and lower (water table) boundaries of the

unsaturated zone, the lateral extent of the zone,

and the upper, lower, and lateral bounds of

differing heterogeneities within the zone.

Properties that control the movement of water

through the unsaturated zone.

Ratio of the volume of void space in a volume of

rock or soil to the total volume.

Ease with which a porous medium can transmit a

fluid when saturated with that fluid. (It

should be noted that permeability is a property

of the porous medium and is independent of the

fluid characteristics.)
App. D—Hydrogeologic Investigations of Groundwater Contamination ● 399

Term

c. Effective

perrmeability

d. Relative permeability

e. Specific storage

5. Flow parameters

a. Pressure head (or

Head )

b. Hydraulic gradient

c. Fluid saturation

6. Recharge/discharge

a. Surface water

b. Precipitation/

evapotranspiration

Definition

Ease with which a porous medium can transmit a

fluid under pressure (i.e., a hydraulic

gradient; see Hydraulic gradient, below) when

the pore spaces are also filled with other

fluids (e.g., oil or air).

Ratio of the permeability of a porous medium

with respect to the fluid phase when two or more

phases are present (i.e. , solid, liquid, and/or

gas) to the permeability.

Volume of water released from or taken into

storage per unit volume of porous medium when

the pressure head (or head) is changed by one

unit (see Pressure head, below).

Measurements used to define water movement in the

unsaturated zone.

Height of a column of water that can be

supported by water pressure at the point of

measurement. At the water table, the pressure

head is zero; below the water table, the

pressure head is positive; and above the water

table, it is negative, reflecting the fact that

water in the unsaturated zone is held in the

pores by principally surface tension. Negative

pressure head is sometimes referred to as

tension head or suction head.

Rate of change of pressure head (or head) per

unit distance of flow at a given point and in a

given direction. In an unconfined aquifer, the

hydraulic gradient is defined by the slope of

the water table.

Ratio of the volume of water to the volume of

voids in the unsaturated zone. In the saturated

zone, the fluid saturation is always 1.0.

Inflow and outflow of water to and from the

unsaturated zone.

See SURFACE HYDROLOGY DATA, above.

See CLIMATIC DATA, above.
Term Definition

GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY DATA Data concerning the properties, distribution, and

movement of water in the saturated zone.

1. Saturated zone A subsurface zone in which all the voids are filled

with water under pressure equal to or greater than

that of the atmosphere. Even if the zone contains

some gas-filled voids or voids filled with fluids

other than water, it is still considered

saturated. This zone is separated from the

unsaturated zone by the water table.

2. Aquifer characterization

a. Aquifer

b. Unconfined aquifer

c. Confined aquifer

d. Leaky confined

aquifer

3. Hydraulic parameters of

aquifers

Describes the flow system in terms of the number of

aquifers and their extent, depth, thickness, and

boundary type (i.e. , unconfined, confined, or leaky

confined).

Geologic material containing sufficient

saturated permeable material to transmit and

yield significant quantities of water to wells

or springs.

An aquifer that is not overlain by relatively

impermeable or restricting material so that

groundwater levels are free to rise and fall.

The top of the aquifer is the water table (i.e.,

the level to which water will rise in a well

penetrating the unconfined aquifer).

An aquifer that is bounded between relatively

impermeable material. In the absence of a

freely moving water table, the pressure

condition of a confined aquifer is characterized

by the piezometric surface (i.e. , the artesian

equivalent of the water table -- the level to

which water will rise in a well penetrating the

confining layer). The word confined is

synonymous with artesian.

A confined aquifer that receives or transmits

significant quantities of water from/to adjacent

formations.

Physical properties of aquifers that control

groundwater movement.
App. D—Hydrogeologic Investigations of Groundwater Contamination ● 403

Term Definition

4. Relative saturations Relative portions of the pore

water, air, and/or immiscible

space filled by

fluid contaminants.

6. Subsurface mineralogy

7. Ambient water chemistry

8. Microbiology

GROUNDWATER USE

1. Current usage

2. Projected Usage

5. Cation exchange capacity Describes the excess of cations in solution

adjacent to a charged surface that replaces other

cations already absorbed onto that surface.

Chemical makeup of rocks and soils, which

influences the reactivity of contaminant s.

Natural chemistry of water, which influences the

reactivity between water and contaminants.

Characteristics and distribution of micro-organisms

in an aquifer.

Describes how groundwater at a site of investigation

is used.

Present uses of groundwater including where wells

are located, how much water is pumped from each

well, what aquifers are being tapped, and what

quality of water is needed for each use (e.g.,

water quality needed for drinking water is higher

than for cooling at power plants).

Anticipated future uses of groundwater including

well locations, future water needs from wells, what

aquifers may be tapped, and what quality of water

will be needed for each use.

a The terminology of hydrogeology has evolved and expanded with the development of the

science. Further, the field of hydrogeology requires multidisciplinary skills, and

terms tend to be used in slightly different ways by different disciplines (e.g. ,

hydrologists, geologists, soil scientists, and chemists). OTA notes that definitions

and usage have not yet been fully standardized.

Source: GeoTrans, 1983; Office of Technology Assessment, 1983.
Appendix E

Federal Efforts to Detect

Groundwater Contamination
E.1 MONITORING PROVISIONS FOR CATEGORY I SOURCES

S t atu to ry Definition Moni tori ng Parameters and

Source .Aot ho ri ty of Source Object ive Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Subsurface

Percolation

Injection Wells -

Hazardals waste

safe Lki&f~

Water Act - Un&r

grad Injection

Control Progmn

(40 m 144 ad

146)

Safe Drirki~

Water Act - Un&r

grand Injection

Gxtrol Program

(40 CkR 144 ad

ILb)a

Calqrdlemiw?

Enviroruental

Reapme,

Gnpemation, aml

1.iabiLity Act

(40 CFR 303)

Cesqmola or otkr waste rea2iv

irg &vices with open bccrcas ad

sanxima ~rfor-ted sicks (Class

v ~~). Applies dy to ~=

serwi~ 20 or nore p2rsoa3.

WelLs that inject hazard- w=te

(as defined W RfXA) bemxxh tk

deqee.t fonmtion cmtaining,

within one-qusrter mile of the

well bore, an underground source

of drinking water (Claw I

Wlls).

Wells that inject hazanims w=te

(as def id by RCXA) into or

*W a fonnmion coti-ti~,

within onequarter mile of tk

well bore, an tirgromd soorce

of drikirg water (Class IV

wells).

Wells that release any hszardam

sukances, pllutants, or

contaminant (as &find @

CZRCL4).

-t~~ hzlw? not &en

pxulgxed for Class V

Wlla.

Detetmine whetkr tlkxe is

any migration of fluids

into orkkrgramd scuross of

drlnkdrg water.

Regulation hsw m ken

prcmlgated for Cbss IV

wells.

o To prcui& preliminary

a5sessnmt of tk nature

ad extent of tke release.

o To &tennLne the source

aml dis~~ion of tk

hazardas subxanrm

wnitoricg prcgram nust inclde (at a ndniirum): (1)

analysis of injected fluid; (2) imtallst ion arrl we

of contirui~ recordi~ devirxzs to nmitor injection

pr~sure, fk rate of fluid, wloue of fluid ard

prewre on anrulus; (3) demrstration of mxhanical

integrity ewry five Prs; and (4) wills to mmimr

nigration of f loids into ad pressure in mdergrmrd

ScurCes af drinldrg water (locstion ad audx2r of

wells are not specified).

Regulatlm Me

wells.

o Collection of

sit~tiom *re

public.

SaIrpks is Ildnimized

tkre is an *parent

o Not spxifierl. Monitf)ri~ iS part

remval.

for Claas IV

except in

risk to the

ci an innediate

mt~~ k na &en prandgmd for Class V wells.

o Mordtoriw well paraumers ad

freqwncy of sanplirg are not

Spcifid.

o Injectd f loids are to &

analyzed at .wfficlent itter.vals to

yieLd repreaentati= data alxut

tkir tiraderistics.

Regulation km rut ken

prarulgatfd for Cla3s IV wells.

o !& Spxifid .

0 Not spxified.
Statutory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Objective Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Injection WellsHazardmsWaste

(@ntinled)

InjectionWkllaNorrHazardcus

Waste

Injection I&haNon-waste

Cmprehemlve

Entirommtal

Reapme,

Curqen3a*ard

Liability Act

(40CFR3CO)

(@ltirued)

.safellriricirg

Water ActUndqrcund

Injection @ntrol

Prqqan (40CFR

144aod 146)

Safe Drirkfqg

Water ActUndergramd

Injection @ntrol

Pr~trn (40 CFR

144 ad 146)

klls that inject waste be=th

the deepest fotnation cmtainlcg,

within ccsq~tter mile d tk

Al bore, an urkxgrcmd acurce

of dridcirg water (Class I *Is)

Wells U* in ~ion with oil

and gas pduction &i& inject

fluids (Class 11 wells). Includes

kens used for entnnced recovety,

for sm%e & liquid hydrocarbon, ad for @la *re

injectal fluids are brcught to

the surface ad may be canbl.ned

with waste watets frcm gas

plants.

Wells used for extraction of mirr

erals (Class III wells). Includes

n’dllil’g of sulfur by Fraach p?xr

Cess, in-aim pcdlction d manium and otkr aetala, and aolution u&@ d salts or pt=h.

o TO &temine the -e

ad extent of the rmblen.

o To mmitor effect ivems

of remdial action.

sane as objective for

harardcus taste injection

WSJls tkt inje~ bemth

the *t Uldergrculd

SIXKES of drirkirg water.

San? as obje~ive for

hazardcua -te injection

wlla tkt inject bemzath

the &epeat mdergrcmd

scur@a of drikimg water.

Se as objective fir

harardma ~te injection

wlla thst iqjecf bemz+th

the &qEl’at Uldergrculd

sar~ of drltkirg water.

o sufficient itiomtion is m be Colktd to

&te rmk tk necessity for and propcaed extent of

ramdlal aUiorL

O Not specifiai. Asaurame nust k ~wided ~ tb

State to cover these activities.

S as rquirtmmts fir hazardcw vaste iqjection

~ls that inject hth the deqeat mdergromd

soxces of drirki~ water.

o Monitoring prqgran mat include (at a mininm):

(1) ncmitorixk3 of injected fluids; (2) oktwation of

i~ection pre3sure, fla rate ad amulative vokmE;

ad (3) deumstration of mxhanical intfgrity ewry 5

years.

o Hydrocati stow ad ertwnced recwe~ hells my

be mmitored on a field or ~oject basis (rather than

imifvidually).

o hlonitori~ prqrao mat include (at a mimbmsn): (1)

mnltori~ of injected fluids; (2) mmitori~ of injection presame ad eitkr flew rate or w-; ad

(3) denmtration of mxivmical int@ty ewry 5

YeaEs.

O Not Specified.

o Not specified.

- as rquirernents for hazanhs

w+ste injection wells that inject

be=h tk deqeat mdewamd

sources of drinldrg tier.

o Nature cf injected fluids is to

be mnitored at sufficient intends

to yield rqreaentative dati abmt

their dwacteriatica.

o Observation freq~nciea am

specified for different typea of

@k (fluid diSP3SSl tdk=ddy;

erhanced recovery operatiomonthly; injedion d ~quid

l@rocarbOrxAaily). Okrvatiala

are to be recorded at ~nable

intervala of no greater tkn 30

*S.

o Nature d injectd fluids is to

be tunftored at sufficient intervals

to yield rqreeetiative data abmt

their &aracteristics.
Statutory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Objective Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

InjeUimWeLkNon-waste

(COrcimed)

land ApplicationWastewater

LamiApplirationWastemter

Byp3ducts

Safe Drirkirg

Water Act -

Umkqymnd

InjeaionControl

Prqgran(41)ClR

144 ard 146)

(Cultlnled)

Clean Wa@rAa -

Seaion 201 (40

CFR 35; 41 m

bPxI, 1/11/76)

CleanWaterAaseuion405

(40ClRz57)

WellsnotimQ.uckdinCst@t’ies

1, 11, 111, srKiIv (Classv

wells).Exa@eaofClassVwellS

incluck artificial recharge

wells, ard cxxdi~ water or air

cllriitionf% return flw Wella.

Wastewater lard trtmtnmt

processes (imludea SIUIJ rate,

r~id infiltratlon#ml werlard

flw methlds).

Seu* slu@? *plication (irr

eludes agrkdtural, forest and

lad mxlamtion utilization, ad

dediatd lad disposal).

o Class 111 wells my te nxxritord cm a field or project bis.

o Granxhater mmitorirg is rquirai *re injection

is into a fotuation uxtxdni~ -ter with leas than

Io,oou 41 m. Moniax’im wells Uust be Canpked

into injeulon zone ad any und?~cmxi Sar- d

driridrg water abe injeaion zone that may k

effead. Wells mat be lo=ted m cktect any emx—

stin of injection fluids, prcxxss bypro&ts, or folrmtion fluids cutsi& the udning area.

o In sr- subject to sutshie- or collapse where

injeuion wells pnetrate an umk~d a= of

drixicimg water, an aiqmte mder of wells mat k

c~kted to detect any mwumt of injection fluids.

I@ulatfi~ haw net teen ReJu$tiom hsw? na ken pramlgatcri for Class V

pranilgated for Cbs V .

*lls.

Praect grourrkater uaed as I@ulatiom3 specify tkt grcundwater uonitorirg

driddnji-water supply

amilor otter &@gnated

uses ~ *proP*te and

prevent irrevoable _

to grcumkster.

No nrmitmlqg nqulrenmts

are ~tablished by the

regulatb.

rq.d.remems will lx stablishd on a Sit-pecific

his. Rll@rtml?nt s uust include prwisiom for

nunitorirg the effect on native ~ourrkater.

No mnitorlqg rquiremmts are estillskd by tk

r~latiomj. Groumiwter mmitorirg may k rquired

on a site-spxlfic tasis by tk Kgu.latoty auttority

to emwre canpliance with grranxWter criteria.

o Prcwisiom spec@ nrmitorhg of

injection ~ewure, fti, or mluue

on a semt-mxmhly tads (or ueteri~

ard daily recordirg of injected ad

proiud wluma as qprqmiate).

o Grcanrbater ntm.ftorfng ard uonitorimg d flu.ld level in injection

zone are rquired sad=mthly

(uster quallty ~raretezs are na

Sp?dfiei).

o If wlls are rcrpdrei in are

subject to sutsi&ne or col@ae,

nmftorirg is requtred on a

qmrterly Lxz3is (vater quality psnEteIS are na spxlfied).

-t~ M* ncc ken pranil-

~ted for C1.a3s V wells.

RequLremnts are establiskd on a

Sitmpscific &is.

No mnlrnri~ rquirenents are establiskd.

I
S Latu LO ry Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Aut ho ri cy of Source Object ive Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

faxiApplirationHazardasWaate

i@XlUrCi?h_tX2Ndtionarr,i RecowLY

Act - SubtitLe C

(4U CFR ~)b

hrl treabnmt of hszardm.s A three part mmi~riqg

wastes (as defined by KRA). Fogram is exablished:

o Detect any conttirxmion o Detexion Mmimri% Prcgran - inpkmmted *n

of gr~ter d~ to Iixiir ~rmit is iss~ and tkre is no indi~tion of

ege fran a facility.

o Determine whetkr the

grauxk3ter protection

standard spxlfied in the

~nuit is beirg mt.

(rmtimed on next page)

ldciagg. Pr~an is comtin,wd thrmgh posechure

p2riod. kuzmption my Ee granted if tkre is no

ptential for migration of liquid fran tk facility

the upptnmt aquifer tlrwgh ~t-cl~ore ~riod.

- X- ~~r quslity le* for amitoring

paramXers must be kaed on data frcm quarterly

‘~11Q2 of wel~ Opgradent fran tk si.fE for ~

year.

to

- Nonber, location, ad &pth of wells are s~afiaf

in the facility ~tndt. WeLla oust yield grrnmrkater

sa@es fran tk upperncst aquifer that rqmesent the

quality of krkgroumi water not affectsd by the

f~ili~ ad * qwlity of water at a s~afid

cqf.iancE point.

- If mmiroring irriicates a statiatlcally slgnifkant

imxeaae of any paramter owr tk _oumf level, a

c~~a nrmitnrimg prrgram nust be implemented

(e.g., all walls nust be sa@ed for 375 haardms

ccmtituents (Appdix VIII, 40 CFR 261) to &termine

the concentrations of these comtitmrts ~~nt in

grcundwxeG see telw) or it mat be cimmstrated

that the statistically si@fiomt imreaae is the

rewlt of an error or is * to anakr source.

Oconplianm Monimrim Pr~am - iqd.enented when

hazardcus constitumts are &teUed at a specifid

Conpliam point ard for a sp2afiaI conpl.i~ pzr

icd.

- A grmniwater prmection stsdard mat be s~cifiai

in tk facili~ pmnit. Standsrd includes:

(i) list of hszardcu.s comtiments to te IIDnitord;

o Paran2teS are s~af id in tk

facility p2rmit (inclu& imiicaror

pararete~, waste comtiments, or

b’y~oducts). Each ntxritori~ well iS

to be analyzei for sfmdfid

p3rau5ters at least seni.snmal ly.

o Lkumiwater flw rate ad direction in the uppmmt quifer are

to b &termlned at least anfually.

o Par~tem are sp?cifid in tk

groomkater ~aection standmd (in

tk facility pnmit). Each urmitor

irg well is to k analyzed for

spmtficrf paramters at least

qwrterly.
w

u)

2

N

o

I

co

lb

I

S t atutory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

P

N Source Authority of Source Objective Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

land ApplicationHazardasthste

(Cootd.)

Gaqnhemive

EnvircmwKal

Resptse,

(lmpemation, ad

Liability Act

(40 CFR300)

o Denmstrate the effee

tivensss of corrective

action neasurestakn ata

facility (see *P. G.1 for

corrective action require

m?nts uvder Subtitle C of

RCRA).

Lad application facilities that Sane as rsquirarents for

release any hazardcus sutatance, h~rdas wate injection

polhtant, or contanioant (as WIIS uder CER(IA.

defined by mclA) .

(ii) crmcmtration limits for eah corsti@nt based

on: lxdground level; Maximm Contaminant Levels for

14 comtitwmts establiskd ty tk National Interim

TMnking Water Regulations (if higkr than kck

gr~); or an alternative concentration lifit (eS&

blished on a site-specific tnsis); aml

(iii) a spxifid @int cf compliance ad co@ianrE

~riod (incldes the active life of the facility arKI

the cl~we Pried).

- If monftorirg idicatea that the grmndwater

protection standard is not bei~ n-et, a corrective

dct ion prwan nust be mdertdcen or it nmst be

demonstrated that the protection standard is king

exceekd de to an error or atikr source.

o Corrective Action Mooitori rg Pr ~an - in@OmXltd

tin cmpliance mmitoring indicates that the grcundwater prct-ion starrfard is EXCsded. Prcgran is to

be contiwed mtil levels of h=rdms constitumts in

grmndwater are reducd Eelcw the concentration limit

spxifid in the protection standard. F@itorfqg

pr~an my be hwd on the rfquirments for a

cc@iance Monitoring progrm and mat be as effeaive

as thst prcgran.

San!? as rsquir-nts for hazardcms wste injection

Ala uod?r ~RCfA.

o Grcupdwater flw rate ad dir=

tion in the uppernmt a@fer are to

be derrmtratsd at least anmally.

o Sa@es frctn each mnitoring w1l

are to be analymd for 375 harardcus

constitusmts (Appendix VIII, 40 CFR

261 ) at least anmally.

o Paramters ad frqteocy may be

based on the requirements for a

canpliance nmitorirg pr~an aml

mat be as effective as that

prqgran.

Sare as rquirem?nts for hazardms

wste injection wills order QZKIA.

●
Statutory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Object ive Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Imd Applkation- CleanWater Act- Mspal sit= fordraif@ or Nonmitofitgr cqdremmts Nonrmitoti~r e@rmentsare eatablishaifor No mmitorirg rqt.drtwents are

Non+kzardms Seaion 404 fill material. are established. grcmdwter. established for grcundwter.

Mate (40 m 30)

a 

~ ad SDhk4 h- m.erlappirg juridktion for iqjection wells used to dis~e d bzardms w+stea. A pemde~rule appwch has been irstibtai to cconiimate tk requtrentmts of bcch

-=. U*r MS SPPCM~, an c== or operator of SU~ a Al mat COU@Y with all applicable SE$14 teclnica.1 rcquirem?nts pursuant to the Undergrctmd Injeaion Qxwrol progran and certain

E!fXA administrative rcquLremmta. See 40 CIR 144.14.

b The nrmitorirg rquimmmts paentd in the table are for pemitted facilities. EPA haa also pramd~ted interim sta~s rtqulmnents for these facilities which mat be uet mtfl a find

pernxlt is issued. The interim status mnitorirg rquiremnts spxify the imtallation of at bat one u~adient well and three dowrgradient WE4JS to cktermine initial backgrcnmxl

ccxmntratiom of certain Parizrete= ad to &tennine whether waste cmtituents be entered the grmndwater. Gramdwater rmn.itoritg rqxtrammts can k waived by an c%mer or qerator if

tkre is lcw pctential for -te adgration (EPA appoval of the ualw?r is not rquired). See 40 CFR 265.

Source: Office of Technology Assessment.
E.2 MONITORING PROVISIONS FOR CATEGORY II SOURCES

Statutory I)e f i ni t ion Mo n i to c-i ng Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Oh je ct ive Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Iimdfi.Lla - ReaamceCo~etva- Lam!fills uadfortkdlspxal Three partnmnitori~

RazaniczwWaate tionand Recova-y ofharardasvastes (as defined

Act -

PrQ3’=m b established:

Subtitle C by RCRA). o Detect afy contamination

(40 (FR 264)a of grcundater due to

lezkage fran a facility.

o lkterndne &ther the

grcundwter prot~ion

atandard specified in the

pelmit is beirg rret.

o Detection Monitoring PrWan - implemntd when o Parammen3 are spxificd in the

permit is issued and there is no indication of leak facility permit (Include imiicator

*. Prqwm is contimed thrmgh pt-clmure parmeters, w+ste cmtitmmts, or

period. Exa’qmion msy be granted if there is no byproducts) . Each Kxlitoring hell

potential for migration & liquid fron the facility to is to k analyred for specifid

the uppenmt quifer thrrugh pest-closure p2riod or parameters at least aemitily.

if facilities use druble liners ad le~ detection o Grmnduater flw rate ad

system. direction in the uppernrst qiifer

- Badcgrmnd water qmllty levels for mmitoriqg are to be cktenninsd at least

parauetera trust be baaed on data fran quarterly Snmally.

s~li % Of hells u~tient fron the site for om

y5ar.

- Nunber, locatioq arrl depth d WIIS are spxificxl

in the facility pmuft. wLk mat yield groundwter

sa@es fron the upfenmat quifer tbt rqmwmt tk

quality of harkgrcund wter not affected by the

f~li~ ard tk qtity of wter at a spdfid

cm@ance pint.

- If monitoring irdicates a atatiatically slgnifimnt

increase of any paraneter owr the baciqpmd level, a

cwliance mnitotiw prwan nust be implemwd

(e.g., all wlla mat be sanpled for 375 har.ardcua

comtituents (Apperdix VIII, 40 CFR 261) to detemdne

the cmcentration of ttme comtitwnts present in

grcundwateG see Mw) or it mst be &mmtrated

that the statistically slgmtficant increase is the

result d an error or is due to anaher acurm

o Canp I.i.sme Monitoring Prqgr an - inpltmentd when

hazard- cmstitmnts are detected at a specified

cq~ance pint ad for a spxifisd corfpliance

period.
Statutory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Objective Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Iandfi_usHazardasWaste

(titirued)

Toxic Suktances Chenicalwastelamifills used for

Control Act - thedis~alofFC5sat

Section6 c-ntratiom & 50 ppn ad

(40cFR 761) above.

o Demmtrate the effectivensasof corrective

action neaaure taken at a

fdlity (see zp~ G.2 for

corrective action

rquircnents m&r Subtitle

C of RCRA).

To &tennine lmelire

grcumiwter quality data.

- A grcunckater protection stadard nust be spxifisd

in the facility ~tndt. Standard inclbs:

(i) list cf hazardcus commitments to te IIDnitord;

(ii) ccxmmtration limit for each corkititwmt bed

on: backgranrl level; Mzoclmn Contaminant Levels for

14 comtitumts established ty the National Interim

Driridrg Vkter Regulation (if Fdgher thsn lxkgramd); or an alternstiws concentration limit

(established on a sitespdfic tads); ard (iii) a

specified @nt of canpli.ance SIXI canplia.nce period

(includes tte active life & the facili~ ad tk

clcmre pxiod).

- If nrmitorimg irxficates that the grtundwater

pctection standard is not teing mt, a corrective

action pr~an nust be wdert&en (see tpp. G.2) or it

mat be demmtrated thst the protection standard is

bei~ =cecded &e to an error or anctkr scmce.

o Correuive Action Monitoring Prcgrall - qlmntd

*n canpliance mnitoring irdicates tkt the granrlmter praection stadard is excealed. Prqqan is to

be contimed ultil levels of hszardms comtitwnts in

grcundwter am reduced helm the ccacentration limit

slmified in the prcteaion standard. titorfng

prrgran my be M on the rquirarents for a

c@=e ~to~% program and mat be as effective

as that ~cgran.

o Grmn&ater nust be sa@ed prior to ccnmencfmnt

of opations. If mderlying ~rth uaterials are

h~~s, impenwable, aml uniformly sl~irg in OE

direction, only ttuve *la are rqufred.

o No grcurdwater mxritorirg is ra@rsd rhriqg active

life or after closure of facillty (surface wter

monitor-itg is rquirai).

o Parameters are s~cifisd in tte

grcundwxer protection stamdard (in

tk facility ~nuit). Each nmitorlng tell is to be analyzed for

specifid Pa-ters at le=t

quarterly.

o Grcxmdwter flm rate ad

direction in the up~rnrat aquifer

are to be &teurd.nfd at lerst

anmally.

o Sa@es fran ezrh aonitorirg well

are to be analyzed for 375 haardms

comtiwnts (Appscdix VIII, 40 CFR

261) at least anmally.

o Paran3texs ard freqwmcy may be

based on the requirements for a

c~~~ ~rlitotitg prcgran ad

mat be as effective as that

prqy-an.

o Sa@img frqmq is net

s+ecified.

o Par-ters nust include (at a

ndninun) FCBa, #i, specific

coductarm ad dlorinstd

Oti=.
Statutory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Object ive Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Lalrifms -

HazardmsWaste

(COntifued)

Landfiussanitaty

(@nlknps

(includimgillegal

~irg) -Waste

Canpretumiw

Environmmtal,

Respome Conpmsation, ami

Liability Act

(40 CFR w)

kssour~ Gonsewation and RecoEry

Act - Subtitle D

(40 CFR 257)

Canpretxmiw

Envir~ntaL

Reapme,c~lBation, ad

Liability Act

(40 CFR 302)

kscurce tieN~

tion ad Recovery

Act - Subtitle D

(40 CFR 257)

Iaxlf ills that release any kzarrlcus sutstanee, @llutant or

mntaminant (as def ind ~

alKLA).

Sanitary Iarifills &find as

facilities &i& pce no

r~nable potability of d.erae

effects on kalth or the

emirofnent fran dispsal d

solid taste (as defined ty RCRA).

Sanitary Iatiills that release

any hazardms suktance, pllr

tant or contaminant (as &f infrf

ty mCIA).

Opn dunps def id as facilities

*i& do not met tk criteria

for sanitary Mills order

RCRA.

o To prmide prdintinary

assesmnt of the mature

ad extent of tk release.

o To &tamfne tk source

ard dispersion of tk kzardms suktan~.

o TO Aternd.m? tk nature

ati extent of tk problems.

o To monitor effectiw~s

of tk remedial adion.

No rquir6rents

established.

Sam as rquiremmts for

hazardars waste landfiLls

tier CIZRilA.

SanE as rqufretrents for

sanitary IamifiLls urubr

Subtitle D of MllA.

o Collection of sanples is m & mfnimizerl acqt in o Not spxifitd.

situxions wkre tkre is an ~prent risk to tk

public.

o Not s~cified. licmitori~ my k part of an inue- o Not spxified.

diate renwal.

o Sufficiem infonmmion is to k collectcxi to O Not s~dfid .

&tenuine tk nece3si~ for ad propmxd extent of

remciial action.

o Not spxifitxi. Assuran@ must te prcwided by tk o Not sp?cifid.

State to cowr these activities.

o No numitirirg rtquircxm.?nts are eatablisbf. No ?xquireumts established.

o Groudater monitoring my & rtquird ty State

solid waste prcgram. Federal requiremmts for State

~ogrars recormmd the =tablishmnt of nrmitoring requircmnts (see 40 ~ 256.22).

Sam as rxquiremnts

Sukitle D of RCRA

for hazamlcm waste latifills Sare as rquirenrmts for hazanims

w~te Iamif ills un&r ORCLA.

for sanitary kurlfills order Sam as rcquirenmts for sanitary

Iamlf ills uncbr Suttitl.e D of RCRA.
Statutory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Objective Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Keaic%tial

Mspcaal

Cunprekreive Emzit_ O~nduupsthstrele~ ary

Ollu?lmalrteapnse, hazardala sub3tance, plllmlnt

Caqer6ation, ad or unrsninant (ss ckfimd by

Liability Act (4O C3?R (ZRCLA).

m)

Federal Insecticide, 8urial of small quantities d

Fungicide, ad peatichk mntainem in opw

Rcdenti.cide Act - fielda (tmtairExs wtrLch tdd

section 19 (40 m o~c or netallow~c

165) pesticides except Otgarlic

nercury, led, cdnium, or

a=e~c CXXIPE@-

Reamr02 COmetvation Surf- ~S~ for

ad Recovery Act -

Sukitle C (40 CFR

264)

Ccan@ie~ixe Envlrornental Resprlse,

Caqlensation, ad

Li&dXty Aa

(40 CFR 300)

Surfax Wd.rg COrr

ml SrKI Reclamation

Aa (30 m 816 Srd

817)

the treatmnt, sror* or

dispsal & lwzardma waste

(ss &find by RCRA).

s~=e ~-thst

rebae any harardcua subs~, pollutant or cauauLOsnt (ss &find ty mm).

Iqmmiments &flmri a all

wmr, aedinmt, slurry, or

otkr liquid or send-liquid

Sam = rqdremts for

hazartkus -te Iamifills

@r CXKJ.A.

No Rlqulremmts

eatabllakd.

%x02 as rqsLrenents for

hazardcus waste Ianifl.lls

@r subtitle C & RU?A.

- = requirements for

hazarxima wrote Jan&ilk

umier OIIWIA

S- as rquirants for hazatticms waste Iamifilla @r

M) reqd remmts eatablisted.

SzmY2 * rquirerents for tirchs waste Iardfills tir

maA.

To &tetndne tk -s of o Gr_ter nrmitori~ plan mat be includd in a

the minim ouxation on the oetudt zmd.icatlon which Ixovides for the mnitorine of

hy&olq@: biante within

lmldi~ structures ad &prea- the permit ard djamnt

siom, eitkr naturally fornrsd arwa.

or artificially kilt. Strue

tures may be tqxxary or

tsu’u?nt. Applies to all

z- al-d Undergrouwl d

Od.nillg op2ratiom.

&aA& that relate to’ the adtabllity of tk gr~

inter for mrrent ard qprwed pa Plninil’g lad u= and

to objectiwa for protection of t~ tydroI@c tmlarm.

Monitoring site 1.oati0r6 wat k s~d.fid.

Sare a mquirenmts for hazarrlma bvste lamifSlla unkr CERUA.

No rqui rel12rKs eat.amsh?d.

W s requlramts for

hazardms wa3te Iamifilla unckr

Saw as requtrsumts for

harardcus ~te lsmifllls unfkr

o Gronmiwater avnimrirg plan

msst spscify pmnetets ad

sa@irg frqsmcy.

o At a ml- tdal auapenckd

SOWIS, #l, total iron, total

-=, ad wwer levels shall

o Modtoritg d a particular waterkarirg atrarum my be be unnitorcsi.

Wvd try the regulatory lldmrity if it an lx? deuon- 0 S=@es Kmlst lx? t&en ad anss(xatxd that it ia u a stratum which *- as an lyzd quu-terly at each uonitrIr

aquifer which s@ificantly emurea the hydrologic balance i% lomtinn. Additiofd owniOf Ilk Cumllatius inpact are (tk area, inclildicg th? mrirg my be rcqulral by the

pmnlt area, within WA iqxMXs re3ulti~ fran tk regulatory attnrity.

W- ~ratin MSY interact with the i,mpm of dl

a~icipted mtnirg).
Statutory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Objective Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

surface

I~”sNorrHazardula WSSte (Contitued)

Federal Ladpofi%

and~tAct

-MineralLeasirgAa IIqxundmnts used for tk

of 1920 andMaterial.S treatmmt or control of nmdf

Au & 1947 (43CER atidr-dur~udnimg

23). Cmersndmrals o~rationson Fe&ral lads.

Sudl as coal, ptna-

@ate, =ptmlt, aodi-

* potaas~ Sani,

st.om, gravel and

clay.

- U.S. hlini~ Lx Na explicitly nentlowd in

(43 CFR 3800). the regulations. Hcwewr,

Cover loatable Impmduenta are part d

Winerala such as ninirg ~ratiors. Applies

gld, sflusr, led, only to Federal lads.

iron ad c~~r.

- Gedmuld stem Pits arrl sunps used to retain

M (30 CER 270 ad all Imterlala and fluids

Bllf Operational Order ~aary to drillfw, prcxtuc=

No. 4). tion, or ccher cqx3ratiow on

Fderal lads.

No rtquimsents

-tabliahed.

NO L-quiremnts

exabliahd.

No Rquirenents establiskd.

o To cktermhe existirg

inter quality.

o To ertwre that

Operatiom are conducted in

cmpliarm with regulation

ad or&rs.

No rquirmwts establiski. No rquiremnts established.

o No spxiflc requiremmts are eatablishd for pita o Spdfid by t’k regulatory

and strops. Regulation state that uonitoritg of attority on a site-apxffic his.

emvirormmtal impacts my be Comlwtai by the u9e d

aerial surveys, i=~dion3, @.odic aanplirga,

cmtiruaIs recottli~, or akr mthxis spxtfid ca a

Sitmpecific kis.

o Data mat te collected for a ~riod of at least a

year prior to ~aiuctlcxh

Waste Tailings Federal Lard Policy

~ ~nt Act

- Mimral Lea3i~ Act Not explicitly uentlond in SauE as objectiw for m SanE = rquirarents for norkaxdma waste aurf= %e aa requiresmmts for nonof 1%20 ad Materials the regulaticm. Ikwevsr, hazardcua w-ste surface i~~s ~r theae *O hazatdma wa5te surface inpcutiws

Au d 1947 (43 m wiate taflirgs are part cf @aux&nts under tkae &r t&ae laws.

23) mini% o~ratio=. Applies k.

only to Fderal lards.
S tatuco ry Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source (lb je ct ive Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Waste Tailirgs - us. LMinirg k

O.hltind’ (43 CFR 3?03)

Uranium Mill

Tailirgs Rdiation

Control Actc

- Active sites

(40 cm 192)

Uraniun Mill

Tail.i~s Ririlation

Control Act

- InaXive Sius

(40 CFR 192)

Not explicitly defind in tk

regulations, tmt dispcsal of

taste tallirgs is nmtkmd as

~rt of a ndnirg cp3ration.

Dispm3al areas mverd by tk

reguktiom comaining waste

tailirgs fran uranium promasi~

activities. Such

tk nzgion within

of an iupounh nt

areas incluck

th ~rbrerer

or pile.

Pro02ssi~ sit= designatd ty

COE containing r=i.dual radioactive materials at which al 1 or

substantially all of the uraniun

was Prti for sale to a Ferleral ~cy prior to Jan. 1,

1971.

Sare as objective for nonhazardms wa3te surface

hpcuhmts un&r ckae

laws.

Sam as rquirenmts for

kazardals watt? surface im-

-~s under %dXitle C

of RfX’%

O TO estshlish bac@rcund

grcturkiter quality.

o To identify tk presenm

ad mvenent of contaudnation assodatd with tk

tailings piles.

Sam as rquireamts for non-hazardms waste surface

i~IUS un&r these fawa.

Sam as requirements for hazarrbs w=te surface imWCus urxkr RfX4 twcep~:

- uolyfxhum ad uranium are ai&ti to tk list of

tunrchs comtit~rts in @mdix VLII, 40 CFR 261;

- dditional axmentration limits for raiicactivity

are s~cified as part of tk grcwrbater praection

Stamiard;

- &tection mnitori~ prqgra nust be ca@eted

within me year; ad

- altermtive com=ntration llmits which are ~~

bl.fshd (as Mrt of the &au&racer praection standard) are as IW as reaamably achievable after cor

s icbring pramicable correuiw actions, and that, in

Sare as requirements for nor

bnkus wa3te surfam inqnmhtis

mder tkse laws.

Sam as requirements for fuuzardcus

waste surface impoumhe~s under

RCXk

a~ case, tk comxmtration levels for spwifkd paramters are spsdfied at all poims at a ~ter dk

t- than 500 uetets fran tk erf& d tk dispxal

area and/or cutsi& the site boundary.

o Moni&mf.~ prcgran my k corductei. It simuld be NO rquirenrmts estiliskd.

tifident to met the objectiw tka@ one or nrn-e

u~aiient wells.

o Monitmriw siuuld assxss ttrs l-tion of

Colltauinaa s in grcurdater, the rate ami direaion of

Mmnt of contaminated grmter, ad its relative

contaninatioo. film, an awzxmmt shculd ideccify

tk atrematiw oipacity of tte unsaturated ad

.Saturatd Zme to *cennine tk extent of Cormminant

nDmmmt.
App. E—Federal Efforts To Detect Groundwater Contamination • 417

L1o
St atuco ry De f Ini t ion Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Object ive Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Grave~r& — — — —

.AniM.l Burial — — — — —

Abovegroml I&source (hmerva- Abwegrcund tarka used for tk To emure tk taric is be- o No rqulrene~s are eatabliskd for granriwarer o NO rquiremnts are eatxidistrd

Stmage Taks - tion arxi Recovety

liazardma Waste Act - Sukitle C

(40 CPR 264)

Caqrehmive

Emvirornmtal

F@aprse, cOqYensatio~ ad

Liability Act

(40 CER 300)

Toxic SUtatances

control Au

(4o Q?R 761)

tratmnt or storage of haamima opated zxxsmji~ to

ata (as &id @’ m). &sign.

Stor~ tab that release sty Sare as objective for

harardms SUh~, Folkant or hardma waste landfills

Contallhwt (as ckfimxi ty umier CHUM.

(ERUA).

See TXA rcquirammts, behxd, for Sare as objective for

harardms wa3te containrs. harardcua -te cotCaim2rs

order IXX

mnitotlr$g.

o Monlto~ of tadc operation is rqulrd to neet

objective i,dudi~ data on premue and tenpxature,

ad titvatiom d ccmtruction material ad arm

Surroundiq tlw? tank.

o Pro03iure for eqxyirg ad b~ctirg tak mat k

eatabl.law

Sare = rquiremmts for kzzardcua waste Iatxifilla

*r OIKIA

saE m Ixqd raenta for kzardma waste cortaineIs

tnxkr TX&

for ~aurkater nmitoriq+

o Mmilmtirg preaaure ad temperature at least once eah opatitg

day is rqulrai (if tadc is mcowered, tk level of w~te irt31&

nust be inapscted).

o COmtruuion natetiala of tark

mat b im~ctcd at Lea3t weicly.

o Area SurrauKKf& ttm? tal’k InJat be

irspectd at le~t weekly to *tect

olncima sigrs of leakage (e.g., &ad

vegetation).

o Frqmwy of lm~aions tilvirg enptyi~ of taric ia net speafied (Uuat be taaed m tll? rote,

corstruuion uateriala of tanlq cotrsion or ermion protection umi,

and m-roaion or erosion obseIvefl).

Sam as requirements for hazardma

-te Iatrl.fills undn O?RCL4.

w ss rquirenents for hazattiw

waste CO-ZB urukr TX%

I
S t atut ory Definition Monitoring Parawters and

Source Authority of Source Object i ve Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Abovegrcwd

Storage Ta&s -

Non-HaZXdO_la

Waste

Abovegrti Clean ~amr Au -

Storage Tarks - section 311

Notiaste (40 CFR 112)

tiazardcua Liquid

Pipelim2 Safety

Act (49 @R 195)

Har,ardaJs h%te Act - .SoIxltle C

(40 m 264)

—

Onstvre ad off store facilities

wfth abovegramd capacities of

greater than 1,320 @lor6 d oil

(or sirgl.e tank with capacities

greater than 6@ galkm).d

Storage of hazardcua liquids (as

defined by HLFSA) inci&ntal to

tkir nrwemnt by pipellw or

affecti~ interstate or foreign

c~r~. I@gulatiom -licitly

define abovegroumi “’brealcmt

tarks” W are used to reli*

surgea in a hazardcus liquid

pipeline system or to remive ad

store hazard- liquid transpxtd by a pipline. Rs@r=

rents do not ~ply to Fe&ral

fadities.e

Ccnerai d~and tarks used

for tk treatmmt or storage of

kxzankus waste as &find by

To smsure tte intsgrity of

the tak

To -ore ck integrity of

ttw tank.

Regulations have ncc &en

pllmllgated.

— —

o No txquiremmts are est~lish?d for gralrrkater Not Sped fied.

mlitoring.

o T& Spill Prewmtion tirol ad titerneawre

(WY-) plan mat dkaxsa ~ovlstim for integrity

testing of t~ taric ad for okervatirm cf tk

facility o~ration for upsets in plant efflumt

discharges d-dch &d (zwse an oil spill.

No rquireaents are establiskd for grcundwater Each tadc mat be impectd at le~c

lroilitoring. once a ~r.

wtkm have net teen

~amlgated.
Statutory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Objective Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Un&rgrourri

Stxxage Tar& -

Non-Hazardals

waste

lhnkrgroud

StO~ Taks -

Non-Waste

ContArm.-s -

Hazardcus Waste

Cmprdkmiw

Emirorxrental

Respme, carpensation, arrl

Liability Act

(40 CIX 3a))

—

Clean Water Act -

section 311

(40 m 112)

ResxlrCe coll3et’vation Srd RecowIy

Ad - S&title C

(40 CFR 264)

Toxic %b3tan~

Control Act -

Serfion 6

(40 ~ 761)

Cqmhe=ivs

13nvironnmtal

F&3pm% caqlensation, *

Liability Act

(40 CfR XX))

Scor~e t* that rek= ary

hazzmims suktance, gollutsnt or

Ccnltadm (ss de.fid w

QZRCLA).

—

OIWbre facilltks with

wukrgromd srorage capacities

equal to or greater ttan 42,0UI

gallml%

Contaim2B used for tk s~r~

of harardms wastes (as defined

ly RCR4).

Cmtalmm3 wed to store I%Bs at

ammuxatio= of 50 ppn ad

atxve. C4mtainer msara ‘+%’*

*, call, bcctk, bag, krrel,

dtu~ tark or otkr &vice.

Ccatainers that release sty

hazan.icus sub3~, Pllutant or

corltandnsm (as defil’xxl by

(YXL4).

S-am as objective for

haz.mkms wwe landfills

umier G31UXA.

—

To emure tk integrity of

tk tank.

To emure ctiaimm are

ncc kaldng ad spill

cxntalrtn2nt system b net

&terioratd.

No rquirau?nts

e3tabllahEsi.

S- SS otjective for

hszardms -te Iarrlfills

umier ~.

S- as raqutrcnmts for hazarrhs waste Iamifills Sam as requircnmts for hszardrus

wnkr CERCZA w~te Iamifilla wkr CEIKIA.

—

o No requir-s are establiskd for grcxnxiwater Not speclfiei.

Ilulitoting.

o The Spill Prtwention Coatrol ad Cantetneasure

(~) plan mat dtscuw ~ovlskms for regular

pressure teat@ ad for oke~atiom of tk facility

op3ration for upsets in plant &fltent dtsdargea

which &d ~an oil spill.

o No rquiraents are eatabliskd for grmndwater o No rquir.smnts are establiskd

mlnilm’iq+ for goumkater nrmitori~.

o Containers ad stor~ areas mat be Ir6peaai. o kpxtkm mat be coniucted at

Ieat weekly.

o No rquirexmts are establlskd for grmrrlwater o No rquirarmts are eatiliskri.

Urslimrilg. o Imp.xtlons mat te cmrlucted at

o (kntainas nust be inqeafxi for ledcs. least Om every 30 days.

Sare as rquir~nts for hazardms waste latiilk * as mqutrmmts for hazaniw

md= ~ wa3te landfills ul&r OIRUA.

I
S t atut o ry Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Object i ve Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Containers -

Non+azardaw

Waste

COntaiErs -

Non-Waste

@en Burning and

Detonation Sites

—

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

am! Rmknt ictde

Act (40 CFR 165)

Rescurce Con5etv=

tion and Recowry

Act - Subtitle C

(4o CFR 264)

Federal Insecticide, Flu@cide,

and Rodenticide

Act (40 CFR 165)

(kmprehemiw

Environmental

Respmse, CcapxIsatio~ ml

Liability Act

(40 m 300)

—

Pesticide containers.

@n htrni~ ad f~tonation &

baste explosiws.

Own turni~ of mall qwmtities

of cunbstible ~ticide cootairr

e= tkich held otganic or wtallo-or@c ~ticides (except

o~nic mercury, letrl, cabniun or

arsenic ccqxam da).

Si tea which release aq hazarckms

suktance, pl Iutant or

contardnant (as def Ind ty

QIR~).

—— -—

See objecl ive for m3terials See rmui rants for materials stodpLles uxier FTFRA.

stockpiles umkr FIFRA.

Regulation hsve n~ been

praml~tecl.

Sare as objective for

resickntial dk.pasal

(hurid) under FIFRA.

S- as objective for

bazardaIs wste landfills

ode r CERCLA.

Regdatiom hiwe net ken prcnul~td.

Sa7E as rqui r~nts for residential dispx.al

(huial) mder FITRA.

S=mE as raquire’rents for hazatdas waste L=mifil Ls

uxkr (ZRCIA.

(

—

See rquir~nts for materials

stockpiles under FIFRA.

Regulation+ haue net been

pramlgated.

* as rtquirmnts for residential

iispxal (brial) under FIEXA.

SEXIE as rcquirenxmts for hazardms

ke.ste landf LLls under (XTKIA.
Statutory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Objective Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Rixliosctiw Atanic ETAct Geol@crepc&mrieaforhi$r To~uret&t~exhlcal

DiqoaalSi@s (1OCFR6O level radioaaivewastea. de3@parmXemarec0rr

firmd ad to ensure that

mPPfiteaU~~t*n

toinfonllwddlargea

I-leededinlksignto

accammdste actual fieLd

amdlticm mccurered.

tiotik~~Act Dis

psal sites for I.Orlevel To provide task (~ecper~

radioactiw wastes. tional) enviramrtal data

on tk site, to evaluate

tte potential tealth and

etironrental inpacts &r

itg construction ami opration, ad to evaluste tk

lo~rm effects ad -d

for adtigatiw ~es.

At a minimm+ ~s shall be UAe of rock &- Not Spclfid.

fonmtiora ard dlspkenent, &snges in rcd smcss

ad strain, rate ani loatlon d water itilw into

Sutsurke areas, AsWes in gr~ter conditions,

rd Pre pr~aurea includi~ ttme alag fraYure3

ad joircs, ad tk tlvxmsl arri t&rm&enkal rsporse & tte rock mas as a result d develqment ard

optzttiom of the ~logic r~imry.

o pr~ratioml mmltmirg mat prtide infonmtion o Not spxifid.

abmt the ecol~, neteorol~, cl.i.uate, tyk.1~,

&@ZY, etisw, ~ sei9dKgy of tk dispsal

aite owr a twALw nonth ~riod.

o Monimri~ &rlrg co5tructlon ad cperatlon mat o N& .s~d.fid.

be cxipable of providing early uarnirg of releases of

raiioruclkles fron tk sitss &fore tky leaw tk

site boundary.

o Post-operational uordtorlrg system mat be W cm o Not spcified.

tte operati~ hiamry ad ths cksure ad stabllizr

tion of tk site arrl -t be qabk d prwiditg ear

ly warnirg releases of r.sdiorulides fran the site k

fore ttey Ieae * site lxllndaq.

●
a

b

c

d

e

f

~

h

The nmitori I% requirements presented in the table are for ~rnitted facilities. EPA hsa also prcxrulgated interim status rtquiremnts for tbe facilities tich nust be met until a final

;~nnit is issd. The interim stah]s nrmitorhg requi rents spxify tk imtal lation cf at le=t om qgraiient well ard three dcwngraiient wlls to detemnine initial baclgrcund

c~centrat ions of @rtain paramters and to &terndne ~ther -te constit-ts haw entered the grcundwter. Cr-ter nrnitorirg requirements can be wiived by an aimr or qerator if

L&re is IW pxential for waste migration (EPA apprcwal cf the waiver is net txqoirei). See 4(I CFR 265.

The Federal Land Policy and t%nagerent Act (FVMA) of 1976 (P.L. 94-579) rqdres that pdlic lands & mnaged in a mnwr that will protect the qwilfty of envirormmtal values. In addition,

t}ere are a @r d law regulatfrg certain activi ties on Federal lads. The mini% regulations are atturized @ bcth tk PLPM4 aml the spxffic mfnirg laws ad are ttus presentd together

in this table. Note that regulations for the c2xtbernal Steam Act were redesfgnsted, with miwr revisions, as 43 CFR 3260 on sept. 30, 1983.

The requir-nts ~esental in this table are tl-e flealth ard Environmental Prccection $tardartis ~cnul~tcd ~ EPA (40 CIR 192, 48 FR 45926, Oct. 7, 1983 ard 48 FR 590, Jan. 5, 1983). The NRC

has also pramlgated li02ming requirements for oraniun nrfll tailfnga (10 CPR 30, 40, 70 and 150).

I“aciliti= include tbe ergaged in drfl lfrg, prcxkci~, gatherfrg, storfrg, prcmssiqz, refinirg, t ramsferrfrg, distriktirg or corsumirg ofl ad oil prakcts. Oil is def id as ofl of ary

kind or in any foun, including tnt not limlted to ~trolsun, ftel oil, sldge, oil refuse, and oil nrbud ulth -tea other tlwn drdgd spoil.

Hazardas liquids include ptrolan, petroleum prdcts, ad atiydras STEIOnia.

Waste explmives include waste which has tk ptential to &tonate ad tulk ndlitaty wqellants w41ich cannft safely be dispsed of thrmgh other mocks of tr-tmnt.

facilities have not been prcnulgated. Interim status reguktions for -n Eurnirg and &tonation do not establish gr cunduater mnitoring rtquircmnts.

Tbe requirements ~tsentsd are tbe establisbsd @ NRC for bigh-leveI rdfoactfve wastes; these rcquircmnts are pqnxd r q@atiom. See 46 PR 35280, July 8, 1981.

propxd health and envircxnmtal standards. See 47 FR 58196, Decanter 29, 1982.

Regulation for pmdtted

EPA has akO pUb&kd

The rquirments pssentd are tkse establiskd ty NRC for l-level rdloactive waste sites. EPA is also txqufred to establish health ard ewirom?ntal stamlatds for SUA sites; stamiatda

have not yet ken pratulgated by EPA.

Scurce: Office cf Tecimolcgy Aasesa’ment.
E.3 MONITORING PROVISIONS FOR CATEGORY III SOURCES

Statutory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Object ive Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Pipelines —

Hazardals

Materials

Pipelines -

Non-Haz.an.iaIs

MateKhls

Materials

Tramprt ard

Tramfer

@eratiom3—

btlials

Materials ad

wte

HazardasLiquid

Pipeline Safety

Act (49 CFR 195)

(lxnprehersive

Envirommmtal

Reqrxt3e, Car

Pert3ation ard

Liability Act

(40 CFR303)

—

HazardaJs Fk

terials Transportation Act

(49 CFR171)

Pi@im uscxl to tramjpmt

h~rdmsliquids (includes

petrolann, petrokwmprticts,

and anhydrcua aumnia).

Pi@_ins that release ary

hazardrus suktance, gdlutant

orcontaninant(asdefimdby

CXRUA).

—

The transgnrtation cf

h.zwardcus naterials and

h~rdcus mste (ss defiti Iy

HMCA) by rail car, aircraft,

vessel ad notor wtdcles @

in interstate and fore@

canmerce (ad motor vehicles

used to trarsprt h~rdms

waste in intrastate comrer~).

To emwe the integrily of tk

pipeline.

o

0

0

0

To prtide preliminary

assessmmt of the mture

ad extent cf tk release.

To determine the smrce and

disprsion rf tte bzsrdcus

sukance.

TO &terndw tb name ad

extent of the problem.

To mmitor effect ivemss of

the remdial action.

--

NO raquiramts establishal

for grcmdwter.

o

0

0

0

0

0

No req~d~nts eatablisld for grcumiwater

IIKlnitorirg.

All n6w pipelims or relocated, replaced or

ctherwise changed pipelfnes mat unckrgo

hylrmtatic teati~ prior to use.

Collection cf sanples minimized excqt in

situations Wre there is an apparent risk to the

public.

Not specified. Monitoring my be part d an

mmxiiate rercwal.

collection d

the necessity

action.

Not s~dfid.

State to cover

<

f

mfficfeu iofouwition to &teurdm

‘or and pmpcaed extent of remdial

Assurane mat be ~cwided by the

these activities.

—

No requirtmmts establktd for grmoduater.

No requir-nts establistd

for grcumkter nrmltoring.

o Not specifid.

o Not specified.

o Not spdfid.

o Not s~cified.

—

No ra@rammts estsblishd

for gr~ter.
o

I

I

Statutory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Objective Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Materials CcrrqX*miw Trampxt_reLataia xidents S- = objecti- for Szma rtquiremnts forpipdl~ mderCZIUIA. Sam2asr6quircsmmtsfor

Trarsprtad Enviromumtal, thatreleaae~hazardma

Transfer

pipelines unfix GiRCLA. pipelines urukr UIRCLA.

RqxX13e, ccnl- suls~, pollut~or

Op2ratiom5 — pm.ati~d contaminant (aa defined ly

Hazardala Li&ility Aa ~).

Materials ad (4O m m)

W*te (Cmtirued)

source: Office of Teclnol~ tksessment.
IIII1

426
Statutory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Objective Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Perdaticm d

AaTospheric

Pollutants

Mining ardMlne

Draina&? -

Surface inning CleanWaterAct-

(seaion 208(40

CIR35,Su@artG)

Fe&ralLand

PolicytibMarEgenentAct

-MineralAuafl$ZZOand

Material.aActd

1947 (43cFR 23)

-u.s. u.i.ni~LalB

(43cHt 23)

surface Minil’g

Controlard

RecIamtion Act

(30cFlt 816)

—

Mine-relatdamreaofpollution

iIICbdi~mheMdf fr~~,

aaiw, ad atmdond surface ad

mdergroumlndnes.

Mirdl’g cfmlnemlsaucha coal,

p-w =wMt, 50diJMI,

Potassluq sad, stone, grawl

and clay (cm Fe&ral Ian&).

_of ~ne~ au~ = gold,

si.lwr, led, iron and copper (on

Fedetal lads).

surface minhg of Coal.

—

No rqutrmmts

Stabliahed.

No raqulremetis

cstabliaheli.

No rqdrements

e%tablishcxi.

—

No rqulrenmts est&dlsted.

DetermirM? tl-r? 11’lpcts of

tie minim opatim m the

hydrologic Mance within

the petudt ard aijaamt

area9.

No mqutrmetis est&Listed.

No rquiremmts establiskd.

o Grcumlwater nnnitori~ plan mat be included in a

permit application whih provides for ttv2 nonltirlng

of paramtets that relate to tk suitability of tk

groudxater for mrrent ad ~rovd posmdnirg Lad

uses ad to objeaiws for protection of tte tydrolcgic balarm. t+xitori~ site Iocatiors nust be

spxifisi. Mmdtoritg is cariuad cku-i~ qeratiom

ad reclamation aclivitiea (orKil prfonrrame lxxd

release).

(ColXinled -t F%e)

—

No rquLremmts eatiliskd.

No rquirerents eatM.lskd.

No t-quirments e3tablisk.i.

o Gromdwater nrmltorlmg plan must

specify pr-ters ad sanpling

freqmry.

o At a mini- total dissolved

dida or specifial comiuctan~

(~~~ to 25”C), @i, total irm,

taal uwgamse, ad water levels

stall b rmnitord.

(Contimed next ~)
Stacucory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Objective Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

MiNIg and Mine surface Miniqg o kmirori~daparticularwa~rkarirtgstrarum o SZs@am.lstke tdcenalli

Draina&- Controlami may beuaived tytkregulauxy adxxi~ifitcantze analyzdqmmrlyateach

surfaCe Mining Reclanationkt &mmtratedth4tit tinotasualum-se~ as titori~locattin. kldltional

(Cotiinled) (30QIt816) ana@Terti~s @lficantlyen3ures tlelykolcgi.c nonitirirg ~1= required by the

(CcsdlWd) Ld=e d ths ctmulatike * area (tte area, irr ZWJISaXy axhxity.

cludirg tte ~rmk m, within whi~ IIwas resul.tirg frau tk prqmsed qeration may interax with tk

~d all amicipxed dniqg).

SUrfa!e Mi.nmg

Cunuol al-d

Rf!cLmEltl.cxl kt

(40 m 874 ax’d

875)

Mining ad Mine Clean Water Act -

Dr- - section 208 (CFR

Un&rgrand 35, sukpart G)

Minirg

Lids ad -ter tich were nd~ No ~uiremnts

(covers d mini% ~ mlnlcg of established.

mlnerala SIXI rmterial.a otbr than

coal) or tich ere affected by

stxh nd.nitg, WE@ tdca, pr~

siqg or Ctkr nettO& prior to

Aug. 3, 1977.

Ftbrrdatd acurcea d pollution No ~uireterts

Includltg IIILne mdf fran new, exablistEd.

active, ad abadrmd surfax ad

ulnkrgrcund mines.

Fe&ral H, Policy ~ M=Ex3E=m

- Mineral Leasiqg Mini% for minerals aurh a3 coal, Saue a o~ective for

Act of 1920 d @=phate, W, _ aurke tiw &r ttssse

Materials Act of pt~~ sad, stow, gra~ k.

1%7 (43 CFR 23) and clay (on Fe&ral lards).

- U.S. Minimg X mrg of ndnerala such ~ gold, S= ~ objectiws for

(43 Cl!It 38UO) silwr, led, irca, ami ccppm (on surf= nd.nirg undsr tlwse

Fe&ral Iamia). I.zl@s

No rqdrem?ms establiabd.

No requirements eatd.istrd.

No rquiremmt s e%tallstd.

No rquiremmts establiskd.

Sam2 = reql.d narems for surface minifg mder tkae * m rqui

M.

rtments for surface

minirg urukr these laws.

Sare s requirements for surf- mi.nirg urder tkse W = requirenats for surface

k% ud.nirg undx these W.
Statutory Definition Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Objective Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Mining and Mine

Drair@? -

Unckrgroumi Mining

(bltinled)

Surfacem-iiw UndeLgrcudminimgofcd.c Sane as objectiws for Ssm2a3 rquirefrents forsurfacemini% under= %msasrquimrentsforsurfsce

Controlard surf-minirgund=$lfR4. mini~un&rWRA.

IteclamtinAct

(30CER817)

a 40(2FR 35, subpart G are tk regulations for S- grants for Water QusliV plannimg, ~,ad Im@.emntation. Altlu@ tk Clean Water Act is directd at tk protection of surface

waters, scxlE states have chosen to irdu& groml&Ja ter quality pr~ars In tteir water qdity managment pla~. Such plan3 are required by the rcgulatiom to irdkate reco@tion that

grmndwater srrl surf- water intermix.

b ~ F&rd lad pO~CY d ~nt @ (llRiA) of 1976 (P.L. 94-579) rquirea that public lards be _ in a mnmr that will protect tk qdi~ of enviromxental values. In ddition,

tkre are a nunker of k regulating certain mining activities on Fdzal lards. ‘he mining regulations are authorized ty both the FIPM4 ard ttx? specific ndnirg laws ad are presented

tcgetter in this table.

c 

Applies to surf ax effects of txrkgramd minim+

SCurce: Off ice of Tednolcgy hsesment.
E.5 MONITORING PROVISIONS FOR CATEGORY V SOURCES

Statutory Def i nit Lon Monitoring Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Object ive Design of Monitoring Syatem Sampling Frequency

Production kkllsGeotkmal ad

Heat Recovery

Pmductionkku.a -

kk+ter supply

Cttkm Wellaknlitoriqg Wella,

~te

Other WellaExploraticmWella,

NotH&3te

Comtruction

-tion

Feieral brd

Policy and

~enent ActGeothermal steall

Act(30cFR270

andlIllC@rr

tionalOr&r

No.4)a

—

F=ieralIimrlPol=

icyarKII%nsget

Act -MiIEral

Ieasimktof

1920aniMateriala

Act of 1947

(40cFR23)

CleanWaterAct -

Section209 (40

CFR35SIJ@ti G)b

wells used

f!y?othenml

lamb)

—

—

fort&&velqment

stean(onFe&ral

do

o

Detemdneeclst@water

quality.

Emnrethat~ratiom

are cmxiucted in carr

@Lance with regulation

and or&rs.

Exploration wells used in mtr&g No rtquirensnts

operatiom for mkra.la such ~ eatabliahed.

cd, pb~ asphalt, sodfun,

-~s d, s-, gravel,

alxi clay.

Camtruction azivi~ relatai to o Determine the inpact d

amrcea of pllution. the acmxe.

o

0

Data mat be collecttd for a pxlod cf at lat one o %eclfkd Ix

par prior to pduction. - &tbrity &

No spxtfic rqulrerents for pita ad atrpa. Rgw &la.

latl~ atate tkt mnitotirg of envkment al

the use d aerial sLu-

-@-hiYJs ~~

specifid on a site-

—

—

the regu.bmry

a sit-pacific

No KEqulrtlmmts establlstd. No Kequlmnents Estilisted.

o

0

No spziflc ra@remmts e3tabliskl. o No re@~nts fstabliskrl.

Graxrikater nonitorirg can be urkrtakn by a State

if ~tabliskd as a ~iority in tb State’s atmal

W* pgran sulxdtted to ~A.

a Note tkt regulations for tk? Geatwnd St- Act were mkdgnated, with minor nsvisiom, as 43 CFR 3260 on Sept. 30, 1983.

b 40 ~ 35, %- G are the regulations for State grants for Water ~ty p-%, ~tj ~ Inph@ntation. Althmgh the b khter Act la directed at the potectl on of atiace

=teB, aam? States ham den @ iti granimter qdity ~cgram in rkeir water qtdity msmnt plarm Swh plan3 are rquired ty tti regulations to irdlcate -tion that

grcurkaters and surface hater interudx.
E.6 MONITORING PROVISIONS FOR CATEGORY VI SOURCES

Statutory Definition Moni tori ng Parameters and

Source Authority of Source Object ive Design of Monitoring System Sampling Frequency

Gramdheter— Clean Water Act —

Surface Water section209 (40

Interactions GFR35, Subpatt

G)a

Natural I&Ichir?g ReckmMonAct

Salt-wter

Intrusion

CleanWater Act —

*ction 208 (40

CFR35, Subpatt

G)a

@astalane

Ma_nt Act

Intennixirg d gramdwter ad

sutface wter.

Naturalsaltde*its

affecting titganxisater

supplies.

Sak=4ater inttusion into

rivers, h, and eatmriea

reaultirg fron reduction d

freatu3ter flow fran any -e

includirg grauxkiater

extraction.

Sal-ter intmsion

Determine the inpct d tk

Sa.rce.

No rquirtmnts establishai.

sme as objective for vmndWter=zmrface wter inte~

au iom mler CM.

o

0

No specific rquirammts established. No requiramnts estab~slxd.

Grctxrkter nmitoring an be tirtaken by a

State if establislxd & a lxiofity in tk State’s

anti wrk progrzun sutmdtted to EPA.

No rtqutnsnmts establisld.

Sam 65 rquitxnmts for

interactions *r iX4.

No raquimmts eatablishd.

grmndwatenurface water Sane as requirements for

grcumhatemurface inter

interaction @r Cl&.

No rcquiralmts establistwd. No requirammts establislwid. No rqrlrments eatablistd.

a 40 ~ 35, s&part G are tk rcguli+tio~ fir State grants for Water Quality Plannhg, %~~nt, ad I@enentatiou Altts_x@ the Clean Water Act is direcmd at tie protection cf surface

wters, acme States have rhmen to inchrie grcndater quality program in their inter quality ~t P~ns.

Same: Office & TechnolW Aaaesant.
Appendix F

Corrective Action:

Technologies and Other Alternatives
F.1 TECHNICAL CONDITIONS DETERMINING THE APPLICABILITY

OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVESa

(kxxiition Containmmt Wittdrawtl T-tnent In-situ Rehabilitation Fklqylmnt optiors

Af@fer ~

Unconfind/per&ed

Partially amfined

Confid

H~

Notinmgemms

Saturation Conditiom

Unsaturate zom

Saturated zone

AH cuntalament measures desigmd to limdt or halt

the lateral migration of cmtanimnts (e.g.,

slur~ balls, sheet pile, ge onemrnhram amof f, clay

atoff ) mat be tied into a naturally occurri~

horizontal straam of 1- permeability to be

effectiw. Eaae of construction/excavation will

deperd on quifer ~pe ad @ol@c aettitg.

Hydradfc brrie~ are ml qkkable in tmaahwatd

zme. Clay cutdfs are not comumly spplid in saturatd zow &case &wateritg would he rquird

dutlrg imtallation. Otherdse, saturation cOnditior6 are - limiti~ for t~ use & ctialrr

OEnt mthoda.

Ef feuivemas & rmstbds

depm& on degree of norr

-~9’, Calpldty,

ad in psrtiadar,

hydnulic contiguity of

the ~utfer.

Indlr-. CotxiiciorE determine applicability

imofar as before t~tllent can be applied,

grmrrihater mat be withdrtwn and tramported to

a surface treatmnt tnit.

(see ldttrlr~).

~i~ ad grari~ dr.ruim Indirect. Carxlitiom de

age are not applicable in tetndne applicability

the msaturatd zone. Gas imofar as before trea~

writing is not appli~le nent can be applied,

in the Ssturatd zone. gro.uxiwater must be wftlr

Otherwise, saturation con- dram ad tramported to

ditiom are W I_imitirg a smfao2 tmtmnt tnit

for nettmds. (see Wlthdr=il).

Althcugh renrwal of unsaturated zone bater is

not ~actical by pmping

or gravity drainage,

soil ad umaturated

zone ~ter ccmld be -

Cawited ad tl-@Mted try

techniqws not requiring

the wter to be entirely

in the liquid phaae

(e.g., air and stean

stripping, c+wndcal and

Aquifer type may be mjor lindti~ factor PcaEs no comtraint

if not reconfined/perched and ~. on appli-bifity of

Effectivemss of Mologld ad clmnical lletlmck.

degradation is depencknt on abillty to inject, control, ad wittdra r~ents, tthi~

may be difficult or iqractid in nonkIV@EOM aquifers. Effectlvemss of na~

ural prmceas restoration and inter table

trljustmmt is constrained in cmfined, pr

tially confined, ad ~S~~fe~.

Saturation corditiom am mlikely to pose Pc6es no comtraint

major comtraint on applicability of on applicability of

metbck. Effect fvemas of degrdatlon nettmck.

nethcds may be restricted to use in the

Urtaatmratd zone (e.g. , if deperdent on

aeroMc coalitions).

Mological &toxlfiatioo).
(hd.ition Containment Witldrwal Treatment In-situ Rehabilftatfon went Optiom

FIw System

Hsture d flew systan is important in dmice d Flew systcm ~nerally

scow tectmlogles. U9e of =tlxxk in recharge ~

Mschqe

~ - no fmjOr teclniml

require axre foun & turface water control to prewent Coc6trairts on metbck.

Dqth

o+

up to 20M

&r 2thI

-7- <1O(XI

J

up to 0.1

up m 10

Over 10

the cmtaind area frcm filling ad cnerfloulrg with

rdarge water. In diti~ atws, mdetdrainge

may be rquired lxilow Iimm to dissipate uplift

uplift paslres.

Depth k major Ut@ factor for cretbcb, in large

part SIi13ing frcfn equiplent liJdtations. Practid

&ptt6 fir material tarriers till ~ry aroqg imiividual teclmlogies tut are ~ally in the vicinity

of 2Qu. kidle tedmidly fezwible. ge-ly little

H~r, Wet-lewd

fluctmtiom (e.g., due

to !Xmsmal ‘a5.ations)

that can d-mrge the rate

or direction of flew,

lakage arotg layem in

nulti-lapr flcu system,

ad dwllalrd migrating

flw system p aiditionsl lmertainties.

Depth IDSeS no rmjor tedr

nid cO@Xaints Ulless

exczwation ia rquird

(e.g., gratity drainage,

excavation). Excavation

exprience has been @&i at deptis-greater- than 2Ckn co3ts increase rapidly at

(one Ome@on is sket piles uhicil qpear praical

to dqtha of a).

Wile areal exterc in itaelf ~es no technical

lindtations, the use of aaterial lnrriem tends

to be w~~~ reatrictd to a= less than

Id; Sxceptiolw iml.lrie S1

2

tzllls (up to

10 d) d Iimls (up tD 0.1 ). Experieme

with oth =tbds tends to be li.mtted to U-ds

of O.l , J ex

2

t hr natural cmainnmt which

can exceed 10 m% on site corxlitiona.

deptl-s greater than abmt

5m ad wry rapidly grea~

er * sbcut 2QD. ArmliIrxiirect. Corriition * Flew system is net a major constrsirt. Htermlnes appliubility ever, in recharge ~, CIegrsdatim

imofar =“ &fore tr&&

Uent can be applied,

grmndwater raJst be with

drwn ad trsnspotied to

a s@- tredllErE U’lit

(see Uithdrwal).

ability of gravity &ainzge

is linited to abwt 37 m.

Irdirect. Cxndition &

terndm applicability

imofar & before tres&

nent can be applied,

gmndklster mat be with

draal and tratqmrted to

a surface t~nt u-lit

(see WLttlir==l).

Mile areal extert in ie Indirect. &xdition &-

self pea no tedmical termLnea applicability

limitation, little expe~ in30far tm before trea&

ience has &n gained vzlth -t can be applied,

J

nettods n ~a9 laLge

as 10 .

gmrrkater U1.lat be withdram ad tramp-ted to

a surface tnit (see

Wlttxlrti).

r~ents may be difficult to -rol after

injectiorq this is of partiailar concern if

r~ents are in themelws cortxmtinsnta. In

discharge areas, =ter table aljustmnt is

typically uore difficult; natural prommea

nay britqg amt animnts to surface tier

bode%

Oepth is likely to cca’Btrain q@WXbility

of degradation tedniques; there is limited

experience with degmdation Mm &t 5m

ml it ia not likely to be practid belcw

2Ch temse & cortrollabili~ problem.

Ard -ent is likely to comtrain mplidKlity of all uethmia tie of controllabi.li~ factors (except natural pro3

-s bilitaton) to areas lms th’1

10 tut little experience tmilable.

Generally paes no

comtraint on appliahility of mttlxk.

May be inportant for

utXlitoriIg Optiom.

Poses no constraint

on ~limbility of

nlXtrXk.

Poses m tedmical

comtraint on applicability of mettmkl

tut large areas

(e.g., greater than

0.1 h?) my pactidly restrict use.
Cu-dition COntainnent Wittdraal l’reatnmt In-sibJ Rehabilitation ~nt Optioml

‘g’5

~3 Wile voluue d cmtaninstd grmndwater in itaelf

up to 1

Y

pea no tedm.ical limitations, the use of netbdg

up

$

lln3 is ~

a

idly reatricttd to WJlums less than

>1 n? 1 k2mae of cost ccmiderations. Exception

include slurry MIS, geownbranea, am! limxs for

vhich expxience has ken @ned .pwrds to IC#a?.

Volmes mabrally corcaird will &peml on site

OJnditiotml.

Wile volum d contdnsted grcarxkater in Ip

self pses no rmjor tedr

nical limitations, little

expel’lf%lce has been $&Id

with nethock for vol

greater than sbmt 1 n.

All exception is WMxlriwal

eriuumment which sppeaxE

practically applicable

for voluma only up to

abaJt ld.

Indirect. Corxiition &-

ternlnes applicability

imofar ~ before trea&

Irent can te applied,

grmndwater nust be with-

&am and trsmported to

a surface treatmnt tnit

(see Withdr*). Feasibility of netltxk iS directly relatd to design

flow rates rather than

Wtis.

While vob d contmhated gramduater

in itself should pme no tmjor teclnical

lindtatiom, ttrme is little experience

deali with wlures in

d

excess of Sbalt

1 (except for natural proo2sa =

storstion). Righer wl.wes cculd lead to

cmtrollatlili~ probh.

Posea m teduliml

comtraint on v

plic!+bili~ of

methods bt large

velures (e.g. ,

great r than

,&) T prtid.ly restrict

use.
Coalition contairm?nt Withiraml ‘rreament Itraiti RehaMlitati.on Mal’@&rent optiot6

Predcndn9nt

&ologic Settbg

Se!diaemary Geo43y is mjor Mmltirg factor If rocks are sdiCryatalline -ry or ctyatalline. ‘lhe ~of tip

casme-grained ti&Is, etc., poses diffimlt excavation @Area

for m3t nettxxfa (excqtiom include hylralic

barriem ad grmtirg, the latter also belrg

depxrknt on fracture ad/or adsorptive daracterir

tiia of tb rcxk). Coan3egralnd mteriala

~rally pme no I.lndtationa, except for nsttml

contalmmt. Flregraind mterfda restrid

use of gmticg, I@rdic taniem, and sheet pilea.

Gecd43y is a major li.nrLting factor for certain

m?tlrxk. In gmeral,

areas d hl@ transml=

sivfq my reder withCtmml qtiom Iqce

tid (be to hfgh fluid

hadlitg rqriremmts.

(i) only gradv

drainage ad ~ Writing

are @nerdly mcmStraind by the ~

Imiired. @riltion ~ Effectivemas d metlm& in ~mral will Pc8es no ccmtrti

temlma applicatdlf~ &ptrl on site comiitiom. Firm=gm&d on qpllcabf.lity of

fmofar a before trea& msteriala kMctl Ccmtrain fllw Ccrtml ad netlxxb.

Ilent can be qplied, == of poor ~ or he~Q w

gmnlklter nuat be Witk Sdwsdy affect metbko Nm-hauEmms

dram ad muEqxmed to areas may not all- for sufficient cont4mX

a mx-face treatmm mit betweem reagents ad Ccrtmil’metl rmteriala.

(see Wkhdr-).

of Sedbnutry or crystalline Llx3q applklbility

of other nethoda *

on nature of fracture

system and other femmea

of the I#oglc fonmtion.

DUxwtion la not f&neP

ally appliable in sedimentary or crystalline

rock. (ii) (kla~

llateIiala g$!nerally pse no

lidtations except for uithClrd mhmcemnt, which

depelmk on features d the

gsologLc forlmtion. (iii) unCumolfdateil, film?grained

aateriala of lat7 pelmaalxility

rw3trict effectiwsna s of

P4@3 ~ li?tity Chinage;

only exmwation can proceed

ulthmt omjor cfxstrdnt in

fi~ ~tefi~.
Carriiticm Contailuent Wftl-draml ‘n-eahrent Irr@m Retmbilitatim Mamgale* Optiolt?

Clinate

Air tarfx3rature

Be.lcu freds

0° to 200c

Above Zo”c

Rainfall

Evapotrampiration

greater than pre

Clpitetinn

Predpitation

graXer than cmpotrampiration

special

Comtruction

OXBideratimls

MetM rqdri~ ccmtructiodexmation canml

be perfomd efficiently dutirg pride khen the

gramd is frazen.

Metlrxis re@rl~ ccmtmction ad/or excavation ~

quire surface kmter controls if peclpltation

emeeck evapotransptratiorb Ibnron ad runcff

controls ad stiace seals are essential for slurry

UaL1.

Bmkf3mnt of tarriers (e.g.. nenhmes d Iimrs)

Urxler frmen comiitiom,

P@% ~ gravity draiw

~e rquire spdal sw

face hsl’riling procedlms

for fluids in m-tain

cases* DZmWltion is

&ten not pactid.

Rairfall is generally net

a @or lidting factor

for nethxk. Excavation

my require surface vater

cortrols if ~ecipitation

exceed evapotrampirir

tiol%

-. sp.xially da3i@ed equi~

hm rida asmdatd with barrier dsmge rkirg hard- nmt ad nateriala are

I.lrg and imtallation. Specially designed quipmnt rtquired for wlttdraal

is mfxied for ahny ~11 com3truction uslxg a erhncanent.

vibrati~ bean. T&re is dffficul~ in ottaini~

ntefifght Irterlo&s with sheet pilea.

All treatrmt fad.litiea

mat be protected (i.e.,

heated) in tenpraties

bela freedrg. In

Sddltiw IW talper&

turea (e.g., 0°-200C)

serlcusly Iape.ir air ad

stem Stlippiw (wdatl.lity redwed) and biologld trelx!forlmtima

(rate ~) if hnter

is alao aud to *

craxtw in taqerature.

Imifrect. Ccn’ditbl’l *

ternd.nea appllcaixility

imofar as before tree&

Uent can be applied,

Teqeraturts bekw freezitg rcqdre qecial Pcaes no comtralnt

hsdling POCedues for @@Xanta end for on qpllcabillty of

tte pctectlon d pipirg; Wter table Iretllxk.

aijustaent may be fmibla, depnciirg on

aite comtltiom. I.uJ tenpereturea race

rates of *cal am! Holo@cal t~

fonmt~on.

I&Mall is ~otably not a ccmtreint in Pcaes no ccmtrai.nt

gereral tut cculd be dependi~ on site on epplldility of

corkl.ltlom. Applicahll.iV of natural. re- llBtl’KXk.

habll.ltation may be Mmtted if natural re

grmndmter mat he wittr huge is Mmitfd.

dram and tremprted to

a surface treaatnmt uiit

(see $tMdmal).

B@pmmt aire is detez- - to inject

mind @ flm rate ad is rqllmd.

nature atxl -t of

Contaldna’lts b be m

Wved. Scptd.sticated

controls are rtqsired for

ultrafiltration. SemLperuanent equipuent is

required for air and

St- Strippf%.

re@J?nts into the soil Comtruction cur

Silk~titXB vary depel’xtilvg on such

factors as availability of akernative

acur- d tinter,

avallabilfQ of

transportation/dlatritutionldelivery

systan, and nature

of the acurce of Caltadnation.
cacaIdnsrK

Typesd

Castration bmd.oam category pmea mjor cuBuaint on

@icaMliq of Sam Iletklds. antaldmne

specific evshtiom will te rquired to amm’e

Cmnpatibility of maldlMnt (at high ccmO?nUstiors) ad ptyaica.1 tarder mmxlals. Armmtlc

w~ad otkr datllfs (e.g., datlle

hskgem) are least aumsblecoltdmelx m Uettnda.

C&uxally, if -dnsntsare of I.cwconomttatfm,

tk ~ d @ntdlMm my lb% be critical.

N@cdynantc controls & na depeni cm maldnsrK type,Ssamd% no ~is e. “k

tmrril.ing ard dlspasl & any exmwltd UEterials

Calld ititino? tl’x? use d this Option.

Based on Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc. , 1983.

Conwtsion fa2tom:

.30S x feet to ohsin oetern (m)

4047 x ares to okdn sqtnre aeters (~)

2.S90 X SqUIKe miles to oksin =P=re Ml

3

tam (km?)

.02a x ctlblc feet m Okain cubic Ueters ( )

%x=: Office d TedmdcgyAs32asmrK .

Llmltatlm-a plx?d ty oJntaldnmt ate$pry ‘Jay

J=rq specific m?tti.

GeO&mdstry ad tikr

tiated factors that

affeti ptitiml~ &

CmtdnWX belween th?

soil, e srd tater

Ilsy affect efficiency

of bcth ~ti

ad pq)irg IMklda.

HalrUlng d disposal &

~ted rmtedala ad

=lDclated -~

cculd corstrain tk we

of this Optkcb Witlr

&aml erhnc6mt is

q?plidle only to orgsnirs. Relatively

dllme ~tratiom?

- ~mi@Y

less cm= ferfive to

W*

Cawdnam Czm3@ty LimLtatiom posed Cultaldnarc Ly category~Y P-= ~

PO- -tir c-maim on vary aung specific metimk Au mdmds are

@kablllty of netlnd3 genemlly applicable m Otganics. Effect-

~ any Iretlmd tenk i~s of hinter tble dj~tmt arri nse

to addre3a spxlflc con- ural promas relaxation is vev mtadnam

~ -fi- speclfic ad cmld k Llmltesl (e.g., if car

TTeameIK is also llmlted taDinamX are smcxgly adsortd or in sepif UdJmra of ~- srste fluid phsae8). Dqyarktion -lmds are

US&S are preaea ad If test suitd when sirgle CotXadnmta are

conmttratiom are ~ F=. Biological ~s&ulm ~rn

@ wf.dly (discod’lU-applimble ally to certain Catqgorks &

asly) wer tine. No ‘ti~a ~ 9’Pi~Y ti net effid.e= for

IKetlDds are avalbble ccmxUxatlon3. No &grdatti =ttod

for scxE @ml@cals qp= w~~k KO @m@= No ExImd

(vi ruses) S!d rzxMXU- 1s @i@Me to Kaiionlclides.

Clilks (Iittk exp?rkno?

with treatment). Treatm?.nt coma are also senSitiw to -S al’d UJ1.uue

of Imterial to te treated.

Rate d process is Mmked

tylou ~iom.

Commairc 00

Sp@cabd.llty of

mthxb. Appwatility d ID?ttmb

is depimk!lt on

public prqtlon

sbmt tb nstu-e and

severity of tk!

~bltm
F.2 NON-TECHNICAL CONDITIONS DETERMINING THE

APPLICABILITY OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVESa

CaI-ditlal Cmtalmert

Envlrome=al/mclal Major pot-ial side-effects

side-effeas are axmztated with the

CcrKiru!d preeem d

pa@ble k- of

CaXand-s. Cku’gea to

gr~ter flm ptterna

cad also hale diaruptiw

effeas on tk envirometi and

otkr users. Surface distrlncea wall-d te Calaei ty

uetti rcquirirg coratrue

ticm. Noise, air pllution,

ttific, etc., my ocmr

dmirg comtrual.on/ogertr

tion. In aans cases, effects

awxxiatcxi uLth dlapceal of

exalvatxd rmterlala q be

sl@ficant.

Labor

ca13i&ratlorE

T1-e ccostructtiiratallation

d Imterial tarriers terria to

rquire skilled profeaaioda;

qerational requirem- are

miniml (ad wmLd relate to

perfonmnte IlulitoKllVg).

Otter ruXbda rquire miniml

labor, ad aklll rtqutrentwts

are variable. Only t@rai~

nad.c lxmiers in this

-V -*1Y hSW labor

re@reumts duriqg operation

tbt are in ddition to mmlabor Imensive unnitmlng and

SUpetvistio

Witktrad

T~ ww= of Withdrwal is

to redute commdnant

~ntratiom In tk

SUtSUti&= bt th?re cculd be

rmjor potercial aide-effects

.ZKXtated with tte SUrfSU?

disposal d Wittdralm CY3rr

tadnarcs (or Uw3td rdduala). Additional *S

psible fran pmping ad

-V drm are related

to alteration of grctnxkater

fkw ptterm (e.g., Iur@

of the wmer table ani

saltwater intrusion). Noise,

air @.utlon, traffic, etc.,

my ocaIr dJrirg tulstructti

operation.

Metbda are generally labolimemive ad rqulre skilled

prc&eaaionala duriqg wnstrue

tion/ln9tallatlolX op!national

rqulremnts Gem.1 to k mnlatmr intetr3iw tat stffl

rquire &llled pmfeasionala.

‘rreatm?m

Pcsaible si&-effects are

relatd to tk trarsferral of

-antmuts to tk atmSptwe. Disposal d Uw@lent

bypraiucts ( lntludi~ soluticm frcm rqperation) cculd

also have dwtae effects

depti~ on diapmal netti

dnaen.

Metlmda are genendly laboxi-miw ad require aldlled

prr&ssionala durlrg cm3trw7

ticm/im3tallatione Operational rqulremnts are

~rally non-labor inttmi=,

tut tilled prufeaaionals are

still rqulred. @w acqtion

is Molcglcal &roxification

*& has Ulotimmiw

operational nqukesnxts.

h-aim RehaMIitx.ion

Major side-effeas are a3aodated with the paertial for

r~ttim kween ~s

used in degahtion nakcb

ad tl’l? hydrqgeolq@c elNirulfnent (e. g., resulti~ in

catauL~ reald@a). For

=ter table aiju9txent, aideeffects uay result fran both

raising the tater table (e.g.,

flcxxtirtg d eaels, M

fields, or basenetis) and

berirg th water table

(e.g., kee flm altmaticns

ad effects on Ala).

Natural P-sea are ala,

ad * ride exists tkt

corcaninattin will qxead

furtkr.

Degdation nettrxia are

~rally non-~r imemiw

ht *clally trti t--

Calpermnnel are r~tied for

mtructiodlllltallath.

Water t~~ sdjwmm Is

labor inten3ive In Its

Comtl’uuladimtalktti talt

norrlakr inten3iw in its

~ratti% Sidlkd ~rsonnel

are ~tir~.

Major potertial envirotmrxlal

aml mdal side-effecta

imlwi? disruption of rrXIQil

e ptterm, disruption of

ecmmdc activlq, public

con- cofiirued ~esmce &

ad potelxlal Spedim of

co~~s, ad kslth rika

(e.g., if cmtzmdnams are na

renoved ad/or -ted). Pa7

slble emrirornvxtal ad aodal

dlsrqxion ~canpmy earo?

rawval.

Labor rquiremlt aqby

mttcd. Mettoda are gnerally

ncmlabor imemiw? during

Coltm-uctiodimtallatm

skilled peraolmel are often

net esimxial. Oprathsl

rcqui~ s are often

ndnlnal.
Comntlon

Safety twml.ckratima Pr~~ rquiritg tk

for wotkers remval of comaninated

u8terial (e.g., amtruction

auivitiea) xqdre speckl

hdlirg ad safe~ preCaJtlom.

Tim requir~ unforeseen geotechnlcal

CodMDna, Ccnplex tydrogeobgy, ad extert of

cortamhntion are mjor

f ~ozs in &tenninlrg time

for cmn5tmzion/im3taHatiow Tiae for &a@ is

~rally kss than um mrtha

(gralcilg SrKi hydrallic tatriera my req.dre qmrda oi

six rumth). ~ for construction is ~rally am to

six uo~ha for tarrier mXlmia

srxi unkr W mntha for otter

netlxxk. Tkre are miniual

* rquireuxcs chulmg

operd.on.

Withimal

Drill.lrg Sctivltia? prcduce

axwminatcd nmedala d

rqdre special hsndlil’g

--” The haldlil’g of

Caltmdnated excavati

uateriala pma a aericua

MJuLtation m tk E of

excavation. LaLmr rqd.remXKs gelwllly i~ s

th? du#Xa pcsd ty conttmdnsms increax?.

Hydr~lc# ad 6cte ad

nsture of tomdnation are

tmjor facto=. Time for

dEsign d Commldord

installation are earh

typirdly lels than six

=k. Excavatim uziy tske

as long as me ~ depnding

on meal extent ad depth of

~tlon ad ~tence &

strucau=, e.g., utilltie3.

operation of pllqlirg UEy take

w Y-* %=~% ~ t~

extent of Comantnatlcm,

W-w, d ckgree d

c-p to te tievdo

TTeaUlel-c

-e to comadnarcs m

remit frau reahiuals

hariling, Volatization, ad

titer factors. For ewmple,

in ah s~s ‘Jo~@=

cmld k introduced htO tk

atmqi-ere.

Tlm for &al@ la t@cally

bs than six mxths. Tine

for ccmtruction/lmtaUaUon

is typically lms than six

mxzk. Design ad udor

delivsry are @or tine

aideratiom. Tine

rquiremxts for operati~ the

Syamn &peld on Cutaldnam

VPf% Cono?ntratlon lew?la,

SId perforuame w.

11’mitu -Iltation

Safety comidx-atlcm cad.d b

Sisific- if tb tal’dli~ of

mterfala tit are potemlally

reactive is rqd.red.

Degraistion mtbds are

po3aitde elthm to &a@ or

construu/instaLl within Sbait

one mxth if carumdnams are

faaili-, akwhe, th

rqrlmmts cadd be

l~r. Water table

djuatnent ~~ and

cusUuctlon/in3tallatlm are

ea~ on th or&r of six

mrchs, bt Lmh@mmedth

system ouer the lo-m la

rqdrd.

%fe~ cuwideratiom vary

~ opticm. For exiqde,

ttey CaJld be Iqorte for

Iuxllmtiqg activities.

CUUxXll aLxXU WJrlcels la

usually wel13hlK&ed b

clxmern to protect tlx! @Uc

nrme ~rally.

Tlm rqui~ ‘=Yb

o@o~ ttmry are ~rally

less than six mntk b for

de3~ ami comKrudon/

imtallation. Lug led UllE?a

q be required in safe ~,

e.g., for deA.q~

altermtive Supplills and

iqlemmt~ Wth

tisorles. Termlmtion/

limitation of quffer use ad

purlllaae of Sltem9tiwe

sqd.lea are often used for a

rqdd =- reaprs2.

Imltitutional cnlEi&ratiom

cculd cOmK&n thdy

inplemaltamn dmnly

llerlnds.
L.-l

if

4

0

N

o

I co

IP

I Condltlon

C@t comickrationa

CaKaiment

Principal factors &terndrdqg

C03tS til.u& &@h to grti

water wotandnation, areal

excent of mntaldnaticln to be

-aid, geadmkal car

ditiom, ad type of cotiallLMrus. GntairnmK Ueti

are ~rally @tal

ircel-6ilR2 during mtrur

tion/imtallatiom Opsxaticmal

C@ta are generally Udnilml

except for natural ~trumt

(e.g., analysis) ad hydrtic

brrier opticm. Replacement

ccsta are likely to k

incllrmd. * Cox of f.mintainillg surface seals used In

conjtmtion with slurry walls

is Si$yificant.

Perfonmnce Vlra-vls Ccatalnrent r=ults in tk

tte contimed pr=nm Contiti ~em of colXaldOf Contandruults -S ti tk SUtY3UtfaCe with

th paential for furt~r

ndgratfon (e.g., via -).

Witkhwa.1

pn~~ f~tO~ deterndrdrg

ats include depth to gramiwXer cauandnation, voluue of

contaminated grodwater to be

-d, .gwxtid ditiom, Svailatdliv of dispc6

al amilor treatnent

facilities, arsl

hydrcgeolcgy. GerrXally,

these mXtmda are capital

Ilml!miw durirg mtrue

tidiIT3tallation. Sptm

q~~s UEy @ ~ &

selectively replaced dqendlng

on le~th of tim d system

opmati~ dwawiae, op2ratfonal co3ts are gewratly

Odnilmal.

Wittdrwal per se results in

the comlrmd preaenre of

ccntauinaKKs which are

transferred to ctter

enviroammtal nedi~ -r,

w.ithdrwal netkda are

typically used in conjtmction

with treatuent.

Traarent

Ptinc@I factors &ternd~

co3ts tilu& flew rates ad

aystml capacity, comentration

ad tyfea of contimdnams, and

plant dealgn. Coats are

WY variable EnuX$g treatnent qXion9; tk met cQ3tly

msttcds incluck rewme

~i% ion ~, ~

electcodialyais. HcaE

treatnent tits (at point-oferxi use) are also catly.

Treammt haa the potetiial to

result In the cortiti

preaem of contauinarm

thrcugh tkir ~ible tram

fer to ottrx ewframmtal

Ma (e.g., air); aidltimal

Caltaldnalts my also k

introduced (e.g., treament

typrcducts). I@mval

efficLenctea of =ttmda are

variable.

In-situ ReMdlitation

Prhclpal factom &temdnitg

cmts inclu&: the size d

sites SXli * arx.i o2rrerKratbn of commdnams for

~adatlon msttmds, ad tk

-nt of tk aysten ami

d-mation of cpxatlon for

wXer table adju3tumt.

TtEse Iu3ttrlda result in ttl?

~fsm~ d tramfbrud

cortauinarcs in tk sutmrfae

to@tkr with (spnt) trafomtion agents.

OPticm

cats vary - qtlom; th?y

cculd imti& ~~S

reLated to etior~ , proVidirg @d.ic infonmtion, and

-rgerq reqomes.

Th?se m@’oda often result in

the cotiinued ~esena of

Ccmtaldnaas In tk Subaurfe

with tk pttertial for futtter

ndgration.
Gn-untlon

DEsi.gn life ad

CQeratiorlal

rqxiremnts

Ilmitutimal

mideratiom

DeaigI life d mterial

harrier cxxxainlsm aystera is

f Mite kc a yet lxialmal.

Lor4g remrKk d expXkKe are

generally lackirg hlt design

life terrkl to be 2040 years

for tpplbttlora m Involvirg

~~s. Replacaent w

be ~mmlly rqdred mleas

brriera are cmpled with

Wittrirdltreatue m. uydro-

-C =11’llques Ilu3t

operate perpetually to isolate

comahmm, raquiri~

pefiodic Well/pulp replacemmt. Tect@~ for mmqging

surface rtsX&f can IEqldre

ml-e frequmt lml~ tkn

Imdergrod Structure.

IrEtiLutioKMll all’BlderatioI-6

IXlu& the - of lard

across d tte preaew of

facllltiea ad structures at

tk cxlmtruaion site.

Wltl-dralza.l

only exavatim is penrawft.

DesisI life d ahr uettmds

will vaxy ad a ccarimma

ti~/=@=== *

ule wculd be rqutrd. Fluid

ulthirzwal mttnda ctuld have

lag CQeration d Imintenam.x!

perifnk (e.g., for highly

attemated -ardnarts).

Water @ma ~my

restrict the use of ~rg.

Otkr com~r~ irm21u&

tlw avdlabll.ily of dlaposal

alternati~ for wittxlra

mmadmma Srd ttx? eae d

lad x-s.

a

Based on Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc. , 1983.

%uroe: Office d Tedmolcgy ASSSSSae=.

‘rre3meIK

Typically, &a@ life is

15-30 -IS for equipent

otkr than mmbrama (@ Is

kas thsn 5 pm). Exceptions iochk filtration ard

~=@@Ql% khirh hme a

d6s* life & 15 yearn tut

vhich also require nore

frq~~ filter regemration.

Hare Ulits are plxle to

&terial grmth ad rqulre

careful =i~. Ikta are

na avallkble m eva2uate

ultrafiltration sine this

lletbd & ken cperatiollal

only Aalt 4-8 yvmi. In

-, w~ Ml ~

reqired at th etrl of da3ign

life if commtm+rts resmin.

A major cmsl.deration involves

tk avaihbillty of altermr

tivea for th diapcaal of

fxeatnent rcd.duea.

h-situ Rehabilitation

De@q life is nfX typically a

Mldtatlon. (use of madlineq

or twisni~tmaneft mttuctlon

ntKeriala are not ~rally

rqdrcd.)

R4@~rY awrwal w k

rquired for tk injedon &

degradation qlxs.

&* life is - alwys a

llnitath. %cE@olm

ildulk purdl&31rg d

alternative !llPplia and

pointXd+eml

thich bah teti

 use 

 to k 

~

StK)~

term (Ie3s thm 5 y2ara). In

addl.tion, tb perfonmnm d

poi~ U@ tr~

udts has &en Ianmm to shift

drauatltally cwer tinw

Develo@rg al@trntiw

su@iEs my have a &a@

We U- CE 50 pm. ‘l’he

dess life & ~pal

tmaauXK facllitiea la

~y on tk oxler d

20-30 pars.

A witk ra@e d imtitutional

comi&mtions my arlae

depemll~ m th? C@Dn ard

id.u&senhu3m& cunpting

uses, acmas to alternatiw

mpplk (e.g., pmdwi~

akernatlwe au@ks), ad

public axqtame.
F.3 APPLICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES

stare

Catesxy comalmI?lK

Cstemy I (Designed to d.lsdlsw)

Most Caualmert ln?ttodsa are

~ral.ly qplible to all Cst~ty

I sour- ex~t Injecil.on Ala

bxxuse of tkir depth. my natural

caXafraEnt *peats qpltcable to

injection wells.

(DeQqed to swine, mt, snd/or di.spcae)

ht Catairrlent l@Ddsa are

&T==~Y *P~*le ~ S1-1 Q+te@rY

II m=. timulnstx-s~cific

evabtiom are typically rO@rad to

~CaQstibi.liv of rdioluclib

ad any aaterial tarrier.

TO SOURCES

Wittkiradal ‘rramnmt

All wittdrad n8Mtnk are applicable

to SIImt all catefJxy I Salre.

‘lh exusption is injection w2Lla

ddch are typkally tm ckp for

-v drw, F3= U=*9 or

exmvation mstlxxis; in practie,

l=dlmh@ In@@ty testil’g Srri

anti ~esam teits are used to

&tect poh frao injection hells

in lieJ of Correuiw actl.omh

All withirad nethnis are generally

@plicable m all Cstefpy II

Salr-. withiradal ~nt is

not gemsmlly qd.kable to

rdosctiw disposal sites.

N.R. b

Inn3itu Rebbilitstlon

While all in-situ tehahilitation

mttuda are prslly qplicable to

Ukx3t Cm!goty I 9Jurm, Siw

specific factocs (e. g., @lw,

hydrolcgy, ad COmmdnsms) mst be

evalmted to &termLne fcetlmd

f~ibfflty. One aaspttin my be

injeutin *Is +Ich are typially

too &q for &grdation retbds.

Optlom

~t u-s=- w~mc -

~rslly qplicsble to all

Cs~oty I sour-. In

pradti, corrective actions

are generally I.indtd to

uansgermnt cpticm for subsurface ~rcolation.

N.R. b Appllcahility of him tit ~m qt~~c are

rehabilitation mettuda to umt ~rally q+~le to all

(kegor’y 11 sOW- deperda on Si~ ti~Oty II sour=.

spectfic factxm. In particular,

tedency for mtlrxk to be

aXCmhsn=peclflc my limit u3e

for nu.ltiple-caxauham

sitmtiotr3. In dditian, in-situ

rehabilitation netids wmld

gemrally be Inapplicable to

railosctim wastes; natural

r~torsticm wculd be Inqplkable to

~

Salras Contalllilg w typea of

wates; ad &gKdatlon

tid k ill@p~Qlb& to drdgi~

axlditiom.
Sowm

Catekm-y CrxCaimr Withiraia.1

Cat.SOry HI (DfE@M4 to tra-apxt or tramrit)

Max antailllmlt aettDd# are All Witmrad uetlmda are &nerally

~rally applicable to all Wegory qpll(xbl.e to all Cat~ty III

III mm. amr-.

tit~ ~tbka ~

tedrlmdly ,@kible to au

-V ~ amm?a. Ik3wer,

~- to date la limited in

terns of th? areal extelx d Wllllm?a

hatxild; these factma ctuld

efkuiwly preclb nettoda fron

ddrasaing auu2 (htqp’y Iv .scmRCea.

All witMrzIm.1 nettda are techOlrxiuy qi@iG3ble to alllmt au cat6gory Iv Wurlxla. Emeptlm hCllL& d?ictw aalta @pllcation,

%hich i8 m alenable to Wltklr%al

edmcment uetlmda, ad adntrg ad

ndm drainage which, If tk IDim IS

too &ep, will not k ammAle to

-V dralm13e or excavation.

Vohnea ad ared eX.ent ccmld efftively peclude we d & mtbda,

twwmer, for ~aaical reaaom3.

‘rTemu?m

N.R. 

b

N&.b

In-aitu ReMdlitatlon

kgudation mtttxb are generally

qplkble to Catqry 111 amrma,

eapedally if tb maldtis

indved are pXrolamrtaafxL In

otbr Caaea, Site-qrxific factcm

alw b evalmted to daMmdne fea3ibili~ of In-aim rehabilitation

mxhxb.

mile In-aim rebbilitation aetbda

are -rally qplicable to -t

category N aalrw, SItmpxific

facmra mE3t b Wallsitd to

&termLrm2 feaaibili~. Degradaticm

mMrxla, -r, are typidly not

d for Mc@ aalts.

Mana3emnt Optlom

-t~Wt*c -

pral.ly i@k3ble to all

Cm3gory xv Wurms. r.b to

th? disp?rad nature of

Caw811Lnatirg activltks, ad

w tk M@ I.TIhaea ad law

areal extent d gmxkimter

affected, cmrectiw adcma

my be Iind.ted to ~nt

o@lcm3 in ~aulte.
Scure

Catemry

Category V (Prwide comiuit or

CorrMnmmt Wittdrd

irduoe diachage vla alterd flw ~tterm)

TIE qlplidrllity of OxEt Coaair=mt

IIE!ttDdaa to met category v 9JU(X3

&pen& on d depth. For @mple,

oil Ala, gwtknml wells, erharxd

recou2~ wells, and fdution minltg

are @ally too &ep for amy of

these umbda. Only natural cmtaimem wculd na genetally te restriaed ty &ptlw I.imLtd ex@mce

is available -l% hy&tic bartiera

for these &ep acurcea. In ppneral,

appli~tion of any correcti= =tl.on

alternatiw to Cat~ry V acurcea

deperLia al udlanid axrlition of

WdJs. &t mttmda are qlidle

to ccxwruction exmvation.

cate#Xy VI (Naturall~ ring)

Mcst nrxkdaa are generally

*1.idle m all Cat.egxy VI

Sour-.

‘k qplitility of = wittxiraw+d

mtlmcb (e. g., gravity ~, -

cavation, * gas wmtirg) to mat

Cate@ry V amrces &pmla on well

depth For ~le, oil wells,

gxxhemal wells, eticed rem.ery

w211s, ad solution mlnirg are

typidly too &ep for these neth-

*. Wittxiriual enhXfwEnt is na

~plicable to pctknmal or wxer

supply ala. only puuping is

generally uwomtraind in its q@ication to Category V auure. All

mtlxxia are Zqlplialble to

CIXEltruction excavatim.

Mu3t rtwlmda genedly are applicable

to all C.ate@ry VI me.

Con3trdnirg factors inckk ckpth of

tk saRIX d steal extent arKl

Vob d grcundna ter affecttd.

‘rraaml’lt

N.R. b

In-aiw Rehshil.itation

‘k applicability of differert *t _euent cptiomc am

in-situ rehabilitation netlmda varka ~rally qplicable to all

by aalrce. Siwapcific facto= Category v Salrm.

mat k evahted to &terndne the

f~ibil.1~ of natural promas

restoration. With respect to

dtgrdstion uettods, oil wdla ad

erkwwed recouxy wells are typically

tm Aq, ad &akmtil ~k ~~

an unfauxable umpersture (high) and

ctemtcal IEk31p (brine). lmeri~ of

the water table may k inq~oprlate

for water supply wella.

N.R. b Water table aijustmnt is llkely to ~t ~* w~~c am

k qplicable m all Cste@ry VI ~rally qplicable to all

sources. Natural promas restmatlon category VI 9mrCx53.

is UIMIGely to te qlplicable.

&gradation mttods are typically na

used for asks.

a Neitkr steet piles nor cenent grmt mtof fs have @nerally ~tioured wll in pra2tice for tteae acur~. Petionmrce d all

netbda inwlvl~ a8terial tarriers are &pen&m on cmqetibili~ with contaminant s present ani @logic conditions.

b ~ ~=, per se, ~ contautnatim la generally not relevant m tk choice of treatnent technol@es exaipt *far as it

indicates idllch specific cinltaldn9nt s my be paent, cent 81dnant concentration, or tte degree of cortauimnt renwit &sired.

c Smre sutstitutlon or same rtmoval mgy na be ecotxntldly feaalble or politically vkble for ~ gmrca in this categoq.

Source: Off ice d Teckdcgy Assessmnt
Appendix G

Federal Efforts To Correct

Groundwater Contamination
G.1 CORRECTIVE ACTION PROVISIONS FOR

CATEGORY I SOURCES

Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Provisions

Sutslrface

Percdattin

Injeaim Wel.la -

Hazardous waste

Safe Dridcitg

Water Act -

umiergrcalmi

Injection Control

Prqgram (4O m

144 ad 146)

Safe Drirkirg

Water Act - Umkr

grad Injection

Cuntrol Program

(40 CFR 144 d

146)a

Ceasmds or otkr waste teceivityg ckvicea Not s~cifid. o

uith cpen kttom ad -tires perforatd

Sicb (class v wells). Applies only to units o

sexvi~ 20 or uore persom.

Wells tkt inject kardous waste (as Not specified. o

defined by R@A) kmath tk &epaw

fonmion catainirg, within ~usrter

mile of the well tore, an unckrgroud scurce

of dridci~ water (Chs I wells). o

Wella that inject hazanba waste (as Not spxifiei.

defiti by R(XA) into or &we a fotmation

containil’g, witti-~wa mile d the

well bore, an undergramd scmre cf driricirg

vater (Class IV Ala).

o

0

No s+ecific awrestiw aXion rtquirenr!nts.

If tkre may k a -lath of primty drinki~ va~r

regulactim or if tte preaence of a contaminant may he adversely

affecti~ the kalth of pmmm, enforcement or adnini.strative

auio= can k tzken to prevent tk violatim or advem effect.

Aquifer cleamp shall te prescrilxsd by tk regulatory a.mtmity

if it is &enExine-sary ard fe=ible to erwre ackqmte

prwection of all undeqymmi sources of driricirg water.

If tkre my te a violation of primry drinkt~ tater

re@attira or if tk preaence of a ccxmminant may be adwtsely

affecti~ the h=alth of Prmm, enforc=mmt or achinistxatiw

actiors cm k tzicen to prevent tk violation or aiverse ef feet.

No speafic cornzstive rs.xion requiraumts.

If tkre may k a violation cf prinraty drinkirg w+ter

regdaticm or if tk preseme of a contauhnt my be adversely

affectirg the tealth of ~rtxm, enforcement or duhistrative

actiors can k tdcen to pra’ent tk vioktion or adw~e effect.
Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Provisions

Injeaion WeLls - ~ekmive Wells tit release twy &rzanba autstam, Not specified. Respmes ran te ““rewval”’ (slmt-term, -~my) ~iom or

Haardms Wrote Envirormeaal @utant, or ant ald.nant (as defined ty “’r~al”” (lo~r term, comdstent with prmm tt rexdy) aaions.

(Cultll’lled) I@aporse, CEmA). Ikredial -iom w te &ken only at si~ on tk National

Ccrqrmatlon, ad Prlorlties List ard mmt tE codstent wtth rqdrenems spw5fkd

Llabllity Act in Natind C.txtiqenq Plan. seleaion d a rem3y is bed on a

(40 CFR XXI) kmldriation of cmt-effectiw!n03s (lowest mt Skernatile ttwlt

is te&nol@dly fe=ible ad reliable ad which effectively

udti@tea ami minimizes _ to and ~ovidea adspte ~ctectlon

of public balth, welfare, or tk envlr~ ).

Injectti Wells - tie ~~.qg Wells that inject ~te kneath * deepest Not Spedfid.

Nodkardous Water Act L forlmtilxl cortaid~ within onequstter mile

Wrote IJrdergrould of th hell bore, an Undelgrculd SaJro? of

hjecti.m cuntrd drinkhg tater (C&s I tdla).

Prcgram (40 CZR

144 ad 146)

Injection Wells - Stie ~~ Wellll d In

Non-Wats

cnmaction with oil ad gas

Water Act - ~dion tich injea fluids (Clz33a 11

Urdelgrould Ala). Includes wells & for erixmmd

Injectti Control recow ry, for stm* ct liquid tydroPrrgran (40 CZR cartuns, ad for welk hre i.njecmi fluids

144 ad 146) are trmght to the surfate ad may te

contstrnai with wssw Wate= frau @a planta.

Not Spd.fied.

Wells used for extrartim of mirerala (Clax3 Not Spcifid.

111 wells). Inclwka minil’g & Sulfur by

Frasd FOCE8S, icraitu ~oduction d uraniun

arri ater rmtak, ad aolutlon ndnirg cf

salts or FUadb

Sam a rqui rmerts for hazadcwa wa8te diapoad Wd.la that inject

-h tk &~t scurm of drlnldrg wter umkr SX&

San2 a3 rqdr~ s for haramhs -te diapoad Wlls that inject

kneath ttk? -t scurct?a of drink@ wter urxkr !X%&

Sare ~ rqulr~ms for harattha w=te dispeal *I6 that inject

Imeath the &e~t same of drlnldxg =mr un&r ~
Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Scarce Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Provisions

Injection Mla - Safe Dririci~

Non+aste Water Act -

(C4mtlmed) Udexgraaxl

Injec&ion Conuol

Prqran (40 CIX

144 d 146)

(contlnJed)

Land Application - Clean Water Act -

Was-ter Section 201

(40 (2R 35;

41 ~ 6190,

2/11/76)

Lad Application - Clean Water Act

Ws-ter Seai.on 405 (4O

Bypduus CFR 257)

Iarxl Appllcatlon - ReEzalroe colBeIkardcms waste -ion d

Recwery Act -

Suttitle c

(40 Cm 264)

wells m ilwlldKi in Catcgorle3 I, II, III,

ad LV (Class V uells). Exa@ea of Ckss V

Ala include artificial redatge wells,

coolirg wmer, or sir conditionhg retflw *IS.

Wastesater lard treatmxu -Ses (inchnks

slow rate, rqld infiltration, ad overland

flew Uetbda).

s-w s- *Pfi-- (i@@=

Sgrimltural, forew ad Iatrl rdismtion

utilizatim, ad &dica@ lad dispsal).

Lard tream?nt of l’EzardaJs wastes (as

defined by KRA).

Not Spdfled. o No spxific cornxtiw -ion rtquSremmts.

o If tkre my & a violation d @nwry drlnlcl~ ~ter

rdticm or If tte ~ae= cf a cwtirnwt ~ be adve~ely

affecti~ tk lxx+lrh & Prmns, enbrtx=mx or addniatrstiws

aulom can k tdcen to prevent tte violation or d.erse effect.

Not specifid. o No spcific corrective action rquir-s.

o ilwewr, If Foject is funded as Innovative ard Alternati=

T~~, grm ~aiatame ~ k twarded for tte ntxiiflmtlfm

or reptint of ~ojeas tkt have na nw ** p2rformne

Spcifimtiom (Lrd.ess failure is & to n@@rlce ), correction

of failure rcr@re3 si+pificantly Imreasd @tsl or opimatfng

ad ueintemme =PeditllL=, ad failure oclllrs within ttr? w

p P=lod folkwiw final impeaion.

Na SfEdfid. Sam a3 rquirmmts for lad qpllcatlon d wssteamer wrier W

Seaion 201.

Correctiw action prqgram mat o CorreUi* =tion prcgrm mat be conhxmd at tk ccnpl.tanoe

peuxlt specified hsi21rdals point ad k-n the ca@an@ potrt and the _adlent

constimnts fran elmtdirg ttdr fzdlity ~cperty barmiary, as ncrmssry to -t t~ clesrup

respaive lindts eatabllshed in the statuiwd. Chrective aulfxm are net rtquired ~d tte

grmxhter prtiectlon stdard. d@Kgrallent facility pr@e tly bamdary.

(See *P. E.1 on Hoxlng

Frcwislom for a &scriptIon of the o H~nhs mmtitmnts nust & remvcd or meated in plm%

grcumkter prczection Wan&d.) Facility ~mdt will S~&y th axl!wtive ~ion ~a to

k tskn.

●
Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Provlaiona

LaniAppliamlon-Reaollro2 o

HaudcuaWa3te Cusei’vatimemi

Qmlrued) R&20ueryActSulxitiec

(40m264) 0

0

0

C43rmztius txtionmat ~wlthlna rE=Mmable tine period

after grcuxhmte rpteuionatankrdle e=eded(tlaepmod

Sp?dfied illfsdwy permit).

Corraziw amim~ mJattecoMmadcbJrixgalritEyoui

tbcqdiamep?rlodtotheeluent necmssry to emre that the

gmmdwxer praectlon atmiatd la na exeeied. corrective

adon neatmea mmld tqrmd tb CqMance p?micd my be

terudnawl if correctiw mtion mnitmitg (see ~p. El)

inilolte3 that tb @ curkter pmection stamkrd & net ken

~ for ttree Con3eauile years.

lk effettiusram of currealve adon mamxas mm te repted

to tte regulato~ mtltxlty. If a correuiw action prqrm no

lo-r eatisfiea tb re@aKmy requireumm, qmpdate

m-t 1= SuMtud Wlthln 90 Ckys.

Etircemnt aalon w &m te tdm umkr Sectim 7003-

~~i~ Lad iqpl.lamlon facilitk ttmt releme amy Ncc apedfid.

Ewlromemal hazanba aubt8mx2, @l@ant, or

Reapmse, ~ (as Mid ty O?MM).

Cmplm3atlon, ad

Liatdliq Aa

(40 CFR m)

Irmdnert ad Sub3taaial Edaxgetmm

SaE s CSiWA prwiaiom for kardam waste disp6al wells.

Ial’Ki Appllcatlon Ckm Water Act - Diapaal siw for &d@ or fill uaterial. Not speclfkd for grcukkter. No 03rmctiw &xion Rquiremelt

Nm&zardala

s spxified for gramxker.

SeaIon w

mte (’40 CFR 2Xl)

a 

NM ad W him ouerbppirg jurisdiction for iqjeulon wells u3ed to dispose d haumkxa waatea. A petndP_ qproath hsa ken lmthted to

both pogma. An cmer or opxator of such a uell -t ca@y ulth all q@kable S%?! tednid rqutrammx

UJotdina@ tte tqul relmlts d

~matiw requirtsumta. (See 40 Cm 144.14.)

putwmt to tk Un&rgrcad Iqjeaion Control Progan ad o3ttain RXA

Saxce: Off Ice d Tednolcgy Aaaemuent.
G.2 CORRECTIVE ACTION PROVISIONS FOR

CATEGORY II SOURCES

Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Provisions

Ladfills IksaK= Camema- Hills used for tk dlspxxd. & hszard- f.lxrfxtive action prqgram aust pm

bnims U*te tion ad Recovery -te (as &find by KRA). went Speclfierl hazarrirals Constie

Act - Sutcitle C Ems franexcedi~ tkir resp26

(40 CFR %4) tive limits ezwablkdA in the

grcmimter protection stdatd (see

app. E.2 on ux)nitoti~ Pcuisiom

for a &scriptIon of tte grcm%a-r

protection standard).

Toxic SUhtancm Chmdcd was~ larrlfllls ted for tk dls-Not Spedfid.

ColnXol Act - pad of R2Bs atcorKmltratlon3 of 50 ppn and

settdon 6 abwe.

(’@ CFR 761)

caqrEhelMle lanifllls that rekz3e any kzazdcus

Envirtmmmtal sulatsnce, pollutant or mmXdnant (as

Rqonae, @qell- defird ty@lK=).

sation, ad

LiatdJl~ Act

(4O CFR w)

Not SpecifiKi.

o Cm-restive =tlon prcgran mat be comiuctd at tte cqdiamx

point aml ktmen the c@ian@ pdnt ad the dcungradient

faclllty Iq=m ~t =neceaasry to -t tk cleaNp

standsrrL Corrective aalom are ncc rcr@red d ttk? beYO

d~txli~ facility prcqxxty bculdsry.

- -rdous wn3tl-~s uu3t be renumi or treated in place.

Facility petit will SpeCtfy tk mrrecti~ ~res &tion to b

tCorrective action uur5 mat be cortirmed duri~ ad kyord

tb ccn@ianm period to tk extent neca3sary to emre tkt the

gramdwater praection stmimd Is not em4ed. Correuiva

aatin neaswea mmlmed lqomi the ccqlian= p2ricd may be

tenutnated if corrective axion ormitoritg (see app. E.2)

indltatea that tk ~ctndater ~eection standird k not ken

exaxxkl for 3callealtile yeaxs.

The effeuiumeas of corrective action =amea umt te r~~ed

to tte Kgulatory alttmity.If a correctiw action prqran no

lo-r satisfie3 the regulatory rcqutremmts, qpqxl.ate _

m.lst be Suhrdttd within m days.

o Enfbrment action can te takn urxkr Section 7W3 - Imntnent and

Suktactial Erda~nmt.

o m~~t Cotiiw action rquiramts are n~ speclfiai in tte

regulations.

o FCB facilitka cktenuhed to k in violatlon d tk disposal

rt@atloru3 are subject to civil pnalty ard enforcseti pwl.sions

Ofm

I@spmes can te ““renrwal”” (slnrt-te~ eswgency) actiom or

“reudhl” (lo~r te~ consistent with ntPnmnerendy)

actions. I&dial aak can be taken only at sites cm tk

National Prlorltiea List ad nmt k caaiatent wfth requimmtis

spxififsi in National Cont@gency Plan. Selection of a r6s@y is

bad on a &terndmtion of cat-effeaiwnwawi (1.owa3t co3t

alternative that istedmolqgically fe~ible ad reliable ad which

effectively ndtigatea am! minimizes dmsge to arri Fwldea adeqtmte

~a-ion d publ.lc kalth, welfare, or tte erwlrommt).
Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Provisions

LadfillsSanitsry

opm Dlmpa

(includitg illegal

&m@%) -Wa3te

REaidmtial

Dispsal

ResaJrcecomeNatiaIarKIRecmery

Act-SukitleD

(40CFRZ57)

Caqrehmive

Etironnmtal

Response, cclrper

sation, ard

LiatrUityAct

(40CIR300)

Remuro2caBeIvationaodRecovery

Act- SukitleD

(40CFR257)

C-miw

Environmental

RespxElecanpm3Lr

tion, am.i

Liability Act

(40clR3m)

Federsl Imectici&,Fuq@i&,

ardlbdlxlticide

ACt-SeCXiOn19

(40cFR165)

sanitary Ialdfilla defimi a fscilitits

#lich poae w maonable pmlxlbilityaf

adwmeeffectscakalthortkenvirmumt

fran disposal of solid =te (ss &find by

RfRA).

Saml@-y lardfills that r- amy &zadcus

substame, pollutant or cort auinant (as

defiwd by ClildlA).

open dupa defimxl =3 facilitis which & lxx

ueet ttts criteria for sanitary landfilla

tir RtlUL

Open duopa that rele~ w branima

sutatance, @lutant or cokaninant (ss

&find bj am).

Burial d Slmll qlmtitiea d pstkide

cmtainers in opn fielda ( corcaimrs *i&

held OK@liC or @xitiq#anic Pestides

_o- =w, led, _ or

a~ ~)=

Not Spxtfied. No .lqlXific mrrectiw a2tion rquiremts.

Not Spxifiai.

No rquireaents establiskd. No IEqULrelent s establistd.
Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Provisions

surface Resalro? colBerva-

~- tional-mi Recouxy

Hazaxdals waste Act- sukit.lec

(40CFR 264)

Cqxeh?mlxe

Enviranental

Reqxme, CalplSation, d

LlatdlityAct

(40 CFRXK))

Surke surfaceMinilg

I~n= Controlaml

Non-Harardola

waste

817)

@xundnentadefinai as all water, seiintmt,

almx-y or cchr liquid or smd-llquid bldlng

stmaurea ad depre3siom, eitkr na~ally

ford or artificially hilt. Stmctwea may

be @qorary or penranent. Applies m all

surface alxi ln&rgramd coal mining

*ratiom.

Saue a3 rquiremmts for hazardam

waste Iadfills mukr KIM.

SaIE w rqslrenmts for hararrlms

waste Iamifllls wxkr OlRCL4.

Not specifiei.

SSIE as rqdrenents for haamkua wtxme Iamlfilla under MILL

Sme = rquirenenta for hazankus waste Ianifilla *r QIIUIA.

All pmsible stxps mat te tdcen to minlndze ary adwmae iupct to

t& envirmment or public kakh and safety resulting fian nom

ccnpllam with ary permit codltion inchxtltg, ht not limited m:

(1) sny =celeratcri or ditional mxtttorirg necxaaaty to &tenntne

tk nature ad exte~ d nommqll~ ad tk results of such

actiom;

(ii) Mate iupkmentation d nea3ures ~aary to canply with

p2rndt cotitions (e.g. lytilcgic redsmtitm plan, aa deacrikd

in qp. H.f+); ad

(iii) _, aa soon as poasfble after karnirg cf au~ m

cqti, any p=rswn dm.e lxmlth arrl safety is in inudmnt

darger d~ to tk mmx@iarKE.
Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Prwiaione

Sutface Fderal Lad

~-s Polky arKlNmlkatdala mmtActa

Wrote

(ccaimed)

-MineraLLea3irg

Act of 1920 d

Mx?rialaAct d

1947 (43 CFR 23).

Ccwem Ed.m2rals

Swh as d,

plnsphates, aam, -

w- s~,

Stme, gralel, and

Ch.

- us. Mlniq3

k (43 m 3800)

hr locatdk

Ildmrala sudl as

@d, ailwr,

led, ir~ ad

c~per.

- Gatinusl stem

Act (30 ~ 270

~r%nsl Or&r

No. 4)

Not explicitly uentlrnxd in * mguL3- Not spctficsi.

ticm. Ilmmer, @mrlue@a are pxt of

Ildnlrg cperatlom. Appllea only to qler

at.lom on Fe&ral lards.

Pita aml almps Us6i to reta.in all lmretlala N% Spxified.

ami fluids nemmary to &illiIy& p-odlulal,

or &ter qeratiom cm Fdxal lads.

- Ph su~tti w * m!gulatmy mttmlty mBt i.nchxk

W3VMOm for reckmstlon tf diatmbed ~. I@llatiom Spxify

tlmt Sdsqume lmawre3 mat be m to mm &ulB# to th?

emirom?nt aml to public &akh ad safety.

Adwtse ewi t-amxltal iqlacks frm f13wd-etm31-relatl?d activity mat

k peuxted or ndt~ed tlmaq@ enftmxme~ d qp~le

Staniads ad * qplmuorl d exis~ tdmolqgy.
Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Provisions

WasteTailirgs Fderal Lard

PoMcyalrlMana&-

nE’ntAa

-MLmXal Leaairg

Act d l!ZOard

Mterlala Aa d

19$7 (43cFR23)

-U.S. MfIlisw

(43 C4R3BOO)

Notexpllcitlynmtiontxiin ttercgulaticm. Forthe~ of thlstable,

hmever,w3stetaillrgaareun3iderdp+3rt

of ndnlrg opxatlom on Fe&ral lands.

Not Spzifid.

Proo?asilg sites deal@ated by m Cmtamlg Not Spectfid.

ra3idual radioactive naterfala at *& all

or sutstaml.ally all of * uranlmo was

prdwed for sale to a Federal a@mcy prior

to Jan. 1, 1971.

Safe s raquiremmts for nm+wdma waste Surfme ~n=

umkr the9e law.

SmE as rcquiremmts for non—hsu@oua wrote Surface ~~s

un&r t&ae lam.

* a3 requkasmts for kzardma waste surface ilqmm&E nts mkr

o Jkcfsion m *t&r to imtitute reuedlal action, *t specific

aaion to tale, ad ckamp ImeIs skuld be UM& on a alteSpxlfic !xIa.

o Faaom m comlder inclwk tedmicd feasibility of ~

tte quifer in its Iy&cgmlcgic aetti~, the cmt of r=toratiw

or pratii~ prqrams, tte paent ad future value of * qulfer

m a water re90ur oe, tlw availability of alternative u3ter

supplles, ad * degree m which hnmn expmure is likely to

Occm.
456 ● Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination
o

I

I Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Provisions

Materials Fderal Irsectistoclcpiles de, Fur@cl&,

ad Rn&ntic.i&

AU(40CFR165)

Graveyar& —

AnllmalBuria.1 —

Abovegromd kSJUIW3(klWN=

StortgeTarka- tionandRecowy

tirdmsWae.te Act -SukitleC

(40CFR264)

-~

StorageTatics -

Non+azatdcma

waste

Ccllqreilmlive

Environrentsl

Reqlme, Canp?rr

Sation, ard

LiahilityAct

(40CFR300)

ToxicSu&ancea

CmtrolAct

(40CFR761)

—

— —

No rqutmlmts eatablishxi. o No rqdremus eatablistd.

o It is reccnmmied that Imterials such = dsorptiw clay,

hydrated lime, ad sodium Iy@_tlorite k ollained for emer@uzy

treatnmX or &toxification of spil19 or ledca.

—

Not Spctfia.1. o No requireumts are eatabliskd for grcundwater conwulnation

pr se.

o ContIrgenq plan mat spcify produrea to & used to reapd to

taric spiLla or lea@+, includirg pxedurea and tiudrg for

~t~ remva.1 d le- or spilled waste ard rqair & tk

tal’k

Stor4re mica that release any harardms Sam2 as stamiard for lwanicus waste S- as rquiramts for hezarcha waste I.anif ilk mder U!17flAe

sutstance, @lutant or contdnant (ss lardfills *r @RCIA.

defw ty OIIUIA).

See TSCA rquirants, belcw, for kzardma

Bte ~rao

—

—

—

—

●
Scatutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Provisiona

-w Clean Water Act - OAK)re ad dfstme facl.llthss with abme- Not Spedfid.

store ‘h-its - SeCticil 311

0 No rqulreuxts are estztdishd for grcumiwater contmd

grctmxi mpacities of ~ter thin 1,320 galrbation

Norl+k3& (40 m 112)

~r se.

10IB d oil (or sirgle tadcs with _tlcs

-r than 660 -).c

o Tk Spill Prewntion Contxol ad CaxKe measure (SPCC) Plan

strdd pwi& for p-t cm-realm of vlslble leaks. In ttme

imtatma there a facility k experiemxxl spill events, tk SW

Plan -t Irclwk a &rlption of tk spill, an-rective aulom

t&en, ad plain for preventing a remrra (if Wiperielni?

imii~t~ a rea9mable ~mial for equlpent failme, tk plan

strxd.d also incld a prdiction & tk direction, rate d fla,

ad tctal quatity of oll ti& caild k dlsckrged).

Ulxkrgrotxxi

Sro~ Tarka -

Haramha W=te

Haiardma Liquid storage of haranima liquids (as &finsd by mt specified.

Pi@lme Safety HU’SA) Incldenta.1 to tblr uovemnt b

Act (49 CER 195) P@ne in or Sffe=% intetatate or

forei@ ~m. F@ulatiofls explicitly

deflm abwegraxi “’brealcmt tarks” which are

used to reliew surges in a harardcNs llquld

pipeline system or to recxsi~ ad a~re

haranima liquid trampxcat by a pipeliw.

Rqul-~ do na qply co Fderal

facil.lti=.

Resource C0n9erva- Ccsnmd untkxgrad tadca used for tk Regu.ktiom for utrkrgrcad tti

tion SNl Recousry treatnea or store of harardcma wxe as b not ken pxnulgated.

Act - Sukitle C &find by R(llIL

(40 CFR %4)

N3 raquir~s eatabliakd.

-tti~ for umk~o-md tadca have na &en prmulgatd.
Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Correct ive Action Provisions

Udexgrasnd

Stor.s@ Tanks -

tiadms Waste

(Contiti)

Un(krgrowxl

Storage Tarks -

Noni@xlrdaJs

waste

Undergrcud

SUrage Tatics -

Non+&te

ContafWrs -

HazardaJs waste

Wqmhendve

Environmental

Respome, CalpenSation, ad

LiabiLi~ Act

(4O m m)

—

Clean Water Act -

section 311

(40 CFR 112)

Relmure ComeIvation ad %!colery

Act - Sukitle C

(4O CFR 264)

TOXLC Sutstan@a

Control Act -

seaion 6

(40 m 761)

Stmrqge tarks tkt reLease ary kzardcms Sare as stamiard for twardcus waste Sare as rcquiremmts for tiardcus waste lamif ills der CZRUA.

suktarm, pollutant or cent aldlulnt (Sa lamifllls @r @RCIA.

&find ty cERaA).

—

Ondore facilities with uraktgrauxi store L%t s~ctfid.

apcities qual to or greater thsn 42,@

gallcm.

Containers med for the sror~ d tnr.ardous Not Spd.fid.

waste (ss defined by mzA).

Cmtainexs uaed to stare PC& at

conomtratio= of 50 p~ and abow.

Gntdm5m mam ~ W-, ~, title,

~, krrel, drun, tanlq or ctkr device.

Not spxifkrl.

— —

M rquLrenr2nts are establfskd for grcumiwater ccatardmatfon

~r se.

o No mquiremmts are established for grmndwater corLauination

p2r se.

o Spilled or ledced waste ad ~amulatd precipitation mat be

reuoved from cnllecttin or cmtainmnt ~tem in as timly a manner

as necessary to prevent uverflm of tk systen.

o No rwquiremmts are establiskxl for grcumiwater contanhation

~r se.

0 Spilkd or Iedced mterials mat ke innedfately cleard up, uslrg

snltemts or ctkr adaqulte maw.

I

G)

●

I &co
Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Provisions

Contalnfm Canprehemive bm.i.nersthatreleaaeanyia=anha Sarea3stsniard forhazaxdmswaate San2a3rquireumtafo rhazardmswa stelamifi.lla md2r~RUA.

Hamrdms W3te Emrirommmal sutstark32, Pllurant or cOwmdmmt (ss landfih mix C13RCM.

(Contimed) Rqxm3e, Caqer &find by OmLLi).

Sation, ad

Lid.lity Act

(40 CFTt m)

Cmtaimrs

Non+iazardma

Waste

CoIKaiMm

Ncxwaate

—

Federal Imecti- Peatkide Contafm?ts.

c.kk, Fu@cide,

ad Ro&nticide

Act (40 CFR 165)

Op3n Burn@ Srri ksource Con3etw- @en turni~ and &omation of waste

Detonation SIK tion ad Recovery explaives.

Au - subtitle c

(4O m 264)

—

See stamiard for materials

s~i~ mckr FIIRA.

k@&ti-FJavedEen

.

See requfrerents for materials stmiqllea tir -

Ikgulatiom have m teen prarulgated.

●
S t atutory Def init ion

Sour ce Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Correct ive Action Provisiona

Opn IhrrrLrg ard

Derogation sites

(Contirued)

Radiosctiw

Oisplxd sirea

Fe&ral Imecticide, Fur@cl&,

d Ro&ntici&

Act (40 CFR 165)

CQnprehemiw

Envircrmmtal

Reqxme, Calpnsation, ad

Liability &t

(40 cm w)

k#riEn# AcZ

Atcndc Energy Act

(10 ~ 61 P

Atdc Ehergy

Aah

Source: Office ti Tecimml~ ki~auent.

Open turni~ & amll qtmtitis d

ccmimatible psticide cortaine = ~ich held

otganic or nk?tallo-otganic pesticides (-t

o-c m=ury, leai, ~or arsenic

~).

Si- which rel- Sly blllala Sutstance,

@lutant or csmt ald.nant (as defti ~

cmllA).

Geolc@c repasiwles for high-level

radioactive ~teg.

Diapsal site3 for la-level raiiosctite

=Ke.

Site3 identffid ~ ME that were US91 for

the smr~ and p-ocesai~ & ndear

mterlala.

SaE as stardard for residential Sam ~ rquirfamts for residential dispal (krial) urkr FIFR&

dispxal (turial) mix FIFRA.

SaIe = staniard for hazard- waste Sae as rcquirerents for kzardma waste lamifills uder (ERUA.

Iamifills Un&r (ERCliL

No rquiremnts eatabliski. No rtquiremmts eatablistd.

Fb Equiranents estsbliskd. ‘l& Ilcel’r+ee Uust have plalw

ndgrstion of rd.iondkks wcdd idi~te that spcified pa_

fotuame o@jectivea my ncc te net (see tqp. H.2, for performance

objeuivea).

No rquiretumts est~liskd. No rtquirenmts estilistxio
‘he Fe&ral lad Policy ad t4sns@mt Act (FIFMA) of 1976 (P.L. 94479) rcqulr= that public lands be _ in a ntnner that will gnteu the qdity & envircnmaal valws In ddltion,

tk~ are a runber & M r~tirg ~rtain minitg ~ivitks on Fexkral lads. Tk ndnirg regulatti are attorired by bah th? FLFl# ad th spzlfic adnirg Ia@ ad are ttus presentd

to@ter in this table. Ntie that regulations for the Gectkrml Stem Act uxe rekigwfxl, with ndrwr revisions, as 43 CER 3~ on Sqm. 30, 1983.

he requtr-tm presentai in this table are tk ILAth ad ?rwircxmental Protection gtamiads pram@at& ~ EPA (40 CR 192, 48 ITt 4YZ!6, OU. 7, 19Kl ). tWLC hm also prcnu@t.d Ikrmirg

rquirmenta (lo CFR 30, 4070 d 150).

F~t~ ~ttose _ in drillirg, prti~, gstkrittg, atm-iqg, prms~, refi~, trsnsferri~, distriktirg, or casundrg oil ad oil prtis. Oil is defimd zm ail of any

ldmi or in any fo~ includirg tut nm lidted to ~tio~ fti oil, shxl~, oil r&use, ad oil mixd with wtes &&r than &edged spoil.

-ma Iiqukla incl.txk ~tro~ petraleum products, ad d-iydrcns annmia. A1.tkugh tk -tiom cnly umtlon “brtxiccut taks,” teiks h for storzge ~ are also axed by th

statmes. Rqgulatior6 for such stor~ tanks have not teen cstsbllstwxl by O?T.

waste expl.mi$es InchKk Waate vilich k tk potential to dxxmate d tulk mLlitq prcpellmlts which camrt safely be dispsed cf tkcaqgh ctkr males of tram. E@ulatiom for ~rnrltti

facilities haw nd ken ~am@ted. Interim scsw regulations for opn turni~ ad &tonation & ncc establish corrective action requinmects.

h rqulrenems pr-nttd are tkse establiskd by IKtC for hi#rlevel raiioactiw was-; ttese na@ramts are prcposed tt@atiom3. See 46 FR 3S280, July 8, 1981. =A b also publisted

Ix~~ kalth ad emimmn$d standads. see 47 FR S8196, k. 29, 1982.

b rcquireaercs presentai are three estiliskd by U for l-level raii-tiw waste sires. F2A is also rquird to estilish lxalth ad enviranent al stmlania for such sit63; stadania

haw na pt km pcnu@ted ty EfA

h desrup of tb SI= is na explicitly -- ~ ~aktion. H@== r, two prtgr~ have ken Imtitutei ~ IXE tir tk gmeral mtlmization & tte Atanic Enexgy Act. Tk Fornerly

Utllbxd sites ~ Action Progr-a ~ ‘&tabliahed ‘h ~74 for i&rxifying-arci &cc%Aoniw formr nckar a&erisls sm~-and pxxaalng fscilitl= (ami VIdni V--FOpKIeS). TITS 

-

Surplus Facilities MamgenEnt Prqyan w+s establiskd in 1978 for &cumdssion@ IDE cwned or operatd rdioactivs mrtaslnstei facilitk. Ikcamnissionirg staxtards &we net yet been

=tabliahd @ ~&

Source: Off ice of Technology Assessment.
G.3 CORRECTIVE ACTION PROVISIONS FOR

CATEGORY III SOURCES

Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Correct ive Action Provisions

PipeLinEa — Hazard- Liquid Pi@ines d to trarsport krzardcus liquids Not s~cifieri. No requirements eatzbliskd.

Harardms Pipeline safety (Gcludeapetroleq petrolfilm p-oducts,

Materials Act (49 CFR 195) artydrms anumia).

Calqramiw pi~lines that release ary tirda

Etirarrental sutstance, @l- or centallhlmt (ss

Reap-, cm defiti by alum).

pemation, ard

l.iabili~ Act

(40 CIR X0)

Pi@.inee —

Noniwardaxii

Materials

Materiala

Tr~port ad

Tran3fer

Op2ratiom —

Hazaxxims

KIKerials ad

Wa3te

—

HazaIdms Materials Tramportation Act

(49 CFR 171)

Canpk13ive

Emrircxnmtal

I&pllse, callpemation, ad

Liability Act

(40 CFR m)

—

St’xi

Not spxifiai.

—

Reapmea can be ““rewval”’ (stDrt-term, amage~) ac&iors or

““r~al”” (lo~r te~ comiatent with pe~ nt remedy)

aaiom. Rfmtdial actiom can be &n only at sitfs cm tk

National Priorities List ard mat & corsiatent with rquiremms

sefid in NStbnal Cont~ency Plain %lection of a remiy IS

bed on a &termimtion of c=&effectiwna3s (lint ca3t

alternatiws that is tedmokgidly featile ad reliable ad which

effectitiy uit@te3 ard ddndzes _ ~ ad Fovida3 ~~te

prcceaion & public health welfare, or tk enwironrent).

Ttv? tra-aportation ofk?adala lmterials al-dNo requirements eatabl.ist-ed. No reqtirenents establiskd.

hazardals Wa3te (ss defined ty &iTA) try rail

w, aircraft,vessel, ami ruxmr vehicles

used in interstate ad fore@ camnx~ (and

nctor vehicles ti to tramport twmicua

-Ge in intrastate amrere). c

Trmpxvrelatd =cl&nts that rele~ anySam3 s statriard for piplinesSme as requiramts for pi@itwa urkr (3iiU3A

hazardms suktame, @l~ or cmtdnanttir CERU.4.

(ss &fid ty CFIWIA).

Somce: Office of Te&l~ Aawssmmt.
G.4 CORRECTIVE ACTION PROVISIONS FOR

CATEGORY IV SOURCES

Statucory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Correct ive Action Provisions

Pesticl&

AppliultiorB

Fertiliax

Application

AniId Fedirg

Op2ratkm

Clean Water Au -

SeUion 209

(40 CFIl 35,

Su@ G) a

Clean titer Act -

Seuicil 20s

(40 CFu 35,

Sutpx G)

%&d h-EleuiCide, REgkide,

ad Rn&tki&

Aa

Clean Water Act -

Sedorl 2@

(40 Cm 35,

Subpart G)

Clean Water Act -

section 209

(40 Cm 35,

Suhpirt G)

I&rum f lcrm frau irrigated q@,culture.

Applicatim cf certain psti%ks whkhlray

case ~le akerse effects on the

envlrament.

Rmcff franmsrure disposal are ad fron

lad - used for livestock.

No mquir~nts esubliskd.

Sam a stardard for ir~tion

~aalces txnkr CW

No rqulreumts eatabliskd.

San? s Smdardfor irrlgattin

practices utukr UJk

SaIE s Stalisrdfor irr@tion

practice8 tumkr C%&

No rqumments estaish?d.

Saw * rqsiremta for irrigation prtiices uwkr Cl#l.

No requir~~s eattblisted.

k ~ rq.drenrmts for irrigation pr~icea @r CIL4.

Sam as rqtdrenerms for irrigation przkea urkr C%&

k+d~ %ks

Applhxion

“I
App. G—Federal Efforts To Correct Groundwater Contamination . 465

I

.

.

I

Tll

d

d

‘#
Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Provisions

Mil-dlg ardMins sLa?faceMirl@ (i)aryacderatd ordditimal UDnitorirg

~ - -lar d

Ilecesssr yto&teKldme

themtureatxlexteti Of mncanpllane arxitheredts of such

sutfaceMinilg HeclamtialAu

(mimed)

autim;

(30CFR816) (ii)lnmedlateinpknentationdmaaur~

(CoI’chled)

neowaty~ccnplywith

pxuttconditiors (e.g. ty &olc#c reclamtlon Dkin, as &~rited

In tqp. H.4); srd

(iii) Q, as soon as psslble after Iearnirg & such

ncrmnpllance, any ~ram ~ tealth ad safety is In imnimnt

dafger * to tk nomxn@ianm.

%&me Minlrg

control ad

Hedamtim Act

(30 m 874 ad

876)

clean Water Act -

Seuion 2C8

(4O m 35,

Sutpan G)

Urd!rgromi Fderal IaKI

Policy ad

~m Ma

- Mineral leasing

w d 1920 ad

Materials Act of

1947 (43 CFH 23)

- us. Mlniqg Law

(43 m m)

Lads ad tater which wxe MIA (ca=m coal

mining ad ndrilqg af tirala ad mterlals

other than coal) or which wre affectd ty

surh mini%, u93tetzuks, ~lqg or &&r

mxhxis @or to lug. 3, 1977.

Mine-related sm.rosa d pollutlm Inchdlrg

Mdf fran w, aUiVI?, ad abs~ed

Surf me ad lllxiergrand *.

U for mherals such = Wld, siLwsr,

led, iron ad ccpper (on Fe&ral lamk).

Nrx spdfid.

No rqd.remmts estiid.lsted.

o No rquirenents eslxbliskd.

o Gr~s are available to tk Sta~ for reclamation activiti~.

No ~uLrenmts establlskd.

.%52 m stdard for surface A@ .%me = requireusmts for surf- ndnirg *r tkse Iaw5.

&r these law.

$&E! a Stadard for surface ndnirg &me as requframts for surface udni~ umkr tkae laws.

ukr these -
Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Provisions

Minirg ardMlm2 SUrfacelmlil’g Umier.grundcoalminlrg.c %rea3stardatiforaurfacendni~ Sam3a3rqutrementsforsurfsceminirgtir~

~- C.antroland tirSMXA.

UmieqJrand R=lalrationAa

Mirdlg (30cFR817)

(Coaimed)

a40 clIt 35, S@art Gare tk regulatlom for State grtis for Water C@lity Plfumirg, Mmsgenent, arri In@ementstion. Alttou@ tkClean Water Act is directal at tk praection of surface

mwm, sane states hale ChC4x?n to Include grcirrbter quality program in tkir water quality mulsg@ent plans. Such plara are requirfxl by tk regulattim to Imiicate reco@tion tkt

grankater ad surface water are Interrehd.

b ~ F+~ M pO~CY ~ ~nt AU (m) of 1976 (P.L. %-579) requires that pub~c lank k rra~ in a mnmr that will prdect tk qmlity of enviromentsl vaks. In ddtttin,

tire are a nnnkr of - rcgulatitvg ertain minl~ activities on Fe&ral lads. The mining regulations are wttmized ty bah tti -ami the apeclfic nd.nirg law ad are ~~md

tqgetkr In this table.

c AppJlea m surface efikus of mdetgraxld Ildnllg.

Somce: Office d Tecinolrgy As~snmt.
G.5 CORRECTIVE ACTION PROVISIONS FOR

CATEGORY V SOURCES

Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Clearmp Standard Corrective Action Provisions

Prtiion hkllaCeakrmal ad

Heat RexXmry

Produuim wells -

Water Su@y

Other Wells (nonwuKe)-

Monimrirg wells

otter wells (nonfal’ate)-

Explorattin hklla

CoI13truaion

Exramtion

Federal Lad hklla d for t~ &velcfxmmt d ~knml

Policy ad _stean on Fe&ral lads.

mm Ac@ -

Geakrnd steam

Am (30 m 270

ad 81.M Opmr

tional Order No.4)

N3t Spcified. Adwm3e emvlrcamxtsl Inpacts fran ~aherud-relatd tiivi~ mat

k Pewutei or ndtlgated ttrcugh enforcesrert & qpllcMe

stamiards ad tk ~pli~tlon of aistlrg techrmlcgy.

Federal Lad

policy d

~~ ~ -

MimrSi kil’g

kt d 1920 ad

Materials Act of

1%7 (43 ~ 23)

Ckan Water Act -

Seuion 208 (40

CER 35, SUtpart

G)b

Exploration tells wed In rein@ cperatiom

for mimrals suh as coaL, phqhate, w

phalt, Sodlq potaMllq Salri, Stem,

grawl, ad c@ (on Fecbral Ian&).

Coc6truction =tivity related to acurcea of

pllution.

No rqukeretis e3tablis&d.

No rquiramts estxbliskd.

.

No rquirmmts eatabliskd.

a 

‘h? Federal lad Poky adMans&ment Act (PLPFA) d 1976 (P.L. !%-579) rquirea that publlc lads be _ in a tht will mnrer praect tte qmlity of envircarent al vsk!a. In ddttion,

there are a rwnter of k regulati~ certain rrdnirg acfivitiea on Fe&ral lads. The mining reguktiom are admlzd @ tih the FIRf4 and t& spxtfic minirg lam ad are tlus ~ex

t~etkr in thla table. Note that regulation for th? @cCknd Steam Act were redeal@atd, with minor revialors, as 43 CER 3%0 on Sept. 30, 1983.

b 40 ~ 35, Su@fi G ~e the regu.laticxm for State _ for water WV ‘-% Msna@ent, ad Im@nwtation. Alttmgh tb Clean Water Act is dlreced at tk ~aedon of surftce

watem, = Statea k= clnsen to inclu& grcmiwater qusliy pr~anr3 in tklr water quallcy mmgemnt ph. SW% plans are raquird @ tte regulatlcm ti irdlcate recognition thst

grourkater ad surface water intermix

Sau=: Office of Tecimol.cgy Aaaes-N.
G.6 CORRECTIVE ACTION PROVISIONS FOR

CATEGORY VI SOURCES

Statutory Definition

Source Authority of Source Cleanup Standard Corrective Action Provisions

Grarrlwater — Clean Water Act —

Surf= Water section 2C43 (40

Inte-tlom m 35, Sutpart

G)a

Natural IJYxiliw Reclamation Act

Salt-kater

Inmsion

Clean Water Act —

Seuiors 208 (40

CFR 35, Slkpart

G)a

CcEstal Za’e

Mar@@nmt Act

InterluLxirg of gra.n-dwa ter ad surface water.

Natural salt Ckpct3its

water supplies.

Sffect* Undelgmnd

salt-uater intruaim im rivers, lakes, ad

eatuarlea resulting fruo redudion of freah-

=ter f lcw frao zuy ase, includi~

grouxkater extrauion.

salt-ter intrusion.

No rquiremus eatabliskd. No rquirments eatabllskd.

k) K’e@relmts estsbliskd. o No rquirfmmts eatabliskd.

o Water &wlqmmt projeds mdertken bj tk MM - involved

mrrective a~iom d- to saline condkicm of grcxuxkter.

Stxre as stardard for Sare as rquk=rcs for anxkmemwrface gr water inte~tiom

purrkxemurface m&r ~

interixtlom @r W.

No tquirerents estsbliskrl. No rquLrau2nts estxkdiskri.

a 

f+() (3R 35, Sutpart G are tk regulation for State grtis for Water @ality Mansgemnt, Plannirg, ad I@enmtatlon. ALtka@ tk Clean Water Act is directed at tk Prw-inn af surface

waters, .vcmE Stitea tune chceen to itiu& ~rgr q~~ prograns in tkir water quality mllagment plans.

bra: Office of Te&nolcgy Aa9x@lmlt.
Appendix H

Federal Efforts To Prevent

Groundwater Contamination

H.1 DESIGN AND OPERATING PROVISIONS FOR CATEGORY I SOURCES

(p. 471)

H.2 DESIGN AND OPERATING PROVISIONS FOR CATEGORY II SOURCES

(p. 478)

H.3 DESIGN AND OPERATING PROVISIONS FOR CATEGORY 111 SOURCES

(p. 495)

H.4 DESIGN AND OPERATING PROVISIONS FOR CATEGORY IV SOURCES

(p. 496)

H.5 DESIGN AND OPERATING PROVISIONS FOR CATEGORY V SOURCES

(p. 501)

H.6 DESIGN AND OPERATING PROVISIONS FOR CATEGORY VI SOURCES

(p. 503)

470
H.1 DESIGN AND OPERATING PROVISIONS FOR

CATEGORY I SOURCES

Pos t-C 10s ure

Statutory Definition Pe rfo rmnce Design and Operating Closure Care

Sour ce Authority of Source Objective/Criteria Requirements Requlrementa Requirements

Suhmrface CleanWater Act

Percolation Section 201

(40 CFR35,

suLpxtE)

Safe Orinlclng

Wbter Act -

Undergromd

Injection Control

Program

(40CFR 144 d

146)

Individual systam defiti as

privately 4 alternative

wastcwater trexwnent wodcs

seti~ one or mxe principal

residenms or 9nallcomerdsl

establistnrents kich are

neitkr ccaneud into nor

prt of any conventional

t-tmnt woks (e.g. , on-site

system with localized treatnmt arfi dispsal & Wst&

inter).

Cessm ok or ether waste =

Ceivirg &vices uith qen W

tans and acmetimes prforated

sides (itied in Class V

udl category). Applies only

to units aervi~ 20 or mme

prsns.

AchlWe establ.lskd water o No s+ecific &sign requirtnmts. Not applicable. Not applicable.

quality goala of the act. o States are rapired to corsi&r the c~t-effective

use & individual systems as prt of cwerall syatem

or part of owrall plarmi~ efforta for Comtruction

of nunicipal waste tranmt systcm.

Dcnw3trate that activity will o @@atio= specifying design ad qx2tat@gRe@aticas hwe No requircnrmts

not be conducted in a mnnerrcquiremnta for Class V @la have not ken not teen pxmd- established mder

that alkws Irove’lE!nt d con-promilgatai. gated for Class V tk UIC Pr~an.

tandnants into uxkrgrctuxi o Ownets ad cperafxma are only requird to sdnzit hells.

smrces of dridci~ water =imentory information (e.g., location, typ and

that ttere may not be can- ~ratirg sta~s of tte well).

pliance with National Interim

Drirki~ WKer Regulatlom or

SO thtit the health & F21SOl13

my not b otherwise trluemely

effectei.
Pos t-Cl oaure

Statutory Def i nit ion Performance Design and Operating Cloaure

Source

Care

Authority of Source Object ive/Cri t eria Requirement a Requirements Requirements

InjectionWel* SafeDrifirg Wells thatiqjectkzarbs Dammtrate tl’w activity till o Locstionuust be identified d all ham wells Certifiwltiorl by Norequirenmta

Harardcus Wte Water Act - -te (ss defined by RCXA) not be conduued in a namer ulthin the injection zone, ad nesurea nu3t be ~ i~ established mder

undeIgrcund -th tb &ePest fb~tion thst d~ nr)vwent & Cm urdert.ken for wells khich are Iuprcperly tied, can- mgisteml pr&a- tb WC Prqgmm.

Injection control cmtainitw, ulthin ~usrter taninant s into UY&rgromd pleted, or abmimed to pewnt any mvaent of fluid aimsl e@neer

Prcgrana mile & tk well bo~ an smrces & dridcirg water. illtO unde~auld SW- of driridg water.

(40 Cm 144 ad

Ilust be alinlitted

Lnd?rgrand aaBxe of drinldng o Well location and cOmttuUion rqdrenents (*1 to regulatory

146) inter (class I wells) caaitg, cmmtirg, ad use d PckexE to preuert car auttmiv (puttaulnant migration) uust be cmplied with. Susnt to RQ7A).

o APwwlate te3ta ad 1w5 mat be CoKklctd &rilg

drillil’g d UmMxuction.

o Infonmtion on fluid presmre, temperature,

fracture ~sure ml akr data on the physical and

chauical &aracteriat@ cf iqjection nb9trix ad

formtion fluids mat k colledei.

o Durirg cpem iqjection prmawe mat ncC exceed a amclmm calculated led to asame that nsw

fracturea are nrt initiated, that edstiqg fractures

are not pxpa&@ed, and that injection fluids do mt

m into umbgrod acurw of dririclxg water.

Injection be-n atenrmt well mai~ ad

unie!grcund S-a d dridctrg water IS @dbit=i.

Pressure uuat be maintained on antulua be- 41

ttiqg ad casirg arrl it mat te find with fluid.

(* failurea tmociated with a well duri~ qxxation

mst be corrected. )

Wlls that inject hazardma R@ulatiom be ncz been R~tior6 ~~ibit ~Indtt@ d n= CbSS lv -k R6@latiom haue Rqulatiom ham

waa~ (ss defird Iy R@ pr-~ for Clasa IV +ich inject Iwardms kaste into an tirgmd

into or abow a fonmtion

not km pxmlW?lls.

not been WXMALsmroe & dritkltg water aml ~tire awh esiatirg @&d for Claas IV g3ted for Class IV

=aini~tithin cm-quarter wls to be ~thihited over a period of 6 uonths dia. wlls.

mile of the Al bore, an w follmi~ sp~cmml & a State WC Prrgran. Rc@.atiom

deqyauid smrcsa of drixic specifyi~ des~ sm.1 operatiqg requir-s for Class

it-g wter (class IV u=lls) IV Ala have not &m ~omil~ted.
o

I

I Pos t-Closure

Stat u t o ry Definition Performance Design and Operating

Source

Closure Care

Authority of Source Objective/Criteria Requirements Requirements Requirements

InjectionWells- safeDri&iqg

Non+azardals Water Act -

waste Unie@raml

Injectiontitlul

Prcgran(40CFR

144and 146)

Wells tkt inject -ste

beneath the &qeat formtion

containi~, uLthin mquarter

mile of the 41 bore, an

UIICk~Wd Sour= (f dridcirg

-er (Class I weLIE)

Wells USESI in cumection with

oil arrl @s ~crilction Whicb

inject fluids (Class 11

mlk). Includes welk @

for -cd recovery, for

slxwtge d liquid hydrocarlxm

and for Ala tire injected

fluids are brmght tn the

surface ad my canbine with

waste wate= fron *S @ants.

Sme as objective for htzanicus -te injection wlls tkt

inject bereath the ckqest

llxkgrand Salrces of

drirkitg water.

SaIE as objective for

hazardam wte injection

wells that i~ect he=th tk

&epeat mdergrcnnld sauces of

drikitg water.

Sam as rcquircnents for hazardas -ste wells tkt

inject be-th the &ePeat brgrmnd sources of

driricirg water.

o Canpliance is rquird with sitirg ad constmction

(casing and cenmting rquirerents). Px@ion fran

caaifg aml cenmtiqg raquiranents for existirg wells

is allowd if earlier regulations and any State

r~tiom w2re met ad injecttxi fluid will w

migrate into @rground sources of drinking wwer and

crmte a signifiunt ride to the health of ~Isom.

o Apvoprlate teats d logs uust be comiucted &ring

drillirg ad construction.

o Infonnstion on fluid pressure, estimated fr-ure

pressure, and physical and chanical characteristics of

the injection zone mat be collectai.

o Q=rati% rqu.irem=ts are the same s fOr

hazardms mste wells that inject bemath the &qest

urkxgrcund acurces of drinking wter.

wells nust be

plugged with

ceaent in accordance with spx.if id mtlmds

(mkss an alte~

native mtkxl is

approved by regulatory Suttmity)

So that movemnts

of fluids into or

betus.en mdergrcund scurces of

dririci~ ~ter are

net allcwd.

Sare as

rt=quimmmts for

class I Ala

(nm-hiwmckms

wste).

Sam as require

nmts for hazardcua uaste Injee

tion hells that

inject temath tte

deepest lrKlexgrcund saIrm of

driricing wter.

SaIE as require

rents for ha2ardcus waste Injee

tion wells that

inject be~th tlw

deepest lnieLgramd sources of

drirking =ter.
Pos t-Cloeure

Statutory Definition Performance Design and Operating

Source

Closure Care

Authority of Source Object Ivef Criteria Req ui rments Requirements Requirements

Injeuion Safe Driri@

UeMs - kker Act -

NouHaEankua Ihxlergramd

Wrote Iqjection Control

(~) qarl (40 CFR

144 ad 146)

(~)

Lard CIeal water Act -

Application - ~ 201

wt~ (40 cm 35)

Lklls USEI for eutrauion d

mtmrala (Class III wll.a).

InchKka Ulinil’g d Sldfm by

Praadl p-ocess, in%itu pw

&ction cf W- ard &her

lletaila, d SoIlltion ndlliqg of

salts or potash

Wua not inclded in

Cet%oriea I, II, III,

(i.e., class V uel18).

ard IV

E=@- of class v wells

IncMe artificial retixge

tells, ad conliqg water or

air condltionirg return fkw

*IS.

Waatatater led treanwmt IXCr

ceases (Incldea alm rate,

rapid itiiltration ad -r

lad flew Mtoda). * be

funkd mder Irumative ad

Altermtiva IMrxhgLea

Pr@ran.

Sm2 as owctive ibr hacaI+

aJS ~te injeaion dls tit

iqject ~th? &epeat

Uldezgromd aarlea of

dtidcirg wter.

DmKxEtrate ttat activity dll

net be con&cted in a namer

that Sllcw lmmwnwx d

Contadnants into U’xiergrculd

smras ti dridci~ uater so

that there may not be

C@.im with Nstiond

Interim Drirddrg Vi3ter

Regulations or so tht tl-e

health af persona Umyn &be

Othelwiae dwmely Sffeud.

If gtxunthter IS a Ptertial

SWPly Of driticim =ter, the

National Interim Dridcilg

mer W@@X= -t not be

~. If ba~cund kela

are higher than the NIJMa,

thm skuld @ be an

Imxeaae in that level.

(Cottirued nect -e)

o Cawl-imSS? la rqdrei with ccrtkmction (casirg

and cenenti@ rqi rments. Exemption fran

rquizumxta IS all- where tire la ada~ial

evi&nce tit no cant-ion or mdergromd amrce

of drirkirg water wmld result.

o Appropriate tests end loge mat be Considered

&riqg drillim ad cccBtructti

o Information on fluid paaure, cstimted fractwe

preamre, ad phjaical ad dwuical charixteriatica &

the injection m -t be collected.

0 -=ti% q~~~s are tb aare ss for

harardaIs -te uella that inject bemath the &ePeat

unhgramd aour- d drirkirg water.

o -- Specww &a@’l d Cperatirg

requi rerents for Class V idls hews not teen

prallllgltei.

o Cxawns ad qeratora are only raquird to stimit

inwmtory inforimtion (e.g., location, type, ad

opratirg status of th? well).

o Criteria for teat ~akable waste treatment

tetilcgy mat be ret. Dea@ and ~rati~

rtqulrenents are na spdfied.

o Tec+nld @lance uatual contairm information on

site ple (includes selection d site), imew

t~iona (gre-deaign), p==$s *Q% ~ -~

ard uaiti~.

Sam3 aa requirements fix

class I *Is

(ncxrharardma

u3ate).

Re@latiom hme

not teen Ptnulgated for Claaa V

vEilIs.

No requireuenta

established.

No rquirlmenta

established mder

tti UTC Prcgran.

No Equiram’lts

eatabuahed (See

diacuaaion al carective actions,

W. G.1).
Post-Closure

Statutory Definition Performance Deaign and Operating Closure Care

Source Authority of Source Objective/Criteria Requlrenents Requirements Requirements

Iald Clean WaterAct -

Ap@bmiorl- section201(40

katehater CFR35)

(Cultinled) (bltilued)

IAtd CleanWaterAcr - Sewage alud#a@iation(fnAp@iaion- Section201 ad Clu.iea tgricultlrd, foreat

t&stWr 405(40 cFR257) ardlad rec.lamtionutlllzr

Byprciilcts tionanddedimedlanddiap

sal).14aybefmdedunder

Irmuwative SIXI Alternative

Tedmol@ea Pr@ra.

If .gramb=ter is @ ss

drinki~ vater supply, condftiora stme stmld hs met (leWI.S for tdologid contadllal’tS slmld nc$ be cxcecded

hhere tater is USed withmt

dis~edion).

If grcuxivater is used for

Purpceea otter ttw dridcltg

vzater, criteria cstabl.iahed on

a case+-caae tads baad on

-t or ptential use of

tk gronldwlter.

For unck~cund drirkirg water

acurcea, taclqgrcmd levels or

Natbnsl Interim Primaxy

Drinldrg Wer R@ations (if

higher than tadqgramd level)

lruat not be eKeeded bepld

tk q@ication bandaty or aI

alternative boul&lry atabliskd cm a aiteapzlfic

tmls.

o In aiditica to tk ptionmm starrlsni for

gr~er, Prfonnince criteria are also establfakd

for floo@aim, surface water, application to lard

d for fkd-chdn crqa, dlseaae, air d aafe~.

Design Srrl Cpe’ratitg requirelrenta m specified.

o Tecklal @dame ImNal Cmltailm infonmtion on

aite plamdI& field Inreatfgstiom, pro@aa design

d operation ad ~.

No requiremmts b requiramts

eatatu,ahed. eatabliahed (See

cllsmaaion on

mrrective action,

app. G.1 ).
Post-Closure

Statutory Definition Performance Design and Operating Closure Care

Source Authority of Source Standard Requirements Requirements Requirements

Lard Reacurce Lard treahrentdbrdcus

Appliation- Conaezvationsld -te(asdefined byRLllA).

~cuaWste F@coveryAct- Requirammtsdonctq@yto

Subtitle C (40 CFR land treatment facilities (or

264) porticm d facilities) that

received wste plor to the

effective &te cf the RCl?A

=t@ations (Jan. 28, 1983).

H~r&ua cmtitumts ente~ o Site requiramnts limited to floc@ain ad seifmdc o Design ad

ing the grcmkter rust not CIXdderationa. cperaticg ccsxliexced lmkgraxxl levels, tk o Prior to qplication d h=nkua VEISte, it mat be tkm mat be mt

Mmduun Contadnant Leek for *trated (by fixed teata, laboratory analyses, thrcugh Ckmlre

14 Cmtituents Spctfid ty available data) that hazardms wte ccmtitments w period.

the Mtional Interim Dridclng be ca@etely &graded, tramfonmd or inrmbilized in o Vegetative

Water Regulations (if higher tk treatnent 20=. cover mt be

ttxm tackgrcmd) or altenw o Design d cperat@ Ccditiom will be Spcifid establisw on

tive Ccomrt ration limits (= in perndt kwsi on demonstration conditions. pxtion of fac.iltsblished on a aitepecific o Runcff Irust be ml nimized; run-on cartrols ad ity bell-g cla3ed

bis) beyoml a ~cified cm mdf nanagemt system InJst k! imtalled. (so that cover

plisnce pint. o wild dispemsl d psrticlllates Ialst be -rolled. will net slA!&xmr

Grtih of food+ain crcpa my be allcxd if it can be tially iupede dedenomtrakd that it will m case s&atantial I-1A grdaticq tramr

to bum health. forfmtion, or iur

ndilfzation d

hazazdals collxitlerms in treatuent zone). Cover

o Pest clmure

care period is 30

yearB (unless plied ia rednxl or

exteded bj rIatory authority).

o All cksi#!Jl,

opxating, lnalitori~ (see *p.

El), ad cowr

rqutremmta mat

be net thrcugh

pos~clowre

perfod.

o E%sl@Xl frau

pcst+kmre =

quirturmts is

Slkxd if

treament zol’E

stculd net rquire -II ~ ~ ~

-r6iw Iminterr @ bs~d

Snce. vaks Ly a stao -tion fr~ tistidly sigdcouer r~uirenent fi-t ~t.

ia allcwecl if

treatnent Zme

aoil does net exceed bsckgrould

values ~ a statistically significant almxlt.

0 t4nitoxlrg (See

app. El) is to be

Contilld thrcugh

cluwre period

(lxEZaturated m

Imnitorirg Uay be

terndnsted after

90 days).
Post-Cl osure

Statutory Definition Performance Design and Operating Closure Care

Source Authority of Source Objective/Criteria Requirements Requirements Requirements

Iaml Clean WaterAct - Dispaal sitea fordr@@ or

Application- Section 404 (40 fill naterial

Non-Hazardala CFR230)

waste

Restore ad I181tial.n tk chcnr o No spdfic &sign rqulremmts. No rqrirments

ical, physical, and Molo@ral o Guidelines include actions that can be mdertakn established mder

intqgrity of witern of the to minimize the 2iv2Be effects of ditxhrge or tte 404 prcgran.

United statea. dredged or fill mterial. Cne such action (specified

in the re@atior6) is selecting discharge mtbcb arrl

dispxd sites vhere the potential for er=ion, slmpIqg or Ie*i rg of msterial into the surrrundirg aqustic eccaystem will be reduced. Another action is to

select tk dispaal site, tk diachaxge Pint, ard the

Uettnd of discharge to minimize the extent of any

plum.

No rcquirmmts

established uder

the 404 pr~an.

a 

~ ad s have cwerlappirg juritiction for ~ection Ala ~ to ~spe ~ h=~~s =stea. A pemdt+pule approa~ has been Imtituttd to coordinate tk rquirerents of both

progr.ma. An -r or oprator of such a @l mat ccrrply with all applicable ~ tetiical requirements pumuant to the Underground Injection bntrol Program and certain RLIiA

ahiniatrative rapdrerents.

Same: Office of Techmlogy kaeaamnt.
H.2 DESIGN AND OPERATING PROVISIONS FOR

CATEGORY II SOURCES

Post-Closure

Statutory Definition Performance Deaign and Operating

Source

Closure Care

Authority of Source Object ive/Criteria Requirements Requirements Requirements

Lardflus - ~CS (hW3SNe

Haardma hkte don ad Recou2ry

Ax - Subtitk c

(40 m 264)

Lanifflle used for tk dir

posal of hazmkua VaSta (as

defimd Iy R(XA). RequiI&

llEfltS do = Sp@y to faditiee (or portiom & faciJ.itiea) that received ~te

prior to tk effective date d

the RfllA r@atione (Jen. 26,

19a3).

HazardaIs cmwltmme erte~

@3 the ~r-t -

exced tadtgrmd Iesrela, th?

Mfmdnuo (hntminent Levels for

14 CaBtitlmle Sp?dfiad bj

the Mltialel InterimDrinking

VkWer Rs@aUOm (if t@er

tkn beckgromd), or ~

tive ccKm21tration limits

(established on a sitmpecific t8sis) beprxl a ~~fi~

~*t*

Toxic %kmcee C%aukal waste Ialrifflle ued Not Spdfid.

Ccatrol & - for the &a@ of KBs at

section 6 Conmmrat.ions d 50 pp aml

(40 cm 761) SbOW.

o wag rqulrtmalts are l.imitd to floo@lain d

Seiandc UnBdltiom.

o All Iarrlfflle met haw a lim2r ad Iedutte &

Iection and retwe.1 ayetcm Dseign ad operetirg spe=

cificm5.om are eetzblisted in &- fad.lity petmlt.

o RII1-m Caltrole d rmdfmnagmmt Systma lnst

be ICBtxllk?d.

o Wftrl diep5m3al Cf psmial.latee Uuet b? Caltrolled.

o Spclal requirmwte4@Y to @litable, reactive,

or imaqMtfble WM3tee ad to ccttafmm in ourpacld

drms. lhAUC liquids my only be dbpmed In lamifille

with limm ad kdlatemllectlon t@xms.

o w~ m li.mr snd Ieachate collection eyeten

reqtimnmte rosy be gramed If tlw? lomticm d altelnatiw dea@l ad Operating p3Jieione ~ndgration Cf kadclle Ccmtiwme,

o ~-flgmxrMter mmltorirg rcs@w

llECtS (see qpa E.2) may be gr~d if rt@dato~

-lmri@ fimk ttere is no potmtial for migration of

liquld fran the facility to tte u~nmet qutfer

thrc@ the pmt-cbure period.

o ~ti frau &ectkm uonltoriw prgan (see

4T* E*2) W be m~ for fd.litiea with we

m’w3 d IedC &teuion qnm=m belxee.n tl’e

Iimre. L&m mx3t b repaired or replaced if a

failure la deteuai.

o Di~al fd.llty stall k located in .smm of IW

to uoderate rel.lefo Flood plaim, slmmlan&, axxl

gmudmter red~ area3 met be *i&d, ani tlmxe

shall not be a hydr.ad.ic canectlon betwen the

fdlity ad sufece ueter.

o Mu?rsion dike are required to diuxt surface

wwer nmcff.

(Cixltinled next we)

Establish cwer

thst Ibin&ea liquld Ildgratlon,

requlrea ndnimll

mimenmn? * pr~

-= ~,

resists ermion or

abrasion, accmUOdatc9 Settl.iIg ad

Sutsicbce. Per

UWMUV struld

be lma thsn or

eqml to Iimr or

eubsolla.

No requtrenmta

established.

o Pa3rclmwe

care period la 30

yearn (mLees pstiod is redwed or

extcsrbd bg rIatory altbxity).

o All li?efgn ad

~s

OkJrdtorlcg, .sm3

-r =@=+=@e

met be aet

throlgh PC8e

clmme perbd.

o Imchate collection Systm

Inst be Operawl

till IeAate ia

no l-r

detectd.

wax? kmter

analysis reprts

(See ImxIltorlrg

requlremnte,

~. E.2) ad

Opratiq -rds

relet k retaimi

for at least 20

m.
Pos t-Cloa ure

Statutory Def i nit ion Perf onuance Design and Operating Closure Care

Source Authority of Source Object ive /Criteria Requirements Requirement a Requi rementa

Lardfllla - T(xic SutmX~

Uzar&ua Wa5te Cmtml Act -

(Ca’tinled)

Ialmifllls -

Saniulry

-n Dmpa

(incllxK%

Illegal dlaqlil’g) -

Was&

%CtIOII 6

(40 CFR 761)

(CtammBi)

Remuroe caBelWt5.onad

ReaneIY Aa -

Sukltle D

(40 CFR 257)

Rmourca CaBer

Vatlal and

RescveIy Act -

Suttitl.e D (40 C3’R

257)

Sanitary Iamifilla &fil-Erl m

faciutia ti’lith pa3e m

reamable potability of

aiumM effeas on kalth or

tk emlrommt frm diqnaal

d mlid mte (ss d&ined ly

RmA).

CpI-1 C@a &fi.lEd a

facilit.lell Whith & not lmet

tk criteria for eanltary

lamifi.lls un&r K&i.

For UX&xgramd dridci~ water

acmcea, kicgromi I.mda or

Natkmsl Interim PrimLy

Drlnldrg Water I@ulatiom (if

Mgkr tlm tmicgraaxl) mat

not k ~beymd the

afl-tti baaxtary or an

~ive ~=-

bllskxl on a site-spxific

Lmia.

Sare m ot@xive for aanlttuy

Lmlfllla h SubcitIe D of

o Bottan of lanifill liner or aolla -t be 50 feet

fran historical high water table.

o Laniflll umt be tirlaln ty aolla or aynttmdc

==~r “th ~ti’v q~ to or ka t~

o Led-late mllecr.ion Syat.ml mt te! Ire!tmed.

o Site mat b oprated ml IM.Ima.lned in a mmer to

prevent safety protdem or krardma comiitlom rESulting frm Spilled M@.& ad Wimibkxm lm@rkl.

o Ihlllc liquids exceedirg 503 ppO may h? lilspoaed af

pxidai such wrote la pretreated andlor stabilized.

o A waiver frau any re@rarc my k tpprti by

tk regulalmy LldlXLty if it m b &mxEtratd

tbt operation d tte Iardfill Will met tb pedolmmce standard.

o Deaifyi ard qerdrg rquhtirretts are net No mqulrelems

specified. e3tabliahed.

o In tzidition to grasxhmter pe?fo~ crloerta,

pformmce criteria are exabliahed fir floodplain,

am-fm uater, applimtion to Iaml used for focd+ain

crqa, diaea3e, air, and safety.

@-en dmpa rmt be clad or upgraded to met tk cri- No requirfmts

terla eat~liahed for sanitary Iardfilla tnnkr eatabllahed.

SulxItle D d -

No requherents

fstablistd

t-b requl~a

eateblished.
Post-Closure

Statutory Definition Performance Design and Operating

Source Authority

Closure Care

of Source Objective/Criteria Requirements Requirements Requirements

Reskkltial

Diapma.1

Surface

~m- RarardmaWaate

Federal Inaectti

ci&, Fulglci&,

d Ro&nticide

Act-Section19

(40cFR 165)

Resmr @ComeF

vationad

Reccwy ActSukitleC(40CFR

264)

Burialcfllnsllqmntitieaof

peatklde contafmrsinopen

field3 (COftShXS khich held

organic or uetalltrwganic

psatkldes eKcept organic

organic uercury, Lead,

cahulun, or a~enic

C-)=a

surf- ~nts ~ for

the treatment, storage, or

m~ d hrdms mste

(ss defined by RcRA). w

quireumts do - ~ply to

facilities (or pxtiom of

facilities) that received

=te prior to the effective

date & the RGtA regulation

(Jan. 26, 1983).

Show ti ~rd for prctectim

of SUtface and sldmx’face

water.

Sam as objemive for twar

dms -te Iamifills urler

RCIW

o Requimetis are - specified.

o Chtalmm simld be rimed prior to disposal.

(Rimw water ad pesticide reddues shxdd k txkkd to

SPY ewes in the field or incinerated, tiped

of In spctally designated Iamifl.lla, or d-Itwidly

deaeimted. Otkr diapmal mthoda such as soil

injection or denial degraiatkin shmld be tirtdcen

wtth ITA guidance).

o State ad Fe&ml pollution cmtrol statrIarda

should M% be ViOhtEri.

o Sim reqldrelu2ma am limited to floc@aim Sni

seismic conditions.

o All Swfacll! ~nta mat be a llmx. Jkaign

ad Operatiqg specifications are established in the

fazility pmuit.

o All Sw’face iqmndm!nts Uuat be &s@led d

operated to pewsllt owrtcpping ad nuat & dikes to

prmxlt msaalve fdllln%

o Special ccatiqge~ plain to d&e3s leb or

spills mat be ~egared (lnclti~ ~oviaions for

Inmedlate stuedam ad eqxyirg cf the fmpmduent).

o Special rqulrelents *ply to i@table, reacttwe

or -tible waste.

o ==Pt- frm certain &sign ad UDnitolirg

ra@r==ts are the 8= as tbe for harardma vmate

lalxlfilla.

No requireilents

established.

o For s~~ or

treatlw!nt @culd-

-s: wta d

=* llaB3t he

remvedardaell

to a penulttcd

facility, ad

qulplent InJat be

d~natd.

o For dia~

~nt=

elidnate free

liquids anilor

Solidlfy -tea

ad reati, ad

stablMze remsixr

i% hmate to

supprt cover.

o Cwer re@re

es are the Sam

as tlnae for

harardaIs -te

Iarrlfi.lla.

No rquirenmta

established.

s= s rqui=

rents for hazaldms wwte lanifilla.
Post-Closure

Statutory Definition Performance Design and Operating Closure Care

Source Auchority of Source Objective/Criteria Requirements Requirements Requirements

surface surface Minirg I~n=d@~==Jl

1~1-- Ccmroland water, sedimmt, slurry, or

Nm-HaZsrdaLs Reclanationkt otkr Liqtid or ~-liquid

Waste (30 CFR616and tddingstructurea amideprw

817) siomj, eithm naturally foumd

or artlfically tuilt. Stm

torea my be tarqmrary or

F nmanent. Applies to all

.sUrftce ad undergraxnd coal

mhli~ opmticm.

Grmndwater quali~ shall be o ALl iqamimmts mat met rqufrenents for stabil- o Teqmary impraected by ha-riling earth ity, prevention of cnertopping and proviaion of spill- pxndumts mat be

uateriala ad rod f in a mm- vays, ad praection agairsc surface er=ion. Inatal- reroved ad rerrm tlwit minimiz= acidic, Iatlon of a liner is not a uandatmy rquirenrmt but c m .

tacic, or otkr harmful infil- my be requird by the rcgulzmry authi~ on a site o pe nuanerc m

tration to grnunkter s~taa spxific &is to met the p2rfotmnce stanciml. pullhnts Uust

ad @ mn@rg excavaticm o Pennsm2m @ctnxlm nts mat na result in tk dimi- met all design

ad mkr diaturbmea to mtion of the quality of wter utilimd by aij~nt or aml o~rating re_

prevent or control tlm di= surramdirtg Iarr.iomets for agricultural, imluatial, quireumts, k

char% ti P1l=s into the rer.reational or damstic use. The quality of nter in nnimalned ~o~r

grmxh.ater. tk inpundmnt mat be suitable m a ~tnianeti taais ly, wet tk refer its intendsxf use, ad after reclamation, mat meet quirenerrs & the

all applidde State ad Fderal starrlank. reclamation plan

and the requirements of th?

grnumiwmer nmitoriqg plan.

o A hydrOk@C

reclamation plan

must b Sullnltted

with a pmnit application which

specifics tk m2asurea to k tdcen

during the mining

ad reclalmtion

opmatiom to ptect gramdwater

(ormite ad &&

site) fran adwzse

effects (e.gv acid

or toxic dralrr

S%S).

o A pE!tiOtmslXX!

boti -t be filed

ccwerirg tte &ration of nd.ning and

reclanaion actiVltiea.

0 Mxlilwll’yg Uuat

te Comirwd umfl

m relea3e.

●

A

al
Pos t-Cloeure

Statutory Def inf tion Performance Design and Operattng

Source Authority of Source

Closure Care

Object ive/Criteria Requirements Requirements Requirements

nut Actb

waste (Comlmed ) - Ftlmld Lea8il’g

Act of 1920 Smi

mteriala Act d

1947 (43 CFR

23). (lxmsmlxr

erala such as

coal, ptuepbl@

-t, -

potamlllll, semi,

attxn3, gravel and

**

Iopmdnefis*for* Tdo?taksqmenmnxeeto

tmstmntor Cuitrolofrldfaulid, ninimke,orcmrect

eml &ail’q@ dlrllg millilg q?- -to tl’e ~~m ~

eretlcam on Fe&ral lands. to pdllc health and safety

while encmr.qgtqg &velqmmt

of lldmrel ~.

- U.S. Mb@ LZaa9 Not cxplkltly ~loned in Prmelw Lllmc9wxy

(43 CFR 3800).

or un&e

*~. mr, degrecktion of Fe&ral lands

Cmer locetable @lMIMmts are ccmidered uhld my remit fmm ninirg

Udmrala emh Se put of mlll~ qeratlone. qemtime.

gold, silusr, Applies only to Fderal IaxkJ.

lead, irm ad

-r.

o A ndn@ plan met be e@mLttd to tk re@atory o No Spxlflc

mtturlty *& Imlwks a &ecriptlon of mmee to requircmmts.

be t&en to prevett or cmtml ~cudater @lutiom o Ulnifg plan

o -h my be pchltdted or restricted in arose umt include P

if it is detenmbd by tk mgulatmy mtbrfty tlmt visiom for ~

kater qti~ will be 1- bekw State stamIsr& or clamtlon of *

leuels set by tk Departnmt d Interior (mlees it la twkd a-.

fcmd tit the ltitg of vater quality is =J===Y

to ecaxndc al’d eodal devellqmsmt d will lxx We

ckk any s@ed tmer of the mte~ ~A mmt be coasukd to emxe tbt the clean Water kt would net be

Violated).

O A phln & ~rStiOIE UUSt be S@lllittd CO th2 ~ O NO SpEWifiC

Iatol.y adlxlty +iCh ilwldaa a &ecrf@m of ma- requirements.

sme8 to be tdcen m meet tb pwfomance Stird. o Plan d @era0 Wo Speclffc

requirements.

o Perfo~

bolri mmt be filed

in en 8KMlt auf=

ftcient to tmtisfy

tb reckmtion

m~sofan

fqqmed ndnfxg

~w~at bt

●

o No apciflc

rtquiremnta.

o Perfotmanm
Post-Closure

Statutory Def init Ion Performance Design and Operating Closure Care

Source Authority of Source Object ive/Criteria Requirements Requirements Requirements

surf&x

~AWeete (CuKimed)

Federal lad

Policy end

~A@

(ccmlmed)

- Geahxlml

Strean Act (3) m

270 ad mm Opertr

timal Or&r No.4)

Fe&ral Lard

Policy ad ~

Uelt Au

- MllEral Leam3irg

Au d 1920 ad

natezSals AU d

19+7 (43 m 23)

- Us. Uinllg I&S

(43 m 3800)

Pits ad Sulpa Med to retain

au msteti.ak? d flulds a

~sary to drillilg ptlm or &r qeratlom on

lads.

N& explidtly Irentiord in

tk regulations. Hmeusr,

tky are Prt & minirg cperstim’% Applies Cm2y to

F&ml lards.

Not exp.licltly &flI’Erl in th?

--, Ialt dispmd Cf

taste t.auilgs ia IE!rttlomd m

pm d a mlnirg opxationo

Grallxkatem InBt lmx be

axmdnsted (8ped.fies

Cm@mce with

ad State water

acdarda).

all Federal

qua.llty

Sare - o~edi= for mmharmkms wa9te surf=

@xxurlmnts tmxkr tkae lam.

SaD9 = o17jeuive for mmhszardms -te surf= Illr

pmrkrcs m&r tbae Iaas.

Samxs nuat b Iird with lqxmlcus material.

Sare = rqufrcmxm for nm-kamlals waste surf=

Iqmdmcs mkr these km.

s- & rqdr—nta for mrhamrdcus waste surface

hqmdmms mix these km

o ~s in.st te filled,

WJerld, eni returndto amar

natural state.

o ~-s

last be pur@ d

emirrnmtially

-d &lnkala

d pclpimtea

before kK4tfilU1’g.

Sam a3 requfre

I02ms fir norr

h%zardala waste

surface hpculdmmts mder tkae

lad%

Sare a t’qulremms for nor

kattials waste

Surfm? @lclmk

mmta &r tbae

m.

o No I-tEqulrem?IKs

established.

saE s rquireUErts fir mar

kzankma waste

mema

surfmtkr~

tlwse

I&m.

* s requir

mcs for nom

kardoua waste

nents

surftmkr~

tkse

IahB*
Pos t-Cloe ure

Statutory Def Init ion Performance Design and Operating Closure Care

Source Authority of Source Object ive/Criteria Requirements Requirements Requirements

Waste Tsillrgs Uran@n Mill Tall-

(ColKlmed) Iw R&natim

Catrol Act=

- Actiw sites

(40 clR 192)

mm arw werd by the

r6guLstiom umtalni~ w+me

talllrgs frcm uranium pmceaslqg activiciea. Such areas

Imlutk * region within tk

Frineter d an inpmdmt or

pile.

&me = o@ctiw for hszardm -te Surfaos ~=s

tir KxA qt tit cLlnpm with the stamisrd iS

rqrlrd at all points at a

-r distance than WO ~

tets fran tk * d tk dlspmxd area ~dor cutsi& tte

site - .

Sare = requirements for hszanhs waste surface imxamimts umkr KIM -t tkt the -ion fmn

gromdwater nmitoriqg rqulrerems for dcuble-limi

facilities with M &tection Systz &es not =ly.

o with respect m

Ilon-radiolcgid

kZanis, site Uust

& clmed in a

mnmr tit:

- nddlldze the

ned for further

tintemance; and

- cxxltrola, minimizes, or elindna~, to tl’r! e

tent nectssary to

prewnt *eats to

iumn kalth ard

tk envircxrnmt,

po3tilo3me escape & harardms

wa3te, hazardms

vmste corstinlents, Ieachste,

ccnttxnhtd ralnfsll, or wrote decoqosition products to the

grad or surface

wtets or to tte

ammptere.

o With repxt to

railolcgial

hazards, site mat

be designed to &

effectivw for ILOU

o See clmure

rquhrems.

o No specific

requimrefcs

establiskd by

EP& W my requke ~ term

Surwdllane d

tk site m pm

of tk lhme requiremm.
I

Pos t-Closure

Stat u to ry Definition Performance Design and Operating Closure

Source

Care

Authority of Source Objective/Criteria Requirements Requirements Requirements

Wste Tafli~s Uraniun Mill Tail-

(@ntimd) ings Radiation

Control Actc

-Active Sites

40CFR 192)

(Contimed)

kwtePiles- ResourceCo=er

HazardmsWaste vationand

RecwetyAct -

Suttitle C

(40cFR 264)

waste piles used for the S- as objedive forh4zzanltremrent or storage of as taste landfills @r

hzxzardms tastes (as de fimxi RCRA.

by RCRA). Rqrhnents do not

ady to facilities (or pltions of facilities) that rceived waste prior to tk +

fective date of the RCRA regr

latio~ (Jan. 26, 1983).

o Sitirg rcquiremsmts are llndted to floodplain ad

seisndc conditions.

o All waste piles mat hwe a liner ad le~ate collection ad remval sptem. Design and cpraticg SK

cifications are establiskd in tk fadlity petit.

o Ruron controls ad moff nsnagenent system mat

be imtalled.

o Wird d.isp31saI of Psttimlat- nust be ccmtrollerl.

o Special requirt=rents apply to @table, reactive

or incnrpatible wastes.

o Exemption fron I.fner ad letiate collection systen

requlrenents msy be granted if:

- the waste pile is lccatd imide or mder a sttlc

ture that provides protection fran precipitation to

praent tuncff generation d letiatq ard

- the location SIXI alternative design and oprating

prwisicm prevent migration d hazardms cmtitwts.

o EO=@on fron all grcuncketer nmitorf~ rquiremnts (see app. E.2) may be granted if the regulatory

auttot-ity firds tbm is no ptential for ndgration of

liquid frcxn the facility to the up~rnmt quifer

thrmgh tk pst-clrsure pried.

pus, to tb -

tent reaaordly

adi-able, ami,

in any case, for

at least 203 yeats

(limits for atnvSpherfc rekases

are also spc+

fid).

Wastea, wste

residues, contamlnatd Stmcturea

and E@pent, and

Contdnatcrl subsoils mat be renmed ad sent to

penukted faCfliry.

If all contallinated sukoils are

not raved, the

pcstiosure

rquiremnts for

hazardms waste

lamifills apply.
Poet-Closure

Statutory Definition Performance Deafgn and Operating

Source

Closure Care

Authority of Source Objective/Criteria Requirements Requl rements Requirements

ReaaIre comer

!Jhate Piles -

0 ~timfrm &taCtlonmnitmftg prcgnm (see

~d ~. E.2) may be grmted for:

HazmdOm bkaste I@couexy Act - - facilities with dmble Iimm ad letk demion

(Ccmimsd) Suktitle c ayatma betwen the llmrs (IiIEra nut he rqalred or

(40 CFR 264)

(Contimed)

blmte Piles - surface M.inilg Refuae piles Ccmdllilg cd

Nm+kxlKkla Ccmtrol al-d mine mte (Incluka coal FoWaste Ceaailg Uaati d Undaqgmlnd

deuelcqmnt kmate).e Applies

817) to all Sufalm? Slrl umiergrallxl

coal allnirg opemtiona exccqt

tlnae on Federal lamb (lezmed

coal).

riplac.fd if a failure is &tesmd);

- facilitlea located Imi& or mix a stnxma-e that

prwidea ~cteulon frcm precipitation to praem m

~f ~of Iea&atq ad

- facilities Ulth a@e Iinem ad ledlate ~

tion Syatems located above the aea9xMl M@ inter

table (a liner impeelon ~tem mat also be Iupk

mlted).

Gromdater qmlity alall ke o All uaate mat be @ad in dlapmal am certlpoteued ty ~=h ‘id b mteriala ad nmcff in a mm promd

 a 

ty~tk m@atoty ‘-’- axlmti~.Fb;:yk

ner thst mMndzea acidic, Cnntrolld to: dnindza amxae effects of leachte

trxic, or @her haxmful Irfil- ad smfam water nnnff on mrfam ad gronxk9~,

tratioo to ~r ayatcm enmre mm statdlity and p-ewnt mm ~t; en-

‘ad ty mml@rg emavatiom s-e that tte final dlapxal facfllty is suitable for

aud *r diatmbanoea to ~ reckmtioq net create a pddlc harard; and ~

W* or cxxm-ol the dfach~ cmlustion,

of @utmts into the grcmxd- o If diapaal area axtairg a@ga, natural or mm

kater. de inter cmraea , or *t -r seeps, dmign mat

incluck dlwmlom alrl umk?xdraim s mxsaaly to

cmtrol ercsicm, -t tauer infi..l.tration, ad

emxe stability.
Post-Closure

Statutory Definition Performance De8ign and Operating Closure Care

Source Authority of Source Objective/Criteria Requirements Requirement Requirements

lhr3tePiles- Rderial.alri

NJn+az4* EM.icyandMmWste ~~

-Mmmallet9ing

Actof 19208nl

Mlterialsktof

1947

(43cFR23)

-U.s.uiniqti

(43CFR3800)

FederalIlmecklci&,Fm@ide,

aniRn&nticide

Act(40cFR165)

tbte@icitlynentiOnaiin

theregulation9. Fbwever,

tky are col’sidered prt d

minirg qeratiom. Applies

only to %deral lards.

tbt explicitly &finfd in tk

rtittins, W vmte pika

are nentiomi as part d a

Udnirg Opxation.

stoqe d psdsges ad

mltaimm of PaBtici&s.

Sme as ol$ective for nonharardam =te surke

@XXK&Tlt8 *r ttese M.

* as objective for nom

hszardms vmte surke

lnpomdmnts ukier tkse M.

Provide for tk safe slmrge

of pelmicide?.

* 88 requiraents for noniwanials UMte Strface

@cmhents mdsr these lau3.

%ue as rcqukcments for ncn+wmdals wste Su’fsce

~sunkr these -.

0 No maniatmy requirements are estilisld.

0 stir- Sites 8tEdd be Im?Xed:

- Wh2m? flocdiIg is mliltely ad where Wil

textu-elmuctm? d hydro@olcgic d’iaracteristics

will pevent contamination cf axy wwer aysten by

nncff or percolation; aml

- with &e raard to th? al?xa’lt, toxicity, d

emimmental hszad of paMci&s, ad the mmbr and

Sfzes of Coltaimm.

o Drain@e fran tte site sluuld k comainai (e.g.

nndf or akter fran the dmtiaulnation of

pemonnel d equipnent) d if Comanfnated, dispJsOi

of in axodmce with r@atiorm (see Resitiial

Dispn3al &r FIFRA abwe).

O Rstici&?8 stmld b Ideled aml ~e@ed by

formulation 88 tqqmqxiati.

o State aml Federal Plltiion control standads

.sIrmld m he Violatd.
Post-Closure

statutory Definition Perfornumce Design and Operating

Source Authority

Closure Care

of Source Objective/Criteria Requiranents Requirements Requirements

Grzweyar&

ArLilml Burial

AboVegrcmi

Sto~eTadcaHarardmskste

Abovegrcund

Stor~Taks -

NoHauKdcus

hhate

Above-ground

Storqe TarkaNon-Waate

—

—

Resmr@Comer

Vationald

RecweryAct -

SuttitleC

(40~264)

ToxicSutstancea

Control Act (40

CIlt 761)

—

CleanWaterAct -

Section 311

(40 m 112)

— — —

— — —

AboJegr@ tar% uad for tte Prwent spllla or Ietkge. o Tti sM1 nust hwe aufficiert strergth to prevert

trwitmnt or storage of hazmdms ~sta (ss defined ty

FfxA).

See TSCA requirements,

for hazmlu w3ste

containers.

—

belw,

omkre fadlItie with &we

grand -ties eqd to or

greater than 1,320 g@lcrE of

oil (or sirgle tadcs with

-ties greater than 660

ga.uona).g

rupture or colkqse. Design speclficatio~ are

established in tb facility pnnlt for tk tzmk shill

and for the fandation, structural aup~rt, seam and

pressure ccntrola d tark.

o Tank or limr mat be cmpstible with tmatea.

o Controls to pr~ent wrfflliqg mat be usai.

o S@al rcqul renenta are established for fgtrltable,

rea2tive, ad i-tile wastea.

— —

— —

wastes SIXI waste No rqulremts

residlk?s mmt be eatablhkd.

ravved d sent

to a permitted

fad.lity.

Prcwent didmged oil fran o No specific rquirarents are etabliskri.

~~~ a navigable =ter o A Spill Preumtion Control and Canterneaaure

cmrse. (SKC) Plan oust be mindtted to the rqgulati~ altkmity. lhe plan uimt disams povisiona for tk

canpatibility of tlw tadc with stord ontetial,

containnemt of spills, imtallation of en@m2ering

de.cices that ~wide warnitga d tak failures, ard

other safeguards. _& to &fective intend

ktiqg coils shmld & catrolled. Portable or

mhile ttwirs shculd be located to preusnt dlachsrge

into nmigable waters.

No rqldramlts No LTquircmlta

established. fstabliskd.
w

LfJ

2IQ

o

I

co

A

1

Pos t-C 10s ure

Statutory Definition Performance Design and Operating Closure Care

Source Authority of Source Object ive /C ri ce ria Req ui rements Req ui rements Requirements

Abwegrauri

Srora&Tanka -

Non+aate

(Continuei)

Un&rgrourd

Smrage Taxics –

HazmdcusW=te

Un&rgrcani

Storage Taks -

Non+iazardals

waste

HazardasLiquid

Pipeline Safety

Au (49 CER 195)

Resour= Comer

Vationarxl

Recu?ety Act -

Suttitle C

(40m264)

—

Storage of hszardma liquids

(as defind ty HLFSA) incickntal to tkir unvenmt by pi~-

Iine in or affetting Irter

state or foreign cmmr=.

Re@atior6 e+idfly define

atrwegramd “bre&cxm tarks”

kich are uad to relieve

sutges in a kzzardaJs liquid

pi@ine system or to receim

ad store hazardous liquid

trarqmted by a pipelire.

Rcr@rsnents do net ,apply to

Fe&ral fac.ilitiea.l

~erd urdergrcmrd tarks used

for t~ ~tnent or stor~

of bzardala waste = defird

bjJKX&

—

Contain hazarrha liquids in

tte evmt d a spill or le&.

R%ulatiom3 kiw m teen

pramlgated.

—

Tak area mat k adequately praead agaimt No rquirasxus

uuuttmizd entry ard relief wmitg mat k ~ovi&d =tabliahed.

for ed tadc.

—

Fegulatiom tme

nm ken

prcmlgati.

No nquirammts

emabliskd.

Re@atiom have

not ken

prcnulgsti.

—
Post-Closure

Statutory Definition Performance Design and Operating

Source Authority

Closure Care

of Source Objecttve/Criteria Requlrcments Requirements Requirements

Qxlcsimrs -

nazanhlaumme

Clemlkiterkt -

Section 311

(40 CPR112)

malurcecomelVationarxi

RecumyAct -

Subtitl.ec (40aR

264)

OdDre facilities with mder

gramd stor~ mpscit.iea

eqd to or gralter tlm

42,000 @hna.

Co@ahxa A for tk

stora@ d bzaldma -tea

(SS defined Iy R~.

Pmrent dtdwged oil frcm

Iead@ a nsvigable tier

cmra&

Revert .s@lIs or Idage.

o No Spdflc rqlfmoents are e3tilfahEd.

o A Spill Prewrtion &@rvl ad cante~

(mm Plan Dust be altmitted to tb regulatory

athxlty. The plan must disams pwialofm for the

~t~w Of t~ tak kdth atored mterlal,

ptection fruo ccmro310n by costl~, Cstmdic pvtectlon or ctkr effective mthxk cmpatlble with loIA soil cxmiltions, ad the Irmtallation of ergfneerflg d?!vica tlE3t pwf& Wm@s d U failWes, atxl otter aafegmmk. _h to &fective

internal heatitg coils struld be tirolled.

o COmainm or Ilner mat be ~tible with wwtea.

o StorW area for cQmxOxs mEt hau? an IllpEmiolm

ke, ccxmola arrl co.UectlOn ayatm for * cmtrol

d reuoval of liqulda, spills, and rlEmxl (Inlesa

ctiaimra are elevatxd or pr~ectai fron cmt~ with

liquid). spill ~lllmt Systelll Ls mx required if

ccataimm do mt ~ liquids.

o special requtmenta are aXaMiahed for I@table,

resxiti, ad i lnnpsdble tmates.

No rqldrefmlm No rquireents

established. eatatdiahed.

o Was* ad No lxqldrments

hmste redches established.

Iulat be mv3w?d

and amt to a per

ndtted facility.

o CUxalnen3, linela, W SNl

soil cUUx&md

With Wte ImMt be

rkmtdmtd or

r6mved.
Post-Closure

Statutory Definition Performance Design and Operating Closure Care

Source Authority of Source Objective/Criteria Requirements Requirements Requirements

&maimn3- Toxic subtamea

liaa.rdma hbte Cmtml Act -

(COmlmad) section6 (40CFR

761)

Qntainera -

NarHazardma

Wate

contaiIExauaedtostoreKTfJ

atamcentratiamof50ppn

alliabme.

—

contalmrs- Fe&mlImectl- Peatlcldecmtaimm

Non-Waste dde,k@mie

alrJRo&*ldde

Act(40cFR 165)

Not specified. o Storzge facilitk for tialnem my net be

lomted bekw the l-r flood kmer elemtion.

o sto~ faclliti= uuat IX~& adeqwte *-,

Ala, flcora and aRhtng to -t raltu9ter fran

r*@ cmtainers sml to ~aln ary spUla or

Leh.

o Teqwnuy sto~e in areas that do net ueet t~

TUiremnts v be all~ for certain ~rs.

o containem nuat ueet a~clf~~ ~ regulatiore for

Shlppis ~rs.

o tialne= h a spxlfld she oust ueet SPCC

rcquiremnts mder Section 311 of the Clean hkter Act

?Md Spcifkd OSK4 Stamiards.

—

See *U* ~r Mater-lab See rquimnmta for Materials Stockpiles mix FIFRA.

Stockpiles mix FIFRA

openm~ Reamroe Comer Open turnitg ard &tors3tim ci Re@atlom hwe nU km

Detomtion sites Wdon alrl

-- ~ - teen pranllgated.

tmate explceiid paall@lted.

Recmry Act -

Subtitle c (40 m

264)

No I-quirments

eatabushed.

—

see requireumta

for Mteriala

Stodqdles mder

No rqulmmts

established.

—

see I-Equllmmts

for Materials

Stodcpilea mder
Post-Closure

Statutory Definition Performance Design and Operating

Source

Closure Care

Authority of Source Objective/Criteria Requirements Requirements Requirements

Openllurnirgard FederallnaecfiDemtfon sites ci&, Fungicide,

(Cultlnled) ani Rodenticide

Act (40CFR 165)

Radimlctfve Atacdc -Ac t

m-sites (40 CFR191)

Opnturni~& 9naLlqtatilties of canlmstible pesticide

Containexstiichtuldoxganic

or aetallcmxganlc pesticides

(=cqt o~nic nermry, led,

cdmiun, or arsenic

c~).

Geolqgic rqosltmles for

higfrl~ radioactive

-te%

S= as starrlard for r4dential dispal (lmrial) mder

MsPal SySt611B rIkISt be &

‘Wto Pfi a ~e

expectation ttat for 1O,(MI

years after diapal, reason—

ably fo reseeable relea3ea of

mte into the accessible err

virauent are ~~ectd to k

less tin spxffied amxnts

(ve~ mdilcely relea3ea am

projected to be less than ten

tires spectfid alulnts).

Sam as requirements for residential dispsal (tmrial)

uxkr FIIUA.

o Dispsal systera nust net be locatd where tlxwe

has been ndning for resmrms or bre there is a

reawmable ~ctation cf exploration in the ftiure.

o Disposal Systelm wt be selected Slri desi$yled to

keep reletses as mall as reamnsbly ahiwable (t&-

img teclnical, mclal ad eccnardc ccmideratioms into

acmmt) ard so that rtmval & mat wastes is ti

preclwied for a reaamsble pried of tim after di=

pal.

o Dispxal systans mat use several types & txmriers

(e@neered ad natural) to isolate wastes.

Sam? as requfre Stme as requimmts for reslckm oenta for residential dispxal

(b-u-id) mrkr

EIFRA.

sites Ullst k

identified ty

msrlws ad re

amis.

tial dkpcem.1

(burial) wrkr

FIFRA.

Disposal systtm

mist not rely on

active imti~

tional controls

(e.g. controlling

or cmtainirg r1~, Uainte!r

Snce operations,

or rmeiiial ae

tions) to isolate

mtea bqomi a

masmnsble tints

period (e.g. a few

hurrlrd years) a&

ter dispsal.
App. H—Federal Efforts To Prevent Groundwater Contamination . 493

u+o

8

z

8
a 

A farmer disposing of pesticides frcia his own use, which are hazardous wastes, is exempt from RCRA requirements, provided each emptied pesticide container is triple rinsed in accordance with EPA regulations and pesticide residues are disposed of on his own farm in a manner consistent with the dis- 1

posal instructions on the pesticide label (40 CFR 262.51).

‘cmCent ration limits for camtiird rdium226 ad rdhmI-22El (5 PC/liter) ad gro3e alpha-psrticle actMty (15 PC/liter cxcbii~ raion ad urmiun) are .91c&I to tk stxdsxd.

ecod pocessitg wtste mxms earth Qmerials W& are Separeted ad Wined fran the product Cosl durirg Cksntlg, anrmtmdxg, or uhr pmcessirg or pqsrfdm of coal. Lhrkrgrcud

develcpl?m waste Im2am kmsterock mixturea d cal, std.e, claystom, sflts~, eamklmm, liuestom, or relatel materiala that are excavated, Imved, ad disposed d frcm undslgramd

wodci~ in ~ction with mdexgrcud mining activities (30 m 701 .5).

f Coal at= waste my be dtspsed d in mdexgromd aine workirgs if qqmwed ty tlw re@atov mttrmlty ad tb Mm Safety ad Redth Mmlnistratiom

g F&t~ ~tho9e eqqged in drillirg, puducing, gatkrirg, storirg, ~i~, MIII.Is, tmmferrirg, distrlhit.i~, or conmmdw oil d oil p’dicta. oil is &find as oil of any

lcird or in ery fore, irdudicg tut net 14mLted to petrohm, fwl oil, slui~, oil ref~ ad oil nixed with mtes @&r thm dred@ s@l.

hm pwisims of Section 311 of the Clean Wster Act are directed tobmrcb surfu wter. Howvsr, the &aigI and operatiq MS@

dao Inqmct grcumimer.

~e seine to gmtect against the dlsdm~ of oil ttmt my

j klmte explosives imlixk Wsste which ha * ptential to &tomte A hdk militq ~qdlalm IAich camct safely be dlspxd & tln-mgh otbr U9&S d trestnem. ReguLstim for pemitted

faci3iti.ea haw mt km ~adgeted. Interim status r@htims for qen Lmnirg ad &tamtion estsbllsh ~dtstace IFrpltrellmt e for auch activities frm the property of * (See

40 CFR 265).

k ~ ~d=tis ~m~ in this &k ~ ~ ~th ~ ‘fi raueti pr&ection stxmrismk ~cposd Iy EPA (see 47 FR 58196, Dec. 29, 1982). tRC has also pbl.iskl prqosd @tiom

for tpobgic repositodes. (See 46 FR 35280, July 8, 1981.)

1 TtE requi ~S in this tsbhe sre tk WC ~cexB@ requirenetts. WA hses net ~aml=ted health ad ervi rmextel prrxedim stadmb.
H.3 DESIGN AND OPERATING PROVISIONS FOR

CATEGORY III SOURCES

Post-Closure

Statutory Def init ion Performance Design and Operating Closure Care

Source Authority of Source Object ive/Criteria Requirements Requirement a Requirements

Pi@lnEs - Mzardma Liquid pipelines Imed m trmport

Nazardals pipeline SafeQ haaurba liquids (includ=

Mstellals Aa (49 m 195) petr- petroleum products

d Sntydrcusammia).

Pipelims -

Waste

Materials

Trarsport ad

‘hamfer

Operatiorm -

Materials d

W=te

— —

Ikardas Mae ‘n’e rmrqortation d

etials Tram- hanr&us materials and

portatlm Act twardma wte (as Mild try

(49 CPR 171) w) by rail rar, aircraft,

dad motor vehicles h

in iemtate d fonei@

cauE= (ad rotor vehicka

used to tramport hszardcus

W3ate in intr*-camere).

To protect @jaimt t~

tislcs to life ad

prqerty uhich are

i~ h the

transportation of

ktdsna ntwerials in

cmmere.

o

0

0

0

0

Pipelines llMt lx? dlemkally cqstible with tkNo requirem!lts No requirellmxs

htdms liquids. eatsbllskd. estsblistd.

Design requirelel’t s cwer comideratim ~

~ww), tqraa,~=p-e3mre ~ $F d external to

~~~d

m a pipe, ad *% mita (and fabrimted

saaedliea).

NW @pdinf3 mat be COIBtructxd & StCd.

Pi@inea m3t k ~aeaed @n3t wrrcsion.

%fe~ devices ad spill or ledt cottaime~ aysxim are required.

—

-- SPedfy lquirenema-m * No rqlirelEas No rqli~s

~tim of IMteriak for tramprt (e.g., e3tialskzl* ewdmaki.

pdagiqg d axKdlEr apecifiaMons); tmrilirg d

I.oadirg; ad IEb4irgc

Sane: Off h d Techmlqy Aases-t.
H.4 DESIGN AND OPERATING PROVISIONS FOR

CATEGORY IV SOURCES

Post-Closure

Statutory Def fni t ion Performance Design and Operating Closure

Source

Care

Authority of Source Objective/Criteria Requirements Requirements Requirements

Ir@tion CleanWaterAct -ltehn-nfl~f ranirrigatd

Radices SecIion208 agrialltlme.

(40m35A

SutWrtG)

Peatici& ClemWaterkt -&imlturallyrelatd w

Applimtiom seuion 208 pcdntacurceaofpollution.

(40CFR35,

SubprtG)

Fe&ralInsecti- Armli=tion of ce~ain

cide, Iir@cideJ p2aticidea which my case

and knknticide tmrea30nable alwme effects

Act - Sectfon 3 on the environrent.

(40 GFR 162)

Fertilfa2r Clean Water kt - f#@culturally related ncnAppllatiolB %xtiorl 208 @nt sources of Dilution.

(40 CFR 35,

Subpmt G)

AcM- eat~lishxl water

quality @ala of

Sare aa stamiad

~tion practices

t~ act.

for irriumkr CtA.

Prevent UII-ea30 nable alverse

effects on the erwiroment.

o No sp2cific ra@xments are eatabliskrl. k requiraents

o Statea are requid to sutndt ~ter quality rmnage- eatkJiahd.

nmt plain which mat describe tk regulatory aml nonregulamy act fvitiea ad Uest F@nagem

(~) Selectd to et

nt practices

non-lmint EXlrce control

needa.

o IMPs are nethxls, neasmea, or pr-ices tm prevent

or redme -ter fmllutlon (they includs M are not

lfndted w structural ad nonstructural controla, ad

qeration ati maintenance TXcaiure). EMPs m be

applied befo~ duri~, ad after poll.utio~aiucirg

auivitiea to rti or eliminate the introdudon of

pollutants into receivlrg wate~. Iixxxmic, institutional, arri techical factira mt be co=irkred.

- as rtquirenmts for irrigation ~~ti.c= mder %mE as require

m. -S for irrigation ~=ticea

&r G%

o No sp4fic requimmmts. b rqtircaents

o A ~tki& a he chsified for ““restricted use.”’ est~lish~.

(%atrlctd use Classification= require tht

peatiddea & applied by amtified auplicatm%

Reatrlctd w is lxx explicitly defixusd to inclde

%Wmhic reatrictiom. )

Sam aa rcquiremmts for ird- Sme as rqdraumts for irrigation vacticea*mder aa raplkegation Ixactkea &r CSiA. m rents for irrigation practkea

tir (X4.

k rqufrments

atablfahed.

SalE a require mfts for irrigation prxtices

unckr tX4.

M Jxquimlmts

eatabliahed.
App. H—Federa/ Efforts To Prevent Groundwater Contamination “ 497

b&

‘&

I

I

I

I

I

&

$

M

.

I

I

I

I

I

I
Pos t-Cloaure

Statutory Def init ion Performance Design and Operating Closure Care

Source Authority of Source Object ive/Criteria Requirements Require-nts Requirements

%~- Fe&ral Lad

~- ml.i.cy d

surfe Hlnirg ~~b

(ComiNad) - 14imral leasing

Au d 19’20 id

Materials Aa of

1947 (43 ml 23)

Fderal ti).

- us. Mildqg k Wli.rg d IELnrals Swh a

(43 Cm 3800) @d, Sll=, lead, Ircxl ad

ccpper (cm Federal lanis).

Take adaquate ~m

avoid, ndnidze, or mrrect

dsmga ~ tb elwircxmHu d

to public I’Uwkh ad safety

-

of ndmral

~e

 resources.

~

Prewnc UUEUESSary or umh

degraktion of Fed?ml lam%

which my result fran mdn@

Operaths.

o Minil’g plan IQBt te !altmit@d to tb reglllauxy

achx-ity htlldl ImludeS -- of ~= to

ktAentoprevem or ccmrol gmxrkster pllmicm.

o Opratiom my Ls2 prchikited or restrlud In areas

ff it la &teLndnEd by tk rEgulsmy altlmity tit

hater quali~ will b bed beku State stmdarda or

k!da set by mI (Lmlesa it la fad that *

hri~ of vmter quality is necessary to eamnd.c d

Sodsl &@.ofnnm am.! will - p-eclde smy assi@Ei

m cf tk iater. IPA amt k axmlttd m emwre

tht tk Ckau Water Act wadd ncc te violated. )

o Plan d Operat.iom -t lx allluitti to tk reglr

Iatory E@mity %i’liCh inclu&a a &scrl@on d mear

- to b tken to meet tb pexfonmnoe Stmiani.

o No specific w

qulrelams.

o MlnilWJ plan

-t I@.ude povlaiom for reClaEItion d dir

turkl ~o

0 k spdfic &

quiramxs.

o Plan d Opew

tiom m.Bt idlde

prtuisti for reClamtbn of dlxr

tl.rkd area3.

o No Spedfic mqtims.

0 Pefiotmxce

M last be filed

inanauamtti

fiderz m Satisfy

tkmlkmtim

rcq~ of an

afpcwed Udnirg

plan (at Iea8t

$20a)).

O NO s~dfic ~

quirclem.

o Pelformrm

bord mt b filed

in an ~t IrMexi

on th? eatilmtd

cat d nx%muik

stabilization ad

Wclalmtim tf

distmbd are&3.
Post-Closure

Statutory Def init ion Performance Design and Operating Closure

Sour ce

Care

Authority of Source Object I.ve /Cri teria Requirements Requirements Requirements

Mhitg ad M1.m surface Minilg

~- Cultrol SrKl

surface Minilg RecIalmtlon Au

(CulK1l’lld) (30 m 816)

FfLlrhlg ad Pu.M Fekral bud

Drainage - policy ad

IJn&grand ~~ AU

lthlirg - MLm2ral bing

AU cf 1920 ad

nsterlalJ3 Act of

1%7 (43 ~ 23)

surface mini.lg d cd.

Mlnirg d Urhlerala Swh s

coal, phqiaate, -t,

Scdium, potaxliq Ssni,

stale, grawl arxi C@ (on

Federal lads).

Gro.ndmter qdlty shall be

~ctecfd bj hadlng earth

nsterials ad nnuff in a IMIIner that mhimhes acidic,

talc, or othx harmEul infil-

=~ to ~rwt=

d by IIEn?@x excamtiom

ad @kr disturb to prewnt or cuurol tk discharge

of pal~ Into tk gradwmr.

Sam m stardatd for surface

mini% @r these k.

o M@aOW tuthwity is rquird m as-s tk omu.latiw I@ologi,c iapscts of the ti~ opxatlon

prior to pnult qmxral.

O Pexndt ~plication uust c~a.in a &@~ns~n of

tk ptable hych-ologlc Comqsmcea on the qual.i~

ad qwmtity of grad ad surface water umkr

~fkw condltio~ for tk Popcaed pmuk md

Sdjacem Sre.

o ~crdarmtion plan ut be dlutttxxl With

the perndt qpllmtlon. It mm amtaln stqa to k

tkendurilTg -ami rdamstion ttralgh W teIease perl.cd to: @’dndZe dialllrh to tk ty&olcglc ~ Within th? permit ad Sdjacert ~;

prevent -fisl &ma& Cutaide the p2nult are& mt

Federal ad State wawr qmli~ rqulaclom; ad prw

tecX the rights of lxesmt usera. Specific uea3ures

to avoid acid or toxic &_ SIXI ~ prtwi& water

-blent facilities, s neuasary mat k imlu&d in

tk plan.

Ca@ianoe with

tk hyckologic reClalmtion plan.

Sare m rqdremmts for surface minirg &r tkse %E as require

k. m for aurftce

adnl.rg tir tti

h.

o A h@dC@C

reclamation plan

nuat be alhldtted

uith a pxnit qPliawion which

Splfies the m

aureatotEt2ken

duril’g Ild.nil-g and

rdsmtion qeratiors to praect

~~r (CW

site ad df=ite)

fran dveme effects (e.g. acid

or toxic dral.nz%i?). A Prfrmrme bad ImJst b

f fled Ctnlerllg *

&ration af ndni~

SIKl reclauitial

Sctivitils.

o Mnltorllg -t

be ccminm?d until

torrl relee.

Sam as rquire

nexts for surk.e

udnirg &r ttme

-.
Pos t-Cloaure

Statutory Definition Performance Design and Operating Closure Care

Source Authority of Source Objective/Criteria Requirements Requirements Requirements

MLnirg afrlFtl= -us.MinitgLaa3Mll’@(fcldneralaallAlas

~- (43CFR3600) gold,ailuer, IesrJ,ironand

Undelgramd c@per(onFderal larrk).

Minir$g

(Cultillled)

Surfacel’tinirg unKWgrcund @al mhlil’gc

-ml Srxi

Reclamation Act

(30 CFR 816)

Me as requtrmmts hr mx- Sare as mqui=nts for stiace mim *r tk

face ting tir these h. ~.

Saa2 as stsdad for suface Sane as rquhuents for sufsce min.iqg tir MU&

ndni~ tsder ~.

Sare as require sale as rcqldle

rents for surface nents for surface

ndnitg under these adn@ under tkse

h. w .

Sam? = require Sare as require

amts for surface rents for surface

udnirg &r minlrg under

m. m.

a 40 CIR 35, Su@rt G are th regulation for State gr~s for Water Quality P1.amitg, Man@arent, arrJ Implementation. Alttmgh th? Claim Water Act Is directd at the Pd=lon & stiace

vatera, aare Slxtea hate cimen to i.nclule grcxrukit er quality prvgram in tkir taer quality mnagenmt plana. Such plans are rquired ty the regulations to irmikate reco@tion that

grwndwtexs ad strface water intenrd.x.

b The Federal Lad Policy ad ~mmt Act (IZEt@ Act & 1976 (P.L. 94-579) raquirea that @lie Iartis be mnqged in a reamer that will prdect tti qdity of emd rauental dues. In

dditim, ttuxe are a hr of ~ regulati~ antain ndni~ activities on I@&ral lads. l’he ndni~ r@atiocm are tilmrized by both the FWM ad the spcific ndni~ k ad are tlua

presetted to@kr in this table.

c Applies to surface effects of Ln&rgrand Idn.ing.

scur=: Office cf Techolcgy Aaaes=nt.

I
H.5 DESIGN AND OPERATING PROVISIONS FOR

CATEGORY V SOURCES

Pos t-Closure

Statutory Definition Performance Design and Operating Closure

Sour ce

Care

Aut horlty of Source Object ive /C ri t eria Requirements Requirements Requirements

Prc&ction Wells -Fderal Lard Pol- kills used for tk ckvelqmmt Mst net cmtariltie o All graI*neceaamy ~-tim ouat be tdten to keepwells mat be No requim!mmts

Ceottmlld d icy ad Msnagemnt of ~henml stem (on wters (ca@ance utth all wells @r control, utilize trained d ccqetentpltgged d akn- established.

Heat RecweIy Act - Ceahemd Federal lads) Federal ad State water qual- perr+onml, utilize lxcperly n!alntaimd cqulprent dcmd in a ad namer

St- Act (30 CFR fty starxlard9) naterlals, ad use oprati.~ practices tich insure approved by the

270 ad IQI Opera- the safety ami life ard prqmty. m~v

tional Order o A plan of operation mat be appmsd (prior to

No.4)a

zmlthori~.

Camrenclrg Cperatiom) by the I’egulatoIy attxx’lty

Aich &acribea the propcsed maaurea to be takn for

the prtiection & the erwirccuent, includirg tte

prewntion or cmtrol of pollution of surface and

gramdhiater.

production Welh -

Water Su~y

Other W&Us (nonwaate) -

Mnitoril’g wells

Other Ala (nonwaate) -

Explotatlcm Wella

Federal Lad

Policy ad

F!aKMI&=nt Acta -

Mineral -i%

Act of 1920 ad

FtXerials Act of

1949 (43 CFR 23)

—

—

—

—

Exploration hells UA in T* dcqmte nm!mrea to

mlniqg operations for mbrala mid, mtnlmfze, or correct

sti as cod, pb@ate, danage to the emdrommt ad

asphalt, aodilml, pota9aiun,to public health and aafe~

sad, sto~ grad, ard clay while

(on Federal lands).

emm=33fm &velqmmt

of mimmal reaaucea.

—

o E@o~tion PMI nust be fiki with tte regulatory NO requkammts No rlqulrsumts

aatlmi~ Inclding a description of -urea to be established. established.

taken to prtwent or amtrol pollution d surface ad

gramdmter.
Post-Closure

Statutory Definition Performance Design and Operating

Source

Closure Care

Authority of Source Objective/Criterfa Requirements Requirements Requirements

a The F+ti M Policy ad ~~nt Act (kT.J+@ of 1976 (P.L. 94-579) rczptlrea tit @.ic lank be _ in a reamer that will preect tb qusll~ of erwi rmlmtal *. In Sddftiq

tkre are a &r of - re@at@ ~rtsln adni~ activities on F* lads. ‘l’he mklrg r~iorm are atlmized ~ tih tk = ad h S@iC ndninun laasaldtllls F==@

t~tkr in this table. Note that ~tiong for tk Gecthxmal Stem Act wre rdesQna@d, ulth mimr rwlsiom, as 43 CFR 3260 on S@. 30, 1983.

b 40 ~ 35, sutprt G S= ~ r@Micmj for State Grants for Water Quality Plamiryg, ~~arrl In@ emntation. Altlwagh the Clean Wster Act is directed at the pu@&lon of surfwatem, sane Stalin W chosen m include grauxbater quality pgmm in their water qti~ ~lt plain. such plal’a SIE rEqUtNsl by tk lvgUlatiotB to ilrlicate rECqnition tlMt

grcmktem ad surface -Interluix.
H.6 DESIGN AND OPERATING PROVISIONS FOR

CATEGORY VI SOURCES

Pos t-Closure

Statutory Def f ni t ion Performance Design and Operating Closure Care

Source Authority of Source Objective/Criteria Requirements Requirement Requ.lrements

Grcuxlmter— CleanWaterAct—

Surftm31&ter Section208(40

Intem2tiom cFR35,subpart

G)a

NmralIeachirg Feclsmtionkt

SalMtwer

Jntruah

Clean Waterkt —

Section 2@3 (40

CFR 35, subpart

G)a

Intemdxi~ of greter ad

aurf- uster.

sal~ter intrusion Into

rivers, lakes, arrl e3tmries

rewki~ frao ra.luction &

freshwater flrxt fran any

cm-, incldlg g-Ater

extraction.

f.%astal Zxie sa.l~ter intxuaion.

~~nt ~

Achieve eltabliskrl

vnter qLality @

the =.

NC Objecthe

spscified.

Achiae exsbliskfl

vater qdity @

tk a.

of

of

nlnimi.ze th? law of

v-w - h

saltwater intrusion.

o M apdfic rquiratmts establishal.

o Statea are requiral to suhdt -ter quality

~nt @arE M must irriicate recognition tht

gromhatem ad surf- vnter fntenuf.x.

o No apxtfic requirxnents ~tiliskd.

o Reclamation Act atlrmi~ the Fe&ral Gcnernwmt

to &w21w w+ter supplies for dorestlc, ~d,

irrbatrial, ad otter purpses.

o I@ apzific requLramm ts e3tablistd .

0 stat= are required to admit wter quality ~

QEnt plainUMsh nuat describe tte rEgulatrJry Slr.1 nmr

regulatory activities aml Best ~

(-) dectd to -t

t Racticea

nm+oint aour~ cmtrol

necrk. (IFIPa are netluda, uezxnrea, or ~actices to

preuent or reiw2e vmter pllutlon. They inclde tut

are not lindtcfl to structmal ad rmn9tructural

controls, ad qeratkm aid mmlnt~ woaxllre3).

BfPa can be -lied before, duri~, am! after

pollutioq-mducirg activities to rduce or elfndnate

tk inlxoduction of plkants into reeivf~

mtem. Ecomrdc, irstibMIXlal, d tedlnical

factmrs mat be cord&rd.

ap~opriate.

a 40 (XR 35. Subart G are tk rcnilations for State izrants for Water @alitv Manamumt. Plannlnr. aml Imolerentation. Altlunzh tte Clean Water Act is

directd at thi pXection of s“ti~ hnter,

Sara: Office of ‘lbdmolqgy Aaaesmmt.

aam Shtea have _ ‘to inilude .grAte; quality ~og+9 in tkir =termnagment q’ikllty plain.

No rqdrerents M rs@-eumts

Satimi.ahd. e3tabliahed.

No rqdrcimts & requireumts

elltabliahed. estsbliskrl.

w rtqulralmts m rqrfreumts

estdliakli. established.

t-b requLrenmta b rcqllkrelts

estMidllxl. eatablfahsd.