600283028
IMPACT OF COAL REFUSE DISPOSAL ON GROUNDWATER
by
Jacek Libicki
entral Research and Design Institute for Open-Pit Mining
POLTEGOR
51-616 Wroclaw, Poland
FMSC FUND - PROJECT NO. 5-537-1
Project Officer
Stephen R. Wassersug
Region III
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OP' RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. .ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION7 AGENCY
CINCINNAf-I, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in
part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under FMSC
FUND - Project No. 5-537-1 to Central Research and Design Institute
for Open-Pit Mining, POLTEGOR. It has been subject to the Agency's
pe«r and administrative review, and it has been approved for publi-
cation as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Over the past nine years a continuing cooperative venture has
developed between the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Central Research and Design Institute for Openpit
Mining (POLTEG-OR) in Wrociaw, Poland, to deal with energy and the
environment. This research is fundamental to the growing energy
requirements and related environmental concerns of the Polish Peoples
Republic and the United States. Each country shares similar features
enabling the research efforts to be applicable and timely.
Several projects have been undertaken, including those relating to
mine water purification, reclamation of spoils, and coal ashes. These
research efforts are the necessary first steps in problem solution,
which involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching
for solutions. The EPA develops new and improved systems technology
to minimize the adverse economic, social, health and aesthetic effects
of pollution, This publication is a product of that research.
This report presents the results of five years investigation of the
effects of coal wastes and ashes on groundwater modelling to identify
potential impacts. Further, a most significant aspect of the report is
the design testing to determine appropriate monitoring and containment
measures to prevent and analyze potential pollution problems. This
report and its findings will significantly benefit EPA in its mission. In
particular, certain current pollution problems as defined by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
and Safe Drinking Water Act, can be dealt with more effectively as
a result of this report. Further, the findings should have benefit not
only to disposal of coal refuse, but disposal of toxic wastes in general.
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This project was developed as a result of an earlier study
published in the EPA report "Effects of the Disposal of Coal
Wastes and Ashes in Open Pits" (EPA 600/7-78-067) . The
analysis of that study indicated the need to continue the
research on a full scale basis for a longer period of time,
thus the initiation of this study.
The objective of this study was to determine the extent of
groundwater quality deterioration when coal mine refuse and
oower plant ashes were disposed of in open pits. In addition,
disposal methods were developed and procedures for planning and
designing disposal sites were formulated. The study was
conducted from 1975 to 1979 at an abandoned sand pit near
Boguszowice, Poland, where the groundwater was monitored.
Laboratory testing of the wastes and its leachates were also
conducted. From this work, the physical-chemical character of
the waste material and its susceptibility to leaching of
particular ions in a water environment were determined, as was
the influence of precipitation on the migration of oollutants
to the aquifer. The level of pollution of groundwater in the
vicinity of disposal sites and its dependence on local
hydrogeological conditions, and particularly on hydraulic
gradients were ascertained. Recommendations for improved waste
storage technology in order to limit the effect on groundwater
and design guidelines for a monitoring system are presented.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of project JB-5-537-1
between the United States Environmental Protection Agency and
the Central Research and Design Institute for Openpit Mining
(POLTEGOR), 51-616 Wroclaw, Rosenbergow 25, Poland.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract «. iv
Figures vi
Tables viii
Acknowledgment be
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions .. 2
3. Recommendations 8
4. Previous Research Summary 21
5. Description of Disposal Site 24
6. Characteristics of the Disposed Wastes 43
7. G-roundwater Monitoring and Sampling 57
8. Methodology of Chemical Analysis 61
9. Results and Discussion of Hydrochemical Tests 64
10. Statistical Analysis of Hydrochemical Tests 131
Appendix
A. Results of Glass Column Tests 150
B. Computer Printouts of Statistical Computations ±6f"
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5 .
7-1
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-4
9-5
9-6
9-7
9-8
9-9
9-10
9-11
9-12
9-13
9-14
9-15
9-16
9-17
9-18
9-19
9-20
9-21
The Surface Map of Disposal and Investigated Area
The Contour Map of Saturated Aquifer Thickness and
The Contour Map of Initial Ground Water Table
The Map of Disposal Surface .
The Diagram of TDS Content
The Map of TDS Distribution,, July 5,1977
The Map of TDS Distribution t December 20,1977
The Map of TDS Distribution, June 28, 1978 ..............
The Map of TDS Distribution, December 13, 1978 .....
The Map of TDS Distribution, June 13, 1979 ..............
The Map of TDS Distribution, December 20, 1979
The Diagram of Cl Content
The Map of Cl Distribution _, July 5, 1977
The Map of Cl Distribution, December 20, 1977 ..........
1
The Map of Cl Distribution t June 28, 1978 ..................
The Map of Cl Distribution, December 13, 1978 ..........
The Map of Cl Distribution, June 13, 1979
The Map of Cl Distribution , December 20, 1979 ..........
The Map of SO Distribution , July 5y 1977
The Map of SO Distribution, December 20, 1977 .......
The Map of SO Distribution December 13; 1978 .......
25
37
38
39
41
59
66
68
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
86
87
88
89
90
-------
Number
9-22
9-23
9-24
9-25
9-26
9-27
9-28
9-29 •
9-30
9-31
9-32
9-33
9-34
9-35
9-36
9-37
9-38
9-39
9-40
9-41
9-42
9-43
9-44
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
The Map of SO Distribution } June 3? 1979
The Map of SO Distribution^ December 20, 1979 ....
The Diagram of K Content
The Diagram of Mn Content
The Diagram of Pe Content
The Diagram of NH Content
The Diagram of PO Content
The Diagram of CN Content
The Diagram of Al Content
The Diagram of Zn Content
The Diagram of Pb Content
The Diagram of Hg Content
The Diagram of Cd Content
The Diagram of Mo Content
The Diagram of Average TDS Content in Particular
Wells
The Diagram of Average Cl Content in Particular
Wells
The Diagram of Average SO Content in Particular
Wells .T.
The Average TDS Content
The Average Cl Content
Page
91
92
95
97
99
101
103
105
107
109
110
112
113
116
118
119
121
122
123
125
127.
128
130
140
141
142
146
147
148
Vll
-------
TABLES
Number Page
2-1 Comparison of G-roundwater Quality Before and After
Waste Storage 3
2-2 Indicators Illustrating the Comparison of Actual G-round-
water Pollution Versus Glass Columns Leachate ..... 5
2-3 Qualitative Picture Illustrating Pollution Occurance
Intervals , 7
5-1 The Daily and Monthly Sums of Precipitation - 1975 26
5-2 The Daily and Monthly Sums of Precipitation - 1976 27
5-3 The Daily and Monthly Sums of Precipitation - 1977 28
5-4 The Daily and Monthly Sums of Precipitation - 1978 29
5-5 The Daily and Monthly Sums of Precipitation - 1979 30
5-6 The Average Daily Temperatures - 1975 31
5-7 The Average Daily Temperatures - 1976 32
5-8 The Average Daily Temperatures - 1977 33
5-9 The Average Daily Temperatures - 1978 34
5-10 The Average Daily Temperatures - 1979 35
6-1 Volume of Disposed Wastes 44
6-2 Surface Area of Waste Exposed to Precipitation 45
6-3 .Summary of Leachability Tests 47
6-4 Percentage of Component I/eached in Each 24 Hours
Leaching Test 54
6-5 Average Concentration of Particular Components and the
Amount of Each Component Leached from One Kilogram
of Coal Refuse in Laboratory Leachings 56
10-1 Analyses of Null Hypotheses Related to Averages for
Measuring with t - Duncan Test 139
10-2 Average Content of TDS (in mg/dm ), and Dynamics
of Percentage Increase as Compared to 1975 143
10-3 Average Cl Content (in mg/dm ) and Dynamics of
Percentage Increase as Compared to 1975 144
10-4 Average 30 Content (in mg/dm ) and Dynamics of
Percentage Increase as Compared to 1975 145
viii
-------
AC KNO WLE D G-E ME NTS
This report has been prepared through research completed by the
Central Research and Design Institute for Open pit Mining CPOLTEG-OR),
Wrociaw, Poland. In this project support was also received from the
climatological stations and laboratories of the Polish Institute of Meteoro-
logy and Water Management.
The entire research was directed, and the report prepared by the
Principal Investigator, Dr. Jacek Libicki, with assistance from Mrs. Helena
Hac, M.Sc. geologist, and Mrs. Marianna Szatan, M.Sc. mathematician
who developed the statistical analyses.
The Project Officer was Mr. Stephen Wassersug from the EPA
Regional Office in Philadelphia. The Project Officer advised us during
the project and provided contacts of appropriate institutions in the
U.S.A. This enabled us to fully understand American needs and adjust
the project and final report to U.S. environmental requirements.
*
Special acknowledgements are given to the Office of Research and
Development in Cincinnati, Ohio; Ada, Oklahoma, and Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina.
The organizational and financial help was given by Mr. Thomas
J. Lepine, Chief of Special Foreign Currency Program, U.S. EPA, and
Dr. Pawei Biaszczyk, Director of the Environmental Protection Institute
from Poland.
We appreciate the support and advice received from all institutions
and individuals in the United States, including the U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Roy P. Weston Company, the Pennsylvania State University, Environ-
mental Engineering Division in the State of Vermont, and the Department
of Environmental Resources in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
IX
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The current situation in world energy which began in the 1970's,
prompted renewed interest in coal. It is expected that this situation will
last until the end of the 20th century. Increases in coal extraction
result in large amounts of refuse being produced mainly from processing
plants. These wastes are partially utilized (e.g., for road embankments),
but large amounts have to be disposed frequently in previously explo-
ited open-pit mines. This seemingly rational solution is, however, poten-
tially hazardous to groundwater which can be easily contaminated by
the direct or indirect contact with the refuse. A conflict thus develops
because these groundwater resources are frequently used by munici-
palities and industries and have to be protected. Many countries regu-
late groundwater pollution.
Influence of coal waste and ash disposal on groundwater quality
was investigated between 1973-1976 in the Central Research and
Design Institute for Open-pit Mining (POLTEG-OR) as a part of the
Environmental Protection Agency's overseas activities. A small test
disposal site with a capacity of 1,600 m^ was used to investigate the
influence of ash and refuse disposal on groundwater quality. Similar
tests were also conducted for a period of time on a large disposal
site with a capacity of 2,000,000 m^, where its impact on groundwater
quality was observed within a radius of 1 km. Tests were also perfor-
med on ground models and analog models in order to investigate pollu-
tant migration in groundwater.
Upon completion of the project, U.S. EPA published the Final Report
in the Interagency Energy-Environmental Research and Development
Series (Publication EPA-600/7-78- 067). This report presented a number
of conclusions relating to the pollution hazard and a number of recorn—
mendations relating to methods to reduce the hazard.
In 1976, it was decided to verify the conclusions by further studies
at the large disposal site. Investigation for longer than two years,
especially in the case of large disposal sites and groundwater migra-
tion, was found to be necessary. Thus, the period of evaluation was
extended to five years.
This report presents the results of the five-year study (1975-1979)
on the large refuse disposal site and its impact on groundwater quality.
Conclusions have been drawn and recommendations made.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
1. This research confirms that coal refuse disposal in an abandoned
open pit in which the refuse may have contact with an underiaying
aquifer, deteriorates groundwater quality (Table 2-1).
2. The stored coal refuse consists of dry wastes coming from the
construction of the mine, from dry separation of coal waste and
wet refuse coming from coal washers. Dry waste materials as a
rule consist of large particles, having diameters greater than 100 mm,
and as such constitute a much smaller pollution potential because
the leaching of toxic components is limited by small facial surfaces
in contact with water. Washed waste material has smaller particles
ranging from a dusty fraction to 50 mm, and is much more suscep-
tible to leaching of soluble components.
3. Dry refuse, because of its large size particles, presents difficulties
in laboratory tests (in columns) and it is therefore difficult to
relate laboratory leaching results with field observation. Washed
refuse also presents difficulties for laboratory testing because the
suspended solids and colloidal particles plug the bed.
4. The level of groundwater contamination is dependent first of all on
the leachability of the wastes. Other significant factors include:
the amount of precipitation percolating into the disposal site which
is dependent on the area of disposal surface exposed to preci-
pitation and amount of precipitation,
selfsealing of the disposal site bottom by the finest muds washed
out from the disposal site, and settled at the aquifer roof
(especially if the permeability of the aquifer is less than the
permeability of the disposal site).
5. The leaching of refuse in glass columns in the laboratory in order
to obtain the pollution impact was accomplished in three phases of
24 hours each. These tests showed the maximum concentration of
each component in the laboratory leachate and the dependence of
leachability on time.
After 72 hours (three 24-hour periods), the following concentration
of each component_was found in the Jleachate (maximum .values):
TDS - 3372 mg/dm * Cl - 479 mg/dm , SO - 230 mg/dm , Na -
357 mg/dm , K - 48.0 mg/dm3, Ca - 355.9 mg/dm , Mg - 21.85 mg/dm ,
* - 1 mg/dm3 - 1 mg/1 » 1 ppm
-------
Table
2-1. Comparison of Groundwater Quality Before and After
Designation
pH
Conductivity
TDS
Cl
SO.
Na4
K
Ca
Mg
Mn
Fe total
NH,
P04
CN*
Phenols
Al
Zn
Cu
Pb
Cr
As
Sr
Mg
Cd
Mo
B
Average
c one entration
Unit before
disposal
influence
2 6'66
us/cm 247.1
mg/dm 169.2
" 15.08
54.1
7.84
11 2.77
16.26
4.95
0.24
4.60
0.43
0.014
0.0049
0.0034
0.16
" 0.360
0.023
" 0.0165
" 0.0064
0.0168
" 0.130
0.630
0.0024
0.0148
0.032
Average
c c nc en t rati on
during
disposal
influence
6.25
460.72
329.13
40.84
117.98
33.50
5.51
34.11
10.23
0.266
3.7433
1.22
0.0244
0.0059
0.0036
0.181
0.1672
0.0102
0.0246
0.0056
0.0274
0.1472
0.6294
0.0037
0.0083
0.0685
Maximum
concen-
tration
during
disposal
influence
6.88
801.0
550.07
72.73
209.89
81.99
11.31
53.60
17.39
0.79
8.75
2.47
0.053
0.0172
0.0066
0.444
0.497
0.0313
0.047
0.075
0.057
0.216
1.300
0.0058
0.024
0.095
Note: mg/dm « mg/1
ppm
-------
3 33
Mn - 2.995 mg/dm , Fe total - 75.8 mg/dm , NH - 4.46 mg/dm ,
PO - 3.14 mg/dm3, CN - 0.066 mg/dm3, Phenols - 0.088 mg/dm3,
Al - 38.5 me/dm3, Zn - 3.085 mg/dm3, Cu - 0.925 mg/dm3, Pb -
0.271 mg/dm3, Cr - 0.089 mg/dm3^, As - 0.133 mg/dm3, Sr - 2.050
mg/dm3, Hg - 1.09 mg/dm3, Cd - 0.056 mg/dm3, Mo - 0.029 mg/dm3,
B - 3.6 mg/dm3.
6. The leachability of pollutants may be divided into three groups
under laboratory conditions:
1st group - the components most easily leached (Cl, SO., Na, K.)
2nd group - the components of medium leachability (Cu, Zn, Hg,
Sr, Cd, B, Mn, Mo, CN)
3rd group - the components characterized with the slowest leaching
(Mg, Al, Cr, As, Pb, NH4, Ca).
7. The glass columns leaching experiments showed that from 1 kg
of coal wastes the following masses of particular pollutants were
leached on the average:
TDS - 320 mg/kg, Cl - 41.8 mg/kg, SO - 32.9 mg/kg, Na - 48.74
mg/kg, K - 5.26 mg/kg, Ca - 15.18 mg/kg, Mg - 1.46 mg/kg, Mn -
0.146 mg/kg, Fe - 4.93 mg/kg, NH^ - 0.347 mg/kg, PO^. - 0.104 mg/kg,
CN - 0.005 mg/kg, Phenols - 0.0056 mg/kg, Al - 2.34 mg/kg , Zn. -
0.177 mg/kg, Cu - 0.0395 mg/kg, Pb - 0.0391 mg/kg, Cr - 0.0073
mg/kg, As - 0.0016 mg/kg, Sr - 0.081 mg/kg, Hg - 1.03 mg/kg,
Cd - 0.005 mg/kg, Mo - 0.003 mg/kg and B - 0.171 mg/kg. These
figures could be used to forecast the amounts of leachable
pollutants contained in the stored coal wastes.
8. The comparative study showed the relation between the
laboratory leachates and the real pollutants' concentrations
in the adjacent part of the aquifer, which is shown in Table 2-2.
The indicators specified in that table may be used for the rough
prediction of the area of pollution when storage is planned based on
the laboratory leaching tests,
9. The system of monitoring wells in the shape of 5 radial lines was
sufficient to monitor the aquifer for potential pollution. However, in
practice a smaller number of wells would be sufficient,
10. Three-week intervals for groundwater sampling and measurements
were sufficient, and in practice measurements could be reduced
to a monthly frequency.
11. The schedule of physico-chemical analyses (i.e., the sample analy-
ses of 19 parameters for every set of samples, and full analyses
of 42 parameters for every third set of samples) is appropriate.
However, the number of parameters chosen for simple analyses and
full analyses should not be based on recommendations for drinking
water standards, but on the basis of results from previous labora-
tory leaching tests.
12. The first indications of groundwater pollution occurred in the form
of singular waves of pollution in specific wells in 1976, i.e., 12 to
-------
Table 2-2. Indicators Illustrating the Comparison of Actual
GcQundtta
Leachate
Designation Unit
pH 2
Conductivity us/cm_
TDS mg/dm
Cl
SO
Na
K "
Ca
Mg
Mn
Fe total "
NHn "
PO • "
. CN4
Phenols "
Al
Zn "
Cu
Pb "
Cr "
As
Sr
Hg
Cd
Mo "
B U
Maximum
0.82
0.53
0.34
0.35 '
. 1.28
0.34
0.43
0.71
2.38
1.08
0.355
1.43
0.10
0.68
0.23
0.038
0.56
0.5
0.24
0.21
0.98
0.53
0.25
0.24
1.41
0.11
gr ound wate r
Average
0.75
0.307
0.20
0.19
0.72
0.14
0.21
0.45
1.40
0.36
0.152
0.705
0.047
0.23
0.13
0.02
0.19
0.16
0.13
0.15
0.47
0.36
O.12
0.15
0.49
0.08
values
Minimum
0.70
0.20
0.12
0.09
0.36
0.04
0.10
0.23
0.74
0.15
0.013
0.32
0.017
0.09
0.07
0.02
0.09
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.23
0.05
0.09
0.13
0.06
Leachate column values
-------
18 months after disposal operations had begun. However, these
developments were difficult to monitor.
13. Continuous pollution began in early 1977, two years after the
commencement of storage operations (see Table 2-3).
14. The waste caused significant pollution of the aquifer only in the
direction of the greatest declination in the groundwater table.
15. The pollutants do not migrate in the form of a wide uniform front,
as predicted by hydrodynamic net analysis, but migrate in the form
of narrow veins. This finding has been proved by comparing the
concentration of pollutants in particular wells in the potentially
polluted zone. The pollution was not very uniform. The most impor-
tant finding is that local differences in aquifer permeability
determine pollutant concentration (higher permeability - higher
pollution) especially after 3 years. This condition was
found in similar investigations conducted in France, but withoux
explanation.
16. The duration of heavy pollution was 2 /2 years or until mid 1979,
when it decreased. This phenomenon could be explained by two
factors:
the surface area of the disposal site exposed to rain infiltration
was reduced by careful reclamation of about 30-40 % of the
total disposal surface,
the bottom of the disposal site was self-sealed when the silty
wastes were washed from the disposal body and settled at the
bottom of the pit.
17. In accordance with modelling in the previous report (see section 4),
the sequence and period for pollutants occurring in particular wells
from the beginning of storage, was predictable with 80 percent
accuracy.
-------
Table 2-3. Qualitative Picture Illustrating Pollution Occurrence
Intervals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
1O
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
29
26
^-%^
D e» I gr^tton**-^
Conductivity
pH reaction
Totai.Di*.Subfl
Cl
so«
NH^,
po4
CN
Phenola
Fe total
MM
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Al
Cr
As
Pb
Cu
Zn
Hg
Sr
Cd
Mo
B
1975
1
II
HI
IV
1976
1
Mi
- -
I!
4M
in
i
-
-™™«
rv
-
•M
mm
1
no c
no en
no ch
no en
no ch
•MM
ver^
no ch
no ch
197?
II
ange
urige
&nge
—
inge
nge or
tm
III
i^
— -
tmm
doubt
r pr^bab
nge
inge o
doub
IV
Ul
.
.e
ull
1978
I
-
II
MB
MM
•
III
IV
—
L—
r—
mm
1979
1
••
II
III
IV
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
This project was a follow up to a previous project entitled "Effects
of the Disposal of Coal Waste and Ashes in Open Pits", and published
by EPA in Research and Development Series in April 1978 under the
number 600/7-78-067.
The objective of the present project was on the basis of a long-
lasting full scale investigation to confirm the conclusions and recommen-
dations from the previous report. Significant new data on the expanded
site was utilized.
This confirmation was required to verify the earlier conclusions and
recommendations and to insure its applicability to broad use.
The recommendations have been verified and confirmed in practice.
Therefore, the recommendations have been systematically presented to
relate its applicability to the first project. The methodology presented
for the storage of coal refuse may be applied to many other solid wastes.
The phenomena observed may differ according to chemical composition
but should be similar hydraulically.
WASTE CLASSIFICATION AND EXAMINATION
1. According to observed tests, coal waste can be divided into the
following sub-groups:
a. Dry waste material is from quarry operations, associated with
the ripping of the floor or roof, the construction of stone drifts, etc.,
and more rarely from dry mechanical separation. This refuse is
characterized with identical mineral and chemical composition, from
the sterile rocks accompanying the coal seams, and are usually
coarsely grained (gross from 10 to 200 mm). The character of
pollutants leached is entirely dependent upon the chemical composi-
tion of sterile rock formations. The quantity of pollutants which may
pass into solution is relatively small, because of the small surface
contact with the leaching water. This is due to the effect of the
rather large size of particles of this refuse, and great filtration velo-
city of water through the material which occurs particularly in the
disposal located above the ground water table.
b. Wet waste material may be coming from washers using water
or heavy fluids and from flotation processes.
8
-------
- The refuse from the water washers is characterized -with a gra-
nulation from a silty fraction up to a diameter of 80 mm, and
their chemical composition is effected by both the sterile rock
and the cleaned coal. Moreover the influence on their chemical
character has the composition of washing water (i.e. a highly
mineralized drainage water). The wide range of grain size pro-
vides conditions for both the movement of the water through the
stored material, and for large quantities of components to be
leached as compared with dry refuse. Moreover some pollutants
may also be washed in the form of suspension of silty fractions.
- Waste material coming from washers using heavy fluids are charac-
terized by a coarser graining than waste from water washers
(i.e. grain size of 20 to 250 mm). Their chemical composition is
effected by the character of the sterile rocks and cleaned coal.
The chemical composition of the heavy fluids used has a substan-
tial influence during washing. Here the components of the washing
medium settle on the surfaces of refuse particles, and are first
washed-out from the disposal. Therefore, the chemical character
of this fluid should be considered from the environmental perspec-
tive. The coarser granulation of this refuse, in comparison with
the preceding, does not provide conditions for the leaching of as
large a quantity of pollutants as for water washes because (a)
of the relatively smaller contact surface of the refuse particles
with the percolating water, and (b) due to the higher velocity
of the rain water percolation through coarser material.
- The refuse from flotation is characterized with a very fine granu-
lation in fractions from silty to 2 mm diameter. Their chemical
composition is a function of the coal characteristics, characteristics
of aceompanying< sterile formations, and also the chemical substan-
ces used as flotation fluids. The fine granulation of these wastes
provides conditions for leaching large quantities of components
particularly in disposals saturated with water. In case of dry dis-
posals (e.g. above groundwater table), a fine granulation of this
refuse limits the possibility of the filtration of the rain water
through the stored material and may increase the share of eva-
poration in the disposal's water balance. The composition of the
fluid used in the flotation process may also have substantial
influence on the chemical character of leachates because some of
the fluid's components may settle on the surface of grains. The
type of fluids used in flotation should therefore also be controlled
for potential ground water pollution.
2. Laboratory tests of wastes, with respect to their storage, should be
carried out considering the conditions of storage.
3. With reference to the above, the full chemical analyses of refuse
are not recommended, as this can lead to erroneous conclusions.
Only a portion of the refuse components can pass into leachate,
and only this portion affects the quality of groundwater.
-------
4. With sufficient time and funds, the lysimetric method of refuse ana-
lysing is recommended when conducted in columns of 1m diame-
ter, and 3-4 m high. These tests may be conducted under full
saturation of refuse, if storage below the groundwater table is
expected or where the refuse is only temporarily impacted with rain,
if disposal above the groundwater table is expected. In the first
case the duration of tests has to be defined on the basis of refuse
permeability. A duration of 3 to 6 months is recommended. In the
second case a duration of at least one year is recommended. The
water for the tests in the first case should be taken from the aquifer
within which the disposal is planned. In the second case the recom-
mendation is to expose the refuse to the natural rain. Distilled
water to simulate rain is not recommended because the rains in the
industrialized areas are generally acidic (pH = 4-6) containing
pollutants.
5. To obtain fast and approximate results, an expedited leaching of the
refuse can take place in 10 cm diameter columns about 1 m in
height with a filtrating layer in the bottom part. In two weeks appro-
ximate results on maximum concentrations of particular components
passing to groundwater in optimal conditions can be obtained, and also
the amount of leachable pollutants per unit of mass of stored wastes.
In interpretation of these results caution is recommended where
solubility may be impacted by increased time.
6. It is recommended that tests as described in no. 4 be performed
for planning before commencing storage, and tests referenced in
no. 5 be performed during storage to determine variability of the
stored material.
7. In order to plan and design the disposal site, the chemical analyses
of leachates should analyze all components and elements to estimate
which could be harmful to groundwater quality.
8. The chemical analyses of leachates, obtained in the laboratory
process of the stored refuse, may comprise only those elements
and compounds which were found harmful during the basic exami-
nation mentioned in no. 7. This shortened procedure may be used
if the coal and sterile material has approximately uniform characte-
ristics.
9. The analyses of the leachate should determine all related physical-
chemical parameters, as one cannot judge beforehand which may
be harmful.
10. Analyses mentioned in no. 7 should be completed with a high degree
of accuracy to determine not only the potential threat from a given
toxic component in groundwater, but also the secondary impact from
organisms of plants or animals using these waters. This secondary
concentration may be more harmful.
10
-------
SITE CLASSIFICATION
Classification and evaluation of the open pits for the storage of
coal refuse, for ground-water protection, should consider the following
criteria:
I. The hydrogeological criteria based on reciprocal spatial relations
of the disposal and the threatened aquifer is discussed in the
following classifications:
A. "Dry" disposal sites (situated above the groundwater table and
exposed to rain).
1. localized within the
impermeable layer
(i.e. clay pit)
rain
,'sy'qwt.'
2. localized within the
permeable layer
(i.e. sand pit)
rain
3. localized within the
impermeable layer,
underlined with unsa-
turated permeable
layer (i.e. clay pit)
=-=x Hi /=r=
gwt.
4. localized within the
unsaturated permeable
layer and underlined
with impermeable layer
(i.e. sand pit).
ram
B. "Wet" disposal sites (situated below the ground water table)
1. localized within the
impermeable layer
underlined with aquifer
with hydrostatic
pressure
/.»- owt —
\ / ~
2. localized within the
permeable layer
underlined with imper-
meable layer
11
-------
3. localized within the
impermeable layer
directly underlined
with aquifer with
hydrostatic pressure
— ^ —\
4. localized within the
permeable layer.
The disposals mentioned in
a) wastes completely
saturated
B. 2, 3 and 4 could be:
or
b) dry by existing
(from the period of
excavation) draining
arrangements, i.e.,
ditches, pumping
stations - refuse is
stored in dry pit and
then is saturated with
water.
In the first of these two cases, the pollutants pass into water much
faster. In the second, there is a much slower rate although the
of leached out compounds in an extended period will be more or
less equal.
II, Hydrogeological criteria based on the relationship between the disposal
and aquifer permeability.
A, disposals with the permeability lower than the surrounding
aquifer (mostly disposals of floating refuse)
B. disposals with permeability higher than the aquifer or a majority
of disposals
C. disposals with permeability similar to the surrounding aquifer.
III. Criteria for a. protected object is recommended to distinguish dispo-
sals when:
A. the entire aquifer must be protected
B. a determined part of the aquifer
particular water intakes must be protected.
12
or the
-------
IV. Criteria for positioning the disposal and the protected object:
A. protected object is situated in the threatened zone posed by
groundwater being in direct contact with the disposal (down-
stream in the groundwater flow)
B. protected object is situated in the indirect influence zone where
pollutants may appear either as very diluted or as a result
of dispersion
C. protected object is situated within the same aquifer, but outside
the hydrodynamic or dispersional influence of disposal (e.g.,
upstream in the groundwater flow) .
V. Distinguishing criteria for the degree of groundwater protection is
recommended:
1st degree - total protection, when the groundwater quality cannot
be changed at all,
2nd degree - partial protection, when permissible values cannot
be exceeded or water must be protected against increases of
determined components (i.e., Cl, SO , heavy metals),
3rd degree - when a given aquifer is not subject to special pro-
tection,
PLANNING AND DESIGNING FOR DISPOSAL
I. Planning the storage of the coal refuse in an open pit should be
preceded by:
exact knowledge of the coal refuse characteristics including
their leachability based on tests described above and the
quantity planned for storage over a given time.
Por preliminary studies the figures and indicators contained
in section 2 of this report may be used,
detailed investigation of the hydrogeological conditions of the
area planned for storage t and
determining the spatial and qualitative protection of the aquifer,
IL The survey of hydrogeological conditions should include:
spatial parameters of the aquifer in contact with the disposal
(thickness, spreading and hydraulic relations with others),
parameters of permeability (especially coefficients of perme-
ability and of specific yield) ,
13
-------
distribution of a hydrodynamic network of the groundwater
hydrostatic heads,
exact knowledge of the original groundwaters' chemical charac-
teristics ,
lithology of aquifer,
detailed description of the site slopes and bottom considering
permeability,
detailed knowledge of cliniatol9gical conditions, especially the
amounts and distribution of rainfall.
III. Hydrogeoiogical parameters that should be used with the survey
of the aquifer are:
drilling wells (either existing from the period of the deposit
exploitation, or specially designed),
geophysical investigations (where possible),
- analysis of general geological information,
IV. Parameters of permeability should be determined using standard
field tests (e.g., pumping tests, or water forcing in the
zone of aeration) or laboratory tests (in filtration columns, and
sieve analyses).
V. Reconstruction of the hydrodynamic network should be performed on the
basis of surveys of the groundwater table in bore holes, or where
possible with use of remote sensing geophysical methods. The
thermistor or tracer methods are not recommended for large sites
and non-point pollution, since they are less adequate than in the
case of particular wells. The mathematical model verification of the
hydrodynamic network is recommended since there are better
possibilities to adjust to real conditions. Knowledge of the region's
hydrodynamic network is one of the most important elements in determining
the disposal's eventual influence on groundwater and should be
made with the greatest accuracy. The proper reconstruction of the
hydrodynamic network and good knowledge of permeability will allow
the possibility of highly accurate forecasts.
VI. The use of aerial photography is strongly recommended to define
the lineaments to delineate potential groundwater carrying pollutants.
The pollutants are not transported through the whole section of the
aquifer, but through the flumes which could be located only with
use of remote sensing methods.
VII. The chemical characteristics of water of a considered aquifer should
be determined by analyses of groundwater. Sampling should be done
from the points specified based on the previously described investi-
gations at 2-3 month intervals (at least one year prior to storage).
14
-------
This is necessary to determine seasonal or other factors such as
influence from an urbanized area,
VIII. Knowledge of lithology of the aquifer formations is necessary for
the evaluation of absorption and ion exchange that can take place
between the polluted water and the rock (soil) skeleton.
IX. The requirements of aquifer protection should take into account
current and future plans for water use since disposal impacts may
exist for several years.
X. After collecting appropriate data, it is possible to forecast the
influence of coal refuse storage in an open pit on a selected part
of the aquifer, or on the entire aquifer under consideration. Such
a forecast may be of qualitative or quantitative character, both in
respect to time and the degree of deterioration of the groundwater
quality. The forecast may be prepared either using computer methods,
or a descriptive computation method. One should realize that there
are no all purpose programs which would afford a formulation of
all phenomena, in a three dimensional system from the aspect of
time and considering different behaviour of various ions. The problem
is more difficult as the phenomena occurs in the unsaturated zone.
One can make approximate forecasts enabling improved decision
making. It is possible to obtain more accurate results when the
forecast concerns one pollutant only, e.g., chlorides, or molybdenum,
as opposed to polluting components.
XI. The forecast and its conclusions should be followed by recommenda-
tions concerning the method of storage and eventual prevention means
as needed.
XIL Por particular types of disposal sites the following is recommended:
A. In open pits of the I-a type, the coal refuse can be stored
without any limitations,
B. In open pits of the I-b type, coal refuse cannot be stored
without a risk of groundwater pollution. This threat can be
reduced by 70 to 90 percent by the protection of the disposal
surface against leaching of precipitation. This can be achieved
by altering surface contours to maximally increase the super-
ficial run-off of rain water and the evaporation, and to decrease
to a minimum the leaching of precipitational water to the dispo-
sed refuse. Covering the surface with impermeable material is
also recommended (e.g., clay layer), making infiltration of pre-
cipitation impossible into the disposal interior and to reclaim
(revegetate) the surface as soon as possible. When mixed
wastes are stored, it is recommended that coarse wastes be
placed on the bottom and a fine material on the top of the disposal
to reduce further the infiltration rate.
There are limits to the above methods, including whether
several waste levels must be filled successively and immediate
-------
reclamation is impossible. In some cases, a temporary sealing
of the surface with a plastic sheeting, or total sealing of the
bowl of the open pit is recommended.
Relevant decisions should also depend on the required degree
of groundwater protection and on spatial relations of the dispo-
sal to the protected object.
C. For the openpits of type I-c and I-d, the hazard is similar but
smaller. Therefore, the recommendations are similar, but less
restrictive.
D. In the openpit of the IL-a type, one may store coal refuse
without any greater limitations.
E. In openpits of the IL-b type, the storage of any kind of wastes
will cause a deterioration in quality of the groundwater. This
pollution is directly dependent on the amount of water flowing
through the disposal, and so will be affected by the relationship
of permeability of the disposal and of the surrounding aquifer.
In this type of disposal, the pollutants will flow through the
entire aquifer. Further, the waste can be stored only when the
degree of required protection will be of the 2nd or 3rd
rank, and when the forecast shows that the permitted pollution
in a given point is not expected to be exceeded. When the
1st degree of water protection is required, or when the
permitted pollution level is exceeded, preventative means are
necessary, including:
vertical sealing diaphragm, down to the impermeable
__..J:i§Y(~r_,_ jpa.de by digging _and filling with impervious -
material or by grouting method,
protection of slopes with impermeable plastic sheeting, or
sprinkling with substances, which when coagulated set an
impermeable layer (this bonding is possible only when the
disposal bowl in the course of storage is not filled with
water),
barrier of wells pumping polluted water back to the disposal t
which is only partially effective.
The selection of a preventive method should be based on a
cost benefit analysis.
F. In the openpits of the II-c type, one can store all kinds of
coal wastes when the water protection is of the 2nd or 3rd
degree. Due to the balanced hydrostatic head and no impact
from the density difference of pure and polluted waters, there
will be no significant vertical migration of pollutants. Such
migration will take place only from dispersion. Within the aquifer
these pollutants will occur exclusively in its upper-most part.
16
-------
If the total disposal is filled with water, the recommended solution
would be a clay sealing of the disposal bottom, by spreading clay on
the surface of the water. The sinking clay would form an
impermeable layer on the pit bottom. When the insulation treatment
is to be made on a dry disposal, then impermeable sheeting or
sprinkling with a sealing substance can be used.
G. In the openpits of the Il-d type, the storage of coal wastes will
always lead to pollution of groundwater. In the case of 1st degree
protection of the groundwater, the disposal must always be
insulated, no matter what type of coal waste is stored. Such an
insulation may have a static character (sealing the floor and the
slopes with impermeable sheeting or through sprinkling with a
sealing substance), or a dynamic character (in a form of a barrier
of wells barring the contact of polluted and pure waters). If in
the course of sealing, the openpit is filled with water then there
is no possibility to use the sheeting or sprinkling and only clay
sealing may be employed. To meet 2nd degree requirements of
groundwater protection and when there is waste material that is both
permeable and nonpermeable, it should be stored selectively. The
material less permeable (e.g., flotation silt) should be placed
close to the slopes and the bottom of the disposal, and the coarse
material in the disposal interior. This limits permeability of the
disposal, thereby, limiting permeability of its outer layer. This
in effect will allow smaller quantities of pure water to come into
contact with the waste. Moreover, in this situation, the pollutants
as a result of groundwater flow, will have a tendency to concentrate
in the uppermost section of the aquifer.
XIII. When considering the relationship between the planned disposal site and
the protected part of the aquifer the following applies:
if the protected part of the aquifer is situated upstream of the
groundwater flow, a 20-meter protection zone should suffice, since
the dispersion influence will not exceed this limit,
if the protected part of the aquifer is situated in the zone of
indirect influence of the disposal, then such disposal can be
planned without protection where the 2nd degree protection
requirement applies. However, this is not acceptable when the 1st
degree of protection is required,
if the protected part of aquifer is located in the zone of direct
influence of the disposal, i.e., downstream, then this disposal
cannot be considered without providing protection, unless an
appropriate model will indicate that this is permissible.
-------
DESIGN OF MONITORING WELLS AND CONTROL PERFORMANCES
lf Monitoring of the disposal influence on groundwater quality can be
performed through sampling and analyzing water from monitoring wells, or
shallow probes, and from natural springs, where possible. There are no
available remote sensing methods which would enable measurements of
groundwater quality without direct access to them. However, some simple
measurements could be made automatically in the wells (e.g.,
temperature, conductivity).
2- Depending upon local geological conditions and on requirements of the
scope of inspection, there can be 1-3 monitoring pipes arranged in
boreholes to sample different aquifers or for sampling different levels
of the same aquifer. When more than one pipe is installed within a
drilled well, total insulation is required.
3. When necessary (e.g. in case of aquifers of great thickness) to
determine the contents of pollutants in vertical zones, then a single
pipe monitoring well suffices for the zonal sampling. This should be
used only when high precision is not required,
4. When disposal is totally insulated from the aquifer, the monitoring
system should only determine the disposal's isolation. Wells should
be spaced along its circumference. The •wells' distance from the
disposal verge should be not more than 20 m upstream, 30 m in
the intermediate zone and 50 m downstream in the groundwater.
The spacings between the wells should be smaller downstream,
greater in the intermediate zone and greatest -upstream. The respec-
tive numerical values can be a ratio of 1:3:5. Locating particular
wells should be based on the analysis of effected sealing and on
the hydrodynamic water heads' distribution,
5. Location of monitoring wells, where disposal will impact groundwater
quality, should be based on the following:
- the hydrodynamic water heads' network,
the spatial structure 01 the aquifer and its trans mi ssivity,
the existence of flumes (lineaments) confirmed by remote
sensing (
the reciprocal spatial relationship of the disposal and the
protected zone.
When the entire aquifer is to be investigated only a few wells may
be located in the zone of indirect influence of disposal. Where the
disposal is impacting downstream groundwater, the consecutive
wells should be placed at distances gradually increasing i.e.:
1st well 50 to 100 m from the edge cf disposal site
2nd well 100 to 300 m " " " " " "
13
-------
3rd well 400 to 700 m from the edge of disposal site
4th well ' 800 to 1500 m " " " " " "
The wells in this direction should be located along the lines of
a stream with the greatest hydraulic dipping or along the flumes
(lineaments). The lines of monitoring wells (one to four) should
be placed within an area encompassed by streams that could come
in contact with the disposal. When controlling a specific part of
the aquifer, the monitoring wells should be located along one or
two lines between the disposal and the protected part. The lines
should be located on the basis of hydrodynamic criteria or along
the lineaments if any. Distances between the wells can be similar
as on the previous example.
6. The monitoring wells should be drilled by the dry method, or by water
washing. Drilling with the application of other fluid washings is
inappropriate because it may lead to a colmatation of the zone near the
well giving entirely erroneous conclusions. This results in groundwater
flowing around the less permeable zone of the well, hindering the
exchange of water between the well and the surrounding aquifer. The
recommended filter diameter is from 4 to 6 inches.
7. In the course of drilling, the lithological log of all layers should
be determined accurately. Levelling of the stabilized groundwater
table, and tests to determine the permeability and the specific yield
of all tested aquifers should be executed,
8. The water sampling from monitoring wells should be conducted after
removal of 1-3 fold volume of water. Additional removal of water from
the well can change the natural flow, whereas not removing the water may
cause the sampled water to be in extended contact with air or with the
well casing. The samples may be collected by way of pumping or manual
scooping.
9. Por the investigations of the unsaturated zone, and for the com-
pacted rock material characterized by very fine pores, one may
use (only in the course of drillings) soil or rock material samples
taken for centrifuging to obtain micro-samples of water.
10. Transportation, preservation, fixing, and the method of analyses
performed on water samples should meet the appropriate standards.
11. The water sampling connected with measurements of the water table
position should be carried out with a recommended frequency:
Dry Type disposals, once a month
Wet Type disposals, every 3 months.
12. For Dry Type disposals, full analyses of groundwater should be
made every 3 months (around 40 designations), and the remaining
monthly analyses may be shortened (about 15-18 designations
specified on the basis of filtrate analysis acquired in laboratory).
19
-------
13. Due to the frequency (particularly in developed regions) of signi-
ficant fluctuations of groundwater quality by various activities
(e.g. fertilization, dust emission), it is essential to possess refe-
rence data, which can be:
- a minimum one year cycle of the groundwater's analyses made
prior to storage for the entire aquifer or;
- when considering one part of the aquifer, using references
from groundwater analyses from a part of the aquifer that does
not undergo the influence of the disposal.
14. The results of groundwater tests should be periodically (minimum
once a year) tabulated and discussed, to draw conclusions and
to propose appropriate recommendations.
FURTHER RESEARCH
The most important problems to be solved in the next phase of
research are:
1. Application of remote sensing (satellite and aerial photography)
to determine the lineaments of migrating pollutants.
2. Investigation of a water balance for disposal for different types of
waste and in various climatic conditions.
3. Investigation of flow of pollutants through the disposal itself and
through the zone of aeration.
-------
SECTION 4
PREVIOUS RESEARCH SUMMARY
This project -was developed as a result of an earlier study publis-
hed in a report entitled: "Effects of the Disposal of Coal Waste and
Ashes in Open Pits". * Therefore it is necessary to present the results
and conclusions from that study, which resulted in the scope and form
of this project.
The aim of the first project was:
- to determine qualitatively and quantitatively the impact of coal
refuse and ash storage on groundwater quality,
- to determine spatial and temporal interrelationships of the dispersion
of pollutants,
- to suggest some improved methods of storage, and
to prepare recommendations for tests, prognoses, and control
systems.
The project was based on field investigations of test disposal sites,
laboratory analyses of water and wastes and model tests.
The test site had a waste volume of 1500 m and was located on
a sand layer with a filtration coefficient about 50 m/24 hours, The
groundwater table was a few centimeters below the sand surface, i.e.
just under the bottom of the waste pile. The stored material consisted
of 70 percent coal refuse, and 30 percent ash from a coal fired power
plant. Within the disposal area and in its immediate vicinity, 12 monitoring
wells were constructed.
Water samples from these wells were analyzed every three weeks
for 15 months. The level of the water table was measured at the same
time. Also, a comparative sample of groundwater was taken prior to
entering the zone of disposal influence. These tests were then conduc-
ted at 6 week and 3 month intervals for the next 15 months. Throughout
the test period, local precipitation was observed by a nearby hydrometeoro-
logical station. This was important because the waste was being leached
by the rain water and the pollutants carried to the underlaying aquifer.
In addition to the field tests, the wastes were leached in laboratory
columns at optimum saturation conditions, with the object to obtain maxi-
mum possible concentrations of components in the leachate. All water
* - Research and Development Series, EPA 600/7-78-067, April 1978
21
-------
samples were physico-chemicaily analyzed to obtain 17 parameters,
and every third sample set was analyzed for 45 parameters, including
heavy metals.
The first indications of pollution were found in the immediate sub-
soil of the disposal site after one month of storage. The major pollutants
were found downstream in the groundwater after a heavy period of rain,
about 7 months after storage.
Maximum increases in concentration of pollutants in the groundwater
affected by disposal were as follows: TDS, 200 to 2000 mg/dm3, sodium
from 3.0 to 500 mg/dm3, chlorides from 10 to 400 mg/dm3, potassium
from 2.0 to 40 mg/dm^, magnesium from 10 to 30 mg/dm3, sulphates from
100 to 900 nag/dm3, phosphates from 0.05 to 0.3 mg/dm3, boron from 0.2
to 2.0 mg/dm-3, molybdenum from 0.005 to 1.0 mg/dm^, copper from 0.003
to 0.2 mg/dm-3, strontium from 0.07 to 0.4 mg/dm-3, cadmium from 0.002 to
0.005 mg/dm3, cyanides from 0.002 to 0.008 mg/dm3. No increase, howe-
ver, was observed in the content of iron, manganese, aluminium or
chromium. Increases in the content of zinc, mercury and lead were
doubtful.
In general, during 2 /2 years 11,500 kg of pollutants, i.e. 0.7 percent
of the disposal volume, and about 70 percent of all soluble substances
were leached out of 1500 m3 of waste.
The main bulk of the pollutants (90 percent) moved in the direction
of the greatest gradient of the groundwater table, and only 10 percent
in the direction of smaller gradients of the water table.
To investigate some aspects of the problem, which couldn't be
determined in the field, a special research program was carried out
on soil models and on analog models. It was found that:
- Within a 2 percent difference between the density of polluted water
and pure water, no vertical migration of the polluted water had been
found below the disposal site;
- The main migration occurs in the zone closest to the groundwater
table and in the zone of capillary rise; this segregation is greater,
the smaller the doses of polluted water reaching the groundwater
table;
- If the disposal site is less permeable than the surrounding aquifer,
the flume of pollutants leaving the disposal site has a tendency
to narrow;
- Local depression of the aquifer floor increases the thickness of
the pollution plume, while local elevations cause thickness reduction.
On the electrohydrodynamic (EHDA) analog model the main flumes
of pollution in the aquifer and times of pollutants occurrence in particular
wells around the disposal were predicted. Prom the above research
recommendations in the following groups of problems were made:
22
-------
a. Classification of the wastes,
b. Methods for laboratory analyses of wastes for preliminary
evaluation of their impacts on groundwater,
c. Classification and evaluation of disposal sites,
d. Planning and designing of disposal sites,
e. Designing of monitoring systems and control work,
f. Directions of further studies for the ultimate solution of the
problem.
The above analysis showed the need to continue the research on
a full scale basis for a long period of time. Thus, the main goal of
this work was to verify these results, conclusions and recommendations.
23
-------
SECTION 5
DESCRIPTION OP THE DISPOSAL SITE
LOCATION
The test disposal site was located in an old sand pit situated in
Boguszowice, about 200 km southwest of Wroclaw. The sand was
exploited for backfilling of underground bituminous coal mines until 1969.
The site comprises three pits which have the total capacity of about
3 million m^. The main (central) pit had a capacity of about 1.5 miUUm ,
and has been abandoned for nearly six years. The western and eastern
pits were smaller. 1975 Cpal wastes from a bituminous coal
mine located in the vicinity have been disposed of in the pits.
The disposal site is situated on a morphological elevation. The
natural surface elevation varies from 275 m to 280 m above sea level.
The terrain slopes away in all directions (Fig. 5-1). One km to the
east the land is about 255 m above sea level, and in the north the
same elevation is observed at a distance of about 300 m from the dis-
posal site. To the south and west the terrain declines gently and has
respective elevations of 265 m and 275 m above sea level. The surro-
unding area is covered with meadows and arable fields, and at a dis-
tance of about 1 km toward the east there is a forest.
CLIMATE
Since the disposal site was located above the groundwater table,
the amount of precipitation (which is the source of the aquifer recharge
as well as the medium for pollutant leaching and transportation into
groundwater) was of great importance in the investigation. The presen-
tation of these data should be helpful for applying the research results
to different or similar conditions in other regions of the world.
The average precipitation for the region during the investigated
period was 788.0 mm and varied from 633.0 mm (in 1979) to 958.6 mm
(in 1975). Daily and monthly precipitation values have been summarized
in Tables 5-1 to 5-5, The highest monthly precipitation was observed
in August 1977 (156.5 mm) and the lowest in February 1976 (3.6 mm).
The maximum daily precipitation (62.5 mm) was observed in August
1975.
Less important but also significant is temperature which affects
evaporation rates. The average daily air temperatures during the investi-
gated period are provided in Tables 5-6 to 5-10. From the tables it can
-------
Explanation
8-1
£ Monitoring well
77J s Land surface elevation
a 56 Private water wells
'I 'i'l' Sandpit slopes
-26O-—— Contour of land surface
o
Cron sections
Lack of wnds
SCALE
i.OOm
Fig. 5-1 THE SURFACE MAP OF DISPOSAL AND INVESTIGATED AREA
Area reclaimed 1978
j Area reclaimed 1979
-------
Table 5-1. The Daily and Monthly Sums of Precipitations
Ch
Day "~
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 .
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O '
31
Monthly
sum
Jan.
28.3
,
.
3.2
3.5
O.O
o;o
1.2
0.0
.
.
.
.
O.O
1.7
0.0
0.3
0.5
•
38.7
Feb. Mar.
2.3
4,5
.
0.5
1.0
2.5
.
. • 1.3
9.8
0.7 5.5
1.1 0.0
1.5
14.6
O.4
16.1 3.7
1.0
.
0.4
5.5
O.6
15.9
24.1 '
1.0
27,6 86.4
Apr.
.
1.0
0.0
7.0
18.O
0.0
0.5
0.0
2.8
5.6
4.7
7.9
0.3
2.0
O,6
O.O
50.4
May
0.0
0.0
1.4
1.2
2.B
0.6
0.0
0.5
25.1
0.8
1.3
7.1
4.8
45.6
i itm)
1975
Juri.
5.9
2.6
.
.
O.O
5,7
10.3
1.4
0.3
., 10.5
1,0
11.4
1.0
21.4
5,2
.,
1.6
4.1
9.0
24.4
6.0
121.8
Jul.
24.9
12.1
0.4
0.4
4,5
35.0
8.O
17.0
14.4
4.5
1.8
1.3
16.O
14O.6
Aug.
6,1
0.2
3.0
0.2
8.3
2.2
O.O
0,4
26.5
8.8
62.5
1.0
O.O
8.4
2 O.O
1.8
2.6
152,0
Sep.
O.O
0.0
(8.5
O.O
O.6
18.0
0.6
8.5
0.0
96.2
Oct.
2.0
5.9
1.1
5.8
2.3
4.0
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.8
33.2
10,4
2.8
O.I
22.1
5.5
5.5
8.8
11O.9
Nov.
0.6
O.I
0.1
o.a
0.0
15.8
2.6
0.0
1O.6
3.1
5.9
1.7
2.9
.
.
1.4
45.6
Dec.
0.0
0.0
2.1
5.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
11.1
O.O
.
0.2
1,8
0.5
4.2
11.5
3.2
.
42,8
-------
Table 5-2. The Daily and Monthly Sums of Precipitations
(in mm)
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1O
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
Monthly
Jan.
1.8
7.5
1.8
0.5
2.3
9,8
4.8
8,4
6.0
12.2
1.2
1.5
1.7
5.5
1.1
1.5
1.6
6.2
6.3
2.9
O.O
1.0
85.8
Feb. Mar.
0.6
0.0
0.5
0.7
0,3
1.6
0.5
*
0.5 O.O
0.0
2.1
- ' 2.0
11.4
1.2
4.6
0,0
0,0
0.6 4,8
0,4 5.4
f .
3,6 33.6
Apr.
0.6
2.6
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.3
5.8
2.3
2.6
1.0
1.7
o.o
22,6
May
1.0
0.0
19.5
13,2
o.o
19.0
26.5
1.6
0.0
15.2
5.6
2.6
8.6
16.6
137.4
1976
Jun. Jul.
0,0
5.9
1.9
0.3
22.6
8.0
3.5
2.8
l.O
14.4 2.8
4.9
7.5
O.3
3.5
10.2
12.4
23.4
8.3
0.8
3.7
2.3
12.6
39.0 114.1
Au^. Sep.
1.1 23.2
0,6
6,8 O.4
2,7 0.3
O.2
2,O 0.3
2O.1
O,6
4.O
0.0 0.2
i.a
a.i
23.5
37,3
3,1
6,1 2,8
1.7
0.8
0.2
7.1
0,2
1.9
48.1 109,0
Oct.
0.0
9.5
o.o
9.0
6.0
7.6
1,1
o.o
7.6
40.8
Nov.
1.2
O.O
0.2
0.2
O.I
5.6
2.5
12.0
17.2
11.9
3.5
1.2
a. 7
1.1
O.2
1.5
0.0
7.7
0.0
2.1
1.8
78.7
Dec.
9.5
3.6
8.0
7.6
0.5
V
0.8
3.8
1.9
2.1
1.0
0.9
2,6
1.8
45,2
-------
Table 5-3, The Daily and Monthly Suras of Precipitations
(in mm)
to
00
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
26
2?
28
29
3O
31
Monthly
surn
1977
Jan.
.
13,1
2.8
1.8
.
13.5
3.3
6.1
1.1
1.4
0.5
2.5
4.1
2.8
13.2
7.5
73.7
Feb.
.
.
1.1
5.9
3.5
2.4
O.5
7.0
1.5
12.6
' 4.6
16.5
O.O
0.5
1O.3
7.3
14,4
14.9
3,6
1.7
4.O
112.3
Mar- Apr.
0.4
3,6
3,4
2.5
3,5
1.9
11,1
0,0 18.6
17.7
0.4
.
8,4 5.0
0.5 0.0
1.4
1.1
0.9 0.0
0,9
1.6
3,0
3.6
0.4
2.3 2.0
18,1
2.9
5.6
2.41
62.9 65,3
May
O.O
O.5
14.9
9.9
3,9
O.O
6.2
4.1
1.7
.
14.5
3.7
59.4
Jun.
5,3
1.1
0.0
1.4
1.0
2.2
1.0
a. 9
7.8
3.0
1.9
33.6
Jul.
5.2
0.2
16.9
1.3
0.4
11.7
1,6
O.O
4.5
3,2
29.9
0.1
35.6
14. 0
124.0
Au^.
27,9
32.5
2.4
1.5
1.6
15,8
3,9
4.1
O.O
3.0
18,0
3.O
21.7
5.3
15.2
156.5
Sep.
0.4
13.0
5,2
O.O
4.6
12.4
3.3
16.2
0.9
31,4
12.6
0.7
100.7
Oct. Nov.
7.3 3,8
2,3 1.2
3.0 10.4
0.2
6.4
2.7 1.8
1,6
3,2
O,6
3.4
0.5
0,7
.
O.5
0.0
0.2
1.7
1.0
5.4 2.1
•
22.5 37,5
Dec.
3.1
^.1
0.5
.
4,O
O.6
1,6
.
1.7
5.3
2.2
4.2
,
0.0
2.8
4.0
32.1
-------
Table 6-14. The Daily and Monthly Sums of Precipitations
(in mm)
10
- 1978-
<»y
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
1O
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Monthly
sum
Jan. Feb.
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
5.3
0.6 5.7
4.6
0.3
, .
. .
3.4
O.O
O.4'
0.9
2.0
. .
.
. .
f t
. .
0.6
1.7
O.O
0.4 O.O
0.4
.
O.O
1O.5 17.2
Mar.
•
t
1.4
1.2
t
1.2
9.1
3.1
O.O
O.O
2.3
t
t
2.9
3.7
0.3
1.3
2.O
0.5
0.9
0.9
t
O.3
.
31.1
Apr.
1.9
0.0
.
.
.
.
.
0.3
<
7.2
18.6
2.0
0.3
O.Z
1.6
7.6
O.3
0.0
2.1
O.O
O.3
.
t
O.O
1.5
5.6
e*
49.6
May
14.6
0.4
0.3
.
O.4
8.8
1.2
0.3
2.5
.
0.2
<
.
3.9
3.8
.
.
O.8
7.3
3.2
12.1
4.2
0.5
12.5.
1.1
11.2
B9.3
Jun.
•
13.6
.
1.1
2.4
3.0
2.1
1.8
0.6
5.O
,
2.8
.
.
.
2.9
0.8
0.3
13.1
1.9
7.8
0.2
t
-
59.4
Jul.
6.5
1.1
'0.5
5.1
15.5
4.5
0.6
14.5
5.3
6.6
4.8
0.1
1.6
O.O
0.9.
2.8
.
.
.
_
7O.4
Aug.
0.7
0.5
11.3
32.1
20.2
6.1
2.6
.
.
19.1
15.1
15.8
0.7
19.8
0.5
O.6
O.O
t
3.0
148.1
aep.
0.8
4.8
2.8
O.6
m
3.8
2.3
2.O
19.2
8.3
12.6
8.6
0.2
.
t
1.1
1.6
2.1
11.2
5.5
1.3
O.5
O.O
0.8
1.3
2.0
-
93.4
. Oct.
6.4
8.1
0.2
3.0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7.7
6.8
0.7
O.6
5.6
2.3
.
12.8
0.5
.
4.7
2.8
0.9
62.6
Nov. Dec.
•
, .
0.3
. ; 0.1
. ,
, .
6.1
2.6
. .
0.2
, .
0.2
. .
0.0 O.2
O.2
.
.
6.3
, ,
, .
r .
.
.
2.7
11.8 2.9
0.7 3.O
15.1 6.3
12.1 2.8
4.0
42.4 35.2
-------
Table 5-5. The Daily and Monthly Sums of Precipitations
(in irni)
o
Dsy
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 .
16
17
18
.19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Monthly
sum
Jan.
1.7
3.0
3.5
1.5
0.6
m
.
f
4.7
O.O
11.5
f
.
2.7
5.8
1.6
.,
0.7
.
5.5
6.7
8.4
.
.
.
9.7
12.4
2.3
3.0
85.3'
Feb.
1.5
f
4.2
f
2,1
3.5
m
f
2.8
6.3 •
0.2
,
3.0
2.4
1.3
0.3
^
.
.
f
1.3
2.8
.
.
0.1
32,1
Mar.
0.8
. 0.2
m
3.O
0.0
f
6.6
2.5
f
3.8
O.4
3.5
2.1
1.2
t
9.L
5.2
0.2
1.1
O.O
/
2.0
,
.
0.1
3.5
.
7.6
1.3
6.3
61.0
Apr.
.
.
.
O.6
4.5
14.O
6.8
0.3
.
,
f
.
.
.
6.7
0.3
O.O
.
0.3
.
0.4
2.9
0.2
6.7
5.2
1.2
5.0
55.1
.
May
O.O
13.2
5.4
.
7.9
O.3
.
f
7.9
f
t
m
,
^
f
t
,
.
.
.
0.9
»
t
,
23.9
0.2
.
1.7
,
.
•
61.4
Jun.
•
.
.
,
0.4
0.0
t
.
f
8-9
.
13.5
0.0
3.9
7.4
1.8 '
0.3
.
1.1
O.O
0.0
O.O
O.O
3.0
2.9
,
43.2
1979
Jul.
O.7
t
.
.
0.8
2.9
6.0
9.5
2.4
.
.
f
.
.
O.6
2.1
0.4
5. a
.
r
2.6
9.1
1.3
O.6
1.7
5.5
52.0
Aug.
.
.
1.3
12.3
,
f
0.0 .
1.2
4.2
5.9
.
0.1
0.8
m
,
,
4.3
0.3
.
a.5
~.4
3.6
0.5
,
1.0
•
, 51.9
Sep. Oct.
.
. .
o.a
5.9
0.5 O.9
. ,
. .
f ,
2.3
. .
.
. .
. .
4.2 .
2.8
.
13.0
3.7
1.3
. »
O.5 0.6
o.o a.i
4.3
15.0
0.7
.
. .
0.7
9.5
0.4
•
38.2 37.5
Mov.
1.3
3.5
.
.
0.5
1.6
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.6
2.0
1.6
1 0.3
0.7
1.1
6.1
9.1
5.3
3.4
O.5
0.4
.
.
.
2.1
0.3
6.6
4.6
3.8
56.3
Dec.
6.7
.
.
.
O.9
.
0.9
1.2
0.9
12.3
4.6
1.0
.
6.5
3.8
.
5.7
0.8
0.3
3.1
1.3
.
.
4.5
I--1
.
.
.
3.5
.
59.1
-------
Table 5-6. The Average Daily Temperatures
(in centigrades)
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
2 2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1975
Jan,
1.2
3.0
3.4
2.1
3.8
6.1
5.8
0.3
-1.4
1.6
4.4
5.5
5.2
5.0
5.1
5.O
4.1
5.1
6.0
• 5.2
3.6
3.2
2,8
4.8
4.O
4.3
1.4
0.2
1.2
1.4
2.2
Feb.
1.9
3.6
0.4
-2,5
-3.3
-2,9
-2.4
-2.2
-3.6
0.1
1.7
4,0
3.6
3.4
-1.7
-5.5
-5.9
-1.1
0.1
0.1
-0,5
-5.0
-2.4
1.9
-0,4
-1,6
-0.4
0.8
*
Mar.
3.0
5.2
7.4
6,2
9,1
7.2
7.8
a.c
9.8
11.5
10,2
B.6
6.2
4.5
6,6
7.0
1.6
1.4
5.2
6.2
-0.3
-0.2
1.5
l.O
2.2
1.5
2.1
7.4
4.1
2.8
1.1
Apr.
1,8
4.5
5.8
9,2
13.3
13.5
a.i
7.5
7,2
6,2
3.2
3.1
4.2
4.6
9.8
9,5
5.3
5.2
6.4
7.2
7.7
7,8
a.2
9,9
6.0
5.8
7.7
9,0
13,0
12.6
May
10,1
11.2
10,3
a. a
11,0
14.8
18.2
18.1
14.7
14.6
14,7
15.S
12.1
ia,i
19.4
16.1
18.2
18.3
2O.4
15,9
15.2
12,9
9.4
11,2
11.5
11.4
13,5
16.0
17.2
15.2
10.9
Jun.
7.3
6.6
11.7
12.8
11.3
10.8
12.6
12.2
-:. 1,8
io.2
17.2
18.7
2O.2
18.3
21.6
21.5
14.3
13,8
15.5
19,1
19.4
20,7
20.5
21.8
19.6
18.7
19,8
16.7
12.9
13.2
Jui.
12.4
19.8
2O.2
2O.O
2O.4
20.3
19.6
2O.O
21.4
21.4
20.7
21.1
20.4
22,3
24.0
23.7
20. 0
18.4
18,3
15.6
15.3
18.0
20.5
2O.7
13.5
12.6
14.3
14.2
2O.2
18.6
18.7
Aug.
18.2
16,4
16.7
18,5
16.4
19.1
20,6
21.2
22,0
20.7
21.6
21.O
15.6
14.6
16.8
19.4
20.1
17,7
16,5
17.2
17.7
18.7
19.1
16.4
17,8
16.2
17.2
16.0
17,2
ia.i
19.0
sep.
19.6
20,1
2O. 0
19.5
17,7
14.8
15.1
13.0
11.4
15.1
16,O
13,9
11,8
14.6
17.4
18,6
19,4
20,2
18.0
16.8
16.2
15.8
14.7
17.4
16.4
18.2
14.9
ib.a
19.2
18,8
Oct.
19.4
15.8
15.4
13.3
10.0
12.3
11,0
3.5
6.7
3,0
4.0
3.0
•6.9
1O.O
4.8
9.5
8.7
7.a
8.6 •
6.8
8.O
9.8
10.6
a.o
3.8
3.2
5.4
4.8
6,4
8.1
5.1
Nov.
3.7
4.6
7.7
7,6
7.6
6.9
6.5
7.0
4.0
2.6
0.8
O,9
1.7
3,5
3.0
3.1
2.2
7.9
>. 9
>•-
0.4
-0.4
-2.6
-3.9
-8.4
-9.8
-5.9
1,4
5.0
5,2
Dec.
4,6
5.8
4.4
4.4
2.9
4.1
0.9
2.4
2.6
1,5
-0,4
-1,8
o.a
-0.1
-3.4
-2,5
0,1
-5.3
-11.9
-3.2
-1.6
2,3
2.4
2.0
1.7
0.1
4.0
2.9
2.7
-0,7
0.1
Monthly
3.4
-0.7
-5,0
7.4
14.4
16.0
18.9
lb.2
16. a
8,4
0.7
-------
Table 5-7. The Average Daily Temperatures
(in centigrades)
to
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
;
a
9
1O
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
l-J
2O
21
22
23
24
25
-••
27
23
29
30
31
Monthly
average
Jan
1.7
2.0
3.3
-0.5
-2.8
0.7
-2.1
1.2
2.7
2.6
3,5
6.1
2.6
-0.3
-0,4
-5,7
-2.O
-3.8
1.0
2.0
3,2
1,7
3,2
-0.4
-3.9
-4.4
-7.0
-7.5
-8.3
-7.6
-6,0
-0.9
Feb.
-8,4
-7.0
-8.5
-2.8
-1.6
-5.6
-5,5
-7.2
-4,6
-3.4
-2.1
-2.8
-4.2
-1.4
1.1
-0.2
-1.7
-1.0
1.3
2.0
1.2
O.2
0,O
-1.2
-O.4
4.2
5.6
4.6
5.7
-1.5
Mar.
5.2
3.4
0.5
-2.7
-5.6
-3.4
-4,6
-4.1
-1,5
-3,0
-4.8
-3,9
-1,2
0.3
1.4
3,8
2.6
0.1
-O.I
-3.9
-5.3
-4.1 '
-4.1
-2.6
1.4
5,0
5.1
4.8
8.8
8.9
8.2
0.1
*
Apr.
H.8
12,4
15.2
12.5
12.4
12.4
7,0
4.O
4,0
3.8
4.8
6.4
8,5,
9,6
7.4
9,6
1O.7
11.4
12.6
11.2
a.o
3.0
2.0
6.3
6.3
5,6
6.9
2,1
1.6
4.3
7,8
May
7.2
9.6
13,2
14,6
14.0
13.8
14.4
14.1 '
16.4
17.1
17.4
16.7
14.7
7.6
9.3
13,2
14.4
16.2
16.2
16.5
14.9
10.1
12.1
10.4
15.4
16.6
12.4
11.8
•11.9
13.4
11.8
H.s
197
Jun.
10.7
11.0
11.3
9.6
13.O
14.2
17.2
18.1
14,9
12.7
14.4
15.8
16.4
14.2
16.2
11.B
11.9
17.2
20.0
21.0
20.1
18,8
18.4
18.5
19.7
20.0
21.8
22.5
22.6
21.2
16.5
6
TLU.
•2o.a
19.7
20.6
22.0
ia.a
15.6
17.0
17.0
16,0
14.1
17,4
20.0
21.3
20.4
, 19.4
20.7
22.6
25.0
25,6
24,5
22.7
16,9
15.5
14.8
14.4
18.2
17.6
18.2
15.2
17.6
19.5
19,0
Aug.
14.8
14,1
14.5
14.5
14.0
14.4
13,8
14.4
15.6
17,8
17.5
17.0
16,6
14.2
15.6
16.2
17.0
14.8
14.3
14.6
13.2
13.0
13.4
14.0
17, O
18.6
19.2
18.6
19.5
19.4
18.9
15.8
Sep.
16.7
15.8
12.6
H.4
11.5
11.0
13.9
16.0
15.8
14.8
11.3
14.2
17.0
19.8
13.0
13.6
11.7
11.4
11,4
9.3
1O.1
10,0
11.2
11. d
12.0
7.8
9.2
15.2
17.1
12,6
13.0
Oct.
3.7
10,6
14.1
16.1
13.5
12.8
15.O
15.6
14.6
15.3
15.9
15.6
17.2
15.8
11.7
6.7
1.6
2.8
4.8
4.8
1,3
5.4
7.5
4.7
5.6
6,1
7.2
1.2
7.9
11.4
9.5
9.7
Nov.
5.4
6,1
7.4
9.4
10.4
12.1
12.1
9.4
8.9
10,0
14.3
10.5
a.2
7.1
5.0
3,2
3,2
3,3
2.9
1.7
2.1
2.0
-0.6
0.0
-2.3
0.0
3.2
3,8
4.1
5.3
5.6
Dec.
7.9
6.2
2.3
1.2
-O.9
0.7
3.9
4.9
4,6
2.8
0.7
-0,6
-1.2
-2.O
—3 2
-4,0
-5.6
-3,8
2.1
2.8
1.4
2,4
1.7
-1.2
-3.4
-6.0
-5.8
-4.0
-4.9
-.5.5
-7.0
-0.4
-------
Table 5-8. The Average Daily Temperatures
(in centigrades)
Day
1
' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1O
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
Monthly
average
Jan.
-3.7
-0.2
1.6
1.2
-0.1
-1.3
-1.1
-1.3
-3.6
-o.a
3.4
5.8
1.3
-1.2
1.3
0.2
-2.6
4l
4
•o
w
O
J*
Q
«
-
Feb.
-4.5
-3.8
-5.3
-4.1
0.1
1.9
3.2
5.4
2.4
1.5
5.4
5.2
2.0
0.8
-0.2
-0.2
-1.0
-l.O
5.5
8.3
9.0
7.2
3.9
6.2
4.4
3.4
-2.7
-4.7
1.7
Mar.
-1.0
0.8
3.8
7.1
5.2
5.8
4.2
5.2
3.4
8.1
7.7
10.9
8.4
8.4
8,5
6.2
8.8
a.8
9.2
8.7
9.3
1O.O
10.0
11.6
1O.7
9.3
8.4
10.1
-0.7
-2.8
-2.0
6.7
Apr.
1.6
8.0
1O.O
7.2
4.4
6.3
8.0
2.4
0.3
-0.4
-O.3
0.2
3.9
5.4
4.0
3.7
5.2
5.2
3.6
4.3
7.9
12.0
13.2
1O.6
5.5
8.7
11.1
10.7
16.2
21.4
6.7
May
2O.2
17.7
19.9
21.1
21.0
12.O
8.9
7.7
8,9
11.5
10.4
15.3
15.8
12.4
11,8
11.2
9.4
11.2
13.4
21.4
15.2
8.4
9.3
11.7
13.1
7.4
8.9
11.3
14.7
".I
7.2
13.0
1 9
Jun.
7.6
7.1
9.3
12.O
13.9
14.2
17.0
20.1
21.4
23.4
23.6
20.8
22.3
22.8
2O.O
20.8
21.6
21.9
19.4
16.6
17,2
17.1
17.6
18.2
2O.4
19.O
15.7
15.4 -
17.1
15.2
17.6
7 T
JLU.
17.0
16.6
18,6
17.7
16.6
14,8
17.8
17.6
17.7
15,8
17,4
18.4
20. 4
19.O
13.9
15,2
16.1
17.8
16.8
18.3
14.8
15.0
16.4
18.8
23.2
16.4
16.5
17.4
18.9
19.2
16.1
17.3
Aug.
15,4
14,0
14,8
16,6
18,2
19,7
19.2
2O.O
18,7
18,1
17,5
17.0
18.0
17.0
15.9
13,6
13.4
17,1
16.2
14,9
16,6
15,0
11.7
12.9
13.8
14,7
17.4
16.8
17.1
19.1
20.7
16,5
Sep.
20,8
18.8
19.0
17.8
16,5
17.8
18.7
17.2
12.4
10.4
11.2
18.1
H.7
9.2
11.6
7.9
7.8
6.8
6,8
8.0
9.0
8.3
10.1
9.2
6.2
6.2
4.8
5.2
8.1
12.5
11.6
Oct.
11.6
9,3
7,6
9.2
12.2
12.1
14.7
16.5
16.0
14.8
12.8.
10.8
10.7
9.7
7,4
5.2
6.3
9.6
10.6
7.8
7.1
8,5
11.6
11.8
12.0
11.5
1O.4
8.9
11.1
10,1
9,2
1O.6
Nov.
e.a
7.2
3.2
13.2
10.2
9.1
9.4
8.0
9.4
9.3
12.2
12,9
6,9
3.8
6,6
5.2
3,9
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.4
5,4
3.5
i.a
4.7
0.9
1.5
-0.8
-1,3
-2.6
-
5.7
Dec.
-O.9
-2.4
-2,8
-5.0
-2.6
-4.8
-3,3
-3.6
-0.4
-3.7
-5.4
-5.2
-2.8
-1.0
1.7
1,4
0.2
-2.5
-3.4
-2.6
-1.5
-1.3
-1,2
0.2
4,3
2.8
3.9
3.6
2.6
1,9
-0.2
-1.1
-------
Table 5-9. The Average Daily Temperatures
(in centigrades)
CJ
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1O
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
29
30
31
Monthly
average
Jan.
-1.2
1.8
3.3
1.8
-3.3
-4.6
0.8
o.e
-3.0
-3.4
1.0
3.4
1.4
O.2
-0.8
-2.8
0.9
-0.5
0.0
-3.8
-6.8
-4.6
-2.2
1.2
2.6
1.8
l.O
2.2
6.8
' 3.8
0.6
0.0
Feb.
0.8
1.6
-0.7
-3.4
-4.7
-2.9
-3.6
-5.1
-6.3
-7.3
-1.4
i.:
-3.0
-5.6
-2.4
-2.8
-4.9
-4.8
-7.3 •
-9.9
-6.6
-3.8
1.3
2.8
7,6
9.7
5.6
5.7
^
_
-
-1.8
Mar.
7.2
6.4
6.2
7.1
8.5
3.4
0.9
2.7
4.0
3.4
5.0
1.1
2.2
6.0
7.8
8.4
5.8
1.1
2.0
2.4
1.3
-1.2
1.2
4.8
4.3
4.6
4.5
6.4
11.3
12.4
14.8
5.0
Apr.
11.6
10.5
9.3
8.1
5.6
1.3
2.2
4.0
3.8
7.4
10.1
3.8
0.6
1.1
2.9
2.O
3.4
5.O
3.7
5.0
8.1
9.0
10.4
1O.1
9.6
8.1
9.6
lo'.a
10.5
9.5
-
6.6
May
1O.4
10.8
8.2
10.4
13.5
15.3
14.6
12.4
1O.7
5.2
1.7
3.4
5.2
9.2
9.8
1O.2
11.0
12.2
' 13.8
15.1
16.8
U6.4
17.6
12.6
14.5
11.0
12.5
14.6
15.2
17.0
18.3
11.9
1 9
Juri.
18.6
19.1
19.5
19.2
18.6
19.3
19.6
20.4
17.4
16.8
13.6
12.6
11.4
12. 0
12.6
14.2
12.2
12.2
13.6
16.9
17.4
17.5
17.7
13.8
14.8
12.8
13.6
11.9
13.8
17.0
-
15.7
7 8
JuL
17.7
15.0
16.7
19.2
14.2
14.2
15.4
13.4
13.3
• 11.8
15.6
17.2
17.6
17.2
14.3
13.2
14.3
15.6
16.1
15.8
14.O
12.4
13.5
14.8
17.1
19.0
20.4
21.4
21.1
20.9
21.2
16.2
Aue,.
21.6
22.1
19.8
20.9
20.1
18.4
2O.O
20.5
12.6
14.9
14.6
13.4
14.5
15.8
17.5
19.5
18.5-
13.0
12.6
13.2
15.4
16.6
18.5
16.9
15.0
12.9
11.8
11.9
13.4
14.3
10.8
16.2
iep.
10.9
10.6
10.6
11.4
13.4
13.6
14.8
-12.2
13.O
13.8
19.2
12.5
11.0
13.0
13.3
i2.a
15.2
13.0
11.6
7.6
8.2
10.2
12.2
11.7
17.1
12.8
11.1
8.8
7.9
12.2
-
12.2
Oct.
9.6
9.0
1O.8
13.8
8.2
10.9
13.2
12.3
13.1
13.9
12.5
13.2
11.3
11.8
12.O
10.6
9.8
8.6
8.4
6.2
5.O
4.7
7.1
8.6
a6
5.9
2.5
3.1
7.9
9.1
9.2
9.4
Nov.
8.5
5.2
4.8
6.2
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.4
3.5
2.2
1.2
0.2
-0.7
O.3
2.2
1.3
2.O
5.1
2.5
0.8
2.9
3.8
7.2
7.6
5.O
0.6 -
0.1
-O.4
-0.1
0.2
-
3.2
Dec.
O.5
0.7
-0.8
-8.1
-1O.9
-8.6
-13.0
-12.4
-6.6
1.8
2.3
2.2
4.9
4.8
4.9
4.7
-2.0
-5.5
-6.9
-3.0
-1.9
-4.4
-3.5
1.3
2.4
3.2
4.5
4.O
8.2
-2.2
-4.8
-1.4
-------
Table 5-10. The Average Daily Temperatures
(in centigrades)
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 '
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Monthly
average
Jan.
-17.0
-1O.8
- 9.5
- 9.6
- 9.6
-10.3
-1O.4
- 3.2
- 2.6
- 1.7
- 1.7
- 1.1
- 1.9
- 4.5
- 3.1
- 1.7
- 3.5
- 4.6
- 4.2
- 5.4.
- 5.5
- 4.5
- 2.8
0.4
- 1.2
- 3.7
1.3
2.9
0.2
- 0.4
O.6
.- 4.2
Feb.
O.I
2.5
0.2
-0.6
-1.4
-1.1
-3.5
-2.2
-2.8
-6.3
-7.4
-1.9
O.5
0.4
1.8
-4.7
-4.8
-2.2 '
-1.9
-3.3
-4.2
-4.6
-4.5
-3.6
-2.4
-3.4
-4.7
-4.2
-2.5
Mar.
-O.4
2.8
3.4
6.0
3.2
0.7
4.2
3.7
1.6
2.2
1.4
3.4
5.2
3.9
2.4
8.1
4.7
2.6
2.8
5.4
9.7
7.4
6.2
3.4
4.4
8.9
9.2
8.4
10.0
6.6
3.1
4.7
Apr.
4.5
5.6
6.8
a?
5.6
3.5
1.6
1.3
3.2
6.3
5.4
7.2
10.4
12.5
12.0
7.2
8.2
2.0
2.6
4.7
8.6
9.4
11.3
13.5
11.2
10.8
9.0
7.7
6.9
10.9
7.2
May
6.1
7.5
5.3
6." 6
8.3
6.8
8.0
1O.2
8.0
11.1
1O.5
11.0
13.0
16.0
14.6
18.0
20.6
21.2
22.0
22.1
23.6
19.4
20. 6
22.2
19.3
15.7
20.0
16.0
16.O
17.7
22.8
14.9
197
Jun.
23.4
24.0
23.3
22. 0
21.7
21.9
21.0
17.7
18.5
19.0
19.9
17.7
19.6
16.5
16.6
16.2
14.5
12.8
16.2
16.9
15.9
14.9
18.8
21.8
22,O
19.1
21.9
ia2
17.5
16.5
18.8
9
JuL
13.6
13.8
•14.4
15.9
15.0
17.0
14.3
13.1
14.2
14.5
14.7
15.5
18.5
19.7
18.0
14.5
13.1
15.5
19.8
17.9
17.7
16.4
14.1
14.2
13.8
15.0
13.4
16.0
17.6
'20.2
20. 9
16.O
A LIB,.
22.4
24.0
20.6
17.7
16.4
16.8
19.1
21.3
18.2
17.4
15.8
14.6
13.1
15.8
19.2
20.4
19.8
18.6
16.8
16.9
16.9
18.3
2O.5
18.8
12.8
13.7
13.7
13.0
11.6
13.B
15.6
17.2
Sep.
18.O
18.5
19.1
14.8
13.6
14.3
13.8
15.6
16.4
15.9
16.1
15.6
17.0
15.1
11.7
8.1
10.O
16.3
18.3
18.3
16.0
11.7
11.5
10.8
9.O
10.6
11.4
9.8
10.8
6.3
13.8
, Oct.
6.2
4.8
4.4
6.0
10.2
4.5
6.8
9.0
9.3
9.O
1O.8
14.9
16.3
15.8
18.4
15.8
12.7
10.2
7.7
9.1
8.7
6.2
3.6
1.3
O.9
0.0
-O.I
0.4
0.5
1.6
-0.4
7.2
Nov.
-0.6
0.1
0.0
0.2
2.8
5.1
5.0
5.4
16.4
4.5
2.6
1.0
2.O
4.6
9.2
8.9
4.0
5.1
5.2
3.8
4.2
3.2
2.9
2.4
1.2
0.7
4.7
3.4
6.1
9.1
-
3.8
Dec.
8.3
7.6
6.8
8.O
7.1
7.6
5.8
8.6
8.2
9.O
8.8
O.O
-4.3
-3.8
1.6
3.6
3.7
5.1
2^3
-0.1
0.4
0.8
8.6
4.1
4.3
2.6
0.2
-O.8
1.4
0.2
-O.7
3.7
-------
be seen that the highest average monthly temperature was + 19°C and
was recorded in July 1976, while the lowest monthly temperature was
-4.2 C and was observed in January 1979. The highest average tempe-
rature for 24 hours was 25.6°C, while the lowest was -17.0°C. The
average yearly temperatures were from + 7.8°C (in 1978) to + 9.2°C
(in 1975).
The above characteristics show that the disposal site under investi-
gation was located in a moderate climate typical for Central Europe and
the Central and Northern United States. However, the influence this
climate exerts on the research is comparable to the influence of climatic
conditions on other areas.
GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY
Geological and hydrological conditions at the disposal site were
described from 13 wells drilled in 1974 and 3 wells drilled in 1976 and
1977. The three new wells did not introduce any changes to our know-
ledge of geological and hydrological conditions and their goal was to
improve the monitoring network only. All geology and hydrology are
illustrated in Figs. 5-2 to 5-4. The geologic structure of the study area
include Carboniferous, Tertiary and Quaternary formations and are
described below:
Carboniferous Formation
The Carboniferous formation is represented by tectonically disturbed
shales and sandstones with coal deposits in the Upper Carbon area.
This formation with a thickness of a few thousand meters, was not
encountered in the investigated area by the drilled wells, as it occurs
at a depth of over 100 m. Carboniferous layers are characterized by
irregular water bearing capacity dependent on the lithology and on
fissures. The rocks and waters of this horizon are characteristically
saline. The Carboniferous aquifer has no great importance to this study
because of its great depth and lack of direct contact with the waste.
However, the salinization of the rocks and groundwater within the mine
affects the character of the refuse. This factor is discussed in Section 6.
Tertiary Formation
The Tertiary formation laying directly over the Carboniferous forma-
tion is composed mainly of clays containing small deposits of sand and
gypsum. The thickness of this formation varies from 50 to 150m. The
tertiary aquifers exist in small sand deposits with little horizontal and
vertical spreading. Consequently, this aquifer has a discontinuous
character, with groundwater found in closed reservoirs with only static
resources, and has no contact with the waste.
36
-------
w
CJ
-J
.ts
W
etovolien obovt:
N-S
a-e
en
Cto,
s*
I''.'. '-I
^J9^
B-7
Fig.5-2HYDROGEOLOGICAL SECTIONS
-------
N
CO
00
Explanation
Monitoring wvll
a 56 Pnval* w«i*r well
lit ) CI*v*Cion ot «quif«r floor in meitr> *bo««
.260 Contour o/ •quiUr floor
Fig.5-3 THE CONTCH "* MAP OF AQUIFER FLOOR
Am f«ct«im«d 1978
Ar*t ncUtm«d 1979
-------
SCALE
Monitoring w«M
PrtvaU wafer w«tt
of saturated tortdt m m«l«n
CfwfficMnl ol pOTTttotMiity in mt/d«y
Conkkj* at thickness
OllpOkUl OHM
Af«q rsckimed W8
Araa racknm*d 1979
Fig 5-4 THE CONTOUR MAP OF SATURATED AQUIFER THICKNESS AND PERMEABILITY.
-------
Quaternary Formation
The Quaternary formation lays on the impermeable tertiary subsoil
and is formed from sand and clays 10 - 40 m thick (on the average
20-30 m). The clays prevail in the floor and the roof parts of the
Quaternary formation and sand deposits form its center.
The thickness of the sand varies from 3 to 20 m, and in the bottom
of the open pits where the sand was removed from 0 to 8 m. Within
the sand, deposits of silt and gravel appear but they are narrow and
are not wide spreading.
The permeability of the sand was determined using laboratory
methods for all layers differing in lithological respect. For wells situated
in close proximity to the waste, we determined the permeability of all
layers from the surface down to the aquifer floor, and for other wells
only layers occurring below the groundwater table. Values of the perme-
ability coefficients for unsaturated layers near the disposal site were
from 4 to 26 meters per 24 hrs. with respective values of specific yield
between 0.12 and 0.18. The coefficient of permeability for the saturated
part of the aquifer tested was extremely variable with limits of 1 to
33 meters per 24 hrs, although the majority of the layers had permeabi-
lity coefficients from 3 to 10 meters per 24 hrs. The corresponding
values of specific yield are within the range of 0.11 to 0.15. The thick-
ness of the aquifer is between 1 and 12 m.
The groundwater table occurs at depths from 6.5 to 15 m below
the ground surface. In the bottom of the open pits where the sand was
removed, the depth is from 0.2 to 2 m. The absolute values of the
position of the water-table within the disposal site fluctuated within
a range of 262 to 266 m above sea level, and around the disposal
within a range of 250 - 268 m above sea level.
The groundwater table is shown in Fig. 5-5.
Observations of the water table position performed approximately
every 3 weeks indicated that changes in particular wells did not exceed
50 cm. A clear increase in the water table occurred in 1978 (40 to
100 cm) as compared to 1974 and 1975 as a result of increased pre-
cipitation.
Velocities of the flow of groundwater in the region of the disposal
site (computed on the basis of heads distribution and permeability para-
meters) vary between 0.15 to 3 meters per day.
Finally, one more parameter should be mentioned.- the coefficient of
infiltration. In an empty open pit without surface run-off and without
continuous vegetation cover, this can fluctuate between 0.6 to 0.8 per
24 hours, and between 0.4 to 0.6 a year. When an open pit is filled
with waste material flush with the surrounding terrain and no vegetation
is introduced, these values range from 0.4 to 0.7 and 0.3 to 0.5,
r e s p e ctiveiy,
40
-------
N
Explanation
'
IS7S
»
?6O -------- Coriioa. of OWL
Fig. 5-5 THE CONTOUR MAP OF INITIAL GROUND WATER TABLE
Ar«o f«tkwn«d 1978
*f*o rvciQHTwd 1979
-------
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OP THE DISPOSAL SITE ,
Considerable amounts of sand were removed from the disposal site
during the 1950's and 1960's. The sand was used for backfilling in
deep underground coal mines. The abandoned former sand pit was
comprised of three separate pits connected to one another near their
southern end. Two of these pits (Central and Western) were used for
waste disposal.
Central Disposal Pit
The Central pit, where wastes were disposed first, was about 500 m
long and 170 m wide, and had an average depth of 16.5 m. The pit
bottom and slopes were sand, sometimes containing clay and silt. The
thickness of the sand layer in the northern part of the disposal area
has about 7.5 m, and in the southern part it increased to about 9 m,
but in some places decreased to zero. The groundwater table was from
0 to 2 m below the pit bottom.
Western Disposal Pit
The western pit, planned as a reserve disposal area, was about
580 m long, about 150 m wide and had an average depth of about 7 m.
Its bottom and sides were sand, sometimes containing clay and silt.
The thickness of the sand layer in the pit bottom varied from about 1 m
at its eastern end to about 6 m in its western end. The groundwater
table was from 0.5 to 3 m below the pit bottom.
-------
SECTION 6
CHARACTERISTICS OP THE DISPOSED WASTES
Continuous disposal of wastes from the adjacent bituminous coal
mine began in January 1975. Approximately 30,000 to 45,000 m3 of
wastes were disposed monthly.
AMOUNTS OP DISPOSED WASTES
Table 6-1 presents the volume of waste disposed in quarterly
periods, as well as the cumulative total. Prom a total of 2.09 mill, m3
of waste material, about 1.51 mill. m3. was disposed in the central dis-
posal pit, and about 0.58 mill, m3 in the western disposal pit. About
96 percent of the waste material consisted of coal refuse, and about
4 percent of powerplant ashes.
Table 6-2 presents the various surface areas of waste exposed
to precipitation at each of the disposal sites. Between 1975 and 1977,
the surface area of the waste exposed to precipitation and percolation
gradually increased from 30,000 m2 to 100,000 m2. Reclamation of the
disposal site began in 1978. This resulted in a decrease in the exposed
surface area in 1979 to about 78,000 m2 despite the fact that the volume
of wastes increased. The surface area is an important factor which de-
termines the amount of water, which by percolation, can contaminate
groundwater.
The reclamation was executed in two phases. In the first phase, when
the pit was filled to the original level of surrounding area (i.e., 272 to 281
m above sea level) the surface was very carefully compacted and covered with
0.3 m of clay. Then the decision to store more wastes on this disposal was
made. That storage was done above the previous terrain to an artificial
elevation three meters higher than the original surface - it now has
elevations 275 m to 281 m above sea level. So in the second phase of
reclamation the new operations were executed. The disposal was shaped so that
the sides had a slope of 3:1, and the top flat area had an inclination of 4
percent. The surface was th^n very strongly compacted and because of an
admixture of finely washed mud and fly ash, resulted in concrete character.
Afterwards the shaped and compacted surface was covered by 0.5 to 0.6 m of
clay topsoil. The final reclamation consisted of the introduction of trees
and bushes on the slopes and grasses for pasture in the flat top area.
43
-------
Table 6-1. Volune of Disposed Wastes
v««ra
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Quarter
1
11
III
IV
1
u
HI
rv
u
in
IV
i
u
111
IV
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
Central Disposal Pit
Disposed Disposed Percentage percentage
during to date coal a*he*
W i*3> refu*
1417O 1417O
42300 56470 ^^ ^&
93S1O 15O280
89239 239S19
87250 326769
47200 373969
142941 516910 95<1 *'9
49729 566639
112741 679380
1O132O 78O7OO
69420 850120 96'? 3>3
1O3269 953389
120100 1073489
112745 1186234
91112 1277346 93'9 6fl
11O46 1288392
35250 1323642
699OO 1393542
7345O 1466992 95'2 *'8
47718 1514710
151471O 1514710 95,4 4,6
Western Disposal Pit
Disposed Disposed Percentage Percentage
during to date coat ashes
- W ««3l rafuse
95,7 4.3
68200 68200
4O16O 1O836O
3480 111840
63120 174960
95 7 43
1736O 19232O * '
7934O 27166O
485O 27651O
2781O 3O432O
78430 382750 9°'7 3'3
1644O 39919O
477O 4O396O
732O 41128O
11120 422400 96'2 3'8
65459 487B59
39200 527059
1O44O 537499
95 2 48
69OO 544399
35188 579587
579587 S7958? 95,9 4,1
Total
Cumulative
\°»
14 170
56 470
218 48O
347 879
438 6O9
548 929
709 23O
838 299
955 89O
1085 020
1232Q 870
1352 E79
1477 449
1597 514
1699 746
1776 251
1850 701
1931 O41
2011 391
2O94 297
2094 297
-------
Table 6-2. Surface Area of Waste Exposed to Precipitation
Years
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Central Disposal Pit
Total Reclaimed Exposed
•»2(1) ™2 (2) "2(3)
15, 256 - 15, 256
34, O56 - 34, O56
56, 156 - 56, 156
76,583 12,700 63,883
91,571 35,100' 56,471
Western Disposal Pit
Total Reclaimed Exposed
-2 (l) «'2(2) <"2(3
16;173 - 16,173
34,3OB - 34,308
48, 478 - ' 48, 478
65,2O8 16 OOO 49, 2O8
83,928 62 5OO 21?428
Combined
Total Reclaimed Exposed
•n2 (1) «.2(2) -2 (3)
31, 429 - 31, 429
68, 364 - 68, 364
104,634 . 104,634
141,791 28,700 113,091
175, 499 97, 6OO 77, 899
Ol
(l) Toted surface in disposal area
(2) Surface area reclaimed by soil covering and vegetation
(3) Surface area of unreclaimed waste
-------
THE QUALITATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF DISPOSED WASTES
In order to determine the qualitative character of the waste material
with respect to its leachability and pollution potential, samples of the
disposed wastes were taken every 4 to 6 months. The samples came
from recently disposed wastes and represented the material disposed at
that time. About 10 kg of wastes was delivered to the laboratory for
leaching tests.
The wastes were placed in glass columns, 100 cm high and with
a diameter of 12 cm equipped with valves which regulated the rate of
water flow through the waste. The waste was placed in the column on
a layer of sand taken from the disposal floor. The ratio of waste
thickness to the sand's thickness was about 4:1. The material was
washed using a peristaltic pump with distilled water in a closed cycle.
Three successive leachings were performed until 5 dm of water
had been used. Each of them lasted 24 hours. The leaching rate of the
first test was 1 dm^/hr. and the others were 0.5 dm^/hr. The amounts
of 1.0 and 0.5 dm^/hr. could be theoretically compared with 88 and
44 mm of rain per hour, respectively.
A total of 11 samples (two or three a year) were taken. Each was
leached three times (as stated above) and the leachates were analyzed
to determine pollution potential of the refuse. Detailed results of these
analyses are presented in tables included in the Appendix. The data
presented in these tables indicate that the content of the samples varied
considerably, but the variations were within acceptable limits. Data from
one sample taken in August 1979 differed so significantly from the rest
that they were not used in calculating average values.
The refuse contained large amounts of coal sludge and therefore
large amounts of colloid sediments were found in the leachate. The
sediment at first caused gradual and then complete sealing of the under-
laying sand layer in the glass column. This phenomenon hindered the
leaching tests but may be very important at an actual disposal site.
Dusts and colloids leached out of the refuse could seal up the disposal
site bottom and prevent pollutants from leaching into the groundwater.
This phenomenon which will occur under normal rain fall conditions
will be much slower.
To evaluate the pollution potential every parameter leached will be
discussed. The summary is shown in Table 6-3.
pH of the leachates were generally alkaline. In most leaching tests
it varied from 8.6 to 9.9. Only in 6 of the samples was it in the range
of 7.3 to 7.9. In 8 samples the alkalinity of the leachates increased
with succesive leachings. In the remaining samples this phenomenon
was not observed.
46
-------
Table 6-3. Summary of Leachability Tests
Designation Unit
pH
Conductivity />
TDS mg/dm3
Cl
S°4
Na
K
Ca
Mg
Mn
Pe
NH^
P°4
CN
Phenols
Al
Zn
Cu
Pb
Cr
As
Sr
Hg
Cd
Mo
B
"
it
it
ii
11
it
ii
ti
it
it
it
it
ii
11
ii
IT
11
It
II
It
II
II
It
Maximum
9.3 .
2140
3372
479
230
357
48
355.9
21.85
2.995
75.8
4.46
3.140
0.066
0.088
38.5
3.085
0.925
. 0.271
0.089
0.133
"2.050
10.9
0.056
0.029
3.600
Minimum
7.3.
500
548
51
50
44.5
4.1
5.2
0.42
0.035
0.11
0.32
0.036
. 0.003
0.008
0.175
0.360
0.019
0.034
0.011
0.008
0.037
0.6
0.005
0.003
0.095
Average
So.
•-T-
1500
1600
209.2
164.6
243.7
26.3
75.9
7.3
0.729
24.65
1.733
0.522
0.0252
0.0282
11.71
0.883
0.1974
0.1956
0.0364
0.0581
0.406
5.17
0.024
0.017
0.855
47
-------
Conductivity
Conductivity of the leachates varied considerably in test samples,
ranging from 500 to 2,140 us/cm (most frequently values were from
1500 to 2000 us/cm). Only one sample, taken in August 1979, showed
very high conductivity (9,680 us/cm). It was found that conductivity of
the leachates gradually decreased in each successive leaching.
Conductivity in the second leachings were about 3 times lower than in
the first, while in the third they were about twice as low as the second.
Total Dissolved Substances
The content of TDS in the leachates varied considerably from 550
to 3372 mg/dm3, but in most cases it ranged from 1200 to 2000 mg/dm3.
In only one sample, taken in August 1979, the TDS content was high
(4350 mg/dm3). The average concentration of TDS in the leachates
was 1600 mg/dm3.
The concentration of dissolved substances in the leachates gradually
decreased in successive leachings. The TDS in the first leachings 3
ranged from 288 to 990 mg/dm3, in the second leachings 154 to 852 mg/dm ,
and in the third, 106 to 325 mg/dm . In the first leachings 59 percent of
the substances were leached, in the second, 25 percent and in the
third, 16 percent. Since conductivity is an indirect indicator of TDS, the
fact that the two follow the same trends is important.
Chlorine (Cl)
3
The content of Cl in the leachates varied from 50 to 260 mg/dm ,
and in one sample it was 479 mg/dm3. The average concentration of Cl
in the leachates was 209 mg/dm3.
In all test samples the Cl content gradually decreased with succe-
ssive leachings. Leachates from the first leachings varied from 30 to
180 mg/dm3, from the second 10 to 87 mg/dm3, and from the third, 5 to
36 mg/dm . The average percentage of Cl in the leachates were 66 per-
cent in the first leachings, 21 percent in the second and 13 percent in
the third.
Sulfate (S04)
3
The content of SO. in the leachates varied from 50 to 230 mg/dm
(except one sample which had a concentration of 2500 mg/dm3); the
average was 164.6 mg/dm3. In the first leachings, 33 to 198 mg/dm3
SO was found in the leachates, in the second, 9 to 50 mg/dm3 and
in One third, 5 to 65 mg/dm3. The percentages were 67 percent SO^. in
the first leaching, 19 percent in the second, and 14 percent in the third.
48
-------
Sodium (Na)
3
The content of Na in the leachates varied from 44.5 to 357 mg/dm ,
however, most frequently (in 7 of the 11 samples) it ranged from 260
to 350 mg/dm . A gradual decrease in the Na concentration was obser-
ved in successive leachings. The Na content of the leachates from the
first leachings varied between 23.5 and 290.0 mg/dm3, from the second
between 8.3 and 132.0 mg/dm , and from the third between 4.2 and
56.0 mg/dm3. Average -percentages of Na in the leachates were 66 per-
cent in the first leachings, 20 percent in the second, and 14 percent
in the third.
Potassium ( K.)
2
The content of K in the leachates varied from 4.1 to 48.0 mg/dm
(except in the sample from August 1979, it was 317 mg/dm3). The
average concentration of K (calculated from 10 samples) was 26.32
mg/dm 3.
A gradual decrease of K from consecutive leachings was observed
in the' leachates, except in two samples. The values from the first lea-
chings, varied between 2.8 and 24.1 mg/dm3 (59 percent). In the second
leaching values ranged between 0.8 and 12.0 mg/dm (22 percent). _
In the third leaching, the values varied between 0.5 and 14.0 mg/dm
(19 percent).
Calcium (Ca)
The content of Ca in the leachates varied from 5.2 to 30.8 mg/dm ^
except for two samples which showed values of 150 and 356 mg/dm3
(August 1979). Ca levels in the leachates from the first leachings varied
from 1.70 to 234 mg/dm3, from the second 1.5 to 79.3 mg/dm3, and from
the third 1.9 to 55.0 mg/dm3. Corresponding percentages of Ca leached
in each test were 37 percent, 32 percent, and 31 percent.
Magnesium (Mg)
The content of Mg varied considerably (from 0.42 to 21.85 mg/dm ),
except for the sample from August 1979, which was 249.6 mg/dm3. The
average concentration of mg was 7.32 mg/dm . The products of Mg
leachings were irregular. In successive leachings gradual increases as
well as gradual decreases in the Mg concentrations were observed.
In the first leachings, Mg content varied between 0.17 and 11.0 mg/dm ,
and in the third between 1.0 and 6.4 mg/dm3. Average percentages of
Mg in the leachates were 39 percent, 33 percent, and 28 percent,
respectively.
Manganese (Mn)
The content of Mn in the leachates varied between 0.035 and 0.84
mg/dm3. In one sample it was 2.995 mg/dm3. Samples obtained after
successive leachings showed gradual decreases as well as increases
(in most cases) in Mn content. Except for one sample in the first
49
-------
teachings, the concentrations ranged from 0.023 to 0.305 mg/dm , in
the second 0.005 to 0.555 mg/dm , and in the third 0.007 to 0.375
mg/dm3. Percentages of Mn content was 41 percent, 34 percent, and
25 percent, respectively.
Total Iron (Fe)
The content of Pe in the leachates varied considerably between
0.11 mg/dm3 and 75.8 mg/dm3. In six samples Fe content ranged from
25 to 35 mg/dm3. The average for all samples was 24 to 65 mg/dm .
The content of Fe in successive leachings was irregular. The concen-
trations did not tend to increase or decrease in successive leachings.
Fe content in the first leachates were from 0.045 to 48.600 mg/dm3,
in the second 0.050 to 25.000 mg/dm3, and in the third 0.017 to 20.40
mg/dm3. Percentages of Fe in the leachates were 38 percent^ 41 per-
cent, and 21 percent, respectively.
Ammonium (NH.)
The content of NH. in the leachates varied considerably between
0.32 and 4.40 mg/dm3. The average value was 1.73 mg/dm3. The NH
leachings were irregular. In successive leachings both decreases and
increases were noted. NH concentrations in the first leachings varied
from 0.10 to 1.87 mg/dm3, in the second from 0.09 to 1.87 mg/dm3, and
in the third from 0.02 to 2.50 mg/dm3. Percentages of NH in the leacha-
tes were 44 percent, 28 percent, and 28 percent, respectively.
Phosphate ( PO ^)
The content of PO in the leachates varied from 0.036 to 3.140
mg/dm3, its average being 0.522 mg/dm3. The concentrations of leacha-
tes in certain samples differed from others. Some tests (about 50 per-
cent) showed gradual increases of PO. content in successive leachings,
while others showed gradual decreases in its concentrations. PO con-
tent in the first leachates were 0.01 to 1.021 mg/dm3, in the second
0.006 to 1.260 mg/dm3, and in the third 0.008 to 0.800 mg/dm3. Respec-
tive percentages were 31 percent, 28 percent, and 41 percent,
Cyanide (CN)
^
The content of CN in the leachates varied between 0.003 mg/dm
and 0.066 mg/dm3; the average was 0.0252 mg/dm3. In all tests gradual
decreases in CN content was observed from successive leachings.
CN concentrations in the first leachings varied from 0.001 to 0.031
mg/dm3, in the second from 0.001 to 0.029 mg/dm , and in the third
from 0.001 to 0.018 mg/dm3. The percentages were. 47 percent, 29 per-
cent and 24 percent CN, respectively.
Phenols
The content of phenols in the leachates varied from 0.008 mg/dm
to 0.088 mg/dm3; its average was 0.028 mg/dm3. The concentration of
50
-------
phenols in the leachates from successive leachings varied considerably
and either increased, decreased or showed no change. In the first
leachings, the content varied from 0.001 to 0.064 m^g/dm , in the second
0.003 to 0.010 mg/dm3, and in the third 0.002 to 0.014 mg/dm3. Respec-
tive percentages were 40 percent, 29 percent and 31 percent.
Aluminium (AI)
The content of Al in the leachates varied, considerably from 0.175
to 38.5 mg/dm3,' its average was 11.71 mg/dm . The concentrations of
Al in the leachates were very irregular in particular samples. In succe-
ssive tests gradual increases as well as gradual decreases were
observed. In the first leachings AI content varied between 0.05 and
16.OO mg/dm3, in the second 0.05 and 18.00 mg/dm3, and in the third
0.07 and 11.80 mg/dm3. Percentages were 40 percent, 31 percent and
29 percent, respectively.
Zinc (Zn)
The content of Zn in the leachates varied between 0.360 and
3.085 mg/dm3, however in 7 samples it did not exceed 0.635 mg/dm .
The average Zn content was 0.883 mg/dm . In the majority of samples
(8) gradual decreases of Zn content in the leachates from successive
leachings were noted. In the first leachings Zn content ranged from
0.065 to 2.350 mg/dm3, in the second 0,065 to 0.846 mg/dm3, and in
the third 0.035 to 0.650 mg/dm3. Percentages were 48 percent, 34 per-
cent and 18 percent Zn, respectively.
Copper (Cu)
The content of Cu in the leachates varied from 0.019 to 0.275 mg/dm
(one sample showed 0.925 mg/dm3). The average was 0.197 mg/dm3.
In most test samples gradual decreases in Cu content were observed
in successive leachings. Cu content in the first leachings were 0.007
to 0.730 mg/dm3, in the second 0.003 to 0.115 mg/dm3, and in the third
0.003 to 0.160 mg/dm . Percentages of Cu concentrations were 47 per-
cent, 31 percent and 22 percent, respectively.
Lead (Pb)
3
The content of Pb in the leachates varied from 0.034 mg/dm to
0.271 mg/dm3, its average was 0.196 mg/dm3. The Pb content in the
leachates was irregular and either increased or decreased in succe-
ssive tests.
Pb concentrations in the first leachings ranged from 0.015 to
0.147 mg/dm3, in the second from 0.003 to 0.125 mg/dm3, and in the
third from 0.003 to 0.100 mg/dm3. Respective percentages of Pta were
39 percent, 32 percent and 29 percent.
51
-------
Chromium (Cr)
The content of Cr in the leachates ranged between 0.011 and
0.089 mg/dm3 and its average was 0.0364 mg/dm3. In successive
leachings Cr content tended to increase, however, only small differen-
ces were found between second and third leachings. Cr concentrations
in the first leachings were 0.002 to 0.032 mg/dm3, in the second 0.002
to 0.24 mg/dm3, and in the third 0.002 to 0.033 mg/dm3. These concen-
trations were 43 percent, 30 percent and 27 percent of total Cr con-
tent, respectively.
Arsenic (As)
The content of As in the leachates varied from 0.008 to 0.133
mg/dm and its average was 0.0581 mg/dm3. Leaching of As in some
samples was irregular and in successive tests decreased as well as
increased. As concentrations in the first leachings ranged from 0.002
to 0.100 mg/dm3, in the second leachings from 0.005 to 0.024 mg/dm3,
and in the third from 0.002 to 0.033 mg/dm3. Percentages were 41 per-
cent, 32 percent and 27 percent, respectively.
Strontium ( Sr )
2
The content of Sr in the leachates varied from 0.037 to 0.749 mg/dm .
In the sample taken in August 1979, it was 2.O5 mg/dm3. The average
was 0.406 mg/dm3. Leaching of Sr was irregular. In most cases \7 sam-
ples) Sr content decreased in successive leachings. In the first leacha-
tes, concentrations ranged from 0.017 to 1.600 mg/dm3, in the second,
from 0.010 to 0.480 mg/dm3, in the third 0.005 to 0.190 mg/dm3. The
percentages were 51 percent, 27 percent and 22 percent of total Sr
content, respectively.
Mercury
2
The content of Hg in the leachates varied from 3.0 to 10.9 ug/dm .
Only one sample (taken in March 1979), showed a value lower than
0.6 -ug/dm . The average concentration of Hg was 5.17 (Ug/dm3. In all
samples, except two, Hg content in successive leachates gradually
decreased. Hg concentrations in the first leachings varied from 0.8 to
5.0 Mg/dm3, in the second from 1.5 to 6.0 ug/dm3 and in the third from
0.6 to 2.2 /ug/dm3. Percentages were 43 percent, 35 percent and 22 per
cent of total Hg content, respectively.
Cadmium (Cd)
The content of Cd in the leachates varied from 0.005 to 0.056
mg/dm3 and its average was 0.024 mg/dm3. In eight samples Cd con-
centrations gradually decreased in successive leachings. Higher Cd
content was observed in the second leachings of 3 samples. Cd con-
centrations in the first leachings ranged from 0.002 to 0.017 mg/dm3
(45 percent), in the second from 0.002 to ^0.470 mg/dm3 (6 percent),
and in the third from 0.001 to 0.028 mg/dm3 (19 percent).
52
-------
Molybdenum (Mo)
The content of Mo in the leachates varied from 0.003 to 0.029
mg/dm3 and its average value was 0.017 mg/dm3. Mo content gradually
decreased in the leachates from successive leachings. A gradual
increase of Mo content was observed in two samples in the second
leachings. Concentrations of Mo in the first leachings varied from 0.002
to 0.015 mg/dm3, in the second from 0.001 to 0.010 mg/dm , and in the
third from 0.000 to 0.006 mg/dm3. Percentages were 48 percent, 36 per-
cent and 16 percent of total Mo, respectively.
Boron (B)
3
The content of B in the leachates ranged from 0.095 to 3.600 mg/dm
The average value of B was 0.855 mg/dm3. In successive leachings the
B concentrations gradually decreased. In the first leachings it was from
0.043 to 1.670 mg/dm3, in the second from 0.030 to 1.320 mg/dm3, and
in the third from 0.020 to 0.610 mg/dm3. Respective percentages were
47 percent, 33 percent and 20 percent of total B.
SUMMARY
It may be concluded that the refuse contained large amounts of
substances that were easy to leach.
The pattern of leaching of dissolved components, except for PO ,
Pe and phenols, was similar. Gradual decreases in their concentrations
in successive leachings were observed. The largest amount of a com-
ponent was usually leached in the first leaching, and the smallest
during the last leaching period. Some of the pollutants were easier to
leach, some more difficult (see Table 6-4).
In that respect, 3 groups of components (with similar leachability)
can be distinguished.
Group I - Cl, SO ., Na, K. - 60 to 67 percent of their content was
present in the leachate after the first 24 hour period ,
19 to 22 percent after the second period, and 13 to
19 percent after the third period - the most leachable
group.
Group II - Cu, Zn, Hg, Sr, Cd, B, Mn, Mo, CN - 41 to 51 percent
of their content was measured in the leachate after the
first leachings, 27 to 36 percent after the second, and
19 to 25 percent after the third - the average leachable
group,
Group III - Mg, Al, Cr, As Pb, NH , Ca - 39 to 43 percent of their
content carried into the leachate after the first leachings,
30 to 33 percent after the second, and 27 to 30 percent
after the third - the less leachable group.
53
-------
Table 6-4. Percentage of Component Leached
in Each 24 Hour Leaching Test
G-roup Designation
TDS
Cl
I
Na4
K
CN
Mn
Ca
Cu
II Zn
Hg
Sr
Cd
Mo
B
Mg
Al
III Cr
As
Pb
NH4
P°4
Phenols
Fe total
Average
First
leaching
59
66
67
66
59
47
41
37
47
48
43
51
45
48
47
39
40
43
41
39
44
31
40
38
from all tests
Second
leaching
25
21
19
20
22
29
34
32
31
33
35
27
35
36
33
33
31
30
32
32
28
28
29
41
Third
leaching
16
13
14
14
19
24
25
31
22
19
22
22
20
16
20
28
29
27
27
29
28
41
31
21
54
-------
The leaching process for phosphates, phenols and iron differed
from the above groups and therefore were not mentioned in any of
the groups.
Phosphates in the first and in the second leachings showed similar
concentrations but were 25 percent lower in concentrations in the
third leachings,
Total iron - 41 percent was 1 eached during second leachings,
Phenols - most frequently leached in the first and in the third
leachings.
The above figures provide information on the ieachability of parti-
cular components in time. The data also assists in the interpretation
of the pollution potential. It can provide insight as to whether the amount
of a pollutant in groundwater is caused by its concentration in the wastes
or_ by its leachability. J[nj^e_cas_e_.v^r
is ~sT6w the "hazard may be delayed, but still exists.
THE QUANTITATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF POLLUTANTS' CONTENT
In order to estimate the quantitative potential of the leachable
pollutants in the coal waste mass, the necessary calculations were
made. The results are shown in Table 6-5.
Figures illustrate the amount of leachable pollutants in milligrams
(mg) per one kilogram (kg) of coal waste after 3 x 24 hours = 72
hours leaching.
The received values could differ from the real because of only
72 hours leaching and because of full saturation and constant water
flow in glass columns. However, they give the ranges and help to
estimate the range of hazard.
-------
in
Ui
Table 6-5. Average Concentration of Particular Components and the Amount
of Each Component Leached from Kilogram of Coal Refuse in
Laboratory LeacMngs
Desig-
nation
IDS
Cl
S04
Ma
K
Ca
«g
Mn
Fe
NH4
P04
CN
Phenols
Al
Z.i
Cu
Pb
fr
Ai
Sr
H9
Cd
Mo
B
concen-
tration
ing/dm3
1283.0
479.0
166.8
347.0
48.0
150.0
5.5
0.950
23.86
2.40
0.152
_
0.060
0.178
0.404
0.052
0.019
0.041
0.012
0,245
1.5
0.056
0.021
0.456
1975
amount
rag/kg
256.6
95.8
33.36
69.4
9.6
30.0
1.1
0.19
4.77
0.48
0.03
_
0.012
0.036
0.081
0.010
0.0038
0.0082
0.0024
0.049
0.3
0.011
0.004
0.091
concen-
tration
mg/dro3
2991
127.0
165.3
207.2
18.4
12.7
12.6
0.511
20.04
0.92
0.081
0.0087
0.021
13.8
0.443
0.212
0.163
0.024
0.068
0.135
7.0
0.022
0.013
0.122
1976
amount
mg/kg
598.2
25.4
33.06
41.44
3.68
2.54
2.52
0.102
4.01
0.184
0.016
0.0017
0.0042
2.76
0.089
0.012
0.0326
0.0048
0.0136
0.027
1.4
0.004
0.003
0.024
1977
concen-
tration
mg/dm3
1254.6
167.6
135.3
159.0
15.2
8.5
4.79
0.541
20.1
2.226
0.983
0.0376
0.037
12.43
0.743
0.126
0.185
0.037
0.123
0.228
7.2
0.009
0.020
0.695
amount
mg/kg
250.92
33.52
27.06
31.8
3.04
1.7
0.96
0.108
4.02
0.445
0.197
0.0075
0.0074
2.49
0.149
0.025
0.037
0.0074
0.0246
0.046
1.44
0.002
0.004
0.139
concen-
tration
rag/ din3
1111.0
146.0
25.12
202.8
16.1
23.1
10.7
0.128
21.28
1.760
0.651
0.019
0.011
19.1
1.053
0.128
0.106
0,050
0.085
0.279
6.9
0.009
0.016
1.803
1978
amount
mq/kq
222.2
29.2
25.12
40.56
3.22
4.62
2.14
0.026
4.26
0.352
0.13
0.0038
0.0022
3.82
0.211
0.026
0.0212
0.01
0.017
0.056
1.38
0.002
0.003
0.361
concen-
tration
mg/dm3
1362.0
126.5
230.0
302.9
33.9
185.3
3.0
1.515
37.98
1.340
0.741
0.0356
0.012
13.05
1.772
0.472
0.505
0.030
0.0025
1.145
3.25
0.023
0.016
1.197
1979
amount
mg/kg
272.4
25.3
46.0
60.58
6.78
37.06
0.6
0.303
7.60
0.268
0.148
0.0071
0.0024
2.61
0.354
0.094
0.101
0.006
0.0005
0.229
0.65
0.005
0.003
0.239
1975 -
concen-
tration
mg/dm3
1600.0
209.2
164.6
243.7
26.32
75.9
7.30
0.729
24.65
1.733
0.522
0.0252
0.0282
11.71
0.883
0.1974
0.1956
0.0364
0.0581
0.406
5.17
0.024
0.017
0.855
1979
amount
mq/kq
320.0
41.84
32.92
48.74
5.26
15.18
1.46
0.146
4.93
0.347
0.104
0.005
0.0056
2.34
0.177
0.0395
0.0391
0.0073
0.0116
0.081
1.03
0.005
0.003
0.171
-------
SECTION 7
GROUND WATER MONITORING AND SAMPLING
MONITORING WELLS
In March 1974, 14 monitoring wells, number 1 to 14, were installed
to monitor the aquifer surrounding the disposal area. The wells were
bored in 4 sections radiating from the Central Disposal Pit toward the
North, East, South and West
Wells 5, 6 and 7 were located toward the North; their distances
from the disposal site were 50 m, 250 m and 700 m, respectively,
Wells 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were located to the East; their distan-
ces from the disposal site were 100 m, 300 m, 400 m, 900 m and
1200 IT? j respectively,
- Wells 13 and 14 were located in the South; their distances from
the disposal site were 150 m and 250 m, respectively.
Wells 1, 2, 3 and 4 were located in the West (parallel to the
Western Disposal Pit); their distances from the Central Disposal
Pit were 10O m, 250 m, 500 m and 1000 m, respectively.
All monitoring wells were drilled by the dry system method down
to the roof of the continuous tertiary layer. The depths of the wells
varied from 7 to 27 m. The lithology of all layers found in each well
was described in detail and samples were taken for laboratory analy-
sis to determine permeability and specific yield.
Each •well was lined with a filtration column of 6" diameter. The
lining consisted of:
a solid steel pipe in the lowest section which formed a settling
tank,
a filter, consisting of a perforated pipe wrapped with copper gauze
and covered with gravel packing,
a solid pipe terminating about 1 m above the ground surface and
covered by a special protecting arrangement.
The space between well wall and filtration column was sealed in
order to prevent direct infiltration from surface (rain) water into the well,
57
-------
In 1977 three additional monitoring wells were drilled in the area
north east of the disposal site because a model analysis of the hydro-
dynamic network suggested that the groundwater flow might run in that
direction. These wells were located as follows: well no. 15 in the
northern part of the Central Disposal Pit, wells no. 16 and 17 at
a distance of 200 and 400 m, respectively from the edge of disposal
site. The well depths and construction design were similar to the other
wells. In 1978 two hand-excavated private farm wells (presently unused)
numbered 56 and 67 were included in the monitoring system. They lay
northeast of the disposal area, 330 and 60 m respectively from the
Central Disposal Pit.
The location of wells and diagram of well installation is shown in
Figure 7-1.
MEASUREMENTS AND SAMPLING
Water samples for physico-chemical analyses were taken from the
monitoring wells from 1974 until the end of 1979. Prior to the water
sampling, the groundwater table in each well measured within i 2 cm.
Then a volume of water equal to that in the wells was removed. After
the well had again filled with fresh groundwater, it was sampled. This
procedure was appliad to avoid sampling water which had been in the
well for a long period of time, coming in contact with the air and the
pipe. The small volume of water removed from each well was found as
the most proper to prevent the disruption of the natural hydrodynamic
system which may happen if a large volume were removed.
The above operations were performed on a regular 3 week interval.
Until October 1976, every fourth sample was taken for full analysis
42 parameters), while all others were taken for simple analysis
14 parameters). After October 1976, every third sample was taken for
full analysis. A total of 85 sets of water samples were taken for physico-
chemical analysis between 1975 and 1979, of which 26 sets had full
analysis.
The above general scheme was slightly modified during the 5 year
investigation. The modifications were as follows:
Since November 1975, observations and sampling in well no. 4
located about 1000 m from the disposal site was discontinued
because the groundwater table was higher in this well as compared
with the disposal area. In addition, it was found that the water was
polluted by other sources.
Since April 1977 and July 1977 measurements and sampling in wells
12 and 11 were respectively eliminated because of the great distance
from the disposal area and no significant slope of the groundwater
table was observed in that direction. The introduction to the monito-
ring system of more useful new wells numbered 15, 16 and 17 made
11 and 12 unnecessary.
The farm well no. 67 was eliminated after one sampling because of
organic pollution by farm waste.
53
-------
o
B-6
Ut
B-3
8-1*
Fig.7-1.THE MAPOF DISPOSAL SURFACE
SCHEHE OF HONITOftING VELL
SCALE 1100
J910 £
Tl
x* bl"01 'i
"X"" ci»» ; '
£» "
:'•'•; li
:•; •. ' 1
1 "" ij
.••:• 1 1
Si c"> 1
•?." F
'•'/ '"' !'
'.' -. iw*J )•. .1
:•'•'. f 1
^ w r
^ r
: Kr
t '
- ' i i
; ; : • strto I. .1
s ^
:-; f{
J" CI*V '
-^ (.«-
r rrl n.i.u .
• j — UlC
TF1"*
M
n
wwr
u
1 r^ — .Qntiiftg pipe dmm.lA "
II
U
H^-
l|
"v-i-^.
•£
^
n J
1\
;l
\'V
L -*-"- —
-3
-J-
si
i
Explanation
8-1
^ Momionng wt
ful> p*p« diam.lQ-
Full pip* (ham.***
._,
B-H
\ Fitter -ptrioniMj pip«
S
Copper gauie
$«dim«ni«lion pip* di*mA
ill
— — — limits at disposal tn pan«cul«r y
ea reclaim*! *>?8
>B-12
-------
Since April 1978, measurements and sampling were not performed
in well no. 15 because it was destroyed.
The modifications were made in agreement with the Project Officer.
A few additional differences in the planned program of sampling became
necessary.
Samples from all wells were not taken in January 1979 because of
heavy snow which prevented sample collection.
- Water samples were not taken during the following periods because
of temporary damages to the wells:
July, August 1978 and in October, November 1979 from well
no. 1
December 1978 and July 1979 from well no. 13
June 1979 from well no. 7.
The above exceptions were not more than 1 percent of the measure-
ments and samplings, so they were not considered important to the
results of the investigation.
It can be concluded that both the wells' locations and the system
of measurements and sampling proved useful and enabled the assessment
of the tested phenomena.
60
-------
SECTION 8
METHODOLOGY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
For the routine analyses the water was collected in 5 dm polyethy-
lene containers from each well. For the full analyses, water samples
were taken in the following quantities:
3
5 dm in polyethylene containers;
1 dm in glass containers for the determination of phenols (these
samples were stabilized immediately with phosphoric acid and
copper sulphate);
1 dm in polyethylene containers to determine cyanides (the samples
were immediately stabilized with the addition of potassium hydroxide
KOH granules).
Samples were delivered to the laboratory within 3 to 5 hours. After
delivery to the laboratory the samples were subjected immediately to
vigorous stirring in a mixer, then filtrated, divided and acidified. Immedia-
te acidification in the field was abandoned because of the following
reasons:
the delivery of samples to the laboratory took only a few hours;
it was more appropriate to perform analyses on a large average
sample rather than on small, separate samples;
from the point of view of this investigation, the dissolved substan-
ces were more important than the suspended matter. In the course
of filtration through a porous medium, the suspended matter sedi-
mented on the grains of the soil (the methodology of research
would have been somewhat different if the flow of polluted water
passed through a fissured medium). The above procedures are
recommended by the Polish Standards for sampling wells used
for drinking water.
The filtered samples were analyzed employing the following analytic
methods:
color - utilizing a dichromate - cobaltic pattern scale
smell - organoleptically, cold, according to a 5 ~ grade scale of
smell intensity, and the following symbols for type of smell:
R - vegetative smells, G- - for putrescible, and 3 - for specific
smells
61
-------
conductivity - by means of a conductometer
pH - by potentiometric method
total hardness - through titration with the EDTA reagent
basicity - through titration with hydrochloric acid against methyl
orange
acidity - by titration with sodium hydroxide against phenolphthaiein
instant oxygen consumption - through titration, cold, with permanga-
nate of potash
oxygen consumption - through determination of the potash permanga-
nate consumption by a sample during heating in a water bath for
20 minutes
total dissolved substances - through the determination of residue
after evaporation of a filtrated sample, and drying it at 105°C to
a constant weight
dissolved mineral substances - determined through roasting the dry
residue from the filtrated sample at 600°C
dissolved volatile substances - calculated from the difference
between the total dissolved substances and the mineral substances
chlorides - by Volhard method of titration with silver nitrite
sulphates - with the nephelometric method by means of an autoana-
lyzer
.nitrates - by the colorimetric method and the use of an autoanalyzer
after reducing to nitrites with an hydroxylamine solution
ammonia nitrogen - distillation method with the Nessler reagent
albumin nitrogen - distillation method with the Nessler reagent,
after alkaline decomposition in a potash permanganate solution
phosphates - colorimetric method in reaction with ammonium
molybdate and a reduction to molybdate blue
free cyanides - extraction colorimetric method after distilling
sample acidified with tartaric acid, brominating and reacting with
a bentidine - phyridine reagent
phenols - monohydric phenols were determined after distilling the
sample, with colorimetric method in aminoantipyrine
bivalent iron - colorimetric method in reaction with 1.10 phenan-
throline
62
-------
total iron - colorimetric method with 1.10 phenanthroline after
reduction of trivalent iron
trivalent iron - calculated from difference of the above two determi-
nations
calcium, sodium, potassium - by flame photometry method
copper, zinc, lead, magnesium, manganese, strontium, cadmium -
by atomic absorption
aluminium - colorimetric method with aluminon
chromium - colorimetric method with diphenylcarbazide
arsenic - molybdate colorimetric method after reducing arsenous
hydride from sample and oxidizing with sodium hypodromite to
AsS-t-,
mercury - after reducing to elemental mercury and determined by
colorimetric method in reaction with iodine and copper salts
silica - dissolved reactive silica was determined with ammonium
molybdate
B.O.D»,_ - biochemical oxygen demand was determined in analyses
of samples for oxygen content using the Winkler method before
and after the 5-day incubation period at 20°C
molybdenum - colorimetric thiocyanate method
boron - colorimetric method in reaction with bianthrimide in an
environment of concentrated sulphuric acid.
63
-------
SECTION 9
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OP HYDROCHEMICAL TESTS
A complete set o*f results of the groundwater anaivsis is available
in EPA Region III and Poltegor. In this section the results are
presented in diagrams and discussion. On the diagrams the content
of each component in every well is presented in columns which reflect
quarterly averages. Quarterly average values were used, instead of
results from every sample because it is more informative and easier
to read. The diagrams are grouped according to their location. Weils
1-3, 5-7, 8-10, 13 and 14, and 15-17 delineate sections. The first well
in each group is always the one closest to the disposal site. Looking
at the diagrams horizontally it is easy to see how the concentration
of each pollutant changed with the time. By looking at the diagrams
vertically, one may compare the differences between wells and sections
during the same time period. Each pollutant is discussed with respect
to the changes which occurred in each group of monitoring wells.
pH Reaction
The pH of laboratory leachates varied from 7.3 to 9.9 averaging 8.4,
i.e., the leachate was alkaline. Before disposal operations, pH of the
groundwater ranged from 6.2 (in monitoring wells B-3, B—5) to 7.3
(in well B-14).
i
During disposal operations (1975-1979) the pH did not change
significantly, and similar to the predisposal period, did not show any
differences regardless of the time or location of observations. In all
monitoring wells, except B-6, B-7 and B-17, the values varied approxi-
mately from 5.8 to 7.4. During the period July through October 1976,
the pH in Well B-6 ranged from 8.4 to 8.7. In Well B-7, the pH value
varied from 7.5 to 8.0 between November 1977 and August 1978.
Between June 1978 and February 1979, the pH in well B-17 varied
from 7.8 to 8.5.
An influence of waste disposal on pH of the groundwater was not
observed. However, the acidity of waters in the investigated area
tended to increase slightly, but was probably not due to the impact of
disposal.
It is possible that the pH reaction of rains could change in the
investigated region, but this has not been examined.
54
-------
Explanation of diagrams
o«
o>
Value of content
mg/ dm
0.080
O.060 -
0.040
0.020
QOO
i- Value exceeding the scale
m
71
!
!
i
1
^
r-
I
Y,
i
\D
I
I
|
>X
v///////////////////////////,
«D
i
^
i
I
%
\
\
N
;-»-• Number of monitoring well
^
I
i
F
i
\o
R
X
i
l~
I
4
I
Average content of compone
particular quarter of the ye<
1Q7R . Years
-------
7.0
5.0
; n
I
7.0
6.0
S.O
• 1976
--BT9
7.0
b.O
S.O
-1975 1 1976
7.0
6.0
-5.0
on
o.
7.0
bO
S.O
1975
S> *
1976 --
1979 —-
7.0
6.0
-5.0
7.O
0.0
5.0-
?*
I
1974
1975
7.0
6.0
•5.0
£ e *
7.0
6.0
5.0-
i ^A\
rSi-_ 1978
*
#£
7.0
6.0
-50
1979
Rg.9 'he diagram of pH reaction
-------
Conductivity
Laboratory leachate conductivity ranged from 500 to 2140 ,uS/cm,
the average value being 1500 ju.SJc.rn. Conductivity of groundwater
before disposal (1974) varied from 174 uS/cm (well B-5) to 350 uS/cm
(well B-7).
During the first two years of disposal operations (1975-76) ground-
water conductivity remained on the level observed in 1974, i.e., appro-
ximately between 200 and 300 yuS/cm. Beginning in 1977, conductivity
began to change. Increased values were first observed in well B-6 in
January 1977, while at the same time the values in the remaining wells
did not exceed 250 /uS/cm. From January 1977 until September 1978
conductivity of water in well B-6 increased considerably, ranging from
450 to 500 /uS/cm. Further increases in conductivity were later observed
and maxximum values of 800 to 850 /uS/cm were attained in May and
June 1979. In June 1979, the values dropped to 500 to 550 uS/cm and
remained there until project completion at the end of 1979.
An increase in water conductivity (360 uS/cm) was observed in
well B-2 beginning in June 1977. Between June 1977 and July 1978,
the average value ranged here from 400 to 500 /uS/cm, and during
August 1978 reached 580 /aS/cm. From then until February and March
1979, the conductivity gradually increased to a maximum of 1050 to
1170 ^uS/cm. After that period conductivity dropped to between 600 and
800 MS/cm in August 1979 and 370 to 450 /aS/cm at the end of 1979.
A continuous increase of conductivity was also observed in well
B-l beginning in September 1977 and in most cases maintained at
a level of 450 to 500 /uS/cm until June 1978. Between October and
December 1978, conductivity increased considerably to 1100 yuS/cm.
Maximum values of 1100 to 1350 /uS/cm -were observed from January
to April 1979. By August 1979, water conductivity had dropped to
about 700 to 800 juS/cm and then further decreased to 450 ^S/cm by
the end of 1979.
A continuous increase in water conductivity was observed in well
B-3. From December 1977 until September 1978, it varied from 400 to
500 uS/cm and then gradually reached a maximum of 1300 /uSJcm in
February and March 1979. Conductivity dropped to between 450 and
550 /uS/cm and remained there through the end of the observations.
Water conductivity increase in well B-5 were less clear. From
July 1978 until April 1979, it increased and fluctuated between about
400 and about 600 ,uS/cm. Then conductivity decreased slightly and
remained at a level of 300 to 450 uS/cm until the end of the observa-
tion period.
Between 1977 and 1979, water conductivity in the other wells
varied between 200 and 300 /uS/cm.
67
-------
500.O
200.O
0.00
1
IN*"*
500.0
200.0
-0.00
500.0
200.0
0.00
1
I
I
500.0
200.0
0.00
7. W77 1 197» 1
soo.o
200.0
o.oo
500.0
2OO.O
0.00
19*
1976
500.0
200.0
0. OO
500.0
200.0
0.00
-1974 I- UK
1977 I 1978 4 «79
SOO.O
200.0
O.OO
-1974 ~ -I W75
-1978
5OO.O
2OO.O
0. 00
Fig. 9-2. The am of conductivity
-------
It may be concluded that the disposal of coal wastes began to
affect groundwater conductivity beginning in 1977, two years after waste
disposed began. The phenomenon intensified until the first quarter of
1979 when maximum values were noted. Coal waste disposal affected
the adjacent aquifer 200 to 300 m northward, i.e., in the direction of
groundwater flow. The remaining sections of the aquifer showed no
effects from the disposal.
Total Dissolved Substances
The content of TDS in laboratory leachates varied from 500 to
3372 mg/dm3, averaging 1600 mg/dm3.
Before coal waste disposal (1974), the content of TDS in ground-
water ranged from 100 mg/dm3 (wells B-5, B-8) to 350 mg/dm3 (wells
B-7 and B-13). Until the end of 1976, the TDS content did not change
and in most cases remained bet-ween 100 and 200 mg/dm3. Values of
350 to 450 mg/dm3 (wells B-9, B-10, B-14) were only occasionally
observed.
The situation began to change in the beginning of 1977 when
significantly increased TDS content (360 ma/dm3) was observed in
well B-6 in January 1977 (at the same time TDS in the other wells
varied from 120 to 270 mg/dm3). The TDS content in well B-6 remained
between 350-450 mg/dm until April 1979 and reached its maximum of
700 mg/dm3 in May and June 1979. Then it dropped to about 350 mg/dm.
After June 1979, the TDS content ranged from about 230 to 350 mg/dm3,
the average being 303 mg/dm3.
In well B-l, the increase of TDS content was observed in April
1978 when it reached 306 mg/dm3. It gradually increased and reached
840-880 mg/dm between January and March 1979. Then TDS dropped
here to 420 to 550 mg/dm3 until September 1979, and then to 300 mg/dm
by December 1979.
In well B-2, the increase in TDS followed the pattern in B-l. From
April 1978 until March 1979, a gradual increase of TDS (from about
300 mg/dm3 to 750 mg/dm3) was noted. In April 1979, it decreased to
350-550 mg/dm3 and remained unchanged until September 1979. Further
decreases in TDS contents to about 270-320 mg/dm3, averaging
297 mg/dm3, was observed until the end of the investigation.
From April 1978 until March 1979, TDS content increased also in
well B-3, ranging from 350 mg/dm3 to 880 mg/dm3. Then TDS content
rapidly dropped to 220 to 350 mg/dm3 and remained at this level until
the end of 1979, except for a temporary increase to about 600 mg/dm
recorded at the end of May and beginning of June 1979.
Occasionally (in July 1978 and February 1979) high content of
TDS (350-540 mg/dm3) was also observed in well B-5, which is the
closest to the disposal and downstream.
69
-------
•4
o
SOO.O
2000
O.OO
SOO.O
200.0
O.OO
SOO.O
/oo.o
0 Ou
mg/dm'
SOO.O
— Wi,
SOO.O
500.0
soo.o
200.0
0. OO
SOO.O
2oo.a
0.00
1976 —I--- 1977
-1S76
SOO.O
200.0
0.00
SOO.O
200.0
0.00
Fig. 9-3. Th gram of IDS content
-------
-xl
t-1
Explanation
8-1
4fc Mooiloring well
Disposal area
Contour of JDS content
Mam pollutant flow
Rg.9-4.THE^MAPOF IDS DISTRIBUTION JULY 5.1977
-------
10
B-K.
Explanation
B-1
A Monttonng welt
iXx^Xj Disposal area
SO -— Contour of !OS content
••——^^- M4in pollutant flow
SCALE
UOOm
Fig.9-5.THE MAPOF IDS DISTRIBUTStT DECEMBER 20.1977
-------
Explanation
8-1
Monitoring well
Disposal
Fig.9-6.THE MAP OF IDS DISTRIBUTION JUNE 28.1978
Area reclaimed till June 28 1978
Contour of TOS content
Main pollutant tlow
-------
Explanation
8-1
_ SCALE
WX)m
Area r«ciaim«
-------
Explanation
B-1
£ Monitoring well
^^jjjjijjjjj^ An«i reclaimed nil June 13 1979
SO — Contour of IDS content
«w£^. Mam potluianl flaw
Fig.9-8.THE MAP OF IDS DISTRIBUTION JUNE 13.1979
-------
Explanation
B-1
258
Monitoring welt
Disposal area
Area reclaimed nil December 20 1979
Contour of OIS content
|^ Main pollutant (low
Fig.9-9.THEMAPOFTDS DISTRIP'TION DECEMBER 20.1979
-------
Between 1977 and 1979, TDS content in other wells ranged from
100 to 300 mg/dm , corresponding to values observed before disposal.
It can be concluded that the clear effect of coal waste disposal
appeared beginning in 1977 (two years after beginning storage) and
was observed until June 1979, then it slightly decreased. The aquifer
became polluted north of the disposal area, in the direction of ground-
water flow, 200 to 300 m away.
However, no continuous increase of TDS content was observed
in well B-5 which is located north of the site. This may prove that
the pollutant's flow is not uniform and several underground streams
(flumes) exist with varying contamination levels. The main factor
is aquifer permeability. It was clearly stated that the main flume
of pollution jruns toward well,B-6 which has a perrngahn i. t-y 5 times
higher than other surrounding wells except well B-5 which has low
permeability.
Chloride (Cl)
The content of Cl in laboratory leachates varied from 51 to 479
mg/dm3 (average 209 mg/dm3). The content of chloride in groundwater
before disposal operations began (1974) ranged from 6.6 mg/dm (wells
B-12 and B-13) to 39.7 mg/dm3 (well B-12), with an average value of
20 mg/dm3.
During the first period of waste disposal (1975-1976), chloride
content in the groundwater did not differ from the concentrations observed
before disposal operations; its average values were between 12 and
20 mg/dm3.
At the beginning of 1977, the situation changed gradually. In Febru-
ary 1977, an increase in chloride (51 mg/dm ) was first observed in
well B-6, while in other wells it varied from 12 to 33 mg/dm . It gradu-
ally grew to a maximum of 96 mg/dm3, observed in June 1979. Then the
concentration decreased to between 20 and 40 mg/dm3, which was still
above the values found before disposal.
In May 1977, a high chloride concentration (41 mg/dm ) was obser-
ved in well B-2 and until October 1978, it remained between 40 and
60 mg/dm3. The chloride concentration gradually increased here and in
March 1979 reached a maximum of 104 mg/dm^. After that a gradual
decrease of chloride to the level of 30 to 40 mg/dm3 was observed (end
of 1979).
In well B-l, chloride content increased to 40 to 60 mg/dm between
December 1977 and October 1978; then doubled and until the end of
March 1979, remained at a level of 100 to 110 mg/dm3. It gradually
decreased to 35 to 45 mg/dm3 by the end of 1979.
77
-------
Oa
5O.O
2O.OL.
O.O
5O.O
. ._ 1975 [ 1976
1977
— 1978
..1979
50.0
20.0
0.0
2O.O
0.0
L
40.0
2UO
00
1974 — 1 1975
50.0
20.0
0.0;
ufij
y
— 1978
50.0
20.0
- 0.0
£& * f*
-1979 —
50.0
20.0
- 0.0
50.0
20.0
0.0
50.0
20.0
0.0
a**
t— 1976 — \ —1977
50.0
20.0
- 0.0
1978 J - - — 1979
P ~ -10.The diagram of Cl content
-------
Explanation
8-1
Q Momioring well
K^S^^^j Disposal area
50"~~"~ Con lour of CL content
**«~«^^. Mam pollutant (low
Fig.9-11.THE MAPOF CL DISTRIBUTION JULY 5-1977
-------
Monitoring wttlt
-—SO — Contour of CL content
~~—^^^. Mdtn pollutant flow
Fig.9-12.THE MAP OF CL DISTRIBUTION bcCEMBER 20.1977
-------
CD
Explanation
B-1
KALE
4OOm
F»g.9-l3.THEMAP OF CL DISTRIBUTION JUNE 28.1978
Monitoring well
Ouposat area
Area reclaimed till June 28 197B
-SO Contour of Ci content
—^B^> Mam pollutant flow
-------
II)
to
Explanation
B-1
SCALE
i,OOm
Fig .9-14 .THE MAP OF CL DISTRIBUTION r^.EMBEif 13.1978
Honitjnng w«ll
[)*ipu5di area
Area reclamed till Oecemter 13
Contour Qf CL content
Ham pollutant flow
-------
OD
u
Explanation
B-i
SCALE
Monitoring *«U
DllpOMl W*
Ara« r«cl«fn«d lit! Jun« 13 1979
Contour of Cl conl*nl
M*«n pollulknl (low
Fig .9-15.THE MAP OF CL DISTRIBUTION JUNE 13.1979
-------
Ou
Explanation
8-1
Monitoring well
Fig.9-16.THE MAP OF CL DISTRIBUTE DECEMBER 20.1979
Area reclaimed till December 2O 1979
-—SO Contour of CL content
•__£^. Main pollutant (low
-------
The first indications of increased chloride in well B-3 appeared in
January 1978 (52 mg/dm3) and from then until September 1978, it
usually varied from 30 to 40 mg/dm3. From October 1978 the chloride
content increased to a maximum of 110 mg/dm3 in March 1979. Then
it rapidly dropped to 35 to 40 mg/dm3 and remained there until the
end of 1979.
Less significant increases were observed in wells B-5, B-16 and
B-17 (43 to 49 mg/dm3 in June 1978).
In the other wells chloride content varied from 15 to 30 mg/dm .
It can be concluded that coal waste disposal affected the content
of chlorides in the groundwater. These changes were noted beginning
in 1977, i.e., two years after disposal operations had begun. The con-
centration of chlorides reached maximum levels (2-5 times higher)
after two and a half years, and beginning in mid 1979, the chloride
content decreased significantly. The polluted area extended 200 to
300 m to the north of the disposal site in the direction of the ground-
water flow. No influence was observed in the wells sited on the smaller
inclinations of the groundwater table or where no dipping was observed.
Sulphate (S04)
The content of sulphate in laboratory leachates varied from 50 to
230 mg/dm3 (the average was 164,5 mg/dm3). Before disposal opera-
tions began in 1974, sulphate content in groundwater was from 40
mg/dm3 (wells B-10, B-8) to 150 mg/dm3 (well B-3). During the first
period of disposal operations (1975-1976) SO content in groundwater
did not change significantly. In all wells it was slightly lower than in 3
1974 and ranged from 10 mg/dm3 (wells B-5, B-6, B-7) to 125 mg/dm
(wells B-9, B-12).
At the beginning of 1977, the situation began to change. In January
1977 the content of SO^ increased in well B-l (84.0 mg/dm ) and in
well B-6 (87.0 mg/dm3), while at the same time other wells showed
levels from 40 to 60 mg/dm3.
in 1977 and during the first three months of 1978, the 804 content in
well B-l remained generally at a level of 80 to 110 mg/dm3. in April 1978,
a gradual increase of 804 was noted and it reached a maximum level of 404
mg/dm3 in March 1979. In April 1979, the 804 content gradually
decreased. From April until September the sulphate content was between 200
and 300 mg/dm3 and in October it dropped to 85 to 95 mg/dm3 and remained
there until the end of the investigation.
In 1977 and 1978, the S04 content in well B-6 varied from 90 to
130 mg/dm3. Between January and May 1979 SOij. increased up to a
maximum value of 240 mg/dm3 (observed in May 1979). From then
until August 1979 the SO^
mg/dm3 and then to 70 to
end of the project period.
until August 1979 the SO content gradually decreased, first to 120
mg/dm3 and then to 70 to 90 mg/dm3, where it remained through the
85
-------
20O.O
1OO.O
O.O
200.0
KX).0
0.0
-1978
200.0
100.O
0-0
2OO.O
100.0
- 0.0
I 1976
00
200.O
100-0
O-O
200X)
100.0
. 0.0
—I 1979
2OO.O
1OO.O
0.0
«*£
200.0
100-0
0.0
-197*
-W7S
Fig. 9-17.T' diagram of S0»cxxiten8
-------
00
Explanation
B-l
A Monitoring welt
Disposal »«*
SO — Contour of SO^ content
H^^ M*in poituiam flow
Fig.9-18.THE MAPOF S04DISTRIBUTION JULY 5.1977
-------
00
0>
Explanation
8-1
£ Monitoring wait
&&1 Disposal «TM
O - Contour of SO4, content
^^^ M*m potluUnl How
^_— SCAlt
Fig.9-19.THE MAPOF SO* DISTRIBUTION DECEMBER 20.1977
-------
8-7
O>
<£>
Explanation
B-1
—so-
Fig.9-20.THE MAP OF SO* DISTRIBUTION JUNE 28.1978
Monitoring well
Disposal area
Area reclaimed I.II June 2& 1978
Contour of SOj, content
Mam poItuUnl flow
-------
-1CALE
1,00m
Fig.9-21.THE MAPOF SO* DISTRIBUTION DECEMBER 13.1978
Explanation
B-1
f Momlormg weU
QSf^vXAl Disposal area
KS8S88S3 Area reclaimed tilt December 13 1
SO Conlour of SO,, coment
««HH^^ Mam pollutant flow
-------
B-10
KfllE
40Om
Explanation
B-1
0 Monitoring well
ressssa o,,po,...™.
ERffiSSSSSI Aru reclaimed titl Jun* 13 W9
iQ Contour of SOfc control
«-—^^ Mkin pollul«nl flow
Fig .9-22.THE MAP OF S04 DISTRIBUTION JUNE 13.1979
-------
B-7
| 21
10
Explanation
Momlonno. well
Fig.9-23.THE MAP OF SO* DISTRIBUTION DECEMBER 20.1979
8-1
KS8S8888I Araa racl*im«l till Oeumbw 2O 1979
"SO Contour of SO contort!
—•HI^^ Main poltularri (low
-------
An increased SO content was also observed in well B-2. The
level remained at 90 to 120 mg/dm until March 1978 when it gradually
increased to a maximum of 350 mg/dm3 (observed in March 1979). The
content of SO. gradually decreased to a value of 200 to 250 mg/dm3.
In August 1979, it rapidly dropped to 80 to 90 mg/dm-3 and remained
there until the completion of the investigation.
Increased SO. content appeared also in well B-3 in 1977 for
a short time (April - 108 mg/dm3 and October - 97 mg/dm-3). A conti-
nuous increase of SO was observed here from March 1978 (90 mg/dm )
until March 1979 (maximum 370 mg/dm-3). During the next five months,
until August 1979, 30 content gradually lessened but remained at
greater than normal levels, between 150 and 250 mg/dm3. After August
1979 it slowly decreased to 70 mg/dm , the level observed at the end
of 1979.
In well B-5 increased values were found between July 1978 and
May. 1979. During this period SO content varied from 100 to 120 mg/dm
except in July 1978 when it reached 153 mg/dm . It dropped again and
in most cases remained between 70 and 95 mg/dm3.
In all the above wells irregular decreases in sulphate content
were found for short periods of time.
The SO. content in other wells sometimes fluctuated considerably,
but most often did not exceed 50 to 100 mg/drn3. Independent of pollu-
tion attributed to the disposal operations, singular episodes of high
SO^ concentrations were noted in wells B-14 (145 mg/dm-3), B-16
(130 mg/dm3 in June 1979), B-13 (153 mg/dm3 in May 1979) and in
others. These phenomena were most probably caused by sources other
than the disposal site.
In view of the above results, it may be concluded that the signifi-
cant increase in SO content in the groundwater was caused by the
disposal site. Its influence was evident between 1977 and 1979 in the
section of aquifer situated 200 to 300 m north of the disposal site, i.e.
downstream.
Sodium (Na)
The content of Na in laboratory leachates varied from 44.5 - 357
mg/dm-3, averaging 243.7 mg/dm-3. In 1974, its concentrations in ground-
water were from 4.45 mg/dm3 (well B-ll) to 31.1 mg/dm3 (well B-3).
During 1975 and 1976, the first years of disposal operations, the value
did not show any changes as compared to the previous years. The Na
content was at the level observed in 1974 and varied from 5 to 15
mg/dm3.
In 1977 Na content in groundwater began to change. Between March
and May and in July, the value found in well B-6 was higher than pre-
viously recorded (22 to 27 mg/dm3), and in well B-2 during February,
July, September and October it was about 20 to 25 mg/dm3. Otherwise,
the Na content did not exceed 15 mg/dm3.
93
-------
Higher and more regular increases of Na were observed in more
wells beginning in 1978. Between March and December 1978, Na con-
tent in well B-6 increased continuously from 33.5 mg/dm3 to 78 to
84 mg/dm3. During the first part of 1979 it varied considerably from
30 to 100 mg/dm3. In July and August it lowered to about 25 mg/dm3
and remained unchanged until the end of 1979.
An increase in Na was observed in well B-2 between February
1978 and March 1979. Prom February until October 1978, the level
rose from about 30 mg/dm3 to 100 mg/dm3. It remained at a level of
130 to 140 mg/dm3 until April 1979, except in January and February
when it dropped to 21 to 35 mg/dm3. Between April and September
Na content ranged from 70 to 90 mg/dm3, then dropped to 20 to 40
mg/dm3, i.e., to the levels found in other wells.
••3
A continuous increase in Na (from 20 mg/dm to a maximum of
160 to 170 mg/dm3) was also observed in well B-l between February
1978 and March 19-79. However, in October 1978 and in January and
February 1979, temporary decreases to 26 to 42 mg/dm3 were recor-
ded. Between April 1979 and September 1979, Na content was 70 to
110 mg/dm3, then dropped to 20 to 40 mg/dm3.
Water samples from well B-3 showed an increase in Na between
1978 (36 mg/dm3) and March 1979 (135 to 150 mg/dm3). Similar to
wells B-l and B-2, a temporary decrease (down to 28 to 36 mg/dm^)
was recorded in January and February 1979. In April 1979, the Na
level rapidly decreased to 25 mg/dm3 and then increased to a value
of 122 mg/dm3 in June. The level of Na again decreased to about
20 to 25 mg/dm3 for the remainder of the investigation.
In other wells (B-9, B-10 and B-14) only singular increases in
Na content (35 to 95 mg/dm3) were noted but were probably due to
extraneous factors.
In conclusion, the influence of the disposal operations on Na con-
tent in groundwater was significant beginning in 1978, 3 years after
the disposal operations had begun, and remained an influence until
September 1979. The polluted aquifer ranged 200-300 m north of the
disposal site in the direction of groundwater flow. The maximum level
of Na found in the polluted groundwater was 16 times greater than
levels found in groundwater not in contact with the disposal site.
Potassium (K.)
Potassium levels in laboratory leachates varied from 4.1 to 48.0
mg/dm3, with an average of 26.3 mg/dm3.
In 1974, before disposal operations began, K in groundwater ran-
ged from 1.05 mg/dm3 (well B-7) to 16.12 mg/dm3 (well B-7). During
the first two years of disposal operations (1975-76) K in groundwater
was generally at the level observed in 1974 (between 1 and 5 mg/dm3),
except in October 1975 it reached 10 mg/dm3 in well B-l.
94
-------
mg /dm1
Ol
50.0
20.0
O.O >
so.o
20.O
1976
fOk ext* Ven Set*
1 (9% _
50.0
20.0
- 0.0
50.0
20.O
0.0
5O.O
20.0
0.0 I
=£_ *£„ .fig -SSf -S&
W7S
Q_0 * ,,£ O ? tf-0
gg~ ,£*_? 2&K- Sd ^y wfl *>flM
50.0
20.0
0.0
50.0
20.O
0.0 -
£* 9* ££
P* P*
;!n ^^1
I
1979
500
20.0
O.O
50.0
20.0
0.0
SO.O
20.0
0.0
Fig.9-2A.The diagram of Na content
-------
Potassium content began to fluctuate during the third year of dispo-
sal operations. In January 1977, increased values were observed in
wells B-6 and B-2; 8.5 mg/dm3 of K were found in well B-6, while in
other wells it did not exceed 3.0 mg/dm3. Potassium levels continually
increased and in July 1977 reached a maximum of 26.5 mg/dm3, then
dropped and remained between 10 and 15 mg/dm3 for the duration of
the investigation with some values of 2 to 4 mg/dm3 reported.
During January 1977, in well B-2, K content was 4.1 mg/dm . Until
August 1978, concentrations varied between 5 and 6.5 mg/dm3. Between
September 1978 and January 1979, it grew to a maximum of 8.5 mg/dm3,
then gradually decreased to 2.7 to 4.6 mg/dm3 by the end of the repor-
ting period.
In well B-l between February and September 1977, increased K
levels appeared infrequently, e.g. in February - 11.1 mg/dm , and in
June, July and September - 4 to 5 mg/dm3. From November 1979 until
March 1979, the concentrations increased slightly from 5 to 6 mg/dm
to 8 to 9.5 mg/dm3. Then it fell to 4.5 to 4.8 mg/dm3, recorded at the
end of 1979. In May a temporary increase to 10.5 mg/dm3 was recor-
ded.
Between March 1977 and February 1978, increased K. levels in
well B-3 were periodically reported. In March, June, October and Decem-
ber 1977, and in January 1978, concentrations reached 4.0 to 5.4 mg/dm3.
From March 1978 to the end of the reporting period K concentrations
continued to increase. Unlike other wells, water samples from well B-3
indicated several peak potassium levels. The first occurred from March
until July 1978 when it increased from 5.7 mg/dm3 to 12.3 mg/dm3
(maximum level recorded). K content dropped to 2.9 mg/dm , and in
March 1979, it rose again (8.0 mg/dm3) and dropped rapidly the next
month to 2.6 mg/dm3. Another instance of K increase in the groundwater
was observed between May and November 1979 showing the values
from 3.7 mg/dm3 to 12.7 mg/dm3. In December 1979, K content was
reported at 2.9 mg/dm3.
^
Temporary increases of K content (to about 8 mg/dm ) were obser-
ved in wells B-9, B-13, B-14. Between 1977 and 1979, potassium con-
tent in other wells ranged from 2 to 4 mg/dm3.
It can be concluded that the influence of disposal operations on K
content in the groundwater appeared in January 1977 and continued at
various degrees of intensity through the end of the investigation. Pollu-
tion from potassium was greatest north of the disposal pits 200-300
meters away in the direction of groundwater flow. However, the increase
in potassium in the groundwater affected by the disposal site was much
less than the sodium levels recorded.
Calcium (Ca)
The content of Ca in laboratory leachates varied from 5.2 to
355.9 mg/dm , averaging 75.9 mg/dm3. Before disposal operations, Ca
concentrations in groundwater varied from 5.5 mg/dm3 (well B-3) to
96
-------
SO.O
so.o
2O.O
0.0 -
-1975 1-- - 1976 -
SO.O
20.0
. o.o
- 1977
so.o
20.0
*£ ra *** ,,*c
0.0 I
1977 -
I 1979
SO.O
20.0
- 0.0
Fig.9-25. The diagram of K conlent
-------
71.14 mg/dm (well B-7). During the initial period of disposal operations,
from November until December 1976, the Ca content in groundwater
varied from 6 mg/dm3 (well B-8) to 30 mg/dm3 (well B-5), but most
frequently it did not exceed 20 mg/dm3. The first increases in Ca
appeared at the end of 1976. In November and December 1976, higher
values appeared in well B-6 (38.5 mg/dm3) and in well B-2 (27.0
mg/dm3). At the same time Ca content in the other wells was from
7.5 mg/dm3 (well B-8) to 16.7 mg/dm3 (well B-7).
Between the end of 1976 and June 1979, a continuous increase of
Ca content was observed in well B-6. It periodically dropped but never
below values observed in other wells. It varied from 20 to 52 mg/dm3
with an average value of 24.3 mg/dm3. In 1978, it ranged from 30 to
50 mg/dm3, averaging 43.6 mg/dm3. In the first six months of 1979, it
was between 40 and 67 mg/dm3 and. its average value was 51.5 mg/dm3.
By July 1979, Ca content decreased to about 20 to 30 mg/dm3, and
for the remainder of the reporting period Ca concentrations averaged
40.5 mg/dm3.
A continuous increase of Ca content was observed in well B-2
and in March 1979, reached a maximum of 63 to 69 mg/dm3. In 1977
Ca content ranged from 20 to 39 mg/dm3 (average value 27.6 mg/dm3).
In 1978, it was between 30 and 57 mg/dm3, averaging 44.4 mg/dm3.
During the first three months of 1979, the concentrations varied between
26 and 69 mg/dm3 (average 52.4 mg/dm3). From April 1979 Ca content
decreased to 24 to 44 mg/dm3 and the average for the last nine months
was 34.6 mg/dm3.
Ca levels in well B-l began to increase in October 1977 (21 mg/dm )
and in March 1979 it reached 79 mg/dm3. During the last three months
of 1977, Ca content varied from 21 to 40 mg/dm3^ (average 32.5 mg/dm3);
in 1978, it was 30 to 50 mg/dm3 (average 41.7 mg/dm3); during the first
three months of 1979 it varied from 29 to 79 mg/dm3 (average 60 mg/dm3).
After April 1979, a gradual decrease of Ca content to about 30 mg/dm3
was observed in the well.
A continuous increase of Ca content was also observed in well B-3.
It began in October 1977 (20 mg/dm3) and lasted until March 1979
(70 to 76 mg/dm3). During the last three months of 1977 it remained
between 20 and 33 mg/dm3, averaging 25 mg/dm3; in 1978 it averaged
36.2 mg/dm3. During the first three months of 1979, it ranged from 30
to 76 mg/dm3 (average 52.5 mg/dm3). After April 1979, as in wells B-2
and B-l, a decrease of the Ca content was reported and generally varied
between 30 and 40 mg/dm3 (average 34.6 mg/dm3).
Increased Ca content was observed in well B-5 between September
1978. and March 1979. During that time it ranged most frequently between
35 and 40 mg/dm3. After September 1979, one small increase (20 to
35 mg/dm3) occurred. Ca content in other wells varied from 8 to
33 mg/dm3 - between 1977 and 1979.
98
-------
Id
O.G-
1974
- 1977
50.0
20.0
- 0.0
50 O
AJO
O.C
soo
JO.Ol
o.o
50.O
20.0
IJ
•"£ ^ *"~
i---- 1974 1 1975 1 -1976
afltiliii
1~ 1978 ±
»7S
0.0
" „'
s.*
50.0
20.0
- 0.0
50.0
20.0
- 0.0
50.0
20.0
- 0.0
SO.O
tuo
(XO
50.0
2O.O
0.0
Rg.9-26The diagram o( Ca content
-------
It may be concluded that the content of Ca in the ground-water was
influenced by disposal operations from 1977 through the end of the
investigation (1979). The acquifer was slightly polluted 200-300 m north
of the disposal pits, i.e., in the direction of groundwater flow. The pollu-
tion, however, was not very significant and the levels of Ca reported
did not deteriorate the groundwater below drinking water standards.
Magne s ium (M g)
The content of magnesium in laboratory leachates varied conside-
rably, ranging between 0.42 and 21.85 mg/dm3 and averaging 7.3 mg/dm3.
Mg content in the groundwater before disposal operations was from
2.12 mg/dm3 (well B-3) to 28.06 mg/dm3. In the period 1975-1976 Mg
levels in the groundwater were considerably lower than values observed
in 1974, and varied between 3 and 7 mg/dm3. Temporary increases were
observed simultaneously in all wells during that period.
Beginning in 1977, Mg content ^gradually began to change. In Janu-
ary 1977, an increase (9.35 mg/dm3) was observed in well B-6, while
in other wells it generally did not exceed 7 mg/dm3. Throughout 1977
until August 1978, Mg levels "Remained between' 9 .0 and
13.5 mg/dm3; however, temporary decreases to 4 to 6 mg/dm3 were noted.
The content of Mg gradually increased from an initial value of 6.0 mg/dm3
to 15.8 mg/dm3 observed in January 1979. Also in January the content
of Mg in all wells located beyond the disposal zone increased conside-
rably (most frequently about 10 mg/dm3), and remained at that level until
the end of 1979. Between February 1979 and the end of the year Mg
content in well B-6 varied between 8 and 13 mg/dm3.
In June 1977, wells B-l, B-2, B-3 and B-17 also began to show
increased Mg content. Increases in Mg in well B-l occurred in two
cycles. The first cycle lasted from June 1977 until September 1978
increasing from 7.0 mg/dm3 to 19.6 mg/dm3. Then it dropped to 11.0
mg/dm3 for a short time. The second cycle comprised the period between
October 1978 and January 1979. During this time, Mg content increased
gradually to a maximum value of 26.0 mg/dm3. It gradually lowered, and
in April 1979, it was about 18 mg/dm3. Levels at the end of 1979 were
from 8 to 10 mg/dm3, also the levels found in wells located beyond the
disposal zone.
Mg content in well B-2 increased in a similar manner. In the first
cycle (June 1977 to September 1978) Mg content gradually increased
from 8.2 mg/dm to 20.0 mg/dm3. The second cycle occurred from
October 1978 to January 1979. During that time Mg content increased
to 21.6 mg/dm3. In February 1979, the level began to drop and by the
end of the year, it usually ranged from 10 to 16 mg/dm3.
Increased content of Mg occurred in well B-3 from June 1977 to
January 1979. During that period the levels varied between 7 and
15 mg/dm3, and only in December 1978 and January 1979 it did reach
17 and 28 mg/dm3, respectively. Then it dropped first to 13 mg/dm3
and then in June 1979 to about 8-12 mg/dm3, the level observed in
other wells.
100
-------
20.0
15.0
K».O
5.0
mg/dm*
O.O
XLO
15.0
10.0
5.0
O.O
20.0
15.O
10.O
5.0
00
20.0
15.0
IO.O
5.0
0.0
20.0
15.0
100
5.0
0.0
-1975 -* «7fc
2O.O
15.0
1O.O
50
0.0-
2OO
15.0
10.0
5.0
j
o.oj
2O.O
15.0
TOO
5.0
; am
j— —i
'* 9
J
-19% 1-
oo
1977 * 1978 1— 1979
0* P
-1977 J 1976 1 1979
15.0
10.0
50
O.O-
pec
15.0
10.0
5.0
- 0.0
I 1976
Rg.9-27. The diagram of Mg conteni
-------
In well B-17, increased content of Mg (9 to 13 mg/dm ) was obser-
ved only from June 1977 until August 1978. In this well, Mg remained
stable, although periodic variations occurred.
In well B-5 the content of Mg gradually increased from April to
July 1978, rising from 8.8 mg/dm3 to 23.6 mg/dm3. Then it decreased
and, except for a temporary increase to 19 mg/dm3 (April 1979) it
remained at a level of 8 to 10 mg/dm3.
Periodically high values of Mg were recorded in well B-13 (15.4
and 14.4 mg/dm3 in April and October 1978) and in well B-10 (13.2
mg/dm3 in November 1978).
The effect of the wastes on Mg content in the groundwater began
in 1977 and remained considerable until the beginning of 1979. In the
first six months of 1979, the content became less significant. It should
be emphasized that after January 1979 the content of Mg in the ground-
water samples from all tested wells increased considerably as compared
to values observed during the initial period of disposal and ranged from
8 to 12 mg/dm3 in the wells located beyond the disposal influence zone.
The polluted area included the aquifer north of the pits, 200-300 m in
the direction of groundwater flow.
Manganese (Mn)
The content of manganese in laboratory leachates varied from
0.035 to 2.995 mg/dm3, an average of 0.729 mg/dm3. During the initial
period of disposal operations until June 1975, Mn content in ground-
water ranged from 0.05 mg/dm3 (wells B-9, B-10) to 0.387 mg/dm3
(wells B-ll, B-12). From that time some changes in Mn content occur-
red.
Prom July 1975 to September 1977, higher concentrations of Mn
were found in well B-l where they varied from 0.5 to 0.8 mg/dm .
In November 1975 and April 1977, it reached 1.2 mg/dm3. In other wells
the Mn content did not exceed 0.3 mg/dm3. Then in April 1978, the
content increased to 1.35 mg/dm3, and in October 1978 to 0.60 mg/dm3.
Higher values of Mn occurred also in well B-3 in December 1975
and in February 1976 (0.45 mg/dm3), in August 1976 (l.46 mg/dm3),
in April 1977 (0.70 mg/dm3, and in April 1978 (1.55 mg/dm3). Between
these peaks Mn content varied between 0.10 to 0.20 mg/dm . A conti-
nuous increase of Mn content (0.35 to 0.50 mg/dm3) was observed from
August 1978 until May 1979.
An increased level of Mn was Deriodicallv reported in well B-2,
A very high level (l.70 mg/dm3) was observed only once, in April
1978, while lower values (0.40 - 0.50 mg/dm3) were noticed in Septem-
ber and October 1979,
In well B-5 increased levels of Mn were observed in September,
1975, November 1976 and May 1977 ranging from 0.40 to 0.80 mg/dm3.
102
-------
o
CJ
0.5O
O.A)
O.OO
o.w
0.20
O.CX
mg/dm*
m
i.
1975
11
,979
JkJ
1974
*)
I
1979
0.50
0.20
O.OO
_MJi
o.so
O.20
o.oc
liittl
1975 I - ._ •Olb -I
0.5O
0.20
-O.OO
O.SO
0.20
. O.OO
0.50
0.20
-0.00
0.50
0.20
-O.OO
0.50
O.20
aso
0.20
-0.00
Fig, 9-28. The diagram of Mn content
-------
At other times, Mn content ranged from 0.20 to 0.30 mg/dm . Prom April
1978 until October 1979 a steady increase in Mn (0.40 - 0.99 ^ mg/dm^) was
observed.
Well B-6 showed higher Mn content occasionally in December 1976
(0.81 mg/dm3) and from September until December 1978 (0.38 to 0.50
mg/dm3).
It may be concluded that the influence of disposal on Mn content
in the groundwater was different from its influence on other components.
Pollution from Mn was not continuous and appeared at various times,
and generally earlier than other pollutants. Further it did not necessarily
appear in the same wells as other pollutants, but mostly in wells under
the influence of disposal. The origin of this phenomenon is not readily
understandable and did not correspond to the laboratory leachate tests.
The disposal operations affected the aquifer 200-300 m north of
the disposals.
Iron (Total Fe)
The content of total iron in laboratory leachates varied from 0.11
to 75.8 mg/dm3, averaging 24.6 mg/dm3. The content of this component
in groundwater prior to disposal operations (1974) varied from well to
well and fluctuated periodically. It ranged from 0.0 mg/dm3 (wells B-6,
B-7, B-8 and others) to 10 to 13 mg/dm3 (wells B-l, B-2). During the
initial period of disposal (during 1975) Fe content remained variable.
Its concentrations were similar to concentrations observed in 1974 and
varied from 0.1 mg/dm (wells B-3, B-5, B-6 and others) to 13 mg/dm3
(wells B-l, B-2, B-5, B-13 and others). In 1976 the Fe content in
groundwater changed significantly.
The increase of Fe in well B-l was irregular. In January 1976, it
was 12.3 mg/dm3 while in January through March 1977, it reached
a maximum of 28 mg/dm3. From then until the end of October 1978 Fe
gradually decreased to about 0.1 mg/dm , also observed in other wells.
Then during November 1978 it rapidly increased to 12 mg/dm3 and
remained at that level until the end of March 1979. Until the end of
the reporting period, Fe content ranged from 1.5 to 2.0 mg/dm3.
In well B-2 an increased Fe content was observed from the
beginning of 1976 until the end of 1979. In 1976, 1977 and the first
six months of 1978, Fe content most often ranged between 1.5 and
2.0 mg/dm3. Starting in July 1978 until March 1979, it gradually incre-
ased from 8.0 mg/dm3 (August 1978) to a maximum of 17.0 mg/dm3.
It dropped to 0.5 mg/dm3, except in 1979 when it reached 6.0 mg/dm3.
A gradual increase in Fe content was observed in well B-5 from
September 1978 until March 1979. During that period it rose from
1.65 mg/dm3 to 12.2 mg/dm3. Then it dropped below 1.0 mg/dm3; however,
once in December 1979 a level of 2.5 mg/dm3 was observed.
104
-------
O
O)
mg/dm J p
20.0
16.0
B.Ol
1.O
06
oo
16.O
8.O
1.O
0.6
OO i
L
1
l*i ,
T ;
•4
rt
•^ f
n
!975 — „
c
^
- • «njs
r- *
"
t • ;
;
K
L
;J
1
A
It
1 ^
_. _ 1976 _
«
?
1
M
r
f.
1
r f*n
1-i
S ;.
1
;
»j
_ 1977 -- -- -- |- — —1978
»
^.
,-
\ I
yj W
>0
R
3V
',
r-
n
j, J Ht ^Qf^ /
i
n
S5, ^A:
1
\
Tl
1
m
:
I
<
ra
\
— - 1979 - 1
3
1
"
<
:
^
20.0
16.0
80
1.0
O.6
0.0
16.0
8.0
1.0
0.6
0.0
f
8.O
1.0
0.6 |
O.QK
?
.
* •
»
s
-
»
FTj »
IB ^ &
\
in
f
:
f »*
[ st ^* ^fl „ p n
g
1 i
1 19?5 4 T97J, 1 ,977 1 ,978 _ j ,979
1 rkn
RO
1.0
0.6
0.0
8.0
1.O
0.6
0.0
ao
1.O
at
0.0
- 1975 —
-1975
8.0
1.0
0.6
O.O
8.0
1.0
0.6
0.0
Fig.9-29.The diagram of Fe content
-------
In well B-3 Pe content was higher from August 1978 to May 1979;
however, the maximum (9-11 mg/dm3) was observed between December
1978 and March 1979. Additional episodes of increased concentrations
of Pe occurred in April 1978 in well B-6 (l.21 mg/dm3) and well B-13
(1.71 mg/dm3 )t and from March to May and in December 1979 in well
B-14 (l.O - 3.8 mg/dm3). In other wells total Pe content between 1977
and 1979 varied between 0.1 and 0.4 mg/dm3.
It may be concluded that disposal effected an increase in the
content of total Pe in groundwater north of the disposal site. The pollu-
ted area was smaller than the area affected by the previously discussed
pollutants (100-150 m). Pollution of the groundwater by Pe was slightly
different as compared to other components. It appeared earlier, at the
beginning of 1976 (after the first year of disposal operations) and
remained evident until the end of the investigation. Maximum Pe levels
appeared earlier (at the beginning of 1977J while maximum values of
other pollutants appeared as late as in March 1979. No continuous
increase of Pe content in well B-6 was observed, however this pheno-
menon was characteristic of other components.
This different behavior of Pe is difficult to explain and without
apparent reason.
Ammonium (NH )
The content of NH. in laboratory leachates varied from 0.32 to
4.46 mg/dm3, averaging 1.73 mg/dm3. During disposal operations its
content in groundwater ranged most frequently (except in November
1979) from 0.1 to 0.5 mg/dm3 except in wells B-l, B-6 and B-17 where
considerable increases of this ion appeared periodically. Higher NH.
levels were noticed in well B-l in 1975 and in wells B-6 and B-17
after September 1977.
In 1975 higher levels of NH in well B-l (l.O to 1.6 mg/dm )
appeared in two cycles. Each time NH concentration rose then dropped
to values observed in other wells. The first increase was noticed early
in 1976 and was observed until May 1977 (concentrations 0.7 - 2.0
mg/dm3). Then NH content decreased to levels observed in other
wells, i.e., 0.1 - 0.4 mg/dm3, and lasted until March 1979. The next
period of increased NH. content began in May 1979, reaching its
maximum of 6.8 mg/dm3 and remained at a level of about 2.5 mg/dm3
through the end of the observations.
The first indications of NH4 increase in well B-6 appeared in
September 1977 when its concentration was 1.14 mg/dm3. In August
1978, it was 1.60 mg/dm3. In December 1978 NH4 content was 4.54
mg/dm3 and grew to a maximum of 8.90 mg/dm3 in May 1979. Then it
decreased slightly and remained at a level of 6-8 mg/dm3 through the
end of 1979.
NH content in well B-17 increased from 1.0 to 1.3 mg/dm during
the period: September 1977 to February 1978 and to 1.9 mg/dm3 in
December 1979. Higher NH^ levels were observed in well B-14 (l.O to
106
-------
mg/dm1
S.O
5.0
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.0
r;f* m"
- B ft.
lit
AL
1.0
0.8
0.4
-0.0
O
S.O
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.4
O.O
1.0
O.8
0.4
1975-
Li
ox>
d
1979 1
U
—1978
1975
-1976 - f-- 1977 —
*>#
I
- 1978 -
5.0
1.0
0.8
0.4
£.0
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.4
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.0
Fig.9-30.The diagram of NH,. content
-------
1.2 mg/dm ) in September and November 1977, in well B-10 (1.2 mg/dm )
in August 1979, and in all wells in November 1979.
On the basis of the above it may be stated that the increase in
NH. in wells B-l, B-6 and B-17 were caused by the disposal opera-
tions. All these three wells were in direct downstream flow of the
pollutants. Pollution of groundwater from NH^ was not continuous, but
appeared periodically with varying intensity. The highest pollution level
recorded occurred during the first six months of 1979 later than other
pollutants (the fourth year of disposal operations). The disposal opera-
tions affected the aquifer for a distance of about 100 m north of the
site, the smallest area influenced by a particular pollutant in this dis-
cussion.
Phosphate (PO)
The content of phosphates in laboratory leachates ranged from
0.036 mg/dm3 to 3.140 mg/dm3, and its average was 0.522 mg/dm3.
During the period January 1975 to June 1976 the content of PO. in
groundwater in all tested wells varied from 0.002 mg/dm3 to 0.09 mg/dm .
Only in September 1975 did the value in all tested wells increase to
0.01 - 0.06 mg/dm3. Prom then until the end of the observations PO
concentrations remained bet-ween 0.03 and 0.09 mg/dm3; however in
April 1978 it was about 0.09 mg/dm3 in the majority of wells.
It was found that the irregularity of PO^ distribution in tested wells
did not indicate any influence of the disposal site on pollution in the
groundwater. However, the potential of pollution exists which is indica-
ted by the greater content of P04 in laboratory leachates.
Cyanide (CN)
The content of CN in laboratory leachates varied from 0.003 to
0.066 mg/dm3 (average 0.025 mg/dm3).
During disposal operations the content of CN in groundwater ranged
mostly from 0.002 to 0.006 mg/dm3 except for wells B-l, B-2, B-5, B-7,
B-9, B-10, B-15, B-17 in which higher values ( 0.010 to 0.025 mg/dm3)
were occasionally observed. Increased levels of CN were observed in
well B-l in November 1976 and April 1978; in well B-6 in August 1976
and December 1978; in well B-10 in June and August 1976 and in
well B-17 in February and April 1978. Higher CN values were observed
once in wells B-7 and B-9 in August 1976; in well B-5 in November
1976; in well B-15 in February 1978; in wells B-13 and B-14 in April
1978; and in wells B-2 and B-3 in December 1978. Additionally, bet-
ween March and May 1979 all the tested wells showed higher concen-
trations of CN (0.10 - 0.20 mg/dm3).
Distribution of CN in groundwater during disposal operations indica-
ted that the impact of disposal operations on the pollution of ground-
water by this ion is doubtful. Observations at wells B-7, B-9 and B-10
located outside the disposal influence zone, suggest that temporary
increases of CN content might come from other sources. Also, the poten-
108
-------
I-1
O
0.060-
0.040
0.020
0.000,
J&.
1977 -
0.0«)
0.020
aooo
0.060
0.0^0
0.02O
o.ooo
^A
-1977 -
L ,975
cm
0.060
O.CK.O
0.020
i. 000
0-060
O.OU)
0.020
.000
0.060
0-O.O
0.020
0.000
0.060
0.0<.0
0.020
0.000
TO75 ---\ 1976
0.060
O.WO]
1
0.020J
0.000
— 1975
-4—"~ 1976 1-
0.060
O.CX.O
O.O20
0.000
1977
0.060
O.CK.O
0.020
0.000
Fig. 9-31. The diagram of PO. content
-------
n OKI/dm*
0.005
O.OOS
1975 t 1976
0.002
0.000
Rg.9-32.The diagram of CN content
-------
tied of pollution is not clear because the concentration of CN in labora-
tory leachates varied considerably.
Phenols
The content of phenols in laboratory leachates varied from 0.008
to 0.088 mg/dm3, averaging 0.0282 mg/dm3. During disposal operations
phenol content in groundwater ranged from 0.002 to 0.007 mg/dm3
except in monitoring wells B-l, B-2, B-3, B-6, B-7, B-ll, B-14 and
B-16 where higher concentrations of phenols (0.010 - 0.014 mg/dm3)
were observed.
•
in 1975 higher values appeared only in well B-3; in 1976, high values
were found in B-7 and B-ll. During the next two years (1977 to 1978) phenols
content did not increase in any of the monitored wells. AS late as November
1979, higher concentration of phenols appeared in five wells (B-l, B-2, B-6,
B-14, B-16).
Distribution of phenols in groundwater, observed during disposal
operations, does not clearly indicate the impact of the disposal operations.
Temporary increases in phenols levels might be due to other factors.
This conclusion is based on the that higher values were also
observed in the monitoring wells situated outside the direct disposal
zone (B-7, B-ll and B-14), and that increased levels of phenols were
observed in the final phase of disposal operations, i.e. in November
1979, while the contents of other components at the same time dropped
significantly.
Aluminium (Al)
The content of Al in laboratory leachates varied from 0.175 to
38.500 mg/dm3, averaging 11.71 mg/dm3. In 1974 before disposal ope-
rations began Al content in groundwater ranged from 0.0 mg/dm3
(wells B-8, B-10, B-13 and others) to 0.376 mg/dm3 (well B-9). During
the initial period of refuse storage (1975 and the first six months of
1976) distribution of Al content in groundwater did not change as com-
pared to levels observed in 1974. The concentrations were still between
0.05 mg/dm3 (wells B-3, B-2 and others) and 0.35 mg/dm3 (well B-l).
Prom August 1976 to August 1979 Al values in most wells,
except B-l, B-2, B-3, B-5 B-6 and B-17, still did not exceed 0.1 mg/dm .
Most frequently it was about 0.05 mg/dm3; however, in April 1978 and
March 1979 the concentrations in all wells were from 0.20 mg/dm3
(well B-7) to 0.70 mg/dm3 (well B-l), and from 0.22 mg/dm3 (well B-l)
to 0.42 mg/dm3 (well B-9), respectively. By the end of 1979 (November
and December) Al content in all wells was higher than 0.1 mg/dm3 and
most frequently varied from 0.15 to 0.20 mg/dm3.
Ill
-------
ing/dm*
- -t 1979
O.OO8
0.004
O.OOO
raft ~
O.O08
o.ocx,
O.OOO
1975 —
— -1916
O.OO8
0.004
O.OOO
0.008
oxxx
QOOO
0.008
0.004
0.000
I 1978 t- 1979
O.OO8
0.001.
O.OOO
0.008
o.cxx.
0.000
1978
.0.008
xxooo
-1976
Fig.9-33.The diagram of phenols content
-------
mg/dm3
H
H
CO
0.50
0.20
O.OO
O.SO,
0.2O
o.oq
O.SO
O.SO
0.20t
0.20
O.OO
Rg.9-34.The diagram of Al content
-------
Periodically higher levels of Al were observed between August
1976 and August 1979 in the wells under disposal influence, i.e.
in wells B-l, B-2, B-3, B-5, B-6, B-17; however, in each well the
increases appeared at different times and with different intensities. First,
well B-l showed higher Al content in August 1976 (0.9 mg/dm3), and
again (0.8 - 2.6 mg/dm3) in January through May 1977. The maximum
content noted during that period was 2.6 mg/dm3. Another high Al level
(to 0.25 mg/dm3) was in observed in this well in November 1977.
Higher Al levels (O.15 to 0.17 mg/dm ) were found in well B-2 in
March through May 1977 and in November 1977 (o. 12 mg/dm3). Then
from June until October 1978, the content again gradually increased to
a maximum level of 0.47 mg/dm3.
Higher concentrations of Al were observed also in well B-3 in
May 1977 (0.17 mg/dm3), in February through April 1978 (maximum
0.12 mg/dm3 to 0.25 mg/dm3) and in August 1978 (0.10 mg/dm3).
In well B-5 increased levels of Al were observed in May 1977
(0.15 mg/dm3), November 1977 (0.25 mg/dm3) and from June through
December 1978 varying from 0.17 mg/dm3 to a maximum of 0.40 mg/dm3,
found in October.
In well B-6 increased Al content appeared for short periods of
time. Higher values (0.11 to 0.22 mg/dm^) were periodically observed
in May and November 1977, and in August and December 1978.
Increased Al content was observed in well B-17 in September 1977
(0.12 mg/dm3) and from June through August 1978 (0.20 to 0.25
mg/dm3).
It may be concluded that periodically higher Al content in ground-
water was due to disposal operations. This is confirmed by the fact
that increased Al levels were found in wells situated in the direction
of groundwater flow. The aquifer was polluted 200 to 3OO m north of
the disposal site. The highest concentrations of Al were found in the
closest wells situated 50 to 150 m from the disposal pits.
Zinc (Zn)
The content of Zn in laboratory leachates varied from 0.360 to
3.085 mg/dm3, and its average was 0.883 mg/dm3. The content of Zn
in groundwater during disposal operations showed periodic changes,
the difference being many times higher or lower than levels found 3
prior to disposal. In 1975. Zn concentrations ranged from 0.020 mg/dm
(well B-7) to 0.07 mg/dm3 (well B-3). Only in September were con-
centrations in all wells from 0.10 to 0.24 mg/dm3. In July Zn levels
reached 0.325 mg/dm3 in well B-6.
In 1976, especially during the first six months, Zn content in all
wells was considerably higher than in 1975 and varied from 0.5 to 4.2
mg/dm3. Values higher than 0.5 mg/dm3 were found in wells B-l
(4.20 mg/dm3), B-6 (1.40 to 3.75 mg/dm3), and in B-2, B-12, B-13,
B-14 (0.8 to 1.2 mg/dm3). During the second half of 1976, and until
114
-------
the end of 1979, Zn content occasionally fluctuated between 0.05 to
0.10 mg/dm3 and 0.15 to 0.20 mg/dm3. Water samples from the remaining
wells showed periodic increases. In well B-l a higher content of Zn
was noted in November 1977 and in June 1978 (0.169 and 0.150 mg/dm ),
while in the remaining wells the content did not exceed 0.05 mg/dm3.
In March 1979 the maximum value in well B-l was 0.53 mg/dm and in
November 1979-0.26 mg/dm3.
In well B-2 higher concentrations were observed in November 1977
(0.127 mg/dm3), in March 1979 (0.165 mg/dm3) and in November 1979
(0.470 mg/dm ). In well B-3 increases appeared in January and Novem-
ber 1977 (0.285 mg/dm3 and 0.175 mg/dm3, respectively). In June 1978,
it was 0.11 mg/dm3 and in March 1979, 0.147 mg/dm3.
In well B-5 higher concentrations of Zn (4.0 mg/dm ) were observed
in June 1978.
Slightly increased Zn content (0.21 to 0.23 mg/dm ) was observed
in well B-6 in September 1977 and April 1978.
In well B-8, the content increased in February and June 1978 to
O.JL9 a_nd_0.16 ,mp7dm!._ In well B-9, increased, _c.onten±_of _Zn_.appeared.
" twice:Tin Pebruary'1978 ("0.23 mg/dm3) and November 1979 ( 0.420
mg/dm3).
In well B-13 Zn content rose to 0.5 mg/dm , observed in November
1979. In well B-14 Zn content increased in May and November 1979,
the levels being 0.46 and 0.80 mg/dm3, respectively.
In wells 'B-15 and B-17 higher content of Zn was observed only
once, in April 1978 (0.325 mg/dm3) in well B-15 and in well B-17 in
December 1978 (0.525 mg/dm3).
Conclusions are that the distribution of Zn in groundwater does not
indicate that the disposal operations were clearly responsible for the
pollution. Increased levels of Zn were observed in wells situated in the
direction of the groundwater flow (within the disposal's area of influence)
but were also found in other directions. However,, the increases
appear more frequently and at higher levels in wells within the disposal
zone, which indicates the influence as quite possible.
Copper (Cu)
The content of Cu in laboratory leachates varied from 0.019 to
0.925 mg/dm3 and its average value was 0.197 mg/dm3. During disposal
operations Cu content in groundwater normally ranged from 0.003 to
0.017 mg/dm3. Only in wells B-l, B-3, B-5, B-6, B-7 and B-10 were
periodic or singular ^ncreases in Cu observed that were higher than
those in other wells.
The most significant and longest lasting increases in Cu levels
were found in wells B-5 and B-3, while in wells B-l, B-6, B-7 and
B-10 the increases were lower and temporary.
115
-------
mg/dm1
Ch
O.SOi
0.50
Rg.9"35.The diagram of Zn content
-------
In well B-5 increased Cu content (0.650 mg/dm ) appeared in
August 1976 and remained at this level until January 1977, then dropped
until April 1978, however they remained higher than normal ( 0.180 to
0.270 ma/dm3).
3 ^
In well B-3 increased Cu content (0.210 mg/dm to 0.420 mg/dm )
appeared in August 1976 and remained high until January 1977.
In well B-l increased Cu content (0.165 mg/dm ) was observed
in March 1976 and in well B-7 higher Cu values ( 0.440 mg/dm3)
appeared in November 1977. During April 1978 higher Cu concentrations
(0.150 to 0.170 mg/dm3) were noticed in wells B-6, B-7 and B-10. At
the same time levels in other wells never exceeded 0.03
""Some 'increas.ed^TeveIs^F''Gopper'~were"~found~at "the "start of
1976 and 1977 in the wells outside of the disposal jLn_fluence _____
"(3-13 and" B-T4) T ~ ~" " " ..... ~"
It may be concluded that increased Cu content in groundwater was
very probably caused by the disposal operations. This was confirmed
by increased concentrations of Cu appearing mostly in wells located
in the direction of groundwater flow, north of the disposal site. The
most significant pollution was measured 10O to 150 m from the disposal
pits.
Lead (Pb)
The content of Pb in laboratory leachates varied from 0.034 to
0.271 mg/dm3, and its average value was 0.196 mg/dm3. The content
of Pb in groundwater during disposal operations ranged from 0.010
mg/dm3 to 0.060 mg/dm3. Only between June and December 1978 was
it lower ( 0.002 to 0.010 mg/dm3). Concentrations higher than the above
were seldom observed, e.g., in well B-5 in November 1977 ( 0. 22 mg/dm3)
and in August 1979 (0.072 mg/dm3). In both cases Pb content was
4 to 10 times higher than levels found in other wells. Single increases
in Pb content ( 0.110 mg/dm3) appeared in March 1979 in well B-10
and^ in . jyyell__B-_7_in_ ..May__1979_.(Q.2.8 mg/dm3) - both wells outside
the disposal influence zone.
The distribution of Pb in groundwater during disposal operations
does not indicate any contribution from the disposal site. The temporary
increases in Pb concentrations in some wells may have been due to
sources other than the disposal site. The extremely high levels found
in well B-5, located about 50 m from the disposal site, may implicate
the refuse as the source of the pollution; however, increases observed
in wells B-7 and B-10 are probably related to other factors. Although
the pollution potential of Pb is great, as evidenced by the high concen-
trations found in laboratory leachates, the absence of high levels of Pb
in water samples from wells around the disposal site is most likely due
to lead's low leachability from the refuse.
117
-------
H
00
O.OiO
O.O20
O.OCX)
O.OSO
0.020
0.000-
1
O.020
0.000
Fig. 9-36.The diagram of Cu content
-------
VD
fXOSO
0.020
O.OOO
O.OSO
O.OSQ
0.020
aooo
OOSO
0.020
0.000
aooo
Fig.9-37. The diagram of Pb content
-------
Chromium (C r)
The content of Cr in laboratory leachates varied from 0.011 to
0.089 mg/dm3 (average 0.036 mg/dm3). The content of Cr in ground-
water during disposal operations ranged from 0.002 to 0.008 mg/dm3,
except from September 1975 through March 1976 and in May 1977
when it was between 0.008 and 0.015 mg/dm3. Temporary increases
were observed in well B-5 in September 1977 (0.02 mg/dm3) in well
B-7 in June and December 1978 (0.01 mg/dm3), in well B-17 in June
1978 (0.011 mg/dm3), and in well B-2 in March 1979 (0.012 mg/dm3).
Temporary increases of Cr in the above wells, except in well B-5
were insignificant, about 30 to 50 percent higher. In well B-5, it was
much higher {'about 300 percent).
In light of the above it may be assumed that significantly higher
Cr content in well B-5 was caused by the disposal operation. The
lack of any increase in Cr in the wells situated within the disposal
influence zone may be related to the small amount of Cr in the refuse.
Slightly increased concentrations in well B-7 were probably due to
other factors (even though it i's north of the disposal site in the
direction of groundwater flow), because few increases in levels of
other components were observed ir. that well.
Arsenium (As)
The content of As in laboratory leachates varied from 0.008 to
0.133 mg/dm3 and the average was 0.058 mg/dm3.
During disposal operations As content in groundwater varied con-
siderably at different times. Increased As concentrations appeared in
all wells in June 1976, from November 1977 to September 1978, from
April to August 1978 and in December 1978. During these periods,
concentrations generally varied from 0.01 to 0.06 mg/dm3, but sometimes
reached 0.1 mg/dm3. At other times, it was usually slightly higher than
0.008 mg/dm^. Higher concentrations were occasionally observed in
June 1976 in well B-12 (0.48 mg/dm3), in January 1977 in well B-5
(0.44 mg/dm3), and in well B-10 (0.30 mg/dm3).
The distribution of As concentrations does not indicate that the
disposal site impacted groundwater pollution. The absence of As was
probably due to the small content of As in the refuse. The observed
increases in As were probably related to other factors.
Strontium (Sr)
The content of Sr in laboratory leachates varied from 0.037 to
2.050 mg/dm3, averaging 0.406 mg/dm3. Until March 1976, Sr content
in groundwater ranged from 0.05 to 0.15 mg/dm3 with few exceptions.
Higher concentrations of 0.2 mg/dm3 were sporadically observed in
some wells (B-14, B-2, B-5). In March 1976, the distribution of Sr
gradually changed in certain wells; higher Sr concentrations were
observed during various time periods. Longer lasting increases of Sr
120
-------
O.OO8
o.ocx.
0.000
(TO) /dm1
0.008
O.OW
-O.OOO
1975
0.008
0.0»,
0.000
O.OO8
0.001,
oooo
1975
- 1976
1_ 1979
0.008
O.OO*.
O.OOO
0.008
o.ocxi
0.000
1976
1S77 I 1978 f 1979
O.O08
O.OOi.
0.000
g* p
I
i
0.008
0.004
0.000
0.008
O.OOii
0.000
0.008
O.OO4
OjOOO
-W7
197B
Fig.9-38.The diagram of Cr content
-------
10
O.OSO
O.O20
0.000
0.09O
O.05O
O.OZ
o.ooa
0.090
0-OSO
O.O2O
0.000
0.050
0-020
o.ooa
mg/
-1975
Mt0r.
etna
- 1976
~ 1977 -I
1978
1977
-- 1978
1979
- 1975
—- 1976 —
J3S£-
Pi"
• W7S
1976 1- 1977 —
0.05O
0.020
0.000
1975
*
— 1978
1979
1977 1 I97B 1 1979
Fig.9-39.The diagram of As conien!
0.050
0.02O
aooo
0.090
O.O5O
0.020
o.ooo
0.090
0.05O
0.020
aooo
O.O50
0.020
O.OOO
O.O50
0.020
O.OOO
-------
10
O.UX3
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.«X»
0.20OR
0.100
OOOO
0.200
O.10O
o.ooc
0.20O
0.10O
0.000
mg/dm>
1975 1976
1977
1978
Ll
,979
O.4OO
0.200
O.KX>
-0.000
«76 1 1977
- £ *. E
o.«x>
0.200
0.100
- 0.000
O.AOO
0.200
0.1OO
-1977 J 1978 J 1979
f
?
-0.000
0.2OO
0.10O
0.200
0.100
0.000
_.- 1976 1977 1978 4 1979
£ m *R *
-0.000
0.200
0.100
-0.000
Fig.9-40.The diagram of Sr content
-------
content were noticed in wells B-2 and B-6, but in wells B-l, B-3, B-5,
B-8, B-l4 and B-l7 increased concentrations appeared intermittently.
In well B-2 Sr content increased significantly beginning in June
1976, but until January 1977, it appeared as a temporary increase.
From March 1977 until March 1979, the levels increased steadily.
First the concentration increased to 0.30 mg/dm3 in June and to 0.25
mg/dm3 in November 1976. Then from March through November 1977,
it increased from 0.25 mg/dm3 to a maximum of 0.335 mg/dm3. Until
March 1979 Sr content in this well lessened, and remained at a level
of about 0.180 to 0.190 mg/dm3.
In well B-6 increased Sr concentrations were observed continu-
ously from January 1977 until April 1978. By May 1977, it increased
from 0.275 mg/dm3^ to 0.490 mg/dm3, and by April 1978 the level had
decreased to 0.135 mg/dm , a level only slightly higher than in other
wells at that time.
Increased Sr content (0.285 mg/dm ) was observed in well B-l in.
November 1977, but in April 1978, it was less significant (0.145 mg/dm3).
In March 1979, it rose again to 0.217 mg/dm3.
In well B-3 increased Sr concentrations were found in April 1976
0.215 mg/dm3), in August 1978 (0.185 mg/dm3), and in March 1979
X0.235 mg/dm3). A single increase in well B-5 wa-s observed in Novem-
ber 1977 (0.150 mg/dm3). In well B-8 higher Sr content appeared from
August 1976 when it reached 0.40 mg/dm3 until January 1977 (0.20
mg/dm3). In well B-17 increased Sr concentrations occurred in July
1977 and. remained until the end of 1978. During that period the levels
ranged from 0.180 to 0.199 mg/dm3, and only once in November 1977
did it increase to 0.270 mg/dm . Additional singular increases were
observed in well B-14 in August 1976 (0.400 mg/dm3) and in November
1976 (0.260 mg/dm3).
Based on the above results it may be concluded that increased
concentrations of Sr in groundwater was caused by the disposal site.
This influence was observed north of the disposal pits not more than
300 m away in the direction of groundwater flow. Singular increased
concentrations of Sr noted in wells B-14 and B-8 were probably due
to other factors. Large numbers of wells polluted by Sr illustrate high
mobility of this pollutant and may prove to be one of the most hazar-
dous.
Mercury (Hg)
The content of Hg in laboratory leachates varied from 0.6 to 10.9
,ug/dm averaging 5.17 jag/dm. During disposal operations the content
of Hg in groundwater varied considerably.
During the first period of disposal operations (1975) as well as
in the final phase (from October 1978 until the end of 1979) Hg con-
tent in all wells most frequently ranged from 0.4 to 0.5
124
-------
H
10
tn
5.0
2.0
mg/dm1
2.0
0.0-
19TS
1976
1978
1979
-0.0
5.0
2.0
0.0aona_
— 1975 —
1 1977
1978
--1979 1
50
2.0
-ao
8X>
5.O
8.0
5.0
2.0
o.opm
ao
5.0
2.0
on
2.0
1976
1979
0.0
1975
1977
ao
5.0
1979
Fig.9-A1.The diagram of Hg content
-------
Throughout 1976 and until August 1978 concentrations were much
higher and except during early 1976 and in August 1978, the levels
were in most cases 0.8 to 1.5 /ag/dm . Hg content early in 1976 in the
majority of wells (B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-9, B-10, B-14) was from 1.6
to 2.6 ^ug/dm3 and in August 1978 it ranged from 2.0 to 10.0
Distribution of Hg content in groundwater, regardless of time or site,
does not indicate disposal as a factor responsible for the pollution.
Concentrations of Hg in groundwater higher than in laboratory leachates
were observed in wells located in the direction opposed to groundwater
flow. This suggests that the pollution must be due to other factors.
Cadmium (Cd)
The content of Cd in laboratory leachates varied from 0.005 to
0.056 mg/dm3; the average was 0.024 mg/dm3. During disposal opera-
tions Cd content in groundwater did not display considerable variations.
Until October 1978, concentrations of cadmium in all tested wells most
often varied from 0.001 to 0.003 mg/dm3. After December 1978 Cd con-
centrations increased slightly in some wells, but the average did not
exceed 0.005 mg/dm3. Higher content of Cd was observed L.n wells B-l,
B-2, B-3, B-5 and B-6.
In well B-l increased concentrations of Cd (0.006 to 0.009 mg/dm )
appeared in December 1978 and remained at those levels until the end
of observations. In well B-2, as in B-l, increased concentrations (0.007
to 0.008 mg/dm3 ) were observed from December 1978 to August 1979.
In well B-3 higher Cd concentration (about 0.01 mg/dm-3) appeared
between March and August 1979. High levels occurring as temporary
increases were observed in well B-6 in December 1978 (0.009 mg/dm3 )
and December 1979 (0.007 mg/dm'3) and in well B-5 in March and
December 1979 (0.006 mg/dm3).
While analyzing the above data it may be assumed that part of
the increase in Cd content in the groundwater 200-300 m north of the
disposal site may be attributed to the refuse. In that part of the aquifer
outside the disposal influence zone, no increase of Cd in the ground-
water was observed. The low level of pollution was probably due to
low concentrations of Cd in the refuse.
Molybdenum (Moj
The content of Mo in laboratory leachates varied from 0.003 to
0.029 mg/dm3 and its average was 0.017 mg/dm3.
During disposal operations Mo content in groundwater generally
varied from 0.001 to 0.005 mg/dm , except in November 1978 when the
levels varied from 0.05 to 0.45 mg/dm3. Only in wells B-l, B-2, B-3,
B-7, B-9, B-10, were periodic increases observed.
Increased concentrations of Mo were found simultaneously in the
above wells by the end of 1976 and from April to June 1978. In well
126
-------
O.OOS
aoo2
aooo
1979
o.oos
0.002
0.000
o.oos
0.002
o.ooa
I
1
i
O.OOS
0.002
0.000
1979
o.oos
O.OO2
o.ooo
0.005
0.002
0.000
0.005
0.002
0.000
0.005
0.002
0.005
0.002.
o.ooo-
I97B
f-1
1979 - -
LJ
I977
O.OOS
0.002
o.ooa
1 ,977 | B78 —
Rg.9-42.The diagram of Cd content
0.000
L 1975-
1979
-------
H
W
00
0.080
a 050
a 020
O.O8O
O.OSO
0.02O
o.ooa
mg/dm1
0.080
o.oso
0.020
0.000
M-
B?-rL
*
lib -*&_.
,
ikin.*: =* =£ ,
•
1 -«
_ffi^-
0-080
O.O50
0.080
O.OSO
0.020
0.000
£.000
O.O8O
O.OSO
0.020
O.OOO
o.osc
0.020
0000
^ p
I
1975 1976 j 1977 -• - -• f -1978 [-- 1979
O.O50
0.020
OXXX)
O.O20
0.000^
Fig.9-A3.The diagram of Mo content
-------
B-l Mo content was 0.019 to 0.025 mg/dm , in well B-2 0.185 to
0.172 mg/dm3, and in well B-3, 0.030 to 0.050 mg/dm3, in wells B-9
and B-10 (0.150 mg/dm3 to 0.125 mg/dm3). Levels in other wells did
not exceed 0.008 mg/dm3.
It may be concluded that the impact of disposal on Mo content in
groundwater was not demonstrated. High concentrations, above values
found in laboratory leachates were observed in three wells located
within the zone of clear disposal influence and in two wells outside
this zone. The influence of disposal on pollution from molybdenum is
doubtful, but was proved possible by its presence in laboratory leacha-
tes.
Boron (B)
The content of B in laboratory leachates varied from 0.095 to
3.600 mg/dm3, averaging 0.855 mg/dm3. From the beginning of disposal
operations in 1975, until June 1976 B concentrations in groundwater
did not generally exceed 0.03 mg/dm3. Prom then until the end of the
investigation, the content in all tested wells was somewhat higher and
ranged from 0.03 to 0.08 mg/dm3. Additionally, in wells B-l, B-6, B-8,
B-13 and B-14, temporary increases of B were observed.
In well B-6, a continuously high content of B (0.100 to 0.200
mg/dm3) was seen early in 1977 and remained through the end of 1979.
In well B-l higher concentrations (0.136 mg/dm ) were observed for
a short period of time (March through May 1977). Singular increases
in B content were found in well B-8 in August 1976 (0.142 mg/dm3)
and in May 1977 in wells B-13 and B-14 (0.113 mg/dm3 and 0.154 mg/dm3,
respectively).
Based on the above data it may be concluded that levels 5
to 6 times higher than normal observed for three years in well B-6,
as well as in B-ly were caused by the disposal site. Small increases
in B concentration measures in wells B-8, B-13, and B-14 were pro-
bably due to other sources of pollution.
129
-------
0.060
o.o«>
0.020
0.000
ing/dm'
0.060
0.040
0.020
O.OOO
0.060
o.cx.0
0.02O
0.000
0.06O
O.OW)
0.020
.0.000
0.060
O.0<.0
0.020
-O.OOO
0.060
o.wo
0.02OJ
O.OOO
JiA.
WT9 — - —
e
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000
* a*
e §t]
0.06O
O.OW
0.02O
.0.000
»77
*» t=
* 0P n
P
sl
0.060
0.040
0.020
-O.OOO
Fig.9-AA.The diagram of B content
-------
SECTION 10
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OP HYDROCHEMICAL TESTS
In order to verify conclusions of the effects of refuse on ground-
water quality, three principal pollutants (TDS, Cl and SO ) were statis-
tically analyzed. Statistical methods were utilized to formulate a model
for the pollution and present proper statistical hypotheses, verify these
hypotheses through selected tests, and discuss the results.
The tests comprised measurements of these components between
1974 and 1979. For analysis of digital data, the programs including
basic statistical analysis and analysis of variance for binary classifi-
cation without replications were applied. A discussion of the computed
results are presented in the conclusions.
THEORETICAL BASIS
Statistical Model
P - the disposal area
T - time passed since the start of disposal operations.
The assumption is that pollution of groundwater by a given compo-
nent, at point pe P, at moment ^ <0,T> , is a random variable x (t,p)
with an expected value y (t, p), variance g (t,p) and distribution f.,
p(x). If the disposal operations do not affect groundwater quality, then
for p => pj, values V (t, pj),(j2(t, pj) and the distributions f,, p(x)
should be the same for each t£ <0,T> . The effect of disposal on
groundwater quality can then be investigated by verifying the following
hypothesis:
HQ : / \> t., tj <0,T> y (t., p) -y (t., P)
(the symbol ^ is read as: for each).
An hypothesis formulated in this manner is usually verified using tests
for significance. Choice of the tests depends on random variable x
(t, p) assumptions, the measurements diagram and their number. The
applied scheme of sampling justifies the choice of variance analysis
to tests and disprove the hypothesis H . In order to apply other tests
131
-------
or verify other hypotheses, related for example, to the distributions f,,
p (x), basic tests characteristics (which are known variables of the
x (tf pj) variable for pj and the x (t., p) variable for t.) were deter-
mined. The formulae used in calculation programs for basic analysis
and variance analysis are given below. In order to simplify the notation
the symbols "i" for "t." and "j" for "pj" were introduced.
Basic Analysis
r i
We assumed that |x.j> , i =» 1, ..., n means a collection of measu-
rements which were known variables of the random variable x. Basic
statistical assessments of the random variable x include:
Average:
n
...
'
n
Variance:
2
n
2 1 V
s - ::— ^— x.
n-l i
Standard deviation:
2
s
Half - interval of confidence for the average:
d - tcx, . s.
where:
S - = _ standard deviation of the average,
JC
t C\ - value of statistics of t - Student for n-l
degree of freedom and the condifence level
132
-------
Confidence interval:
(x - d, x -t- d).
Variance analysis
As a result of tests the observation matrix *)x-- [ • i =* 1..... r,
j = l,...k, were obtained, L J
where:
r = number of measurements (tests)
k = number of wells.
The mathematical model for variance analysis is expressed by the
equation:
x - /a + GU. - /u) + ( t? : - /u) + e
i = 1,..., r, j = l,...,k
where:
/u, yu., *?• are constants, with:
i ^ j
r k
J (u - u) - £ (fl . - ;u) - 0
i=l j=l J
random variables e .. are idependent and have normal distribution
with the average zero and identical variance O 2_
Estimators of the model (l) components are: ^u, M-.^? •. respectively,
calculated from the test with the following equations:
- .
= x.. = •"— , total average,
k
V
L
x..
u
JJL. => x.. «• — ' — - — - - , average for measurements
11 rC
133
-------
r
A £ Xij
._ — i = 1 .
T7 . = x . . = , average for wells.
The total sum of squares is divided into three independent addends
which represent the influence of each component on the model (8) .
Total sum of squares:
/ " °
r k r k / r k
(x.. - x ..) = L- Z_ x.. = \ i=l j=l
r k
Sum of squares for measurements:
r / k \2 / r
Mr x.. T"
/- - x - ^ 1J ' ^-
R . k 2. (x... - x..) - i«l \j=l / = \1-1
V
^
i=l k r k
Sum of squares for wells:
2 ,
k r v r k
. f i r •2C.
k
T = r ^ Cxi x )2
J. *• F / ^ A«J — Jt.* /
Sum of squares for random deviations:
E - G- - R - T
134
-------
Diagram of Variance Analysis
Number
of
Degrees
of
Freedom
Sum
of
squares
Average
square
Expected F
values of ave- cal.
rage squares
Wells
k-1
T
2
Measure- _ R /.
I— -L -K Om •" H v-
ments R r-1
r , .2 2
' 2 £l U R
r-1 S2
Random ( } ( -
deviation x ' ^
(r-1) (k-1)
Total
rk-1
The hypothesis H = /a. - p.^ - M? = ... = M . regarding the identity
of averages for measurements in time is tested and disproved using
the F Test.
S2T
cal.
is compared with the value read from the table
of F distribution for V.. = k-1, V, •- (k-l) (r-l)
degrees of freedom and the adopted significance
levelO< .
If:
cal.
F - we refuse the hypothesis H ,
J. f^j3 JL O
F ^ F
cal. < TAB1 - no basis to refuse H .
o
The hypothesis H - ^ .
for wells is checked in th
= 17 „ Sa<" = t7ic' about identity of averages
e same manner.
The t - Duncan test can also be used to examine the significance of
differences between averages. In order to compare a group of averages
I x.-.'t , i » 1, ... r, (each is determined from k replications) it is
necessary to calculate:
Standard deviation of averages' difference:
135
-------
Empirical value of maximum difference of averages:
max
ri • j
- mm
Limiting value of r averages' difference for the significance level
D
where: to^ is a value of the t - Duncan test for r averages
and the number of degree of freedom of the determined
standard deviation S and significance level ^ .
The t - Duncan test enables the determination of groups of averages
which are not significantly different from each other, and which include
m < r elements. In order to calculate limiting differences it is necessary
to take the correct value of t^ m from the t-Duncan distribution
tables.
DISCUSSION OF CALCULATION RESULTS
Basic statistical analysis and variance analysis were performed for
three pollutants: TDS, Cl and SO Calculations were based on data
from 86 series of measurements on samples from 11 wells. Because of
the lack of some data only 72 complete series of samples (for all
11 wells) were used for the variance analysis. Results of the calcula-
tions are- included. The averages of data are presented on diagrams.
All hypotheses were verified at a significance level » 0.05. Variance
analysis of the three pollutants showed that differences between wells
and differences between measurements are statistically significant.
Results of the F Test are as follows:
Name
of
pollutant
TDS
Cl
so.
F
cal
31.1
21.62
41.14
For wells
F
tabl.
1.845
1.845
1.845
For measurements
signifi-
cance
X
X
X
F
^cal.
5.89
7.737
6.88
F
tabl.
1.31
1.31
1.31
signifi-
cance
X
X
X
136
-------
Application of the t-Duncan test to form homogenous groups of the
wells' averages gave the following results:
Name of G-roup I Group II G-roup III Group IV Group V
pollutant (Well No.) (Well No.) (Well No.) (Well No.) (Well No.)
TDS
Cl
8
8
7
5,7,10,
13,9
5,10,9,13
14,3
14,3
1,2
1,2,6
6
7,8 10,5 9,13 14,6,3 1,2
i
Based on the above data it may be assumed that the lowest levels
of each tested component were observed in well 7 or 8. The highest
concentrations of these pollutants were observed in wells 1, 2 and 6.
Because of the larger number of measurement averages it was difficult
to group wells. Therefore, measurement averages were grouped accor-
ding to the year of the test.
The hypothesis concerning homogeneity of averages, for measure-
ments taken in one year periods, was verified. The results are given
in Table 10-1. In light of the data presented in Table 10-1 the null
hypothesis was rejected. Application of the t-Duncan test to verify the
significance of the maximum difference between averages of all years
cannot be the basis for rejecting the homogeneity hypothesis for that
group of averages. Maximum averages do not form a homogenous group
in statistical meaning. The range of pollutant level variability increases
significantly as time passes.
Averages by one year periods were determined for each well.
Values of these averages with a 95 percent confidence interval are
presented in Figures 10-1 to 10-3. Results^ of testing the significance of
maximum differences between one year averages for the five-year period,
for each well and for all wells, are detailed in Tables 10-2 to 10-4.
From these data, one may conclude that no significant differences
between the five yearly averages (1975 through 1979) exist in wells:
7, 8, 9 for TDS
7, 8 for Cl
8 for SO .
In the remaining wells, average concentrations increase every year,
and the differences are statistically significant. The average concentra-
tions from all wells by a yearly period, also increases significantly.
The greatest differences are observed between yearly averages in
wells 1, 2 and 6. These increases in levels of pollutants may also be
expressed as percentage increases as compared to levels found in
1975. These percentage ratios are also presented in Tables 10-2 to
10-4.
Statistical analysis of TDS, Cl and SO concentrations indicated
that:
137
-------
- there are statistically significant increases of pollutant concentrations
during successive years of disposal operations;
- in some wells within the disposal influence zone, no significant
differences were observed, and;
- statistically significant interrelationships exist between the pollutants'
content increase and the location of the well.
It may be concluded that the average increases in TDS, Cl and
SO , estimated by statistical methods, were caused by the disposal
operations, which confirms the expectation. The areas of greatest influ-
ence were located in the vicinity of wells 1, 2 and 6. It should be
remembered that these conclusions are based on statistical methodology
with a 95 % level of confidence. Additional study is necessary to raise
the hypothesis to the range of a thesis.
CONCLUSIONS
Application of statistical methods in preparing and analyzing of
pollutants' concentration is obligatory in investigating coal wastes
disposal effect on groundwater quality. These methodologies enable:
- the correct calculation of average values of pollutant content,
- the determination of the statistical significance of observed changes
and their quantitative evaluation, and
the collection of justifiable conclusions to the investigated problem.
Conclusions obtained from the statistical analysis would be more
complete if there were a control group of measurements made prior to
disposal operations. These methods of data estimation should be com-
pleted with the analysis of time sequences. This would allow an esti-
mate of trends of the pollution and the determination of periodic fluctu-
ations.
138
-------
Table 10-1
Analyses of Null Hypotheses Related to Averages
for Measuring with t - Duncan Test
Ho : xi " x
, where i = 1, ..., 5
H : x . (75) - x . (76) => x . (77) = x . (78) = x . (79)
o mmv ' mm^ ' rmnx ' rrunv ' x J
H + x (75) - x (76) - x (77) - x (78) - x (79)
o max N ' max ^ ' max max v ' max '
Name of
characte-
ristic
TDS^
ci M
so4M
TDS ( 2 )
Cl ^2^
S04(2)
max.
min.
Diffe-
rences
max.
min.
Diffe-
rences
max.
min.
Diffe-
rences
1975
212.09
117.18
94.91
x
18.91
13.41
5.49
67.13
33.36
33.77
1976
287.45
138.00
149.45
x
23.64
13.54
10.10
83.82
37.64
46.19
x
1977
320.73
171.91
148.82
x
31.64
20.64
11.00
71.20
49.04
22.16
192.77-117.18 = 75.59
18.08-13.41 - 4.67
56.67-33.36 - 23.31
1978
314.73
178.73
136.00
x
44.60
21.64
22.96
x
127.64
49.18
78.46
x
1979
366.92
192.77
174.15
x
51.15
18.08
33.07
x
147.15
56.67
9O.55
x
SD • 36.69
D gr(l7)=88.79
D gr(5) -79,97
SD = 4.87
D gr(l7)-11.78
D gr(5) = 10.62
SD - 16.04
Dgr(l7) =38.8
D gr (5) - 34.96
366.92-212.09 - 153.83
Tf
51.15- 18.91 = 32.24
x
147.15- 67.13 = 80.02
x
1 - Differences are compared with D (l7). _
2 - Differences are compared with D (5).
x - Differences statistically significant.
Each average is calculated from 11 data points.
139
-------
H
*>
O
no
*»
ttiO
MO
StO
S»
WO
wo
4tO
UO
<4O
«x>
MO
MO
BO
XX)
2*0
220
20O
no
160
h.0
UO
100
80
6O
1.0
2O
mg/<
1*71
I97t
1977
1976
197$
Knr
J
1
t
1 •
,|
r
[1
1
P
fi
|
- .
JJ IWfiy oml«M tor w«* in Ih* given y«*r
7S
l_ 95 % confidence mlenal o( *v«r*g* lor t« given weH
l»7i A«r«9e conHnt o< IDS m *ll weii in !»>• gven yew
t
r
1
ki
1 j
1
1
1
|i
L|
[P
1
t
1 I
|(
1 S79
1978
1977
1976
. 97}
° r«* 197576777379 87576777979 B7576777879 B75W7TB79 I97576777ar79 1975*777879 B7iT677T879 t97$76T>7»79 WTSTiTTTaTS B757677H7J 67576777879 w
Well t Well 2 Well 3 Well 5 Well 6 Well 7 Well 8 Well 9 Well 10 Well 13 Well V.
Fig.10-1.The diagram of average IDS content in particular wells.
-------
fl
Average content for weU in (he given year
95* confidence interval of average for the given well
Average content
197576777879
Well 13
875 % 7778 79 w
Well K.
Fig.10-2Jhe diagram of average Cl content in particular wells
-------
xx>
290
00
270
AO
250
2«>
230
220
21O
200
ISO
no
no
ISO
IX)
GO
1IO
too
90
SO
70
to
SO
HO
XI
w
o
•••H"
1979
UTS .
i
•
J
t
1
II Average content
for well n the- given year
-L_ 96% confidence interval of average for the given w«U
4
,1
n
I97i Average content
1
1
f"
t
1
I
A n
i
fe
L
1
i
hi
i1
of SCX m all wells m the given year
4
9
f
r
,1
y, ii
* j -
i
ri
I
1
it
i" "
1979
an,
I9«
(t.r 197576777879 197576777879 197576777879 197571777879 »7S*777879 B7576777B79 I97ST6777879 197576777879 197576777879 197576777879 1975 76777879 (NT
Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 5 Well 6 Well? Well 8 Well 9 Well 10 We III 3 Well K.
Fig,10-3Jhe diagram of average S04 content in particular wells.
-------
Table 10-2. Average Content'of IDS (in mg/dm3)"and"Dynamics of Percentage
Increase as Compared to 1975
Number
of well
1
2
3
5
6
7
a
9
10
13
14
Average
—
1975
153.13
100
167.06
100
177.18
100
130.88
100
142.41
100
140.35
100
115.35
100
209.94
100
141.00
100
170.5
100
188.53
100
157.37
100
1976
180.61
118
218.00
130
182.78
103
165.05
126
180.28
127
136.94
98
108.33
94
231.50
113
195.61
139
180.88
106
205. OO
109
179.94
114
1977
226.88
148
267.23
160
211.47
119
167.88
128
432.65
304
132.23
94
98.23
85
183.82
90
211.59
150
217.00
127
237.77
126
216.98
138
1978
356.92
233
398,59
239
320.23
181
230.82
176
357.29
251
125.41
89
109.65
95
191.53
93
196.23
139
221.25
130
237.65
126
247.40
157
1979
511.6
334
412.59
247
394.00
222
261.29
200
383.06
267
175.25
125
123.41
107
231.41
113
192.47
136
252.62
148
303.76
161
293.19
186
Maximum
difference
358.47
X
245.54
X
216.82
X
130.41
X
290.24
X
49.84
25.18
47.68
70.59
X
82.12
X
115.23
X
135.82
X
S (difference of averages for wells) » 29.5
Dgr (5) - 64.3
S_ (difference of 1 year averages) * 8.97
Dgr (5) . 19.55
143
-------
Table 10-3. Average Cl Content (in mg/dm3) and Dynamics of Percentage
Increase.-as-Compared ta.JL975 . . _..
Number '
of well
1
2
3
5
6
7
a
9
10
13
14
Average
1
1975
14.87
100"
12.36
100
18.60
100
11.98
100
16.94
100
17.26
100
12.44
100
17.49
100
18.15
100
14.56
100
19.14
100
15.82
100
1976
18.36
123
14.78
120
15.86
85
12.11
101
19.64
116
17.69
102
14.25
114
18.86
108
18.55
102
17.05
117
18.47
97
16.9
107
1977
20.29
136
38.0
307
24.23
130
17.47
146
49.38
291
18.12
105
14.71
118
25.41
145
21.59
119
20.25
139
29.35
153
27.4
173
1978
45.54
306
48.65
394
42.88
230
27.65
231
54.18
320
19.76
114
16.47
132
27.47
157
27.53
152
27.69
190
31.0
162
33.3
210
1979
60.6
407
49.41
400
42.65
229
31.41
262
49.35
291
22.75
132
14.12
113
26.94
154
22.23
122
29.0
199
35.0
183
34.68
219
Maximum
difference
45.73
X
37.05
X
26.79
X
19.43
X
37.24
X
5.49
4.03
9.98
X
9.38
X
14.44
X
16.53
X
18.86
X
SD (wells) » 3.92
S (average) - 1.18
Dgr(5) = 8.54
D (5) . 2.58
144
-------
Table 10-4.
Average SO^ Content (in nig/dm3) and Dynamics of Percentage
Increase as Con5ared_to J_97_5
Number
of well
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
Average
.
1975
66.97
100
66.32
100
59.38
100
44.56
100
34.17
100
23.41
100
j
35.76
100
68.96
100
34.74
100
51.72
100
54.63
100
48.94
100
1976
68.92
103
78.09
118
51.21
86
42.70
96
39.14
114
15.36
66
22.24
62
65.73
95
51.09
147
60.07
116
59.52
109
50.08
102
1977
89.87
134
79.69
120
64.02
108
50.47
113
99.17
290
12.77
54
>25.4
71
39.41
57
38.64
111
70.11
135
68.61
126
57.95
118
19-78- -
145.46
217
168.65
254
119.47
201
82.0
184
94.53
277
16.41
70
29.82
83
52.47
76
54.65
157
73.37
142
72.82
133
87.37
166
- 1979-
228.6
341
186.53
281
157.29
265
95.76
215
125.94
369
46.06
197
29.0
81
86.12
125
62.12
179
91.94
178
109.88
225
110.0
225
Maximum i
difference
161.63
X
120.21
X
106.01
X
53.06
X
91.77
X
33.29
X
13.52
X
46.71
X
27.38
40.22
X
55.25
X
61.06
X
SD (wells) - 12.9
SD (average) - 3.9
28.13
8.5
145
-------
0.
mg/dm'
LAB LEACHAFE
ring/dm1
DRINKING WATER STANOARC
MIN
MIN
6 8 DC «.16l820i22l.S2e30J23i.56MU)UU.Ut«50S2Si.S65a6O626l.646tlX)77**78«OCW.ei;j time
t9?S I 19Tfc I 1977 1918 I 1979
MA»
X^v concentration n laboratory leachate
X^V average values of designations
| 95 percent confidence interval
for average values
average value ci the year
!*&• minimum for (he year
™^- maaimum for the year
1-86 samplings
Fig.10-4.The average IDS content.
-------
300
LAB LEACHATE
DnnkinQ water
mg/dm1
2l.6ltOI2U.16
1975
1976 | 1977 1978
Fig.10-5.The average Cl content
I979
/*••, concentration « laboratory leachate
x^\ average values of designations
4 9S°A> percent confidence interval
< for average values
-— average value « the year
£Sfl- minimum for the year
^^ maximum for the year
l 96 samplings
-------
H
t£
00
B2u22a.ft2*X>32X *38U3«U.t64gSO
1976 1977 1978
concentration in laboratory leachate
values of de&tgndttons
| 95 "to percent confidence interval
(or avenge values
«
- average value in the year
££!• minimum (or the year
^^ mammum for the year
t-<6 samplings
Fig.10-6.The average S04 content
-------
APPENDICES
149
-------
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF GLASS COLUMN TESTS
150
-------
Table A-l. The Results of Coal Refuse
Laboratory Leachates Analyses
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
*j.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43,
Determination
Smell
Initial turbidity-
Turbidity after 3 centrifugings
Conductivity
PH
Hardness
Basicity
Acidity .
Oxygen demand
Oxygen demand-organic
Dry residue
TDS
Mineral dissolved substances
Volatile dissolved substances
Cl
so4
%o3
"NO,
NNH4
N album me
P04
CM free
Phenols
Pe total
Pe*+
Pe**+
Mn
Ca
Ma
Na
K
Al
Cr
A3
Pb
Cu
Zn
Ha
3r
sio2
B
Mo
Cd
Unit
mg/dm 02
uS
german
grade
m val/dm
m val/dm"
mgjfclm3 0^
^ng/dm 0_
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
. • -3
me/ dm
mtj/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm3
me/dm3
mtl/dm3
me/ dm3
me/dm3
m(3/dm
msj/dm
mft/dm
mft/dm
mg/dm
ma/dm
maj dm
ma/dm
mg/dm
ma/dm3
ma/ dm
ms^/dm
us/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
ms/dm
Sample No. 1
3i
z^a
.
700
1300
7.6
0.80
1.9
O..S2
0.5
20.6
-
705
523
32
286
58
^.1
0.035
0,69
0.37
0.038
0.007
0.400
0.530
0.030
O.5OO
0.100
10
0.330
217
9
0.005
0.010
OjOlO
0.016
0.031
0.175
2.0
0.020
2,1
0.410
0.014
0.002
S2
z2s
5900
260
540
7.6
0,65
1,9
0,16
0,5
5,4
-
960
797
163
105
37
0,99
0.040
0,14
_
0,322
0.008
0,560
1.525
O.S80
0.645
O.J.OO
10
0.780
137
5
1.40
0.006
0.008
0,SOO
0.038
29,25
0,4
0.040
-
0.023
0.011
0.023
''3
z2s
8600
-
720
7.9
-
_
„
-
-
5491
1348
1078
270
78
27
-
-
„
-
.
_
_
_
,
_
12
1.40
164
6
1.75
_
-
.
.
.
.
-
.
_
-
Sample No. 2
Sl
zls
20200
-
900
7.7
0.75
1.95
0.20
1.1
4.8
5799
2005
18O7
198
55
281
2.5
o.ooi
0.62
_
1.0
0,016
0.230
2.225
1.680
0.54
0.165
11
1.55
216
10
4.',/'
0.012
0.020
0.042
0,043
3.750
0.6
0.035
0.6
0.019
0.004
0.005
S2
z2a
1480O
-
4iO
7.3
0,65
2.25
0.10
-
-
10383
1480
1319
161
7
39
o.as
0.054
-
,
0.358
0,015
0.005
0.775
0.332
0,44
0.29O
14
1.45
117
6
2.50
0,009
0.010
O.026
0.033
0.145
0,5
0.050
0,5
0.012
0.003
0.001
151
-------
Table A-2,
The Results of Coal Refuse
Laboratory Leachates Analyses
Oct. 5, 1976
No
1
2
3
4.
3.
6.
7.
9.
9
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
IS.
16.
17.
IS.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
2S.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
33,
36.
37.
38.
39,
40.
Del erminat ion
SmijJl
Conductivity
PH
Hardn««B
Ba»lclty
Acidity
T.D.S.
T.D.lMln.
T.D.V.
C.C.D. in.t.
C.O.D. org.
Cl
so4
NNOS
NNO2
NNH*
N alb.
P«4
CN
Ph«nol»
3102
P« total
P.**
P.***
Mn
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Al
Cr
A»
Pb
Cu
Zn
Sr
Cd
Mo
a
Ha
Unit
uS /cm
PH
grade*
mvaJ/dm
mvai/dm
""S/dm3
n»g/dm
T.g/dm3 -
mg/dm3 °z
iia/dm3 02
mg/dm
Tig/ dm
mg/dm
mg/dm3
"<9/ dm3
"18/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/ dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/ dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm3
mg/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm
•ng/dm3
"•g/dm
mg/dm
ugi/ dm
Leaching no.
Sl
z2s
10 3O
8.05
3.1
2.3
0.2
1441
4O9
1032
1.6
3,8
148
198
3.02
0,016
0,12
O.SO
0,046
0,001
O.OO2
0,8
0,35
-
-
0.06S
3,8
5.75
262,5
12,8
9^
0,OO9
0,013
0,O4O
0,043
0,079
O.OSO
0,013
O.OO2
0.08O
2.3
S2
zla
5 BO
8.0
0.9
2.0
0.1
952
321
531
2.8
2.8
44
1O
O.JO
0.015
0,21
0.37
0,096
0,001
O.OO3
3.9
14. 9O
-
-
0,400
10.0
11,00
38.5
5,7
7.4
0,013
0,0 14
0,053
0,095
0.205
0,015
0,051
O.OO6
0,045
2.4
^
~3
zls
340
7,3
0.3
0,3 *
O,05
317
107
220
0,8
1,6
3
5
0.61
O.O06
0.16
0.52
O.162
O.OO1
O.OO6
S.I
20.40
-
-
0. 375
6.4
5.10
36.0
8.3
57.0
0.014
0,022
0.100
0.1OO
0.09O
0,065
O.OO7
O.OO1
0,025
2.2
152
-------
Table A-3.
The Results of Coal Refuse
Laboratory Leachates Analyses
Feb. 8,
N'
1
«
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
J3
i ;
ie.
17.
18.
19.
2O.
21.
22.
23.
21.
25.
2 ft.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
,9>
4O.
Det erminat Ion
Smell
Conduct ivtty
pH
Ho.rdne«a
Basicity
Acidity
T.D.S.
T.D.Min.
T.D.V.
C.C.D. ln»t.
C..O.D. org.
Cl
so4
NNQ3
NN02
NNH4
N alb.
P04
CN
Phenol*
S10.J
Pe total
P.**
P*++*
Mn
Ca
MS
Na
K
Al
Cr
A* .
Ph
Cu
Zn
Sr
Cd
Mo
B
Hg
Unit
(.
-------
Table A-4.
The Results of Coal Refuse
Laboratory Leachates Analyses
May 27, 1977
Ni
1
2
3
4.
5,
s.
7.
9.
9
10
11.
12,
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
SO.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40,
Determination
Smell
Conductivity
pH
Hardness
Basicity
Acidity
T.D.S.
T.D.Min.
T.D.V.
C.C.O. Inst.
C.O.D. org.
Cl
504
NNO3
NN02
NNH4
M olfc.
P04
CN
Phenols
Si02
Ps total
Fe+*
Fe***
Mn
Ca
M8
No
K
Al
Cr
As
Pb
Cu
Zn
Sr
Cd
Vo
8
HS
Unit
j.,S /cm
PH
grades
mvai/ cim
mvai/ dm3
•"g/dm3
i-g/dm3
T,g/ dm3
tng/dm3 °2
•ng/dm3 Oj
mg/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm3
™g/dm3
•ng/dm3
^ig/dm3
'ngydm3
mg/dm
mg/dm3
"8/dm3
mg/dm3
mg/dm
-------
Table A-5.
The Results of Coal Refuse
Laboratory Leachates Analyses
S«pt. 27. 1977
No
1
2
3
4
3
6
7
8
9
1O
11
12
13
14
15.
16.
17.
13.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
33.
36.
37.
38.
39.
to.
Det erminat Ion
Smell
Conduct ivity
PH
Hafdnesa
' BMicity
Acidity
T.D.S.
T.D.Min.
T.D.V.
C.C.D. Inat.
C.O.D, org.
Cl
so4
NNOa
NN02
NNH4
N alb.
P04
CM
Phenols
310 2
Fe total
Fe**» '
P.*+
Mn
Ca
MS
Na
K
Al
Cr
Aa
Pb
Cu
Zn
Hg
Sr
C4
Mo
a
Unit
A-S
PK
gradas
mvaJ/dm3
mvai/dm
tig/dm3
rrg/dm
ir.g/dm
mg/dm3 °2
mg&m3 02
mg/dm
^iQ/dm
n>9/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dtn3
mg/dm3
ms/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm3
n>*'dm3
ma/dMJ
™g/d.n3
!"«/Jm3
me/ elm3
ma' dm3
mij/dm3
mg/dm
ma/dm3
mg/dm
mg/ dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm3
/US/dm3
•ng/dm3
n'S/dm3
mg/dm
• 8/dm3
Leaching no.
51
Il»
aso
a. 55
0.3
2.0
-
738
706
J2
1.2
2,8
120
87
2.42
0,174
1,87
0,08
0.64
0.031
0.005
7.0
8,00
0,95
S.05
0.200
2,»
0.10
23,5
7,2
3.20
O.OO7
0,045
0.05O
0,018
0,445
J.o
0.060
0,005
0,013
0.430
c:
~2
XI*
8OO
8,45
0,5
2.8
-
270
268
2
1.1
2.3
26
48
0.54
0,046
0.09
0.16
1,26
0,029
0,003
6,0
8.90^
4.30
4.80
0,289
2.0
0.17
11.0
5.0
5.2S
io.ooa
o.oso
0,100
0,018
0.385
2.0
0,060
0,003
0.225
0,225
<^
~3
XI •
350
8,9
0.8
J,2
-
262
262
0
1.1
2.8
14
46
0.52
0.035
Z.5
0.45
1.24
O.OO6
0.002
6.8
11.2O
6.35
4,85
0.275
2.8
0.15
10,0
4.7
7.75
0.002
0,082
0,059
0,020
0,260
1,5
0,060
0.002
O.14O
0.140
T«bl» 1
155
-------
Table A-6.
The Results of Coal Refuse
Laboratory Leachates Analyses
F«b. 2. 1978
No
1
2
J,
4.
5.
5.
7.
3.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
1*.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
36.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Det ermtnai ion
Sm*ll
Conductivity
pH
Hardnevs
Basicity
Acidity
T.D.S.
T.D.IViin.
T.D.V.
C.C.D. inst.
C.O.D. orq.
Cl
304
NNOa
NN02
NNH4
N alb.
P04
CM
Phenols
SIO2
P« total
Pe**
F.**+
Mn
Ca
MS
Na
K
Al
Cr
As
Pb
Cu
Zn
Sr
Cd
Mo
B
"a
Unit
pS
pH
grades
nrvai/ dm
mval/dm
•ng/dm3
'ng/dm3
T.g/dm
ing/dm 3 °2
•natim3 °2
mg/dm
mg/ dm
^ft/dm
mg/dm
mg/dni
•ng/dm3
ms/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm
Tig/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm3
•ng/ dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm
mg/ dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm
•ng/dm3
rrg/dm
mg/dm3
Mg/dm
Leaching no.
5i
n •
1080
9.0
1.4
3.6
0.1
8 SO
822
228
0.5
2.S
92
141
5.34
0.124
1.20
0.12
0.034
-
0.005
2.4
5.90
1.15
4.75
0.135
14.2
8,0
187
9.8
8.7
0.032
0.050
0.040
0,089
0.310
O.O97
O.OO3
0.015
1.67
5.0
32
XI •
540
9.6
0.8
3.4
0.1
488
316
172
0.4
2.0
38
44
0,99
0,098
1.87
0,15
0.022
-
0.002
1.3
11.00
1.85
9.35
0.305
8.3
4.8
88
9.2
18,0
0.024
0.05O
0.080
0.110
0.280
0.188
O.OO5
0.010
1.32
2.5
<£
~3
Zl«
4OO
9.9
0.8
2.0
0.1
325
2O8
117
0.4
1.9
38
15
0.36
0.120
0.48
0,15
0.012
-
O.OO5
2.5
1O.OO
0.18
9.84
0.325
8,3
2.8
48
8.3
11.8
0,033
0.021
0.075
0.100
0,260
0.172
0.003
0.004
0.61
2.5
T«bl« 2
156
-------
Table A-7. The Results of Coal Refuse
Laboratory Leachates /Analyses
Jun. 7, 1978
Ni
J
2
3.
4.
5.
6,
7.
a.
9
10
LI
12.
13.
14.
15.
1".
17.
18.
19.
2O.
il.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
DctermiriaC [on
Smelt
Conduct ivity
PH
Ha.rdneas
- Basicity
Acidity
T.D.S.
r.D.Min.
T.D.V.
C.C.D. inst.
C.O.D. org.
Cl
S04
NNO3
NN02
NNH4
N alb.
P°4
CN
Ph*noi»
SiO2
Fe total
P.**
Pe***
Mn
Ca
IVg
No
K
Al
Cl-
AB
Pb
Cu
Zn
Sr
Cd
Mo
B
HB
' .'nit
j.tS
PH
grades
mval/dfn
mval/dm
•ng/dm3
-g/dm3
T.g/dm3
(ng/dm3 °2
rng/dm 02
mg/dfn
•ng/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/ dm
mg/dm
mg/dm3
mS/dm3
mg/dm3
tig/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/ dm
mg/ dm
mg/ dm3
mg/dm 3
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm
.,../dm3
mg/dm3
"g/dm3
mo/dm
mg/dm3
/J«/dm3
benching no.
'"'l
Il«
aio
9.2
0.8
4.8
-
850
470
ISO
0.2
2.2
95
91
0.200
4.78
0.63
0.15
0.036
O.OO4
0.003
1.9
26.20
0.02
26.18
0.095
5.7
3.2
186.0
8.7
2.8
0.013
0.07*
0,015
O.OXO
0.5OO
0.200
0.003
-
0,485
*.o
c;
~2
Zl*
too
9.6
2.0
1.2
-
302
218
84
0.2
2,2
87
20
0,176
0,86
0.48
0.13
0.010
0.003
0.003
1.8
4.50
o.na
4.44
0,087
7.1
6.3
S8.2
«.7
2.8
O.OO9
0,016
0,025
0.025
0.84O
0.105
0.002
-
0.445
2.0
^3
Zl»
200
9.8
2.4
1.1
-
170
130
4O
0,1
1.9
36
16
0.164
o.oa
0.28
0.12
0.008
0.003
0.005
2.0
2,70
0.12
2.58
0,070
11.4
6.4
41.3
3.5
2,2
0.010
0.036
0.05O
0,010
0.650
0.060
0,002
-
0.340
1.7
T«bl» 3
157
-------
Table A-8. The Results of Coal Refuse
Laboratory Leachates Analyses
No
1
2
3.
4.
s.
6.
7.
a.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
29.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Oct. 11, .J.978
Determination
Smell
Conductivity
pH
Hardneee
• Basicity
Acidity
T.D.S.
T.D.Mln.
T.D.V.
C.C.D. In. I.
C.O.O. org.
Cl
so.
NNO3
NN02
NNH4
N alb.
P04
CN
Phenol*
SIO2
Pe total
P.**
P.***
Mn
Ca
M-8
N«
K
Al
Cr
A«
Pb
Cu
Zn
Sr
Cd
Mo
e
Hg
Unit
MS
pH
grade*
mval/dm
mval/dm
mg/ dm
rrg/dm
mg/dm3
•ng/dm 3 °2
mg/dm3 02
mg/ dm
fna/dmS
mg/dm
mg/dm
"Mi/dm3
'ng/dm
mg/dm
mgfem3
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm3
mg/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm3
iig/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
pg/dm3
Leaching no.
si
zlS
275
8.1
1.2
2.8
.
288
204
34
2.4
.
49
33
0.007
0.45
cuo
0.18
1.021
0,019
0.003
1.4
1.19
0.05
1,14
0,067
S, 6
0
65,0
2.8
3.25
0.008
O.O02
0.028
.O.O23
0,250
0.017
0.006
0,002
0,260
1.5.
S2
ZlS
171
8.5
0,6
2,25
.
154"
96
58
2.0
.
a
9
0,013
0,07
0.15
0,20
0,310
O.OO6
0.003
2.0
1.49
0,30
M9
0.043
3,6
1.0
20,5
0.8
2.75
0,017
0,005
0,003
O.OO8
0,065
O.O10
0.002
0,001
0,150
1.0
IS
~3
zlS
54
7.5
0.4
1.7
.
106
32
24
1,6
„
7
3
0,007
0,05
0.09
0.1O
0,5 OO
0,003
0,003
3.1
0,94
0.19
0.75
0,022
2.1
1.0
14,5
0.5
5.0O
0,005
0,001
0,003
O.O03
O.O45
0,010
0,001
O.OOO
0,1 3O
0.5
158
-------
Table A-9. The Results of Coal Refuse
Laboratory Leachates Analyses
Mar. 2, 1979
Ml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3.
9
10
11
12.
13.
1*.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19,
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
3O.
31.
32.
33.
34.
33.
30.
37.
38.
39.
to.
Det erminat Ion
Sm«?ll
Conductivity
pH
Ha.rdne«B
Basicity
Acidity
T.D.S.
T.D.MIn.
T.D.V.
C.C.D, ln»t.
C.O.D. org.
Cl
S04
NNO3
NNO2
NNH4
N alb.
P04
CM
Phenol*
SIOj
F» tolol
P.**
P.***
Mn
Ca.
Mg
Na '
K
Al
Cr
A*
Pb
Cu
Zn
Sr
Cd
Mo
B
Hg
Unit
t'S
PH
grades
mval/dm
mvaJ/dm
tig/dm3
. rr-g/dm3
T.g/dm3
ma/dm Og
Tig/dm1 0
tig/dm
m^/dm
iigydm
mg/dm3
tig/dm3
tig/ dm3
mg/ dm3
-us/dm3
-ng/dm3
mg/dm3
mg/dm3
«8/dm3
rng/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm3
iig/dm
mg/dm
„/ . 3
"iq/ fjti
mg/tlm3
ma/ dm3
m|4/ dm
mg/dm3
mg/ dm
ma/dm3
mg/dm3
•n a/dm3
mg/dm3
mg/ dm
ua/.4
0,002
0,016
O.OS5 .
0,0 SO
0.285
0,020
0,003
0,003
0,270
0,2
159
-------
Table A-10. The Results of Coal Refuse
Laboratory Leachates Analyses
Aug. 21, 1979
No
J
2
3
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9
10
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
IB.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
23.
26.
27.
28.
29.
3O.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
30.
37.
38.
39.
to.
D«?t ermlnat Inn
Sm«U
Conductivity
PH
Hardn***
Baa Icily
Acidity
T.D.S.
T.D.Niln.
T.D.V.
C.C.D. in»l.
C.O.O. org.
Cl
504
NNO3
NN02
NNH4
N alb.
P04
CN
Ph«nol»
3102
F« total
P.**
P.***
Mn
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Al
Cr
A.
Pb
Cu
Zn
Sr
ca
Mo
Q.
na
Unit
US
pH
grades
mval/dm
(rival/ dm
•ng/dm3
T»g/dm
T.g/dm3
TO;/ dm3 0S
mg/dm3 02
™g/dm3
•"iS/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm3
mg/dm3
. •ng/dm3
mg/dm3
mg/dm
mg/dm
mg/dm
">B/dm3
rng/dm
mft/dm3
mq/dm3
ma/ dm3
moi/ dm3
mtj dm
ma/dm
-------
APPENDIX
COMPUTER PRINT-OUTS OF STATISTICAL
COMPUTATIONS
161
-------
POLLUTING FACTORS TDS
UNIT: HG/L
MONITORING WELLS: 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14
LIMITING DATESt 10 12 74 20 12 79
NUMBER OF WELLS' 11
NUMBER OF MEASUKMENTSi 72
NUMBER OF
VARIATION DEGREES SUM OF SQUARES MEAN SQUARE
OF FREEDOM
H
O>
to
WELLS
MEASURMENTS
DEVIATION
TOTAL
10
71
710
791
. 230349070458984D
.309797472753906D
.5255628022460940
.106570934545898D
07 .230349070457464E 06
07 .43633446866S080E 05
07 .740229298937151E 04
08
F EMPIRICAL
.311186102451728E
.589458522235446E
02
01
STANDARD DEVIATION OF TOTAL MEAN 3.05718
STANDARD DEVIATION OF MEAN FOR WELLS 10.13951
STANDARD DEVIATION OF MEAN FOR MEASURMENTS 25.94100
STANDARD MEASURMENT DIFFERENCE ERROR 121.67410
STANDARD MEAN DIFFERENCE ERROR FOR WELLS 14.33943
STANDARD MEAN DIFFERENCE ERROR FOR MEASURMENTS 36.68612
-------
PUU.UT1NQ FACTOR: IDS
UNITi H6/L
H
O>
CJ
ORB. UELL
1
2
3
4
5
4
7 ,
a •
9
10
11
LIMIT
8
7
5
1O
9
13
14
3
1
2
4
110.4028
141.5278
178.4147
188.9304
205.7500
204.8054
233.9147
244.4250
247.4528
281.2439
284.5417
DIFFERENCES
EMPIRICAL DIFFERENCES
K-2
31.1230
34.8889
10.5139
14.8194
1.0554
27.1111
10.7083
23.0278
13.4111
5.2778
28.10S3
K-3
48.0139
47.4028
27.3333
17.8750
28.1447
37.3194
33.7341
34.4389
18.8889
29.5392
K-4
78.5278
44.2222
28.3889
44.9841
38.8750
40.8472
47.3472
41.9147
30.5430
K-S
95.3472
45.2778
55.5000
55.4944
41.9028
74.4583
52.4250
31.2400
OF K
MEANS
K-4 K«7
94.
92.
44.
78.
75.
79.
31.
4028
3889
2083
7222
5139
7341
8335
123.
103.
89,
92.
80.
32.
.5139
.0972
.2341
.3333
.7917
.4071
*=8 K-9 K-10 K-ll
134.2222 157.2500 170. B6U 174.138V
124.1250 139.7341 145.0139
102.8472 108:1250
97.4111
32.8373 33.1241 33.4109 33.424O
-------
POLLUTING FACTOR! CL-
UNITJ MG/L
MONITORING UELLS: 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 V 10 13 14
LIMITING DATES». 10 12 74 20 12 79
NUMBER OF WELLS« 11
NUMBER OF MEASURMENTSs 72
NUMBER OF
VARIATION DEGREES SUM OF SQUARES
OF FREEDOM
UELLS
MEASURMENTS
DEVIATION
TOTAL
10
71
710
791
.2820307S124S287D
.716712698822021D
.92A363794195387D
.19251Q724426270D
OS
OS
OS
06
MEAN SQUARE F EMPIRICAL
.282030751243169E 04 .216158958973792E
.100945450S37636E 04 . 773683841392625E
.130473773829635E 03
02
01
STANDARD DEVIATION OF TOTAL MEAN 0.40S88
STANDARD DEVIATION OF MEAN FOR UELLS 1.34616
STANDARD DEVIATION OF MEAN FOR HEASURMENTS 3.44402
STANDARD MEASURMENT DIFFERENCE ERROR 16.15387
STANDARD MEAN DIFFERENCE ERROR FOR UELLS 1.90375
STANDARD MEAN DIFFERENCE ERROR FOR MEASURMENTS 4.87058
-------
POLLUTING FACTORi CL-
UNIli HB/L
O»
ORD. WELL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
LIMIT
8
5
7
10
13
9
14
3
1
2
4
14.
18.
18.
21.
21.
22.
25.
27.
29.
30.
36.
7014
8958
9583
2639
3958
4861
7847
8056
4447
4042
O417
DIFFERENCES
K-2
4.1944
0.0625
2. 3056
0.1319
1.0903
3.2986
2.0208
1.8411
0.9375
5.4375
3.7314
K-3
4.2569
2.3681
2.4375
1.2222
4 . 3889
5.3194
3.8819
2.7986
6.3750
3.9217
EMPIRICAL DIFFERENCES OF K
K-4
6.5625
2.5000
3.5278
4.5208
6.4O97
7.1806
4.8194
8.2361
4.0550
K-5
6.6944
3.5903
6.8264
6.5417
8.2708
8.1181
10.2569
4.1502
K-6
7.7847
6.8889
8.8472
8.4028
9.2083
13.5536
4.2263
K
11
8
10
9
14
4
MEANS
-7
.0833
.9097
.7083
.3403
.4458
.3028
K-B K~9 K-10 K-ll
13.1042 14.9653 15.9028 21.3403
10.7708 11.7083 17.1438
11.6458 17.0833
14.7778
4.3596 4.3977 4.4357 4.4643
-------
POLLUTING FACTOR: S04=
UNIT: MG/L
MONITORING WELLS: 1 2 3 5 li 7 8 9 10 13 14
LIMITING DATES* 10 12 74 20 12 79
NUMBER OF WELLSI 11
NUMBER OF MEASURMENTS: 72
NUMBER OF
VARIATION DEGREES SUM OF SQUARES MEAN SQUARE
OF FREEDOM
H
Oi
WELLS
MEASURMENTS
DEVIATION
TOTAL
10
71
710
791
.582095216967265H
.690834879882812D
.100460307935842D
.227753317620850D
06 ' .582095216965683E 05
06 .973006873071113E 04
07 .141493391458666E 04
07
F EMPIRICAL
.411393925161078E
.687669482681627E
02
01
STANDARD DEVIATION OF TOTAL MEAN 1.33661
STANDARD DEVIATION OF MEAN FOR WELLS 4.43304
STANDARD DEVIATION OF MEAN FOR MEASURMENTS 11.34153
STANDARD MEASURMENT DIFFERENCE ERROR 53.19650
STANDARD MEAN DIFFERENCE ERROR FOR WELLS 6.26927
STANDARD MEAN DIFFERENCE ERROR FOR MEASURMENTS 16.03935
-------
POLLUIIMG FACTOR: -SO4=
UNIT I MQ/L
ORD. UELL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
LIMIT
7
8
10
5
9
13
14
6
3
1
2
23.3167
28.4236
48.391?
S9.4986
60.7764
69.1458
73.6736
76.2764
84.61B1
110.4319
110.8347
DIFFERENCES
EMPIRICAL DIFFERENCES OF K I1EANS
K'
S.
19.
11.
1.
8.
4.
2.
8.
25.
0.
12.
2
1069
9681
1069
2778
3694
5278
6028
3417
8139
4028
2878
K-3 K-4 K-5
25.0750
31.0750
12.384?
9.6472
12.8972
7.1306
10.9444
34.1556
26.2167
12.9147
36.1819
32.3528
20.7S42
14.1750
15.5000
15.4722
36.7S83
34.5S83
13.3S3S
37.
40.
25.
16.
23.
41.
37.
13.
4597
7222
2819
7778
8417
2861
1611
6670
K'6
45.8292
4S.2SOO
27.BB47
25.1194
49.6556
41.6889
13.9178
K-7
50.3569
47.8528
36.2264
50.9333
50.0583
14.1685
K-8 K-9 K-10 K-ll
52.9597 61.3014 87.1153 87.5181
56.1944 82.0083 S2.4111
62.0403 62.4431
51.3361
-
14.3566 14.4820 14.6074 14.7014
-------
BOI-PUB
DATE 15/04/80
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MEASUREMENTS FROM
POLLUTING FACTOR - TDS MG/L
12 74 UNTIL
30 12 79
Ch
CD
•UELLS
NO.
I
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
SUM
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
VALUE
NUMB.
MEASUR
MENTS
N(I)
78
84
86
86
86
85
86
86
86
81
85
929
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
VALUE OF
VARIANCE
VARIANCE
OF F-TEST
MEAN
X(I)
278.4487
293.5833
256.2674
190.8837
297.7558
141.5882
110.9651
208.9070
187.4767
208.1111
234:5412
218.4090
POLLUTION
POLLUTION
STANDARD
DEVIATION
S(I)
167.9254
134.4857
137.2331
77.5948
146.6220
71.8862
42.3663
76.2940
82.6974
67.0091
97.7231
120.7798
297
110
MEAN DIFFERENCE - 186
28198
1794
15
CONFIDENCE
HALFINTERVAL
FOR MEAN
D(I)
37.9199
29.2347
29.4731
16.6648
31.4895
15.5319
9.0989
16.3854
17.7607
14.8413
21.1143
7.7668
.755814 UELLS
.965116 UELLS
.790698
.925907 UELLS
.904651 UELLS
.710543
MINIMUM
VALUE
XMIN
100.0000
123.0000
97.0000
80.0000
64.0000
57.0000
58.0000
82.0000
110.0000
90.0000
61.0000
6
8
1
8
MAXIMUM
VALUE
XMAX
884.0000
754.0000
878.0000
538.0000
696.0000
354.0000
261.0000
500.0000
832.0000
470.0000
772.0000
-------
HOI-pun
BATE 15/04/80
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF HEASURHENTS FROM 1 12 74 UNTIL
POLLUTING FACTOR - TDS HG/L
EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTIONS
N(I> - NUMBER OF MEASURMENTS IN THE I-TH CLASS
FMI)- FREOUENCr IN I-TH CLASS
F(I> - CUMULATED FREQUENCY IN I-IH CLASS
30 12 79
H
0>
10
UELLS
NO.
1 N(I>
F'U)
F(I)
2 N(I)
F'
3 N(I>
FMI>
F(I)
5 N
& Nil)
FMI)
FU>
7 N(I)
F'(I)
F
8 N(I)
F'<1)
F(I»
9 N(I>
FMI)
F(I>
10 N
f (I)
F(I)
13 Nil)
F'(I)
f (I)
14 N(I>
FMI)
F
sun N ( I >
FMI)
F(I>
UNDER
100.
0
0.00000
0.00000
0
o.ooooo
o.ooooo
2
0.02326
0.02324
S
0.05814
0.05814
&
0.04977
0.06977
24
0.28235
0.28233
38
0.44186
0.44186
1
0.01163
0.01163
0
0.00000
0.00000
1
0.01235
0.01235
2
0.02353
0.023S3
79
0.08S04
0.08304
FR 100.
TO 200.
34
O.4359O
0.43S90
20
0.23810
0.21810
30
0.34884
0.37209
S3
0. 61628
0.67442
24
0.27907
0.34884
44
0.51745
0.8000O
44
0.31163
0.95349
44
0.31163
0.52326
66
0.76744
0.76744
39
0.48148
0.49383
30
0.35294
0.37647
428
0.46071
0.54575
CLASS
FR 200.
TO 300.
22
0.28205
0.71795
36
0.42857
0.66667
33
0.38372
0.73381
22
0.25581
0.93023
9
0.10465
0.45349
12
0.14118
0.94118
4
0.04651
1 . 00000
32
0.37209
0^9535
17
0.19767
0.96512
32
0.39306
0.88889
38
0.44704
0.82353
257
0.27644
0.82239
I N T 1
FR 300.
TO 40O.
9
O.11S38
0.83333
13
0.15476
0.82143
12
0.13933
0.89535
4
0. 04431
0.97674
27
0.31395
0.76744
5
0.05882
1.00000
0
O.OOOOO
1.00000
5
0.05814
0.93349
2
0.02326
0.98837
7
0.08642
0.97531
11
0.12941
O. 95294
95
0.10226
0.92465
; u v i> L s
FR 400.
TO 500.
3
0.06410
0.89744
7
0.08333
0.90476
4
0.046S1
0.94186
1
0.01163
0.98837
10
0.11628
0.88372
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
O.OOOOO
1.00000
3
0.03488
0.98837
0
0.00000
0.98837
2
O.O2469
1.00000
3
0.03329
0.98824
35
0.03747
0.94233
FR 500.
TO 600.
3
0.03846
0.93590
4
0.04742
0.95236
2
0.02326
0.96512
1
0.01163
1.00000
a
0.09302
0.97674
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
1
0.01163
1.00000
0
0.00000
0.98837
0
0.00000
1 . OOOOO
0
0.00000
0.98824
19
0.02045
0.98278
FR 400.
TO 700.
2
0.02564
0.96154
3
0.03571
0.98810
1
0.01163
0.97674
0
0.00000
1.00000
2
0.02326
1.00000
0
0 . OOOOO
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
o.ooooo
1.00000
0
o.ooooo
0.98837
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
0.98824
8
0.00861
0.99139
FR 70O.
TO BOO.
0
0.00000
0.96154
1
0.01190
1.00000
1
0.01163
0.98837
0
O.OOOOO
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
o.ooooo
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
o.ooooo
1.00000
0
0.00000
0.98837
0
0.00000
1.00000
1
0.01176
1.00000
3
0.00323
0.99442
OVER
800.
3
0.03844
1.00000
0
o.poooo
1.00000
1
0.01143
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
o.ooooo
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0 . OOOOO
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
1
0.01143
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
5
0.00538
1.00000
-------
o
BOI-PWB
DATE 1S/O4/80
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
POLLUTING FACTOR
MEASUR
MENTS
NO.
1
2
3
4
S
£
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
14
17
18
It
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
34
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
44
47
48
49
30
DATE OF
MEASURMENTS
OF MEASURMENTS FROM
TOS M8/L
NUMBER
WELLS
MEAN
1 12
74 ItNTIL 30
STANDARD
DEVIATION
93 X
12 79
CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
FOR MEAN
LOWER LIMIT
10
14
3
18
8
29
22
12
3
23
12
1
24
14
4
25
14
4
27
17
9
30
21
11
1
- 22
13
3
24
14
S
24
7
28
18
8
1
22
12
3
24
14
S
24
14
4
27
18
8
12
1
2
3
4
4
S
4
7
7
8
9
9
10
11
11
12
1
1
2
3
3
4
S
4
4
7
8
8
9
10
10
1 1
12
12
1
2
3
3
4
S
S
4
7
7
8
9
9
10
11
74
73
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
73
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
9
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
il
11
11
10
8
11
11
11
11
U
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
171.5554
197.0000
141.4545
154.7273
143.2727
143.3434
144.1818
139.4344
181.1818
145.3434
140.1818
1 22.0OOO
212.O9O9
117.1818
143.8182
154.8182
145.4344
1 79.0OOO
155.2727
178.4545
157.5453
138.00OO
140.5455
174.O909
147.4344
212.2000
144.0000
144.1818
149.7273
153.4344
178.9091
193.2727
198.4344
221.4545
287.4545
234.0000'
320.7273
234.7273
203.9091
204.1818
198.4000
197.4344
247.4545
171.9091
237.4545
229.5435
240.3434
197.7273
198.1818
188.7273
71
48
.7027
.8353
45.S9O3
35
38
44
37
31
37
47
79
39
29
45
S3
40
41
33
28
29
40
45
33
45
34
92
45
72
48
58
48
41
74
74
93
43
209
124
125
119
.4947
.1237
.0419
.9414
.2227
.9442
.5085
.3093
.9500
.9582
.8428
.8030
.0495
.3843
.5273
.4889
.1079
.3443
.9913
.3307
.7853
.3428
.2940
.9047
.4289
.4254
.1434
.2839
.4584
.8704
.8937
.8130
.8210
.8347
.2482
.3243
.3323
148.0204
117
125
41
112
US
107
113
83
81
.1087
.9582
.0728
.4545
.7500
.2894
.8339
.2782
.9574
114
142
130
130
117
133
120
118
142
133
84
95
191
84
107
129
137
133
134
158
114
107
114
143
.4401
.0477
.8283
.8817
.4423
.7443
.4939
.4420
.2334
.4490
.9044
.1429
.9440
.3841
.4751
.9142
.7014
.1338
.1348
.9008
.9944
.1045
.7980
.3339
143.2090
144
127
117
137
114
133
145
144
171
224
189
179
151
119
123
92
118
142
130
141
151
148
. 121
140
133
.1815
.4149
.3921
.1947
.5773
.0382
:2B80
.9974
.1434
.4341
.7834
.7472
.9178
.7190
.8705
.5199
.9444
.8399
.8824
.9099
.7884
.2900
.2540
.8947
.4710
UPPER
224
231
192
178
148
192
171
140
220
197
193
148
232
147
179
183
193
202
174
198
198
148
144
204
192
278
204
214
202
192
224
221
250
271
350
278
441
321
288
284
304
274
332
212
312
307
312
274
253
243
LIMIT
.4710
.9323
.0804
.3728
.8830
.9430
.4497
.4107
.1082
.2783
.4592
.8371
.2158
.9775
.9413
.7221
.3713
.8442
.4104
.0083
.0943
.8955
.2929
.8480
.0437
.2185
.3831
.9714
.2579
.4932
.7800
.2574
.2754
.7457
.4750
.2144
.4874
.5347
.0992
.4932
.2801
.3042
.0492
.9318
.9992
.3025
.4373
.1985
.4489
.7834
-------
CONTINUATION
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
POLLUTING FACTOR
OF MEASURMENTS
TDS MG/L
FROM
12 74 UNTIL
30 12 79
•x)
MEASUR
MENTS
NO.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
DATE OF
MEASURMENTS
6
20
10
1
22
15
4
26
17
7
28
19
9
30
20
11
3
22
13
21
6
2
21
12
3
22
13
3
25
21
7
29
17
28
20
12
12
1
2
2
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
11
12
1
2
3
3
4
5
5
6
7
7
8
9
9
10
11
11
12
77
77
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
7V
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
NUMBER
WELLS
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
11
10
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
10
11
11
11
10
11
10
11
MEAN
178
201
186
201
.1818
.81 "2
.7273
.4545
178.7273
222
215
219
254
250
235
295
261
245
314
265
277
292
300
395
255
388
384
280
266
328
354
27V
340
292
307
197
203
251
238
215
.3636
.0909
.8182
.5455
.7273
.4545
.4000
.8000
.8000
.7273
.2000
.4545
.3636
.0000
.8182
.8182
.7273
.0000
.5455
.5455
.9091
.2000
.0909
.6000
.3636
.2727
.2727
.6000
.6364
.8000
.8182
STANDARD
DEVIATION
71.
77.
68.
67.
76.
94.
72.
77.
80.
137.
108.
185.
128.
113.
85.
150.
135.
149.
233.
242.
74.
290.
269.
160.
138.
160.
192.
118.
172.
111.
118.
4728
7558
0957
4394
9897
2287
0187
8740
2700
0322
7422
7550
7010
1624
6284
0317
7972
4679
8280
4697
8837
4345
8844
5044
3679
8959
8372
0792
4260
4767
2447
53.4211
59.
92.
66.
72.
5151
1556
3606
2299
95 y, CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
FOR MEAN
LOWER LIMIT UPPER LIMIT
130.
149.
140.
156.
127.
159.
166.
167.
200.
158.
162.
162.
169.
164.
257.
157.
186.
191.
132.
232.
205.
193.
202.
172.
173.
220.
216.
199.
217.
217.
227 .
161.
161.
18V.
191.
167.
1687
5844
9828
1510
0081
0639
7111
5050
6227
6735
4051
5281
7392
8541
2049
8812
2304
9560
7411
9350
5138
6229
7005
7238
5944
8245
2622
7692
2625
4772
8398
3862
0284
7292
3318
2965
226.1949
254.0520
232.4717
246.7581
230.4465
285.6634
263.4707
272,1314
308.4682
342.7810
308.5040
428.2719
353.8608
326.7459
372.2496
372.5188
368.6786
392.7713
467.2589
558.7014
306.1226
583.8317
565.2995
388.3671
359.4965
436.9937
492,1378
358.4126
463.9375
367.2500
386.7057
233.1593
246.1716
313.5435
286.2682
264.3399
-------
BOI-PUB
DATE 15/04/80
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURMENTS FROM
POLLUTING FACTOR - CL- MG/L
12 74 UNTIL
30 12 79
to
WELLS
NO.
I
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
SUN
NUMB.
MEASUR
MENTS
'N
78
84
84
84
86
85
86
86
86
82
86
931
MAXIMUM AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
VALUE
AVERAGE
VALUE OF
VARIANCE
VARIANCE
OF F-TEST
MEAN
X
5.4490
4.7209
3.9031
2.1846
4.8108
1.8407
1.1953
1.7158
1.6057
2.4837
2.8161
1.0476
37.685698 WELLS
14.394651 WELLS
23.291047
582.270937 WELLS
30.975402 WELLS
18.797849
MINIMUM
VALUE
XMIN
8.0000
10.0000
10.0000
6.5000
12.5000
4.0000
5.0000
10.5000
0.0000
9.5000
7.0000
6
8
1
8
MAXIMUM
VALUE
XMAX
111.0000
104.0000
lll.OOoO
49.0000
96.0000
48.0000
34.0000
57.0000
55.0000
62.0000
91.0000
-------
BO I-PWil
DATE 15/04/80
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Of MEASURMENTS FROM
POLLUTING FACTOR - CL- MO/L
EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTIONS
N<1> - NUMBER OF NEASUKHENTS IN THE I-TH CLASS
FMI)- FREQUENCJ IN I-TH CLASS
F(I> - CUMULATED FREQUENCY IN I-TH CLASS
12 71 UNTIL
30 12 71
WELLS
NO.
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
"
SUM
N(I)
FMI)
FMI)
HU>
F'
FMI)
N(I>
F' (I)
FMI)
N(I>
FMI)
F
Nil)
F' (I)
FU>
N
F' (I)
FU>
N(I>
FMI)
FU>
NU>
F' (I)
N(I>
FMI)
UNDER
10.
2
0.02564
0.02564
0
0.00000
0.00000
0
0.00000
O.OOOOO
6
0.06977
0.06977
0
0.00000
0.00000
0.07059
0.07059
11
0.12791
0.12791
0
0.00000
0.00000
2
0.02326
0.02326
1
0.01220
0.01220
1
0.01163
0.01163
29
0.03113
0.03115
FR 10.
TO 20.
38
0.48718
0.51282
34
0.40476
0.40476
30
0.34884
0.34884
48
0.55814
0.62791
26
0.30233
0.30233
49
0.57647
0.64706
65
0.75581
0.88372
30
0.34884
0.34884
35
0.40698
0.43023
50
0.60976
0.62195
27
0.31395
0.32558
432
0.46402
0.49517
CLASS
FR 20.
TO 30.
9
0.11538
0.62821
5
0.05952
0.46429
23
0.26744
0.61628
IS
0.17442
0.80233
12
0.13953
0.44186
18
0.21176
0.85882
7
0.08140
0.96512
44
0.51163
0.86047
39
0.45349
0.88372
15
0.18293
0.80488
26
0.30233
0.62791
213
0.22879
0.72395
I N T E
FR 30.
TO 40.
8
0.10256
0.73077
19
0.22619
0.69048
19
0.22093
0.83721
12
0.13953
0.94186
13
0.15116
0.59302
8
0.09412
0.95294
3
0.03488
1.00000
a
O. 09302
O. 95349
8
0.09302
0.97674
10
0.12195
0.92683
22
0.25581
0.88372
130
0.13963
0.86359
i K V A L S
FR 40.
TO 30.
8
0.10256
0.83333
12
0.14286
0.83333
5
0.05814
0.89535
5
0.05814
1.00000
12
0.13953
0.73256
4
0.04706
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
2
0.02326
1
0.01163
0.98837
1 .
0.01220
0.93902
6
0.06977
0.95349
56
0.06015
0.92374
FR 50.
TO 60.
4
0.05128
0.68462
6
0.07143
0.90476
4
0.04651
0.94186
0
0.00000
l.OOOOO
6
0.06977
0.80233
0
O.OOOOO
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
2
0.02326
l.OOOOO
1
0.01163
1.00000
4
0.04878
0.98780
2
0.02326
0.97674
29
0.03115
0.95489
FR 60.
TO 70.
3
0.03846
0.92308
0.02381
0.92857
3
0.03488
0.97674
0
0.00000
1.00000
10
0.11628
0.91860
0
O.OOOOO
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
1
0.01220
1.00000
1
0.01163
0.98837
20
0.02148
0.97637
FR 70.
TO 80.
1
0.01282
0.93590
1
0.01190
0.94048
0
O.OOOOO
0.97674
0
0.00000
1 . 00000
2
0.02326
0.94186
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
O.OOOOO
1.00000
0
O.OOOOO
0.98837
4
0.0043O
0.98067
OVER
80.
5
0.06410
1.00000
5
0.05952
1.00000
2
0.02326
1.00000
0
.0.00000
1.00000
5
0.05814
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0 . 00000
l.OOOOO
0
0.00000
1.00000
1
0.01163
1.00000
18
0.01933
1.00000
-------
BO I -PUB
DATE 15/04/80
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURHENTS
POLLUTING FACTOR - CL- NG/L
HEASUR
MENTS
NO.
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
a
9
10
it
12
13
14
IS
14
17
18
17
20
21
22
23
24
23
26
27
28
29
30
31
E
34
35
34
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
43
46
47
48
4?
30
DATE OF NUMBER
MEASURHENTS WELLS
FROM
HE AN
1 12 74 UNTIL 30
STANDARD
DEVIATION
95 X
12 79
CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
FOR MEAN
LOUEK LIMIT
10
-14
3
18
8
29
22
12
3
23
12
1
24
14
4
25
16
6
27
17
9
30
21
11
1
22
13
3
24
14
3
26
16
7
28
18
a
i
22
12
3
24
14
S
26
16
6
27
18
8
12
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
7
8
9
1
10
11
11
12
1
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
6
7
8
8
9
10
10
11
12
12
1
2
3
3
4
S
S
6
7
7
8
9
9
10
11
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
9
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11'
11
11
11
11
11
11
to
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
IB.
16.
14.
16.
17.
17.
9056
OOOO
7727
1364
0455
5435
13.4091
14.
4543
18.1364
16.
14.
9S4S
9091
14.3626
16.
14.
.14.
14.
16.
19.
14.
15.
17.
17.
13.
13.
16.
13.
17.
14.
17.
17.
18.
18.
14.
22.
23.
24.
23.
23.
22.
24.
28.
25.
31.
28.
26.
29.
24.
23.
29.
20.
4091
4545
4091
8182
7273
0455
4091
2273
0909
7273
9091
5455
6364
75OO
0500
3000
3636
0909
1818
1818
0000
5455
6364
09O9
2727
OOOO
7273
8182
OOOO
6364
6364
4091
0909
4545
5455
4545
0909
6364
10.1108
7.6413
3.0416
4.7386
6.4941
5.7639
3.2850
2.6311
5.9837
6.7692
2.4578
3.5291
4.0793
1.4570
3.3153
2.9772
2.3913
11.5552
3.5973
6.6609
6.4219
11.8751
1.8141
3.2974
3.5853
3.4661
5.5400
2.4900
2.2482
7.4223
4.8748
4.9964
2.8983
10.1031
8.6634
7.381S
11.2258
15.8619
15.2846
13.4714
21.5767
16.7348
10.3370
12.6941
12.1116
13.6775
12.2177
10.6898
9.1701
11.0478
11
10
11
12
12
13
11
12
14
12
13
11
13
13
12
12
15
11
11
10
12
9
12
11
14
11
13
12
15
12
14
14
12
IS
17
19
IS
12
12
14
12
14
24
19
17
20
16
16
22
13
.1337
.5342
.3859
.9331
.6830
.6734
.2024
.4871
.1167
.4072
.2560
.9929
.6687
.4758
.1820
.8182
.1209
.2830
.9925
.7527
.7769
.7500
.6904
.3304
.2279
.2707
.0872
.8273
.8533
.1048
.9071
.8254
.0530
.7585
.8166
.1321
.7316
.3445
.4596
.4250
.5640
.3945
.6923
.8816
.9547
.2665
.3380
.2735
.9307
.2148
UPPER LIMIT
26.
21.
18.
19.
21.
21.
13.
16.
22.
21.
14.
6774
4658
1595
3196
4079
4173
6138
2220
1560
5019
36O2
16.7344
19.
15.
16.
16.
18.
26.
16.
19.
21.
25.
15.
15.
19.
16.
21.
16.
18.
22.
21.
is:
29.
29.
29.
30.
33.
32.
35.
43.
36.
38.
36.
34.
38.
1494
•4333
6362
8182
3337
8079
8257
7019
4049
7046
1277
7605
0449
2293
0128
1727
8739
O770
4S65
5382
9470
3324
4562
0498
8136
6555
9949
2113
4340
8783
5805
9366
2271
6426
32.7529
30.6356
35.
28.
2511
0579
-------
CONTINUATION
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
POLLUTING FACTOR
OF MEASURMENTS FROM
CL- MG/L
12 74 UNTIL
30 12 79
tn
HEASUK
HENTS
NO.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
6?
68
6V
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
DATE OF
MEASURMENTS
6
20
10
1
22
15
4
26
17
7
28
19
9
30
20
11
3
22
13
21
6
2
21
12
3
22
13
3
25
21
7
29
17
7
28
20
12
12
1
2
2
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
8
a
9
10
11
11
12
1
2
3
3
4
5
5
6
7
7
8
9
9
10
11
11
12
77
77
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
NUMBER
WEU.S
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
11
10
11
11
10
. 11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
10
11
11
11
10
11
10
11
MEAN
21.
25.
29.
0909
6364
7273
21.6364
25.
31.
31.
4545
3636
8182
29.1818
31.
32.
8182
4545
29.5455
35.
30.
37.
35.
41.
36.
43.
44.
50.
38.
7000
5000
1000
6364
4000
8182
3636
6000
0909
0000
50.9091
55.
38.
32.
43.
45.
27.
24.
18.
20.
27.
26.
28.
30.
30.
3636
1818
9091
1818
1000
3636
5000
3636
9091
1818
8000 •
4345
5000
6364
STANDARD 95 X CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
DEVIATION FOR MEAN
LOWER LIMIT UPPER LIMIT
10.9586
13.9948
11.8667
7.1172
13.1253
13.7933
10.1668
11.2501
12.3921
22.2817
18.3976
19.8441
15.3786
14.2240
9.6672
21.5468
17.6001
20.8484
35.8986
29.2693
11.1086
37.2302
35.6743
21.8395
22.2237
26.1336
23.6711
15.7370
14.5621
7.2010
8.1050
8.4949
7.7143
8.8359
9.7439
10.3370
13
16
21
16
16
22
24
21
23
17
17
21
19
26
29
25
24
29
18
30
30
25
31
23
17
25
28
16
14
13
15
21
21
22
23
23
.7293
.2351
.7556
.8553
.6374
.0978
.9885
.6244
.4936
.4865
.1865
.5054
.4996
.9255
.1423
.9874
.9950
.3584
.9215
.4288
.5376
.8990
.3988
.5108
.9800
.6261
.1679
.7920
.0836
.5262
.4644
.4752
.2819
.5189
.5301
.6923
28
35
37
26
.4525
.0376
.6989
.4175
34.2717
40
38
36
40
.6295
.6479
.7392
.1428
47.4226
41
49
41
47
42
56
48
57
70
69
45
.9044
.8946
.5004
.2745
.1305
.8126
.6414
.3689
.2785
.7531
.4624
75.9191
79
52
47
60
62
37
34
23
26
32
32
34
37
37
.3285
.8529
.8382
.7375
.0321
.9353
.9164
.2010
.3538
.8884
.3181
.3902
.4699
.5805
-------
BOI-PUB
DATE 15/04/80
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURHEWTS FROM
POLLUTING FACTOR - S04= MG/L
12 74 UNTIL
30 12 79
H
•xl
O>
WELLS NUMB.
MEASUR
NO. MENTS
I N(I)
1 78
2 84
3 86
5 86
6 86
7 85
8 86
9 86
10 86
13 82
14 86
SUM 931
MAXIMUM AVERAGE
MINIMUM AVERAGE
MAXIMUM VALUE OF
MAXIMUM VARIANCE
MINIMUM VARIANCE
VALUE OF F-TEST
MEAN
XU>
116.5769
116.3048
89.8209
62.8616
78.1337
22.4424
28.3721
62.5733
48.2791
69.2146
72.9360
69.3252
POLLUTION
POLLUTION
STANDARD
DEVIATION
S(I)
81.8588
72.1551
67.8593
28.5103
46.7273
26.6237
17.2501
35.4937
25.3662
34.1858
44.3728
55.6773
_
-
MEAN DIFFERENCE -
-
-
-
CONFIDENCE
HALF INTERVAL
FOR MEAN
D(I)
18.4849
15.6852
14.5739
6.1231
10.0355
5.7524
3.7048
7.6229
5.4478
7.5240
9.5298
3.5765
116.576923 UELLS
22.442353 UELLS
94.134570
6700.870889 UELLS
297.567447 UELLS
22.518830
MINIMUM
VALUE
XMIN
34.0000
39.0000
13.0000
11.6000
5.5000
4.0000
8.0000
19.4000
11.0000
11.0000
11.0000
1
7
1
8
MAXIMUM
VALUE
XMAX
404.0000
354.0000
374.0000
153.0000
240.0000
184.0000
101.0000
235.0000
201.0000
190.0000
365.0000
-------
BOI-PUB
DATE 15/04/80 -
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MEASUKMENTS FROM
POLLUTING FACTOR - S04= MG/L
EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTIONS
N(I) - NUMBER OF MEASURMENIS IN TH£ I-TH CLASS
F'- FREQUENCY IH I-TH CLASS
FID - CUMULATED FREQUENCY IN I-TH CLASS
12 71 UNTIL
30 12 79
UELLS
NO.
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
SUM
N<1)
FMI)
F (I)
NU>
FMI)
F (I)
N
F'
F(I)
N(I>
FMI)
F(I)
N
FMI)
F
FMI)
F(I1
N(I)
F1 (I)
F(I)
N(I>
FMI)
F(I>
N
FMI)
F(I)
UNDER
40.
1
0.01282
0.01282
1
0.01190
0.01190
12
0.13953
0.13953
12
0.13953
0.1 3953
22
0.25581
0.2SS81
74
0.87059
0.87059
64
0.74419
0.74419
22
0.25581
0.25581
40
0.14512
0.16512
11
0.1-1415
0.13415
12
0.13953
0.139S3
271
0.29108
0.29108
FR 40.
TO 70.
21
0.26923
0.28205
2O
0.23810
0.2SOOO
31
0.36047
0.50000
46
0.53488
0.67442
12
0.13*53
0.3*535
6
0.0705?
0.94118
20
0.23256
0.97674
36
0.41860
0.67442
34
0.39535
0.86047
36
0.43902
0.57317
37
0.43023
0.56977
299
0.32116
0.61224
CLASS
FR 70.
TO 1OO.
27
0.34615
0.62821
32
0.38095
0.63095
22
0.2S581
0.75581
16
0. 18605
0.86O47 -
26
0.30231
0.69767
3
0.03529
0.97647
1
0.01163
0.98837
19
0.22093
0.89535
9
0.10465
0.94512
24
0.29268
0.86585
26
0.30233
0.87209
20S
0.22019
O.S3244
I N T E
FR 100.
TO 130.
12
0.15385
0.78205
10
0.11905
0.75000
8
0.09302
0.84884
11
0.12791
0.98837
17
0.19767
0.89535
1
0.01176
0.98824
1
0.01163
1.00000
6
0.06977
0.96512
2
0.02326
0.98837
5
0.06098
0.92683
4
0.04651
0.91860
77
0.082*71
0.91515
i R V A L S
FR 130.
TO 160.
3
0.03846
0.82051
3
0.03571
0.78571
2
0.02326
0.87209
1
0.01163
1.00000
6
0.06977
0.96512
0
0.00000
0.98824
0
0.00000
1.00000
1
0.01163
0.97674
0
0 . OOOOO
0.98837
4
0.04878
0.97561
5
0.05814
0.97674
25
0.02685
0.94200
FR 160.
TO 190.
2
0.02564
0.84615
4
0.04762
0.83333
3
0.03488
0.90698
0
0.00000
1.00000
1
0.01163
0.97674
1
0.01176
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
0.97674
0
0.00000
0.98837
1
0.01220
0.98780
1
0.01163
0.98837
13
0.01396
0.95596
FR 190.
TO 220.
3
0.03846
0.88462
3
0.03571
0.86905
2
0.02326
0.93023
0
0. OOOOO
1.00000
1
0.01163
0.98837
0
0.00000
1 . OOOOO
0
0.00000
1 . OOOOO
1
0.01163
0.98837
1
0.01163
1.00000
1
0.01220
1.00000
0
0.00000
0.93837
12
0.01289
0.96885
•R 220.
TO 250.
2
0.02564
0.91026
4
0.04762
0.91667
2
0.02326
0.95349
0
0.00000
1.00000
1
0.01163
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
1
0.01163
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
0.98837
10
0.01074
0.97959
OVER
250.
7
0.08974
1.00000
7
0.08333
1.00000
4
0.04651
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0.00000
1.00000
0
0. OOOOO
1.00000
0
0. OOOOO
1.00000
0
0.00000
1 . OOOOO
0
0.00000
1.00000
1
0.01163
1.00000
19
0.02041
1 . OOOOO
-------
-J
03
KOI -PU»
DATE 1S/04/BO
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
POLLUTING FACTOR
HEASUf)
HENTS
NO.
I
2
3
4
5
4
7
a
9
10
it
12
11
14
IS
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
34
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
44
47
48
49
30
DATE OF
HEASURMENTS
OF HEASURMENT8 FROM
S04- M6/L
NUMBER
WELLS
• MEAN
1 12 74 UNTIL 30 12 79
STANDARD
DEVIATION
93 X CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
FOR MEAN
LOWER Lin IT
10
14
3
18
8
2»
22
12
3
23
12
1
24
14
4
25
14
4
27
17
9
30
21
11
1
22
13
3
24
14
5
24
14
7
28
18
8
1
22
12
3
24
14
5
24
\t>
4
27
18
e
12
1
2
3
4.
4
5
4
7
7
8
»
»
10
11
11
12
1
1
2
3
3
4
3
A
4
7
a
a
»
10
10
11
12
12
1
2
3
3
4
5
3
4
7
7
8
»
9
10
11
74
75
7S
75
75
75
78
73
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
73
75
74
74
74
76
74
74
74
76
76
76
76
76
76
74
76
76
74
74
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
»
10
It
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
51.5554
49.7100
55.5727
45.2182
44.4455
44.5273
30.3545
33.3634
53.8909
46.2545
41.3618
44.8727
67.1273
34.4182
45.3436
54.4343
44.0182
40.4273
33.7434
54.9273
37.6364
43.7273
44.2727
47.1273
43.5434
43.5800
43.4000
83.8182
34.3909
43.4344
43.8909
51.8000
44.5545
32.3091
47.3273
62.O435
53.9545
42.4000
45.5909
47.7273
54.3000
57.7273
71.2727
49.0909
49.0364
57.8727
33.6000
56.5091
58.6364
49.5453
7.9075
22.0594
24.6521
20.1370
21.4182
22.8750
26.2415
14.8717
17.0515
25.6454
29.8144
23.6639
18.7346
31.4908
25.3407
17.5634
30.3101
14.0752
32.1534
27.5112
21.8399
11.8845
22.4503
23.5819
18.6946
23.7289
23.0492
61.0644
19.7076
26.1705
27.1350
24.9661
28.1670
18.7103
29.0148
21.0838
24.6485
27.3897
40.2642
30.3879
35.5248
30.4075
40.6398
21.6041
26.0412
30.9957
29.2184
30.9019
30.5325
28.3809
45.4774
33.9307
39.0122
31.49OB
32.0574
31.1604
32.7129
22.0298
44.4342
29.0248
21.3535
28.9761
54.5420
13.2637
28.1928
42.6560
43.6569
30.9720
32.1641
38.4461
22.9516
22.3083
29.1913
3 1.28;, 7
31.0052
25.1759
27.1127
42.7971
21.1520
27.8559
25.5281
33.0284
47.6329
19.7267
47.8341
47.8821
37.3945
43.8442
38.5428
47.1793
30.8889
37.3005
43.9368
34.5780
31.5427
37.0308
33.9720
35.7502
18.1122
30.4801
UPPER LIMIT
57.4337
43.4893
72.1332
58.7454
40.8335
41.8940
47.9942
44.4973
47.3454
63.4823
61.4102
60.7693
79.7126
55.5727
62.5145
66.2511
84.1795
49.8826
75.3632
75.4084
52.3211
65.1462
59.3541
62.9669
56.1220
61.5841
60.0873
124.8393
47.8299
63.0146
62.2537
68.5716
85.4762
64.8915
86.8185
76.2068
70.3126
80.9338
92.4391
88.2752
81.7111
78.1541
98.5844
61.4039
64.5300
78.6946
73.2280
77.2479
79.1405
68.4108
-------
CONTINUATION
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
POLLUTING FACTOR
OF MEASURMENTS
50-4= MO/L
FROM
12 74 UNTIL
30 12 79
MEASUR
HENTS
NO.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
DATE OF
ttEASURHENTS
6
20
10
1
22
15
4
26
17
7
28
19
9
30
20
11
3
22
13
21
6
2
21
12
3
22
13
3
25
21
7
29
17
7
28
20
12
12
1
2
2
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
11
12
1
2
3
3
4
5
5
6
7
7
8
9
9
10
11
11
12
77
77
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78 -
78
78
78
78
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
NUMBER
WELLo
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
11
10
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
10
11
11
11
10
11
to
11
MEAN
55.3636
58.3636
72.3636
52.. 9091
49.1818
70.0909
66.6364
68.5455
81.2727
90.5455
67.2727
72.9000
74.2000
74.5000
115.6364
97.3000
83.3636
127.6364
122.0000
159.0909
85.6364
149.3636
153.4545
118.0000
119.3636
136.2727
148.9000
113.9091
137.1000
112.6364
120.6364
62.5455
56.0000
65.0909
64.9000
64.2727
STANDARD 95 '/. CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
DEVIATION FOR MEAN
LOWER LIMIT UPPER: LIMIT
38.
33.
24.
36.
26.
42.
7589
9125
8406
5444
9177
0249
35.7667
50.
35.
58.
51.
57.
56.
52.
58.
80.
53.
2481
5727
3890
0570
1090
3438
1371
8664
3341
0439
90.9222
116.
. 123.
6371
4613
38.0796
145.
148.
73.
78.
70.
74.
66.
96.
5777
8915
2639
6553
9705
4333
8767
0190
65.4695
63.
24.
24.
27.
26.
28.
7813
7684
5447
9766
4300
8413
29
35
55
28
31
41
42
34
57
51
32
32
33
37
76
39
47
66
38
76
60
51
53
68
66
88
95
68
68
68
77
45
38
46
45
44
.3267
.5824
.6'; 43
.3598
.0994
.8600
.6095
.7904
.3761
.3217
.9743
.0495
.8969
.2060
.0918
.8364
.7305
.5578
.5686
.1537
.0557
,5693
.4341
.7837
.5256
.5970
.6573
.9835
.4169
.6561
.7902
.9069
.4430
.2971
.9944
.8981
81
81
89
77
67
98
90
102
105
129
101
113
114
til
155
154
118
- 188
205
242
111
247
253
167
172
183
202
158
205
.4006
.1449
.0507
.4584
.2643
.3219
.6632
.3005
.1693
.7693
.5712
.7505
.5031
.7940
.1809
.7636
.9968
.7150
.4314
.0282
.2170
.1579
.4750
.2163
.2017
.9434
.1427
.8347
.7831
156.6166
163
79
73
83
83
83
.4826
.1840
.5570
.8847
.8056
.6473
-------
u.s,
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Ins:ruct:cns on the reverse before completing/
1. REPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COD6
IMPACT OF COAL REFUSE DISPOSAL ON GROUNDWATER
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Dr. Jacek Libicki
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Poltegor
Powstancow SI. 95
53-332 Wroclaw, Poland
1NE623
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
J-5-537-1
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Gin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final - 1975-1979
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES pr0jeCt
Stephen R. Wassersug, EPA Region III
Curtis Building, 6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106 FTS: 597-8131
16. ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to determine the extent of groundwater quality deterio-
ration when coal mine refuse and power plant ashes were disposed of in open pits. In
addition, disposal methods were developed and procedures for planning and designing
disposal sites were formulated. The study was conducted from 1975 to 1979 at an
abandoned sand pit near Boguszowice, Poland, where the groundwater was monitored.
Laboratory testing of the wastes and its leachates were also conducted. From this
work, the physical-chemical character of the waste material and its susceptibility to
leaching of particular ions in the water environment were determined, as was the in-
fluence of precipitation on the migration of pollutants to the aquifer. The level of
pollution of groundwater in the vicinity of disposal sites and its dependence on local
hydrogeological conditions, and particularly on hydraulic gradients were ascertained.
Recommendations for improved waste storage technology in order to limit the effect on
groundwater and design guidelines for a monitoring system are presented.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATl Field/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
189
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page I
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220—1 (R«». 4—77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |