GR'EEN BAY PILOT STUDY
GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN
Prepared by
United States Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Great Lakes Region
Chicago, Illinois
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
INTRODUCTION 1
1967 SAMPLING PROGRAM 1
CONCLUSIONS 2
CHRONOLOGY 2
DISCUSSION OF DATA 3
Bottom Sediments 3
Water Quality 5
Water Quality in the Sump Area 6
- Water Quality in the Land Spoil Area 6
FIGURES
Figure No.
Study Area 1
Sampling Locations
Bottom Sediments & Water, May k, 1967 2
Sump Bottom Sediments, July 17, 19&7 3
Water, Outlet Pipe, Diked Land Spoil Area h
Water, Diked Land Spoil Area 5
Fox River-Green Bay Sediment Data, May U, 1967
Total Solids 6
Volatile Solids 6
Oil & Grease 7
Total Phosphorus-P 7
Soluble Phosphorus-P 8
Chemical Oxygen Demand 8
Total Nitrogen 9
Nitrogen (NO^) 9
Nitrogen (NH3) 10
Organic Nitrogen 10
Fox River-Green Bay & Diked Area Water Data
Total Phosphorus-P 11
Turbidity 12
Soluble Phosphorus-P 13
Nitrogen (NO^-N) 14
-------
-------
FIGURES (Continued) Figure No.
Fox River-Green Bay & Diked Area Water Data (Continued)
Nitrogen (NH3-N) 15
Nitrogen, Organic . 16
Dissolved Solids 17
Suspended Solids 18
Chemical Oxygen Demand 19
TABLES Table No.
Analytical Results
Green Bay Bottom Sediment Samples, May U, 1967 1
Green Bay Water Samples, May U, 1967 2
Green Bay Bottom Sediments Samples, July 17, 1967 3
Green Bay Water Samples - Outlet Pipe, Diked Land
Spoil Area, July 17-18, 1967 k
Green Bay Water Samples - Diked Land Spoil Area,
August 17, 1967 5
Green Bay Water From Diked Land Spoil Area, October 11, 1967 6
-------
-------
GREEN BAY PILOT STUDY
INTRODUCTION
The Green Bay area is one of eight sites in the Great Lakes
selected by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for joint study vith FWPCA
of alternate procedures for the disposal of polluted dredging materials
and the effects of these disposal techniques on water quality. This
report covers the 1967 FWPCA sampling study in Green Bay.
As part of the pilot program, the channel from the C&NW Railroad
Bridge to Long Tail Point vas deepened under a contract that commenced on
November 8, 1966 and vas completed September 2.6, 19^7• Under this con-
tract, 632,000 cubic yards of dredgings were used (l) to fill a 380 acre
diked land spoil site at Atkinson Marsh, and (2) to construct a dike
inclosing a 230 acre bay spoil area adjoining the entrance channel in
I
1 the bay, northeast of Grassy Island (see Figure 1). Material dredged
| from the Fox River channel by two clamshell dredges was placed in a
\ I temporary spoil area in the bay, then pumped to the land spoil area by
!
j a hydraulic dredge. The temporary spoil area consisted of a sump,
200 ft. by 750 ft., dredged to a depth of approximately 25 feet below
the natural bottom of the bay. The hydraulic dredge, working in the
1 channel from the mouth of the river to Grassy Island, pumped directly
; to the diked land spoil area. The dike in the bay was constructed by
hydraulic dredge with material taken from the channel between Grassy
Island and Long Tail Point.
1967 SAMPLING PROGRAM
Bottom sediments and water samples from the channel and sump area
and water samples from the diked land spoil area were collected for the
study. Water samples were also collected in the ditches on each side of
-------
-------
Tower Road, south of the diked land spoil area to determine if there was
seepage through the dike. No samples were collected from the 230 acre
diked area in the bay. Sampling points are shown in Figures 2 to 5-
CONCLUSIONS
1. Bottom sediments in the channel and sump have a high chemical
oxygen demand and high concentration of oil and grease, total phosphorus,
soluble phosphorus and total nitrogen.
2. Dredging operations in the sump area caused significant in-
crease in conductivity, alkalinity, turbidity, total phosphorus, nitrogen
and suspended solids, in the overlying water.
3- Turbidity and suspended solids were effectively reduced by
detention in the land spoil area. Concentrations of other constituents
in the overflow were generally equivalent to or higher than concentrations
inside the spoil area, based on one set of comparative samples.
if. Based on the information available, it appears that there
was very little seepage of pollutants through the dike inclosing the
land spoil area.
CHRONOLOGY
April 13, 196? Season's dredging operations started in the Fox River.
May k, 1967 Dredging continues in the river. Nine bottom sediment
samples collected, seven from the river and one each
from the sump and a scow. Eight water samples collected
from river and sump area.
-------
-------
3
May 18, 1967
July 17, 1967
July 18, 1967
Hydraulic dredge started operating in the sump area.
Dredging operations continue in the river and sump area.
Six bottom sediment samples collected from the sump area.
Dredging operations continue on the river and sump area.
Three water samples collected of overflow from the diked
land spoil area.
July 31* 1967 Dredging operations continue in the river and in the
channel north of Grassy Island. Two water samples
collected from the overflow from the land spoil area.
August 3> 1967 Dredging operations in the river completed. Construction
of dike in bay north of Grassy Island continues.
August 17, 1967 Seven water samples collected at the diked land spoil
area, one from the outlet pipe, two from the land spoil
area and four froni two ditches south of the spoil area.
September 29, 1967 All dredging operations completed for the season.
October 11, 1967 Nine water samples collected at the land spoil area,
three from inside the dike and six in the two ditches
south of the spoil area. There was no overflow from the area.
DISCUSSION OF DATA
Bottom Sediments. Figures 6-10 show graphically most of the
data obtained from analyses of bottom sediments in the river and bay
channel, the sump area in Green Bay and from one scow load of dredgings.
This data has also been tabulated and is shown in Tables 1 and 3.
-------
-------
At River Mile (RM) 1, all the chemical and physical constituents
in Figures 6 - 10, except total solidSj^are considerably lower than the
concentrations shown^^_t_eacii_-River._Mile immediately above and belov this
point. Although dredging operations started on April 13, 19&7 *n the
vicinity of RM 1, the area was not sampled until May ^, 19&7 • It is
apparent from the low concentrations shown that the sample at RM 1 was
collected after the area had been dredged. Therefore, these data have
been omitted from the following discussion.
Bottom sediments in the channel have a high chemical
oxygen demand and high concentrations of oil and grease, total phosphorus,
soluble phosphorus and total nitrogen. The concentrations were generally
highest up river at RM 3 and decreased fairly uniformly into the bay to
Bay Mile (BM) 3.
The following is a summary of May k, 1967 bottom sediment data for
\
,, , . c ,
the river and bay channel: ^c
Parameter Unit (Dry Weight) Maximum Minimum
Total Solids % of sample 30.5 13.0
Volatile Solids % of total solids 23.7 ih.Q
Oil and Grease mg/k U6,200 U,600
Total Phosphorus-P mg/k 6,500 2,683
Soluble Phosphorus-P mg/k 138 18.6
Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/k 300,000 179,000
Total Nitrogen mg/k 10,130 ^,950
-------
-------
5
Parameter Unit (Dry Weight) Maximum Minimum
Nitrogen (NO^) mg/k 16.2 9-9
Nitrogen (NH^) mg/k 1,2^0 60
Organic Nitrogen • mg/k 9,1'-50 ^,020
Sulfide mg/k 830 2HO
Phenols micrograms/gram 7-8 0-75
Immediate Dissolved Oxygen Demand mg/k 9^,600 21,^00
Bottom sediments were collected in the sump area in Green Bay on
May kt 1967 and again on July 17, 19^7- River dredgings were deposited
in the sump routinely after April 13, and the hydraulic dredge had operated
intermittently in the sump after fey 18. A comparison of the samples
collected on May U and July 17 is presented below. As would be expected,
the data are similar to those shown above for the river sediments. It
should be noted that on July 17, only two samples were taken from within
the sump area (see Figure 3), with two samples takenon either side. The
data (Table 3) show higher values in the sump for only ammonia nitrogen
and soluble phosphorus.
BOTTOM SEDIMENT DATA IN THE SUMP AREA
Parameter Unit (Dry Weight) May k, 1967 July 17, 1967
(one sample) (Average of
6 samples)
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Oil and Grease
Total Phosphorus-P
Soluble Phosphorus-P
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Nitrogen
$ of sample
# of total solids
mg/k
mg/k
mg/k
mg/k
mg/k
41.3
13.4
4,200
1,910
*5
122,000
2,690
29
15
13,855
1,165
7
167,350
*. _
.1
• 3
.8
-------
-------
Parameter Unit May U, 1967 July 17, 1967
(one sample) (Average of
(Dry Weight) 6 samples)
Nitrogen NO- mg/k k.k 8.5
Nitrogen NHo mg/k 660
Organic Nitrogen mg/k 2,350 3,526
Water Quality. Figures 11-19 show graphically most of the data
obtained from analyses of water samples collected from the river and
bay channel, the sump in the bay and the diked land spoil area. This
data is also tabulated and is shown in Tables 2 and k-6.
\
Water Quality in the Sump Area. On May U, 1967, water samples
were collected in the river and at the sump area. Analyses of these
samples, Table 2 and Figures 11-19 shows that water quality in the sump
area after the disposal of dredging materials was much worse than water
quality in the river or bay channel. The dredging operation had a
noticeable effect on conductivity, alkalinity, turbidity,~total phosphorus,
nitrogen and suspended solids; all increased significantly as might be
expected. There was a particularly significant increase in ammonia and
total nitrogen which is to be expected when waters are first contaminated
by organic matter in an anaerobic state.
Water Quality in the Land Spoil Area. Water samples were collected
at the land spoil area to determine the effectiveness of the dike to retain
the various chemical and physical constituents in the dredging materials
placed in the spoil area by the hydraulic dredge. Water samples were
collected on July 17, 18 and 31 and on August 1 and 17, 1967. Analyses
-------
-------
of these samples (Figures 11-19 and Tables 2 and k-6) shows a considerable
variation of effects on the quality of vater discharging from the dike
through the outlet pipe. The data collected on August 17, 1967 which
compares water quality inside the diked area, at the overflow pipe, and
in the ditches illustrates the effectiveness of the dike to retain the
various constituents of the bottom sediments. A comparison of concen-
trations inside the dike to those flowing through the outlet pipe are
summarized below:
Inside Dike
Parameter Units at 2 points Outlet Pipe
Turbidity APHA 2k - 10.0 9-0
Total Phosphorus-P mg/1 0.59-0.28 0.72
Soluble Phosphorus-P mg/1 0.18-0.12 0.18
Nitrogen N03 mg/1 2.9-2.1 1.9
Nitrogen NH3 mg/1 5.8 - k.J 6.9
Nitrogen, Organic mg/1 h.2 - 3.6 6.1
Dissolved Solids mg/1 386 - 1*20 Uo6
Suspended Solids mg/1 117 - 38 92
Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/1 98 - 78 107
The above data shows that only turbidity was effectively con-
trolled by the dike and that some of the chemical constituents of the
dredgings such as total phosphorus, ammonia nitrogen, organic nitrogen and
chemical oxygen demand were higher at the outlet pipe than inside the dike.
A comparison of chemical and physical concentrations inside the dike with
those in the ditches on each side of Tower Road for August 17, 1967, show
-------
-------
8
that with the exception of dissolved solids, the concentrations inside
the dike vere considerably higher than those in the ditches, indicating
very little seepage of constituents through the dike. On October 11,
1967> 9 samples vere collected both inside and outside the diked area
(Figure 5)- The analytical results are shown in Table 6. Excluding
the results from sampling station number 6, the phosphorus and nitrogen
levels, suspended solids and turbidity are all generally higher inside
the diked area which indicates again the effectiveness of the dike in
limiting seepage through the dike.
-------
-------
TEMPORARY SPOIL AREA (SUMP)
GREEN BAY
HARBOR
DIKED LAND SPOIL AREA
380 ACRES
BAY
• RM 1 -River Mile 1
• BM 1 - Bay Mile 1
GREEN BAY HARBOR
STUDY AREA
FIGURE 1
-------
-------
.
6) 4^ -P •!•> -P
c5 c3 c3 c3 ri a3 c3 cJ
I I I
o o 0) e> o a) a) a» o
MWMcawwcacoca
o
CO
8
o
I
&
H O H
P3
H CM
C
•H
I 8
co CO
UNM3 t-cO ON
ffi
pq
w
w
o
M
CO
-p
G
•H
CO
|
o
w
vo
s
UJ
LU
cc
o
^_*
>- •"
8> •-
~ ei
< Sr^
u <
« .1 r
Ci P3
1 I
5 5
Ci CJ
"o
R
_
r
ft^
^i^
|}f
_ .„
nnr.
oT
D
~
UJ
0
(X
c«:
*f
-------
-------
^
o
o
CM
k - >l
"* OOIX
t-t
^^ ( » / — r~ *~'
viy
~;
-=»©•:
«O"
CM©
«-i (O—
O
Ifl f~l
~ 1-3
in _
"o
ID
O
O
_ _
"8
(OOC
^~^
po
f£*
r*>
o
"0 EH
— :0
o M
in t»
,_-»
0
^•Q
CY
\J
>-i<
^
cq
h-^
PH £-\
S w
gg
O
\«x
^"-1
P t";
r-i Pi
-------
-------
(•=-"!
PL,
H
PH
'i
%
O
r-
MD
ON
r— i
»*
•CO
H
1
C —
1 — 1
t>.
rH
2
h>
0)
p;
•H
E-i
o:
-1-5
CO
.Q
•
c
rH
P
£
ci
CO
-", O 0
H C' 0
O\ fA CD
o-r-ro
rH rH H
r--! H r-1
0 3 Pi
^)!-3 ^
rH CM rA
D-
vO
V i
ON
rH
*S
rH
R
'/)
i — '.'
r^
P
<
1
rH
f*f\
» 1
M
^
p
hi
o
•M
^
a o
0 0
C--CC
r-l
G
4^
Cj
O
•
fO
c-^
G
r-l
£
£~,
co
CO
O^rH
rH t"
.2 2
*-? <
rH CM
CO u-
M
Q
-------
-------
o
P,
•H
-P
O
0
o\
H
4-3
-------
\ Uii Wk-ta-llUislL"
TOTAL SOLIDS
% OF SAMPIE
PAY
L-lii
rrra rMot, n 10^
illtlj \',>.o.y LftLvO
J 2 1 0 1 2 :
CHANNEL MILE POINT
FOX RIVER L GREEN BAY
VOLATILE SOLIDS
% OF TOTAL SOLIDS
40
30
2O
JO
llilii
21012;
CHANNEL MILE POINT
FOX RIVER I GREEN BAY
SCOW
Average
July17,'67
SUMP
AREA
Avg.JulylT, '67
SCOV/
SUMP
AREA
FIGUA3 6
-------
-------
crf>?r'rrriT E>".TI r^r.
5LoLi.aht.ji bi;lnf i,:ay
OIL & GREASE
DRY V;EIGHT MG/K
20,000
10,000
21012
CHANNEL MILE POINT
FOX RIVER I GREEN BAY
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS-P
DRY WEIGHT MG/K
10,000
8,000
, 6,000
4,000
2,000
SUMP
AREA
CHANNEL MILE POINT
FOX RIVER I GREEN BAY
SUMP
AREA
-------
nTA r-? fl
'iuiii. \\'.C:j f
SOLUBLE PHOSPHORUS-P
DRY WEIGHT MG/K
500
400
300
200
100
21012:
CHANNEL MILE POINT
FOX RIVER I GREEN BAY
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
DRY WEIGHT MG/K
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000 I
Average
July i'7, '67
SCOW
SUMP
AREA
SCOW
CHANNEL MILE POINT
FOXRIVER_ I GREEN BAY
SUMP
AREA
FIGURE 8
-------
-------
TOTAL NITROGEN
DRY WEIGHT MG/K
0
21012
CHANNEL MILE POINT
FOX RIVER I GREEN BAY
NITROGEN (N03)
DRY WEIGHT MG/K
20
CHANNEL MILE POINT
FOX RIVER I GREEN BAY
SUMP
AREA
SUMP
AREA
FJTiUE 9
-------
-------
Krn prv
dJ U'.Y
NITROGEN (NH3)
DRY V;EIGHT MG/K
2fOOO
1J600
1,200
800,
400
> 2 1 0 1 2
CHANNEL MILE POINT
FOX RIVER I GREEN BAY
ORGANIC NITROGEN
DRY WEIGHT MG/K
iofooo\
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
SCOW
SUMP
AREA
o i
CHANNEL MILE POINT
FOX RIVER I ... GREEN BAY
SUMP
AREA
10
-------
-------
rH
H
o
M
PM
-------
-------
CM
H
O
f~5
s
r^
t--^
L-'-J
l£\
•S3
ca
CD
-------
-------
01
liJ
E^
t&l
ea
OSPHOR
LJ
_J
CD _i Q>
D £Cvj.
O S ^
cn
^^.-^^r,^^. .v^Wi.-,,,,,;
d
co
cs
(
*~
-------
-------
O
M
Ol
ea
L-J
cs
I-'J
£-. * i_
-"• ^^
-------
-------
GS
li!
°-{
CO /
Csl
UJ
KJ o <^
^j CC o
n
f>
* o
n
cs
r- <
IU
0<
N H- ^
-------
-------
k-J
ca
i
ca
fc'J
H
W
O
M
-------
-------
t—
H
L'J
c'J
-I
O
CO
O
Ld
^O
M
CO
in in
z<2
Q<
<6
^Sm"
O LU -V
W 2C
CO*
M
r-3
-------
-------
w
H
L"J
ca
i
cs
tvJ
-------
-------
ON
H
ea
o
UJ
>»
tvJ
cJ
i
o
_i
o
*
«o .>
in
UJ -
O
0<
-------
-------
s
ft
0
ft
M
to
i
*? 2
H t^l
<; QJ
cq s
•H W>
c P
e$ h
Mjj
p ^
0 &
1
a) a
0 0
O -H
^ -P
1
6 O
c3 >~l
CO 04
>j
^
ft
j*i
HI
t?
H
ft
bO
~-^-P
bO 0)
^>
>3
J-|
ft
^P
bO O
E S=
>,
P
R
X
---•P
bD Q)
B is
>j
Vt
ft
J4
~~tj\+*
%
£n
O
X
"wf-P
g5
O
&
o
9
»\
CM
CO
8
CO
o?
H
co
[—
OJ
OJ
I-J
ft
CO
p>
H
O
ft
•K
LTN
CO
O
O
LTN
•\
LfN
0
•\
Q
£}
oo
C--
•v
VD
-3-
cB
tr\
»v
VD
ft
O
•s,
H
• OO
«
0)
X H
£g
H
o
s
»\
_=*-
ON
O
ft
•«
OJ
H
q
CO
ON
co
LfN
H
CO
CO
CM
t—
O
O
LfN
LfN
a
H
o
8
»*
CO
OO
O
ft
•V
c—
o
o
•\
CO
J-
OJ
o
o
ir\
•^
J-
LfN
O
IfN
-*
•s
ON
cB
o
•%
. CM
%
^H
C
(U V
-*
r-H
LfN
c~-
o
CO
OJ
•
o
3
OJ
_*
c—
o
s
•^
^i-
O
o
J-
*\
rH
o
O
O
*v
CO
H
OJ
^5
vB
•v
VO
vo
%
0
•^
-^
ft
OJ
•»
H
>»
4
«
OJ
C
ID a>
V H
^1 -H
0 S
VO
o
8
*v
LfN
VO
$
•*
CO
H
J-
co
OJ
r-
o
P,
CO
H
t—
Q
VO
*W
VO
o
o
»v
H
8
O
*\
ON
r-
H
o
g
•v
t—
CO
£
c—
»*
LfN
%
OJ
•»
H
>j
«3
«
CO
C
0) 0)
0) H
^ r!
0 S
t-
O
$
•s
CO
CO
8
•v
CO
H
J-
H
ON
LfN
•
0
OJ
CO
oo
H
o
8
•v
-3-
t-
»\
rH
o
O
O
•v
OJ
cv
H
O
§
•s
o
LfN
O
LfN
OO
*x
CM
£
ON
^
w
^ o
D< 0)
g 0)
3 ^
CO O
CO
o
s
•s,
H
co
o
o
^J-
•s
VO
H
CM
_^-
0
CM
CM
•
O
ft
VO
CO
OJ
CO
0
vB
*»
CO
0
SN
•v
H
8
o
•\
c-
H
H
^5
H
»^
H
vo
R
-3-
•v
CM
s\
CM
*t
H
>
6
o
CO
ON
0}
•<-{
w
>1
J
f~l
<
§
8
s
*
H
I
-------
-------
I
CO
CM
K-3
-< iJ O
W S H P<
< ert w ^!
55 CO 4* O \
W O ,3 bO
g EH P-, E '
to
Tf rH
* *T**( ^-^ 03
H rH O 43
O 0 0
J> CO 'te'4- EH
CO V
H TJ ' H
Crt ^H «H O.
•P H O E
O O cJ
EH co ^ CO
t
* cd J-4
o o
3"
3 H ^
>j
P
43
Q)
P
43
(U
*
^
p
43
a>
>
£
P
a)
^i
P
4^
-------
-------
CO
g
g
w
(K
_1
5
H
1
s
<
£
CO ON
W rH
*q
p . ^
<;
CO M
K li
w
1 '
> «
H <
3 P
o
W M
W tn
K E
C5 S
^Y»
cl
1 CJ
rH 4>
;i cj
CO -H
to H H
•H 0 0
O CO CO
1
H O
e5 fc
•P P C
O -H (!)
EH & bO
O
1 M
OOP C
W -H 0)
fe K bD
,
O
1 rH
OOP C
O -rl
5=5 E?5 bO
•
H
O tt,
CO ^
to
H i b
d w M
POO
O ,d ,3 PH
EH P-i P< l
1
•H .
f> >, g
3 iH P"
EH rij ^
i
c3 i
S a >>
rH -H P
< rH vH
45
1 1 -H
C 0 >
0 S -H
0 -d -P
05 C
0 0
5 -rH
i-5 P
i
S QJ *
05 rH O
CO & K
H
t1
fc!
H
to
B
i
» — \
bD
E
H
bfl
E
H
bO
E
rH
bO
E
H
t<0
B
H
~bD
E
rH
bO
E
TO
£
•H
H
bO
B
O
OO
VO
H
H
CVJ
_d
LT\
CVJ
-d-
*
H
IA
O
O
OO
H
O
ON
O
•
O
H
•
O
1A
*
oo
rH
CVJ
H
rH
O
CVJ
00
• CO
K
V
X H
Pn S
H
OJ
oo
tA
H
OO
-d-
1
oo
H
IA
O
d
OJ
oo
•
0
ON
0
•
O
OJ
OJ
CJ
IA
•
H
H
rH
OJ
H
IA
OJ
OO
• OJ
«
IA
H
OO
LA
r7
OJ
00
•
H
-d
O
•
0
OJ
OJ
•
O
V£>
O
•
O
oo
H
O
O
OJ
OJ
OO
rH
rH
&
oo
>>
OJ
w
OJ
C
0) 0)
H
>H H
O S
vo
OJ
OJ
H
H
-d-
VO
OJ
O
8
OJ
H
VD
O
O
oo
H
O
CO
0
«
O
OJ
IA
•
q
ON
C-
o
rH
LA
r-
OJ
>>
fe
W
oo
C
0) 0)
0) H
Si!
r-
VD
-d-
H
OJ
CO
CO
O
0?
$
OJ
O
oo
IA
3
•
oo
ON
H
O
r—
O
•
O
rH
•
CVI
O
O
C—
CO
OJ
OJ
O
0
&
w
C
fit
-------
-------
Station
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
GREEN BAY BOTTOM SEDIMENTS SAMPLES - SUM? AREA (mg/k)
July 17, 1967
% Total % T. Vol.
Solids Solids
NO^-N
Org-N
Phos-
phorus •
T.Sol. P
1
2
3
k
5
6
Average
Station
1
2
3
*
5
6
Average
27.0
27.7
26.0
22.2
32.6
39-3
29.1
Total
Wet
1,08
301
284
1,08
301
213
1U.8
16.7
18.2
17.8
lk.6
9A
15-3
Phosphorus -P
Dry
1509
1088
1091
1835
92U
1165
Wet" Dry
loo 370
97 350
19!+ 71*5
150 675
117 360
131 315
1,69
COD
Wet
1,8,200
37,500
36,000
37,100
91,600
Uo, 800
Wet Dry
1.6 5-9
2,2 7.9
3-2 12.3
2.0 9.0
3.6 11.0
2.0 5.1
8.5
Dry
178,500
135,100
138,500
167,000
281,000
10l*,000
167,350
Wet Dry
1085 k02O
913 3300
1026 3955
960 1,325
1008 3090
959 2U65
3526
Oil
Wet
6,930
U,270
2,815
1A65
6,510
1,835
*Hexa ne
Wet Dry
1.06 3.8
a. 66 6.0
3.11 12.0
2.9^ 13- ^
2.16 6.5
2.01 _JL,O
7.8
& Grease*
Dry
25,667
15, Ml
10,827
6,599
19,963
U,663
13,855
Analysis
Table 3
-------
-------
CO
H
g
CO
§
.J
r— i
<
ir\ i
co H
CO
k^j
p^
5
s
s
CO
§_
t—
•
B
•
cd
8
CO
CO
rH 00
o vo
• •
ir\ co
O IA
r— vo
o H
CM CM
d o
vo vo
H H
d d
J- CM
CM CM
CM H
ON t—
• •
0 0
ITN VO
CO CO
-* CO
H H
O O
ITN -3-
co co
£ <
t- co
• •
B B
• •
ft 03
O O
O O
t~ CO
H CM
x— *
ta
-p
vH
C
O
to
^!
0
cJ
h)
o
-p
f-t
H 0)
§ •!-!
CJ^H
0>
OJ
M ft
•rH H
Cj S
P p5
SI ^
tq O
p^. t.
<: o
•H
C B
•H
C
•7-4 lfj
'U *T~I
M ta
ft ,£
£> 4)
-H M
•tf H
•H 0
^l C
M CD
y j^
EH fa
* *
*
0)
H
I
-------
-------
X""»
t-l
B
N^_X
o
OJ CO
-* H
1 °
S;i ON ro
M
CO CM O
0
• °°
SZ CO O
ir\
ir\
CM
CO
H
d
o
d
ON
H
ON
H
O
VO
O
CO ir\
t— t/N
O O
CM
CM
p CO
CM ITN
CO
OJ
VO
CO
CVI
ON
O
CM
o
VO
H
CO
OJ
O
•
o
ITN
l/N
s
CO
OJ
CO
O
q
d
CO
o
q
OJ
CM
CM
o
•
o
r-
O
q
ON
OJ
ON
VD
O
CM
t-
ON
H
ON
VO
II (0
V -P
10 H -H
•P tJ C
•H q tD
fi Rj
» °^
a -H
O T3
S W -H
W ^ ,0
S.8S
lf\
I
5
s
o
o
CM
H
OJ
o
q
H
H
v!
I
ti
CO
TJ tfl
•H C fl)
co O M
H o5 p
P
£
•^
p
OJ
to
to
O ti
0
K
V
•H
to
c
J3
O 0)
•P AJ
P P
I I
CO ^±
C CJ
O A!
H -H
c3 P
P
I
ITN
to
to
o -rJ
M c}
o o
rf K
5
p
i
VO
-p
0)
H
-------
-------
GREEN BAY
'ANALYTICAL RESULTS 07 WATER FROM DIKED LAND SI-OIL AREA
t
rag/1
OCTOBER 11, 3.967
Type__ qf Sample; __ *
T. SO!L-P 0.119 0.037 0.039 0.086 o.oM o.'n'* 0.123 o.oUo 0.032
Total- P 0.252 0.07H 0.063 0.22^. 0.109 0.629 0.273 0.105 0.119
KH3-K 0.8^ 0.12 0.10 0.36 0.07 0.59 0-90 0.23 0.20
H03-N 0.6l 0.03 0.02 - 0.03 0.11 0.36 0.06 O.Oo
Org-1? 2.0 1.0 1.2 h.b 0.91 l.U 2.6 l.H 1.1
Sus. Solids 57 7 5 19 7 -126 68 .18 2^
Dis. Solids 327 393 385 789 *H5 27^ 32^ 353 35^ -
Turbidity 27 l.U U.O ^.5 0.7 9-0 llj- 12 7.7
COD 69 35 36 33 57 38 65 71 ^0
Table 6
-------
------- |