PB82-231432
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SPECIAL TYPES OF LANDFILLS
D. Lord, et al
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH
Sep 81
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
-------
PB82-23U32
EPA-600/2-81-190
September 1981
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
SPECIAL TYPES OF LANDFILLS
by
Deborah Grant Lord
William W. Beck, Jr.
SMC-MARTIN
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
. . 19406 '
Contract No. 68-03-2620
Project Officer
Donald E. Sanning
Solid and Hazardous Wastes Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
REPRODUCED BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
SPRINGFIEIO. VA. 22161
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing
\. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-81-190
ORD Report
d. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SPECIAL TYPES OF LANDFILLS
23143 2
5. REPORT DATE
^pnt^mhpr 1 Qfil
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
>. AUTHOR(S)
3. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
Deborah Lord and William Beck
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
,;..SMC-Martin
King of-Prussia,.Pennsylvania . 19406
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
•'. 68-03-2620 ...
12< SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS •/ . •
...Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory -'Cin., OH
Office of'Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF-REPORT AND PERI'O'O COVERED
Final . •.:
M4. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
1.5: SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer - Donald E, Sanning 513/684-7871
16. ABSTRACT
Water quality was monitored for one year at a hill fill, a balefill, a mil'TfiH,
a strip mine landfill, and a permitted sanitary landfill to determine the impact of
each on water quality. The.leachate generated by the hi! If ill was the strongest. during
initial decomposition. However, during the study period, it was.in the final stages
of anaerobic degradation and therefore was of low strength. The. balefill, produced-. .H<-
'a low strength leachate since this method of landfilling results in channeling of ; ' ''•
water through the landfill. The millfill generated the strongest leachate among the
.leachates analyzed during the study period as a result of the decomposition of the
refuse which was accelerated by milling. The strip mine landfill generated a leachate
.of moderate strength. The permitted sanitary landfill also produced a leachate.of
moderate strength. -• : ' ." ;
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS '
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPeN-ENOED TERMS C. CCSATI Field/Group
Solid Waste
Landfill
Baled Waste
Leachate
Refuse Disposal
Water Quality
13 B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. i-RICE
EPA Form 2220.1 (9-73)
-------
DISCLAIMER
: This report has been reviewed by the: Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not
signify that the :contents necessarily reflect.the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products .consti-.
"t'ute endorsement or recommendation for use..
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because
of increasing public and government concern about the dangers of
pollution to the health and welfare of the American people. .
Noxious air, .foul water, and spoiled land are tragic testimonies
to the deterioration of our natural environment. The complexity
of that environment and the interplay of its components require
a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in
problem solution; it involves defining the problem, measuring its
impact/ and searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory develops new and improved technology and sys-
.terns to prevent, treat, and manage wastewater and solid and haz- .
ardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal and community
sources, to preserve and treat public drinking water supplies,
and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthet-
ic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the products
of that research and provides a most vital communications link
between the researcher and the user community.
This report summarizes and compares the positive advantages
and negative characteristics of hillfills, balefills, millfills,
strip.mine landfills, and permitted sanitary landfills, then- sum-
marizes the results in terms of their individual environmental
impacts over a.period of one year on ground and surface water
quality. .. -.
FRANCIS T. MAYO
Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Water quality was monitored for one year.at a .hillfill,
a balefill, a millfill, a strip mine landfill, and a permitted.
sanitary, landfill to determine, the impact of each on water
quality. The leachate generated by the hillfill was the
strongest during initial decomposition. However, during the
study -period,-rit was in the final stages .of-"anaerobic.
degradation and therefore was of low strength. The hillfill.
had a severe, localized impact on-ground-water'quality due
to .the presence of a shallow water .table and ground water
mounding.within the hillfill. It had no impact.on adjacent
surface water. The balefill produced a low strength leachate
since this method of landfilling results' in channeling of
water through the landfill. The .balefill1s low/strength and
the 30-meter separation distance between, the landfill and
the water table resulted in minimal impact on ground-water
quality. The millfill generated the strongest leachate • .
among the leachates analyzed during ,the study period as a
result of the decomposition of the., refuse .which was accelerated
by milling. However, the millfill had a minimal, localized : ;; .
effect on ground-water resources. The .strip mine landfill.'-
generated a leachate of moderate strength and exerted a
.moderate impact on ground- .and surface water resources. The
permitted.sanitary landfill also, produced a leachate of
moderate strength. It exerted .a minimal, localized impact
on water quality due to the attenuative properties of the
surficial materials and a significant depth to water.
... This report was submitted in. fulfillment of. Contract
No.. 68-03-2620 by SMC-MARTIN under the sponsorship .of. -the -
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers
the period October 1977 to August 1980, and work was completed.
"as of April 1981. .
iv.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
•;::;:,:; Abstract .... • . iv
. Figures ''; .;:;. ............ vi
'.".*-.., Tables . ."•.'. . "................ . . i v . . . . . ..... ix
. // 1. ..Introduction .:-.- . . ....... . .. '. . . ." . . . . 1
.'"'••.' . ,2... Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 3
:^y '..,..-...-.:'. Hil.lfill 4
'• Bale-fill.. . . . .' . . 5
;;,.,, _ ' Millfill .... .".'.••. . . . ... . 5
••••; -••••.'.:•.:\>.:.:.^ Strip,mine, landfill ,Vi.. . .. 6
' • Permitted' sanitary' lan'df'ill . ." .'" . . "."• 6
. 3>......Recommendations . 8
4. Study Design and Methods •;..-•. 10
Site selection ............ 10
Design of monitoring systems 13
Data interpretation .......... 14
Deviations from the study plan . .; . . '15..
y 5. Presentation .of Five Solid Waste
•'.'.• ••;•' ;;, Disposal Methods . . . . . . . •. -.--.. . •. ." • . 17
Hilifill .......... . . '. . '. ';V17-
. Balefill . 48
. - Millfill . . .-..'...". ... . ....... .... 78
Strip mine landfill .._........ 104
'-..'-. Permitted sanitary landfill 131
6. Comparison of the Five Solid VJaste Disposal
... •• Methods with Standard Sanitary Landfill
Methods .158
; "" " Characteristics affecting the potential
to pollute 158
Advantages and disadvantages of the
special types of landfills compared
with a conventional permitted
sanitary landfill 175
Projection of the optimum applicability
of the five types of landfills to
various, geographic areas . 179
References . 182
Appendices . „ 186
-------
FIGURES ,
Number : . ' Page
1 ..'.. Map of the hi! If ill site .... ... . . . 18
- -2 'Graph of precipitation for the; hillfill .•. . 20
..,-3 'Map of surf icial geology at the ...:..,.
hillfill site . ... . . . ..- . . . . -.'.': 22
.4 Location of monitoring points at 'the
hillfill site / ., :.; . . : .. . . . .,: . ... 25-
5 Cross section of the hillfill site . .... 32
6 Map showing the location of the line of
..:•.••;- :•'>- . cross section/ AA1 ; : .;.•;.;:... .....:.- . . . . 33
. .. '?• • . . Map of . water table"a-t the hillfill site ... 35
8 Bar graphs for alkalinity and acidity at
the hillfill site . . .../...... 37
9 .' • Bar graphs for TDS and TKN at the hillfill
site ...... . . . . . . . .... . .38
10 . Bar graphs for COD and TOC at the hillfill
11 Modified Stiff diagrams showing averaged
.; results of ; chemical ' analyses at. the. -,..' ; .. .
'. •.."• '': hilif'i-11 :site ' ;"-* VV V v -V- v.-. i" •"»•";; ' V: i:' .l--..v:-4'3.
12: Nitrogen index showing the ratio of
organic nitrogen plus ammpnia ! -: ., ,.
nitrogen (TKN) to nitrite plus ;
nitrate nitrogen ;(N02 +• N03) . . . . . . . 45
13 Map of the balef ill site .-... ..; ...... . . . 50
14 Graph of precipitation for the balef ill . . 51
15 ;•, , ,..M.ap .of surf icial -geology -at,... fehe- ..... -•......,.. .....
, ••..... bale.f ill- site .... . .••,.'... .'.:•'."'.'• , .•..•,..••... ,.,,;.5.4
16 "Location of monitoring points at" the •.......!'.'.'../."" ...
balef il l^.site;; , • :.;..;;.> .'...-. . •• ...'•""."-'"."'•' "SS1"
17 - Cross section1 of the balef ill site . . . . . 63
18 .Map showing the location of the ^ .line: of ''••• --^
.--••• •'•'•.- - ..cross1 section^- AA '•••'•'•'.'• . ••'.; ..*7"." ^'V.;,..*- .... ..' .. 64
19 Map of water table' at the balefail site •;.-. ^ 66
20 Bar graphs for alkalinity and acidity at
the balef ill site- ....... . .... 68
21 Bar Graphs for TDS and TKN at the balef ill
site ... ....... . ........ 69
22 Bar graphs for COD and TOC at the balefill
site .............. ..... 70
vi
-------
Number Page
23 Modified Stiff diagrams showing averaged
results of chemical analyses at the
balefill site 74
24 Nitrogen index showing the ratio of
organic nitrogen plus ammonia
nitrogen (TKN) to nitrite plus
nitrate nitrogen (NO2 + NO3) * . 76
25 Map of the mil If ill site 79
26 Graph of precipitation for the milIfill . . 81
27 . Map of surficial geology at the
millfill site ..... '83
28.. .Location of monitoring points at the
millfill site 87
29 Cross section of the millfill site ..... 92
30 .Map showing the location of the line of
cross section, AA1 . . . 93
31 Map of water table at the millfill site . . 94
32 Bar Graphs for alkalinity and acidity at
the millfill site 96
33 Bar graphs for TDS and TKN at the
millfill site . . . 97
34 Bar graphs for COD and TOC at the
millfill site 93
35 Modified Stiff diagrams showing averaged
results of chemical analyses at the
millfill site .............. 101
.36 Nitrogen index showing the ratio of .
organic nitrogen plus ammonia
nitrogen (TKN) to nitrite plus
nitrate nitrogen (N02 + N03) ....... 103
37 Map of the strip mine landfill site .... 106
38 Graph of precipitation for the strip mine
landfill site ........ 107
39 Typical stratigraphic column for
Pennsylvanian-age coal measures 110
40 Location of monitoring points at the
strip mine landfill site . 113
41 Cross section of the strip mine landfill
site 117
42 Map showing the location of the line of
cross section, AA' 118
43 Map of water table at the strip mine
landfill site ....... 120
44 Bar graphs for alkalinity and acidity at
the strip mine landfill site 122
45 Bar graphs for TDS and TKN at the strip
mine landfill site 123
46 Bar graphs for COD and TOC at the strip
mine landfill site 124
VI1
-------
Number . .'...; " "'.•• .. .. -, . •- •'...,.• Page,
47 Modified Stiff diagrams showing averaged .
results of chemical analyses at the
..... . strip mine landfill site . . . ... .... • 127
48 Nitrogen index showing the ratio of
organic nitrogen plus ammonia
nitrogen (TKN) to nitrite plus .
nitrate nitrogen (N0.2 + N03) . ... ... .130.
49 Map of permitted sanitary landfill site .... .132
50 .Graph.of precipitation for the. permitted
sanitary landfill.. . . ... . >..•:•• • ... 134'
'"•''•'51 Map of surficial geology at. the permitted •'•:•-••
sanitary landfill site .". .: . . . . . . . 137-
,•52 'Location of monitoring points at the .;..
permitted sanitary landfill site . . ..; . ./' 139;
.53 •'"'••-. Cross section • of the 'permitted sanitary
landfill site . .... .... . . .'.'-. 144
54 Map showing the location of the line of
cross' section, AA1 . . . .;..•* . •.'•' . ; . .145
55 Map of water table at -the permitted
sanitary landfill site . r. . . ^ ...... 146
56 Bar graphs for alkalinity and acidity at
the permitted sanitary landfill site * . . 148
57 Bar graphs for TDS and TKN at the permitted
sanitary landfill ..site .. ........... 149
58 .Bar graphs for COD and TQC at the- permitted
sanitary landfill site . . .'.-•.. . . . . 150
:59 . Modified Stiff .diagrams showing averaged.. .....
.'-" " ' results of chemical analyses at the .'':-:
permitted sanitary landfill site . . . . . 153
60 Nitrogen index showing the ratio of
organic nitrogen plus ammonia •- •
nitrogen (.TKN) to nitrite plus ......
nitrate nitrogen" (N02 +N03 )•:•.-;:.• ...... i.54
61 Modified Stiff diagrams showing,leachates
. . ..from historical studies'and .the--1978-79 !"'
;._ ..study ..'... .'..'•'. .•'••;•.. ;.:"..: ...'.. . . . . 163
.62 • Graph of TDS concentrations'with- time of ;y:.v \,.;..;'.
leachates from the hil If ill,"'bal'ef ill,.'.::.'". ..;.
mil If ill, and strip mine .landfill . .. .; . .16,4,
63 Graph of COD concentrations with time of ..v-- :> .
leachates from the hil If ill, balef ill.,
millfill, strip mi-ne landfill, and :
permitted sanitary landfill . 165
64 Graph of COD concentrations with time of
leachate from the Boone .County test
cell 2D . . . '. '."'. 166
viii
-------
TABLES
Number . Page
2.: .; -Alternative Methods of Solid Waste Disposal
•••---•-• in Selected States East of the :
.•-.''; •.--•;-,v,Mississippis River . .. -. ••;•••*.-. . . . '. . ••••. . ..11
2 ' ~-Monthly Precipitation Data - Hillfill . 21
3 ." Monitor. .Well Construction Details - Hillfill . . .26, .
4 Percentage of Separates by Weight for
••••••••"•'•-.. the Geologic Materials at the Hillfill . . . . 30
5 Monthly Precipitation Data - -Balef ill ".""'."".—-. . . • "5'2""
6 ......... ....Monitor Well Construction Details - Balefill . . 59"
7 Percentage-of-Separates • by. Weight for- ••••-.•
the Geologic Materials at the Balefill .... 61
8 .:••• -Monthly Precipitation Data - Millf ill.... •.. .... .82...
9 Monitor Well Construction Details - Millfill . . 88
10 Percentage of Separates by Weight for
the Geologic Materials'at the Millfill ...... . .9.0
.11 Monthly Precipitation Data - Strip. Mine .• ; " ' '; :
Landfill .„.„•.....'-...-.....•.. 108'
12 . Monitor Well Construction .Details r- Strip , .
-••••• - Mine. Landfill v . ''. . . . ';-.. . . . V'v". ' .; .' .
13 Monthly Precipitation Data - Permitted
Sanitary Landfill . . .'. ,;. ......... 135
1.4 Monitor Well Construction Details -
Permitted Sanitary Landfill .. ......... 140
15 Percentage of .Separates by Weight for
the .Geologic Materials at the Permitted
Sanitary Landfill ' . . 142
16A-- -. .-Characteristics Contributing to the Impact of .-...
Each Landfill on Ground and Surface Water . . . 159
16.B . Characteristics Contributing to the Impact of '
Each Landfill on Ground and Surface Water . .. .160
17 Impact of Five Sites Shown by Representative .. . '• ••'
Downgradient Wells ..... 162
IX
-------
SECTION 1
I INTRODUCTION
i
Solid waste generation and disposal represent a continu-
ing environmental problem throughout the United States.
Ninety percent of all municipal solid waste is disposed of ;
on the' land., at approximately 15,000 sites. Of these,
approximately a third are permitted facilities. The Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) will require the phasing
out of open dumps during the 1980's, which will result in
the disposal of increased volumes of waste in existing
sanitary landfills and/or the opening of large landfills. .
Suitable landfill sites must be used efficiently wher-
ever they are available. Increasing emphasis will be given
to placing more refuse in the site by increasing its height
(i.e., hillfills), or by reducing waste volume (i.e., milling
or baling). This increasing need for efficiency makes it
necessary to evaluate and compare some alternatives to •
standard sanitary landfill methods with respect to their
impacts on the environment (surface and ground-water re-
•sources in particular). . ' •' • • • •
This study compares and evaluates five alternatives to
standard sanitary landfill methods: millfill, balefill,
nilIfill/ and strip mine landfill. The relative environmental
impacts of these methods on water resources are determined
along with site characteristics that contriubte to or .prevent
pollution. Projections are also made for the probable
usefulness of each method in other geographic areas. Sites
east of the Mississippi River were chosen on the basis of '
selection criteria (see Section 4) established during the
initial stages of the study. Field evaluations were made at
each site to confirm site conditions.
At each of the sites, wells were drilled to collect
data on the direction of ground-water flow and ground-water
quality. Analytical parameters were selected on the basis
of previously existing data available at each site. Moni-
toring involved the collection of water samples from selec-
ted sampling points on a quarterly basis for a year. Mete- .
orologic and hydrologic data were also collected to aid in
the interpretation of water quality data.
-------
. These data were then examined to determine the environ-
.mental impact of each .waste disposal site. • On the basis of
the environmental impacts and a consideration of site char-
acteristics, waste disposal methods were compared and con-
trasted, to identify the suitability of each for use in
various, geographic areas.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
i ./^;^W'::-;'--?>.-:-.. Virtually all unlined solid waste disposal facilities
;....•.:•.:.•••••., impact negatively:on ground and surface water resources to
....-..-. :.--.v:-..-.'• some extent.' The .factors which .effectively mitigate the - .
j ''",. :'":."'••','"'•' impacts -of-.waste disposal facilities'-ihclude methods of
j " , operation, site .su'iTtabirity (in particular, depth to. ground
! ...,.-:.•-..... water) and the engineering design for a particular facility.
I .:•'"" ;x':'.-.-.. Base.d:.-.on.;.the site selection process for the present study,
the conventional permitted sanitary landfill is the most
..•'•••'•"••••••'•'-•;'>.-••.'.•.-•.•• common, method of waste disposal. The next most common
.....: . method" is "the use of . strip mine landfills which ..are frequently
| •••-.•-,. found in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois. Millfills,
i .-.. •-•.-.... bale-f il.ls>,. and hillfills are relatively uncommon in comparison
i ... :•....' to permitted sanitary landfills and coal strip mine landfills-..
i
[ ..... This study is based on a selection of state-of-the-art
\ landfills which, were designed to minimize adverse environ- .-. .
f '•'•"• mental impacts. All of the landfills investigated performed ,
fairly well and exerted only minimal, localized adverse
impacts on the surrounding ground and surface water;, an , :
exception to this rule is the hillfill. In general, coritami-
nation from each site was not significant beyond the property
boundary. .The effects of each landfill could be observed in
comparison with .background water quality, but downgradient
water quality 'was frequently within drinking water standards.
Many differences in the impacts of the five landfills
resulting from the method of landfilling were distinguished '
during this study; however, there were also many differences
caused by variations among site conditions, ages, and the
amount of refuse emplaced in each landfill. The two primary
factors, that are direct functions of the method of landfilling.
are the potential volume of leachate and the strength of
that leachate.
If it were possible to examine the five methods of . •
landfill-ing, using a uniform quantity of solid waste, on the.
basis of this study,.certain results could be anticipated. .
A balefill should have the lowest potential volume of leachate
because of the .reduced area of the landfill base; its leachate
should be the least concentrated. A millfill, again because
the area of the base .of the landfill is reduced, ought to
-------
have the next lowest potential volume of leachate but it
should have the' s tr oages-t 'initial; •• leachate concentrations . . , •
.;». hil. If illvVsirte^ by- steep slopes .
and since the basal area of the landfill is reduced by
^building upwards, also should have a relatively low potential
volume of leachate which ought to. be of moderate to consider-
able strength. Both the permitted sanitary and strip mine
methods of landfilling ought not be expected to reduce the
potential volume of leachate (unless a strip mine should
have a highwall of such dimension that it would produce
effects similar.. to those of a hillfill) and leachates should
-have moderate to strong concentrations. ••,.•-
,.,/, The 'following conclusions regarding each of the five
methods of operations investigated in the present study are
' "' ' '•'
; .-' Hillfilling is an effective method of reducing, the .....
areal extent of a landfill. It!, increases the volume of ,
waste per unit area through an increase in height and decreases
the potential volume of leachate because of steep slopes.
Among the sites studied, the .hillfill had the greatest
potential volume of leachate and the leachate generated by
the; hillfill (1969 data):"was the. .strongest. -The landfill,;: /;, ;:;,
^during 1978 and" 1979; was in. the final stages of anaerobic ' ;:
degradation and so generated .a leachate. of ;, low strength at
v'tliat -time'.. /-;•.• -:^..:'..-r. '; ^y-^'^&J-A ;;'sV/ 'jxfrv.-v,:' -:. . /..'./.•-:-;^'; '"• V"^?;::^;.
. The hillfill had the most. ..severe- envirpnmental impact
on ground-water ;resour6es but had no impact on adjacent •;.
surface water. Its impact was localized because of a .minimal
ground-water gradient and attenuation attributable to the
presence of, clay at the site.- The leachate generated by the
hillfill has not contaminated the bedrock aquifer but has ;
moyed downward in the shallow. .aquifer .under decreasing
'aquifer he ad "J "The primary cause of : the:: degradation , of /the.,
ground-water resources .in : the; ..vicinity of the hillfill site
was the shallow depth , to: water and the ground-water .mounding
.that occurred within the hill. Leachate is impounded within
the hill as a result of the construction of a relatively
. impermeable clay base. Because of- the head of leachate
within the hillfill, it is possible that leachate migrates
outward from the base of the. landfill through ruptures in
the clay.
-------
BALEFILL
Baling is the most effective method of volume reduction;
it results in the highest density of refuse. It effectively
reduces the area required for landfilling and minimizes the
amount of cover material required. Among the five sites
investigated, the balefill contained the greatest weight of
refuse and had the second highest potential leachate volume.
The leachate generated by the balefill was of low
strength; in fact, it had the lowest concentration of any of
the leachates generated among the five landfills studied.
This is attributable to the high density of the refuse and
the rapid channeling of water through the bales. The site
has had a.minimal localized impact on ground-water resources.
With the exception of organics, all parameters indicate a
lower level of contamination to the ground water when compared
with "the' permitted sanitary landfill. The minimal impact of
the balefill can be attributed to a combination of low
strength leachate and in excess of 30 m (100 ft) of separation
between .the base of the landfill and the water table.
MILLFILL .
MilIfilling achieves a high density of refuse and is an
effective volume reduction method which minimizes the area •
required for landfilling and, although such was not the
practice at the site studied, does not require daily cover. ..
The leachate generated by the milIfill, based on the
one sample that could be collected, was the strongest among
the leachates analyzed during the study period. The increased
surface area of milled refuse accelerates the rate of its
physical and chemical decomposition and so leachate is
produced more quickly and is characteristically of greater
strength at a millfill. The millfill leachate is comparable
to the initial leachate concentration generated by the
hillfill and to the leachate generated by the Boone .County
test cell. It has had a minimal localized effect upon
ground-water resources. Apparently, it has had comparably
less impact than the permitted sanitary landfill which, in
part, may be due to the distance between the fill and. the
monitor wells. The millfill has not significantly polluted
the aquifer and the water supply at the landfill remains
potable. Because daily cover is applied, the millfill
.examined in this study appears to behave more similarly to a
permitted sanitary landfill than to the classic millfill
which is uncovered. ..•••••
-------
STRIP MINE LANDFILL •:....
;'•'• Of the five sites investigated during the course of .
this study, the strip mine landfill had the lowest refuse
density. This method of landfilling does, however, make
good use of available space and, depending upon the height
of the highwall, allows for an increased volume of refuse.to
be placed on a relatively limited base area. The leachate
generated by the strip mine landfill was of moderate strength,
lower in concentration than the leachate initially generated
by the hillfill or the railIfill. The strip mine landfill
leachate exerted a moderate impact on ground-water and .
surface water resources in the.vicinity of the site. Despite
the:fact that the strip mine landfill had the.greatest
potential for. contamination because attenua.tive soils. generally
are not present, the site did not have a significantly
adverse impact on the ground water because of several factors:
a. substantial separation exists between the base of the-
landfill and the water table; the base of the landfill was
backfilled with spoil material prior to initiating landfilling
operations;.and the slopes at the site increase the amount
of runoff and decrease infiltration because the completed
areas of the- landfill have been restored to approximate
original, contour. .
PERMITTED. SANITARY LANDFILL . •" •- '. , . ;
The permitted sanitary •landfill.had the least amount, of
refuse .and the -lowest potenti-al. volume of leachate.' among'/the..v;:.
sites investigated in the present study. It. exerted a
minimal localized impact on the:ground and surface water
resources.in its vicinity. Immediately beneath and adjacent
to the landfill, degradation of ground water was noticeable;
however, there, was no contamination to adjacent surface
water. The minimal impact of. the. permitted, sanitary landfill.
leachate on ground water may be attributed to a combination
of the. attenuative properties of the surficial materials, at
the site' and- -a---s'ignif icant. 'depth to 'Water.'"•. "
Based on. the environmental impacts of each of the five
sites studied, it appears that all five methods- of landfilling
are environmentally acceptable methods of operation providing
site characteristics allow for the natural renovation of
leachate. It must be emphasized that site characteristics,
particularly depth to water,.are crucial to the ultimate
impact of any landfill, regardless of the method of operation.
The .results of this study suggest that balefilling and.
millfilling offer significant benefits when these methods.
are used under optimal site specific circumstances. However,
-------
because of their capital cost, a relatively dense level of
population is required to support the associated processing
facilities.
-------
' SECTIQN 3 ;
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations;• ,a're offered on the basis '
of this study of five landfill.s employing special lahdfilling
•methods; . . . , • . . ••.-•-• ....
:' 6 The- monitoring of both-.-ground and. -surf ace waters. ... .
should continue at each site.. .. .
o The leachate within the hillfill should be removed
in order to reduce its head and thus reduce its flow into
the surrounding ground water. . . ' • . "
o Demolition wastes should be accepted, at the balefill
(as at present) and should be used to obtain a final grade
that is in accordance with plans for its use. when completed.
During continued monitoring, particular attention should be
.directed to the' organic content-of: the ground water at . -
MP #2. : •.:-•••••••-.-• ..;";•-•"••?•;-;•• •;.;•"•••• "."•• ••";•.•• •" •' .,.•'-.•-••••
. ;.",: •.••'-[ q:" At:;:the'-:.millf il 1 /V.;precautions^;shbuld.; be.;.take'h';-'t:o".^":;.;: ::vv;v •
prevent leachate breakouts. ' trtien the millfill is closed,
there should be close adherence to the final grading plans
.to ensure maximum surface water runoff and avoid ponding.
o Those portions of the, str.ip pit that have .not yet .
received refuse should be lined, at both the base .and high-
wall, with 0.9 to 1.5 m (3-5 !f£) of clean, relatively'ifflperme-
a,ble fill., material in order, ,-to;- prevent ..the. migration of
leachate along bedding planes. The erosion rills present..,on
completed portions of the strip-mine landfill, should be
repaired to eliminate surface leachate breakouts and completed
-portions should be revegetated to obtain.a denser vegetative
cover.
o The permitted sanitary landfill should be regraded
to increase surface water runoff.
o Waste disposal at the millfill and the strip mine
landfill (the only two active landfills) should continue to
be confined to mixed municipal solid waste.
-------
o It is strongly recommended that careful consideration
be given to the siting of all types of landfills with partic-
ular emphasis on hydrogeologic conditions. Many of the
differences among special landfill types that are caused by
the method of landfilling have been identified during this
study. However, there are significant variations in site
conditions among the landfills examined including geographic,
climatic, and hydrogeologic variations which affected the
impacts of the five landfills on the environment. Because
of these variables and considering the differences among the
landfills including age, area, and amount and type of refuse,
it is difficult to make direct comparisons about the environ-
mental impacts each method of landfilling exerts. It is
therefore recommended that, in order to minimize the affects
of these variations and to derive additional information
about the relative environmental impacts of the methods
employed at special types of landfills, a controlled study
be performed. This might best be accomplished by construc-
ting, within a certain area, four field-scale test cells;
one containing baled refuse, one milled, one unprocessed,
and one to be hillfilled; each cell should be hydrologically
isolated. Background data should be obtained including
complete climatic records, specific hydrologic character-
istics, and precise subsurface information.
Construction methods should be as uniform as possible
and the refuse emplaced in each of the cells should be from
the same source to minimize variability among the cells.
Leachate should be collected from each cell and analyzed
periodically. In addition, monitoring should include samples
from a series of monitoring wells surrounding each cell,
preferably located in sets with increasing distance from the
cell so that attenuation, dilution, and dispersion properties
can be defined. Soil moisture, temperature, gas production,
and settlement should also be monitored. Monitoring should
take place from the initial emplacement of refuse in the
cells through the final stages of degradation in order to
determine the relative strengths, composition, and trends of
leachates. This type of study would eliminate site variations
and allow a more direct comparison among four special methods .
of landfilling.
-------
SECTION 4
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
The design of the study included establishing site
selection criteria, developing methods of site selection/
.and designing monitoring procedures (including methods of
well drilling, sampling, and chemical analyses). The basis
for the design of many of these elements in the study has
been previously determined by the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA).
SITE SELECTION . .
The process of site selection for this study was ini-
tiated with a survey of known sites using different methods
of waste disposal (nilIfill, balefill, milIfill, and coal
strip mine landfill) located east of the Mississippi River.
the survey identified 17 hillfills, 15, balefills, 23 mil.lf ills,.
and 253 coal strip mine; landfills :(see-Table 1). These data
were compiled..' from information gained from EPA files, State
regulatory agencies .and solid waste authorities, ma jpr.-waste , ..,
management corporations', technical 'publications and journals,"'
and landfill owners and operators. During the survey,
information, was obtained about the location, ownership, and
size of the fill. Pacts were collated about the following
specifications: Rate of filling, operational procedures,
design parameters, age, ground and surface water monitoring
procedures, presence or absence of leachate discharges,
availability.of .analytical results from monitoringi availa-
bility of reports, and comments about regulatory involvement.
Each site was evaluated on the basis of selection ".
criteria encompassing, the many variables (depth-to-water,
.geology, hydrology, refuse-processing, site preparation)
.which existed among the surveyed facilities. Site selection
criteria established prior to initiating the study included:
1. Availability of detailed engineering and scientific
reports.
2. Availability of background analytical data.
3. Existence of monitor wells.
10
-------
TABLE 1. ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IN
SELECTED STATES EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
State
Alabama
Connecticut
Delaware, .
Florida '
Georgia .
Illinois" "
Indiana "
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota.
Mississippi
Missouri • . • !'
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia.
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Hillfill
,0
: ;0
0
•• 1, ••-..:
0
.... 6
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0 "
1
»
Balefill
2
••0
0
0 . .-
2
0
b
0
0
1
0
1
0
•' 1
..o •
0
0
•-."• "I.-' •
" ' ' 6 "
0
1
0
0
0 .
0
0 "
0
0
0
Millfill
0
.0 '
1
3 •..--•
•'•••2 ' '
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
0 . '
o .
o :.
0
0
••-;: I '•':: • ..'.,.
' ' i : "
1
2
. 0
0
4
0
0
. 0
0 '
2
Coal strip
mine fill
0
. 0
0
0
0
40
6
15
0
0
2
0
.0
0
o ;••; ;, ' -V • ;•- :;
6: .- •:• -- :-i-:'.v.'-
0 " .
.. ..• , o ...,-.- •.;•.;•.:•.•:. ••;•,,
u '-.-. •• ' • ri:.T<;?
o '
0
56
120
0
0
2 . . '
0 •
0
' 6
0
Total 17 15 23 253
11
'•>
-------
Supplementary .,si.te;;.ssele.c|:ion. criteria added later, included:
'•;"; "'Jt;.-.... 'Availability of 'the'site fpr:::s;tudy';''';..; '' ;;•-.-.,,,.
2. Accessibility of the site.
3. Status of litigation, if any.
4. Overall representative nature of the site.
5. The" sites must be unlined.. • ' • •.., .......
.,-..• 6. Refuse must have reached field capacity and -be'''"""•"
,. generating leachate.
7. ..The sites must, not accept large-, quantities-of. ......
,.•' industrial wastes. '• • ; . : : . ':' : "•-'/.• •
...:'- 8. All sites must have similar climatology.. "
Data gained through the survey was compared with the -.':
site selection criteria and was:reduced .to a matrix which
identified the principal characteristics.of each site as
they related to the .site selection criteria. .Facilities
which appeared to meet the site .selection criteria were thus
•'.identified/ reducing the. li;St of. potential candidate sites
for study. The operator .of ?.each; of .these .sites was contac-
ted in. order .to confirm, the -.data obtained during the initial•'
I'survey. At ;• this timey \detal;ls, of the .ptpject were discussed
with the site owners and'a: fotmal\request; wa-svmade-Vfor1 :,their;
cooperation in conducting the study. : -
It became.apparent that the cooperation of landfill
owners, whether/public or private, was to become a major
problem. Their lack of cooperation stemmed mainly .-from
their concern about legal liability. Another problem, that
.arose during discussions with,;.site owners pertained to'the'
lack of monitoring and detailed background, data available.
::It..is unfortunate, that the owners who'had''the mos.t-data-;;.^;.;:'.
pertaining to their site were the least--cooperative; several
..refused to discuss their- operations7-:at--all..,;' ' .... .
.. In .order to. gain the cooperation of'site .owners, it was
agreed that site names and .locations wbul^d be'hel:d,.in confi-;
dence. For this reason, sites will be referred to only by
the method of landfilling employed and the general location.
Five sites were identified as principal candidates for
study and field evaluations .were made at each to.confirm
•existing data, assess the physical setting, and conduct
geologic and hydrologic evaluations. Meteorological data,
additional data pertaining?to operational history, and data
12 '"•"' ' " ' ' •' .
-------
from regulatory agencies was collected during the field
evaluation. After the initial evaluation, it was found that
several of the five principal candidate sites did not meet
the criteria; additional sites had to be selected.
The evaluation revealed that few sites were well moni-
tored. Of the 17 balefills identified east of the Mississippi
River, none had ground-water monitoring systems. Coal strip
mine landfills were either poorly monitored or accepted
quantities of industrial waste sufficient to render compari-
sons with other sates useless. Millfills tended to use
daily cover in their operations and were commonly well
monitored. It was ultimately decided that the final sites
selected would be those which best met the site selection
criteria and were representative of sites in similar settings.
In this way, a meaningful comparison among various sites
could be effected. Data gathered during the field evaluation
and other background data collected during earlier stages of
the project was evaluated in order to determine the necessity
for additional monitoring.
DESIGN OF MONITORING SYSTEMS
Existing hydrologic and analytical data were reviewed
to define the direction of ground-water flow and contaminant
enclaves. This information was used to determine whether
additional monitor wells would be necessary to refine the
capabilities of the monitoring system. All sites except the
sanitary landfill required the installation of additional
wells. The sanitary landfill had been studied previously :
and had an adequate network of wells. Monitoring wells were
located at each of the other sites to define ground-water
and contaminant movement. Drilling methods (see Section 3)
were developed for each site based on the prevailing geologic
conditions. Air rotary drilling was employed at the milIfill
and coal strip mine landfill. Soil boring was used at the
hillfill and mud rotary drilling at the balefill. All
available well logs are shown in Appendix A.
In order to gain additional information on the attenua-
tion properties of each site, particle size analyses were
conducted on samples obtained during well drilling for the
four sites located on unconsolidated material: the hillfill,
balefill, milIfill, and permitted sanitary landfill. Samples
were tested in accordance with the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 422. Grain size distribution
curves for each sample tested are included in Appendix B. A
list of percentages of soil separates (clay, silt, sand,
coarse fragments) based on the USDA size limits are presented
in Tables 4, 7, 10 and 15.
13
-------
EPA had determined chemical analytical parameters prior
to the initiation of the study. They were to be limited to :
three anions, three cations, three nutrients, :and'-three
demand tests. After studying the historical data for each :
site, it was determined that alkalinity, acidity, sulfate,
chlorides, total organic carbon, chemical oxygen demand,
total solids, total dissolved solids, nitrate nitrogen,
ammonia nitrogen, phosphates, total Kjeldahl nitrogen,
copper, iron, manganese, sodium, lead, and zinc would be
analyzed for each sample collected. In addition, pH, temp-
erature, and specific conductivity would be measured in the
field for each sampling point.
At each site, samples were collected after the. well(s)
had been cleared to assure that representative samples were.
obtained. Depth to.water was measured prior to clearing
(see Appendix C). A submersible pump was used at.the permit-
ted sanitary landfill and the coal strip mine landfill and a
diaphragm pump was used at the millfill. Bailing was the,
method used, to clear the wells at the hillfi-11 because of
their 2-inch diameter and depth-to-water of, more than 30 feet.
A combination of submersible pumps and bailing was necessary
at the balef ill because of depth-.to-water and .technical
difficulties, in employing the submersible pump during the
winter months. After samples had been obtained and field
measurements of pH, temperature, and specific conductivity
had been taken, the. samples were, filtered through No. 40 _'-.'-•
.filter paper using a Buchner filtering funnel and flask.
Samples were preserved; in accordance,;.with. :EPA standard-.. ... ,,:.
methods, iced, and shipped-by air to the.analytical labora-'.• r" ?"
tory for analysis. At the laboratory, EPA standard analyti-
cal procedures were followed.
DATA INTERPRETATION
The initial process of data interpretation involved
reviewing historical (previously existing) analytical data
for. each site selected. These, data were entered in-a computer
for effective management. Data collected during the study
period was. similarly entered. Output was organized in such •
a manner that the analytical result or parameter could be
displayed for each monitoring point for each sampling date.
A -summary of mean results obtained, number of observations,
and standard deviation is provided (see Appendix D for
historical results and Appendix E for results obtained
during this study).
After reviewing the data for each site, methods of
display were developed to; illustrate the results obtained in
a manner that allows clear concise, interpretation and compari-
son. A series of bar graphs (histograms), Stiff diagrams,
and a nitrogen index have been selected for this purpose.
14
-------
Bar graphs have been utilized to illustrate the mean concen-
tration of the general indicators of water quality including
alkalinity, acidity, total dissolved solids (TDS), total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and
total organic carbon (TOC). The relative height of each bar
makes comparison among the monitoring points readily apparent
for similar parameters.
To further illustrate the effect of the landfills on
ground and surface water and to illustrate water quality
variations between monitoring points, Stiff diagrams have
been constructed using the average concentrations of sodium,
iron, manganese, .zinc, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, and
phosphate. The means.were calculated using data from the
current stu'dy period only. Because of the large range in
milliequivalents. of ions, a semi-logarithmic scale has been .
used.„
Stiff''diagrams. are a graphical procedure designed to
display analyses. They provide a distinctive method for
showing water composition and a means for the comparison of
analyses with each other, emphasizing relative differences •"•'•'•
and similarities. Concentrations of cations and anions are
plotted on parallel horizontal scales and the points are
connected to.produce irregular polygonal shapes. The width
of the shape.-is an approximate'indication of the total ionic
content. . :
.. , The nitrogen index has been used to delineate redox .
..(oxidation, and reduction) zones in the ground water and -to'. •.'_/;
determine the location of reducing fronts as leachate mi-
grates from the landfill. The.index is a ratio of organic
nitrogen arid ammonia nitrogen ,(TKN) to nitrite and nitrate •
nitrogen (NO- + NO,). The ratios were calculated using mean .
values for tne study period. A small number (0.01.) indicates
the'"absence of reduced nitrogen and, therefore, oxidizing
conditions; a large number (greater than 100) indicates.a . '
concentration the landfill. The index is a ratio of organic
nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen (TKN + NH3) to nitrite and •}••
nitrate nitrogen (NO2 + N03). The ratios were calculated
using mean values for the study period. A small number
(0.01) indicates the absence of reduced nitrogen and, there-
fore, oxidizing conditions; a large number (greater than 100)
indicates a concentration of ammonia and nitrogen-containing
organic compounds which exist under reducing conditions.
DEVIATIONS FROM THE STUDY PLAN
Several' deviations from the study plan resulted from
the extended period required for the site selection process
necessitated by the lack of cooperation from site owners.
Neither the balefill nor the strip mine landfill had monitor-
15
-------
ing wells .prior to this study. They were selected since
monitoring had not been instituted at any of the balefills
east of the Mississippi River and comprehensive ground-water
monitoring had not been accomplished at any coal strip mine
..landfill which did not accept substantial quantities of
industrial wasteland would agree to cooperate during the
study. .,' •;'•':•'•'''"..'.-' ...•'•"; ' . •
There were two additional areas of deviation from the
.original study plan. Resistivity surveys could not be
conducted after the site selection process had extended into
the winter months. Well drilling was therefore undertaken
immediately after site selection and, since the principal
rationale for conducting electrical resistivity surveys had
been to aid in locating the monitor wells, such studies were
.deleted from the project. Furthermore, the suction lysimeters
originally proposed for this study could hot be used since
"EPA policy discourages the installation of lysimeters requir-
ing drilling through refuse. Lysimeters could not be installed
at the coal strip mine landfill or at the permitted sanitary
landfill because of shallow bedrock. ....
. 16
-------
SECTION FIVE
PRESENTATION OF FIVE
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL METHODS
The environmental impact of each of the five landfill
methods is evaluated by describing the topographic position,
climate, geology and soils, landfill operation, monitoring
network, particle size analyses, hydrogeology, and the
results of chemical analyses.
HILLFILL • .
A need arose in, a rapidly developing County for a site
to dispose of municipal solid waste; the hillfill, an above-
grade landfill, was designed in order to make the best
possible use of the limited available space. It was developed
as part of a master plan for a large recreational complex.
Because of its height, the completed hill serves as a sledding
and ski slope.
Topographic Position
The hil.lfill lies within the Central Lowlands physio-
graphic province. The preglacial topography was modified by
glacial ice into its present form of low, broad moraines
characteristically forming flat to gently rolling topography.
The hill created by the landfill covers a 16-ha (40-ac) base
and rises 46 m (150 ft) above the surrounding landscape.
Drainage for the area is poorly integrated with numerous
swamps and marshy areas. The primary drainage pattern for
the .surrounding area is formed by a southerly flowing river
located approximately 610 m (2000 ft) west of the fill site
(.see Figure 1). The river is fed by a perennial tributary
which flows through a swampy area located approximately
0.8 km (0.5 mile) north of the hillfill. The intersection
of the river and the tributary occurs slightly south of the
hillfill. There are three man-made ground-water-fed lakes .
located adjacent to the hillfill lying to the south and
east. Vegetation in the area consists of woodland, marsh,
and meadow grasses. The hillfill has been revegetated with
grasses. •
17
-------
Figure 1. Map of the hillfill s.ite.
-------
Climate
The climate at the hillfill is humid continental and is
characterized by cold, moderately dry winters and warm to
hot, wet summers. A large lake lies 64 km (40 miles) to the
east of the site but is considered to have only a minimal
effect on the climate of the study area.
Based on data compiled by the U.S. Weather Bureau at a
nearby weather station for a 30-year period of record, the
mean annual precipitation for the hillfill area is 86.49 cm
(34.05 in). It varies throughout the year from a normal low
of 3ii 78 cni (1:. 49 in) in February to. a normal high of 10.77 cm.. ..
(4.24 in) in June (see Figure 2 and Table 2). April through ••• ••
September are the wettest months .of the year accounting, for
60 percent"of annual..precipitation. The average snowfall
per year is 81.79 cm (32.20 in). Precipitation during the
one-yearstudy period .was 27.23 cm (10.72 in) above normal.
The months -of October 1978, February 1.9.79, May 1979v -and >
July- 197.9-had slightly below normal precipitation; all other -
months were,.above normal. Greater than .normal snowfall ......
occurred during January 1979 with a. total., of 70;-10 cm...... .......;
(2.7.60 in) which is only 16.38 cm (6.45 in) less than the
total normal yearly, average.
The mean annual temperature for the hillfill area is
9.3 C (48.9 F) with a/normal low of -5.4 C (22.2 F) occurring: .
in January and a normal high of 22.5 C (72.9 F) in July.
Geology and Soils '•• • • '• • ',.-.. "' . ;:-:.>.:
The hillfill is underlain by bedrock of Silurian age
covered by a mantle of glacial .and post-glacial sediments.
The bedrock of the area is composed of Silurian dolomites of
the Alexandrian and..Niagaran Series..'.'. .The Niagarah dolomites
underlying the hillfill site are subdivided into the Joliet,
Waukesha, and Racine Formations which range from clean to . ....
highly silty, argillaceous, cherty dolomites. Bedrock dips
gently to.-the east and. southeast .at approximately 2 m/kn • ."
(10 ft/mile). The'Niagaran Series dolomites-are the most
productive aquifers in the area.
Bedrock is overlaid by approximately 24 m (80 ft) of ......
unconsolidated glacial deposits of the Wisconsin Stage
(Pleistocene Epoch). They are composed primarily of tills
and both glaciofluvial arid glaciolacustrine deposits. Most
of the site is underlain by the Henry Formation (see Figure 3);
it consists-of .sand and gravel outwash (well sorted, glacio- •
fluvial deposits) .and is frequently covered by a thin layer
of loess . (windblown silt deposited after the Wisconsin
glacial advance). Beneath the site, outwash deposits range
from greater than 12 m (40 ft) to 8.5 m (28 ft), and are
•••'•• . 19 . •'.•••'
-------
to
o
to
OC
Ul
Ul
5
I-
z
UJ
0
20-
15-
lo-
st 5-
u
Ul
o:
a.
O-
-• NORMAL;
-• ACTUAL
SEP OCT ; Nd/ DEC JAN >: FEB MAR ^APR MAY JUN
1978 -^"' 1979
Figure 2. -.Graph of precipitation for the hillfill.
__!_. _
JUL AUG
-9
-8
-7-
26
-5
-4
-2
-I
-0
to
ui
±
u
z
o
>-
<
E
u
a:
a.
-------
a
TABLE 2. MONTHLY PRECIPITATION DATA - HILLFILL
Date
9/78
10/78
11/78
12/78
1/79
2/79
;;3/79
4/79
5/79
6/79
' 7/79
8/79
TOTAL
. Normal
8.
6.
. - : . 5 .
5.
4.
. ; 3.
6.
8.
9.
10.
' 9.
'. 7.
86.
81
71
46
08
78
78
17
74
07
77
60
5.2
49
( 3
( 2
( 2
( 2
( 1
( 1
( 2
( 3
(3
( 4
( 3
( 2
(34
.47)
.64)
.15)
.00)
.88)
.49) :
.43),
.44)
,57)
.24)
.78)
.96)
.05)
Actual
20.
4.
6.
7.
6.
'•'. 2 •
12.
15.
6.
13.
9.
12.
118.
07
17
55
95
91
90
45
39
60
56
35
60
50
( 7.
( 1.
( 2.
( 3.
( 2.
( 1.
( 4.
( 6.
(2.
( 5.
( 3.
( 4.
(46.
90)
64)
58)
13)
72)
14 ) :.
90) .
06)
60)
34)
68)
96)
65)
Departure
from -normal
11.
.- 2.
1.
2.
2.
- 0.
6.
6.
- 2.
2.
- 0.
• .5.:
32.
25
54
09
87
13
89
27
65
46
97
25
08
17
( 4.43)
(- 1.00)
( 0.43)
( 1.13)
( 0.84)
(-•0.35).
( 2.47);
( 2.62)
(- 0.97)
( 1.10)
(- 0.10)
( 2. 00-)
( 12.60)"
Measurements in cm (in)
21
-------
Made Land
Cahokia Alluvium
hb Henry Formation - Batavia
. Member
wy Wedron Formation - Yorkville
Till Member
Figure 3. Map of surficial geology at the hillfill site.
22
-------
generally thicker toward the west. Underlying the Henry
Formation and exposed in the extreme eastern portion of the
site is the Wedron Formation, also of the Wisconsin Stage.
This formation is composed of dark grey to greenish-grey,
very clayey till which contains abundant pebbles and is
overlain in some places by extensive glaciolacustrine deposits.
The areas mapped as Made Land include the hillfill and
the three lakes; a thick layer of gravel (the Henry Forma-
tion) and an underlying layer of impermeable clay (part of
,.,,. the Wedron Formation) were excavated to form the lakes. IJhe
;-...;:'- clay, was .stockpiled and later used to construct the cells of
the hiirfil.lv Along the stream and river are deposits of . • : • ••••••....... . . .•
:'"••;:...• the. Cahbkia Alluvium, - flood-plain and channel deposits of . ....
.;...., present rivers and streams composed 6f silt and sand, some
... ' gravel--and' .organicsl •'.'"'' ''•••• .•••'"'••""-. . •' ''"" . '.
'• •"•'•'••'•:- ..Soils.!.in the area of the hillfill were mapped by the .-:
- USDA Soil Conservation-Service after, .filling operations were . _ °
..:..., begun. The original soils at the hillfill site .were stripped \.tl
, .'; during the'site preparation. Therefore, the soils, under- '',
: "' lying'the hillfill have been mapped as urban land or miscel- ''
:"•''-,: laneous land. . .. . "•
•••.•:'!'•,-.-..'>.'.
Soils east of'the hillfill have a parent material of
p/.; glacial till while other soils in the area have parent • .:.,• :... , '.-'
,'; ••:;' \materials of alluvium, butwash and loess. Soil series with":.'•-. ••";,•:'-;'-';'.'".''•.>••'••;'/-.
parent materials of loess and outwash are the Casco loam, ' .-
~~V..": ;Fox silt loam, Kane silt loam and Barrington silt .loam-.. ...:'._.;;- :;.>jV .Ly^,,:.^,,..-., ...
."; These soils are moderately well to- well drained arid moderately'.•^•:>-;'(,'t-:':^^,'>---.''•'
permeable. The soil series found near the stream with a
parent material of alluvium is the Sawmill silty clay loam.
This soil is poorly drained and moderately to slowly per-
meable. East of the hillfill, the predominant glacial
...... till-derived soil is the Morley .silt loam. It is moderately
well to well drained and has a slowly permeable subsoil. ... .... ......
:: Landf il 1- -Operations .
The hillfill was operated from November 1965 to Octo-
ber 1971 on a 485-ha (1200-A) site owned by the County.
Final cover and grading were completed during the autumn of ,
1.973. The facility served a population of 500,000 and 3
received.mixed municipal refuse at a rate of 530 to 1900 m
(700-2500 yd ) per day. No hazardous industrial wastes were
accepted.
Nearly 760,000 m (1 million yd ) of clay cover material
and an approximately equal amount of compacted refuse were ..
used to construct a hill 46 m (150 ft) in height and covering
a 16-ha (40-ac) base. This,results in an average volume of
refuse per area of 47,500 m /ha (25,000 yd /ac).
23
-------
. ..U Construction of the:,hi].lf.was,developed in 0.8 to 1.6 ha.
(2—4. Ac)..cells, I'. ...Xhev'.f;Jopr: rpf >the: base "cells . was leveled and
covered with 0.6 m (2 ft)of impervious clay. This raised
the base of the hillfill 3.7 m (12 ft) above the water
table. Berms of clay from 4.6 to 6.1 m (15-20 ft) in thick-
ness were constructed on this base to form the lateral
boundaries of each cell. Refuse was deposited in the cells
and compacted in lifts from 0.9 to 1.2 m (3-4 ft) in height,
and covered daily., The final height of each cell ranges
from 1.5 to 3.1 m (5-10 ft).. Cells were constructed in
layers until the desired height and shape of the hill were
obtained. Upon completion of the fill operation, 3 m (10 ft)
of final cover was placed over the berms and 15 cm (6 in) of
top soil Was applied. The hill was seeded with a mixture of
gra.sses. :-'..• '.•••••••••"• '•'. .••:-•.- .
During the study period, no leachate seeps or vectors
were observed; however, leachate breakouts had been reported
in the past. There was a strong odor of gas escaping from
the: leachate wells and some evidence of erosion on the
northwestern slopes of the hill Which are the steepest at
the site. The County maintains the coyer and vegetation at
the' site' on a regular-basis, v>' ',
Monitoring Network
Eleven wells were used to monitor the hillfill during
the study period (see Figure 4, Table 3, and Appendix A).
Five of these were previously existing observation wells
(MP fl, #3, #4, f5, t9); one was a previously existing
monitoring well (MP #2); three were water supply.wells
(•MP #11, #13, and #15) and two were hew monitoring., wells
drilled for this study (MP #10 and #12).
MP #2 is a leachate monitoring well, located on the
eastern slope of the hill. It had been installed so- that
samples of the leachate generated by the hillfill could be
obtained. It was completed into the refuse to a depth of
24v4 m (80.0 ft) and was constructed with 15.24 cm (6.00 in)
steel casingv The lowermostr 16.5 m (54..0, ft) of casing was
slotted to permit leachate to enter the well and a vent was
installed to facilitate the escape of gases. ., •
MP #1, #3, #4, #5, #9 were all drilled by auger and .
completed with 3.18 cm (1.25 in) PVC casing. The final
0.3 m (1.0 ft) of casing was perforated to permit the entry
of ground water. These wells were originally installed as
piezometers but, for the purposes of this study, they were
used to monitor both water levels and water quality.
MP #1, #3, #4 form a well-nest near the eastern toe of
the fill. MP #1 was completed at 19.0 m (62.4 ft) in clay
24
-------
013
LEGEND
o MONITOR
® LEACHATE WELL
G SURFACE WATER
SAMPLING POINT
* SOURCE OF HISTORICAL
WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure 4. Location of monitoring points at the
hillfill site.
25
-------
TABLE 3. MONITOR WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS - HILLFILL
o\
MP //
1
2
3
4
5
6e
9
Well
depth
19.0
( 62.4)
24.4
( 80.0)
11.9
( 39.0)
7.9
( 25.9)
5.2
( 17.2)
10.6
( 34.8)
6. 1
( 20.0)
b
Total
casing
19.2
(63.0)
26. 9
(88. 3)
12.1
(39.6) ;
8. 0
(26.3)
5.4
07.6)
10.8
(35.3) -
6.2
(20.4)
Type
casing
3. 18 cm
( 1.25 in.)
PVC
15.24 cm
( 6.00 in.)
Steel
: 3. 18 cm
( 1-25 in,X
PVC
3. 18 cm
: . ( 1.25 in.)
PVC :
3. 18 cm ;
( 1.25 in.)
PVC
3. 18 cm
( 1.25 in.)
PVC
3. 18 cm
( 1.25 in.)
PVC
Section
slotted
19.0^-18.7
(62.4-61.4)
24.4- 7.9
(80.0-26.0)
11.9-11.6
(39.0-38.0)
H 7.9-^ 7.6
• (25.9-24.9) s
'•;'. 5.2- 4.9
(17.2-16.2)
10.6-10.3
(34.8-33.8)
. 6; 1- 5.8
; (20.0-19.0)
Elevation
top of
casing
220. 66
(739.95)
244.97
(803.70)
':. 220.67
'•• (723.97)
220.66
(723.95)
219.44
(719.95)
219.47
(720.04)
216.56
(710.50)
Reference
0. 18
(0.60)
2.51
(8. 25)
0. 19
(0.62)
0.12
(0.40)
0. 14
(0.45)
0. 16
(0. 54)
0. 11
(0.35)
Surface
elevation
220.48
(723.35)
242.45
(795.45) .;'.
220,48.t
(723.35)
220. 54
(723.55)
219.30
(719.50)
219.30
(719.50)
216.45
(710. 15)
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 3. MONITOR WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS - HILLFILL
, a
ro
MP 1
10
i i
i i
12
Well
depth
5.7
( 18. 6)
AS 7
H J» /
(150.0)
4.0
( 13.0)
h
Total
casing
6.3
(20.6)
9"\ n
£_>• \J
(82.0)
4.9
(16.0)
Type
casing
5.08 cm
( 2.00 in.)
PVC
1 9 7O I'm
i £• / \j cm
( 5.00 in.)
Steel
5.08 cm
( 2. 00 in.)
PVC
Section
;• slotted
5; 7- 2.6
(18.6- 8.6)
•/
• • Open Hole
4.0- 6.9
(13.0- 3.0)
Elevation •'
• top of • :•' •'. ,
: casing": ' ': Reference
216.23 0.61
. (709.40) (2.00)
;
• 8
216.10 0.91
(709.00) (3.00)
Surface
elevation
215. 62f
(707.40)
9 1 O A A
£, LJ . HO
(720.00)
215. 19f
(706.00)
13
15
a Measurements in meters (feet) unless otherwise indicated.
b Total casing is equal to', the casing in the ground plus casing above, ground (Reference).
c All eleyations relative to mean sea level. ' . ' ;
d Reference above ground surface from which water level measurements are taken.
e Source of historical water quality data.. .. ' • •
f Elevation estimated from; USGS-: topographic map. ' .' ' • /
g Dashes indicate information not available. . .' .
h Existing water supply wells. No completion -data available.
-------
till. MP 13 is 11.9 m (39.0 ft) in"depth and was completed ,
in clayey gravel. MP" #4 was. completed .in sand ..and gravel at
7.9 m (25.9 ft). During the study period, each of these
three wells exhibited a different water level. MP #5 is
located north of the fill. It is 5.2 m (17.2 ft) in depth
arid was completed in sandy gravel. MP #9 is adjacent to the
northwestern edge .of the fill and- was completed in clay till
at a depth of 6.1 m (20.0 ft).
MP #10 and #12 were installed before the first sampling
.round. They were drilled with augers and completed with
5.08 cm (2.00 in) PVC-casing. Each was fitted with a 3.0 m
(10.0 ft) section of well screen and gravel packed to prevent
any plugging of the slots. MP #10 is located at the western
side of the fill. The geologic materials penetrated during
its construction' include 2.6 m (8.5 ft) of silty, clayey
gravel-followed by sand containing varying amounts of clay,
silt, and gravel. It was completed at 5.7 m (18.6 ft).
MP #12 is situated north of the fill near a swampy area.
Logs describe 0.8 m (2.5 ft) bf"soii> 0.8 m (2.5 ft) of
loess, dense clay to a depth of 2.6 m-(8.5 ft) followed by
0.9 m (3.0 ft) of silty,.clayey sand. The well was completed
at 4.6 m (15.0 ft) in sandy gravel.
MP #11, #13, and #15 were existing water supply wells.
MP.#11 is located south of.the landfill.and is 45.-7m
(150.0 ft) in depth. :Logs describe 25.0 in. (82.0 ft) of/. .
unconsolidated sediments overlying dolomite, bedrock; the ./
Wei 1: was. cased v to .bedrock :with 12; 70-pm .(5. PO-in )i. steel . . ...
casing. . MP #13' is located northeast :6f \the:'hill-fiil- and'/the / ::.;.
large lake, and MP #15-is located east of the-hill-fill; ' no
logs are available for these wells.
The monitoring points were so located that samples.
could be obtained showing the'quality of upgradient ground-
.water, ground water adjacent to the landfill at various
depths, down'gradient ground-water, surface water, and" leachate,
MP #12 and,#13 .provided ./upgradient ground-water samples from
'two depths.'" MP #12 is a shallow monitoring well completed-
in the unconsolidated- glaqiali formations, and MP #13 is a
deep production well completed in the-^bedrock aquifer.,,.. .
MP #1, #3,- #4-, .#5, and #9 yielded ground-water samples
from points adjacent to the toe of the landfill. MP #1, #3,
and #4, a nest of wells, were each completed at a different
depth in the glacial deposits. MP #5 and #9 provided shallow
ground-water samples from other points located around the
base of the hillfill.
MP #10, #11, and #15 provided downgradient ground-water
samples from two depths. MP #10 is a shallow downgradient
monitoring well and MP #11 is a production well completed in
28
-------
the bedrock aquifer. MP #15 is a water supply well also
completed in the bedrock aquifer. Downgradient surface
water samples were collected from the small man-made ground-
water-fed lake at MP #7 and from the large lake at MP #8.
MP #2 was completed within the hillfill and monitors leach-
ate quality.
In addition to the.data obtained from these monitoring
points, historical water quality data was also obtained for
MP #6, the shallow well immediately adjacent to MP #5, and
for the reservoir, MP #14.
Particle Size Analyses
To aid in the quantification of attenuation characteris-
tics at the hillfill site, particle size analyses were
conducted on five samples obtained during the drilling of
MP #10 and MP #12 (see Appendix B). Samples were available .
only from these two wells, as all other wells had been . .
emplaced prior to the study period.
Table 4 shows the results of particle size analyses
conducted on three drilling samples from MP #10 and two
drilling samples from MP #12. All three samples from MP #10
are glacial outwash which become progressively coarser with
depth. The shallower MP #12 sample is loess and has a
greater percentage of finer material than has the deeper .
outwash sample. There was a layer of dense plastic clay
penetrated during the^ drilling of MP #12 (see Appendix A,
Well Logs) which was not analyzed because it was essentially
all clay. None of the five samples analyzed shows a parti-
cularly large amount of clay present for sorption of leachate
by matrix material.
Hydrogeology of the Hillfill Site
The hillfill is situated in an area of relatively low
relief and poor drainage developed on interbedded glacial
sands, silts and clays. The hillfill itself is the major
topographic feature. Ground water in the vicinity of the
hillfill moves in numerous small, partly interconnected flow
systems resulting from the intertonguing glacial tills and
outwash. Typically, there are shallow recharge/discharge
water table systems which are interconnected by leakage with
deeper semiartesian systems which in turn leak into the main
bedrock aquifer. Thus any recharge moves through several
"stair .stepped" flow systems before it becomes part of the
main ground-water aquifer.
Since ground water represents a major portion of the
drinking water supply for this part of the country, it has
been studied and quantified; water budgets have been developed
29
-------
TABLE 4. PERCENTAGE OF SEPARATES BY WEIGHT FOR
THE GEOLOGIC MATERIALS AT THE HILLFILL.3
% Coarse
Sample Description % Clay % Silt % Sand Fragments
'MP #10 Outwash 8 9.5 40.5 42
2.6-4.6 m
( 8.5-15.0 ft) .
MP #10 Outwash 2 . 7. 3.7 . 54
4.1-6.1 m V V .
(1.3.5-20. 0 ft)' '••'.•' ••• .
MP #10 Outwash 1 . 5 23 71
. 7.2-7.6 m
(23.5-25.0 ft)
MP. #12 Loess ' "8 16 . 67 . 9 .
1.1-1.5 m . . .''...
..( 3.5- ^5.0 ft) ' . . •: . •:.••;•-:.. .''.v:.: ,-v .-• ..-.-.'. •.•'..-•. v
MP #12 Outwash •' 2 lo'.'S 26.5 61
2.6- 4.6 m ••• ,.
( 8.5-15.0 ft)
Size limits for the soil separates are based on the
U. S. Department of Agriculture system.. The diameter
range for separates is: • ' •
Clay, less than 0.002 mm
Silt, 0.002 - 0.05 mm
Sand, 0.05 - 2.0 mm
Coarse Fragments, greater than 2.0 mm
30
-------
on a county-by-county basis. The water budget for the
County in which the hillfill is located is well developed
and is based on a long record of precipitation, stream
gaging, and assessment of well yields and water level fluc-
tuations. It can be used to estimate leachate generation by
the hillfill. The County water budget will therefore be
presented and modifications will be introduced which will
allow it to more accurately represent the particular hydro-
geologic characteristics of the hillfill site.
The County water budget indicates that, of the 86.48 cm
(34.05 in) of average precipitation (PPT) which falls in the
area, approximately 65 percent .is lost to evapotranspiration
(ET), 10 percent runs off as surface water (SW) and 25 per-
cent recharges the ground water (GW). The budget can there-
fore be expressed as:
= ET * SW + GW
86.48 cm = 56.64 cm •+• 8.49 cm + 21.36 en
..,..;... ...(,34;. 05 in) = (22.30 in) + (3.34 in) + (8.41 in)
This". is a carefully-developed water budget which is
applicable to the region on a long-term basis. A ground-
water- (GW)-- -recharge, value of 25 percent is used because the
region is generally level and poorly drained. Surface
runoff, .in response to precipitation events, is comparatively
slow and water has time -to \infiltrate into the soil.. The ..
hillfill, however, has steeper slopes than is typical for
.the region because it has .been designed to .promote runoff ^ ,:;.
/and retard infiltration. Therefore, it is appropriate -to •—
increase the runoff component (SW) in the water budget to
account for this difference. Using standard engineering
practices for estimating runoff .for an. area such as the
hillfill having grass slopes, the runof.f component (SW)
should be altered to represent 15 'percent of the total
precipitation. This would. reduce recharge (GW) into the :
hillfill to 16.70 cm (6.5 in). ' •• •
The hillfill was developed on a 16-ha (40-ac) base and
was ..lined with two feet of locally obtained clay prior to
filling. Leachate generation by the hillfill can be esti-
mated using the modified water budget and the area of the
hillfill base. .Multiplying 16.70 cm (6.58 in) of average
annual infiltration by the , 16-ha (40-ac) hillfill base
yields .2.7,0,57 m (21.93 ac-ft) per year of potential leachate
generation. The ••leachate leaks through the clay liner and :
recharges the ground water below the site.
Figure 5 shpws a cross section of the hillfill taken
along. line AA' (shown on Figure 6) and passing from west to
east through the stream, MP #9, MP #2, the nest of MP #1,
S3, f4 .and the large lake. The hillfill was constructed on
..... '";" •; • ,. -•• - •---:.. .31 , • • . - •
-------
OJ
V)
oc
UJ
I-
bt
2
Z
o
250-
225-
r 200-
<
>
lOOOfT.
V«rticol Exaggeration ''10x .'.". ' •
Figure 5. Cross section of the,;hiilfill site.
850
-800
-750
-700
-650
-600
bl
_l
bl
-------
013
LEGEND
O MONITOR WELL
® LEACKATE WELL
© SURFACE WATER
SAMPLING POINT
A-A1 LINE OF CROSS SECTION
Figure 6. Map showing the location of the line of
cross section, AA1.
33
-------
a thin base of slowly permeable clay which overlies approxi-
mately 11 m (35 ft) of glacial outwash. Although the hillfill
was originally constructed with a 3.7 m (12.0 ft) separation
between the bottom of the fill and the ground-water table,
water levels in the wells indicate that a ground-water mound'
has formed within the hillfill. It is not apparent whether
this mounded water is contiguous with the ground-water table
or if it is a "saturated refuse mound" that is separated
from the actual water table by a thin unsaturated 'Zone.
Depth to the water table around the fill ranges from
0.6 to 6.4 m (2.0-21.0 ft, see Appendix C). The average
seasonal fluctuation in the water table ranges from 0.. 6 to .
.1.2 m (2.0-4.0 ft).
Whether there are two water tables within and directly
below the hillfill or not, the leachate that is produced
will enter the deeper flow system.almost entirely under
conditions of saturated flow. Any division between saturated
refuse and the "true water table" that may exist will be
thin and negligible for the purpose of assessing attenuation
mechanisms and the length of flow paths.
The clay base, although potentially a zone for adsorp-
tion of leachate, is comparatively thin compared to the
large quantity of refuse mounded above it. As noted pre- ,
viously, the average volume of refuse per area is 47,500 m /ha
(25,000 yd /ac). This thin base is relatively ineffective
in attenuating the leachate. Therefore, most of the leachate .
leaving the hillfill will not be significantly altered by. .
the clay in its chemical constitution.
After leaving the hillfill, leachate moves through
several stages of the deeper flow system because of the
complexity of the intertongued glacial till .and outwash.
The rate and direction of flow change depending on the
thickness of the slowly permeable tills and the more per-
meable outwash. Leachate is significantly diluted and ,
dispersed along this flow path and ultimately recharges into
the dolomite bedrock aquifer at approximately 24 m (80 ft)
below the hillfill or discharges laterally to the .sltream. ;
The recharge gradients are reflected in the measured
water levels in MP #1, #3, and #4. The shallowest depth to
water of 4.9 to 6.4 m (16.0-21.0 ft) below grade was found
in MP #4, the shallow well. A greater depth to water of 5.2
to 6.4 m (17.0-21.0 ft) was found in MP #3, the intermediate
depth well. The greatest depth to water of 6.7 to 7.6 m
(22.0-25.0 ft) was found in the deep well, MP #1. The water
table at the hillfill radiates outward in all directions and
then joins the regional ground-water gradient to the south
(see Figure 7).
34 ,
-------
013
IOOOFT
LEGEND
WATER-TABLE.CONTOUR'-"-'-"•'•"•
an.is ' -• • •• .
©MONITOR WELL WITH
WATER TABLE ELEV. IN METERS
ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL'
© UEACH&TE WELL
© SURFACE. WATER ' '
POIWT •:• •••••
Figure 7. Map of water table at the hillfill site.
35
-------
Water Chemistry at the HilIfill Site
- The. hillfill is underlain by at least 18 m (60 ft) of
'uhcbnsolidated glacial deposits consisting primarily of
outwash and a low permeability clay till. The dolomite
bedrock beneath the glacial deposits is a heavily-used
aquifer. Ground water is mounded within the hillfill and
moves outward in all directions with the steepest gradient
to the west and southwest.
Bar graphs were constructed using the mean concentrations
of alkalinity and acidity, total dissolved solids (TDS) and
total Kjeldahl.. nitrogen (TKN), chemical oxygen demand (COD)
arid total organic carbon (TOC), see Figures 8, 9, and 10 ahd
Section 2. The mean concentrations of these, parameters were
.calculated for all monitoring points for the study period, of
.May 17, 1978 through July 24, 1-979 (see Appendix E) ; however,
alkalinity, acidity, and TDS were not analyzed during the
May 17> 1978 round. . ....
. . Several factors affected the analyses,. The May 1978
samples were not filtered and thus contained greater amounts
of sediment and organic material; analyses from this sampling
round were elevated compared to those of the four subsequent
rounds. MP #10 and #12 were sampled in November 19.78. the . '
day after .they, had been.drilled;., they, had not yet. reached
chemical, .equilibrium and this accounts .for their: elevated •'..;:
values during the November 1978 round. MP #12, the shallow
"background well, .is .located next .to a swampy discharge, area \.
and a'- stream that• is -reportedly contaminated with ..sewage.;..-'.;.,.,";•"'••
MP #5 is located adjacent to an outhouse facility which is
used heavily during the summer and fall months. The values
for this monitoring point for the November 1978 and July 1979
sampling rounds are generally much higher than they are for
the January and April 1979 rounds; the other wells do not
show similar1 increases in concentrations during those two
months (see Appendix E).. Therefore, it is possible that
there is contamination from sewage in. this area in the
vicinity of MP #5. . . ' "•.;••.•..':'•.,,..•.•
Alkalinity and acidity are shown on Figure 8. The bar.;.
graphs of these two parameters exhibit relationships among
monitoring points that are similar, to. each other. Background
ground-water quality is represented by MP #13. Alkalinity
is 355 mg/1 and acidity averaged -312 mg/1. These values
are very similar to data about .the regional ground-water
quality in the bedrock aquifer. MP #12 represents shallow
background ground-water quality in the glacial aquifer and
has alkalinity of 471 mg/1 and. acidity of -473 mg/1, values
consistent with those in the area. The leachate (MP #2) was
very alkaline, showing 3,178 mg/1 alkalinity and -2,528 mg/1
acidity.
36
-------
or
6 MO-
t '
»•»•
o:
o
•a.,
o
X
Monitoring Point
Monitoring Point
Figure 8. Bar graphs for alkalinity and acidity at the hillfill site,
-------
00
f
s-
*&•
•'-
Monitoring Point
Monitoring Point
Figure 9. Bar graphs for TDS and TKN at the hillfill site.
-------
fo-
M.
CO-
i~
o" "
o
o o-
CJ
V£>
o>-
to
• :
1
1 two
J,
—
r°.p
|IMD
— —
—
.r
3
t
n 411 It
-
•ft-
O-
'5.*°'
P
*~ .
o
In o
PI ,
/
/^
• '1
L
a'—
•
n
/
t
t
t
i
f
/
•
"
I
:
;
-
.
_
—
'
PI ™
\A R
Vi I{l
'
t
t
t
' Rl
' Pil
P ira
Monitoring Point
Monitoring Point
Figure 10. Bar graph for COD and TOG at.theihillfill site.
-------
. ;The;shallow.i.dow.ngrad'ient...w^l:l.s--v.-(MP;#'3f §4, #5, #9, and ,
#10). have mean -''alkalinity concent rat ions elevated above
those in the background wells (MP #12 and #13) indicating
that leachate has reached them. Average concentrations for
alkalinity, in decreasing order, were MP #9 (899 mg/1), .
MP #5 (729 mg/1), MP #3 (660 mg/1), MP #4 (629 mg/1), and .
MP #10 (589 mg/1). Values for acidity in these wells followed
the same pattern; MP #9 (-866 mg/l),.MP #5 (-722 mg/1),
MP #3 (-646 mg/1), MP #4 (-615 mg/1), and MP #10 (-562 mg/1).
The deep downgradient well (MP #11),is located in the,
direction of dominant ground-water flow and has slightly
higher concentrations (alkalinity of 472 mg/1) than does
MP #13 (background). Acidity exhibited a mean value of ' '
*527 mg/1. MP"#1, the .deep downgradient member of 'the we 1.1..
nest, has lower alkalinity (317 mg/1) than does ..MP #13 .
-indicating that contamination has not moved' into the. deep
aquifer at this location or that it has been attenuated by" • .
clayey till. The surface water (MP #7) had the. lowest
alkalinity of all the monitoring1 points '(-225 mg/1); acidity
was'-241 mg/1. This •indicates-that the surface water at ;,.
this point has not been affected by leachate'.
Figure 9 shows the bar gra'phs of the average concentra-
tions of TDS and TKN in each of the monitoring points. . The
bar; graph for "TDS shows similar relationships among monitoring
points to those,: seen in the bar'graphs .for alkalinity and •••.'. :'.•'• '.--"'
acidity. TDS in MP #13 was 492 mg/1, consistent .with regional .;
-background- values;; at MP- #12 TDS averaged 513 ;mg/l, also" V /. *•..'. ^;." .', i'
cohsistetit''with values in the area from the shallow aquifer.
TDS in the leachate averaged 3,084 mg/1, nearly one order of
magnitude greater than background values.
The shallow downgradient. wells, MP #3, #4, #5, #9, and .
#10, again showed the effects of leachate. The water in the
wells showed elevated concentrations at a level about twice
the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for TDS, 500 mg/1, and, ">•-..-
in order of decreasing concentrations, MP #5 (1,360'mg/1), .......
MP #4 (1,108 mg/1-), MP #3 (1,063 mg/1)., MP. #9 (1,036 mg/1),
and MP #10 (922 mg/1). .::-.: \.;-v....... : ,.'• ; . ; - ::
The deep downgradient well (MP #11) had a TDS concentfa- .':
tion (769 mg/1) slightly higher'than that at'MP #13; this
indicates that minimal contamination may be reaching the
ground Water here. Again, MP #1 (445 mg/1) and #7 (453 mg/1)
had levels of TDS lower than those of the background wells.
The bar graph for TKN, also shown on Figure 9, shows
that TKN concentrations in the leachate, MP #2, are very
high (418.4 mg/1). Background levels of TKN in the bedrock
aquifer (MP #13, 0.74 mg/1) are less than 1.0 mg/1; MP #15
and #11 also exhibit low TKN values (0.94 and 0.30 mg/1,
40
-------
respectively). The shallow background well/ MP #12, shows a
higher mean TKN concentration of 1.98 mg/1; this may be
attributed to reducing conditions in the adjacent swampy
area.
The shallow downgradient wells, MP #4, #5, #9, and #10,
have higher TKN values than those in either the deep or
shallow background well. The elevated values in these wells
show contamination from leachate. In order of decreasing
concentrations, they are MP #5 (5.14 mg/1), MP #10 (2.80 mg/1),
MP #4 (2.48 mg/1), and MP #9 (2.04 mg/1). MP #5 shows an
unusually high TKN concentration during July 1979 (see
Appendix E.) which may be attributed to sewage contamination.
TKN concentrations in MP #1 (1.18 mg/1) and MP #3
(1.46 mg/1) are nearly two times higher than those in MP #13,
the deep background well. These values are lower than that
in the shallow background well, MP #12, but indicate possible
slight contamination from leachate. TKN in the surface
water monitoring points (MP #7, 0.36 mg/1 and MP #8, 0.66 mg/1)
is lower than background.
The histograms of COD and TOC are shown on Figure 10.
MP #13, the deep background well, had a low mean level of
COD (13.93 mg/1). The shallow background well, MP #12, had
an elevated mean COD (421.25 mg/1); the November 1978 sampling
round was particularly high as the well had been installed
one day prior to sampling. During drilling, an organic clay
was penetrated. This clay,- in addition to the disturbance
of chemical equilibrium caused by drilling, increased the
organic content of the water and thus, COD (see Appendix E).
The leachate had an elevated value for COD of 2,992.0 mg/1.
The shallow downgradient wells (MP #4, #5, #9, and #10)
generally had mean.concentrations about two orders of magnitude
lower than those of the leachate but were elevated above the
deep background levels; in order of decreasing concentrations,
they were MP #5 (131.80 mg/1), MP #4 (100.80 mg/1), MP #10
(72.00 mg/1), and MP #9 (52.00 mg/1).
MP #1 and MP #3 had COD values similar to each other,
32.20 and 36.40 mg/1, respectively; these values are slightly'
elevated above that of the deep background well but are
considerably lower than those in the shallow downgradient
wel.ls. It is interesting to note that at MP #3, alkalinity,
acidity and TDS values are similar to those of the other
shallow downgradient wells (MP #4, #5, #9, and #10) but that
COD is considerably lower than the values for the other
shallow downgradient wells.
The deep downgradient wells, MP #11 (COD of 18.00 mg/1)
and MP #15 (COD of 12.00 mg/1) exhibited COD concentrations
41
-------
similar to that at MP #13. COD in the surface water, MP #7,
(24.25 mg/1) and MP #8 (20.00 mg/1) was relatively low. ;
These values indicate that the leachate generally has not
affected the bedrock aquifer and the surface water.
The bar graph for TOG is shown on Figure 10. The
relationships among monitoring points shown on this graph
are similar to those exhibited on the bar.graph for COD.
Again, the leachate has high concentrations of TOC
(1,189.2 mg/1). The deep background well, MP #13, has a low
mean value for TOC of 3.0 mg/1; the shallow background well
.has a high mean value of 64.8 mg/1.
The shallow downgradient wells exhibit elevated levels
of TOC as follows,: MP #4 (52.0 mg/1), MP #5 (41.0 mg/1),
MP #10 (22.5 mg/1), and MP #9 (22.4 mg/1). -As seen with
COD, MP #1 and #3 have'somewhat lower .TOC concentrations of .
16.2 and 19.0 mg/1, respectively. These values, however,
are slightly elevated above those for -MP #13. TOC.. concentra-
tions at the deep downgradient wells are low; MP #11 had a
TOC of 7.9 mg/1 and MP 115 had a TOC of 1.-4 mg/1. The •;
surface water also showed low.. TOC values of 8.1 mg/1 at
MP #7 and 6.3 mg/1 at MP #8. This bar graph also demon-
strates that there has been essentially no impact on the
bedrock aquifer and the surface water. . . .„••'.
In summary, the bar graphs indicate that contamination
.from.the hillfill is localized. The leachate in the hillfill
is .of . considerable, strength ..and has/affected the .shallow; , , ;~.
ground water in the" wells immediately, surrounding the' hi 1 if ill ;'•
Minimal effect is seen in the deep monitor wells and leachate
has had essentially no effect on the surface water.
To further illustrate, the effect .of the landfill on
ground and surface waters and to illustrate water quality
variations among monitoring points, Stiff diagrams were
constructed using the average concentrations of sodium,
iron, manganese, zinc, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, and
phosphate (see Figure 11). The means were calculated using
data from the;current study period only (May 1978 through
July 1979). The November 1978 values for MP #1 were, excluded ,
from the preparation of its Stiff diagram because it was
atypical, containing a large proportion of sediment. . .'' : /
Background ground water (the bedrock aquifer) is character
ized by MP #13. It contains a considerable amount of sodium,
little iron, no manganese, and some zinc. Shallow ground
water (the glacial aquifer) is characterized by MP #12. Its
diagram is similar to that for MP #13 but shows slightly
more iron, manganese, chloride, nitrate, and phosphate;
concentrations are typical of those in the area.
42
-------
NO--CI
Fs--S0«
Mn--N03
Zh- -P04
.01 .1 LD 10 lOOYfaSO
100 10 1.0 .1 .01 .001
Figure 11. Modified Stiff diagrams showing averaged
results of chemical analyses at the hillfil'l
• '.-. site.
43
-------
: •• The leachate diagram (MP #2) indicates high concentra-
tions of sodium, irony manganese, and chloride, very high.
concentrations of sulfate, and minor amounts of nitrate-and
phosphate. The shallow downgradient wells, MP #4, #5, #9,
and #10, appear to have been impacted to similar degrees,
and have diagrammatic shapes similar to that for the leachate.
The diagram for MP #5 shows slightly higher sodium and
chloride concentrations but increased concentrations of
these anions may result partially from sewage contamination
(see Appendix E).
The diagrams for the nest .of wells (MP #4, #3, and #1)
show that ground-water quality improves with depth. MP #1,
the deepest well, generally has low levels of cations and
anions similar to those of.MP #13. Depth-to-water increases.
from MP #4 to MP #3 to MP #1 which indicates a downward-
gradient of ground-water flow. The movement of water is
from the shallow aquifer toward the deep bedrock aquifer.
The deep downgradient well, MP #11, has a diagrammatic
shape very similar to that of.MP #13 which indicates that
MP #11 has generally hot been-.affected by the landfill. ;
MP #15 is also a deep downgradient well but,was sampled only
in May of 1978; . the diagram is .based on the .results of this ...
single analysis which was unfiltered. MP #15 does not
appear to be affected by leachate. Manganese, chloride, and
nitrate values, as.shown on this diagram, are slightly ^ . -
higher than concentrations for,those parameters in MP #13. < :
-Diagrams for the surf ace water,.monitoring points-, .(MP ,#7 and.-. .
:- IS) are 'similar; to..:that. :6f -^thiev-backgrbuhd' well arid:'dembhstratei
that surface water has not been affected by the landfill.
In summary, the Stiff diagrams, a graphical display of
the similarities and differences in cation and anion levels
between monitoring points, lead to the same conclusion as
that indicated by the bar graphs. The leachate is strong
and has reached a localized area surrounding the hillfill.
A nitrogen index was used to delineate-redox (oxidation
and.reduction) zones in the ground water and to determine.
.the.location of reducing fronts as • leachate;.migrates from
the hillfill (see Figure 12 and. Section 2). The ratios-Were
calculated using mean values of: TKN and nitrite and nitrate
nitrogen (NO.) for the study.period.
The ratio for the leachate (MP #2, 511.5) is high. It
contains large quantities of organic nitrogen and ammonia
(TKN) but does not contain much nitrite and nitrate nitrogen;
reducing .conditions exist within the hillfill. Ratios for
the ground water in the shallow wells surrounding the hillfill
are considerably lower (ranging from 7.160 at MP #3 to 17.83
at MP #10) indicating that the leachatd has been partially
44
-------
©13
O MONITOR $TEJ,L WITH NITROGEN INDEX
0
--- /£.-- NITROGEN INDEX CONTOUR
Figure 12- Nitrogen index showing the ratio of
organic nitrogen plus ammonia nitrogen (TKN)
to nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen (NC>2 +
45
-------
oxidized and attenuated by the time it reaches these wells.
The leachate appears :to radiate outward from the hillfill in
all directions but more leachate migrates to the west and
southwest toward MP #9 (17.00) and MP #10 (17.83). MP #5
(17.25) and MP #12 (4.83) both have other potential sources
of organic contamination; MP #5 is adjacent to an outhouse
and MP #12 is situated adjacent to a swamp where reducing
conditions prevail.
The area immediately surrounding the hillfill is tran-
sitional between the reduction zone within the hillfill
itself and the oxygenated ground-water zone farther from the
hillfill. Nitrite and nitrate nitrogen present in the
hillfill and in the adjacent wells that are strongly affected
by leachate probably originates from infiltrating rainwater
or from upgradient recharge water; nitrate present in a
reducing environment is either converted to ammonia or
denitrified to NX or N'_0. .: .. .
Nitrogen ratios become progressively, lower with increas-
ing depth and distance from the hillfill. The well nest at
MP #4 clearly shows increasing'oxidizing conditions with
depth, and MP #1 (approximately 19 m, 62 ft in depth) has
the least amount of ammonia and organic nitrogen (the lowest
ratio, 7.38) among the three wells; MP #3 has a ratio of
7.60 and MP #4 has a ratio of 8.61.
MP #11, approximately 46 m (150 ft) deep, has the
lowest "ratio (1.15 j of all ther wells surrounding-, the hillfill,
indicating that leachate (a reducing front) :has'not reached: .
the bedrock aquifer adjacent to the hillfill. Although
MP #8 exhibits a ratio of 12.94, TKN and nitrate nitrogen
are both low, comparable to those values for MP #13. The
surface water at MP #7, one of the small ground-water lakes,
also has a low^ratio (2.77) of reduced to oxidized nitrogen;
this indicates 'that oxidizing conditions prevail in the
surface water a short horizontal distance from the hillfill.
The nitrogen indices show that the reduced nitrogen
species., organic nitrogen and ammonia, in the leachate
migrating from the hillfill are rapidly.oxidized as leachate
moves both laterally and vertically through the subsurface
(glacial outwash and till); primarily oxidizing conditions
are present in the bedrock aquifer and in the surface water
a short distance (70 m, 230 ft) from the hillfill.
Nitrogen indices were not calculated for MP #6 and #14
because of insufficient data. A ratio could not be calculated
for MP #13 because nitrite and nitrate nitrogen (NO,) was
consistently below the detection limit and both reduced
nitrogen and oxidized nitrogen must coexist in order to use
the ratio.
46
-------
Pertinent historical data for the hillfill site is
limited. Results of analyses are shown in Appendix D for
samples of the leachate (MP #2) from February 1969, the
downgradient wells (MP #3, #4, #6, and #9) from August 26,
1974 and surface water (MP #7, #8, and #14) from several
dates between March 17, 1969 and June 13, 1972. The samples
were reportedly unfiltered.
Review of the historical data for MP #2 and comparison
of it with the data from the present study period, particu-
larly the May 17, 1978 round as it was unfiltered, shows
marked decreases in parameter concentrations since 1969,
especially in chloride, COD, TDS, iron, sodium, lead, and
zinc. Other'parameters that were.elevated during the Feb- .
ruary.1969 .round were BOD, hardness, hexane solubles, alumi-
num, arsenic; boron, barium, potassium, magnesium, and
selenium.
In 1974, MP #3 "showed little-or .no.effect from the
hillfill but since then, concentrations of parameters have
increased. MP #4 had elevated concentrations in. 1974 and
showe'd similar or slightly higher concentrations in 1978-79.
MP #6, adjacent to MP #5, had elevated concentrations in
1974--and -had concentrations similar to those in MP #5 for
the 1978-79 study period. During 1974, MP #9 was impacted
by the hillfill; water quality during the.study period
(1978-79) is similar or has improved slightly. . .
:• "The .analyses for the- surface water, monitoring points
(MP'#7, #8, and #14) from March 1969 through June 1972 "
generally show no effect from the hillfill; concentrations
of those parameters analyzed are most often below the. MCLs.
Analyses from that period are very similar to those of the
present, study period (1978 to 1979).
Overall trends observable in both.the historical and
present data indicate that the leachate has decreased in
strength; concentrations of the parameters analyzed have
decreased since 1969 and continued to decrease during the
1978-79 study period. Based on these limited analyses,
there do not seem to be significant changes in the shallow ••••
wells surrounding the hillfill. MP #1 appears to have
increasing concentrations, particularly of alkalinity,
sulfat.es, specifiq conductance, TOC, COD, and solids.
The hillf.il! lies within a region that contains two
hydrogeologic units, the glacial drift aquifer and the
Silurian dolomite (bedrock) aquifer. Concentrations of
chemical parameters in the glacial drift aquifer are somewhat
higher than those in the bedrock aquifer; the bedrock aquifer.
is the most "heavily developed source of ground water in the
area.
47
-------
- The hillfill has 'been generatihg.,.a,:].e,achate of :ponsider-
able strength'---airide';Wtv'l-east;'--:i9':6y-but;.---ha's.,.d-eereased in :
strength. During the study period (1978-79), concentrations
have continued to decline.
• The impact of the hillfill on. ground water is relatively
localized; le'achate has contaminated the shallow wells in...-.;..
the glacial aquifer immediately surrounding the hillfill.
There is evidence, observable in the well nest in the glacial
aquifer, that minimal contamination may be moving downward.
This may be expected, as there is a downward gradient of
ground water demonstrated by water levels in the wells at
this location. Leachate radiates outward in all directions
from the hillfill, but there seems to be more movement to
the west and southwest. As leachate moves through the
glacial outwash and clayey till, it can be diluted, attenu-
ated and biologically degraded. It appears that leachate
has not contaminated the bedrock aquifer or the surface :
waters surrounding the hillfill.
Based on historical chemical analyses, the 1978-79
chemical analyses, and field observations, the hillfill is
in the final stage of degradation and .anaerobic conditions :
exist within it. This observation is supported by the
production of methane gas by the hillfill, the relatively
neutral pH of the leachate, and .the fact that the.analyzed
chemical parameters have passed peak concentrations and are
now declining.
BALEFILL .
The'baling of solid waste has been proposed as a solution
to many of the perennial problems associated with landfills
such as limits on landfill space and-duration of use, the
number of trucks needed to transfer waste, and the structural
stability of landfill sites. .This method of waste management
also facilitates resource recovery operations. Baling is
accomplished by compressing solid waste in a mechanical
baler to reduce'volume and obtain a dense bale suitable for,
transportation and landfilling. It has been used in the
scrap and salvage industries; its application to general
solid waste disposal is relatively recent.
Topographic Position
The balefill lies within the Central Lowlands physio-
graphic province. The preglacial topography was covered by
a mantle of glacial deposits which give the topography its
present form. Numerous moraine deposits and undrained
depressions form hilly, rolling surface features.
48
-------
Local drainage in the area is poorly integrated.
Surface runoff is collected in closed basins, forming a
number of small lakes and swamps. The balefill is located
in one of these low-lying basins adjacent to another landfill
at its southern boundary (see Figure 13). A major southerly
flowing river is located 1.6 km (1 mile) to the east of the
facility. There are no significant tributaries to this
river located near the landfill.
Vegetation consists of woodland and shrubs in the areas
with higher elevation and swamp and marsh grasses in the wet
areas of the basins. Much of the land surrounding the
balefill is devoted to crops and grazing. The balefill is
divided into two sections, one of which has been revegetated'
with grasses. The other section continues in use for the
disposal of demolition wastes.
Climate
The climate at the balefill is continental. Polar air
affects- it throughout the year with the occasional presence
of arctic air during the winter. Periods of prolonged heat
sometimes occur during the summer as a result of air movement
from the south and southwest.
On the basis of data compiled by the U.S. Weather
Bureau at a nearby weather station for a 30-year period of
record, the mean annual precipitation for the balefill area
is 65.88 cm (25.94 in). Precipitation varies throughout the
year from a normal low of 1.'85 cm (0.73 in) in January to a •
normal high of 10.01 cm (3.94 in) in June (see Figure 14 and
Table 5). April through September are the wettest months
accounting for approximately 60 percent of the annual precipi-
tation.
Precipitation for the one-year study period was 9.74 cm
(3.84 in) above normal. The months of September 1978,
October 1978, December 1978, April 1979, and July 1979 had
below normal precipitation; all other months were above • :
normal.
The mean annual temperature for the balefill area is
6.8 C.(44.2 F) with a normal low of -11.0 C (12.2 F) occur-
ring in January and a normal high of 22.2 C (71.9 F) in
July.
Geology and Soils
The balefill is underlain by Paleozoic bedrock covered
by a mantle of Quaternary unconsolidated glacial and alluvial
deposits. The bedrock of the area is part of a regional
basin, a broad, relatively shallow structure of Ordovician-
49
-------
\
Ul
o
3ALEFILL
REVEGETATED)
SANITARY
LANDFILL
Scole
I5?m
500 FT.
Figure 13. Map of the balefill site.
-------
UJ 20-
r*
Ul
u
0-
o
ui
15-
NORMAL
ACTUAL
-9
-6
-3
-2
1 - I 1 ' I • 1 I I I -. "' 'I •
SEP OCT MOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG
1978 , - .>.;'. ; 1979 ;:;
. Figure. 14.: Graph of precipitation for the balefil.l. •'•'.••;
E
O
2
2
O
o
Ul
-------
. - ' •. •••..-.•. •• a- ..-.-•
TABLE 5. MONTHLY PRECIPITATION DATA - BALEFILL
Date
9/78
10/78
,11/7:8.-.
12/78
1/79
-2/79.
,3/79
4/79
5/79
6/79
7/79
8/79
TOTAL
Normal
... : 6
••... 4-
' .'•:.<'•&
;Vv:-^-z
. 1
.'."".. 2
-A
'..'' 5
8
10
.... 9
" '•' 7
65
.93
.52
?;0;5\-
^
.85
.13. .
.27
. >'• .. -,-
.18 .
.56
.01 •
.37
.;T5
.88
(
(
(
r
(
c
(
(
(
(
(
(
2.
1.
1.
0-,
0.
0.
1.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
(25.
73),
78)
20)
89)-,
73)
84)
68 )
0.4). ;
37)
94)
69)
05)
94)
. .Actual
6:27
•.0-48.
...4.. 6 7
••- -2:2$:
'•"2.11
• ,4.;3.53:
,.'..; ^6. 4 8;'
'J"7^6B;[
•11.56
12 . 14
5.94
17>88:
75>64
( 2,47)
(.0.19)
(,^-8.4),;::
•(-^•o^liiiki.
( -1..09)
-.(.;!•. 39 ),..•
(;,2.55)
( '.'6^66) -.'..
( 4.55)
(4.78)
(2.34)
..( ;7.04)
(29.78)
Departure
from normal
- 0
-.4
..:•: .; 1
;••::" ' --;o
.0
••••..',...-...-. .1
.'.'•; ;,'.'' . 2
'• .'- 3
3
. 2
' ,3
10
';.. ':';"*
. 66
'.04
.63
•.-or
.91
•40,.
.21 •
.00
,13..
.43
.13
;.74'
(-0
r-i
( 0
(-0
( o
( 0
.( 0
( -i
( 1
.( .0
(-1
(3
•ra
/26)
.59)
,64)
.01)
.36)
.55 )•;..-••.,;,
'-". 'v '';,••-: r:"fiv,.:i;
738): "'
.18) •••-•
.84) ...
.35)
.99) :•...,:..•'
•84,;.to|;
Measurements in cm (in)
52
-------
and Cambrian-age rocks which dip gently toward the center of
the basin located northeast of the landfill. Beneath the
balefill, these strata have been dissected by a vast east-west
trending bedrock valley which resulted from deep erosion of
the original bedrock surface. The buried valley extends
more than 2400 m (8000 ft) in width and greater than 60 m
(200 ft) in depth; it cuts through the Ordovician-age Prairie
du Chien Group (dolomites interbedded with sandstone, silt-
stone and shale) through the Cambrian-age Jordan Sandstone
(a valuable aquifer) and into the Cambrian-age St. Lawrence
(an aquitard) and Franconia Formations (not typically used
as a water sypply). The bedrock beneath the balefill,
overlain by a considerable thickness of unconsolidated
sediments, consists of the St. Lawrence Formation of silty,
sandy dolomites and the Jordan Sandstone.
The bedrock is overlain by approximately 137 m (450 ft)
of unconsolidated Pleistocene sediments (see Figure 15).
Immediately overlying the bedrock are moderately to well-
sorted alluvial sands and gravels with minor amounts of
silt, "possibly of preglacial origin; the thickness of these
sediments is on the order of 100 m (328 ft). The sands and
gravels grade upward into stratified drift composed of clay,
sand and gravel with thicknesses ranging from 9 to 37 m
(30-120 ft).
A thin till with thicknesses up to 15 m (50 ft) was
deposited over the stratified sediments. The dense reddish-
brown till consists predominantly of silty. and gravelly .
sands of moderately uniform texture derived from the rework- . ••
ing of the underlying material by a subsequent ice advance.
There .are also some large angular fragments of limestone and
some thin lenses of water-bearing sand within the till.
Discontinuous .deposits of outwash and scattered glacial
lacustrine'sediments occur at the surface throughout the
area. These sediments resulted from the ablation of the ice
which had deposited the underlying till. Lacustrine sediments
were deposited in kettle lakes. They consist of grey to
dark brown and black poorly-sorted silts. The outwash
consists of moderate to poorly sorted sand and finer sediments;
the better sorted layers are generally more permeable. The
outwash is thickest under the western portion of the site
and is absent under the eastern portion of the site.
A till formed by another minor ice advance is present
in hills surrounding the balefill site. This till, consist-
ing of very poorly-sorted material, primarily sand and silt,
is of low permeability. The unconsolidated glacial materials
are not considered to be valuable sources of ground water.
Areas mapped as Made Land in Figure 15 were either excavated
'•"'•' 53
-------
SCALE
l»l«
• oo 11
iPigure 15. Map of suirficial geology at the balefill site.
-------
or filled during landfilling operations. The railroad beds
also required grading and therefore are mapped as Made Land.
The soils of the surrounding area and soils originally
underlying the balefill were mapped by the USDA Soil Conserva-
tion Service. The Waukegan silt loam soil series is developed
in glacial outwash. The Burnsville, Hayden, Kingsley and
Scandia loam and sandy loams have a parent material of
glacial till. These soils are deep, well-drained and moder-
ately permeable.
The original soils at the balefill site were disturbed
during initial site preparation; they and underlying till
were stripped from nearby hilIs and used for:. leveling the •
site prior to landfilling. The soil layer beneath the
balefill is thin in comparison to.the .great thickness .of ..
unconsolidated glacial and alluvial deposits.
Landf ill' 'Operations
The balefill was. privately operated from ..January 1971
until the.end of June 1974 when operations were discontinued'^ -
The site is now being used for the disposal of relatively .....;...
inert demolition wastes. While the facility had been operating
as a' balefill, it..served .a population of 300, 000- and :received
mixed municipal, wastes including residential, industrial, .
and commercial wastes. ,No hazardous substances .were accepted".:''
The .landfill is .situated on-a 16.-ha" (39T-ac) ,site. --.. .-;: r,
Prior-' to the. f il ling operation, the •site consisted 'of • two' ••:' '•i;ii'-:;
surface depressions of approximately 4 ha (9 ac), and 12 ha
(30 ac) in size. , The.depressions were separated by a.railroad. .
right of way. They received surface runoff from the surround-
ing higher topography and were swampy because, drainage from
them was poor. . . .. : • ."•
The site had been prepared for filling by the removal
of trees from the depressions which were then leveled. Till
was removed from the surrounding, hills, and placed in the ;•-...
leveled areas to provide a working base for the filling
operation.. A drainageway was provided from the smaller to
the larger depression and surface features were altered to
provide general drainage away from the balefill to the west '
and northwest. Upon completion, surface runoff from the
site was diverted away from the landfill to the west and
north. •••...- . . '•.'
Solid waste received at the plant was processed at an
average of 14 hr/day, 5 day/wk, 49 wk/yr. Metal and corru-""''"'
gated cardboard were removed and the remaining refuse was "
compacted into unbound bales by a hydraulic press at a rate
of 2:8,200 kg/hr (62,170 Ib/hr). Each bale measured approxi-...
' ••' ' 55 •
-------
.mately 1.1 m (3.6 ft.) high, 1.1 m: (3.6 ft) wide, and 1.4 m '.
(4.6 ft) long. They weighed ,15'3:20: k:g : (2,SOO^lb) each--with-'
an average density of 800 kg/m (1,350 Ib/yd ) which is ,
nearly 10 times greater than the precompacted refuse density.
Approximately 300 bales/day were produced and transported to
the landfill via transfer trailer where they were unloaded
by a forklift. ;.....
Landfilling began at the smaller depression in .Janu-
ary 1971. The first row of bales was placed against an
embankment at the edge of the .depression and succeeding rows
were placed adjacent to them. Bales were typically stacked
in rows from 80 to 120 bales long and tiers three bales
high. The stacking was staggered to provide stability ,to ,...•-
the rows and to minimize exposed vertical void spaces *
.Cover material consisting of native tills was used to cover
the completed rows to an average depth of 15 em (6 in) once
or twice weekly. .When the first layer of bales had been
completed, an additional 15 cm (6 in) layer of cover material
was applied. Succeeding layers of bales and cover material
were added .until ;'the :desire.d-..final :heigh,t was obtained.. The
smaller depression was completely filled in-this -manner and..
. a final surface cover of 0.6 m (2 ft) was applied. This
section of the balefill was regraded during the study period
to prevent the ponding of surface water and was then.vegetated
;with a mixture of high grasses. . .
• Filling began in the larger depression in a .similar
'•?. .-. manner., and-, continued[until June -197.4;-when,-operations stopped. .
'•':"";-•-By "this timeV; the*balefillxhad Teceivedr:^apprpxiTriatelyV.x/;'..•.\v-jli;••.,/•;
4,000,000 m (5,200,000 yd ) of unprocessed, refuse with a
total weight of 337.800 tonnes (372,155 tons) and a: baled- '
volume of 422,000 m (552,000 yd ). The averagexvolume per
unit area of unprocessed refuse equals 250,000 m /ha
-.... (130,000 yd /ac). The owners decided to continue .operations
in the larger depression as a disposal site for demolition
wastes until the proposed final grade had been attained.
Demolition wastes were accepted throughout the study period.
This material was spread and .compacted "with a bulldozer and.
was covered periodically. .. . :
No ponding was evident during the study and .no fbdents
or vectors were observed -, although mos.quito .control had been
a problem in some small .surface water impoundments around
the perimeter of the fill.
Directly adjacent to the southern boundary of the
balefill site is a privately-owned sanitary landfill. This
is a considerably larger operation which uses the area fill
method. It has been completed to a much higher grade than
the balefill. Considerable erosion was observed on the
slope of the sanitary landfill .adjacent to the balefill.
56
-------
Monitoring Network
The monitoring points at the balefill site were so
located that samples could be obtained of leachate and of
ground water upgradient of, adjacent to, and downgradient
from the balefill. MP #1 and #3 provided leachate samples.
MP #1 is part of a leachate collection area that was construc-
ted at the northwest corner of the balefill in 1973 for a
previous EPA study. Chemical analyses from this point were
the only historical data available. Balefill settlement,
leachate production, gas generation, and temperature were
monitored. This historical data base, along with the present
data, provides an excellent opportunity to monitor full-
strength leachate at a balefill. MP #3 is a 0.9 m (3 ft)
diameter, 8.8 m (29 ft) deep manhole consisting of several
sections of corrugated metal pipe. The joints between the
sections were insufficiently sealed and water infiltrates
continuously during wet periods. It yielded dilute leachate.
Five wells were used to monitor the balefill during the
study, period (see Figure 16, Table 6, and Appendix A). "One
of these was an existing monitoring well (MP #5), and four
were new monitoring wells drilled for this study (MP #2, #4,
#6, and #7).
MP #5 is located approximately 457 m (1500 ft) southwest
of the balefill and.provided samples of deep .upgradient .
ground water. It was installed previously to monitor ground-
water quality on the property adjacent to the .balefill. .;..,.
MP #5 is 69:2 m (227.0 ft) deep, and^was constructed,with ,.;:_ :,.'•';.
5.08 cm (2.00 in) steel casing. A 1.1 m (3.7 ft) section of
3.18 cm (1.25 in) slotted well screen was fitted, to the
bottom of the well.
The logs of this .well indicate that it penetrated .
gravel with occasional layers of clay to 31.4 m (103.0 ft),
clay to 37.5 m (123.0 ft), fine sand with occasional layers
of clay to 64.0 m.(210.0 ft), sandstone to 68.6 m (225.0 ft),
and limestone to 69.2 m (227.0 ft). A pump was installed in
MP 15 in order to facilitate sample recovery, but this made
it impossible to measure water levels.
MP #2, #4, #6, and #7 were installed prior to the first
sampling round with a mud rotary drilling rig. They were
constructed using 10.16 cm (4.00 in) steel casing and 10.16 cm
(4.00 in) PVC well screens. Each well was sealed with grout
to prevent the infiltration of surface water.
MP #2 is located adjacent to the eastern boundary and
directly downgradient of the balefill. It was completed at
a depth of 60.4 m (198.1 ft) and the lowermost 6.9 m (22.7 ft)
was fitted with 0.025 cm (.010 in) slotted well screen. In
57
-------
en
oo
SANITARY
LANDFILL
•1
1
•I
0 1
BALE FILL
2
i
4
LEGEND
SCALE
; - ' »i m
' 800 f T '
O MONITOR WELL
• LEACHATE
COLLECTION POINT
Figure 16. Location of monitoring points at the balefill site.
-------
TABLE 6. MONITOR WELLCONSTRUCTION DETAILS - BALEFILL3
MP r
Well
depth
Totalb
casing
i Type
casing • :
•••-,. '• •'. •" '
Section
slotted V
Elevation0
Top of
casing
Surface
Reference elevation
Ui
vo
2 60.4
(198.1)
4 59.4
(194.8)
5 6Q ?
j \jy . £
(227.0)
6 52.5
(172.3)
7 44.7
(146.7)
61.
(201.
60.
(197.
68
UO e
(223.
53.
(174.
45.
(148.
3 10.16 cm
0) ( 4.00 in.)
Steel
2 10.16 crav! .
5) ( 4.00 in.)
Steel
0<{ fifl ftn *
J v VJO Cm ,
0) (2.00 in.)
Steel
3 10.16 cm .:.
7) (4.00 in.)
Steel
4 10.16 cm
9) '( 4.00 in.),
: , Steel , ?
60
(198
59
(194
f.0
oo
(223
52
(1.72
44
(146
.4- 53.5
.1-175.4)
.4- 53.1;
.8-174.1)
n_ AA ft
. u uo » o
.0-219.3)
.5- 46.2
.3-151.6)
.7- 38.0
.7-124.8)
274
(902
276
(906
270
(885
268
(880
.95
.07)
.44
.96)
e
.00
.85)
.25
.09)
0
(2
0
(2
0
(2
0
(2
.89
.91)
•81,
.66)
.73
.41)
.66
.16)
274
(899
275
(904
Jf.0
£UO
(880
269
(883
267
(877
.06
.16)
.63
.31)
99
• £•*•
.00)
.27
.44)
.59
.93)
a
b
c
d
e
Measurements in
Total casing is
All elevations
Reference above
Dashes indicate
meters (feet) unless otherwise
equal
to the casing in the
indicated.
ground plus
casing
above
relative to mean sea level.
ground
ground (Reference) .
•
surface from which water level measurements are taken.
information not available.
-------
drilling, the first 3.0 m (10.0 ft) penetrated silt and clay
with some sand and gravel, till''materials similar to those
removed from the surrounding hills and used as cover material.
Below 3.0 m (10.0 ft), the sediments consisted primarily of
sands and gravels, containing varying degrees of silts and
clays. Occasional cobbles were also present. .
MP,#4 is located near the southeastern corner of the
balefill area and also provided downgradient ground-water
samples. It was drilled to a depth of 59.4 m (194.8 ft) and
fitted with 6.3 m (20.7 ft) of 0.025 cm (.010 in) slotted
well screen. The sediments encountered were similar to
those found in MP #2, primarily"sands and gravels.
MP #6 was emplaced immediately adjacent to the southern
.boundary of the balefill ;to:monitor ground: water passing
from the sanitary landfill to the balefill site. It was
drilled to a depth of 52.5 m (172.3 ft) and 6.3 m (20.7 ft)
of 0.025 cm (.010 in); slotted well screen was fitted to the
bottom of the casing. The first 3.0 m ,(10.0 ft) of drilling
penetrated clay, and silt f ill"• materials containing some . ..
loose refused At a depth of 3.0 m (.10.0 ft), a layer of
clean sand wa.s present indicating the top of the thick sand
and gravel deposits; the well was completed in these deposits.
MP ,#7 is located approximately 610 m (2000 ft) south-
west ;of the -bale fill and monitors .shallower; upgradient ' '
ground water than does MP #5. .It is 44^7 m (146.7 ft) deep •
arid was completed with :6.7:m (21.9. ft);> of 0.025 cm ..(.010 in):
slotted well'-screeri. ;The sediments encbuhter'ed; during :> -V.-'''v•--;•'•••--•
drilling were similar to those encountered in ,MP |2, f4, arid
#6 consisting primarily of sands and gravels .with minor
amounts of silt and clay.
Particle Size Analyses
Four samples obtained during the drilling of MP #2 were
examined for particle size distribution to better determine
the attenuation characteristics of the geologic material
(see Appendix B). Although four new wells were drilled
during the study period, analyses were conducted only on
samples from MP #2. This downgradient monitoring point
contains material which appeared visually similar to the
thick sand and gravel deposits encountered during the dril-
ling of all four wells. The particle size analyses conducted
on samples from MP #2 were therefore used as representatives
for all four wells.
Table 7 shows the results of the particle size analyses.
All four samples are composed primarily of sand and coarse
fragments, size separates that do not effectively adsorb
leachate constituents. The higher percentage of silt and
60
-------
TABLE 7. PERCENTAGE OF SEPARATES BY WEIGHT FOR
THE GEOLOGIC MATERIALS AT THE BALEFILL.
% Coarse
Sample description . % Clay % Silt % Sand fragments
MP #2 Some till, 7 ' 17 ' 61 ' 15
sand and gravel.
2,1 - 6.4 m
( 7,0 - 21.0 ft)
MP #2 Sand and gravel. 1 4 74 21
7.5 - 12.5 m
(24.5 - 41.0 ft).
MP #2 Sand and gravel. 4 6 '37 53
13.6 - 14.0 m
(44.5 - 46.0 ft) . ' .
MP #2 Sand and gravel. 1 1 92 '"••' 6
15.1 - 15.5 m ' ' ' . •
(49.5 - 51.0 ft)
Size limits for the soil separates are based on the
U. S. Department of Agriculture system. The diameter
.range for separates is: -
Clay, less than .0.002 nun
Silt, 0.002 - 0.05 mm
Sand, 0.05 -2.0 mm
Coarse Fragments, greater than 2.0 mm
61
-------
clay contained in the shallow sample is probably attributable
to the layer of tiir and till-derived soils penetrated :. • ."•...•
during drilling of this well. .-
Hydrogeology of the Balefill Site
The balefill is situated in an area of rolling, knob and
kettle topography. The undulating landscape is a result of
glacial action and is associated with moraines. This topo-
graphy is characterized by numerous isolated depressions and
usually exhibits poor drainage.
The balefill was developed on outwash and till over-
lying stratified drift and alluvial sands and gravels.
Bedrock in the study area consists of the Prarie duChien
Group, the Jordan Sandstone, the St. Lawrence Formation and
the Franconia Formation. Ground water moves, down through
the unconsolidated materials in complex 'flow systems created
by.the intertonguing glacial/alluvial sediments. Recharge
to the bedrock aquifer may. be direct .:or via interconnected
flow systems in the overlying sediments. ., " .. :
Construction of the 'balefill drastically'altered the. ••••.-.•
natural topography and drainage/at the;site and so the ' ••••
regional water budget is not applicable. Furthermore, the
balefill cover material was graded to a very;gentle slope,
resulting in a lower runoff component (SW). than that of the
region as a whole. A modified water budget based on a
previous study and applied, to the average regional annual
precipitation indicates that, of, the., average 65.88 cm- .: V •.:.,.;'.-
(25.94 in) of precipitation,' 76 percent isclost-through • ' '
evapotranspiration (ET), 5 percent runs off as surface water
(SW), and 19 percent'recharges the ground water (GW). The
water budget can be expressed as:
PPT = ET + SW; + GVJ
65.88 cm = 50.07 cm + 3.29 cm + 12.52 cm
(25.94 in) = (19.71 in) + (1.30 in) + (4.93 in)
The balefill was developed on a:16-ha (39-ac) ;base •
which consists of a thin layer of compacted, glacial materials.
Leachate generation by the balefill can be estimated using •'
the water budget and the area of the balefill base. Multiply-
ing the 12.52 cm (4.93 in)of annual recharge,by the 16-ha
(39-ac) base of the balefill yields 20,032 m (16.02 ac-ft)
per year of potential leachate generation.
Figure 17 shows a cross section of the balefill taken
along AA1 (shown on Figure 18) and passing from east to west
through MP #2 and MP #3. The balefill overlies approximately
10 m (33 ft) of outwash, till, and lacustrine deposits.
These sediments overlie approximately 20 m (65 ft) of strati-
62
-------
o\
A
275-
BALEFILL-
250 e
225:
«/>
cc
UJ
iH 2CO
UJ
175
125
RAILROAD
FILL
DEMOLITIONiFIL^J
frojecfion
ofMP6/.
STRATIFIED DRIFT
"£• —? : 4 ' \ '
• *• 7 V__ •) ;_ . . -
LACUSTRINE
DEPOSITS
A'
Water Ta&le*
SAND » GRAVEL
JORDAN SAMDSTONE
ST. LAWRENCE T
FORMATION ;—/ 7 /
' - * » "'-.«• *.'* * *
o •: .• o . .;. - • •. w : • •.. •-'•
: •< "FRANCONIA :*FORMATIO*N
900
800
700
600
w
u.
2
2
O
H
>
Ul
-500
-400
i-
SCALE
I B Z m '.
8 o o r T .
Vertical Exoggeroti n 5x
Figure/17. Cross section of the -balefill site.
-------
LEACHATE
COLLECTION AREA
SANITARY
LANDFILL
LEGEND
SCALE
I sim
• oo ft
O MONITOR WELL
• LEACHATE ;
COLLECTION POINT
Figure 18. Map showing the IdcationVof.: t;he line of cross section, AA1
-------
fied drift and approximately 76 m (250 ft) of sand and
gravel deposits lie between the stratified drift and bed-
rock .
Depth to water at the site (see Appendix C) ranged from
33.5 to 51.8 m (110-170 ft). The average seasonal fluctu-
ation in the water table varied between 0.30 and 0.91 m
(1.0-3.0 ft). A water table map based on water table eleva-
tions from four data points, is displayed in Figure 19. It
shows that the regional hydraulic gradient is to the east
towards a discharge area that feeds a major river.
The surface of the balefill is situated approximately
43 m (140 ft), above the regional water table. In unsaturated
conditions, leachate will be produced only by the percolation
of rainfall or snowmelt. The baling of solid waste markedly
decreases the permeability of the waste and greatly reduces
the surface area available to leaching. The compacted bales
have a low moisture retention capacity. The flow .of precipi-
tation through the balefill is quite rapid and may be attri-
buted to channel flow between the bales and through fractures
within them. Therefore, water moving through the balefill
has a short retention time within the fill. However, the
leachate produced is dilute since there is little surface
area contact and the water is retained within the balefill
only a short time.
After leaving the balefill, the leachate flows under
unsaturated conditions through the underlying till and
outwash. The clay present within the till .provides attenua- .
tion of pollutants. The outwash oh the other hand, has less
clay than the till and therefore has a lower potential for
pollutant attenuation. The major mechanism for attenuation
is the great thickness of consolidated materials which ,
increases the amount of sites available for ion exchange,
and biological and chemical degradation processes. Leachate
is diluted and dispersed as it percolates through the strati-
fied drift. Ground water in the study area has a very high
average velocity and rapidly disperses contaminants that .
reach the saturated zone.
Water Chemistry at the Balefill Site
There are several factors which influence the chemistry
of the ground water in the area of the balefill in addition
to the balefill itself. The large sanitary landfill that
lies to the south and southwest of the balefill has impacted
the ground water upgradient of the balefill (see Figure 13).
Industry farther south and agricultural activity to the
north and west also may affect the ground water entering the
balefill area. MP #6, located between the sanitary landfill
and the balefill, provides an indication of the effect of
65
-------
SANITARY
LANDFILL
3 "»",
I
BALE FILL
»»«.
2
4
\
LEGEND
»oo rr
WATER TABLE CONTOUR
2J4.«o o MONITOR WELL WITH
WATER TABLE ELEV. IN METERS
ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
9 LfACHATE ,
COLLECTION POINT
Figure 19. Map of water table at the balefill site.
-------
the sanitary landfill on ground water prior to its passage
beneath the balefill area.
MP #5 and #7 provide samples of background water adjacent
to the sanitary landfill. MP #5 is seated in the Jordan
Sandstone, the major aquifer in the area, and the lowermost
0.9 m (3 ft) of the casing is screened so that samples from
this well reflect only this portion of the bedrock aquifer.
Only two samples were obtained from this well; samples were
not obtainable in January and July because a generator was
not available to operate the pump. MP #7 monitors shallow
' •• : . background ground water within the unconsolidated sediments.
Samples from .this well have slightly elevated concentrations.....
:::•.'..-•: for many of the parameters^analyzed relative- to those : from '...'.,:
'"'"• the deep- 'background well; these 'analyses reflect the impact
• of local agriculture, industry, .and the sanitary ''landfill."..
'•'••<•'• I:•/ The two downgradient. wells provide samples-of ground
water directly beneath.and adjacent to the balefill (MP 12)
and ground water 6 to 10 m (20-30 ft) east of the balefill
•'.";:•.-; (MP:-tH')•..'•-. vln addition, MP #4 is not in the direct ground-
-..;'..'.-• water flow path. The location of these wells, sampled
. .. during all four sampling rounds, allows assessment-of the
dilution ah'd dispersion capacity of the aquifer. .
••••:•• Leachate was sampled in both portions of the balefill
. at MP #1 and #3. MP #1 was.not sampled during January
because of a large accumulation of snow over the monitoring
point. MP #3, the dilute leachate in the manhole, was
sampled with a bailer during January,\ April, -and ,July. • • : ,:!. .",
Bar graphs, constructed using mean concentrations of
alkalinity, acidity, TDS, TKN, COD, and TOG, are shown on
Figures 20, 21, and 22; also, see Appendix E and Section 2.
These graphs show that during the study period, the balefill
produced a leachate (MP #1) of moderate strength but that
the concentration of contaminants decreased rapidly from .
within the balefill to the periphery; concentrations of
parameters in both :dowrigradient..wells..;(MP f 2: and . f4.):.:,are '...-...:•"-.•••'•
frequently below the ..maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for .
drinking water.
The bar graphs for- alkalinity and.acidity (see Figure 20)
are very similar to each other. The deep background well
(.MP #5) has a mean value of 84 mg/1 for alkalinity and
-74 mg/1 for acidity. The shallow background well (MP #7)
' * has.higher values of alkalinity (238 mg/1) and lower acidity
(-259 mg/1). Values for the leachate at MP #1 are high with"
.. alkalinity of 2,730 rag/1 and acidity of -2,553 mg/1. The
dilute leachate (MP 13). has values for alkalinity and acidity
of 416 and -456 mg/1, respectively.
'.':-. . 67
-------
27 JO
1-2553
10 l000"
0
o
0
u
600-
8
_ ,
"w
e
°c
5 400-
a\
00 *
o zoo
n-
7
^
y^
/
y
/
y
y
/
7
/
/
y
/(
/
7
/.
/
/t
LU
m -«oo-
o
<->
o
o
M -800-
0
C
?
. -600-
>» '
'o
<• .,,00.
X
-200-
0
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
/
y
y
y
/
/
M
1
7-
/.
/
\
YA P/l m
i •11
.I..-®--''. ',.
II' l l i i
Monitoring Point
Monitoring Point
Figure 20. Bar graphs for alkalinity and acidity at the balefill site.
-------
3601
VO
1000-
e
o
OJ 800-
***
o
(^
£
to
0 ,00-
200
n
7
X
y
y
/
y
y
y
y
y
/
/
X
I
I
11
10-
_
6~
"s.
* e-
2
»-
2
o
m20J6?
- -*-r—
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
/
y
y
y
/
y
y
/
FT)
7-
/
X
^
/
X
^
mi „ „-„ P71
2 3 <3 5 G
Monitoring Point
Monitoring Point
Figure 21. Bar graphs for TDS and TKN at the balefill site.
-------
966.67
O
70-
-
60-
5O-
40-
^
—
o>
E
o"
o
o
20-
10
n-
r
y
y
/
y
y
v
x
X
x
'/
y
y
y
y
y
y
*
y
/
x
/
y
x
7\
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
y
x
x
x
1
x
/
71
X
V
x
/
X
x
x
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
x!
II
/, //
/' V
0 1
X X
X y
345
Monitoring Point
424 0
50-
.
40-
.
^
I" 30"
O
O
20-
IO-
O-
-*
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
X
^
?•
X
X
^
X
^
x
X
i-
^
x
x
/
m fTl IT"
1 234567
Monitoring Point
Figure 22. Bar graphs for COD and TOC at the balefill site.
-------
MP #6 has values for alkalinity of 257 mg/1 and acidity
of -265 mg/1; these are slightly higher than the values of
the shallow background well, MP #7. The downgradient well,
MP #2, has levels slightly lower than those for MP #3 but
nearly one order of magnitude lower than those for the
leachate (MP tl); alkalinity averages 370 mg/1 and acidity
-337 mg/1. MP #4, which is out of the direct flow path, and
hence less influenced by pollutant migration from the balefill
shows a still lower value of 259 mg/1 alkalinity and a less
negative value of -283 mg/1 acidity which are only slightly
elevated above the shallow background level. The relationship
between MP #2 and #4 shown by these parameters indicates
that contamination decreases rapidly with increasing distance
from the balefill.
The histograms for TDS and TKN are shown on Figure 21.
The bar graphs for TDS show the same relationships between
monitoring-points as do the graphs of alkalinity ..and acidity.
MP #5 has the lowest value of 162'-mg/l and MP #7'has'a
slightly, .higher concentration of 315 mg/1. The leachate
(MP #1) has elevated concentrations averaging 3,801- mg/1 and ...
the dilute leachate (MP #3) 'has a value of 499 mg/1.
•TDS in MP #6 averages 281 mg/1, slightly lower than the
background well, MP #7. Downgradient well MP #4 averaged
311 mg/1 which is also below the shallow background level..
The difference in values among these three wells, however, ,. .
is not statistically significant; their values are similar
..to each other. TDS in MP $2 (424 mg/1) is elevated above. -j:. ;..•;
background levels but is an order of magnitude lower • than' " ^ tv:
that in MP #1 and is slightly lower than the dilute leachate,
MP #3. MP #5, #7, #6, and #4 all showed concentrations of
TDS consistently below the MCL (500 mg/1); MP #2 had a mean
value below the MCL but slightly exceeded that value on the
first and last sampling rounds (see Appendix E).
Alkalinity, acidity, and TDS provide a general indica-
tion -of the quality of the ground water and measure primarily
the inorganic fraction of contamination. The next three
parameters to be discussed, TKN, TOC, and COD, provide
insight into the behavior of organic compounds in the ground
.water. Comparison between these two groups of parameters • -
shows that different patterns exist.
TKN (see Figure 21) is present only in trace amounts in'.
the background well, MP #5 (0.09 mg/1) but is higher in the
shallow background well, MP §7 (0.31 mg/1). TKN in the
leachate, MP #1, is elevated, 203.67 mg/1, and the dilute . :.
leachate averaged 6.59 mg/1. MP #2, #4, and §6 all had low, • •-
TKN values; MP #6 averaged 0.11 mg/1, MP #2 averaged 0.25 mg/1,.
and MP #4, slightly lower, averaged 0.16 mg/1. The levels
' . .. 71 ...... ' . -
-------
of TKN in the wells were at least.3 orders of magnitude
lower than that in the leachate at .MP fl.
The graphs of COD and TOG are shown on Figure 22.
These graphs are similar to each other but quite different
from the preceding graphs. The levels of COD in the back-
ground wells (MP #5 and #7) were similar to each other with
values of 13.45 mg/1 and 13.23 rag/1, respectively. The
leachate (MP #1) is high, 966.67 mg/1, with MP #3 nearly an
order of magnitude less, 50.33 mg/1.
COD in MP #6, 9.73 mg/1, is below background levels;
the difference, however, is less than one standard deviation.
Although MP #4 is a downgradient well, it has a concentration
slightly greater than the background with a value of 15.00 mg/1
since it is out of the direct flow path. In contrast to the
relationships -between monitoring points discussed in the
preceding graphs, the bar graph for COD shows that MP #2,
adjacent to the •bale-fill, has a COD value of 71.50 mg/1,
which is elevated even above the dilute leachate at MP #3.
The bar graph for TOC is similar to that for COD. TOC .
is low in the background wells, MP |5 and #7, 3.4 and 8.6 mg/1
respectively. TOC in the leachate is high, 424.0 mg/1, and
is much lower in the dilute leachate at MP #3 (26.3 mg/1).
MP #6 has a level of TOC similar to the background level
. (8.8 mg/1).' MP |4 is slightlyvIpwerv'jwlth a:; value.vpf 7.9 .mg/1,
showing that it is less influenced by the.balefill. As was
the case with: COD,.TOC concentrations in MP. #2 are quite
' elevated "compared ^to'thia, other" we Llsx^ndjare-^al'sb^, higher ;A;''';•;> '•'.' ••
than that at MP #3. MP ^2 showed a mean value of 33.6 mg/1
which is an order of magnitude lower than that of MP #1.
In summary, the bar graphs illustrate that there is a
rapid decrease in concentrations of contaminants with increas-
ing distance (vertical and horizontal) from the balefill.
This is evidenced in the decrease of parameter concentrations
between the leachate and MP #2 (at the periphery of the
'balefill) 'and ;is further evidenced by the'decrease, between ,
MP #2 and #4 (which is adjacent to the balefill but"is'but
of the direct flow path of contaminants movement from the
balefill). As the leachate moves down through the unsatur-
ated zone in the glacial sediments, ions are adsorbed by
clay minerals. When leachate enters the ground water beneath
the balefill site, it is diluted and dispersed. The bar
graphs for alkalinity, acidity, and TDS show that a large
portion of the ions in the leachate have been attenuated by
the time the leachate reaches the ground water at MP #2.
Since MP 14 receives contaminants through lateral migration,
ionic concentration at MP #4 is even closer to that in the
background ground water.
. •.'72-:,. .
-------
The bar graph for TKN shows that levels of organic
nitrogen are high in the leachate but, as leachate moves
through more than 30 m (100 ft) of sediment down to the
water table, the organic nitrogen is oxidized and degraded.
The histograms for COD and TOC indicate that the organic
compounds in the leachate are diminished in a slightly
different manner from the inorganic material (shown by
alkalinity, acidity, and TDS). Concentrations of organics
at MP #2 are significantly higher than they are at MP #4;
the difference in concentrations of organics between these
two monitoring points is greater than the difference shown
by alkalinity, acidity, and TDS between these monitoring
points. As the leachate passes from the balefill into the
underlying sediment, it appears that the exchange sites on
the clay are quickly saturated with ions from organic compounds.
and the clay therefore ceases to attenuate the leachate;
thus organics continue to percolate down through the coarse
sediment toward the water table. As they are not signifi-
cantly attenuated by clay, the degradation of these organics
is primarily a function of chemical oxidation and biological --•
degradation before they reach the water table. The concentra-
tion of the organic compounds in the ground water at MP #2
is relatively high. The level of organic compounds at MP #4
is similar to that in the background wells.
The bar graphs indicate that the impact of the balefill
on the ground water has been relatively limited in magnitude
and extent.
The Stiff diagrams (see Figure 23) are graphical illustra-
tions of the mean concentrations of the parameters of sodium,
iron, manganese, zinc, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, and
phosphate in the various wells and leachate. The diagram
for the deep background well (MP #5) shows some sodium,
iron, zinc, chloride, and sulfate and relatively little
manganese, nitrate, and phosphate. The shallow background
well (MP #7) shows a shape similar to that of MP #5 except
that nitrate is higher and zinc is lower. This indicates
that the water quality at MP #5 and #7 may have been influ-
enced by the adjacent sanitary landfill. The nitrate value
for MP #7 is so much greater than that for any of the other
monitoring points, including the leachate, that it suggests
that MP #7 has been affected by the local agriculture to the
west.
The leachate at MP §1 is elevated relative to the
background monitoring points in sodium (100 times), iron
(10 times), chloride (100 times), and sulfate (100 times).
Manganese, zinc, and phosphate are present in significant
amounts but nitrate is low because of the reducing environ-
ment. The dilute leachate at MP #3 shows much lower amounts
73
-------
T 1 1 ~T
100 10 i.o .1 .01 .001 .01 .1
MILLIEQUIVALENTS OF IONS
'0 '00
Figure 23. Modified stiff diagrams showing averaged
results of chemical analyses at the
balefill site.
74
-------
of sodium, iron, and chloride than MP #1 but is still higher
than background. Sulfate is less than the background level
and nitrate and phosphate were present only in trace amounts.
Manganese and zinc levels are even higher than those of the
leachate at MP SI. A high manganese value is also seen in
MP #6 and the two downgradient wells (MP #2 and #4) and may
be attributable to the bog sediments which collected in the
kettle lakes beneath the balefill site. The high zinc value
in MP f3 may be caused by the galvanized steel pipe used to
construct the manhole.
The diagram for MP #6 has a shape similar to that of
the shallow background well (MP #7) except for manganese
which is higher and nitrate which is lower. MP #2 is slightly
higher than MP #7 in sodium, iron, manganese, and chloride
and lower in zinc, nitrate, and phosphate. The diagram for
MP #4 shows greater amounts of sulfate but otherwise has a
shape1-similar to that of the other downgradient well (MP #2).
.The.. trends seen in these parameters are that sodium,
iron and chloride concentrations decrease with distance from
the balefill and that sodium attenuates more rapidly .than
iron. Sulfate and phosphate are highest in the leachate but
show no consistent relationship among the wells. Manganese
and zinc levels are largely unrelated to the balefill. The
Stiff diagrams confirm that the impact of the balefill is
localized.
The nitrogen ratios for both the leachate and ground-
water monitoring points are illustrated in Figure 24. They
confirm the relationships seen in the bar graphs of the
organic parameters; the balefill is a. source of reduced
compounds and concentrations of these chemicals decrease
rapidly with movement away from the fill.
Leachate at MP #1 has the highest ratio, 1,903. The
ratio for MP #3, the 0.9 m (3 ft) diameter manhole, is
lower, with a value of 388, primarily because of the dilution
by rainwater and the availability of oxygen (contact with
the atmosphere) which allows increased oxidation of reduced
nitrogen species. The ratio in the ground water at MP §2 is
sharply decreased (2.23) indicating further oxidation. The
reduced nitrogen is decreased further (ratio of 1.31) at .
MP #4 by dilution and dispersion. MP #6, which reflects the
effect of the sanitary landfill, is still less (0.81).
The nitrogen ratios at the two background wells may be
misleading. MP #5 has the second highest ratio among all
the wells (.1.50) but the actual amounts used to derive this
value are very small. Actual amounts are somewhat greater
for MP #7, but the relatively high amount of nitrate, which
probably results from agriculture to the west, causes the
ratio to be small (0.06).
75
-------
-o
a\
SANITARY
LANDFILL
006
loxm
LEGEND
O MONITOR WELL WITH NITROGEN INDEX
© LEACHATE
COLLECTION POINT
ooo ft-
P.igure 24. Nitrogen index showing the ratio of organic nitrogen plus ammonia
nitrogen (TKN) to nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen '(NO.2 + NOj) .
-------
Historical data is available only for the leachate
(MP #1, see Appendix D). Most of the parameters monitored
for the-present study were included in former studies; a
continuity of trends is apparent among the different sets of
data. Data is available from late March 1974, shortly after
bales were emplaced in this portion of the balefill site, to
the end of November 1974 and from early November 1976 to
mid-March 1978.
Alkalinity has been rising since the end of 1976 so
that concentrations have doubled during the last two years
(including the current study, 1979-1980); the low values
from the end of 1976 through the first half of 1977 are
probably a function of low precipitation during that period.
Specific 'conductance has been rising; there are some signs
of it stabilizing during the present study. Chlorides were
elevated in 1974, dropped sharply in 1976-77, and rose
during the present study to twice their initial value.
TOG and COD have been gradually rising with occasional
fluctuations from the norm. TDS has increased in a similar
manner. TKN, including ammonia nitrogen and organic nitrogen
from the 1974 study, has risen steadily to approximately
10 times its initial value by the close of the present
study. •
BOD is one of the few parameters that has shown decreas-
ing concentrations with time. A general downward trend was
interrupted in the second half of 1977 by the presence of
animal activity (habitation) around the monitoring point. '.
Most metals were present in only small amounts, fre-
quently below detection, and generally did not show a coherent
trend. Sodium was*low during the dry months at the end of
1976 and early 1977, rose to peak six months later, and
returned to its original level during the present study.
Magnesium decreased by 50 percent from elevated levels.
Calcium is elevated but has shown no consistent trend.
Most parameters showing consistent trends appear to
have values gradually increasing with time or to have shown
signs of stabilization at the last sampling round of the
present study; the contamination potential of the balefill
shows little sign of decreasing after approximately six years
(for this particular portion of the site). BOD is one of
the few decreasing parameters; its downward trend may be
attributable to a peak in biological activity within the
balefill. .
Based on the results of the study, it is concluded that
the balefill is having a localized and limited effect on
ground water in the vicinity of the site. This is due to
77
-------
the combination of attenuation and dilution and to the fact
that the base of the balefill is approximately 30 m (100 ft)
above the water table allowing both time and distance to
further minimize adverse impacts. The leachate generated by
the balefill (MP #1) has been gradually increasing in concen-
trations or stabilizing except for BOD which has exhibited a
downward trend. Thus the contaminant potential of the site
has not been significantly reduced in a six year period.
.This .fact confirms the generally accepted concept that a
balefill will produce a moderate to low strength leachate
over long periods of time.
MILLFILL
The technique of shredding and milling is intended to
render solid waste more manageable. This technique has many
of the same advantages as the baling process. Refuse is
shredded into relatively small pieces and is more economically
transported. Shredding minimizes odors and blowing papers;
most importantly, refuse can be packed more densely into a
given volume. The recovery of metal and other resources
also becomes more feasible with the use of this process.
Topographic Position
The milIfill lies within the northern glaciated section
of the Appalachian Plateau physiographic province. Glacial /
ice and subsequent erosion and deposition modified .the ,_
preglacial';bedrock topography:into; its-present--fprim. •-The. ; r::;/;:
area is characterized by high local relief with numerous''
rounded hills interspersed with stream and river valleys.
Glacial features form low rolling hills within the valleys
and on gently sloping bedrock surfaces.
The millfill is situated on the lower slope of a .ridge
that grades to 'the broad floodplain of a major river lying
approximately 610 m (2000 ft) to the south of the landfill
and flowing in an easterly direction (see Figure 25). The
river is fed by numerous tributaries flowing from the'surround-
ing highlands. •
Native vegetation in the area consists of woodlands.
South of the millfill, the floodplain has been developed for ,
agriculture. The millfill site was stripped of vegetation
and its northern unfilled portion is now covered with grasses
and weeds. The southern working portion of the site has not
been reseeded.
78
-------
DEMOLITION
WASTE AREA
FLOOD L PLAIN
Figure 25. Maip of the millfill site.
79
-------
Climate :/ •'•.. -/;.. •.',,._ . " ;' ••" .-.;..' ' . -"'• ••'.-;;•.-.„•.• ; ' .
The climate at the mil If ill' is humid continental and is
characterized by relatively dry, cold winters and warm to
hot, wet summers. .
•On-the basis of data compiled by the 0. S. Weather
Bureau at a nearby weather station for a 30-year period of
record, the mean annual precipitation for the milIfill area
is83.69 cm (32.95 in) and is evenly distributed throughout
:"the year. The normal monthly low occurs in January with
'.4.65 cm (:1.83 in) and the normal high in May with 9.75 cm
(3.84 in), see Figure 26 and Table 8 . January and February
vare the driest months with average precipitation of• less
than 5^cm (2 in). May through August is the wettest period
with each month averaging greater than 7 cm (3 in) of precipi-
tation. Precipitation during the winter.:months consists of
snow and rain depending on variations in temperature.
Precipitation during:the .one-year study period was
;;0v06 .cm:v(0.02 :in) above normal. ; Monthly departures from
normal were minimal with the exceptions of November 1978/
average of more than 2.5 cm, (1 in)'below normal, and Janu-^
ary 1979, average of more than;5;cm (2 in) above normal.
The mean annual temperature for the milIfill area is
"8.9 C (48.1.F) with a normal low of -3.9 C (25.0 F) occurring
in January and a normal high of 21.6 C (70.8 F) in July.
Geology and Soils„ < > • , ' ,
^ -•, t * f y ^ «.
The millfilT is underlain by bedrock of Upper Devonian
age which is commonly mantled by glacial and fluvial deposits.
..Bedrock beneath the site has been mapped as both the Gardeau
'Formation, which consists of silty grey and greenish-grey
; shales, grey siltstones, and brown to greyish-black shales,
and the Roricks Glen Shale, dark^grey and black shales with
some ;thin calcareous siltstones. The bedrock in the region
k'has been very gently folded; dips range/.from horizontal to
less than 5 degrees. -s
The bedrock at the site is overlain by approximately:
15 m (50: ft) of glacial outwash, fine-to coarse-grained
•sands and .gravels (see Figure 27). The silt and clay content
-varies but is usually minor. Since the outwash is composed
vibf coarse-grained material,1 it is comparatively permeable.
Some silt deposits (silt and fine sand) overlie the
/•outwash at central and northern locations of the site.
^'These silts are believed to; have been deposited in lakes
'• iformed by dammed ice as the glacier receded. They range
iifrom approximately 1.5 to 6 m;(5 to 20 ft) in thickness.
' " '•• ' " '' . .--80 . '•'.."'•• .' ':
-------
00
SE
w
UJ
O
2
'•
<
UJ
oc
0.
20H
15-
10-
5-
0-
— NORMAL
~ ACTUAL
o ©
-9
-S
-7
-6
-5
-3
-2
- I
T-I-0
SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
1978 '. 1979
Figure 26. Graph of precipitation at the millfill.
JUL AUG
UJ
X
O
2
2
O
0.
O
UJ
K
a.
-------
TABLE 8. MONTHLY PRECIPITATION DATA3 - MILLFILL
Date
9/78
1.0/78
11/78
12/78
1/79
2/79
;3/79
,4/79.
5/79 .
6/79
7/79
8/79
TOTAL
Normal
6.
6.
7.
. 5.
4.
4.
6.
'... ., 7,
9.
7.
8.
8.
83.
48
38
54
94
65
7'5
58
39
75
87
13
,23
69
( 2.
( 2.
( 2.
( 2.
(. 1.
( 1.
(2.
(2.
( 3.
( 3.
( 3.
( 3.
C32.
55)
51)
97)
34)
83)
87)
59)
91). ,
84)'
10)
20)
24)
95)
4
.8
3
8
.11
4
6
. , , ". 7
8
5
6
... 7
83
Actual
.80
.76
.25
.31
.63
.83
.91 ,
. 39
.•05 '
.92
.81
.09
.75
( 1.
t 3.
( 1.
( 3.
(4.
( 1.
( 2-
(.•2.
( 3.
( 2.
( 2.
( 2.
(32.
89)
45)
28)
27)
58)
90)
72)
91)
17)
33)
68) .
79)
97)
Departure
from normal
-1.
2.
-4.
2.
6.
0.
: 0.
0.
' — "1
-1.
-1.
-1.
" 0.
68
39
29
36
99
08
33
00
70'
96
32
14
06'
(-0^66)
( 0.94)
(-1.69)
( 0.9.3)
( 2.75)
( 0.03)
(0. .13)
( 0.00)
(-0.67)
(-0.77)
(-0.52)
(-0.45)
(0.02)
Measurements in cm (in)
82
-------
TILL
DEMOLITION
W&STE ARES
SCALE
' isVm.
BOOPT.
-------
Deposits of glacial till at least 9 m (30 ft) thick
mantle the higher ridges,.in.the northern portion of the site.
This til1 is..composed of brown-silt with . fine sands/ gravels,
and boulders; it is dense and has low permeability as it
was compacted by glacial ice. Well-stratified, variously-
textured alluvial sediments lie in the flbodplain of the
river south of the site.
Soils at the millfill site were mapped by the USDA Soil
Conservation Service prior to filling operations. The
original soils at the millfill were excavated and used
during site preparation.
The predominant soils in the vicinity of the -milIfill
were formed from glacial till and outwash. Valois gravelly
loam is a deep, well drained, moderately permeable soil
formed from gravelly glacial till and is found on gentle
slopes. Howard gravelly silt loam is a deep/ well drained,
moderately rapid to rapidly permeable soil .formed from
stratified sandy and gravelly glacial outwash and is found
on nearly level areas to very steep slopes."...
To the north of the millfill on the ridge is soil
formed in dense glacial till. This soil is Volusia channery
silt loam, a deep, somewhat poorly drained soil with slow
permeability. To the south of the millfill is a large area
of deep> well drained, moderately rapidly permeable soil
formed from silty and fine sandy alluvial deposits:on level
land. These soils are Unadilla silt loam, Tioga silt loam,
Tioga fine sandy loam/-andya'-.variably^ textUred>v unconsbli--
dated alluvium described as Alluvial Land! ' ' '
Landfill Operations
The millfill, owned and operated by the County in which
it is situated, began operations in December 1973. The
entire site covers 57 ha (140 ac); milled refuse was landfilled
in the southern portion of the site in an area of approximately
7 ha (18 ac), see Figure 25 and operations-will expand
eventually into the northern portion of the site. 'The-'•"•"•
landfill serves a population.of 116,000 accepting municipal
refuse, some industrial (non-hazardous) "wastes, and demolition
wastes. The demolition wastes are landfilled separately in
the southeastern portion of the site. Approximately 181 tonnes
(200 tons) of refuse are landfilled each day, 6 days per week.
Solid wastes are initially delivered to a nearby facility
where large metal objects are separated by hand; these
objects are later transported to the demolition waste area
at the millfill site. The remaining refuse is shredded to a
maximum size of 8 cm (3 in) and is compacted into transfer
trailers and transported to the millfill.
84
-------
In December 1973, landfilling began in an abandoned
gravel pit with an approximate area of 0.8 ha (1.9 ac) in
the southwestern corner of the milIfill. The pit was lined
with 2.4 m (8 ft) of materials including vegetation from the
clearing of the pit area, excess spoil from the pit access
road excavation and bank material from the pit walls. These
were covered with an additional 0.6 m (2 ft) of glacial till
from the northern portion of the site. Refuse cells 1.5 m
(5 ft) high and 34 m (110 ft) long were constructed by the
ramp sanitary landfill method until the entire depression
was filled with one 1.5 m (5 ft) lift. Two additional 2.4 m
(8 ft)- lifts were constructed above the initial one. Daily
cover material was obtained from the pit area. Upon comple-
tion of the three lifts, an intermediate cover (30 cm,
12 in) was emplaced.
Operations in the southwestern corner of the site
continued for approximately three years at which time land-
filling proceeded to the eastern and then northern portions
of the site. These areas were landfilled using the trench
method where cover material both for these areas and the
demolition waste area was excavated and the excavation
filled with refuse. During initial preparation, the millfill
base was graded (2 percent) toward the siltation pond at the
southeast. After an initial 2.4 m (8 ft) lift was constructed
in this manner, successive lifts were constructed by the
area lift method. .
In general, daily operations consist of the construction
of one refuse cell, approximately 2.4 m (8 ft) high, 9 m
(30 ft) wide, and 22 m (72 ft) long. Refuse is compacted'by
bulldozer in 30 cm (12 in) layers until the 2.4 m (8 ft)
height is reached. The average density of the milled refuse
is 653 kg/m (1,100 Ib/yd ). Cells are covered each day
with a compacted depth of 15 cm (6 in) of cover material.
If an area is left uncovered by additional cells for more
than two months, 30 cm (12 in) of intermediate cover is
applied.
In January 1979, midway through the study period, an
explosion in the milling facility caused shredding operations
to cease. Prior to this event, approximately 283,200 tonnes
(312,000 tons) of milled refuse had been landfilled at the
site; approximately 34,500 tonnes (38,000 tons) of unmilled
refuse were landfilled from January 1979 through August 1979
(the end of the study period).
Final grade has not yet been attained; both the mill-
fill and the demolition waste area will have a,final grade
of approximately 6 percent in the direction of the siltation
pond (southeast and downgradient of the millfill). Drainage
ditches surround the millfill and grade toward the .siltation
85
-------
pond; any leachate seeping from the sides of the millfill
would be carried with surface runoff to .the ditches, .and ., ..
ultimately to the siltation pond.
During the study period, the site appeared to be well
operated.and in good condition. No vectors or odors were
observed. There was an occasional problem with blowing
plastic wrappers. During wet periods, occasional leachate
seeps were reported on the southern and eastern sides of the
millfill; leachate was observed and sampled only once during
the study period.
Monitoring Network
Monitoring points were located in order to obtain
samples of upgradient ground water, downgradient ground
water, and leachate generated by the millfill. Five observa-
tion wells, a water supply well, a spring and a leachate
seep were used in this study and were designated as MP #1
through #8 (see Figure 28, Table 9, and Appendix A). Histori-
cal chemical analyses were obtained for MP #1 through #5..
MP |8, the leachate seep, was present on the southern
border of the millfill and was observed and sampled only
once during the study period. MP #3, a natural spring, is
located in glacial silts north of the millfill. It was used
in this study to monitor shallow ground-j-water quality upgradient
-from the millfill. - ' ' . :: v • •' - '..-..' •,'. .
.'-:;-.' MP1 #4, drilled in 1974,, is ,an observation well located/... :
adjacent to the natural spring and was used to monitor
upgradient ground water. It was drilled to 6.1 m (20.0 ft)
and was completed at 3.7 m (12.0 ft) because of caving.
Glacial outwash was encountered to a depth of 1.5 m (5.0 ft)
and was underlain by 4.6 m (15.0 ft) of glacial till. MP #4
was cased with 10.16 cm (4.00 in) PVC, the lowest portion of
which was slotted. MP #5, also drilled in 1974, was used.
only as.a source of historical upgradient ground-water
quality data. It was completed in glacial till to a depth
of 6.1 m (20.0 ft) and was cased with 10.16 cm (4.00 in).
PVC, a section of which was slotted to permit water
infiltration. . . . • • .
MP II, the water supply well, is located on the flood-.
plain south of the millfill. When drilled in 1974,.it
encountered variously-textured glacial outwash to its completed
depth of 13.4 m (44.0 ft). The well was cased to the bottom
with 15.24 cm (6.00 in) steel casing, the lowermost section
of which was slotted. It provided samples of downgradient
ground water.
86
-------
LEGEND
O MONITOR WELL
© LE&CHATE COLLECTION POINT
O SPRING
Figure 28. Location of monitoring points at the
millfill site.
87
-------
TABLE 9. MONITOR WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS - MILLFILL3
oo
00
Well
MP if depth
Totaib Type Section
•casing casing slotted
Elevation0
Top of
casing
Reference"
Surface6
elevation
i •
1 13.4
(44.0)
2
4 3.7
(12.0)
13.4 15.24 cm f
(44.1) ( 6.00 in.)
Steel
v :—- 15.24 cm
: ( 6.00 in.)
':. Steel
3.7 10.16 cm
(12.2) ( 4.00 in.)
PVC
5 6.1 6.1 10.16cm ••'''.
(20.0) (20.0) (4.00 in.)
PVC
6 8.4 ^
(27.7)
7 7.5 H
(24.5)
9.1 10.16 cm 8.4- 5.4 -
(30/0) ( 4.00 in.) (27. 7-17. 7)(
PVC
.8.3 10.16 cm 7.5- 4.4
(27.2) ( 4.00 in.) (24.5-14.5).
a PVC >
247.33
(811.13)
247.08
(810.63)
265.85
(872.20)
267.46
(877.50)
254 . 29
(834.30)
248.62
(815.70)
0.04
(0.13)
0.19
(0.63)
0.06
(0.20)
0.00
(0.00)
0. 70
(2.30)
0.82
(2.70)
247.19
(811.00)
246.89
(810.00)
265.79
(872.00)
267.46
(877.50)
253.59
(832.00)
247.80
(813.00)
a
b
c
d
e
f
Measurements in meters (feet) unless otherwise indicated.
Total casing is equal to the casing in the ground plus casing above
All elevations relative to mean sea level.
Reference above ground surface from which water level measurements
Surface elevation estimated from USGS topographic map.
Dashes indicate information not available.
ground (Reference)
are taken.
-------
MP #2, an observation well drilled in 1974, was located
approximately 130 m (425 ft) south of the millfill to monitor
ground-water quality directly downgradient from the oldest
section of the millfill. No logs were available for this
well.
MP #6 was drilled in 1978 on the eastern end of a ridge
composed of glacial outwash. It was located approximately
46 m (150 ft) southeast of the millfill to monitor down-
gradient ground-water quality and was drilled to a depth of
10.7 m (35.0 ft) in glacial outwash. Because of caving, it
was cased to 8.4 m (27.7 ft) with 10.16 cm (4.00 in) PVC
slotted for the lowermost 3.0 m (10.0 ft). MP #7, also
drilled in 1978, was located approximately 168 m (550 ft)
southeast and downgradient of the millfill and immediately
downgradient of the siltation pond. It was drilled to a
depth of 9,1 m (30.0 ft) in fine to medium gravels with
minor amounts of silt and clay and,, because of caving, was
cased to 7.5 m (24.5 ft) with 10.16 cm (4.00 in) PVC slotted
for the lowermost 3.0 m (10.0 ft).
Particle Size Analyses
Three samples obtained during the drilling of MP #6 and
MP #7 were analyzed for particle size distribution to better
determine the attenuation characteristics of the geologic
material (see Appendix B and Table 10). The samples are
glacial outwash. The one from MP #6 is.sandy; those from
MP #7 are gravelly and become coarser with increasing depth.
None of these samples contains large enough amounts of clay .
to allow significant ion exchange with the leachate to occur.
Hydrogeology of the Millfill Site
The millfill is located on the side slope of a major
river valley in an area of comparatively high relief.
Glacial sediments in which the landfill is developed exhibit
a steep southerly slope towards the river. Drainage is
provided by small streams; the drainage network in the area
is well-developed and has a comparatively steep grade, and
the river to which the small streams drain has considerable
stream flow. Ground water at the site moves to the southeast
toward the river. The glacial outwash underlying the river
forms an aquifer which discharges into the river. The
uplands, mantled with a relatively impermeable till, serve
as the local recharge area.
Hydrologic data for the area is sparse. The area
immediately to the north of the millfill, however, has been
studied in more detail and, since the climate of the area is
comparable, the results of those hydrologic studies have
been used to develop a water budget for the site.
89
-------
TABLE 10. PERCENTAGE OF SEPARATES BY WEIGHT FOR
THE GEOLOGIC MATERIALS AT THE MILLFILL.3
% Coarse
Sample description % Clay % Silt % Sand fragments
MP #6 Outwash ' 6 21 60 13
3.0 - 10.7 m
(10.0 - 35.0 ft)
MP #7 Outwash 4 11 30 55
3.0 - 6.1 m
.(10.0 - 20.0 ft)
MP #7 Outwash 3 6 11 80
7.6 - 9.1 m
(25.0 - 30.0 ft)
a Size limits for the soil separates are based on the
U. S. Department of Agriculture system. The diameter
range for separates is:
Clay, less than 0.002 mm
Silt, 0.002 - 0.05 mm ,
Sand, 0.05 - 2.0 mm
Coarse Fragments, greater than 2.0 mm
90
-------
The water budget developed for the railIfill area is
based on long-term regional data modified slightly to fit
conditions at the site. The budget indicates that, of the
83.69 cm (32.95 in) of precipitation (PPT) which falls on
the area, 61 percent is lost to evapotranspiration (ET),
13 percent runs off as surface water (SW) and 26 percent
recharges the ground water (GW). The budget, in the form of
an equation, is:
PPT = ET + ' SW -i- GW
83.69 cm = 1.05 cm + 10.88 cm + 21.76 cm "
(32.95 in) = (20.10 in) + (4.28 in) + (8.57 in)
..Hydrogeo.l.ogic conditions at the mil If ill, .although not..
identical to those--of-the . region,, are similar. , The:- differ- ••
enceis'.'between the-landfill itself and the region surrounding
it are the permeability'of the cover material used at the
milIfill and. the natural vegetation of the region contrasted
with ..the,,.absence of vegetation at the landfill. However,
since care'has been -taken... to cover., the .landfill1 with-, impermer--
able material and to compact it, evapotranspiration losses
because-of limited..vegetation on the landfill surface.are
minimized..-.-Therefore, the budget presented here is appropri-
ate given..the limited data available regarding the millfill
site..
Leachate generation at the millfill can be estimated ...
using the water budget and the area of the millfill base. '
Multiplying the 21.76 cm (8.57 in) of recharge by the 7-ha
, (18-ac). base, yields 15,232 m, (12.'86 ae-ft) per..year ..of • V-'---Y:;
poteritiar'leachate generation which will tend to move with ';-''
the ground water to the south and discharge in the vicinity
of the river.
Figure 29 shows a cross section of the millfill taken
along line AA' (see Figure 30) passing roughly northwest to .
southeast through MP #4, §8, and #2. The millfill was
constructed oh a thin base of compacted glacial sediments
obtained from the northern portion of the site. It overlies
approximately 15 m (50 ft) of intertonguing outwash and ."'
till. '
The water table generally follows the contour of the
land. Depth to the water table around the millfill ranges
from 1.34 to 6.62 m (4.40-21.70 ft), see Appendix C. Average
seasonal fluctuations in the water table range from 0.18 to
1.38 m (0.60-4.52 ft). Figure 31 shows the approximate ."
water table configuration in the study area based on water ...
table elevations from four points. Precipitation percolates .
down to the water table where it enters the ground-water
flow system moving to the south and ultimately discharging
into the river. After leaving the millfill, leachate perco-
91
-------
VD
950
ILLFILL
Active Landfill Surface
730
-.290.fl- .""* i
Vertical E«oMtrotioASi
Figure 29. Cross section of the millfill site.
-------
LEGEND
Q MONITOR WELL
0 LE&CH&TE COLLECTION POINT
O SPRING
DEMOLITION
WASTE AREA
Figure 30. Map showing the location of the line of
cross section, AA'.
93
-------
LEGEND
144 49
' MONITOR WELL WITH WATER
TABLE ELEVATION IN METERS
ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
• LEACHATE COLLECTION POINT
—HO--, WATER TABLE CONTOUR
I [ DEMOLITION
WA^TE^AREA
Figure 31. Map of the water table at the millfill site.
94
-------
lates down to the shallow outwash aquifer and is diluted and
dispersed as it is transported along the ground-water flow
path.
Water Chemistry at the MilIfill Site
Bar graphs of the mean concentrations for alkalinity,
acidity, TDS, TKN, COD, and TOG were constructed for all the
monitoring points (see Figures 32, 33, and 34, Appendix E
and Section 2). The background water quality is represented
by MP #4 and MP #3 which have mean values for alkalinity of
74.3 mg/1 and 62.3 mg/1, respectively (see Figure 32).° The
leachate (MP #8, 9,450 mg/1) has a mean value for alkalinity
considerably-higher -than either MP #3 or #4. All four of
the downgradient wells (MP #1, #2,. #6, and 17) show mean
values for alkalinity higher than those for either MP #3 or
#4. Ranking these sampling points in order of decreasing
concentrations, MP #2 has the highest concentration of
alkalinity (mean value of 393.8 mg/1), MP #7 exhibits the
next highest mean value (198.0 mg/1) and MP #1 and MP #6 • •
show.similar mean concentration values of 178.3 mg/1 and ..•••••
170.5 'mg/T,' respectively.. While all of these sampling
points have alkalinity values higher than those observed in ...
the .background well, they are more than an order of magnitude
lower than, those of the leachate.
.The mean concentration values for acidity .are .displayed
in Figure 32 which shows patterns that are similar.to those
seen in the alkalinity values. The background well (MP #4)
and .the spring. (MP #3) .demonstrated the least negative mean,.';;;;^
values for acidity, showing -110 mg/1 and -64 mg/1,'respectively'." •
The leachate (MP #8) gave the most negative mean value for
this parameter with -4,360 mg/1 of acidity. MP #2 (-187 mg/1)
had the most negative mean value among the downgradient
wells. MP #7 yielded the next most negative value showing
-210 mg/1 of acidity. MP #1 (-188 mg/1) and MP #6 (-180 mg/1)
presented the two least negative mean values for acidity.
:..,The bar graph of the mean values for TDS (see Figure 33)
demonstrates a configuration similar to that seen' in ;the bar
graphs for alkalinity and acidity. MP. #8 (leachate) has the
highest mean concentration of TDS with a value- of 19,500 mg/1.
This value is nearly 2 orders of magnitude higher than the
mean concentration value for TDS found at any of the other
monitoring points. MP §3 (112 mg/1) and MP #4 (160 mg/1),
the ..background monitoring points, have the lowest mean
concentration values of TDS. MP §2 (396 mg/1) shows a mean
concentration which is the highest among the downgradient
wells; MP #7-(281..mg/1) has the next highest TDS concentra- ..:
tion. MP #1 (255 mg/1) and MP 16 (250 mg/1) have relatively
equivalent mean values.
95
-------
woo-
to
o
^ -
o
o
BOO-
*
^ • •
600-
^
vo ~
O\ .£
5 400-
^
O
0 200-
o-
v
j
: |
1 1 • 1 1
7
•
• "-
X
V
/
/
/
/
/
/j
y
7
7
7
7
/
/
/
i
/
f
•-.••';• ' '•-. "'- ' .' \ ' '.''..
••;:.- •••.-.'•• -looo-
'.•••. 10
:•.; ;•'. -. o
•-'•-'•.' :'-•• O
• •; . • ,.' ' o
:'•'.".'. ' .. - • O. _nno-
••"•>' ' ' . IA
• _••::. -• • o
'•' '•''. • ' •.-.• ^ •
"_'.-..-!• • '"'• . .' . E -eoo-
•'••'• •'••' >»
••..'"•". ' " •'•••' ' *- • ' .
.•.'•• '• ''•'.••'." T>-' '• , '
;.'.' < -400-
,.}':.- '••• .. o .,
.-".•; '•• .''•'' •'. '. -200
•'"•"•' ' •'' .-. r\
• : •.'. ' ' '
* «
_^_
'/.
/
';.;.. ., " . . • 7 ' • " ' .•"-••' '.
^
I-
^
y.
^
y
>
^
/;
y
/
/
X
•>
/
/
'
• ;
* 1
2 3 46 ?
Monitoring Point
Monitoring Point
Figure 32. Bar graphs for alkalinity and acidity at the millfill site.
-------
r^19500
1000-
.
o
O 600-
00
4- -
O
>T 600-
CS
E
. —
w
° 400-
200-
n-
fX]
X
X
X /
X X
X X
X X
X X
1 1
0 M r
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
s
s
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
x
1.0-
e-
6-
4-
2-
o-
Monitoring Point
346
Monitoring Point
Figure 33. Bar graphs for TDS and TKN at the millfill site.
-------
00
23090
Monitoring Point
r
8350
50-
40-
* 30-
o"
O
o ^
20-
IO-
0-
B
1
/
~
2
7
3
1
4
?
6
/
7
'^•',
.; ..
•''-•':.''.'
^
X
/
/
^
'/
J>
t,
s
5O-
4O-
T 30-
O
0
1—
20-
IO-
1 1
, u T p
.8 | 2
.010
^
|
^
/
/
^
/x
346/0
Monitoring Point
Figure 34. Bar graphs for COD and TOC at the millfill site.
-------
MP #8 shows a significant concentration of TKN and has
a mean value (150 mg/1) that is more than 2 orders of magnitude
higher than those of the other monitoring points (see Figure 33)
The spring (MP #3), the background well (MP #4), and all of
the downgradient wells (MP #1, #2, #6, and #7) have mean
concentration values for TKN that are less than 1.00 mg/1.
The difference between the monitoring point with the highest
mean concentration of TKN (MP #7) and the one with the
lowest mean concentration (MP fl) is only 0-. 64 mg/1. Thus,
given the low concentration levels of this parameter and- the
small magnitude of the difference among the monitoring
points,'it would be unwise to attempt to identify patterns
within this data.
The mean values for COD are displayed in Figure 34. As
with the previous histograms, the leachate (MP #8) showed
the highest mean value (23,690 mg/1) among the monitoring
points. This value exceeds those found at the other monitoring
points by more than 3 orders of magnitude. Downgradient
wells MP #2 (8.70 mg/1), MP #6 (10.00 mg/1), and MP 17
(11.73 mg/1) exhibited mean concentrations for COD that were
higher than that of the background well (MP #4, 6.32 mg/1).
Although the mean COD values for these three downgradient
wells were higher than that seen in the background well
(MP #4), the values are all relatively low. The remaining
downgradient point (MP #1, 5.43 mg/1) has a mean value for -
COD lower than the background value (6.23 mg/1).
The mean concentrations for TOC are displayed in Figure 34.
The leachate (MP #8) has a mean concentration value of
8,350 mg/1 and is more than 2 orders of magnitude higher
than the mean values for all of the other monitoring points.
Both background monitoring points (MP #3, 2.7 mg/1 and
MP #4, 5.8 mg/1) showed low values for TOC. All downgradient
wells showed mean concentrations of TOC higher than either
MP #3.or. #4. MP #2 (9.4 mg/1) has the highest mean TOC
concentration among the downgradient wells. MP #6 (7.1 mg/1)
and MP #7 (7.4 mg/1) show roughly equivalent mean concentra-
tions. MP fl (6.4 mg/1) has a slightly lower mean concentra-
tion value. As was the case with the COD values, all of
these values for the downgradient wells are low considering
the strength of the leachate.
In summary, the bar graphs show the leachate (MP #8) to
be of considerable strength. They also show that it has
affected all of the downgradient wells to varying degrees.
MP #2 demonstrated the highest amount of impact. This may
be a function of the position of the well downgradient of
the oldest portion of the millfill where the refuse was
buried in an abandoned gravel pit. The proximity of the
refuse to the water table results in a greater potential for
the production of leachate and contamination of ground
99
-------
water. The age of the material is reflected in a relatively
low mean value for COD. The fact that the levels of the
water quality indicators are considerably lower at MP #2
than at MP #8 shows that the leachate has undergone attenuation,
degradation, and dilution.
The bar graphs for MP f7 show that this well also is
contaminated. There appears to be two sources of contamina-
tion at this monitoring point; the leaehate from the millfill
and leachate from side seeps that is carried along with
runoff via ditches which empty into the siltation pond.
Leachate contained in the unlined siltation pond enters the
ground-water system and affects water quality at MP §7.
This observation of two sources is supported by the fact
that the parameter values for MP |7 are consistently higher
than those at MP #6.
The histograms for MP §6 show that the millfill has an
impact on this well but to a lesser degree than either MP #2
or #7. This phenomenon is a reflection of the location of
MP 16 downgradient from the newer portion of the millfill.
This leachate appears to be of weaker strength. The bar
graphs of TOC and COD show MP #6 to have mean parameter
values similar to those at MP #7. These elevated mean
values are characteristic of leachate produced by the newer
refuse in the millfill.
MP #1 exhibited the lowest amount of impact"among the
downgradient wells. Although alkalinity, .acidity, and TDS
at this monitoring:point show evidence of minimal contamina-
tion, COD and TOC do not. The higher mean values for the '
first three parameters are explained by the fact that these
undergo only a minor amount of attenuation along the flow
path due to the porosity of the sands and gravels beneath
and surrounding the site. However, the relatively greater
distance to MP #1 affords time necessary to degrade the
carbonaceous material. The low degree of the impact of the
millfill on MP #1 may be best appreciated when it is noted
that the water from this well is potable.
In order to further illustrate the effect of the millfill
on the quality of the ground water in the area, Stiff diagrams
were constructed (see Figure 35). The diagram for MP |8
(undiluted leachate) has a distinctive shape and shows
elevated concentrations of all the ionic species considered;
sodium, iron, manganese, zinc, chloride, sulfate, nitrate,
and phosphate.
The shapes of the diagrams for MP fl and MP #7 are more
similar to that for MP #3 (the spring) than that for any
other monitoring point. The Stiff diagram for MP 16 is
100
-------
LEGEND
T f— 1 1 1 j 1
100 10 1.0 .1 .01 .001 .01 J ID
MILUEQUIV&LENTS OF IONS
100
Figure 35. Modified stiff diagrams showing averaged
results of chemical analyses at the
millfill site.
101
-------
somewhat like that seen for MP #7 but shows higher concentra-
tions of all ions except sulfate.
The shape of the diagram for MP #2 resembles that of
MP #8, indicating similar ionic composition. This supports
the suggestion that two types of leachate are being produced
from the older and newer portions of the millfill. The
width of the diagram for MP #2, however, shows that the
leachate contacting this monitoring point has been diluted.
The relatively high concentrations of sodium indicate a lack .
of attenuation between MP #2 and the millfill.
Overall, the Stiff diagrams demonstrate that downgradient
wells, MP #2, #6, and #7 have all been impacted by the
presence of the millfill but to varying degrees. The shape
of the diagram for MP #2 indicates that this.well is the
most heavily impacted among the downgradient wells.
The Stiff diagrams support the earlier suggestion that
the siltation pond is an additional source of contamination
at MP #7. The different shape of the diagram for MP #7 as
compared to MP #6, suggests a different type of leachate.
MP #6 exhibits higher concentrations of all ionic species
except sulfate which is higher'at MP #7.
MP #1 demonstrated the least degree of impact among the
downgradient wells. Overall, it exhibited the lowest concen-
trations of ionic species except for zinc and chloride.
, ;. To: differentiate/'between -oxidizirigV;iand; re<3ucing; :envirpn- V;
ments, nitrogen ratios were calculated and are displayed on
Figure 36. A large ratio value of 53.6 for MP #8 demonstrates
that the leachate is under reducing conditions.
Among the downgradient wells, MP #2 had the highest
ratio value (2.09) indicating a somewhat reducing environment.
MP #7 (0.87) gave evidence of a more oxidizing environment
than MP #2. The great difference between the ratio value
for MP #8 (the leachate) and MP #2 shows that the leachate
has been diluted by ground water and that some degradation
of the leachate occurs before it contacts MP #2.
MP 16 exhibits a ratio of 0.26 which indicates that a
more oxidizing environment exists here than at MP f7. The
lower ratio for MP #6 compared to MP #2 is a reflection of
the proximity of MP #6 to relatively newer refuse (compared
to MP #2 the older refuse in the southwest portion of the
millfill).
MP #1 (0.12) exhibited the lowest nitrogen ratio value
among all the monitoring points. Its low value reflects
both its distance from the millfill and the fact that MP #1
102
-------
LEGEND
O ttONITOH BELL
WITH NITROGEN INDEX
9 LE4CH4TE COLLECTION POINT
O SPftiNS
Figure 36." Nitrogen index showing the ratio of organic
• nitrogen plus ammonia, nitrogen (TKN) to
• nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen (M02 +
103
-------
is downgradient of the oldest portion of the mil If ill.
Since MP fl is the .farthest downgradient monitoring point,
the leachate becomes more diluted prior to reaching it. The
material producing the leachate is older and there has been
more time .for it to have undergone degradation.
Unfortunately, the historical data for the millfill is
limited (see Appendix D). However, a sufficient number of
analytical results exist to allow the identification of
trends (or their absence) in alkalinity, specific conductance,
and total solids for two of the downgradient wells (MP #1
and f2), the spring (MP #3) and the background well (MP #4).
At MP #2 the peak values for alkalinity, specific
conductance, and total solids are greater than those seen at
MP #1. The fact that the parameter values for MP #2 are
higher is due to the proximity of the well to the millfill.
The data for MP 13 (the spring) and MP #4 (background)
exhibits a considerable, amount of variability and ho definite
trends through time could be identified. The data does
show, however, that the parameter values for the downgradient
wells (MP #1 and |2) are generally higher'than those seen in
the spring or the background well. .
In summary, the data demonstrates that MP f2 and #7 are
the most contaminated of the downgradient wells. The contami-
nation source for MP #2 is the strong ieachate produced
directly by the older portion, of the millfill while ;the
leachate which has been diluted by...surface, runoff,watef, from ;
the siltatiori pond and the newer leaehate is the contamination
source for MP #7.
The data also shows that MP #1 has the least amount of
contamination among the downgradient.wells. The impact on
the well is minor due to the fact that contamination i-s
localized; MP #1 is farthest from the millfill among.the
.downgradient wells. .... _
MP #6 exhibits an intermediate amount of contamination
relative to the other - monitoring points. This is attributable
to the fact that MP #6 is impacted by bhe • source of contamina-
tion, the weaker leachate from the newer portion of the "
millfill. "•'••• •'•""""'
STRIP MINE LANDFILL
The requirements for energy in the United States have
encouraged the increasing use of strip mine landfilling.
With the advent of stricter requirements concerning the
reclamation of strip mines, it has seemed advantageous to
104
-------
use solid waste as the fill material necessary to regrade
abandoned strip pits. In addition to the obvious cost
advantage of using these ready-made depressions, strip mines
are often located in sparsely populated areas where the
presence of a landfill would have relatively less social
impact.
Topographic Position
The strip mine landfill lies on the border of the
Allegheny High Plateau and Pittsburgh sections of the Appa-
lachian Plateau physiographic province. The site was not
directly affected by glaciation and only a thin mantle of
soil covers the nearly horizontal bedrock. The bedrock has
been.dissected by numerous streams and rivers creating
fairly steep, rounded mountains separated by small valleys.
The landfill is located on a mountain side which slopes
steeply into a small stream valley (see Figure 37). Local
relief at the landfill is on the order of 61 m (200 ft).
Drainage for the area is well-integrated with small
mountain tributaries feeding larger trunk streams and creeks.
A number of local drainage divides are present in the area
creating an irregular directional flow pattern. A small
spring-fed stream originates approximately 518 m (1700 ft)
east of the landfill and flows southwesterly through the
small valley at the base of the strip-mined mountain joining
with a northwesterly flowing creek approximately 1.6 km .
(1 mile) southwest of the site. A small spring-fed pond is
located below spoil banks at the eastern slope of. the strip . .,
cut.
The area is heavily forested, although numerous clearings
are present as a result of mining and clear-cutting operations.
There are a few small farms in the area. The completed
portions of the landfill have been revegetated with native
grasses.
Climate
The climate at the strip mine landfill is humid continental,
characterized by relatively dry, cold winters and warm to
hot, wet summers.
Based on data compiled by the U.S. Weather Bureau at a
nearby weather station, precipitation for the one-year study
period was 111.02 cm (43.71 in). Although normal precipitation
data for this particular station was unavailable, regional . '
data indicates a normal yearly total of approximately 104.1 cm
(41.0 in), see Figure 38 and Table 11.
105
-------
COMPLETED
LANDFILL AREA
'Figure 37. Map of the strip mine landfill site.
106
-------
o
-J
flC
e-
2
Ui
u
2
O
a.
o
OC
Q.
20 H
15-
10-
2: 5-
ACTUAL
O-L-, , , , 1 ; ' i —i 1 1 1—
SEP OCT NOV DEC JAM FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
: 1978 1979
Figure 33. Graph of precipitation at the strip mine landfill.
9
8
•7
•S
•5
•4
-3
-2
JUL AUG
r
o
2
O
U
UJ
(T
0.
-------
TABLE 11. MONTHLY PRECIPITATION DATA3
STRIP MINE LANDFILL
.
Date
9/78
10/78
11/78
12/78
1/79
2/79
3/79
4/79
5/79
6/79
7/79
8/79
TOTAL
Actual
8.43
10.31
3.33
13.21
10.46
; V 8.10.
••.", ./'. • -' 8/74
10.39
10.21
5.61
14.55
7.67
111.02
( 3.32)
( 4.06)
( 1.31)
( 5.20)
(4.12)
( 3.19) :..-:•.-•
:.'(.:^fV;- -•,..••,';: -,--,. -
( 4.09)
( 4.02)
( 2.21)
( 5.73)
(3.02) '
(43.71)
Measurements in cm (in)
108
-------
The wettest months during the study period were Decem-
ber 1978 and July 1979 with 13.21 cm (5.20 in) and 14.55 cm
(5.73 in) respectively. The driest months recorded during
the study period were November 1978 with 3.33 cm (1.31 in)
of precipitation and June 1979 with 5.61 cm (2.21 in).
Snowfall accounts for significant amounts of precipitation
during the winter months.
The average temperature for the. study period was 8.0 C
(46.4 F). The coldest month was February with an average
temperature of -8.7 C (16.3 F) and the warmest month was
July, averaging 20.7C(69.2F).
Geology
The strip mine landfill is located in the Appalachian
Plateau physiographic province. Bedrock in the area is
covered by a thin mantle of soil. Regionally, bedrock is
mapped as the Allegheny and Conemaugh Groups of Pennsylvanian
age which are highly variable, cyclic deposits characteristic •
of the Pennsylvanian cyclothems (see Figure 39). Landfilling
operations were established in a pit created during strip
mining of the Upper Freeport Coal seam. During the process,
the overlying Glenshaw Formation was removed to expose the
coal.
The Allegheny Group underlying the landfill is composed
of interbedded sandstones, siltstones, shales, marine and
fresh-water limestones, coal seams and clays. Individual
members of the group vary widely both in lateral and vertical
extent although the total thickness of the Allegheny Group
(107 m, 350 ft) is relatively uniform.
The uppermost formation of the Allegheny Group is the
Freeport Formation which contains two mineable coal seams
(Upper and Lower Freeport Coals), distinctive in that they
are underlain by thin fresh-water limestones. Between these
coal seams is an interval of 6 to 18 m (20-60 ft) of shale
and .minor coal seams. However, in some places the shale is
absent and is replaced by the Butler Member, a massive,
coarse-grained sandstone.
The base of the Freeport Formation consists of 12 to
15 m (40-50 ft) of shale, but in places the Freeport Sandstone
becomes prominent. The lithologic character varies from a
fine-grained, flaggy rock to a coarse-grained, conglomeratic
sandstone.
Three formations lie beneath the Freeport and exhibit
character similar to it except for the Vanport Limestone
which is a fossiliferous marine limestone. The Vanport
109
-------
GROUP
X
o
2
UJ
z
o
o
z
UJ
I
o
UJ
FORMATION
x
V)
z
UJ
I-
cr
o
..a.
UJ
LJ
tr
u.
z
I- <
CE t
o *-
tr
•<
THICKNESS
rolft.)
MEMBER
BUFFALO SANDSTONE
BRUSH CREEK LIMESTONE
MAHON1NG SANDSTONE
UPPER FREEPORT COAL
8 LIMESTONE
BUTLER SANDSTONE
LOWER FREEPORT COAL
8 LIMESTONE
FREEPORT SANDSTONE
, MIDDLE'S.;LOWER.;-
' KI T T A N NIN G: V C 0 A^L' '
KITTANNING SANDSTONE
VANPORT LIMESTONE
CLARION SANDSTONE
8 -COAL
BROOKVILLE COAL '
Figure 39. Typical stratigraphic column for
Pennsylvanian-age coal measures.
110
-------
Limestone has an average thickness of about 3 m (10 ft) and
usually contains about 90 percent calcium carbonate.
The Conemaugh Group conformably overlies the Allegheny;
however, erosion and mining operations have removed all but
the lowermost Glenshaw Formation. These deposits are found
on the highlands north and west of the landfill site. The
Glenshaw is composed mostly of shale, but in places massive
sandstone beds are present. The sandstone beds are irregular
both in thickness and lithology and are not easily correlated
with one another.
Structurally, the landfill is located on the southeast
limb of a-gently.northeast plunging syncline. The northwest
dip of the strata is a result.of this minor syncline; the
regional,,dip is to the southwest.
Landf il 1. Operations
The strip mine landfill was opened in June. 1971 and is
in active- operation at present (1980). It is estimated to
have-an-ope-rating . life of approximately two more years. The •
landfill .serves a population of approximately 28,600 and .'•••
receives a combination of residential and commercial refuse
and some industrial paper refuse from a nearby mill. No
process wastes are..accepted. The amount of refuse received
daily at the landfill has increased steadily fron^Bl m
(40 yd ) during ;the f irsV-3 .years,-ills'm (150 yd ) durigg
the next 2 years, 231 m (300 yd ) for 4 years, to 446 m
(580 yd ) since April. 109.;/-its operating schedule is
10 hr/day, 6 day/wk, 52 wk/yr. By the end 6f the present
study., 105,000 tonnes (116,000 tons) of waste had been
landf.il led .with an .approximate volume of 396,300 m
(518,380 yd.). ,Density of the landfilled refuse is approxi-
mately 263 kg/m (450 Ibs/yd ).
The facility is located on a. sloping 15-ha (37-ac) site
of which only 5.7 ha (14 ac) is filled (see Figure 37).
Coal strip mining operations conducted during the mid-1950s
left an open cut on the face of the mountain. The coal had ..
been contour-mined on a hillside and mine spoil material had
been deposited down slope from the .working cut. Upon comple-
tion of the mining operation, no land reclamation had been
undertaken, leaving a 12-m (40-ft) exposed highwall. The
land was subsequently purchased by a private developer who
proposed a landfill reclamation operation for the site.
.... Two-areas were landfilled (see Figure 37). One is
located in a small hollow below and to the east of the main
strip cut. Refuse was deposited in this area over the bank
of the hollow and was subsequently covered with locally
available spoil materials. Operations ceased in this area
111 ' ••-.••'.
-------
after approximately one year at which time landfilling
commenced in the main strip cut. The base of the main strip
cut was lined with clayey spoil material and inert industrial
waste dust. Refuse is delivered by truck.
In order to establish a working landfill face, refuse
was deposited at the base of the highwall and a series of
3.7 to 4.6 m (12-15 ft) lifts were constructed sloping away
from the highwall. Each lift was compacted with a bulldozer
and covered with spoil material. After the first series of
lifts had been completed to the top of the highwall and the
desired slope had been attained, a working face was estab-
lished against this completed area. Subsequent lifts of
refuse were compacted and covered on this working face
creating a series of sloping refuse cells* These cells are
constructed to achieve the desired final slope and to provide
for lateral growth of the landfill at its base. At the end
of the study, the average volume of waste per unit area was
69,957 m /ha (37,027 yd/ae).'.-
. .c
The daily 15 cm (6 in) of cover material consists oi
weathered mine spoil (clayey decomposed shale fragments).
Final cover is 61 cm (24 in) of spoil material which is
placed on completed, sections and graded to the desired slope
and contour. These sections were successfully revegetated
with native grasses; the density, however, was somewhat
sparse, as is typical of revegetated mine spoil areas.
During the study, minor erosion was observed on parts of the
completed slope and several leachate seeps also appeared.
Monitoring Network
The monitoring points were located in such a way that
samples could be obtained of upgradient ground-water quality,
downgradient ground-water quality, perched downgradient
ground-water quality, surface water quality and leachate.
Three wells were monitored during the strip mine landfill
study (see Figure 40, Table 12, and Appendix A). They were
drilled in July 1978, prior to the first sampling round,"
with an air rotary down-hole hammer drilling rig and were
constructed with 15.24 cm (6.00 in) steel'casing to prevent
the entry of unconsolidated material. T:.::V
MP #5 is just north of the strip cut highwall above the
landfill; it was located to monitor upgradient regional
ground-water quality. To prevent caving of the overburden,
which consisted of weathered shale and clay, 5.8 m (19.0 ft)
of casing was used. The well was completed to a depth of
48.8 m (160.0 ft) through beds of shale with coal occurring
at 25.3 to 25.9 m (83-85 ft) and 37.2 to 38.1 m (122-125 ft).
112
-------
COMPLETED
LANDFILL AREA
x
7—
i1
LEGEND
O Monitor Well
© Leochofe Collection Point
Surface Water
® Sampling Point
Figure 40. Location of monitoring points at the strip
mine landfill site.
113
-------
TABLE 12. MONITOR WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS - STRIP MINE LANDFILL3
• •-."••'•
MP 9
Well
depth
Totalb
casing
Type ;-
casing
Section
slotted
Elevation0
top of
casing
Reference5^
Surface6
elevation
5
6
7
48.8
(160.0)
10.7
( 35.0)
24.4
( 80.0)
5.8
(19.0)
3.4
(11.0)
4.0
(13.0)
15.24 cm
(6.00 in.)
Steel . <;.
15.24 cm
(6.00 in.)
Steel .": >•..
15.24 cm
(6.00 in.)
Steel
Open Hole
3.1- 1.5
(10.0- 5.0)
. Open Hole
516.41
(1,694.25)
487.36
(1,598.95)
488.08
(1,601.30)
0.38
(1.25)
0.29
(0.95)
0.40
(1.30)
516.03
(1,693.00)
487.07
(1,598.00)
487.68
(1,600.00)
a Measurements in meters (feet) unless otherwise indicated.
b Total casing is equal to the casing in the ground plus casing above ground (Reference).
c All elevations relative to mean sea level. :
d Reference above ground surface from which water level measurements are taken.
e Surface elevations estimated from US0S topographic map.
-------
MP f6 is located south of the landfill near the toe of
the spoil bank and provided downgradient ground-water, samples
from a perched water table. During the drilling, backfill,
consisting of brown sandy shale, was encountered to a depth
of 1.5 m (5.0 ft). A thin layer of coal was present from
1.5 to 1.7 m (5.0-5.5 ft) which was followed by beds of
brown shale. The well was completed to a depth of 10.7 m
(35.0 ft) and 3.4 m (11.0 ft) of casing was installed.
Slots were cut in the lowermost 1.5 m (5.0 ft) of the casing
to permit the entry of shallow ground water.
MP 17 is located at the toe of the spoil bank below the
base of the east slope of the strip cut. It provided down-
gradient ground-water samples from the regional water table.
It. is approximately 183 m (600 ft) northeast of MP #6 at the
same elevation and was drilled to a depth of 24,4 m (80.0 ft),
The first 4.6 m (15.0 ft) consisted of fill and brown shale;
4.0 m (13.0 ft) of casing was seated in the shale bedrock.
A coal seam was encountered from 4.6 to 5.2 m (15.0-17.0 ft).
This was followed by sequential beds of grey and brown shale
to a,depth of 16.8 m (55.0 ft). Another 0.6 m (2.0 ft) coal -
seam was found from 16.8 to 17.4 m (55.0-57.0 ft). The well
was completed in grey shale at a depth of 24.4 m (80.0 ft).
During two previous attempts to complete MP #7 approximately
30 m(100 ft) to the northeast of its present location, an
auger mine was intercepted. This resulted in a loss of air
: into the mine,and. abandonment of the well.
Surface .water samples were obtained during the study
iperiod- fr,6m,?f ive .monitbring',points.. -MP #1 and #2 were
stream sampling points downgradient of the landfill. His-
torical data was available for these monitoring points and
for MP #3, an upgradient stream sampling point used only as
a source of historical data. MP #9,was a small perched
surface water impoundment adjacent to MP #6. MP #4 was a
small spring which fed the pond (MP #10) downgradient of the
completed landfill area. .The leachate seep, MP #8, was
present on the completed face of the strip mine landfill.
Hydrogeology of the Strip Mine Landfill Site :••-•.•
The strip mine landfill is located in the Appalachian
Plateau which is characterized by roughly parallel beds of
coal, shale and sandstone. The geologic structure of these
rocks controls the occurrence and movement of ground water
in the study area. The site is being developed along the
highwall of an inactive strip mine. Landfill operations are
approximately recreating the original contour of the site.
In addition to stripping, the area has open auger mines
extending into the coal which may have caused selective
drainage of areas near the site. Because of the widely
varying permeability of interbedded coals, shales and sand-
"'.:••••... 115 '.'"".''.- •:--•••
-------
stones, perched water tables are common; indeed, a perched
water table is located just below the strip mine landfill
#&). .. . . :-.: - . ' • •• • •• ...:.;
Hydrologic data for the study area is comparatively
sparse because the site is relatively remote and the area
around it is not highly developed. The basin in which the
site is located encompasses a large area and has significant
climatic variability. Therefore, the water budget developed
for this site is based on stream gaging records for a 528-square-
mile basin located immediately to the south of the site.,
This basin has climatic conditions which better approximate
those of the site, i.e., an average precipitation of 104.1 cm
(41 in) per year. Approximately 53 percent of the precipita-
tion (PPT) runs off either as ground-water base flow (GW) or
direct surface runoff (SW), and the remaining 47 percent is
lost to evapo transpiration (ET). Examination of dry period,
low flow records for the stream indicates that the base flow
in the area, equivalent to ground-water recharge (GW), is
approximately 22 percent of the precipitation. The water
budget for the site is therefore:
PPT = ET . • . . + SW + GW
104.14 cm =48.95 cm + 32.28 cm + 22.91 cm
(41.00 in) = (19.27 in) + (12.71 in) + (9.02 in)
This budget is the best estimate which can be developed
for a mass balance at the landfill and can be used to estimate
leachate generation by the strip mine landfill. Because the
landfill is being returned to the approximate original grade
with local materials being used for cover and revegetation
with local grasses, the landfill area may be expected to
react similarly to the basin as a whole. A leachate generation
estimate for the strip mine site has been developed utilizing
the regional annual recharge rate of 22.91 cm (9.02 in) and
applying it to the 5.7 ha (14 ac) at the landfill site.
This estimate indicates that 13,059 m (10.52 ac-ft) of
leachate should be generated per year by this site.
Figure 41 shows a cross section of the strip mine .
landfill taken on line AA1 shown on Figure 42 passing northwest
'to southeast through MP #5 and #6. Depth to water in .the
monitoring points at the site varied less than 0.6 m (2 ft)
during the study period (see Appendix C). The three monitoring
wells constructed for the study measure water levels in two
separate flow systems. MP #6 monitors a perched flow system
located 1.5 to 1.8 m (5-6 ft) below the ground surface on
the bench below the strip mine landfill. MP #5 and |7
monitor the regional flow system. MP #5, located on high
ground above the site, had depth to water ranging from 38.1
to 38.4 m (125-126 ft) while MP #7, located on the bench
below the landfill, had depth to water ranging from 13.4 to
116
-------
IO
an
ui
H
UJ
UJ
_J
UJ
STRIP MINE
LANDFILL
Spoil Removed for Cover
^r^-^^^^. SHA LE :-
'S-^Wc^L^^^^
1760
1680
1600
480
1520
SCALE
61m
200 Ft.
Vertical Exaggeration 2 Sit
Figure 41. Cross section of the strip mine landfill site.
(Water table locally perched above coal seams.)
o-
UJ
UJ
It.
2
o
UJ
_l
UJ
-------
ACTIVE
TRIP MINE
AREA
O Monitor Well
• Leachote Collection Point
Surface Water
©
Sampling Point
.Figure 42,
Map showing the location of the line of
cross section, AA1.
118
-------
13.7 m (44-45 ft). Depth to water directly beneath the
landfill is approximately 24.1 to 24.4 m (79-80 ft).
The water table map based on three data points, (see
Figure 43) shows the regional flow system and also indicates
the elevation of the perched flow system where it is monitored
at MP #6. Ground water flows to the south and discharges
into the stream. The ground-water flow path may have been
altered by auger mining in the vicinity of MP #7. Leachate
produced by the landfill percolates through the landfill
base which is composed of clayey spoil material mixed with
inert industrial waste dust and enters the ground-water flow
system. The landfill base is relatively thin compared to
the volume of refuse above it .allowing minimal attenuation
of the leachate; thus the chemical character of leachate
leaving the strip mine landfill is not significantly altered
by adsorption. However, leachate is diluted as it moves
through .the ground-water flow system.
Water Chemistry at the Strip Mine Landfill Site
The complex 'hyidrogeology associated with the stf'ip .mine-
makes, .it difficult to determine the extent of the area
affected and to trace the movement of pollutants. The
bedrock dip's toward a large syncline to the northwest, but ,
the ground-water table, 25 m (82 ft) below, slopes gently in
the.opposite.direction toward-the stream. Precipitation
percolating through the landfill moves .first northwest along
bedding planes until, it reaches the water table where it
then' moves, to the"southeast With ';the .ground' water- toward the :
stream. Perched water tables are present due 'to the under- "
clays associated with coal. Several fracture zones and auger
mines exist.which may redirect the movement of ground water.
Assessment of the impact of the strip mine landfill on
local water chemistry is complicated further by the effect
of acid mine drainage. Exposure of the sulfurous shales •'
associated with coal will often increase the acidity of
ground water, decrease its alkalinity, and increase-concen-f.
trations of iron and sulfate. Landfills produce a wider
range of contaminants which assist in distinguishing the
effects of leachate.
Leachate (MP f8) was sampled only during the spring
round when recharge caused a seep to flow on the side of the
landfill. The pond (MP #10) was sampled during the December.
and February rounds and the spring which feeds it (MP #4)
was sampled during the May and August rounds. The small
surface impoundment associated with the perched water table '•":""
(MP #9) was also sampled only during the spring and summer.
The upgradient well (MP #5) could not be sampled in
December 1978.
119
-------
\
J_ .LAN OF ILL AREA ^>.__
^ ~ .;--—-^; /
ACTIVE
TRIP MINE
AREA
6 .Monitor-Well with Water Table
Elevation in Meters Above
• ; -Meon'Seo Level
• Leachate Collection Point
Surface Water
Sampling Point
-— Water Toble Contour
Figure 43. Map of water table at the strip mine
landfill site.
120
-------
Bar graphs for six parameters, alkalinity, acidity,
TDS, TKN, COD, and TOG, are shown on Figures 44, 45, and 46
(also, see Section 2). Frequent reference should be made to
the results of water chemistry analyses presented in Appendix E.
The actual impact of the landfill itself can be assessed
most accurately with the organic indicators, TKN, COD, and
TOC. They indicate that all the monitoring points except,
perhaps, MP #6 (the well in the perched water table) have
been affected by the landfill.
Leachate (MP #8) shows a strongly alkaline character
with- an elevated alkalinity value of 5620 mg/1 and a very
negative acidity value of -3,000 mg/1 (see Figure 44).
The upgradient well (MP 15) also has a high value for
alkalinity (318 mg/1) and a low value for acidity (-329 mg/1).
Quarterly data demonstrates that concentrations in this well
have doubled in the course of the present study (see Appendix E)
The downgradient well (MP #7) has a slightly lower alkalinity
value (243 mg/1) and less negative acidity value (-261 mg/1).
The perched water table well (MP #6) has a low value
for alkalinity (19.5 mg/1) and an only slightly negative ••••••
acidity (-4 mg/1) while the surface expression of this
perched water table (MP #9) shows 40 mg/1 for alkalinity and
-30 mg/1 for acidity. The increase in concentrations in
MP #9 over MP #6 is probably the result of runoff being
collected at MP #9 since runoff to this point contacts both
mine spoil and previously landfilled areas.
The spring (MP #4) shows a high alkalinity (323 mg/1) '
and low acidity values (-350 mg/1). The contaminated water
issuing from the spring is diluted by the pond (MP #10)
which has values of 73 mg/1 for alkalinity and -66 mg/1 for
acidity. The concentrations at MP #10 reflect the average
of widely differing values from two quarterly rounds; Decem-
ber 1978 showed low alkalinity and a positive acidity value
while February 1979 showed high alkalinity and a negative
acidity value (see Appendix E). There was considerable snow
melt just prior to the February sampling round and the
greater alkaline character of the water at that time may be
attributable to the effects of leachate.
The two stream monitoring points, MP #2 (downstream)
and MP #1 (farther downstream), show a decrease in concentra-
tions with movement downstream. Alkalinity for MP #2 and #1
is 111 mg/1 and 91.5 mg/1, respectively; acidity is -111 mg/1
and -88 mg/1. This relationship suggests that the source
for these parameters lies upstream and that there is progres-
sive dilution in the downstream direction.
121
-------
NJ
a~
'" K>
Oiooo-
o
o
o
g eoo-
o>
£
SOOt
^
*•
'c.
"5 4OO-
O **°
1-
o
1
H ^1 ^
|
m
/,
-
r?
/
//
/
/
/x
•/
''/
',
''..
•'.'•'•• . - 1000-
. . •; • "•• . • 10
o
• .-/.; .••••.-•• 0-
. • a
0 -««>-
: ••" ' • • •. o . -
* ' — *
0. -600-
• •'•'• ••. • E
/C • .'• >:
• ':'''.'•• • • '« -*00'
'.:• ' '• . 'o
. :••.''' ' . • -5 -200.
.; •-;:••; \;'. I •
M _JJ1 ; ':
m
I.
'
'R
J
1 • r
'
*'
/
/
/
/
/
/
y
y
v
/
/
/
•o
^
* ' £\
Monitoring Point
Monitoring Point
Figure 44. Bar graphs for alkalinity and acidity at the strip mine landfill site.
-------
70-
60-
. »0-
40-
N*
e
. so-
o
O .
o
go-
to
u>
IO-
o-
rn
/ •
n ^
Y\ /
Y\ v
''A
y
y
y
/
y
y
y
y
/
-V
P
^
y
/
rri
\A
n
-jr-
/
/
y
V
;
/
y
^
y
V
^
/
^
y*1
/.
/
/
V1 "
y ' : ••
x i/i
/' Kl
ja
30'0
o
o
H zo
Monitoring Point
4 & / 8
Monitoring Point
Figure 46. Bar graphs for COD and TOC at the strip mine landfill site.
-------
KKM-
e
O
5 000-
^
o
«
••. 6OO-
o>
E
«/) 400-
O
ZOO
• V
0 ^
M ^
1 'i.1 — "r
r?
/
/
/
/
^
X
/
*v
7-3
/
/
y
y
7
y
/
y
y
/
/
/
/
/
K
\A
YA
*/
/
/
/
/
j
y
/
/
V
'/
',
/
/
/
/
•
•
:• ';-
' • -''-.'i
*• .--. -( -:
: >
, " ':: '" ;
- .' '";••
:'-':l
:|>
• " '' ; '''.
K7I •'•"'
*A ;P
'•' \- "-w
(\ ' ' ^* A
a • Q -' •• > ID
Monitoring Point
o«
E
Monitoring Point
Figure 45. Bar graphs for TDS arid TKN at the strip mine landfill site.
-------
TDS shows many of the same relationships as the previously
discussed parameters (see Figure 45). Leachate (MP #8) is
very elevated with 11,145 mg/1. The two deep wells are also
elevated; MP #5 has 623 mg/1 (concentrations increased with
every quarter), and MP #7 has 817 mg/1.
The perched water table exhibits mean TDS values of
141 mg/1 at MP #6 and 219 mg/1 at MP #9. The spring (MP #4)
and pond (MP #10) show 527 mg/1 and 206 mg/1, respectively.
The stream monitoring points, MP #1 and #2, are 225 mg/1 and
255 mg/1, respectively.
.Because TKN is exclusively an organic indicator, it
clearly shows the effects of the leachate on the ground
water. TKN in the leachate is elevated (180 mg/1). The
upgradient well (MP #5) has a relatively high value of
1.60 mg/1; the downgradient well (MP #7) has a significantly
lower value of 0.28 mg/1. The quarterly data (see Appendix E)
indicates that MP #7 is generally less affected than MP #5
by the presence of the landfill except at times of high
recharge (the value for the spring sampling round is greater
0.71 mg/1). . . .
The perched water table has a low TKN value of 0.20 mg/1
for MP #6; MP #9 has a significantly higher mean concentration,
0.70 mg/1. This suggests that surface runoff collected in
MP #9 has been contaminated by leachate as it moved downs lope.
The spring (MP #4) is elevated with 2.15 mg/1 TKN; this
value is higher than that of MP 15 (1.60 mg/1). The probable ;.. ;;:-.;
source of elevated concentrations of reduced nitrogen species'.•'•'•>'•'•'••-'-;.:. :'>
is the completed landfill area northeast of MP #4 (see
Figure 40). The pond (MP #10) shows a slightly lower value,
0.65 mg/1, but there is a considerable difference between
the December 1978 and February 1979 values.
Though their TKN concentrations are small, the stream
monitoring points indicate that water contaminated by leachate
is. reaching the stream. MP #2, closer to the source, has a .........
higher concentration (0.25 mg/1) whereas MP #1, after dilution
from springs on the lower reaches of the stream, has a lower
concentration of 0.16 mg/1.
COD and TOC reinforce many of the relationships seen in
the former parameters (see Figure 46). COD concentrations
in the leachate are elevated (9,580 mg/1). Again, concentra-
tions are higher in the upgradient well (MP #5) than in the
downgradient well (MP #7) with values of 17.33 mg/1 and
11.73 mg/1, respectively.
MP #6 and #9 are 6.48 mg/1 and 16.0 mg/1, respectively.
MP #4 again shows a higher value than MP #5 with 27.50 mg/1
125
-------
and MP #10 is much lower with 3.95 mg/1. There are decreasing
concentrations downstream with MP #.2 (21.50 mg/1) and MP #1
(8.73 mg/1). :
TOC shows a similar pattern. Leachate (MP #8) is
elevated with a value of 3,070 mg/1. MP #5 and MP #7 have
concentrations about 2.5 orders of magnitude lower than
leachate with values of 8.8 mg/1 and 6.8 mg/1, respectively.
MP #6 has 2.3 mg/1 TOC while MP #9 is elevated above
that with 8.2 mg/1. The spring (MP #4) has a high concentra-
tion of 10.9 mg/1 while the pond has only 3.5 mg/1. The
stream shows less of a contrast between MP #2 and #1 than
with the previous parameter with 5.9 mg/1 and 4.1 mg/1,
respectively. .
The bar graphs exhibit the following trends consistently.
The upgradient well, MP #5, is always elevated relative to
the downgradient well, MP #7, except for TDS. MP #5 shows
increasing concentrations of alkalinity, acidity, and TDS
but the organic indicators remained stable throughout the
course of the study (see Appendix E). Except when influenced
by spring recharge, MP #7 showed a more acid character than
MP #5 with lower alkalinity values, less-negative acidity
values, and higher TDS. During the spring round, the sulfate
concentration dropped and there were greater alkalinity and
lower acidity values. The increased influence,of leachate
during the month of May 1979 is confirmed by a corresponding
rise .in TKN, TOC, COD, .sodium, and manganese.
While MP #4 is equal to or less than MP #5 in alkalinity,
acidity, and TDS, it is greater than MP #5 in the organic
parameters TKN, COD, and TOC. This reflects the more advanced
stage of decomposition of organic matter in the refuse in
the completed landfill area which influences MP #4. The
pond (MP #10) had considerably lower concentrations and
seemed to be greatly influenced by such runoff events as the
February snow melt. .
Surface runoff is somewhat contaminated by leachate.
This is indicated by the higher organic concentrations found.
in the surface catchment, MP #9, in contrast with the adjacent
shallow well, MP #6. The consistent decrease in the downstream
direction (MP #2 and #1) observable for all parameters
considered in the present study indicates that the landfill
and strip mine operations are significant sources of pollutants.
The Stiff diagrams confirm many of the relationships
seen in the bar graphs (see Figure 47). Iron, manganese,
and sulfate are characteristic of both leachate and acid
mine drainage whereas sodium, zinc, chloride, and phosphate
are indicative of leachate.
126
-------
Note-.
Dashes Indicate No Value
8
id
100 10 1.0 .1 .01 .001 .01 .1 UD 10 100
M1LUEQUIVALINTS OF IONS
Figure 47. Modified stiff diagrams showing averaged results
of chemical analyses at the strip mine landfill site.
127
-------
The diagram for the leachate (MP #8) shows considerable
amounts of all parameters except nitrate. The sulfate :value
is absent because of chemical interference during the analysis
of the single sample (May 1979). The diagram for MP #5 is
similar in shape ;to that of MP #8 which clearly indicates
the influence of leachate. Phosphate has attenuated more
rapidly than the other parameters but is still present in
significant amounts. At the other monitoring points, only
trace amounts of phosphate were present.
The spring (MP #4) also shows the profile of leachate
except that it has relatively more manganese and nitrate and
less zinc. .The nitrate probably represents oxidized organic
nitrogen from the leachate. The diagram for the pond (MP #10)
has a similar shape to that for the spring; nitrate has
increased indicating further oxidation of organic and reduced
nitrogen from the leachate. /
The perched water table (MP #6) shows a profile more
typical of acid mine drainage than of leachate. Compared to
the previously discussed monitoring.^points, MP #'6 is relatively
higher in sulfate and lower in sodium-and chloride values.
The diagram for the surface expression of this perched water
table -(MP #9) changes only slightly from that' for MP #6;
iron and manganese have decreased.
The downgradient well (MP |7) shows the affects of both
acid mine drainage and leachate. The shape of its diagram
is similar to that for MP #6 except that sodium, chloride,
and sulfate concentrations have risen because of the influence
of leachate.
The diagrams for the stream monitoring points (MP #1
and #2) are similar to each other. The effect of leachate
can be seen in the slightly.higher sodium and chloride
concentrations at these monitoring points when compared, with
•MP #6. ' . . . ; . .......
The Stiff diagrams for monitoring points at the strip
mine landfill indicate that sodium provides the best single
indication of leachate and is most useful in distinguishing
the effects of leachate from acid mine drainagei -Some ., .: :;. .;
trends that are not evident in the Stiff diagrams but that
are useful in the interpretation of sodium are available in
Appendix E. Concentrations of sodium in MP #5 are high and
increased steadily throughout the study; those in MP #7 are
lower (excluding a high value in May). MP #4 has high
sodium concentrations and MP #10 showed a high sodium concen-
tration during February.
The Stiff diagrams show that the leachate contains
considerable amounts of all the ionic species considered and
128
-------
that MP #4, #5, and #10 have been affected by leachate. The
ground water at MP #7 has been affected both by acid mine
drainage and by leachate. The stream (MP #1 and #2) and the
perched water table (MP #6 and #9) show relatively little
impact from the landfill.
The nitrogen ratios shown on Figure 48 further confirm
the previously discussed relationships among the monitoring
points. The leachate (MP #8) has a high ratio of 750; it is
the source of reduced nitrogen species. The upgradient well
(MP #5) has the highest value among the wells (3.87) while
the downgradient well (MP #7) is somewhat lower (1.90).
This indicates more reducing conditions at MP #5 and shows a
migration of leachate to MP #5. Leachate also moves toward
MP #7 in the dominant downgradient direction of ground-water
flow.
The ratio for MP #4 is lower than that for either MP §5
or MP #7. However, concentrations of both TKN and nitrate
are higher in MP #4 than at any of the other monitoring
points except leachate; this indicates that, because of
constant contact with the atmosphere, much of the reduced
nitrogen is oxidized to nitrate. The nitrogen ratio for the
pond (MP #10) is even lower (0.15) primarily because of high
nitrate concentrations; this indicates further oxidation of
reduced species. The surface water point (MP #9) has a
ratio more than two times that of the adjacent well, MP #6,
with 3.78 and 1.54, respectively. This difference indicates
that a slightly more reducing environment .exists at MP #9
and that the surface water is influenced by leachate carried. ;
in runoff from the landfill. Both nitrogen ratios for the
stream are small and decrease with distance downstream from
the landfill. The ratio at MP #2 is 0.36 and at MP #1,
0.27. It appears that ground water contaminated by the
landfill enters the stream.
Historical data is available only for the stream monitor-
ing points, MP #1, #2, and |3, (see Appendix D). Many of
the parameters considered in the present study showed increases
moving from MP #3 (upstream) to MP #2 and then a decrease to
MP #1 farther downstream. The parameters which support this
trend are alkalinity, specific conductance, COD, and total
solids. These parameters also tend to have higher values in
the summer months. Sulfate is generally stable or increases
downstream; iron is stable or decreases downstream. This
pattern reflects an influx of contaminants from the strip
mine landfill. Most of the trends were not established
until after the end of 1975 which may be a function of the
age and quantity of the refuse in the landfill.
Ground-water quality as observed at the strip mine
landfill monitoring points is affected by various factors.
129
-------
/ COMPLETED
I LANDFILL AREA
ACTIVE
TRIP MINE
AREA
LEGEND
O Monitor Well with Nitrogen Index
• Leochote Collection Point
Surfoce Woter
©
Sampling Point
Figure 48.
Nitrogen index showing the ratio of organic
nitrogen .plus ammonia nitrogen (TKN) to
nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen (NO2 + N03).
130
-------
The bedrock in the region is primarily shale which is a
basic reason that the ground water in the area has signifi-
cant iron, sulfate, and TDS concentrations. Strip mining
operations at the landfill site have served to contribute
quantities of minerals to the local ground water. The strip
mine landfill produces a leachate of moderate strength which
further degrades ground water quality and an insufficient
soil mantle beneath the landfill allows leachate to reach
the ground-water table with only minor attenuation. Signifi-
cant concentrations of parameters considered in the present
study found in the upgradient well (MP #5) suggest that
leachate percolating through the base of the landfill moves
northwest down bedding planes. The steady rise in concentra-
tions of. most parameters at MP .#5 might indicate a long-term
pattern of increasing quantities or stronger leachate reaching
the ground water. This trend may be a function of the
relative youth of the landfill; 85'percent of the refuse has
been landfilled between 1976 and 1980.
The impact of the landfill on surface water has been
minimal. Surface runoff retained at MP #9 shows' minor
effects of leachate. The stream is a ground-water discharge
area and movement of contaminated ground water to the stream
is facilitated by fractures in the bedrock. The relatively
minor concentrations of parameters in the stream decrease
rapidly.in the downstream direction. The influence of
leachate from the strip mine landfill has remained localized
^because of the hydrogeologic characteristics of the site.
PERMITTED"SANITARY LANDFILL '
The permitted sanitary landfill was constructed, by the •
trench technique in which refuse is placed in trenches and
the excavated soils are used as cover; no volume reduction
techniques were employed before to the landfilling. :
Topographic Position
The landfill is situated on a. topographic divide between
a creek and an unnamed tributary of that creek, 0.8 km (1/2
mile) west of an unincorporated village (see Figure 49).
South and east of the site there is a large swampy bottom
land where lake sediments occupy a glacially widened valley.
West of this valley, there are relatively steep sloping
bedrock valley walls. Interfluves are generally broad and
covered with a mantle of glacial till. Where side valleys
discharged to the old lake bottom, glacially-derived deltaic
and alluvial sediments occur.
131
-------
Strtom
SCALE
192 m
SOO FT-
Figure 49. Map of permitted sanitary landfill site.
132
-------
Climate
The climate at the landfill is humid continental and is
characterized by relatively dry, cold winters and warm to
hot, wet summers. Based on data compiled by the U.S. Weather
Bureau at a nearby weather station for a 30-year period of
record, the mean annual precipitation for the area is 78.60 cm
(30.94 in). The precipitation varies from a normal (average
for period of record) low of 4.45 cm. (1.75 in) in February
to a normal high of 8.23 cm (3.24 in) in July (see Figure 50
and Table 13).
May through July are the wettest months with average
precipitation in excess of 7.5 cm (2.6 in), while January
and February are the driest with less than 5 cm (2 in).
Snow falls from December to March, averaging approximately
140 cm (55 in) per year, and generates large amounts of
spring runoff.
Precipitation during the twelve-month study period was
4.94 cm (1.94 in) above normal. The months of September 1978,
October 1978, December 1978 through February 1979 and August 1979
were wetter than normal. Below normal precipitation occurred
in November 1978 and from March 1979 through July 1979.
The mean annual temperature is 9.4C (48.9F) with a
normal low of -3.2C (26.2F) in February and a normal high of .
22.3C (72.2F) in July. Mean annual lake evaporation is . .'
approximately 69 cm/yr (27 in/yr).
Geology and Soils
The landfill is situated in the Appalachian Plateau and
is underlain by Upper Devonian bedrock consisting entirely
of shale and mudstone units. Two major groups have been
mapped in the vicinity of the site: the Sonyea Group and
the Lower West Falls Group. The Sonyea Group includes the
Cashaqua and Middlesex Shales, crops out north of the site,
forms steep slopes in the vicinity of the site, a-nd underlies
the northern portion of the landfill. The Lower West Falls
Group includes the Lower Beers Hill Shale and the Dunn Hill,
Millport, and Moreland Shales and underlies the southern
part of the site.
An outcrop north of the site is cross-laminated, grey
to green, fissle shale of the Upper Sonyea Group. The beds
are essentially horizontal at this location. Prominent
joint sets strike N 28°W with a dip of 84°E and N 85°W with
a vertical dip. .Much of the outcrop exhibits a "pencil"-type
fracture cleavage. No water was observed seeping from the
outcrop.
133
-------
in
at
ui
ui
Z
UJ
o
Z
o
20-
15-
10-
: 5-
o
UJ
tc
a.
NORMAL
ACTUAL
0-H
r r r 1 1 1
SEP% OCt NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG
' ' J •
1978 . 1979
Figure 50. Graph of precipitation at the permitted sanitary landfill.
9
8
7
6
-5
4
-3
- I
i—'-0
in
UJ
x
o
Z
Z
o
o
to
a:
a.
-------
TABLE 13. MONTHLY PRECIPITATION DATA3
PERMITTED SANITARY. LANDFILL
Date
-.. 9/78
."'••'" 10/78
•••'<:•'.-,. .11/7-8 .
'~' 12/78
•;.•.;••.. .1/79
2/?9
»;'-:;-:-;;^:: 3/79 ••''"'
4/79
5/79
6/79
•.•=•.,-.. . ;. 7/79
8/79
TOTAL
Normal
5.
7.
...:,6..;
,""5.
•:-;4v
' ' 4.
••"'•"•'• :6,
6.
7.
• 7.
8.
7.
78.
33
42
96
33
80
45
48:
91
75
65
23
29
60
( 2.
( 2.
( 2.
( 2.
t.'l-
( 1.
( 2,:
( 2.
( 3.
C3.
( 3.
( 2.
(30.
10)
92)
.7.4 JL
10)
89)
75)
'.55)-:'::-
72)
05)
01)
24)
87)
94)
7.
8.
2.
8.
9.
'• 5,
•'•••.:^
6.
6.
5.
7.
9.
83.
Actual
90 (
36 (
49 (
81 (
86 (
94 (
09 (
32 (
99 {
79 (
72 (
25 (
3.. 11) ! .
3.29)
0.98)
3.47)
3.88)
2.34)
1.61)- '
2.49)
2.75)
2.28)
3.04)
3.64)
52 (32.88)
Departure
from normal .
2.
0.
-4.
3.
5.
• I.
••.-•: -2-..
-0.
-0.
-1.
-0.
1.
4.
57
94
47
48
05
50
39
58
76
85
51
96
94
( 1.
( 0.
'(-I.
( 1.
( 1.
( 0.
(-0.
(-0.
(-0.
(-0.
(-0.
( 0.
( 1.
01) .-...
37) ...
76) ;
37) .
99)
59)
94)
23)
30)
73)
20)
7?)
94)
Measurements in cm (in)
135
-------
Glacial material has been deposited over the bedrock in
the region. The glacial history of the area is complex for
two reasons. First, the depositional environments have
changed rapidly with time and have experienced rapid lateral
shifts. Secondly, successive glacial stages generally
destroyed a large part of the evidence of preceding stages,
both glacial and interglacial.
The depositional sequence near the site includes lake
bottom sediments in the valley, a delta or coalescing deltas
from the side valley and finally a cover of till (see Figure 51)
Deltaic deposits are essentially absent at the landfill
although several small pockets of well-sorted (compared to
the till) water- laid deposits are evident. Deltaic deposits
occur very near the site. ,
The occurrence of two till layers overlying the deltaic
deposits, similar in appearance to those at the landfill,
indicates that the depositional sequence is complex. Since
the glacial action that deposited the till did not destroy
this particular deltaic wedge, it can be assumed that the
delta was pro-glacial and that the till is a stagnant ice
ablation till. Glacial tills generally exhibit low per-
meability because of the poor coefficient of sorting.
However, deltaic wedges are generally good aquifers.
Soils at the :permitteel .-•sanitarj 'landfill Were mapped by •'•..
the USDA Soil Conservation Service prior /to filling operations.
The original soils at the landfill were excavated and used
.during "'• site preparation; ? the flahdfil i ^liesron'-rglae.iaii;: ';til 1 . - /.-
The predominant soils in the vicinity of the landfill
were formed from glacial outwash and till consisting of a
mixture of sandstone, shale, and limestone. The outwash-
derived soil is found to the south and the till-derived
soil, to north, east and west. There are six main soils
found in this area that are derived from outwash. Chenango
and Tioga gravelly silt loams are found on gentle slopes.
Palmyra and Howard gravelly loams are found on moderately
sloping to very steep slopes. Lordstown channery silt loam,
which is derived from till, is found on gently to moderately
sloping areas and has shale and sandstone bedrock outcrops.
Woostern gravelly loam is found on steep slopes. All these
soils are well drained and have moderate to rapid permeability.
Landfill Operations
The permitted sanitary landfill site comprises a landfill,
located north of an access road, and a bulky waste fill,
located south of the road^ The landfill operated between
1971 and 1975 on an 8 hr/day, 5 day/wk, 52 wk/yr schedule;
the bulky waste fill opened in 1971 and is still in operation.
136
-------
• TILL
I
MADE
Bulky Woste
j MAUt 1 p.,,
I LAND ^X_ ^/^<*>
* ^tasBaaas3*!»*ifgL ' %
^S ^^^csea^^^^^^ , %%
*"** \ \
r/£A
V
Landfill Property
,*»
~~~^
SAND AND GRAVEL tta
~
,«?
^ LAKE BOTTOM SEDIMENTS
500 FT-
Figure 51. Map of surficial geology at the permitted
sanitary landfill site.
137
-------
The site served a population of 17,400 and accepted approxi-
mately 86 m (112 yd ) per day of municipal and demolition
wastes while the landfill was operating.
Approximately 4 of the 20 ha (10 of the 50 ac) available
are occupied by the landfill which used the trench method.
Trenches, varying in depth from 3 to 6 m (9-20 ft), were
developed in the glacial till which overlies the shale
bedrock. As a trench was excavated, the sediment (glacial
till) removed was stockpiled next to the trench and was then
used for cover material as the refuse was emplaced; final
cover was 0.6 m (2 ft) deep. The site is sparsely vegetated
with grasses and shrubs. White goods and tires were segre-
gated and stored. The landfill received a total of 38,800 tonnes
(42,750 tons) of municipal refuse. The calculated density
of this material is 386 kg/m (652 Ib/yd ). The average
volume per unit area is 25,155 m /ha (13>104'yd /ac).
The bulky and non-putrescible waste site located south
of the landfill occupies 1.6 ha (4 ac). There is some
evidence that the bulky waste site received small quantities
of municipal refuse near the time of the study period. The
site is periodically covered.
Monitoring Network ,
Monitoring points were located in order to obtain :
samples of upgradient ground.water, ground water under the
, landfill, ground, wa tier downgradient from the landfill, and
surface: water: near, theV>landf.ill.; -Six: monitoring' wells'•[.•-• -';\.,'. '.''•••• •''•.'-.",>
drilled during studies conducted iii 1975 and 1977 were 'used1 '
in this study and were designated as MP #1 through #6 (see
Figure 52, Table 14, and Appendix A). All these wells were
drilled using an air-rotary drilling rig and were cased with
15.88 cm (6.25 in) steel casing.
MP #1, in the bulky waste area, encountered glacial
till and minor thin lenses of relatively fine water-laid
deposits to a depth of 16.5 m (54.0 ft). From 16.5 to
20.0 m (54.0-66.0 ft), grey, weathered bedrock was encoun-
tered. The well was cased to 17.8 m (58.4 ft) and the
lowermost 6.1 m (20.0 ft) of casing was torch-slotted.
In MP #2; drilled adjacent to the east side of the
landfill, there was glacial till to 15.5 m (51.0 ft).
Bedrock was encountered from 15.5 m (51.0 ft) to 30.5 m
(100.0 ft) with the degree of weathering diminishing to
essentially unweathered rock by 21.0 m (68.0 ft). The hole
was cased to 20.7 m (67.8 ft) with the lowermost 9.2 m
(30.0 ft) being torch-slotted. This well was located in the
dominant downgradient direction of ground-water movement.
138
-------
© Monitor
Surface Water
® Sampling
5 00. FT.
Figure 52!. Location of monitoring points of the permitted
sanitary landfill site. . .-.-.
139
-------
TABLE 14. MONITOR WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS - PERMITTED SANITARY LANDFILL3
Well
MP 9 depth
Totalb
casing
Type
casing
Section -
slotted
Elevation0
top of
casing .
Reference1*
Surface
elevation
1 20.1
( 66.0)
2 30.5
(100.0)
3 19.2
( 63.0)
A 31.1
(102.0)
5 31.1
(102.0)
6 20.7
(68.0)
• •
19.2
(62.8)
21.0
(68.9)
8.2
(27.0)
3.0
( 9.8)
15.2 :
(50.0)
21.3
(69.8) ;.
t
15.88 cm
( 6.25 in.)
Steel
15.88 cm
( 6.25 In.)
Steel
15.88 cm
( 6.25 in.)
Steel
15.88 cm
( 6.25 in.)
Steel
15; 88 cm
(6.25 in.)
Steel
15.88 cm
( 6.25 in.)
17.8-11.7
(58.4-38.4)
20.7-11.5
(67.8-37.8)
Open Hole
Open Hole ••
Open Hole ;
20.7-14.3
(68.0-47.0)
333.94
(1,095.60)
339.07
; (1,112.45)
342.15
(1^122.55)
349.26
(1,145.85)
• 340.00
(1,115.50)
338.24
(1,109.70)
1.34
(4.40)
\
0.34
(1.12)
0.78
(2.58)
0.40
(1.30)
0.30
(0.98)
0.54
(1.75)
332.60
(1,091.20)
338.73
(1,111.33)
341.37
(1,119.97)
348.86
(1,144.55)
339.70
(1,114.52)
337.70
(1,107.95)
.',''-'" '...,'•-• .-•.'.• ' • • • : •
a Measurements in meters (feet) unless otherwise indicated.
b Total casing is equal to the casing in the ground plus casing above ground (Reference).
c All elevations relative to mean sea level'.
d Reference above ground surface from which water level measurements are taken.
-------
MP #3 was drilled through a refuse trench in the center
of the landfill. The first 1.2 m {4.0 ft) were refuse with
thin cover. Glacial till was encountered from 1.2 to 6.1 m
(4.0-20.0 ft). From 6.1 to 19.2 m (20.0-63.0 ft), grey
shale bedrock was encountered. The hole was cased to approxi-
mately 7.4 m (24.4 ft) and grouted. This well was drilled
to determine water quality below the landfill.
MP #4, the background well, was drilled on a rise to
the west of the landfill. It penetrated 1.1 m (3.5 ft) of
glacial till and grey shale from 1.1 to 31.1 m (3.5-102.0 ft);
30 m (9.8 ft) of casing was grouted in the hole.
MP #5, a downgradient well located on the north edge of
the landfill, penetrated 0.6 m (2.0 ft) of cover material,
fill from 0.6 to 0.8 m (2.0-2.5 ft), till from 0.8 to 13.3 m
(2.5-43.5 ft) and grey shale from 13.3 to 31.1 m (43.5-102.0 ft);
15.2 m (50.0 ft) of casing was surface-grouted in the hole.
MP #6 was drilled through 19.2 m (63.0 ft) of till and
grey .shale, from 19.2 to 20.7 m (63.0-68.0 ft). The entire
depth of the well was cased and torch-slotted from 14.3 to
20.7 m (47.0-68.0 ft). This well was drilled between the
landfill and the bulky waste fill to determine their rela-
tive impact on ground water.
MP #7 was the surface water sampling point downstream
of the landfill and MP #8'was the upstream surface water
sampling point.
Historical data was obtained about these eight moni-
toring points, and, in addition, about MP #9, a dug well
..upgradient of the bulky waste fill, and MP #10, a domestic
water supply well located approximately 125 m (410 ft)
northeast of the landfill. Neither well log data nor construc-
tion details were available for MP #9 or #10.
Particle Size Analyses
Three samples obtained during the drilling of MP #6
were analyzed for particle size distribution to better
determine the attenuation characteristics of the geologic
material (see Table 15 and Appendix B). The samples are
glacial till and have increasing percentages of coarse
fragments and decreasing percentages of clay and silt with
increasing depth. There is a small amount of clay present;
therefore, some adsorption of ions from leachate occurs with
the matrix material.
141
-------
TABLE 15. PERCENTAGE OF SEPARATES BY WEIGHT
FOR THE GEOLOGIC MATERIALS AT THE
PERMITTED SANITARY LANDFILL.3
Sample description
% Clay
% Silt
% Sand
% Coarse
fragments
MP #6 Glacial Till
0.3 - 1.5, m
( 1.0 -.. 5.0 ft)
MP #6-Glacial Till
3.0 - 6.1m
(.10.0 - 20.0 ft)
MP #6 Glacial Till
7.6 - 10.7 m
(25.0 - 35.0 ft)
12
21
12
12
24.5
30
26
42.5
.50
55
Size > limits;, for; the soil separates are based on the
U. S. Department of Agriculture system. The diameter
range for separates is:
Clay, less than 0..002 mm.
Silt, 0.002 - 0.05 mm
Sand, 0.05 - 2.0 mm
Coarse Fragments, greater than 2.0 mm
142
-------
Hydrogeology of the Permitted Sanitary Landfill Site
The permitted sanitary landfill is situated on a topo-
graphic divide between a creek and an unnamed tributary of
the creek. The site is underlaid by a wedge of gravelly
clay till which overlies shale bedrock. Because of the
topographic divide, ground water flows to the north and
southeast, discharging to the two creeks. In the glacial
deposits, ground water occurs under water table conditions;
its movement through the shale is minimal and is dependent
on flow through fractures and bedding planes.
... The water budget for the permitted sanitary landfill is
based on long-term stream gaging records for the creek ....•:•
downstream of the landfill, precipitation records from a
; nearby weather station, and computed actual evapotranspiration
Analysis of the stream-gaging records indicated that total
runoff is 30 percent of the average annual 78.60 cm (30.94 in)
precipitation (PPT). On the basis of regional studies, the
USGS estimates that ground-water recharge (GW) i-s 75 percent
of runoff; the remaining surplus is surface water (SW) . .
Computed actual evapotranspiration (ET) represents 70 percent
of .precipitation. The water budget can therefore be expressed
as:. •. . • -••
• •• : PPT -.. . = .,ET . .+ SW + GW
'.'•'.'. 78.60 cmi - == 55.02 cm + 5.90 cm •»• 17.68 cm, .;
13.0.94 in,) = (21.66 in) + (2.32 in) + (6.96 in) .
'•.'*/'"'''' ' •; The landfill was'constructed on a 4-ha (lOrac)'base VV'i/>: ;
consisting of glacial till. Leachate generation by the
sanitary landfill can be estimated using the water budget .
and the area of the landfill base. Multiplying the 17.68 cm
(6.96 in) of annual infiltration by the 4-ha (10-ac) base
yields 7,072.m (5.80 ac-^ft) of. potential leachate generation.
..... Figure 53 shows a cros's section of the permitted sanitary
J landfill taken along line AA' (shown on Figure 54) and .:•
passing from .north to south through the stream, MP -#:5> • -.•
MP #3, and MP #1. The landfill and the bulky-waste fill
were constructed on bases of glacial till which varies in
thickness from 5 to 20 m (16-66 ft). The till overlies the
low-permeability shale bedrock; the irregular contact between
the two units is a result of glacial action.
The water table gradient in the study area follows, the '
topography of the site as shown on the water table map,
Figure 55; a ground-water divide runs through the site. ...-.
Ground water for most of the landfill flows to the north and'
: discharges into the creek; the remainder flows to the south •
arid east toward a tributary of the creek. Depth to the ••-••
water table varied (see Appendix C) from 4.30 .to 22.46 m ., .
..'••••' 143
-------
V)
UJ
330 -
320-
310-
MP5
M P3
LANDFILL-
Water Table
St/earn
KY WASTE FILL
MPI
-1200
U50
u.
z
z
o
1100 <
bl
_l
bJ
1050
1000
SCALE
61 m
-I
ZOOM
Vertical Exaggeration 4*
Figure 53. Cross section of the permitted sanitary-landfill site.
-------
Monitor
Surface
© in Point
600 FT.
Figure 54.. Map showing the location of the line of
cross section, AA'.
145
-------
8 Stream
0|0
LEGEND
234.10
SCALE
152 m
500 FT.
O MONITOR WELL WITH
WATER TABLE ELEV. IN METERS
ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
© SURFACE WATER
SAMPLING POINT
,.t,o WATER TABLE CONTOUR
Figure 55. Map of water table at the permitted
sanitary landfill site.
146
-------
(14.10-73.70 ft); the seasonal fluctuation in the water
table ranged from 0.12 to 5.43 m (0.39-17.81 ft).
As precipitation infiltrates through the landfill,
leachate is produced. After leaving the landfill, it perco-
lates through the.till under unsaturated conditions; ion
exchange occurs on the surface of clay particles and clay
lenses in the till. The leachate eventually enters the
ground-water flow system and is diluted. Due to the low
velocity of ground water in the area; dispersion is minimal
and contamination remains localized.
Water Chemistry at the Permitted Sanitary Landfill Site
Bar graphs of the mean concentrations of alkalinity,
acidity, TDS, TKN, COD, and TOG were constructed for all
-.. monitoring points (see Figure 56, 57, and 58, Section 2 and
Appendix E). The mean values for each sampling point,
except MP #7, were calculated using data from four sampling
rounds. On December 6, 1978 an analytical error produced
erroneous values for alkalinity, acidity, sulfate, and total
solids at .MP #7. Therefore, the mean values for these
parameters have been recalculated using data from the three
remaining sampling dates.
The background well (MP #4) had a mean value for alkalini-
ty of 231.3 mg/1. Pour of the six ground-water sampling
.points (MP fl, #2j |3, and #5) showed mean values for alkalinity
higher than those seen in the background well (MP #4). In :
;.' descending order of concentration, MP#2-has.'the highest: .' ; ;
""mean value (581.0 mg/1) followed by MP #1 (440.3 mg/1),' ^ :
MP #3 (346.0 mg/1), and MP #5 (279.0 mg/1). The remaining
downgradient well (MP #6, 173.0 mg/1) and the surface water
sampling points (MP #7, 134.0 mg/1 and MP #8, 120.0 mg/1)
showed -mean values for alkalinity that were lower than that
found at the background well (MP 14).
Mean values for acidity for each of the sampling points
are displayed in Figure 56 which shows that the relationships
among the monitoring points are similar for acidity to those
noted for alkalinity. The background well (MP |4) showed a
mean value for acidity of -247 mg/1. MP #2 showed the most
negative value for acidity (-616 mg/1) followed by MP #1
(-466 mg/1), MP 13 (-381 mg/1), and MP §5 (-260 mg/1).
MP §6 had a mean value of -180 mg/1 for acidity and the two
surface water sampling points (MP §7 and #8) showed mean
values of -139 mg/1 and -189 mg/1, respectively.
Figure 57 displays mean values for TDS concentrations.
All sampling points, except the two surface water monitoring
points (MP #7 and #8), show mean values for TDS higher than'
those of the background well (MP #4, 248 mg/1). MP #3 had
147
-------
00
rtlOOO-
o
o
O
o
g 800.
^ ^
e>
E
. 600-
'c
£ 400-
£ a0-0
71
r /
i/
x
x
x
x
_J
x
X
x
/
*
^
/
^
P/
I
0 • 'i|" "|- -f- -1 •
I 2 3 <3
-toco-
10
0
• o
o -<*»•
•. • ''" .• . in
. • a
_^_
" ' '.' f -600-
iT-i :: . . • o
X •-•-'• I
/ , -200
1
7"
/
^
^
/
i
5 & 10 . . 1 21
illHB
4 S 6 78
Monitoring Point
Monitoring Point
Figure 56. Bar graphs for alkalinity arid .acidity at the permitted sanitary landfill site.
-------
1000-
o 800-
0
00
o
_ 600-
V,
<*
E
•
^oo~
O
J-
200-
0
_ v
7
7
7
7
7
*y
7
7
X
7
7
7
7
V
7
7
/
7
/
r"
4
7
7
7
7
7
/
7
7
7
7
/
/
/
1
i 1 ' r
1234
in
7
y
7
|
I
— ' 1 1
5 6
I
7
10-
o-
_
*x
e 6'
t
2
v:
H-
4.
g.
8 I Z 3 4 5 6 7 8
Monitoring Point
Monitoring Point
Figure 57. Bar graphs for TDS and TKN at the permitted sanitary landfill site.
-------
Ul
o
50-
40-
X
E jo-
o"
O -
O
20-
IO
O-
3456
Monitoring Point
50-
E
o
30-
20
tO-
3 45 6
Monitoring Point
Figure 58. Bar graphs for COD and TOC at the permitted sanitary landfill site.
-------
the highest mean concentration (827 mg/1), and, in declining
order, MP fl (617 mg/1), MP #2 (607 mg/1), MP #5 (455 mg/1)
and MP 16 (273 mg/1). MP #7 (downstream) showed a mean TDS
concentration of 232 mg/1 and MP #8 (upstream) had 182 mg/1.
The mean values for TKN (see Figure 57) were less than
1.00 mg/1 at all of the monitoring points. The bar graph of
these mean values shows that the difference in TKN among the
monitoring points is small. However, MP #3, #5, and #6 were
elevated above MP #4 while MP #2 showe'd the lowest TKN value
-...,.„... among the wells.
Mean values for COD (see Figure 58) show quite different
: relationships between monitoring points from those seen in • •-...
.-.;•• alkalinity, acidity,, and TDS. The background well (MP #4)
showed a mean value of 6.75 mg/1 of COD. MP #3 (29.90 mg/1),
..... MP #5 (14.33 mg/1), MP #1 (9.00 mg/1), and MP #6 (8.78 mg/1)
~::- all. exhibit values .for. COD that are higher than..those, of the ,,..... $
. background well. MP #2 showed the lowest mean value for COD /'
•?-,.-.;;: (0.55 mg/1,). The two surface water sampling points (MP #7
and #8) had mean values for COD that were below those of ; ' '
":";" MP #4, the background well. MP $1 had a mean COD of 5.95 mg/1
' --•.•,' and the upstream sampling point (MP #8) gave a mean value of - ..'.""-',
'....'•'. ' 6.52 mg/1 for this parameter. . ... ' -~
.'••..:•' ... .-Mean values for TOC at each sampling point are displayed .
;.';":.:.-:.',';_'l;.-::'in.-Figure. 58 .which shows that MP fl, #3, and ;#2, all 'havei: ,;•>'"
'•;•'-••. . mean' values that'are higher" than that for the1 background. -•'.'-"•-i •-'•
;\y;:;?;.'ic^we.11... CMP; .-;#:4 }'. which ••exhibited , a. mean; TOC; value. of.,7..1. mg/L... ..'..- ;
:';:f>H; ;"MP "#ianid:|3 ; had 'neariy;.equivalentvmean"TOC^c
with, values of 11.8 mg/1 and 11.7 mg/1, respectively. MP. #2
had a mean value of 10.1 mg/1. MP #5 and #6 and the stream
sampling points (MP..#7 and #8) exhibited mean TOC concentra-
tions that were lower than that of the background well.
MP.#7 had a TOC mean value of 6.2 mg/1 and MP #5 of 5.9 mg/1.
: MP $8 :gave: a.mean value of 5.3 mg/1 and the lowest mean. TOC.; :
concentration was seen at MP #6 (5.1 mg/1).
. . Overall, the bar graphs demonstrate that contamination
v.|; of ground water is confined to the area immediately beneath
*:'.'''': and surrounding the landfill. This is particularly clear at
MP #1, #2, £3, and 15. Two parameters (COD and.TKN) might
seem to provide exceptions to this observation. However,
since.COD is a measurement of the amount of chemical material
that has yet to be oxidized, a low mean value for COD at
MP,#2 indicates advanced leachate degradation at this sampling
.... point. This observation is supported by high nitrate and
' low ammonia concentrations (see Appendix E).
The bar graphs also illustrate that surface water
quality in the adjacent stream has been relatively unaffected
by the presence of the landfill. While some of the parameters
:" ; ""-•••.-... :. ... , 151 .' ' -
-------
(alkalinity for example) increase in a downstream direction,
others (such as COD) decrease in the same direction. Further-
more, the magnitude of the changes between MP #8 and #7 is .
such that they are insignificant. Attributing these changes
solely to the presence of the landfill would be speculative
and would ignore ecological and hydrological factors that
al:so affect these parameters. .',.••;..•
In order to provide further insight into the effect of
the landfill on water quality in the area, Stiff diagrams
were constructed (see Figure 59). Background concentrations
of ionic species in ground water are represented by MP J4.
The ionic composition of ground water underlying the landfill
is characterized by.the diagram for MP #3. By comparing the
shapes of these plots with those of the downgradient wells,
it is evident, particularly with reference to the higher
sodium and chloride concentrations, that MP #5 is contaminated
by leachate. The diagram. for MP f 6 resembles'' that for MP..#3
more than it does the diagram for MP 14, indicating that
this well has been affected by leachate also. MP #2 has a
Stiff diagram that resembles that of MP #4, (background) more
than any other diagram. However, MP #2 shows some ionic
species (zinc and nitrate, for example) to be present in
higher concentrations than.at MP #4 indicating that MP #2 : .
has been contacted by leachate. "'•: .
The Stiff diagram for MP #1 has a distinctive shape
showing high concentrations of cations. This may be expected
because of the nature of the materials deposited within the
bulky fill area(. The elevated level of iron, for ,example,
may be directly attributed to the p'resence of* me"tal objects
within the bulky fill. The fact, that the diagrams for the
surface water sampling points (MP #7 and #8) are almost
identical to each other reaffirms the earlier observation
that the landfill area has had no impact on the stream.
To delineate oxidizing and reducing environments,
nitrogen ratios•were calculated {see Figure 60). The larger
ratio '.values., .for. MP #3.-and;..#6;(.6.62; and, ,9.,67>. respectively) ,
show that these' monitoring points are under moderately ;-•-;:;>
reducing conditions. The ratio for MP #5 (3.81) also shows
evidence of a slightly reducing environment.. While the :'
ratio for MP #5 represents a reducing environment, it also ,
shows that MP #5 has less of a reducing character than
either MP |6 or #3. ' - •••':.'•;• ':
The ratio value of 0.16 indicates that MP #4 (background)
has an oxidizing character. Similarly, MP #2 (0.07) and
MP #1 (0.76) can be designated as oxidizing environments.
The two surface water sampling points (MP #7 and #8) also
152
-------
100 10 1.0 .1 .01 .001 .01 .1 UO 10 100
MILLIEQUIVALENTS OF IONS
Figure 59. Modified stiff diagrams showing results.of
chemical analyses at the permitted sanitary
landfill site.
153
-------
Landfill Property
LEGEND
O Monitor Well with Nitrogen Index
Surfoce Water
® Sampling Point
500 FT
Figure 60. Nitrogen index showing the ratio of organic
nitrogen plus ammonia nitrogen (TKN) to
nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen (NO2 +
154
-------
have low ratio values. MP #8 (upstream) has a ratio value
of 0.59 and MP §7 (downstream) gives a ratio value of 0.41.
The relatively higher ratio values for MP #6 and #3
show that the more reducing environments are restricted to
the central and southeastern portions of the landfill. The
intermediate ratio value for MP #5 is attributable to a
combination of location in relation to the landfill and
position within the ground-water flow system.
The low ratio at MP #2, stemming from low TKN and high
nitrate values, is a reflection of an advanced degree of
degradation. The same phenomenon was noted earlier when
MP #2 exhibited a low mean value for COD. The low value for
MP.#r is a-reflection of the fact that the materials in the
bulky waste fill are.relatively inorganic in nature.
The low ratio values for MP #7 and #8 show that the
chemical environment within the stream is an oxidizing one.
This data confirms the earlier contention that the landfill
has had no. adverse effect on the stream.
In order to document any changes in water quality
through time, historical data (see Appendix D) was evaluated
and compared with data collected during the present study.
A sufficient number of analytical results exist to allow the
identification of trends, or their absence, within COD, .
specific conductance, and concentrations of particular •-•.'..
-cations and anibns. .
Both the historical data and data from the present -;
study demonstrate that the fluctuation within COD is seasonal.
Thus, COD values are highest during the summer and lowest
during winter. Yet, even considering these seasonal fluctua-
tions, the values for this parameter clearly point to a
decrease in COD in all the downgradient wells (MP #2, #5,
and #6) through time. MP #3, however, shows a slight increase
in COD attributable to the continual breakdown of material
within the landfill.
Unlike COD, specific conductance for nearly all the
monitoring points remains relatively constant through time.
MP #3, however, shows an increase in specific conductance.
Again, this trend is a reflection of the continued breakdown
of materials within the landfill.
Data for sodium shows that this cation increases in
concentration with time at MP fl,.#2, and §3. During the
period when the historical data was being collected, analysis
for sodium was peformed only sporadically for the other
monitoring points and therefore is of little value. Therefore,
zinc shows increases in concentration for all wells except
155 '
-------
MP #3. Typically, cations like sodium and zinc are not very
mobile and are bound up on the cationic exchange complex.
Therefore, the increase in sodium and zinc demonstrates that
attenuation via the exchange complex is minimal. Manganese,
iron, and copper show decreases in concentrations at all
wells. : " . . . . . ' ' '" • •-• .-•. •
Nitrate shows a decrease in concentration at all points ':~
with time except at MP #2 where the concentration of nitrate
increases. As indicated previously, this is due to ,the
accumulation of this species as a result of advanced
degradation.
In conclusion, comparing the historical data .with"that,
of the present study demonstrates that the .impact of the
landfill on ground and surface water in the area of the.
landfill is diminishing with. time. MP #3, however, shows
little evidence of improvement. This is attributable to the
location of this monitoring point within the landfill and it
may be expected that this well would show a slower rate of
improvement. MP #7 and #8 have historical concentration
values for the parameters studied that are consistent
-------
study do not indicate contamination primarily because of the
location of MP #6 within a locally complex hydrogeological
flow system and the localized effect of the leachate.
Data for MP #1 demonstrates that the bulky waste fill
is also a source of leachate. As might be expected, the
character of the leachate from this area differs from that
produced by the landfill. This difference may be illustrated
by comparing the Stiff diagram for MP #1 with that for MP #3
and also by the low value of COD for MP #1.
•
: In conclusion, the historical data and the data from
the present study show that the impact of the leachate is
localized and is diminishing through time.
157
-------
SECTION 6
COMPARISON OF THE
FIVE ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL METHODS WITH STANDARD
SANITARY LANDFILL METHODS
The characteristics associated with each method of
landfilling in contrast to the site specific conditions that
permit a landfill to pollute or prevent it from doing so are
evaluated in this Section. Each special method (hillfilling,
balefilling, millfilling, and strip mine landfilling) is
compared with the conventional method of sanitary landfilling
in.an effort to delineate the advantages and/or disadvantages
of each. The usefulness and applicability of each landfilling
method is considered with reference to a range of geographic
locations.
.CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING THE POTENTIAL TO POLLUTE
Each of the methods of landfilling examined in this
study has ^characteristics that permit or, conversely, limit •'
pollution; each type of landfill produces a typical leachate'.
Strength and trends of leachate vary among the several types
of landfills. In addition to the characteristics of each.
method that produce pollution, there are site-specific
characteristics which affect the potential pollution from
each landfill.- -These methodological and site-specific.
characteristics will be highlighted in this Section and
comparisons with landfills employing thei.same method will be
discussed where appropriate. The relative impacts of the ;
five types of landfills on ground and surface water as shown
by water quality in representative downgradient wells will
:also be summarized. • - '-• ...
In:order to present comparisons among the landfill
sites in the clearest and most concise manner, several
Tables have been prepared. Table 16A illustrates the age,
area, weight of refuse, average volume of refuse per area,
refuse density, and cover-to-refuse ratio for each of the
five landfills. Table 16B shows pertinent site character-
istics of each landfill including the sediment type and
average percent clay in the sediment, the depth to water
below the landfill base, annual precipitation and its devia-
158
-------
TABLE 16 A. CHARACTERISTICS CONTRIBUTING TO.-THE IMPACT OF EACH LANDFILL! ON GROUND AND SURFACE WATER
Landfill
Hillfill
Balefill
Millfill
Strip mine
landfill
Permitted
sanitary
landfill
Years since
completion
8
(operated ',
from
1965-71)
s :;..
(operated "
from
1971r-74)
Active
(since
Dec. 1973)
Active
(since
June 1971)
-
4
(operated
from
1971-75)
Area of
fill
16 ha
(40 ac)
4 ha
(9 ac) &
12 ha
(30 A)
7 ha
(18 ac)
5.7 ha
(14 ac)
4 ha
(10 ac)
Total; weight
of refuse ...
272,340 tonnes9
(300,000 tons)
337,800 tonnes
(372,15:5 tons)
'
317,7.00 tonnes
(350,000 tons)
t
105,000' tonnes
(116/000 tons)
38,800 tonnes
(42,750 tons)
Average volume
•per unit area
47,500 m3/ha
(2 5> 000 yd -Vac)
250,000 m3/ha
(130,000 yd3/ac)
127,840 m3/ha
(64,800 yd3/ac)
69,957 m3/ha
(37,027 ydVac)
25,155 m3/ha
(13,104 yd /ac)
. ..• Approximate
.density
of refuse
' . 355 kg/m3 a
. ' ;<600 lbs/yd3)
("'•'
'' 800 kg/m3 -
(1,350 lbs/ydj)
;
653 kg/m3
(1,100 lbs/ydj)
,"t
" 263 kg/m3
; (450 lbs/yd J)
386 kg/m3 3
(652 lbs/yd )
Method of
operation and
cover to refuse
ratio
Above grade
landfill refuse
cells.
1:1
Baled refuse,
stacked.
1:9
Covered, milled;
area filled.
1:7
Refuse filled
in strip mine
excavation.
1:4
Trench method.
1:1
(Continued)
-------
TABLIi 16 0. CHARACTERISTICS £pNTRIbUTIN(: TO Tllli IMPACT OF F.ACII 1.ANDFU.L ON GROUND AND SURFACE WATER
.
Landfill
Hillfill
BalefUl
Millfili
O
Strip
mine
landfill
Permitted
sanitary
landfill
Sediment type
underlying landfill
(from surface to bedrock)
and average % .clay / ;
Well sorted sands & gravels.
12 m (40 ft). Poorly sorted
till, 12 m (40 ft). ' * '
4% .-..
Sandy till, IS m (50 ft).
Glacial drift (clay, sand.
gravel). 9-37 m (30-120 ft).
Alluvial sands & gravels.
100 m (328 ft). 3%
Glacial outwash (sands & •
gravels). 15 m (50 ft).
• 4% " ••• • : • v .
Clayey decomposed .spoil.
1.5-5 m (5-16 ft).
Till, 5 m (16 ft). —
' s* -.;•••.
A
, V
DojJth to wator
from base of
landfill
Mounded in 86.
hillfill. +27.
35.1 m (115 tt) 65.
+ 9.
• „>'
6.1 m ( 20 ft) 83.
+ 0.
v
*
24.4 m ( 80 ft) 104.
+ 6.
.
• 15.2 ra ( 50 ft) ,78.
i + 4.
•>
vcraife annual
recipitation
+ deviation
during
study
49 cm
23 cm
88 cm
74 cm
69 cm
06 cm
10, cm
92 cm
60 cm
94 cm
"
period
(34
(IP
'..
(25
( 3
.05
.72
.94
.84
(32.95
( 0
(40
( 2
(36
< 1
.02
.98
.71
.94
.94
in)
in) '
in)
in)
in)
in)
in)
in)
in)
in)
Potential
volume
of leachate
27,
(21.
20,
(16.
15.
(12.
13,
(10.
7.
(5.
057 m3
93 ac-ft)
032 m3
02 ac-ft)
232 m3
86 ac-ft)
059 m3
52 ac-ft)
072 m3
80 ac-ft)
Strength of Leachated
1978-79 historical
study in data in
mg/1
COD
TDS
Na
so4
COD
TDS
Na
SO4
COD
TDS
Na
S04
COD
TDS
Na
S04
COD
SC
Na
S°4
2,992
3,084
380
12,000
967
3,801
572
2,040
23,690
19,500
828
519
9,580
11,145
1,500
_-^b
17,799°
8,320C
281C
171°
mg/l
(39,680)
(19.144)
9001
'••:< 680)
.718)
2,241)
1.079)
i -
a Estimated value. .
b Chemical interference suspected. * "
c chemical interference. .-
Boone County test cell 2D}- mean value of analyses from four years following completion of cell.
No historical data is available for the Millfill, the Strip Mine l.andfill or the Permitted Sanitary Landfill.
-------
tion during the study period, the potential volume of leachate
and the strength of the leachate. Table 17 is a summary of
the impact of each site on ground water as shown by represen-
tative downgradient wells.
So that comparisons easily can be made of the leachate
produced by each landfill examined and that produced by
other sites, where appropriate, several Figures are presented.
Figure 61 shows Stiff diagrams constructed from both historical
data and data collected during the four sampling rounds of
the present study. The purpose of the diagrams is to illustrate
both the relative strength of leachate for each type of
landfill and the changes that occurred with time for each
leachate. This information is presented using milliequi-
valents of sodium, iron, manganese, zinc, chloride, and
sulfate. The historical data for the hillfill is from 1969
(see Appendix D) and that for the balefill is from 1974 to .
that part of 1978 prior to the present study period. Histori-
cal .data for millfill leachate is represented by samples
from Lysimeter f4, an 8-month old lysimeter of milled uncovered
refuse at the milling project in Madison, WI. The historical
data for a permitted sanitary landfill is taken from leachate
produced at Boone County test cell 2D for the ^ear 1976; the
test cell contained covered unprocessed waste.
Several observations are apparent from the Stiff diagrams.
.The hillfill and the" millfill produced the strongest leachates.',
in terms of cations and anions,, The hillfill, however, has'" ;"
considerably decreased .in strength since 1969 except for ; .".
.concentrations of '\ sulfate. Both diagrams .for millf ills ,.'<
demonstrate similar concentrations; this data, in both
cases, was from relatively young milled refuse, but the
concentrations of cations (except iron) and anions of leachate
from the uncovered milled refuse were slightly higher than
those from the milled covered refuse. The balefill has a
leachate of low strength and, progressing from the historical
data to the present data, a decrease in sodium concentration,
but an increase in sulfate and chloride concentrations may
be observed. The strip mine landfill has a leachate of
moderate strength with a concentration between that of the
millfill and that of the permitted sanitary landfill.
Historical data was not available for a strip mine landfill.
The diagrams for permitted sanitary landfill leachates
present three to four-year-old leachate from Boone County
test cell 2D and leachate approximately six years old from
Facility III; these diagrams are very similar to each other
and concentrations of.cations and anions indicate leachates
of moderate strength. '
TDS and COD concentrations with time are illustrated on
Figures 62, 63, and 64; these parameters give a general
indication of both the inorganic and organic strength of the
161
-------
TABLE 17. IMPACT OF FIVE SITES SHOWN BY REPRESENTATIVE DOWNCRADIENT WELLS
CTl
NJ
Parameter3 Hillfillb Balef i'llS"
alkalinity 589 899
TOG
COD
TDS
TKN
Na
DTWf
22.4 52.0
52.0 131.8
922 1360
2.04 5.14
12.1 115.1
0
35
distance8 42.7 (140)
Avg.
PVLh
% clay 4%
27,057 (21.93) 20
,032
370 ;:••
33.6
71.5
424 .vv:
0.25
24.3V
(115)
0
3%: .•".
(16.62)
Millf illc
394
9
8
.4
.7
: 396
6.
133.
0
7
1
2
.14
178
(20)
(437)
Strip
mine .
lane! fill
243
6
11
623
0
6
.8
.7
.28
.5
24.
42.
318
8.8
17.3
817
1.60
50.0
4 (80)
1 (138)
- A; 4% . —
15,232
(12.86)
13
,059
(10.52)
Permitted
sanitary
landfill6
279 581
5.9 10. 1
0.55 14.3
455 607
0.14 0.37
5.9 66.7
15.2 (50)
0
9%
7,072 (5.80)
V-V •; .'•-• ' ' ' •
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
Chemical analyses expressed in mg/1. ; .'•: •"'-'•-. .- V: ' ' . .
Downgradient wells, MP #4, #5
Downgradient well, MP #2.
Downgradient wells, MP 05 and
Downgradient wells, MP 02 and
Depth to water below landfill
Approximate dis'tahce between
Potential volume of 1'eachate
,09,
and.; 010 showing
#7 showing
^5 showing
base
landf
in m3
minimum
minimum
minimum
and
maximum values.
and maximum values.
and maximum values.
in m :(ft). "
ill and
weil(s)
in m (ft)
.
(afeft).
-------
HILLFILL
BALE FILL
MILLFILi.
(MADISON!
U)
PERMITTED
SANITARY LANDFILL
IfiOONE CO I
N
\-
290 200 ISO
100 SO 0 SO 100
MILS.I£9UOVALEMTg OF IONS
Historical Studies
HILLFIU.
BALEFILL '
MILLFILL
STRIP MINE
LANDFILL
PERMITTED SANITARY
LANDFILL |FACILITY mi
LICENP
No-j-ci
r«4-soo
MO-4
I.-I
• etifiaa aliux
t!
ISO
100 ' SO 0 - SO 100
- MILLIEOUIVALENTS OF IOMS
ISO 200 ZSO
1978-79 Study
Figure 61. Modified Stiff diagrams showing leachates from historical studies and
. •}' A : the 1978-79 study. •-'- ; ' :
-------
100,000;
«
10,000-
10,000-
in 1,000-
o
l.ooo
-' • ••
• MILLFIU.
MIU.FILL*
STRIP MINE
LANDFILL •
LEGENQ
HILtFILL
,i. if ' '&• '.{p1 ''t^i -^ y,i '^i '^"
Figure €2. •:Graph, of:TDS concentrations with time of leachates from the
v -;hillfill; balefill, millfill, and strip mine landfill.
-------
o\
Ul
100,000-
4
4
«0,000-
10,000-
•
a
o
u
I,OttO
0
( MILL/ILL
M1U.FILL
EW.EFIU.
| FACILITY mi -----
Figure 63. Graph of COD concentrations with time of leachates from the hillfill,
balefill, millfill, strip mine landfill, and permitted sanitary landfill,
-------
100,000;
10,000-
10.000
g .,000
u
1,000
'oic' U.'
\l>' Vc
Figure 64. Graph of COD concentrations with time of leachate from the
, Boone County test cell 2D.
-------
,five leachates. These graphs illustrate the relative strength
of the leachates produced by the five types of landfills and
the trends of leachate with time; they also demonstrate
different trends for the different types of landfills.
Figure 62 shows TDS concentrations with time for the
hillfill, balefill, millfill, and strip mine landfill. The
milIfill, during 1979, had the highest TDS concentrations
(19,500 mg/1); the hillfill leachate also showed considerable
concentrations during 1969 (19,144 mg/1). The hillfill
leachate has steadily decreased to a low concentration by
July 1979; this concentration is even lower than those of
the balefill leachate.. The consistently low concentrations
of TDS"iii the balei.il 1 leachate should be noted as well as
the apparent plateau of concentrations between June 1977 and
July'1979. Leachate from the strip mine landfill has a
moderate concentration of TDS (11,145 mg/1). ..
•" figure*- 63, showing .COD levels over time for .the hillfill,
balefill, millfill, strip mine landfill and Facility III,
exhibits .ttends and relative strengths of leacha'tes very
similar .to,, those shown on Figure 62. The COD of the hillfill
leachate in 1969 (39,680 mg/1) was the highest among all the
leachates in the study, but it decreased with time to low
levels by the end of 1979. The leachate from the permitted
sanitary landfill (Facility III) was of moderate strength
and is .most similar to that from the strip mine landfill •and....,
that from the nil if ill after 13 .years of activity (May 1978J .r ;
COD of the balefill leachate is the lowest and shows the
same relationships--as.- those- of TDS, but seasonal, variations',':;.'..,
are more apparent with COD; peaks are seen consistently in '
the late summer and early fall months.
Figure 64 shows COD concentrations for the leachate
from Boone County test cell 2D. These levels of COD are
relatively elevated indicating a strong leachate similar to
that produced by the millfill and. early in the history of
the hillfill; it is stronger than that from the strip mine
landfill, the balefill, and Facility III.. Trends in .the COD
concentrations of. this leachate are discussed in. depth in ....
Section 6, Permitted Sanitary Landfill.
These Tables and Figures are presented so that the
reader may make comparisons concisely and rapidly among the
landfills examined in this study; they should be referred to
frequently during the study of this Section.
Hillfill.
There are several problems inherent in hill-filling •
solid waste. Because of their height and shape, hillfills
may not have the structural stability and lateral support
' '...::'/,--... "•:....:. -'-:" '.. .".. . .167 '. '''
-------
that is. .-'found in the conventional method of landfilling.
The steep slopes of •: a; hillf ill- pjeoRiote surface water runoff ....
and, therefore, there is less infiltration of water than is
found at the/conventional type of landfill. In addition,
because of the height of the refuse emplaced above the
ground, a greater potential exists for ground-water mounding
beneath such sites, particularly where the depth to the
water table is relatively shallow. , Gas production is also a
.common problem in hillfilling.
At the hillfill site investigated in the present study,
these problems were observed. Leachate seeps between lifts
and cells and the presence of leachate in the ground water
indicate that there has been some rupturing of the clay
cells within the hillfill. Ground water is apparently
mounded within the hillfill itself (see Section 5, Hydrogeology
of the Hillfill Site) and methane gas is present in and
around the hillfill. '.'..-•••
The leachate produced by the hillfill was of considerable
strength (1969) but has decreased with time and, during the
present study period, the hillfill produced a leachate of
low to moderate strength (see Table 16B and Figures 61, 62,
and 63). The potential volume of leachate at the hillfill
is the highest among the five investigated landfills, 27,057 m3
(21.93 ac-ft). , ' '
• i * , ,
In addition to these factors, there are characteristics
' of the hillfill site which either permit or limit pollution.
The hillfill has had the^ grea^test^ impact on* ground water ; '
among all of the five sites studied based on the evaluation
of downgradient water quality (see Table 17). However,
certain site Specific factors should be considered before
comparing the hillfill with the other sites. The hillfill
is the oldest of the landfills under consideration .and was
begun 13 years before the study period. The leachate produced
by the hillfill during the 1978-79 study was of low •'•'to /
moderate strength; peak concentrations are long past and the
hillfill is in- its filial stage' of degradation (see Figures 61,
62, and 63). The hillfill contains approximately 272>340 tonnes
(300,0003tons) of refuse with..an average volume per area of
-47,500 m /ha (25,000 yd /.ac) which is considerably more than
the quantity within the permitted sanitary landfill (see
.Table 16A). Furthermore, the ^monitoring wells surrounding
the hillfill are close to it; those at the milIfill and the
strip mine landfill are located at greater distance (see
Table 17).
A shallow depth to ground water is the characteristic
of the hillfill site that has the greatest effect on its
environmental impact (see Table.16B). When the hillfill was
constructed, the base cells were emplaced in an excavation;
168 •
-------
this further decreased the distance between the water table
and the refuse. Depth to water in the wells surrounding the
hillfill is shallow and there is considerable evidence that
the ground water is mounded within the hillfill. This
certainly increases the rate of decomposition and the movement
of contaminants into the shallow ground water.
The hillfill is situated on glacial outwash which is
quite permeable; the amount of clay averages four percent
(see Table 16B). On the basis of borings completed around
the hillfill in 1980, it appears that leachate and methane
gas are present in the top of the saturated zone and often
flow with ground water above clay layers within the outwash
and till. . The gradient of the ground-water mound within the
hillfill is very steep; thus, ground water and leachate
radiate outward from the hillfill in all directions. However,
the gradient of the ground water surrounding the hillfill is
low and so leachate is not rapidly dispersed after leaving
the hillfill.
Several characteristics at the hillfill site retard the
spread of pollution. These include the clay cells, the •
presence of clay layers within outwash, and the presence'of
the clayey till which underlies the outwash; these all
attenuate contaminants. In addition, because of the perme-
ability of the outwash, contaminants can be diluted.
Balefill
The method of landfilling baled solid waste has several
characteristics which reduce the potential for pollution. . '•'."
Baling decreases the volume of refuse (see Table 16A) arid •
thereby reduces the surface area exposed to infiltrating"'' '
water. Because of the reduced surface area, the low permeabil-
ity of the bales, the resulting pattern of water channel.ing
between bales, the relatively short retention time for. water .
within a balefill and the small amount of void space, a
balefill rapidly reaches field capacity and therefore produces
leachate .in a shorter period of time than do other types of . ...
landfills. The leachate produced, however, is less concen-
trated than that produced by other types of landfills (see
Figures 61, 62, and 63). A balefill will generate leachate
for a longer period of time than will other types of landfills
and the final stages of decomposition will, be substantially
delayed. Methane gas is produced by balefills but may be
produced .at a slower rate than is the case at other types of
landfills.
Among the landfills studied, the balefill had the ,
second highest potential volume of leachate at 20,032 m ..
(16.02 ac-ft); however the leachate was of the lowest strength
(see Table 16B and Figures 62 and 63)„ It might be expected
169
-------
;that the concentration of leachate would decrease slightly
after the exterior of the bales had decomposed. The historical
data and the 1978-79 study, however, f ound% that concentrations
initially rose and then stabilized or continued to increase
at a slow rate, in spite of the fact that the balefill was
completed five years before the present study period (see
Figures 62 and 63).
The balefill was well sited. It has the greatest depth
to water and the largest amount of sediment above bedrock
among the five sites studied (see Table 16B). Unfortunately,
there is a relatively low average percentage of clay in the
sediment; the till immediately underlying the balefill
contains seven percent clay and the sands and gravels beneath
that contain even less, only one to four percent clay. This
amount of clay does not allow for significant attenuation by
ion exchange. However, due to the great thickness of this
uhconsolidated material, there is enough clay present to
provide attenuation. Furthermore, the large grain size and
high permeability of the sediments beneath the till and a .
relatively steep ground-water gradient allow for rapid
dilution and dispersion of contaminants. .. "... .,
The balefill is the second oldest of the five sites
studied and contains approximately 337,800 tonnes (372,155 tons)
of refuse. It has had a slight to moderate effect on the
ground water'adjacent to it (see Table 17). In general, the :
ground water at MP #2 shows comparatively: low concentrations^
of inorganic material (TDS) but somewhat elevated levels of
COD and.TOG. .This suggests that the clays in the till have. .
become saturated with organic compounds and essentially have
ceased to attenuate such material.
Millfill
The primary contamination problem inherent in the
landfilling of milled refuse is the rapid decomposition--of-
the refuse. .Milling increases the surface area of refuse;
the rate of'physical-chemical leaching and'biological decompo-
sition is enhanced by increased surface area and by'the more
even flow-of water through milled refuse than through unprocessed
waste. The rapid rate of decomposition accelerates"the rate
at which gas is produced and at which.organics are degraded.
The test cells at Madison, WI show that milled uncovered
refuse produces a very strong leachate in a short time which
stabilizes rapidly at relatively low concentrations. It
produces a larger volume of leachate more rapidly than does
covered refuse, milled or unprocessed. The milled covered
refuse exhibited peak concentrations that were lower than
those for milled uncovered refuse. It reached these concentra-
tions in a relatively longer period of time; milled covered
170
-------
refuse behaved more similarly to unprocessed covered refuse
than to milled uncovered refuse. Milled uncovered refuse
stabilized after 1 to 1-1/2 years; however, milled covered
refuse was still not stable after three years.
The3millfill had a potential volume of leachate of
15,232 m (12.86 ac-ft) and contained a large amount of
refuse, 317,700 tonnes (350,000 tons). The average volume
per unit area was high, 127,840 m /ha (64,800 yd /ac) second
only to that for the balefill (see Table 16A). The leachate
was of considerable strength (see Table 168 and Figures 61,
62, and 63).
..Several factors at the millfill site permitted it to
pollute. The depth to water was approximately 6 m (20 ft)
or less and the millfill was underlain by a permeable outwash.
The outwash. had a low percentage of clay (four percent)
which provided little potential for the attenuation of
contaminants by ion exchange. The steep gradient of the
ground water, however, and the permeability of the outwash
allowed dilution and dispersion of contaminants.
The impact of the millfill on ground water was slight
to moderate (see Table 17) and localized as may be seen by
the presence of potable water at MP #1 (see Section 5. Water
Chemistry at the Millfill Site). The downgradient wells are
generally farther from the millfill than are such wells at
'the other sites in the present study. The refuse in the
southwest corner of the millfill was emplaced during 1974,
1975; and .1976* thus, there were from two to three years
between the completion of filling in that area and the
present study period and ground water at MP #2, downgradient
from the southwest corner, contained low concentrations of
organics (see Table 17). MP |6 and #7, receiving newer
leachate, showed slightly higher organic concentrations (see
Section 5, Water Chemistry at the Millfill Site). These
observations are consistent with the trends that may be
expected from milled refuse and the effect of leachate
generated by it. - •- .
Strip Mine Landfill
A strip mine landfill has certain pollution potentials
that are inherent only to this method of landfilling. The
primary condition for the probability of contamination at a
strip mine landfill is the lack of soil or unconsolidated
sediment between the base of the landfill and the ground
water. The low permeability of underlying shale bedrock
causes contaminated water to move along bedding planes,
joints and fractures directly and often rapidly to the
ground and surface water. The steep slopes characteristic
of many coal regions contribute to increased surface runoff
171
-------
which may carry leachate from breakouts directly to nearby
surface water. Furthermore/ steep slopes encourage erosion
and maintenance problems which also increase the potential
for leachate breakouts. Ground water in strip mined areas
has commonly been affected by acid mine drainage prior to
landfilling. This is demonstrated by elevated iron, sulfate,
total dissolved solids, and manganese concentrations and
lower pH in such waters.
Conditions at a strip mine landfill may vary considerably
from region to region. A study of the Frostburg and Westernport
sites indicates that some problems can be ameliorated by
lower slopes, diverted surface runoff, and varying amounts
of soil placed beneath the refuse. It also indicates, as
does the present study, that leachate neutralizes the low pH
.caused by acid mine drainage. Another study indicates
that'strip mine landfills have a minor impact on the environ-
ment except when placed near ground or surface water; strip
mine landfills commonly contaminate local streams because of
proximity.
The strip mine landfill investigated in the present
study produced a leachate of moderate strength (see Table 16B)
comparable to other ledbhates generated by unprocessed waste
(see Figures 61 and 63)?. The landfill,had a low to moderate
potential volume of leachate, 13,059 m (10252 ac-ft) and
-------
of contaminants. Furthermore, the gradient of ground water
in the vicinity of the strip mine landfill is not very
steep.
In spite of the relatively high pollution potential of
a strip nine landfill, the impact on ground and surface
water at the strip mine landfill investigated during the
present study has been moderate. This finding may be attribut-
able, in part, to the distance between the landfill and the
monitoring wells (see Table 17). In addition, the landfill
is relatively young and most of the refuse has been emplaced
during the past four years; a relatively small amount of
refuse had been emplaced by the end of the study period,
105,000 tonnes (116,000 tons), see Table 16A. Before landfil-
ling commenced, clayey spoil material had been placed in the
base of the strip cut which may provide minimal attenuation
of leachate. In addition, because there are approximately
24.4 m (80-.ft) between the base of the landfill and the top
of the water table, the leachate moves under conditions
which allow degradation to occur.
Permitted Sanitary.Landfill
The conventional method of sanitary landfilling has
several pollution problems associated with it. Generally,
two methods of filling are employed: the area lift and the
trench methods. The permitted sanitary landfill examined in
the 1978-79 study was constructed using the trench method 3
and a refuse density of approximately 386 kg/m (652 Ib/yd )
was achieved which is .average for unprocessed solid waste. .
Because of the relatively low degree of refuse compaction
and the varied size and random distribution of the materials
landfilled, the flow of water through a conventional landfill
is frequently channeled and rather uneven. This promotes
irregular decomposition of refuse and creates areas of more
rapid decomposition as well as areas of relative inactivity.
However, because of the relatively low .degree of compaction -.-
and the greater amount of cover material used compared to
processed, waste disposal sites (cover to refuse ratio 1:1 at...
the permitted sanitary landfill, see Table 16A), there is a
greater potential for the attenuation of contaminants by ion
exchange with.clays if the cover material has a sufficient
percentage of fines.
The permitted sanitary landfill examined during the
1978-79 study had,a comparatively small potential volume of
leachate, 7,072 m (5.80 ac-ft). Unfortunately, leachate
could not be collected from this landfill. Therefore,
leachate from two other sources, Facility III and Boone
County, Kentucky, test cell 2D are used in this study as a
basis for the comparison of,chemical data concerning leachate
production and composition. ' Data was collected at
173
-------
'Facility III, a permitted sanitary landfill very similar to
the one studied in 1978-79, from a leachate seep present
.. during five months of a twelve-month study (1978). The
Boone County field-scale test cell 2D was constructed in
August 1972 in an excavation 8.53 m (28.0 ft) square and
3.20 m (10.5 ft) deep. It was lined with polyethylene,
filled with refuse compacted by bulldozer to a density of
598 kg/m (1,008 Ib/yd ), and covered with 0.30 m (1.0 ft)
~of compacted soil. A berm grid was placed above the cover
material using 0.15 m (0.5 ft) berms in order to promote .
uniform percolation (and eliminate runoff) into the cell.
•Leachate from the collection system beneath the refuse was
sampled and analyzed from September 1972 through December 1976.
Typically, a permitted sanitary landfill produces a
strong to moderate leachate for a long period of time. The
final stage of anaerobic degradation within a landfill
including'organic decomposition, methane production, and pH
neutralization, occurs after a comparatively long period and
leachate concentrations do not stabilize at lower levels
rapidly. - , .
Leachate produced by permitted sanitary landfills
varies considerably from one to another depending on specific
operational differences, hydrologic differences and age, but
commonly ranges from moderate to considerable strength. The
leachate from Facility III (operated from July.1971 to
"July 1973) was of moderate strength even five years after
completion (see Figures 61 and 63); that from the Boone
^'County test;:cell; was".strong (see Table 16B arid ;Figure,s; 63i; -_
and 64) because of the higher 'density of the refuse, the'"" • :
uniform infiltration of water and the absence of runoff.
The trend of the leachate from the Boone County test
cell, see Figure 64, indicates that the leachate reached
peak concentrations between 1-1/4 and 1-7/8 years after
.completion of the cell; this trend is confirmed by declines
in specific conductance and pH. COD concentrations,
approximately 2-1/2 years following completion, dropped to
one-half of their peak levels but were still significantly
•elevated. After 4-1/4 years, there were no signs of further
decreasing concentrations. .Seasonal variations increased-
during this period. The graph demonstrates that a strong
leachate has been produced for a long period of time.
The permitted sanitary landfill investigated during the
1978-79 study has certain site characteristics which affected
the impact that this landfill has had on ground and surface
waters. This is the third oldest among the five landfills
studied (see Table 16A) and contains the smallest amount of
refuse, 38,800 tonnes (42,750 tons). As might be expected,
174
-------
it has the lowest volume of refuse per area among the five
landfills, see Table 16A.,
The permitted sanitary landfill investigated in the
present study is underlain by at least 5 m (16 ft) of glacial
till which contains approximately nine percent clay, the
highest percentage of clay found among the five sites, see
Table 16B. In addition, the amount of cover material (glacial
till) used during landfilling (cover to refuse, 1:1, see
Table 16A) provided significant attenuation of pollutants.
Furthermore, there is a substantial depth to ground water
beneath the landfill (see Table 16B) and because of its
location on. a. ground-water divide and the resulting steep
ground-water gradientr 'there has been relatively rapid
dispersion, of contaminants.
Because of the combination of methodological and site
specific factors, the permitted sanitary landfill has.had
only a slight to moderate impact on ground water (see Table 17)
and essentially no impact on surface water (see Section 5,
Water':Chemistry at the Permitted Sanitary Landfill Site).
On the. basis of historical data and that from the 1978-79
study, the impact on the ground water surrounding the.landfill
has apparently begun to diminish. However, the quality of
the ground water beneath the landfill (shown by MP #3, see
Section 5, Water Chemistry at the Permitted Sanitary Landfill
Site) has remained consistent throughout the period of data . .
collection.. '•••.' ,-• " • '•""•;' ' ;-• ' ••-•••• • , . . .' *.,
'ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE SPECIAL TYPES or LANDFILLS.'''
COMPARED TO A CONVENTIONAL PERMITTED SANITARY LANDFILL
It is useful to take the permitted sanitary landfill as
a base line or standard and to compare the special types of
landfilling to it (and to each other) in order to determine
the relative-advantages and disadvantages that each may
offer. ''-...- ......
.If -a.permitted sanitary landfill is properly sited, it ...........
will have only a minor impact on ground and surface 'water as
is evidenced by the permitted sanitary landfill examined in
the present'study; 'see Section 5, Water Chemistry at the ••'
Permitted Sanitary Landfill Site. The primary advantage of
a permitted .sanitary -landfill is the relatively, .low cost of. • •••••••
operation compared to that for processed waste. Disadvantages ..
include the large area required for landfilling arid the cost
of suitable land;' "Settlement and the long duration of the
processes of degradation limit the possible subsequent uses
of the land. In addition, vectors, blowing paper, and odors •
are problems common to this method of landfilling and often.
incur negative public reactions.
•••••--.••- 175
-------
Hillfilling .
The major advantage of the-method ofhilIf11ling refuse
is that it reduces the amount of land required. It increases
the volume per area by stacking refuse to a considerable
height. In addition, because of the steep slopes of a
hillfill, infiltration is minimized; this reduces the potential
volume of leachate. Furthermore, because of its relatively
small base, this type of landfill lends itself well to a
leachate collection system.
The disadvantages of hillfillihg include the fact that,
a hillfill may be less- structurally stable than a permitted
sanitary landfill and that leachate breakouts between lifts
and cells may occur. Gas production also may be a problem.
In addition, the steep slopes of a hillfill increase runoff
which contributes to erosion and causes maintenance problems.
Completed hilIfills are commonly used as recreational
areas such as parks, ski slopes ;and sledding hills.
Balefilling .,.,...;. ..,..-.." . v ,
The primary advantage :in:balefilling.,refuse is volume
reduction. Effective landfill density can be increased
approximately 50 percent compared with a'permitted sanitary
landfill. Void space within; the land.fill; is reduced and
structural stability is /increased:. Blpwing; paper,.fires, :
odors, and vectors are minimized; public reaction to:a
balef ill;jis;'generally;; good.j;;;Ajbalef ill.^jrpduces .a lower .
;stren^th'c Teachate' for" a •longerperiod'-of'vti-mevih;conjparis.bn' : V
with a permitted sanitary landfill or, indeed, any other
type of landfill considered in this study; therefore, there
may be less potential for the severe contamination of ground
and surface waters and fewer problems with gas.
Less cover material is needed at a balefill than at a
permitted sanitary landfill, hillfill, or strip mine landfill.
Less equipment'-is needed at the site'and it>-is more easily
maintained; only a forklift and small front-end loader are*
necessary. Trucks suffer less wear-traversing a balefill"
than a conventional landfill site. In addition, if.'.;the-.-'.;
baling facility is centrally located .for collection trucks,
there will be less driving time and fuel consumption. The
dense regularly-shaped bales are an optimum form for efficient
transportation. Resource recovery is facilitated at the
baling plant; as refuse travels along conveyor belts, metals
and corrugated cardboard are easily removed for recycling.
The disadvantages of baling refuse include the.costs
for the equipment at the baling facility; these may be
partially offset by the economic advantages previously
176
-------
discussed. Careless operation and stacking at the balefill
site may forfeit much of the benefit of volume reduction.
Finally, if refuse bales are placed proximal to water or in
an area where ground water may reach them during wet periods,
there will be considerable pollution potential.
The possible uses of a balefill site after completion
are greater than those at a permitted sanitary landfill
because of the stability of the balefill. Completed balefills
may be used for recreational areas, parking lots, and even
light building structures.
MilIfilling • . .
Landfilling milled refuse has some advantages similar
to those of landfilling baled refuse. The primary advantage
is that of volume reduction. Shredded refuse, when compacted
by a bulldozer at the site, obtains high density. A millfill
is structurally more stable and has less settlement than a
permitted sanitary landfill because of its relative density.
The increased volume of refuse within a smaller area and the
fact that the decomposition of refuse at a millfill is . .:
comparatively rapid and produces higher concentrations of
leachate -are factors that facilitate leachate collection and
treatment. If a millfill is properly sited and there is a
substantial separation between the millfill and the ground
water, the rapid decomposition and shorter time period
needed for stabilization within the landfill become advantageous.
/
The public is generally more receptive to a millfill
site than to a conventional sanitary landfill because blowing
papers, vectors, and odors are reduced. Resource recovery
is facilitated at the millfill plant, a further advantage of
millfilling compared to conventional landfilling. As with a
balefill, less cover material is needed and there are more
efficient transport and landfilling procedures, including .
the diminished use of trucks and less damage to the vehicles
at the millfill site. However, after milled refuse is
received at the landfill site, it must be spread and compacted
by bulldozers. At a balefill, bales need only be forklifted" '
into place from the transfer trucks and so less time and
equipment are required.
The cost of running a milling facility is a major
disadvantage of this method. In addition, if a millfill is
not properly separated from ground and/or'surface water, the
strong leachate produced by a millfill could have a severe
effect on the environment.
A completed millfill, like a balefill, has a greater
range of potential uses compared to a permitted sanitary
landfill. This is a result of increased structural stability.
177
-------
Uses include development as parks and recreational areas and
parking lots. ... . .
Strip Mine Landfilling .
Because of the existing strip pits, previously excavated
cover material (spoil)/ and existing access roads, a strip
mine landfill can be operated at a relatively lower cost
than a permitted sanitary landfill or either method of
volume reduction landfilling. This method of landfilling
has the additional benefit of land reclamation being simul-
taneously accomplished. Another possible advantage to this
method of landfilling might be the presence of railroads
leading to major cities which would facilitate the long-range
transport of wastes from metropolitan areas. ••.....,
Because of excavation which creates substantial highwalIs
in many strip mines, the volume of refuse per area may be
increased in comparison with a permitted sanitary landfill.
Steep slopes may minimize infiltration and therefore decrease
the potential volume of leachate generated. The leachate
produced by a strip mine landfill should be similar to that
produced by a permitted sanitary landfill. It tends to
neutralize acidity from acid mine drainage. Underclays that
often are present beneath coal control leachate migration.
Disadvantages of strip mine landfilling include the
absence of significant .thicknesses of soil for the attenuation
of. leachate which increases the pollution potential of the
landfill. The complex hydrogeoiogic conditions that are
associated with coal measures frequently increase the potential
for contamination; examples are the presence of perched
water tables, underclays, and impermeable shales as well as
a potential for the channeling of contamination through
fractures and bedding planes. The steep slopes that are
often found at strip mine landfills may promote erosion and
maintenance problems that are not found at permitted sanitary
-landfills, balefills, or millfills.
A strip mine landfill would be subject to blowing
paper, vectors, and odor problems similar to those of the
conventional type of landfill. However, because of the
remoteness of most strip mining areas, less public reaction
to this type of landfill may be anticipated. Because of
their relative remoteness, the transportation of refuse from
the place where it is generated to the landfill site may
involve greater-distances at strip mine landfills than at
other types of landfills. In addition, in the event that
mining were to' be resumed at a completed strip mine landfill,
environmental hazards and danger to miners could result from
efforts to remove refuse emplaced near the highwall. These
include the necessity of finding an alternative location for
178
-------
the partially-decomposed refuse and the need to protect
people handling such materials from the effects of methane
gas.
The uses of completed strip mine landfills are limited
because they generally lack proximity to populous areas. If
such a landfill is near an urban area, it could be used as a
recreational site. Otherwise, such sites are primarily
.reclaimed for aesthetic reasons.
PROJECTION OF THE OPTIMUM APPLICABILITY OF THE FIVE TYPES OF
LANDFILLS. TO VARIOUS GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
.When_ projecting the applicability -of the methods of
landf il ling discussed -in , this report, a primary .consideration
is the potential contamination of ground and surface waters.
Among the 'factors that must be considered when .siting landfills,
climate is perhaps the most important because the relationships
between precipitation, temperature, and evapotranspiration
determine... the amount of recharge to an area. The amount of ;
recharge is also affected by topography and vegetation. • •
Recharge, multiplied by the area of the base of a landfill
yields the potential volume of leachate, the factor by which ....
the effect of a landfill on the environment is measured.
'.;.''• The geology, soils,! and topography. .of a region .determine .
the capacity of the natural surroundings of 'a landfill site
.to ..accept and: attenuate pollutants. The type of bedrock
'(arid/or 'surf icial . geologic .deposits) beneath a landfill are, 1 • : :;
of basic importance because they determine the characteristic1 li
soils and topography of an. area. Geology also influences
ground-water movement. Depending on the type of bedrock and
the climate, physical and chemical weathering processes
produce varying conditions such as shallow depth to bedrock
(shallow soils),, thick saprolite, and even problems such as
sinkholes in limestone terrain. The conditions that are
-most desirable for a landfill site because they promote
attenuation include the presence. of thick saprolite,. ..thick ... -•
deposits of glacial till, other glacial sediments containing
clay and other unconsolidated sediments containing significant
amounts of clay. The presence of sand or gravel is undesirable
except in that they increase permeability and thereby increa-se
the amount of dilution and dispersion of contaminants. The
absence of soil and/or unconsolidated sediment is undesirable-..- ••
':''"".'•' The characteristics of the ground water in an area is a
•'•• primary concern. It is imperative that a substantial distance
exist between the base of a landfill and the top of the
. water table; all types of landfills have a great potential
I for the severe .contamination of ground-water resources if
they are located within the ground water. Even if a landfill.,
179 '
-------
is located above the apparent level of the water table,
seasonal variations and the tendency for mounding of ground
water within landfills must be considered. The natural
quality of the ground water should also be considered * if
it has already been degraded by geologic conditions, for
example, acid mine drainage, or if the ground water is
saline as in coastal areas, a landfill will have a relatively
diminished impact since such ground water cannot be considered
for use without treatment.
Finally,, the population of an area should be .considered.
The density of population determines the amount of refuse
produced and the rate at which it is produced. It also
affects the availability and cost of useful land. Considera-
tions of population may affect the preference for employing
volume reduction methods of landfilling compared to using
conventional methods.
The combination of the factors presented above makes
certain methods of lahdfilling more desirable in particular
geographic areas of the country;or where certain socio-
economic conditions prevail. ' .....;.- •
Hillfill ...."-I-." ;
Because a nilIfill increases the volume of refuse per
area and thus reduces the amount of/land required/fbrvlandfil-
ling, hillfills'are particularly suitable for'densely populated
areas. In addition, because their steep slopes increase.
surf ace runoff-and. minimiz'ei^irtfilferatiohi" the:: potential- '••'•••"•'• "•
volume of leachate is reduced.. Therefore, a hillfill may be
preferred over other methods of landfilling in humid regions.
However, because of the greater potential for ground water
mounding beneath a hillfill, care must be taken to avoid
areas with a shallow depth to ground water. ...
Balefills -,.-. . • •-,. .--•'-.'
Since balefilling greatly reduces,the volume of refuse
and facilitates resource recovery, it .is a.preferred method
for densely populated regions. Because a balefill.produces
a leachate of low strength and has a relatively low potential
for contamination, balefilling might be the best -method of
landfilling for the humid south, especially in areas with a
shallow depth to water, and in sandy coastal areas with
relatively little potential for attenuation. The benefits
of balefilling generally are not applicable to arid regions
because such areas are usually less populated. The environ-
mental advantage of having a lower pollution potential is
diminished in arid regions because the potential volume of
leachate in such regions would be small for any type of
landfill. •
180
-------
Millfills
A milIfill produces a strong leachate and so such a
landfill would be best located in areas having thick deposits
of unconsolidated sediments containing significant amounts
of clays. The glaciated northeast, the Great Lakes region,
and the Piedmont province in both the northeast and the
humid south are examples of areas suitable for milIfills.
They characteristically have geologic materials that can
attenuate the relatively strong and rapidly-produced leachate
of a milIfill, provided there is a substantial depth to
water beneath the landfill. Millfilling reduces the volume
of refuse and the size of the area needed for landfilling,
considerations which are advantageous in the densely populated
eastern portions of the country.
Strip Mine Landfills
Strip mine landfills are limited to areas of the country
which have been strip mined. Those located in the arid west
have the benefit of a climate that tends to limit the potential
volume of. leachate. Strip mine landfills are advantageous
primarily because strip mining areas are sparsely populated
and the previous development of the site for mining offers
certain economic benefits.
Permitted Sanitary Landfills
The conventional method of landfilling solid waste is
applicable, .throughout the country, but particularly in
sparsely populated arid areas where landfilling by the
trench method would offer the advantage of relatively low
cost. The conventional method of landfilling is also desirable
in glaciated regions and in older eroded mountainous regions
where saprolite is found. Use of the permitted sanitary
landfill (trench method) is not recommended for the humid
south or coastal plain regions because of the shallow depth
to water typical of such areas. Excavations for trenches
decrease the distance to the water table and thus increase
the pollution potential of the landfill.
181
-------
REFERENCES
1. Donahue, Jack and Harold B. Rollins, ed. Geology of
the Northern Appalachians Field Trip Guidebook. Depart-
ment of Geology and Planetary Science, Pittsburgh, PA,
1979, p.7.
2. Ham, -Anderson, Stegmann, Stanforth. Background study
on the development of a standard leaching test. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, EPA-600/2-79-109, May 1979, p.50.
3. Wigh, R. Boone County field site interim report test
cells 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Report 600/2-79-058, 1979, pp.124-159.
4. Wigh. Boone. County field site, pp. 106-123.
5. A. W. Martin Associates. Evaluation of the effect of
landfill Facility III on ground and surface water .
resources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste Management, 1979 (Unpublished report,
WH-564), Appendices D and E.
6. Bale out of solid waste problems. American City &
Country, 95(6) :75-77, June 1980, p.75.
7. Reinhairdt, J. J., and R. K. Ham. Final report on a
milling project at Madison, Wisconsin to investigate...
milling of solid wastes, 1966-1972, v.l. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management.
Milwaukee, The Heil Co., 1973, pp.48-63. . :,
8. Emrich, G. H., and R. A. Landon. Investigation of the
effects of sanitary landfills in coal strip mines on
ground water quality. Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources. Bureau of Water Quality
Management, Publication No. 30, 1971, pp.35-38.
9. Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. Use of
abandoned strip mine for disposal of solid waste in
Maryland, 1973, pp.18-47.
182
-------
10. Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. Use of
abandoned strip mine for disposal of solid waste, pp.47
and 57.
11. Emrich and Landon. Strip mine landfills' effects on
ground-water quality, pp.37-38.
12. A. W. Martin Associates, pp.62-77.
13. Wigh. Boone County field site, pp.105-177.
14. Wigh. Boone County field site, pp.106-123.
15. 'S'tone-,- R. Evaluation rof solid waste baling and balefil'ls, : >
. •.v.L.and. 2. Environmental Protection Publication SW-iiic.l.
:* Washington, U.S. Government. Printing Office, 1975, p. 102.
183
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baedecker, M. J., and W. Back. Hydrogeological process and
. .. chemical reactions at a landfill. Ground Water, 17(5):
429-437, September-October 1979.
Bale out of solid waste problems. American City & Country,
95(6) :75-77, June 1980.
Beck, Jr., W. M. Building an amphitheater and coasting ramp
of municipal solid waste. Environmental .Protection
Report SW-52d. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1973; 66p. -:;
Chian, DeWalle. Evaluation of leachate treatment, v.l:
Characterization of leachate. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Protection series,
EPA-600/2-77-186a, September 1977. 210p.
Emrich, G. H., and R. A. .Landon. Investigation of the
effects of sanitary landfills in coal strip mines on
ground water quality. Pennsylvania Department of
; Erivironmental, Resources. ^Bu±;eau/ of Watery Quality
Management,' Publication Noi; 30> 1971. 39p. V : ;
Ham, Anderson, Stegmann, Stanforth. Background study on the
development of a standard leaching test. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
EPA-600/2^79-109, May 1979. 248p.
A. W. Martin Associates. Evaluation ,of the.effect of landfill
Facility III on ground and surface water resources,-.:
O..S. -Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste Management, 1979 (Unpublished report, WH-564).
loip. • -• ' . " '•• ..- ";•••- . ....-.- •
Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. Use of
abandoned strip mine for disposal of solid waste in
Maryland, 1973. 193p.
Reinhardt, J. J., and R. K. Ham. Final report on a milling
project at Madison, Wisconsin to investigate milling of
solid wastes, 1966-1972, v.l. D.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management.
Milwaukee, The Heil Co., 1973. 127p.
184
-------
Stone, R. Evaluation of solid waste baling and balefills,
v.l and 2. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-iiic.l. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1975. 152p.
Wigh, R. Boone County field site interim report test cells 2A,
2B, 2C, and 2D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Report 600/2-79-058, 1979. 192p.
185
-------
APPENDIX A
WELL LOGS
MP *2
Date Drilled:
WELL LOGS - HILLFILL
December 1, 1972
Depth
0 - 24.0 m ( 0 - 80.0 ft)
Description
Drilled into Hillfill;
alternating layers of
refuse and cover.
MP II, #3, #4
Date Drilled:
December 7, .19.72
Depth
0
2.1 -
2.7 -
3.8 -
4.1 -
5.2 -
7.2 -
7.3 -
8.2 -
8.7 -
9.4 -
2.1m
2.7
3.8
4.1
5.2
7.2
7.3
8.2
8.7
9.4
18.0
( 0
( 7.0 -
( 9.0 -
(12.5 -
(13.5 -
(17.0 -
(23.5 -
(24.0 -
(27.0 -
(28.5 -
(30.8 -
7.0 ft)
9.0)
12.5)
13.5)
17.0)
23.5)
24.0)
27.0)
28.5)
30.8)
59.0)
18.0 - 19.2 (59.0 - 63.0)
Description
Grey clay fill.
Brown sandy silt.
Sandy gravel.
Black organic silt; wood
fragments at 4.1 m (13.5 ft)
Brown sandy clay.
Wet gravel. ••••••
Grey silty clay.
Sand and gravel; MP 14 com-
pleted at 7.9 m (25.9 ft).
Lense of sand and gravel.
Silt.
Gravel mixed with clay and
silt; MP 13 completed at
11.9 m (39.0 ft).
Fine sand, silt and clay;
MP #1 completed at 19:0 m
(62.4 ft).
186
-------
WELL LOGS - HILLFILL
(Continued)
MP #5, #6
Date Drilled:
December 9, 1972
Depth
0 - 1.5 m ( 0 - 5.0 ft)
1.5 - 6.9 ( 5.0 - 23.0)
6.9 - 9.9 (23.0 - 32.5)
,;9.9 r- 12.0 (32.5 - 39.4)
.12zfc:.-:$l.<:.3,... (.39.4 - 58.0)
Description
Till cover.
Brown sandy gravel; MP #5
completed at 5.2 m (17.2 ft)
Wet grey silty sand.
Sand; MP #6 completed at
10.6. m (34.8 ft).
Sandy silty clay; caved at
.12.2 m (40.0 ft) ; .
MP #9
Date .Drilled:
October 24, 1973.
Depth
0 -
1.5 -
: 3.6 -
1.
3.
4.
5; m
0
4:6 - 6.1
(. 5.0—
(10.0 -
5,0 -ft)
10.0)
15.0)
(15.0 - -20.0)
Description
Brown sandy clay. .:
Brown sandy clay with gravel.
Gravely with sandy clay,
some cobbles. . ::
Grey clay, some gravel." '.'
MP #10
Date. Drilled: November 14, 1978
Depth
0 - 2.6 m ( 0 - 8.4 ft)
2.6 - 3.6
3.6 - 4.. 4
4.4 - 5.0
( 8.4 - 11.8)
(.11.8 - 14.3.)
(14.3 - 16.2)
5.0 - 7.6 (16.2 - 25.0)
187
Description •-;
Medium to coarse gravel,
some silt and clay, light
brown.
Medium to coarse sand and
gravel, some clay. Moist.
Fine to medium sand, some
silt and clay, brown.
Coarse to medium sand, some
gravel and silt, grey. Wet
at 4.7 m..(15.5 ft) .
Medium to coarse gravel .and
fine to coarse sand, trace
of silt and clay, grey.
-------
MP #11
Da'te Drilled:
WELL LOGS - HILLFILL
(Continued)
October 14, 1974
Depth
0
0.
9 -
3.0 -
4.5 -
10.5 -
13.7 -
1.4.3 -
21.3 -
25.0 -
0.9 m
3.0
4.5.
10.5 "
13.7
14.3
21.3
25.0
45.7
CO
C 3.0
C10.0
(15.0
C35.0
(45.0
(47.0
(70.0
(.82.0
3.0 ftl
10.0)
,,15.01-
35.0}
45.01
47.01
70.0}
82.0)
150.0}
Description
Top soil.
Brown clay.
Grey clay.
Gravel.
Grey clay.
Gravel.
Grey clay.
Sand and gravel.
Dolomite.
MP #12
Date Drilled:
November 14, 1978
Depth
0 -.
0.5 -
0.8 --..-
1.5 -
2.6 -
0.5 m (. 0 -;:-~ ".\--lv5 •"•:
0.8
...1.5.
2.6
3.4
( 1. 5 -;
...C 2.5 --.
( 5.0 -
( 8.5 -
- 2^5)
5.0)
8.5)
11.0)
3.4 - 4.6 (11.0 - 15.01
Description
Black organic silty clay.
Brown .'•salty clay. •
Loess, some gravel.
Grey silty clay*; Damp.
Yellow brown medium to
coarse sand, some silt and
clay. -Wet at 2.6 m (8.5 ft)
Gravel and medivun to coarse
sand, some silt, brown.
Well logs for MP #13 and #1,5 were incomplete or unavailable.
188
-------
WELL LOGS - BALEFILL
MP #2
Date Drilled: August 15, 1978
Depth Description3
0 - 3.0m( 0 - 10.0 ft) Brown silt and clay, some
medium to coarse sand and
.... •-.....-.•--.... fine gravel, fill.
3.0.--012.2 : ( 10.0 - 40.0) Very fine to fine gravel,
. coarse to very coarse
""•-•. •'. , . .... sand, brown silt.
12.2 -f'21.3 ( 40.0 - '70.0) Medium to very coarse
.'...-•• . sand, some very fine
gravel and fragments,
trace of fine sand and
silt.
21.3'- 24";"4 ( 70.0 -... 80.0) Very fine to fine gravel
and medium to coarse
sand, some small fragments
and fine sand, trace
silt.
24.4 - 30.5 ( 80,. 0 .-, 100.0) Medium to coarse gravel,
. • medium to coarse sand,
some fragments and fine
. sand, trace silt.
30.5 - 33.5 . (100.0 - 110.0) Fine to medium sand, some
. ... coarse sand and fine to
. • medium gravel, trace of
fragments and silt.
33.5 - 39.6 (110.0 - 130.0) Fine to coarse sand and
medium to coarse gravel.
39.6 - 48.8 (130.0 - 160.0) Brown silt, fine to
coarse sand and very fine
gravel, trace of fragments,
48.8'.r .Sl'JS (160.0 - 170.0) Light brown fine sand,
trace of coarse sand.
51.8 - 60.4 (170.0 - 198.0) Fine to medium gravel,
some medium to coarse
sand, trace of fine sand
and silt.
a Colors where not indicated variegated grey to brown.
189
-------
WELL LOGS - BALEFILL
(Continued)
"MP #6
12.2 - 15.2 ( 40.0 - 50.0) Fine to medium gravel,
trace of coarse sand.
15.2-18.3 ( 50.0 - 60.0) Very fine to medium
gravel, some brown silt,
clay and coarse sand.
18.3 - 21.3 (' 60.0 - 70.0) Coarse to very coarse
sand and very fine to
fine gravel, trace of
brown clay and silt.
21.3 - 24.4 (70.0 - 80.0) Fine to medium gravel
and medium to coarse
sand, trace of brown clay
and silt.
24.4-27.4 ( 80.0 - 90.0) Fine to medium gravel and
medium to coarse sand.
27.4 - 39.6 ( 90.0 - 130.0) Medium to very coarse
sand, some very fine to
fine gravel, trace of
' . • • : -.• .fragments.
39.6 - 42.7 (130.0 - 140.0) Very fine to medium
gravel and coarse sand,
" some brown silt and clay,
trace of medium sand.
42.7 - .54.9 (.140.0 - 180.0). . . Medium to very coarse
;, ... . sand, some very fine to
fine gravel and fragments,
. : . •'" trace of fine sand.
MP #7
Date Drilled: August 24, 1978
Depth •••• . '" Description3
0 - 3.0 m ( 0 . r-•• ;10.;0; ft) Coarse, to very coarse
sand and very fine gravel,
trace of brown clay and
silt.
3.0 - 6.1 ( 10.0 - 20.0) Coarse to very coarse
sand and very fine gravel,
trace of brown clay and
silt.
a Colors where not indicated variegated grey to brown.
190
-------
MP #4
45.7 - 48.8
48.8 - 61.0
WELL LOGS - BALEFILL
(Continued)
(150.0 - 160.0)
(160.0 - 200.0)
Pine to coarse sand, some
fine to medium gravel.
Medium to coarse sand,
some fine sand, trace of
very fine to fine gravel.
MP #5 . ••"• .. ....
Date.. Drilled: May 10 > 1978'
Depth
o . .-.
1.2 -
12.8 -
13.7 -
18.3 -
19.5 -
31-4 ..;-
37. 5- ••"-'
49J7-
51 . 8,..V
^64vO' -T
68.6 ''^-
1.2 m
12.8
13.7
18.3
19.5
31.4 .
37.5
4 9-. 7: -.;
51. B;
64.0
6 $. "6.':-';--
J69.2 ! '
( 0 -
( 4.0 -
( 42.0 -
( 45.0 -
( 60.0 -
( 64.0 -
(103.0 -
(1.23.0 -
(163.0 r
(17.0.0 -
-(210.0 -:
(225.0 -
4.0 ft)
42.0)
45.0)
60.0)
64.0)
103.0)
123.;0) .
163:. 0)
170.0) /•-'
210.0)
-225.0)
227vO) ;;
Description
Top soil.
Gravel. .-, , ,
Clay.
Gravel.
Clay.
Gravel.
Clay.
Fine sand.... •
Clay.
Fine, dirty sand.
Sandstone... . . :
Limestone1: "••.
MP #6
Date Drilled: August 22> 1978
Depth ,..-
' • fc. - i •" •* '
0 - 3.0 m ( 0 > 10.0 ft)
3.0 - 6.1 ( 10.0 - 20.0)
6..1 -.12.2 ( 20.0 - 40.0)
Description3
Grey-brown clay and
silt, some fine to coarse
sand, and refuse, fill.
Light brown, fine-to
medium sand; clean.
Coarse to very coarse
sand, some fine to medium
sand.
a Colors where not indicated variegated grey to brown.
191
-------
WELL LOGS - BALEFILL
(Continued)-.
MP #4
Date Drilled:
August 1-7, 1978
Depth
0 - 3.0 m ( 0 - 10.0 ft)
•3.0 - 6.1 { 10.0 - 20.0)
. 6.1 - 9.1 . ( 20.0.:.* ..30..0:)
9.1 - 12.2 (30.0-40.0)
12.2 - 18.3 ( 40.0-60.0)
18.3 - 24.4 ( 60.0 - 80.0)
24.4 • -' 27.4- - ;^:"8;0;'.6^;;t^0^0);^-'::v
27.4 - 30.5 ( 90.0 - 100.0)
30.5 - 33.5 (100.0-110.0)
33.5 - 36.6. (110.0 r 120.U)
36.6 - 39.6 (120.0 - 130.0)
39.6 - 45.7 (130.0 - 150.0)
Description .
Brown fine gravel, some
silt and medium to coarse
sand.
Light brown silt and very
fine gravel, some fine to
coarse sand.
Very fine to fine gravel,
some silt and fine to
,coarse sand and fragments.
Medium to very\ coarse ,
sand., some very fine to
.fine gravel. - - • '-''"
Very fine to fine gravel
and :medium to coarse
sand.
Medium to very coarse
sand, some very fine to
fine gravel;and fine
-.sand..,' •' , \ " ' -.:'"•
:Pineivteo> mediiiin :,grayel,
some medium to coarse
sand.
Coarse to very coarse
sand, some medium sand
and very fine gravel,
trace of small fragments.
Fine to coarse gravel and
medium to very coarse
sand. , ': . •.-, - ••_' • • -•_;_...
JMedium to coarse, sand,
some very fine to fine
gravel .and f ragments -vj ;•> •-
Brown clay, silt and fine
to medium sand, trace of
fragments.
Fine to coarse sand,
trace of very fine gravel
and fragments.
a Colors where not indicated variegated grey to brown.
192
-------
MP #7
WELL LOGS - BALEFILL
(Continued)
6.1 - 12.2 ( 20.0 - 40.0) Medium to very coarse
sand.
12.2 - 18.3 ( 40.0 - 60.0) Coarse to very coarse
sand and very fine to
•fine gravel, trace of
brown silt and clay.
18.3-21.3 ( 60.0 - 70.0) Coarse to very coarse
sand and very fine to
-•-... fine gravel, some medium
gravel, brown silt and
. ..-,. clay.
21.3 - 27.4 ( 70.0 - 90.0) Medium to very coarse
sand.
27.4-30.5 ( 90.0 - 100.0) Brown clay, some fine
••-... to coarse sand, little
fine to medium' gravel.
30.5 - 36.6 (100.0 - 120.0) Medium to coarse sand,
trace of very fine to
fine gravel..
36.6 - 45.7 (120.0 - 150.0) Medium to coarse sand,
trace of fine sand.
193
-------
WELL LOGS - MILLFILL
MP #1
Date Drilled:
June 20, 1974
Depth
0
0.6 -
1.8 -
2.7 -
4.0 -
6.4 -
8.2 -
9.1 -
11.0 -
11.9 -
12.2 -
13.1 -
0.6m
1.8
2.7
4.0
6.4
8.2
9.1
11.0
11.9
12.2
13.1
13.4
( 0 -
( 2.0 -
( 6.0 -
( 9.0 -
(13.0 -
(21.0 -
(27.0 -
(30.0 -
(36.0 -
(39.0 -
(40.0 -
(43;0 -
2.0 ft)
6.0)
9.0)
13.0)
21.0)
27.0)
30.0)
36.0) ,
39.0)
40.0)
43.0)
44.0)
Description
Fill and loam.
Yellow clay.
Grey clay and gravel.
Fine sand.
Fine to coarse brown sand.
Sand, stones and clay.
Sand, gravel, water.
Soft, grey clay.
Sand, gravel, clay
Fine soft sand, silt with
gravel, water.
Compact soft sand, trace of
gravel.
Coarse sand, gravel, water.
:MP #4
Date Drilled: April 30, 1974
Depth
0 - 1.5 m ( 0 - 5.0 ft)
1.5 - 6.1 ( 5.0 - 20.0)
Description
Brown moist fine sand and
fine to coarse gravel.
Grey moist fine sand and
fine to coarse gravel;
boulders.
MP #5
Date Drilled: April 30, 1974
Depth
0 - 6.1 m ( 0
Description
- 20.0 ft) Brown moist fine sandy silt
and fine to coarse gravel;
boulders.
194
-------
WELL LOGS - MILLFILL
(Continued)
MP #6
Date Drilled: November 28, 1978
Depth
0 - 1.8m(0 - 6.0 ft)
1.8; - .: 6vl.;. C .6. 0 - 20. 0)
e;i - ; ?.e (20.0 - 25.0)
7.6. -..10,7 (25.0 - 35.0)
MP 47
Date Drilled: November 28, 1978
Description
Grey medium gravel and
brown soil.
Brown fine sand and silt, .
minor clay and medium gravel.
Brown fine to medium sand,
minor clay. Damp.
Grey to brown, fine to coarse
sand, minor clay. Wet.
V
• o
Depth . ,
;.0 • - 1.8; m ( 0 -,\ 6.0 ft)
1.8 - 6/1 ( 6.0 -20.0) /
6.1 - 9.1 (20.0 - 30.01
Description
Grey medium gravel and
boulders, minor soil.
Grey''fine to medium gravel, '*
minor clay, silt and boulders.
Damp at 4.5 m (15 ft).
Medium to coarse gravel, minor
clay and silt. Wet.
Well Logs for MP #2 were unavailable.
195
-------
WELL LOGS - STRIP MINE LANDFILL
Date Drilled; July 19, 1978
Depth
0
2.4 -
5.8 -
10.7 -
19.8 -
21.9 -
25.3 -
25.9 -
37.2 -
38.1 -
38.4 -
2.4 m
5.8
10.7
19.8
21.9
25.3
25.9
37.2
38.1
38 . 4
48.8
( 0 -
( 8.0 -
( 19.0 -
(35.0 -
( 65.0 -
( 72.0 -
(83.0 -
( 85.0 -
(122.0 -
(125.0 -
(126.0 -
8.0 ft)
19.0)
35.0)
65.0)
72.0)
83.0) .
85.0)
122.0)
135.0).
126.0)
160.0)
.Description
Weathered brown shale
with some clay layers.
Alternating beds of
clay and decomposed shale.
Brown shale.
Grey shale. ,
Black shale (carboniferous)
Grey shale.
Coal.
Grey shale.
Coal.
Clay and grey shale.
Grey shale.
MP. #6
Date Drilled: July 19, 1978
Depth
0 - 1.5m (
1.5 - 1.7
5.5 - in.7
L ,r Description
0 - 5.0 ft) Brown sandy shale
(backfill).
5.0 - 5.5) Coal, water at 1.5 m (5.0 ft)
5\5 - 35.0) Brown shale.
'MP #7
Date Drilled:
July 19, 1978
Depth
0 - 3.0 m ( 0
- 10.0 ft)
3.0 - 4.6
4.6 - 5.2
5.2 - 7.6
7.6 - 16.8
16.8 - 17.4
17.4 - 24.4
( 10.0 -
( 15.0 -
(17.0 -
( 25.0 -
( 55.0 -
( 57.0 —
15.0)
17.0)
25.0)
55.0)
57.0)
80.0)
Description
Alternating fill and
brown shale.
Brown shale.
Coal.
Grey shale.
Brown shale.
Coal.
Grey shale, water
at 18.3 m (60.0 ft).
196
-------
WELL LOGS - PERMITTED SANITARY LANDFILL
MP #1
Date Drilled: January 1975
Depth
0 - 16.5 m ( 0
16; 5'- .17. 1 • - (54.0
17.1 - 20.1 (.56.0
- 54.0 ft)
56.0)
66.0)
Description
Glacial till, grey to brown
clay, silt, weathered shale,
cobbles, boulders.
Weathered shale. .
Grey shale, layered, vary-
ing in hardness, and color
(grey) to bedrock.
MP #2" •••-•""•"•• -,.••-
Date Drilled: January 1975
.Depth
•' 0 . - 15.5 m. ( 0 - 51.0 ft)
-';'_-....,. •" - - . •
15.5 - 30.5 (51.0 - 100.0)
Description
Glacial till, grey to brown
clay, silt, weathered shale,
cobbles, boulders.
Grey shale, layered, varying
in hardness and color (grey)
to bedrock.
MP #3 •
Date Drilled: January 1975
Depth
0 - 1.2.m (0 - 4.0 ft)
1.2 - 6.. 1 ( 4.0 - 20.0)
6.1 - 19.'2" (20.0 - 63.0)
Description
Cover material and solid
waste.
Glacial till, grey to brown
clay, silt, weathered shale,
cobbles, boulders.
Grey shale, layered, varying
in hardness and color (grey)
to bedrock.
197
-------
WELL LOGS - PERMITTED SANITARY LANDFILL
(Continued)
MP #4
Date Drilled: November 1977
Depth
0 - 1.1 m ( 0 - 3.5 ft)
1.1 - 31.1 ( .3.5 - 102.0)
Description
Glacial till, grey brown
shaley clay..
Grey shale, layered, vary-
ing in hardness and color
(grey) to bedrock.
MP #5
'Date Drilled: November 1977
Depth
.0 - . 6 m ( 0
.6 - .8 ( 2.0
. ..8 - 13-. 3 (,.2.5
2.0 ft)
2.5)
43..5J
13.3 - 31.1 (43.5 - 102.0)
Description
Cover material, brown grey
clay and small shale frag-
ments.
Fill wood fragments.
Glacial till,, grey to brown
clay, silt, weathered shale,
cobbles, boulders.
Grey shale, layered, vary-
ing in hardness and color
(grey) to bedrock.
MP #6 .
Date Drilled: November 1977
Depth
0 - 19.2 m (0 - 63.0 ft)
19.2 - 20.7 (63.0 - 68.0)
Description " • -
Glacial till, grey to brown
clay, silt, weathered shale,
cobbles, boulders.
Grey shale, bedrock.
Well logs for MP 19 and 110 were unavailable.
198
-------
vo
- , '.-.•-" APPENDIX B :^ ' ,
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES ' !
U.S. STANDARD -SIEVE SIZ£ ..'
3" NO 4 NO.IO M0,40 N0.200
"
CO
"
I 9n-
t\.
•
\
\
\
\
>
';••.- -/ •
\
•• \
>v
\
\
^""••s*.
1
'— -,
' : •'• "•
. '•'- ''. .
. c
-^,
1000
.2.0
.03
-Coarse Fragmantz-
Sond
-Sill
.002 .001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure B-l. Hillfill, MP #10 - Outwash 2.6 - 4.6m
' ' •, (8.5 - 15.0 ft.)
-------
O
O
3"
IOO
l_ 8O-
0
UJ
*
>- en.
0 60
IT
Z
E 40
»-
Ul
O
K
Ul 2O-
S iv
0-
'•'-'• 6'
\
.
U.S. STANDARO SIEVE SIZE
r NO 4 NO^IO. N0440 Na200
\
^v
V ":"
\:
s
tf
• '-•;•
''•-'':• •
^'f . '
^X^ •'
:!' : •:.-' ."N
V.' 'i :
"'^x.
'•^' ' -':-
noo
2.0
.03
.OOZ .001
-Coarse Fragments-
Sand •
.Silt
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure" B-Z. Hillfill, MP #10 - Qutwash 4.1 - 6.1 m
(13.5 - 20.0 ft)
-------
O
3'
100
X
o
UJ
>• An.
£ bo
DC
z
h-
Ul
o
ce
Ul 20-
Q. 1
0-
\
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
NO 4 NOMO NO 40 N0.2OO
\
\
\
\
\
\
1000 2
S^
\
^^
^^"1
•*•*
0 .0
• Sand - — — «•
5. .0
.. Sill -1
52 .00
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure B-3. Hillfill, MP #10 - Outwash 7.2 - 7.6 m
(23.5 - 25.0 ft)
-------
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
3'
100
X
o
Ul
$
N> ID
0
1-
z
Ul '
o
oc
Ul 9t\-
UJ 20
Q
1000
>• Frogm
NO
V
4 NO
2
10 NO,
-
40 NO.:
\
\
\
\
\
!OO
N
0 .C
^
^-v^
5 .0
. Silt t
— •••.
32 .00
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure B-4. Hillfill, MP #10 - Loess 1.1 - 1.5 m
(3.5 - 5.0 ft)
-------
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE '
NO. 200
a :
: X
' O
£ '
to m *°
0
U) CC
2
^ 40-
H
Z
kl
O
cr
uj 9n-
u 20
Q
looo ;
N
»3 Fragm
nw
\
\
\
\
- \
•» wu
\
2
ll>, «U
-•: '• ' /
\^
^
.,
'-_ ." •
^^
"^^.
-^
.0 .0
• — -*_ '
^^^^ 1
5 .0
IK SHf V
" i
32 .00
,-ClQy-
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure B-5. Hillfill, MP #l'2.v- Outwash 2.6 - 4.6 m
. (.8.5 .- 15.0 ft)
-------
10
o
.3" •
100
z
0
Ul
,flD
DC
2
V.
Z
UJ
U
IK
a.
0.
1000
le Fro gin
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
N&4 NO.IO N0\
•-..;••• . '-. ;. .
\ '-'
\
\
\
o c
• -an
,^ ,: •
/"\^
5 .0
• Silt L
— — .
)2 .00
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure B-6. Balefill, MP #2 - Some till, sand, and gravel
2.1 - 6.4 m
(7.0 - 21.0 ft)
-------
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
100
X
0
UJ
5
00
z
**" 4ft-
z
UJ ""
u
IE
U) 30-
o.
o
3"
\
-
NO-
~\
4 NO
"•^^
1000 2
10 NO,
x.
\
\
40 NO.:
\
\
\
\
X
!00
• — .
0 -C
. Sand .
• _ ..
* .0
"' i
)2 .00
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure B-7. Balefill, MP #2 - Sand and gravel 7.5 - 12.5 m
(24.5 - 41.0 ft)
-------
100
80
X
19
10
o
CTl
£60
I
z
Ul
u
£20
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
NO 4 NO. 10 N0,40 NO. 200
1000
2.0
.09
.002 .001
-Coarse FVogment*-
Sond
.Silt
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure B-8. Balefill, MP #2 - Sand and gravel 13.6 - 14.0 m
(44.5 - 46.0 ft)
-------
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
NO. 200
lOOi
X
o
111
GQ
K
Z
H
lil
O
ft.
Q
1000
1
'
:e Frogm
rouj
v reu
^^^
2
• iu , rau<
Sv ' '
\
•N
V
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
^_
.0 .0
5 .0
-, 5i|f r
)2 .00
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure B-9. Balefill, MP #2 - Sand and gravel 15.1 - 15.5 m
(49.5 - 51.0 ft)
-------
100
3°
60
o
O "T
00 „.
Ill
40
UJ
O
DC
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
N04 W.I N040 NO-200
1000
2.0:
.05
-Coorse Frogn>»n»»-
Sond •
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
.Silt
.002 .001
Figure B-10. Millfill, MP #6 - Outwash 3.0 - 10.7 m
(10.0 - 35.0 ft)
-------
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
NO- 200
3 1
X
UJ
I>J 00
s & .
"" Af\
f-
z
UJ
o
o:
UJ gu-
ii.
0-
NU-
\
\
\
\
H NU
\
^
IOOO 2
IU NU
.
\^
\^
^^*,
^>
0 .0
^-_
5 .0
•—->_
)2 .00
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure B-ll. Millfill, MP #7 - Outwash 3.0 - 6.1 m
(10.0 - 20.0 ft)
-------
100
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
NO-4 NO.10 NO 40 NO. 200
60
X
o
UJ
40
z
UJ
o
tc.
UJ20
\
1000
2.0
.05
-Coarse Frogm«n(j-
Sand
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
.Silt
Figure B-12. Millfill, MP #7 - Outwash 7.6 - 9.1 m
(25.0 - 30.0 ft)
.002 .001
-------
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
NO- 200
a
IOO;
I
O
bi
(D
CC
2
"• 40
1-
2
Ul
o
cc
bl 2O-
0.
1000
ie Fragm
nu-
x
; \
\
*
«» rau
\
V
2
IU MU.
•'• , " .
\
>\
. . .
.^—-^
•^N,
0 .0
• •'-' ' ';"•
1
^ '•• •;
X
3 . .0
^
)2 .00
r
Figure B-13.
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Permitted Sanitary Landfill, MP #6 - Glacial Till
0.3 - 1.5 m
(1.0 - 5.0 ft):;:. . •.. • ':
-------
U. S. STA N DA R OS IE V E SIZE
J— 8O-
X
0
lil
V
>• an-
St 60
Z
tu •
U
«
111 2O-
£ zo
0;
to
•• • • 3
. . ' :- •
00
i" ; •
•;: •:.
••.'.: '':••'
NO
\
\
\
4 NO
V
\
::'
10 NO,
&S
¥' N
*''.••• '-•'.--
•;" ; , - -
40 NO.
' '
oo
«*^
••:
.0
• ~
•-•; - • - •
5 .0
. ... Silt , ._..
-»-.
>2 .00
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure B-14. Permitted Sanitary Landfill, MP #6 - Glacial Till
3.0 - 6.1m
(10.0 - 20.0 ft)
-------
to
!-•
U)
•' J.
I- BO-
Z
0
UJ
CD
oc
z
**" dfi-
i-
•z.
UJ "1
o
UJ 20-
Q.
o
.
1000
sa Frogm
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
N04 NO-10 N0,40 NO-2OO
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
2
V
\^
^^^^
0 .0
"^-^^
5 .0
. Silt i
-- —
)2 .00
.-Cloy-
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Figure B-15. Permitted Sanitary Landfill, MP #6 - Glacial Till
7.6 - 10.7 m
(25.0 - 35.0 ft)
-------
APPENDIX C
WATER ELEVATIONS
Water Elevations from Monitoring Points - Hillfill3' b
XP'' I Date
lc
• 2d
" 3el
4f
59
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
5/78
11/78
1/79
4/79
7/79
Average
5/78
11/78
'" • ,l/79'
•"-••• - 4/79 • ••'••
.7/79 "• '
.:• ;. -Average .'. :',-- • .
" 5/78 '. '"
11/78
1/79
4/79
7/79
Average
5/78 .-.
11/78
1/79
4/79
7/79
Average
5/78
11/78
1/79
4/79
7/79
Average
Depth to
water (TOO
7.62 (25.00)
7.92 (25.98)
"7.84 (25.72)
6.79 (22.27)
7.78 (25.541
7.59 (24;90)
14.23 (46.70)
14.33 (47.00)
14.11 (46.30)
14.05 (46.10)
14.04 (46.05)
...TTTTS" (46.43) ." ,; .
6.22 (20.40)
6.84 (22.43)
6.71 (22.00)
5.26 (17.25)
6.22 (20.411,
6.25 (20.50)
5.39 (17.70)
6.55 (21.48)
6.43 (21.10)
4.97 (16.30).
5.^8 (19.621
5.86 (19.24)
3.51 (11.50)
3.93 (12.90)
3.74 (12.28)
3.41 (11.20)
4.11 (13.50)
3.74 (12.28)
All data in meters (feet).
No data available for HP til, 13, 15.
Elevation top of casing (TOO 220.66 m
Elevation top of casing (TOO 244.97 m
Elevation top of casing (TOO 220.67 m
Elevation top of casing (TOO 220.66 m
Elevation top of casing (TOO 219.44 m
Elevation
.. ' • • Water Table
213.04
212.74
:•" -212^82
213.87
•:••. •.'212..--8-8-'
213.07
230.73
230.64
.230.86
:"-"' -230.92
, 230.93
'.-,•- ,, •230.82.
'.•"-;':•!,{-;' **"••"'•'<•••"• -'•".•:
'' "'"' '214.45.'
213.83
213.96
215.41
214.45
214.42
215.27
214.11
214.23
215.69
214.68
214.80
215.94
215.51
215.70
216.03
215.33
215.70
(723.95 ft)
(803.70 ft)
(723.97 ft)
(723.95 ft)
(719.95 ft)
(698.95)
(697.97)
(698.23) • -
(701.68)
(698'. 41)
(699.05)
(757.00)
(756.70)
.(757. .40).
•(757; 60) '
'(757.65)'
.f>5.7.27l- „
'(703*.S7)
(701.54)
(701.97)
(706.72)
(7Q3.56)
(703.47)
(706.25)
(702.47)
(702.85)
(707.65)
(704.331
(704.71)
(708.451
(707.05)
(707.67)
(708.75)
(706.45)
(7Q7.67)
214
-------
Water Elevations from Monitoring Points - Hillfillc
(Cont.)
MP#
Depth to
Date Water (TOO
6h 5/78 3.54 (11.60)
::.••••" 11/78 ... 3.96 (13.00)
91
i2k
h
i
j
k
Average 3.75 (12.30)
. ''.-... 5/78 ••'""•• 1.49 ( 4."9.0)
11/78 2.59 ( 8.50)
1/79 2.26 ( 7.40)
4/79 1.59 ( 5.21)
7/79 2.40 ( 7.88)
... .-Average 2.07 (6.78)
11/78 5.41 (17.75)
••'• . 1/79 5.17 (16.97)
4/79 5.09 (16.70)
7/79 5.04 (16.52)
' Average 5.18 (16.99)
'•'•• 11/78 ' • -1.75 r-"5.,7.3)' V • ••':'•
1/79 1.73 ( S.-67)
4/79 1.53 ( 5.01)
7/79 2.03 ( 6.65)
Average 1.76 ( 5.77)
Elevation top of casing (TOO 219.47 m
Elevation top of casing (TOO 216.56 m
Elevation top of casing (TOG) 216.23 m
Elevation top of casing (TOG) 216.10 m
Elevation
Water Table
215.93 (708.44)
215.51 (707.04)
215.72. (707.74) ,.
215.07 (705.60)
213.97 (702.00)
214.30 (703.10)
214.97 (705.29)
214.16 (702.62)
214.49 (703.72)
210.81 (691.65)
211.05 (692.43)
211.13 (692.70)
211. 19 (692.88)
211.05- (692.41)
"'•• 214.^36 (703.-27)
"214.37' (703.33)
214.58 (703.99)
214.08 (702.35)
214.34 (703.23)
(720.04 ft).
(710.50 ft)
(709.40 ft)
(709.00 ft)
215
-------
Water Elevations from Monitoring Points - Balefill
a> b
•MP #
2C
4d
6e
-
7f
a
b
c
d
e
f
Date
8/78 ••'••."
11/78
1/79
4/79
.., 7/79
Average
8/78
11/78
1/79
4/79
-.-. •=• '.7/79- •-'• ;•• -
Average
8/78
11/78
1/79
4/79
7/79 ' '
Average
8/78
11/78
1/79
4/79
7/79
Average
Depth to
Water (TOO
. • • • .
51.97 (170.50)
51.24 (168.12)
51.25 (168.15)
51.16 (167.85)
,51.08 (167.60)
51.34 (168.44)
53.22 (174.;60)
.-.; .52.82 (173.30)
52.74 (173.02;)
: 52.76 (173.10)
52,65 (172v72)
52.84 (173.35)
45.34 (148.75)
- 44.71 (146.70)
44.69 (146.61)
; 44.60 (146.32) .
44.52 (146.07)
44.77 (146.89)
34.75 (114.00)
33.51 (109.95)
33.38 (109.50)
33.45 (109.75)
,33.36 (109.45)
33.69 (110.53)
Elevation
Water Table
.222.98 (731.57)
223.71 (733.95)
223.70 (733.92)
223.79 (734.22)
223.87 (734^.47)
223.61 (733.63)
223.23 (732.37)
223.62 (733.67)
223.71 (733.95)
223.68 (733.87)
223. 80. ;( 734. 25) .
223.61 (733.62)
224.67 (737.10)
225.29 (739.15)
225.32 (739.24)
. - 225.41 (739.53)
225.48 (739.. 78)
225.24 (738.96)
233.50 (766.09)
234.74 (770.14)
234,88 (770.59)
234.80 (770.34)
234.89 (770.64)
234.56 (769.56)
All data in meters (feet) .
No data available
Elevation top of
Elevation top of
Elevation top of
Elevation top of
for MP IS.'.
casing (TOO 274.95
casing (TOO 276.44
casing (TOO 270.00
casing (TOO 268.25
m (902.07 ft)
m (906.97 ft)
m (885.85 ft)
m (880.09 ft)
216
-------
Water Elevations from Monitoring Points - Millfill3'
MP #
2C
4d
6e
7f:'
a
b ...
c.
d
e
f
Date
12/78
2/79
5/79
8/79
Average
12/78
. 2/79
5/79
! ' 8/79
Average
12/78
2/79
5/79
8/79
Average
12/78
2/79
5/79
8/79
Average
Depth to
Water (TOC)
3.29 (10.80)
2.50 ( 8.20)
2.28 ( 7.49)
3.12 (10.25)
2.80 ( 9.19)
1.57 ( 5.15)
1.40 ( 4.60)
1.58 ( 5.20)
1.42 ( 4.65)
1.49 ( 4.90)
7.32 (24.00)
6.78 (22.25)
6.17 (20.23)
6.90 (22.65)
6.79 (22.28)
5.52 (18.10)
4.50 (14.75)
4.14 (13.58)
5.22 (17.12)
4.84 (15.89)
Elevation
Water Table
243.73 (799.63)
241.53 (792.43)
244.80 (803.14)
243.96 (800.38)
243.50 (798.90)
264.28 (867.05)
264.44 (867.60)
264.26 (867.00)
264.43 (867.55)
264.35 (867.30)
246.98 (810.30)
247.51 (812.05)
248.13 (814.07)
247.39 (811..65)
247.50 (812.02)
243.11 (797.60)-'-
244.13 (800.95)
244.49 (802.12)
243.41 (798.58)
243.78 (799.81)
All .data in meters (feet).
No data available
Elevation top of
Elevation top of
Elevation top of
Elevation top of
for MP #1, 5.
casing (TOC) 247.08 m
casing (TOC) 265.85 m
casing (TOC) 254.29 m
casing (TOC) 248.63 m
(810.63 ft)
(872.20 ft)
(834.30 ft) . ..
(815.70 ft)
217
-------
Water Elevations from Monitoring Points - Strip Mine Landfill3
MP # Date
5b 9/78
12/78
2/79
5/79
8/79
Average
6C 8/78
12/78
2/79
5/79
8/79
Average
7d , ,. ,8/78
'.•"•-.-•': - 12/78
2/79
...'.. 5/79
... ,;.,;• .3/79
Average
a All data
b Elevation
c Elevation
d Elevation
Depth to
Water (TOC)
38.38 (125.92)
38.26 (125.53)
38.37 (125.90)
38.55 (126.47)
38.40 (126.00)
38.39 (125.96)
1.73 ( 5.68)
1.59 ( 5.23)
1.84 ( 6.05)
1.61 ( 5.27)
1.54 ( 5.06)
1.66 ( 5.46)
13.56 ( 44.50)
13.52 (44.36)
13.62 ( 44.70)
:.'. ' v. ;: , :-.- 13;. 61 ( ;44.66) •'•-•„ V.
:.:•''..•:•• ..,•/.-.• r;-:1;, '•• 13. 59 ;•(• • 44'-.":60)^ ^' :•-•> :
13.58 ( 44.56)
in meters (feet) .
top of casing (TOO 516.41 m
top of casing (TOC) 487.36 m
top of casing .(TOO 488.08 m
Elevation
Water Table
478.03 (1568.33)
478.15 (1568.72)
478.03 (1568.35)
477.86. (1567.78)
478.00 (1568.25)
478.01 (1568.29)
485.63 (1593.27)
485.77 (1593!i72)
485. 52, (1592. 90)
485.75 (1593.68)
485.82 (1593.89)
485.70 (1593.49)
474.51 (1556.80)
474.56 (1556.94)
474.45 (1556.60)
-474.46 (1556.64)
'474 V48 (1556.70)
474.49 (1556.74)
(1694.25 ft)
(1598.95 ft)
.(1601.30 ft)
218
-------
Water Elevations from
Monitoring Points - Permitted Sanitary Landfill'
MP f
lb
2c
.3d.
'•?. •'•''• ':' "•
4e
•a :" "
b
c •••- •
..d
e
Date
;12/78'
2/79
5/79
8/79
Average
12/78
.-.-"". 2/?9
5/79
8/79
Average
12/78
•; 2/79
5/79
•.-;,•-.;•.. V 8/7 9
:-: Average:
12/78
2/79
5/79
8/79
Average
Depth to
Water (TOC)
"•"".'.. '":'..'?."""";14-.43-"-(47.''3'5V'- '
14.39 (47.20)
• ..14.43 (47.3-3)
...14.52 (47.65) ...
14.44 (47.38)
15.61 (51.20)
15.13 (49.65)
15.22 (49.95)
15.49 (50.82)
15.36 (50.41)
13.35 (43.80)
"•,-. . ., 1 :V13.21 (43.35)
13.26 (43.51)
-.- • U3..44 (44.08) .•-.;,
•: -".••- 1;.':':13-V32\ (43^690 ;: ' -
6.34 (20.80)
"'"•- 4.48 (14.70)
4.30 (14.10)
5.13 (16.83)
5.06 (16.61)
All data in meters (feet).
Elevation top of. casing (TOG) 333.97 m
Elevation top of casing (TOC) 339.07 m
Elevation top of casing (TOC) 342.15 m
Elevation top of casing (TOC) 349.26 m
Elevation
Water Table
' .319.54. .(1048. 35.)
319.58 (1048.50)
319.54 (1048.37) ,,
319.45 (1048.05)
319.53 (1048.32)
323.47 (1061.25)
,.323 ..94.. (1062.80) .
323.85 (1062.50)
323.58 (1061.63)
323.71 (1062.05)
328.80 (1078.75) .
328.94 (1079.20)
328.89 (1079.04)
: 328.72 (1078.47) -
..-328.84* (1078~. 87) '•
342.92 (1125.05)
34.4.. 77. ..(1131. 15)
344.96 (1131.75)
.....344*13 (.1129.02)
344.19 (1129.24)
(1095.70 ft)
(1112.45 ft) '
(1122.55 ft)
(1145.85 ft)
219
-------
Water Elevations from
Monitoring Points - Permitted Sanitary Landfill (Cont.)
MP #
5f
eg
f
g
Date
12/78
2/79
5/79
8/79
Average
12/78
2/79
5/79
8/79
Average
Elevation
Elevation:
Depth to
Water (TOG)
22.46 (73.70)
17.10 (56.10)
17.03 (55.88)
..17:. 36 (56. 95) .-.-•.-.
,.,18.49 (60.66)
-..',:' 12.60 (41.33)
12.34 (40.50)
12.42 (40.75) •••"
12.80 .(42.00)
12.54 (41.15)
top of casing (TOG) 340.00 m
top of casing (TOG) 338. 24 m
Elevation
Water Table
317.54 (1041.80)
322.91 (1059.40)
322.97 (1059.62)
322. 65. ..-,(1058. 55)
321.52 (1054.84)
325.64 (1068.37)
325.89 (1069.20)
' 325.82 (1068.95)
325.43 (1067.70)
325.70 (1068.56)
(1115.50 ft)
.(1109.70 ft)
220
-------
APPENDIX D
HISTORICAL CHEMICAL ANALYSES
KEY TO APPENDIX D
TEMP Temperature, expressed in degrees centigrade
PH pH, expressed in pH units
ALK Alkalinity, total, as CaCO *
S04 Sulfate
SC Specific conductance, expressed in micromhos/
centimeter
CL . --Chloride
TOG .: Total organic carbon
COD Chemical oxygen demand
TS Total solids
TDS Total dissolved solids
N03-N Nitrate nitrogen
NH3-N Ammonia nitrogen .
P04-P Phosphate, total
TKN Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
;CU : Copper . . •. . .
FE Iron, total
MN Manganese
NA Sodium
PB Lead
ZN Zinc .,
ACID-0 Organic acids, as acetic acid
BOD-5 Biological oxygen demand, 5 day
BOD-20 Biological oxygen demand, 20 day
1C Inorganic carbon • • .
TC Total carbon
CN Cyanide
COLOR Color, expressed in Pt-Co units
HARD Hardness
HEXSOL Hexane .solubles
NO2-N Nitrite nitrogen
ALB-N Albuminoid nitrogen
ORG-N Organic nitrogen
OP04-P Orthophosphate
PHENOL Phenols
SET S Settleable solids, expressed in milliliters/liter
SS Suspended solids
221
-------
TURB Turbidity, expressed in JTU
AG Silver
AL Aluminum
AS Arsenic
B Boron
BA Barium
CA Calcium
CD Cadmium
CR Chromium
CR+6 Chromium, hexavalent
P Fluoride
HG Mercury
K Potassium
MG Magnesium
NI Nickel
. S Sulfide ......
SE Selenium - ...
* All analyses in milligrams/liter unless otherwise noted,
;•-: Dashes indicate no data. - ; .. . ;• ... .. . '•-;".
'6/0/78 indicates that exact :date of sampling is unknown.
222
-------
NQrilfna POINT!
(O
«0
u>
'"
» MS
SIC Otv
• 0«8
•TO ccv
a nBft
STO 01 V
Ml Ah
III" DCV
Mfiri
S?n litu
• P"S
Q»I|
ft/*«sro
S/ 4/TI
«' T/TI
n o/»«
*"*""
••»»"«
J/'»[/J«
10/11/60
»/ •/»!
a/ f/ri
T/la/n
• • ••' * - ' •
• • . • * • • •
• • • . , .
• • • " • • •
1 1
.0 .0 .' .
-• 80.0 JD. •
I I " .
• fttO.O 00.0 ?0.0 •
.0 .0 .0
• • 1 t 1 •
,ua .00 , .00
• .110 • - -
1 1
; .« o. • , H.
• Iix
«.i
• • 11
MO.O '".'-.-
.0 •
1 It
\ \
1
• <>»**i.
0.
T . • •' .• . ' ; -
ft. - . •-* •
1 • • • .
• . - - 9tO. • •
• • • •
™ T * - *
ol
It II 14 II
• ' •" «.
. . |
...
• * . • •
• * • •
• " II
: : : :
• • • •
; I Reproduced from
| best available copy.
-------
K>
K)
110 Df»
ML*
• w»
«»»»
•to or*
POI-P
•It*
•ID 0(»
CU
> tint
*ON
•ID Dl>
rt
i
• OH
•>0 Pfv
Mk
ItK III*
fc/M/fO
f/ll/ll
I/ 0/4«
»/ 0/H
IO/H/04
IO/PT/04
V 4/11
0/IJ'Tt
?/ o/Wo
.;;.,:.•..
•..••• .- ..
| • " •
. . •;. .»oo > • . - . ; .
• > 1.000 1*0.000
. • 1 1 1 - .
II 1 .
• ' . .000 .OOH . .000 •
HILLPIll.
^....500 -.
to. ooo •*'«.
i .•:•• tt
i
.TWO -" . -
.000 -
to> pniNtt
• • •
10)1. . .
00.000 -
1
• 1.000 •
.000 .
: : : *;::
... *
• • » ' *
• •- • * * * .
;
„
*
I
*
*
-------
ro
K>
ui
»(•«• , .•
• OMS
• • 0*8 -
• nnB '*
• ORS
MtIN •
• DM8
• DBS
am rev
HILLFIU
1 1 1 1 -
1 . \ \ 1 -
TASO.O 400.0 TAO.O * 1700.0 *
!onn .....
ilin« POINTS
- ; - .-.,••;•
» !••»••»
••
-------
BILCfILL
10
iO
CD
• fins
MM*
s in new
• om
WIN
•ID DIV
Di
• OBI
•ID DfV
CD
Nf>»
•ID DIV
Ct
• out
•UK
•ID DfV
• o»a
Ml*
IID DCV
II
If™"
•ID OIV
• •0*1
IID DfV
• DM
HI IN
IID OfV
11 0/t«
'
It o/t»
I/ 0/6«
•
•
*"*"* "
. 1
• 1 '.
liO.O
• I ..
.000
1
lio! -
^ i
».?»oo
. 1
. •
.1
1
.oso
1
.01)00
1
-•
. . J •
1
1 •
« .090 •
1 •
.0000 •
1. • • .
,« .^ • . . • •
.0 ; - -
i • .
i . .
' :;,:;; ' • '
4 .090- • •
1 .•' " -
.0000 - -
ni«tl> ' • •'..'•
1 : • • • ...•••.• .
I . , . . . . .
1 . . . . .
.....-;'; ... . i .
••'••'.:•' ' • • \ •
, .«,o ......
.1 ......
.0000 ... - . . ...
-------
to
K>
-4
:PAR*M DATE.
PH 1/Z9/T4 .
. 5/ZI/T4
5/2T/T4/
6/ 2/T4 ;
6'/lb/T4
b/Z6/T4
T/ Z/74
T / 3 0 / 7 4
»/ 6/74
S/I4/T4.
• • • 9/ 3/74
9/1T/74
9/25/74'.
IO/I4/T4;
10/20/74
It/ Z/T6
• 3/ZZ/TT '
fe/29/TT
9/IZ/TT
IZ/I9/TT
3/16/Tft
« DBS
MEAN ""
STD DEV
ALH II/-Z/76
I/ZZ/TT
h/29/TT
.9/IZ/TT
|'Z/1 9/77
. 1/16/78
B OB3
STD nev
300 J/Z4/74
.'4/ZH/T4-
. S/ZI/T4
(>/ Z/T4
. ^"'«.
: .. ". . . |(i/i-«/7>
-. .' .'•; r.; f.O/?*/7'4.
1 .
*'l
6.R
6.4
b.6
6.4
T • Z '
7.1
7.0
T||
6'. 1
6.5
b.«
6.fl
b*9
T!I
T.I
b.Z
T.Z
T.O
6.9
Zl
6.S
. .5
19.0
40.0
SO. n
I4|6.o
I?HO.O
1380.0
b
TZO!R
•.. «-'. •
• » '. ' .
V '•'
1,6
*s
a .1
« .1
*•'
, 1 .:o
< .1
•f.o
4 •'. >.l
.' :'."/'>•'•
* 5
'-..- ;
; J"
• ,' '. "
• ; '•
.' ' •"
•
• ' •
•
-
. • *
= . '. *
'• '-•.•.
" . •'
---'.;.•
''•'•: ".
: »r
', .• •
' ' •*
'•' «
«.
•
0
«
.'. T .
*0
•-•• ~
0
'. "
.. - •
»
•
a
> '
«
". »
> -
,
,* •
•
*
,»
«
•
• •"" T
..":. i-
MONITOR POINTS
« ' S
fULEFILL
'* *
-------
N>
N>
00
« ORS
SID OEV
sc
a (IBS
HC«N
STD OtV
CL
• nas
MEAN
3 TO OEV
roc
* ORS
MEAN
STD DEV
COO
e DBS
ME«N
STD DtV
ll/ 2/76
5/M/77
6/29/77
9/12/77
12/19/77
5/16/78
J/29/74
4/11/74
4/28/74
5/21/74
5/27/74
6/ 2/74
6/16/74
6/26/74
7/ 2/74
7/10/74
»/ 6/74
8/14/74
9/ 1/74
9/17/74
9/25/74
10/14/74
10/21/74
10/28/74
ll/ 2/76
1/32/77
6/29/77
9/12/71
12/19/7.7
1/16/78
ll/ 2/76
l/??/77
6/29/77
9/12/77
12/19/77
1/16/76
ll/ 2/76
1/22/77
6/29/77
9/12/77
12/19/77
1/16/78
• »S
' !'•
42*0.0
1670.0
5810.0
6400.0
6540.0
6470.0
6
5511.7
1246.8
.
•
0
411.0
167.0
155.0
4'l 1 .0
422.0
. 444.0
410.0
150.0
195.0
447.0
185.0
405.0
190.0
150.0
418.0
49.0
26.0
19.0
59.0
69.0
104.0
: 2i
100.29
159.97
98.0
120.0
218.0
; 251.0
154.0
492.0
6
259.2
147.7
459.0
419.0
651. 0
1220.0
718.11
807.0
h
-717.67
290.16
-------
10
ro
vo
PtMAM
TOS
0 (IBS
MEAN
SIO OEV
NOJ-N
« riB3
MfAN
DUE
.1/21/74
4/11/74
4/2B/74
5/21/74
5/27/74
b/ 2/74
h/16/74
6/26/74
•?/ 2/74
7/10/74
8/ 6/74
A/14/74
4/ 1/74
1/17/74
10/14/74
10/21/74
IO/2A/74
It/ 2/76
1/22/77
6/21/77
1/12/77
12/19/77
J/16/78
1/24/74
4/U/74
4/28/74
5/21/74
5/27/74
6/ 2/74
6/16/.74
6/26/74
11 2/74
7/10/74
»/ 6/74
H/14/74
I/ 1/74
1/17/74
10/111/74
10/21/74
IO/2H/74
1 I/ 2/76
1/22/77
6/24/77
1/12/77
12/14/77
1/16/7*
sio luv
1
264(1.
I1HO.
•
linn.
IHH4.
1 A50.
1412.
2200.
2051.
1100.
2462.
1564.
2015.'
1A54.
1956!
200«.
IflArt .
2000.
1100.
1100.
1470.
1760.
laoo.
2)
2241.
665.
.140
.170
»
.170
.260
.2HO
.240
.ICO
.IS'!
.500
.150
.2BO
.100
• .
.' „
•
•
6.500
. 1.700
2.100
2.600
6.1 Oil
A.SOO
I"
1 .74*
2. SSI
POINTS
V
H»LfF|LL
6 7
-------
N)
U)
O
NN1-N 3/24/,74
4/13/74
4/2H/74
S/2l/7«
5/27/74
6/ 2/74
6/16/7*
6/26/7*
?/ 2/74
7/10/74
S/ 6/74
a/14/7*
4/ 3/70
4/17/7*
4/25/7*
IO/K/7*
10/21/74
10/20/74
• DBS
Mf*N
STO OEV
P04>P It/ 2/76
3/22/77
t/21/77
4/12/77
12/14/77
3/16/76
* DBS
«»N
8TD DEV
TKN ll/ 2/76
3/22/77
fc/24/77
4/12/77.
12/14/77
3/lt/7»
• OBS
MEAN
StO DEV
CU ll/ J/76
3/22/77
6/24/77
4/12/77
12/14/77
J/I6/7B
• DBS
ME«N
310 DEV
MN ll/ 2/76
3/22/77
6/24/77
4/12/77
12/14/77
J/16/78
« (IBS
MEAN
STH II tv
: .
•
••
K.onn
13.000
10.000
4.000
•'17.400
24.1100
; 20.100
•
2S.OOO
26.200
• ' •
»
•
«
9
4
17.033
. 7.264
.160
.030
.030
.130
1.300
.«2'S
• 6
.246
.445
«0. 00
74.00
123.00
260.00
235.00
IS4.00
6
155.17
77.27
< .020
.200
.110
.700
.050
.040
6
.186
.261
.040
,250
.100
.300
« .010
.250
6
.157
.!.»»>
-------
' ••' • -••".';•':• -. •••.-.•' • BALEFUL
MDNIION POINTS
PARAM DATE I « J l' .-5 ' 6 7
NA ll/ 2/7* 575.000 - • • •• - • '.«
1/22/77 160.000 - - ..,.'.-.. . • ;.
6/29/771080.000 '-.:'. - ' '».•.«• . '.
9/12/772150.000 ... . li' . * .' "i
12/19/771100.000 - - • .*, '' . • • '. • . r
1/16/78 812.000 - - >'.-•' . . .:'.
a OB8 • .: •"•'-b :•' -' •••• •'-!•... . • i ;• _•".
HFAN |fl79.«ion ••..'" - >.:, v' . . • •;. '; •
STP DfV 7|9i520 « • ' -K «.' '•' .'•• .-
PB ll/ 2/7* < .160 -' - -.'-'•. ""
5/?2/77 < .160 - - r" •' - «
:. 6/J9/77•••'•• .020 • •. -I •. - . • •'.• • . . • •
12/19/77 « >20ff
i/16/7* « l>006
B OPS ;;."•'•• 6
MEAN i .078.
SIO DfV .162
j : I* 11/
; ' S/22/77 , .15.6
..' V . . 6V29/77 • .060
; 9/12/77 .100
12/19/77 .360
K) '•, 1/16/76 . .280
U> • i . • DBS- •'• -•-..' "6
H1 '• MEAN .1*°
'; STD DEV •. : .135
ACID-0 ll/ 2/76 ' Mi
J/22/77 « 10.
6/29/77 : .««;
: . 9/12/77 ": ISi
••' 12/19/77 73.
.' : '• J/16/78 , «6.
• DBS' • • fc
MEAN 15.
• STD OEV . 26.
BOD 5 1/29/7B
0/11/71 167.0
1/28/71
25.0
125,0
6/ 2/71 155.0
6/16/71 510.0
h/26/71 505.0
7/ 2/71 . 115.0
7/10/71 ' 50ifl
8/11/71 110.0
9/ 1/71 225.0
9/?S/71 25.0
10/11/71 HS.O
-------
': 10/21/74
(a/tti/t*
'• II / 2/76
5/22/77
: fc/29/77
9/12/77
12/19/77
. 3/I6/7B
• OB 8
MEtN
JIO DtV
BOO 20 11/ 2/76
3/22/77
to
OJ
to
• OBS
MEAN
stq OEV
1C ;: i if 4/76
: , i/22/77
6/29/77
9/12/77
12/19/77
3/16/7*
« ,OR8
ME»N ; '- v
sin OEV •
• 10.0-
20.0
15.0
215.0
310.0
45.0
a
151.9
151.1
: 4RO..
. 100.
.1515.
470.
120.
6
471.
540.
160.
276.
417.
433.
3»3.
520.
; .6
.'l3ol
-------
ro
Ui
U)
PAHAM
noi-n
• OHS
Mf AN
SIO DEV
ORG»N
» OBS
MEAN
STD OEV
CA
« OHS
Mf AN
STO OEV
en
a PHS
Hf Ah
DATE
1 I/ 2/76
6/24/77
4/12/77
12/14/77
I/I6/7R
3/24/74
4/13/74
5/21/74
S/27/74
6/ 2/7«
6/16/74
6/26/74
7/ 2/74
7/30/74
H/ 6/74
H/14/74
9/ 3/74
4/17/74
4/25/74
10/14/74
10/26/74
ll/ 2/76
J/22/77
6/29/77
4/12/77
12/14/77
1/16/78
ll/ 2/76
«i/?9/77
4/12/77
12/19/77
i/ 1 b/7 A
StO (>»«
CH
1 1 / ?/7h
V??/ 17
hf ft/11
t / 1 P/ 77
1
? .mo
|fl19
.059
1 .220
.012
6
' .Oil
.bft4
. :
12.5
11.3
13.0.
20.0
14.6
16.2
.!».*
-.
20.0
16.5
m
•
•
.
. 9
15.7
1.1
12ft. on
75.00
73.00
IJO.no
60.00
230.00
6
122.67
67. OJ
.006
< .onh
« ,2S»
« .250
« .son
6
.oos
.0)0
< . 300
• .1011
< .1"0
< .Ion
KUCflLL
MOM10H POINTS
« S b T
-------
KJ
to
'12/14/77
1/16/7*
• OPS
MEAN
STD OEV
KG lit 2/76
1/22/77
6/24/77
4/12/77
12/14/77
1/I6/T8
i DBS
MEAN
STD OEV
NI |l/ 2/76
1/22/77
6/24/77
4/12/77
12/14/77
1/16/7*
• DBS
MEAN
STO DCV
S 1/24/74
'. 's/21/74
V27/74
6/ 2/74
6/16/74
6/2<>/74
7/ 2/74
7/10/74
B/ fc/74
'R/14/74
. 4/ 1/74
4/17/74
.4/25/74
10/14/74
, 10/21/74
10/28/74
» DBS
ME AN
STO DEV
« 1.000
« 1 .'000
6
.000
.000
- 200.00
88.00
140.00
107.00
111.00
78.00
6
120.67
44. 15
.10
.20
.11
.06
.12
.01
6
.10
.06
•
< .100
.too
.100
.1011
.100
.too
.100
.100
.100
.100
.100
.100
l .|00
.100.
.100
IS
.027
.046
-------
V
In
PAKAM
•CM
« OR8
M£ AN
8TO OEV
• LK .
B OR8
MF AN
8TD OEV
804
0 nPS
MF * N '
8TO OFV
SC ';'
.
10/17/14
4 / 1 1 / IS
9/ 9/»5
12/22*75
4/19/76'
l.t 9/76
9/ in/76
1/21/77
.4/1 J/77
»/ 1/77
11/IS/77
.2/27/76
6/ 2/7H
9/I4/7H
10/17/74
4/11/75
9/ 9/75
12/22/75
9/19/76
7/ 9/7*i ;
9/10/76
1/21/77
4/1 J/77
«/ -V/T7
11/IS/77
2/27/70
6/ 2/71
9/I4/7H
10/17/74
4/1 1 /75
4/19/76
6/ .2/7fl
10/17/70;
4/1 I/7S:
9/ ; 0/7S
1 ^/>?/7S
4/ i"»/ 7»i
7 / •> / 7 K
9 / < ri / 7 «
1 /21 / '7
«•/ 1 < / r 7 ;
H / < / J 7 • ;
t 1 >'1"<-/77 ';
>/?! il* ;
:.' :- *'':'':
\
6.9
7.3
'.7
7.2
7.7
6.4
7.6
.7.6
•
6.)
. 7.7.
7.6
7.0
7.4
13
7 . 3
.'••
46.0
66.0
110.0
127.0 .
121.0
64.0
1.6
150.0
O
in.o
160.0.
1 1 f» . 7
207 .0
201. S
'. 13
100.3
63.4
23.0
/ •
26.0
2.5
• 5
17.2
12. «
7.0.0
1 » 0 . !1
210 . ii
»i? .'l
?iii.i)
1 HO . II
«IS."
1 ••V . 0
.';'
QK'^O
• O'l.'l
\ <•<*'. "
MONITOR POINT!)
•> 1 . 4: 5 •
7.9
, J
.1
. 1
.9
.1
.4
.0
.4
.9
.4
.9
6.7
M
'•»
.
15.0
124.0
174.0
140.0
1 1S.O
1.6
2IS.O
aso.o
500.0 '
, 410. 0
790.0
Sld.O
• 299.1
.13
300.7
2JO.I
.
34.1
23.0
4.3
1
? (t . . I*.-'
1 ^ « . 0
S'i ).'!
Olh. 1
1 IS.'l
H.lO.O
6.S
6.7
6.6
6.8
6.1
•6.7
7.5
m .
T..O
6.7
7.6
6.6
vfc.6
• is
'6.8
'.- .4
22.0
2A«0
43.0
16.0
60.0
69. n
- .7
50.0
e
50.0
6.0
118.7
97.0
73.5
.•13
50.3
33.9
25.0
•
20.0
14.3
- 3
I9.H
5.4
12iO
127.0
9A.O
22.0
92 ;0
1MO ^0
INO.O
74^0
- '•
1 9** i, 0
1,7 ">.0
1 *»1.°
.:|;V' •
*.?
• 6.4
6.2
7.7
7.3
7.2
7.4
«
6.6
5.8
6.2
6»7
' .
II
6.7
.6
^
..29.0
12*. 0
•47.0
. 5B.O
KR.O
1.4
40.0
B
50.0
4.0
18.1
170. 0
0
• •-' 11
SB. 0
*1 .«
»
32.0
. 20.0
11. A
3
21.3
10.2
•
.130.0
1 h7 .n
I2S.O
116.0
: 280.0
176.0
• 70.0
110.0
42. S
'70.0
.S
.2
.0
.5
.7
.5
.4
.
.3
.4
.1
.5
.5
12
6.3
.*
.
14.0
5A.O
21 .0
s.o
10. 0
1.6
10.0
m
30.0
SiO
II. S
213.0
41.6
12
39.3
60.7
m
32.0
21.0
5.2
3
1 fl .7
14. .5
.
135.0
1 OB;0
IRO.fl
33.2
210.0
160.0
62.0
.
96.«
42. S
49.0
•
j' Reproduced' from (tUlfe* ' '.-' '• ' '.
•; ... .'/ best available copy. ^t^-|; ' , ,'"
p- tt ' S"
-------
• CMS
Mf »N
STO nev
cu
••«./ 7/711
9/14/7*
10/17/74
4/V1/75
4/ 9/75
12/22/75
4/I4/.76
7/ 9/76
9/10/76
1/21/77
4/11/77
•/ 1/77
M/l«./77
2/?7/7P
1SO.O
400.0
11
228.6
117.0
11.0.'
21.0
- |7.0;
I'O.o"
I'O.O
4.0. '
'1*9.11 .'
15.0
.
1.0
« 'slo
72S.ft
«50.fl
1!
40? , 1
271.0
.
8.'0
4.0
15.0
2.0
4.0
' - •
10.0
5.0
7.5 «
12.5
7.S «
1*2.0
150.0
11
125.8
57.4
4.0
4.0
4.0
.4.0
2.0
4.0
2.5
5.0
.»
5.0 4
5.0
5.0 4
250^0
• -
• II
141.5
!V°
!_.'• '
•4.0
n.n
: 5.fl
*V5. 0
-2.0.
.-'2.5.
6.0
..'•'..,-:.,
5.0
5.0
:s.o
449.0
170,0
1?
141.9
111.6
„
• 4.0
9.0
.2.0
4 1.0
2.0
1 0.0
2.5
.»
, 5.0
« slo
I*.9 ; 2.1 I.I 1.6 1.6
9/14/78 |4.1- 4.2 I.I •': i . '2.1
• OPS '. II . . 12 II • rll . .'••• 12
Ht»N -. . 12.48 *..«> 2.R2 i.8! .'1.60
StO OEV 6.44; 4.08 I.80 1.16 '1.20
con 10/17/7.4 12.0.- - ; 4 10.0 y. •"-. ,-'. •
4/11/75 - ':« 10.0 • 4 10.0 4 10.0
K, . 12/22/75 - . 4 10.0 .- 12.0 .66.0,
£j ' 4/19/76 4 10.0 4 10.0 40.0 4 10.0 4.10.0
O\ . • 6/ 2/T8 4 1.0 7.9 4 1.0 15.9 15.9
* DBS ".''.'1 ' ' • 1 •"-'••-.•.'•'•'' ' ..' 4
M[»N •-- 4.00 1.97 11.1) 6.98 20.47
STO OSV.-' ' 6.9S 1.95 21.09 *V»I 11.26
T8 in/17/74 154.- ••' 110. >'• . '•.• '
4/l1>75 IT6V l"»8. 118. 408. 924.
.'9/ 4/75 256/ 1918. 184. l.Tl'O. 11T14.
. 12/22/75 2IOi 272. , 70. .404. 186.
4/19/76 212. 490. 158. '252. 412.
••9/10/76 256.-- ' 226. 124. '.248. ...198..
1/21/77 160." 114. 160. 1408.
»/ 1/77 142. ?48. 112. '110. . 142.
264. 622. 90. 250. 104.
142. 576. 142. .-. 124. 112.
272. 192. 1«0, 1.048. 1014.
"' 9/1«/7» ..'116. J16. 116. ,"•"••" 280.
• OS'S '. ,, 12 ' ' 12 12 , :. 10 II
MMI» . • ; . .,2'.'. !>I6. 152.. '614. ' 1S42.
S7P Pf'v • ' •'. 7.1. . 464. 7J. 561. 1400.
-------
U)
MILLFILL
. MONITOR POINTS
P«B»M
N03-N
'» PRS
ME AM '
STO OEV
NH3-N
• 069
HI in
STO OEV
POO.P
• OBS
MEAN
STO OEV
TKN
* OBS
ME«N
STD OEV
ft
• (IRS
Mf «->:
stn i.fv
flnn s
n»TF
10/17/71
4/11/75
4/19/76
6/ 2/7B
in/17/74 «
4/1 1 /75
4/19/76 <
6/ 2/7fl
in/17/74
4/1 1/75
4/19/76
6/ 2/7(1
10/17/74
4/1 1/75
4/19/76
6/ 2/78
10/17/74 «
4/11/75 <
9/ 9/75
12/22/75
4/19/76 <
7/ 9/76
9/1(1/76 «
1/21/77 «
4/11/77
I/ 1/77
1 1 /IS/77 «
2/27/7B <
#,/ p/7 A <
9/1 4/7C «
1 •! 17 II <
0 M 7*
•} j r S:
i? ?* (s
It 1 «t 7 f.
« < 7 /
1
.700
•
.900
.7 on
l
.767
.115
.100
.
.100
.BOO
3
.267
.462
3.900
.
.inn
.030
3
1 . 343
2.214
.10
•
4.60
1.10
1
1.93
2.36
.100
.inn
.100
.200
.inn
i ,5nn
.100
.100
•
1 .050
,?oo
.200
.200
.200
1 *
.".'*
. um
.1
. p
*
.
i . i
.5
*
.
1.100
1 .000
.200
3
.767
.493
«
.900
.ion <
.BOO
3
.567
.404
'.
.550
.100
< .0|0 <
3
.217
.293
.
.40
1.60
9.00
3
3.67
4.66
«
.500 <
3.000 <
.200
1.300 <
.200
<
< .100 <
.700
.700 »
< .200 <
« .20'! <
27.100 <
« .200 <
12
2 . 1>.S
>.7>>S
.
.5
_
<.'1
« .1 <
.7
3 '.
.700
• •
.400
.200
. 1
.413
.252
.100
- <
.100 «
.BOO
3
i267
.462
.300
m
.200
.010
3
.167
.IS3
.30
•
.20
54.90
3
IB. 47
11.55
.100
.100
.100
.100
.100
1.500
.too
.100
•
.100
.200 <
.200
.200
.200
i ;
.125
.«I5
.6
.7
.
.
. |
2.»>
4
•
1.000
.BOO
.200
• ' 3
.667
.416
.
.too
.too
-.300
3
.100
.ITS
M •
.300
.200
.040
3
.100
.131
.
.10
3.20
7.30
3
3.53
1.61
»
• .500
.900
.500
.200
.400
.500
.700
»
.650
.200
.240
9.500
.
11
1 .211
2.737
_•
I .0
.
«.?
2.1
1 .0
5
.»
.BOO
.400
.200
. 3
.467
.306
• •,
« .100
< .100
.600
3
: i2on
.346
' ,
.2no
.100
< .too
3
.167
.153
.
.40
2.40
15.90
3
6.21
B.43
»
.400
2.500
1.500
2.400
.700
5.000
.600
•
1 .050
.700
.450
19.70n
,«5n
12
2.9S4
5.441
m
\ .S
_
1.S
2.2
. «
6
•
• ' .
.* •
•
.
' •
. -
'.
.
•
•
•
-
-
.
.
-
• •
»
•
-
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
«•
•
.
.
.
•
.
_
-
•
-
.
.
.
•
-
»
.
.
. '
-
-
7
..
•
•
•
-.
•
-
m
.
•
•
-
-
-
.
.
-
»
•
•
-
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
»
•
.
•
•
-
•
.
•
~
.
.
-
•
-
_
•
.
.
.
-
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
* DPS
STO DEV
cm (i*
10/17/71
1/1 I/7S
<>/ 0/7S
«/l<>/7(<
7/ «/7*>
Q/10/76
a/1 »/77
S
. .7
: .7
: jo.
.. i.
- 0.
I.
10.
I.
'll/l-i/77
8/?7/78
1/14/70
STO OfV
S. «
,|o!
8.
14.
l.S
S
I.S
I.
190.
10.
70.
I.
MO.
I.
II.
A.
10.
S.
IS.
I.
II
to'.
1.0
s
.H
I.I
10.
1.
I.
10.
s.
10.
10.
n-
s.
11.
.5
S
i Is
"I.
60!
^
i«o!
so.
l«.
IS.
II
5J.
6).
1.0
S
70.
?»00.
110.
s.
100.
50.
JO.
OS.
JS.
\»
106.
7*7.
10
bJ
00
-------
to
CO
VD
V ,:. L'u; "- MONITOR POINTS
P»k«M :
HtRD
0 DBS
HE4N
STD DEV
N02-N :
II 083
MEAN •
STD oty
TUHB
a OHS
M(«^
: O*TE
10/17/71
4/11/75
4/ 4/75
12/22/75
4/19/76
7/ 9/76
9/30/76
; 1/21/77
4/11/77
8/ 3/77
11/15/77
2/27/78
6/ 2/70
9/14/78
10/17/70
4/11/75
4/19/76
6/2/78
IO/-I7/70
4/11/75
4/ 9/79
12/22/75
4/19/76
7/ 4/76
4/10/76
1/21/77
4/11/77
»/ 3/77
11/15/77
2/27/7H
6/ 2/7A
4/14/78
1
l?2.0
Ihll.O
170.0
169.0
I7H.O
80. 0
200.0
175.0
•
50.0
200.0
HO.fl
150.0
150.0
15
141.4
51.4
4 .010
G)
4 .010
11.500
1}
4.500
• 7.744
•V 4.00
« 1 .00
• l.oo
4 ' I.OO
4 I.OO
* I.OO
4 10.00
.10
'»
22.00
4 .50
.11
i.no
I.OO
13
<>. 91
STD OEV . 6.03
2
.
92.0
151.0
14fc.ll
100.0
. 209.1)
I5S.O
2^20^0 •
450.0
110. 0
10 0.0
520.0
'- 110.0';
I9U.O;
. .;. If
252.5;
I22i6:
"';. .• '''"
;.020
«.• .010
7 .100
1
. 2.440
4.209
; ' *
i.oo'
' 6.40
« i.ao
2.00
< l.oo
•165.00
; SK.OO
.54
4.00
. .90
'12.00
130.00
. 10.00.
' ' 1 5
2H.4S
54. 2S
* ',' C J •'
^'•''bfc.b
764.0
,:.•&». o
iie.o
.;'"• '"".o
•' .80.0
75.0
: 60.0
- ' -•
: '''• 70.6
50.0
80.0
' 60.0
•: .^40.0
IS
,71.2
,.'' \I9.7
.«'.•'. oi 6
-'•'.• • •-
<• ; .010
1.000
'' ' 5
.113
.577
0.00
« i I.OO
4 . I.OO
o. I.OO
a i I.OO
« •. 1 .00
•* 10.00
.10
0
-------
(IMF
STUIP Hint u»nnFiiL
MOWITOH POINTS
5 6 ?
ID
to
it*.
o
PM
• OflS
M£»N
810 DtV
ALK
• ObS
MMN
sto ocv
S04
a (IRS
HMN
STD PI V
4/ 0/73
4/ 4/73
6/r'O/Tl
6/22/73
1/0/74
I/ A/74
3/ 0/75
3/19/75
•/ 0/75
A/ 1/75
3/ 0/76
3/ 1/7*
4/ 0/77 \
4/M/77
«/H/77
6/ 0/78
V 0/73 :
«/ 4/71:.
6/ 0/73 :••:
6/22/73 V
I/. 0/74 :'•,.
1/8/74 '.-
3/ 0/75
1/14/75
A/.0/75
8/ 1/75 •-:•'
I'/" 0/76
]/ 1/76
4/11/77.
A/I 1/77 ••
»/ 0/78
4/ 0/73 '
4/ 4/71
6/ 0/73
.6/22/73"
I/ 0/74
I/ 8/74 .
3/ (i/75
3/19/75
8/ 0/75
A/ 1/75
3/ 1/76
4/11/77
A/I 1/77
(./ 0/7A
6.4
6.9
7.0
7.0
6«*4
6^4
7»5
T.5
Ail
6>l-
Ti 1
7i1
6.6
6.6
7.6
7.2
16
».*'•
•**••'
IA0.6
IAO.O
220.0
220 .'6
U«.0
1*4. "0
56.0
56.0
146.0
146.0
3.«
36. >
54.0
102.0
5».0
119,0
70. '6
165.0
165.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
1-95^0^
t?.7
•~62.7
Ifl.'O
171.0
r?".o
rzii .0*
bh.O
ta.h
14
1 M.7
«8.7
• »
6.6
•
6.1
• «
6.2
• . •
- *•'
. •
8.2
7.4
•
• '
7.5
7.2
8
7.0
.7
.'. '
14.0
•
40.0
• •
12.0
. •
16.0
•
IS6.0
' ».
»*.o
80.0
126.0
" 5A.O
9
- 67.6
. ,5«.2
.
55.0
•
23.0
, 47.0
.- • - . .
38.3
•
160.0
IOS.
120.
•>•».
82.
76.
44.
.
7.4
•
7.4
•
7.6
7.3
«
'•4
*
6.7
« '
7.3
6.9
8
7.3
.3
.
70.0
«
102.0
•
110. 0
w
54.0
*
60.0
£H 9 ft •
12.0
IB.O
.
A
61. A
30.9
„
ro.o
70.0
.
115.0
>
66.0
m
2S.O
JO.O
3*>.0
it. (I
V
H
SS.a
30. a
(
-u
1
'„
f
•
'
.
•
.
-------
to
sc
a tins
Mf AN
STD DEV
CL
» (IBS
MEAN
STD DEV
COD
a CIRS
Mf.»N
STD DEV
TS
4/ 0/71
4/ 4/73
6/ 0/73
6/22/73
I/ 0/74
I/ 8/74
M 0/75
1/19/7S
8/ 0/75
8/ 1/75
3/ 0/76
3/ 1/76
HI 0/77
4/11/77
8/11/77
6/ 0/78
«/ 0/73
4 / 4/73
6/ 0/7J
6/22/7]
I/ 0/74
I/ 8/74
J/ 0/7S
3/19/7S
«/ 0/75
«/ I/7S
3/ 0/76
3/ 1/76
1/11/77
6/ 0/78
4/ 0/71
4/ 4/73
6/ 0/73
6/22/73
I/ 0/74
I/ 8/74
3/ 0/75
3/19/75
8/ 0/7S
«/ 1/75
3/ 0/76
3/ l/7h
4/11/77
8/11/77
h/ 0/78
«/ 0/73
«/ 0/7 J
550.0
550. 0
5«».0
5AO.O
500.0
500,0
3SO.O
305.0
510.0
.510.0
278.0
278.0
: 230.0
230.0
100.0
900.0
. '*
449. 4
176.6
S.O
5 A
. "
11.0
11.0
.0
.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
1.0
1.0
2,0
< .1
|4
4.79
3.37
16.0
16.0
88.0
88. 0
16.0
16.0
65.0
65.0
•
34.0
31.0
31.0
10.0
20.0
< 5.0
1 4
. J5.43
29.05
464 .
4h«.
.
140.0
•
. 120.0
•
140.0
•
100. 0
•
535.0
•
290*0
'-
270.0
375.0
1000.0
9
330.0
288.8
1.0 <
»
< 5.0 <;
•
< 5.0
•
6.0 <
•
3.0 <
3.n <
< .1
e
1.63
2.20
' .
12.0
•
12.0
: .
38.0
•
30.0
•
32.0
•
S5.0
12.0
20.0
< 5.0
9
23.44
1 1.03
..
I7»,
.
260.0
.
290.0
•
350.0
•
290.0
•
170.0
•
108.0
.
100.0
120.0
.
8
ill. 0
97.9
S.O
*»
5.0
•
6.0
•
5.0
»
b.O
*».o
•
7
.flb
2.27
»
12.0
•
24.0
•
56.0
•
74.0
•
12.0
•
27.0
10. n
16.0
•
A
2tt.A(J
20,46
„
2<>h.
•
•
•
.
*
.
•
*
»
-
•
•
*
m
•
»
•
•
"
-
.
.
•
*
»
*
•
•
•
•
»
•
•
•
"
«,
*
»
«
•
*
*
*
*
•
«
-
••
*
*
*
•
•-
*
-
-------
b/ 0/73 51S«. •>«. ZJ».
8/
3/ 0/Tb 20». - -
J/ 1/76 ?0». 250. 96.
a/lt/TT 242. 2S2. 102.
B/1I/T7 JUfc. J76. 142.
b/ 0/T8 208. 220. •
» DBS 15 9 8
MEtM 368. 573. 260.
SID DEV 131. 140. 207.
N>
-------
N>
*>•
OJ
PARAM •
N03-N
0/75
3/ 0/76
4/11/77
8/11/77
6/ 0/76
4/ 0/73
4/ 4/73
6/ 0/73
6/22/73
I/ 0/74
I/ 8/74
3/ 0/75
3/19/75
8/ 6/75
H/ 1/73
3/ 0/76
3/ 1/76
4/11/77
8/11/77
ft/ 0/70
4/ 0/73
h/ 0773
fi/22/73
I/ 0/74
•I/ .8/74
4/11/77
8/11/77
h/ 0/7H
/ .
i
.420
..700
,600
.320
< .100
S
.008
.272
.560
.560
2.500
2.500
.100
- .100
» .
0
»
.410
.024
« .500
q
.750
1.015
.107
.107
2.230
2.210
0.500
4.500
.230
.230
.180
.180
.270
.270
.110
.470
.100
15
1.048
1.571
» -
2.000
2.000
1.200
: l.?00
« .005
-
« .oos
*>
i .0*7
"-.900
• a
.210
0.0
.650
.320
< .100
.: -'5
,23t>
,269
•i
.340
•
:.82fl"
i
0.000
« •
*•
0
.460
.028
4 ,500
6
.941
1.529
a
.077
a
.380
a
32.500
"
.320
•
-.240
, a
.520
.120
.120
,100
9
3.842
10.748
i
^
« .005
.'•
1.50.0
< .UII5
.050
« .OOS
5
: i « 1 '>
. Shh
-3 ;
,700
.790
.240
.250
•
'. 4
.495
.291
'. '.
.360
•
1.500
=
.240
c*
0
0
,440
.024
-
5
.513
.574
•. •
:.' .057
• -
14'.2SO
>•
1,000
0
.blO
a
' .370
o •
.720
.420
.770
0
S
2.262
4.052
»
•
.HOO
*
< .005
< .005
< .005
•
4
.200
.4110
STRIP MINE LANDFILL
MONITOR POINTS
V : • ' fc ' . »
10
-------
POO 5
» OBS
MEAN
STD DfV
N02-N
6/ 0/7)
6/.22/7J
I/ 0/74
I/ 0/74
I/ 0/T5 4
5/19/15 4
B/ 0/75 4
»/ 1/75 4
3/ 0/7*
J/ 1/76
4/ii/77
8/11/77
6/ 0/78 4
6/22/71
I/ B/J.4 '
4/ll/JJ
a/ii/77
6/ 0/78 <
* oes
MEAN
STD OEV
2.0
a.o •
2)0
1.6
1.6
2.0
2.0 4
2.0 i
2.0 4
i.o ••••
1.0
i.o ;
2.0
2.0 «
15 •
I.I
.015
iOtO ;
iOlO 4
5. .
.1MB
.017
N>
*»
*>.
ALB-N 6/22/7S 1.200
.124
.110-
8/11/77 .068
6/0/78 4 .010 4
• OBS 5
MEAN ' .100
STO OEV .505
.6
3.6
2.0
2.0 4
2.0 4
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.n
9
1.0
I.a
.Oil
.250
.016
.021
.010
5
.060
.107
.0*5
*I20
."010
5
|09I
4.6
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
B
1.7
1.5
.022
.00)
.014
.024
4
.016
.010
.720
.14*
.165
.044
4
.269
.105
-------
P»»»M
OPOU-P
« (IBS
ME«N
STO OEV
PHENOL
0 OBS
MEAN
STD OEV
SET S
« OBS
MEAN
STO DEV
SS
* OBS
MEAN
STO OEV
• L
» OBS
MEAN
STD OEV
r
« f)HS
MEAN
STD OtV
DATE
6/2S/71
\i s/74
0/11/77
8/11/77
6/ 0/78 <
s/ii/77 «
6/ 0/T8 «
6/22/73
I/ 8/74
8/11/77 <
8/11/77 «
*/ 0/7« <
fi/22/75
I/ 8/7«
4/11/77
8/11/77
6/ 0/78
h/ZZ/73 «
I/ «/7«
H/ll/77 •«
8/11/77 «
b/ 0/78
*/8S/7J
I/ 8/70 <
fl/11/77
8/11/77 <
*/ 0/TH <
I
.030
.170
.080
.040
.010
. S
.nfca
,6fc7
.020
.oao
e
.000
.000
.20
.10
.10
.10
.10
S
.Ok
.0"»
10.00
ao. oo
2.00
4.00
7.00
5
16.60
17.2(>
.100
U.800
.100
.too
.200
5
1,000
2.l2b
.20
.10
.10
.10
.10
S
.06
.««
. I
.020
.170
.100
.Oao
« .010
S
.126
.!•»*
< .010
< .020
2
.000
.000
.20
i.io
< .10
< .10
< .10
5
.3«
.65
48.00
450.00
6.00
4.00
10.00
5
211.60
411.56
« ;. 100
.700
.010
< .100
.200
5
.186
• .244
.to
< .10
.10
< .10
< .10
S
.01
.OS
3
,oso
,07S
.080
.010
• • -.
. 4
.054
.012
< .020
•
1
.000
.000
.60
.05
< .1.0
.30
•
4
. .24
.27
222.00
2.00
4.00
12.00
«
4
60.00
108.04
< .100
.024
< .100
< .too
•
4
.006
.012
.10
« .10
.10
< .10
•
4
.OS
.06
STRIP MINE LANDFILL
HONITUH POINTS
5 ' . 6 T
to
-------
MONITOR POINTS
4 5 6
S»N|T»H» LANDFILL
10.
ro
Tf HP
( (IAS
M[»N
SIO DEV
PH
• (IBS
MftN
STO DEV
SOU
* (IKS
Mf IN
sio nrv
I/II/7H
2/I6/7H
.1/10/78
4/ 5/T8
5/10/78
6/ 8/78
7/12/78
R/ 4/78
4/I1/T8
10/12/78
11/10/78
I2/ 5/T8
I/I7/T5
4/12/75
7/14/75
8/14/75
4/21/75
t / 1 1 1 1 A
1 / 1 1 / t-n
2/16/78
I/ 1 0/T8
4/ 5/78
5/10/78
6/ 8/78
7/12/18
8/ 4/78
4/11/78
10/12/78
11/14/78
I2/ S/78
I/IT/7S
4/I2/T5
T/14/75
(1/14/75
4/21 /TS
I/II/T8
2/16/78
1/10/78
4/ 5/78
S/IO/7H
6/ ' 8/78
T/12'T"
8/1 '4/T8
4/ll/TH
1(1/12/78
1 l/l«/7«
I2/ S/78
K.n
I II . 0
4.0
4.0
in.o
I2.o
ll.O
14.0
i
•
• *
10. '0
9
10.1
I.B
' T.I
T.O
T.2
T.2
T.2
-
6.4
6^8
6.4
T.»
••
•
7.8
11
T.I
.
120.0
44.0
105.0
85.0
•
48.0
, „•:
' - 17.0
• -
4S.O
•' «•
16.11
', . - ' '
. »'
•
48.1
q
68.7
«.l
H.O
in. ft
9.0
9.0
1 0 . 0
12.0
12.0
12.0
ll.O
12.0
. 12.0
10.0
12
10.6
1.4
T.J
6.7
;• 6.T
' 6.8
6.9
-
7.0
6.6
7.1
T.J
T.S
T.4
7.S
T.4
15
i.o
»
27.0
2H.U
10. a
iu.o
•
26.0
.
26.0
' .
24.il
-
26.0
-
• .
•
21.4 «
.
" •
.•
.•
-•
'20.0
-•m
J9.0
20.0
1 *l,0
'. > ' •
**.o
- •*
IT. 4
6
16.6
*•*
0
10
9
9
II
12
II
11
II
12
12
10
10
1
.
. •
•
•
••
•
m'
1
T
T
7
7
7
7
T
T
,
. -
. •
-
•
• •
11
»
6
.
T
.
5
.
• .
»
8
7
1
,0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
12
.1
.5
.8
.0
.5
,5
.6
.9
.8
.1
10
.S
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
,J
5
.4
.1
8.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
ll.O
12.0
12.0
ll.O
ll.O
12.0
12.0
10.0
12
|0.9
1.4
. -
•
•
•
. '
-
.
8.1
.2
.
.
.
.
. ' -
.
1
1.
•
.
.-
•
-
•
•
10.0 '
.
ll.O •
. ;
20.0
-
21.0
27.5 «
•
21.4
6
14.1
T.I
.
.
2
1
10
16
12
IT
12
14
14
1
10
s
a
i
«
«•
f
-
6
T
1
T
1
1
T
1
a
j
• .
IT
•'
•
•
22
2»
25
16
22
IT
21
21
14
2
•
28
14
1
. • .
. .
.0
.0 1.0 •
.0 ll.O
.0 16.0
.0 ll.O •
.0 18.0
.0 12.0
.0
.0 14.0
.0 2.0
10
.» II.
.6 S.
.2 T.
.1 I.
• . •
• .
.1 .8 >
.4 .4
.1 .4
.1 .4
.« .2
.0 .1
.a
.8 T.T
.2 a. 2
11 II
.« T.«
.S .S
* «
.0 14.0 <
*
•
•
.0 20.0
.0 22.0'
.0
.6 16.0
.5 21.5
.0. 15.0
.0 21.0
.0 18.0
.0 25.0
.0
•»
.9 2«»9
u to
.S 20.6 «
.2 «.l
' . .
•
•
*
•
»
•
«*
•
•
•. •
"• •
•
•
•
T.a a.2
1.1 T.S
•
•
•
"_
.
*'
•
» •
•
•
» " •
» ' •
p •
2 2
7.5 7.8
.4 .S
. .
M.O 42.0
•
•
•
»
»
-
•
. •
•
-
•'
-
•
•
-
1 1
M.O 42.0
.0 .0
-------
sc
ft 088
MEAN
STO DEV
CL
a OBS
NE*N
STO OEV
' TOC
o OBS
MEAN
STO OEV
COD
•' •
1/17/75
4/12/75
7/19/15
8/14/75
9/21/75
1/11/78
2/16/78
1/10/78
4/5/78
5/10/78
6/ 8/78
7/12/78
8/ 9/78
9/11/78
10/12/78
11/14/78
I2/ 5/78
1/17/75
4/12/75
7/19/75
8/14/75
9/21/75
1/11/70
2/16/78
1/10/76
4/ 5/78
5/10/76
6/ 8/78
7/12/78
8/ 9/78
9/15/78
10/12/78
11/14/78
I2/ 5/76
8/14/75
9/21/75
1/17/75
4/12/75
7/19/75
8/14/75
9/2I/7S
1/11 /78
2/16/78
3/10/78
11 5/78
•i/IO/78
9SO.O
780*0
835.0
925.11
9711.0
900.0
1400.0
1200.0
1200.0
900.0
•
1200.0
880.0
'a
.a
0
960.0
13
1007.7
182,5
56.0',
55.0,
100.0'
..94.0
100.0
86.0
B6.0
• 91,6
1.2
65.0"
105.0.
2.9
'80.0
' m ," \
•• :•. ;"
• '•
: 67 i9
14
70.71
31.20
• 22.0
a
1
22.0
.6
« 1.0
8.4;
.8
'.. 16.0
16.0
42.4
I". 8
2H.8
1?.l
SI. 7
1150.0
1120.0
1175.0
10911.0
111)0.0
1200.0
640.0
680.0
. 620.0
900.6
•
880.0
860.0
980.0
• •,
0 V
1400.0
10
985.4
232*6
15.0
IS.O
10.0
. 18.0
11.6
5.0
8.0
5.0:
7.87
10.0
4; 3
•2
7.1
4iO
« 1;0
2.4
.4
• 16.0
16.0
« 2.0
: 14.9
21.1
12.1
31,7
1440.6
1*100.0
15)0.0
1560.0
1500.0
490.0
1400.0
1200.0
TbO.O
760.0
•
R20.0
980.0
1200.0
•
*
1600.0
14
I19S.7
367.9
-140.0
. 260.6
: 6io.o
' 170 ;o
460.6
188.6
164.0
96.0
78.5.
'. 83.5
96,9"
• 129.6
. 174.0
22.7
i .•».»,
, 25.5
26.8:
17
196.20
IH8.49
9.5
10.0
2
9.6
.5
42.0.
31.0
5.1
39.0
45.6
< 2.0
14.9
17. 1
22.2
27.7
:.!
» -;^,:'
42A.6.V
660.0
480.0 '
490.6 .
ooo.o .
• : , ,. "•
160»0
350 iO, '
390.0
• -:'..,
• - v *
400,0 ;
'• 9 "
418.9-
. **•*:
... V; .
•w .' ' •
• .' V <
• -V, • '
•» :i -.
1 .6 -
26:.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
9 00
' .*.•."-'
4°0
.' • 2*>,
•'•!>
1.88
7.08.
. ' „ :;.'
«•-.
' • •' .
• ..'
••••: .--•'
o:. ' •' '
••-.;•'• •
0 ^ '. '
• -*•.""'
• '. -.'-'•
" 2.6 «
14.9
« 8."
31.7
.•?-./
• '•'. ,
680.0
880.0
680.0
720.0
720.0
* ./
680.0
560.0
580.0
- •
•
600.0
.9
677.8
96.1
. »
a
•
• :
e'
79.0
118.0
62.0
60.7
87.0
72.9
59,5
59^0
55.9
77.9
92.9
47.8
12
74.38
24. 1 B
*
*
• m
t>
* :
a :
.
•
• '
' m
2.0
21.6
86.4
6.1
31.7
'• ... '
a
240.0
175.0
460.0
470.0
460.6
a
450.6
400.0
460.0
a
a
480.0
9
421.7
76.3
a
a
a
a
a
24.0
10.0
27.0
22.7
17.5
24.9
26.5
24.0
26.2
19.9
20.5
26.8
12
25.83
4.68
a
a .
a
' a
-
a
a 4
a .
a - .
a
« 2.0
26.7
465.0
6.1 .
51,5
365.0
110.0
a
215.0
220,0
260.0
180,0
280.0
a
130,0
140.0
420.0
a
a
220.0
. II
287.3
72.7
16.0
16.0
a
a
0
8.0
10.0
19.0
7.2
. 12.5
-.15.9
18.9
22.0
24. T
22.7
37.0
32.5
14
20.17
9.7«
,
n
a
a
«. .
16.0
1.0
a "
a
a
12.7
1.9
196.0
2.0
15.8
295.0
265,0
•
250.0
200.0
•
220.0
260.0
.P • *
400.0
330.0
490.0
a
' a
220.0
10
293.0
. 91.1
• 33.0
. . 17.0
'* a
«
a
8.0
e.o
a -
6.7
• 13.0
11.9
28,5
; is.o
" 44.1
; 10.5
26.8
12
21 .89
12.65
'.
a-
' a
a '
•• ; .
3.6
*'•• 1.0
a •
a
a
3 2.0
2.0
•
14.1
15.6
180.0 485.0
465.0 V,SIO.O
-.-.'• ' a
'';;' '' :•.•
• '•
'- - •
.:'• . • -T
:.' .: ;" *
' ' • :'-•-.•
'.' • ': ''; a
'.' 'T' •
'..;.' a
•
-••" *
; '"'•••• a
•'• *. ••'\ 2
422. S. 497.5
»0.l 17.7
14.0, " 38.0
25.0 20.0
a ' :
... a '• •',
-• • :,'-;
a
a
. a
'.a
' ° \ '•
.a •'
/a
' a •'-
a
'•'.a •', -
. ' a J
a ; '. '
:" 2 • 2
19.50 29.00
7.78 12.73
* '-' e
o -..''. •
e . •' : •
•'» •; •'- •
* - /: "
5.2 - 6,4
-' 1.2 1.2
(B . 0
* . *
• ' •
• . «•
*
* ' \ *
• " •".. .
f ' .'.',»
-------
»/ 9/Kl
I I/IO/JK
28.T
• PHS .
HUH
sin utv
1.1
tu.*
e«.o
IS.H
10.11
20.«
ir
2"».»
I-J.O
16,6
IT
II.S
loi.n
167.0
50.0
28.7
12
07.13
14.St 114.00 12.19 51.28
80.6
10.5
6.2
10. *
2.0
T.O
18.8
• . 12
?i.4?
29. 4«
I9.i
10.
10.
49.
5.
M.
10.
li
5».2
129. 5
• 154.0
2.1
to.
12.
1.
« 2.
12.
• M
lt.«9
»t.4»
2.0
16.•
.• 12
•IlIlT
2
1.20
2.11
1.10
l.bB
00
-------
•MONITOR POINTS
P»HAM
IDS
• DBS
MtiN '
STO 01 V
NOJ-N
» MS
MEAN
STO DEV
NHJ-N
• DBS
ME Ah
STO DEV
POO-P
* (IBS
MEAN
STO OEV
TKN
• (IBS
MEAN
STO OEV
CD
DAlE
8/14/75
4/21/75
8/14/75
4/21/75
1/11/78
2/16/78
1/10/78
I/ 5/78
5/10/78
6/ 8/78
7/12/78
8/ 4/7*
4/11/78
10/12/78
11/14/78
I2/ 5/TB
8/14/75
4/21/75
8/14/75
4/21/75
8/14/75
4/21/75
1/17/75
4/12/75
7/14/75
H/I4/7S
4/21/75
I/I 1/71
2/lh/7B
5/10/78
I/ 5/78
•S/IO/78
6> 8/7H
7/12/78
«/ 4/7H
9/1 )/7H
1
681.
. '
1
681.
0.
.500
• .
•
1.000
: .200
.480
1 .100
.540
.400
.680
. • ' •
".
•
.410
.648
.101
.050
m -
1
.050
.000
.050
.
1
.oso
.000
.40
.
1
.40
.00
.0?0
.020
• ;
.010
« .0|0
• •
« .100
•
« : .100
: •
< •. lou
• -
: ' •"; 1 00
f
741.
«««.
2
868 .
ION.
2.000 <
< .100
•
2.600
2.000
1.400
5.100
2.400
1 .400
2.600
2*140
I.I 00
.420
t .510
II
1.411
.884
.010
.040
2
,OJ5
.007
.050
.170
2
.110
.085
.11
.45
2
. '4
.08
.050
.250
•
.200
.010
•
« .100 <
•
< .100 «
•
< .100 <
•-
< , 1 II 1)
/.
1
446.
1414.
2
114).
141.
.too
.100
•
.221)
.640
.760
.460
.540
.140
.510
.470
.110
.140
,160
11
.162
.215
,270
.140
2
.105
.044
.060
.050
2
.OS5
.007
.48
1.40
2
1.1V
1.00
.510
.140
•
.040
.020
•
.100 <
•
.100 <
•
.100 <
•
.100 <
a .
.%
.
V
•
*
•
»• "
•
.100
.too
.110
.180
.240
.210
.210
.250
.ISO <
.210
.520
II
.252
.110
•
m
»
m
-
m
.
•
•
•
,
•
•»
•
•
„
•
•
.
".
•
.too <
•
.too <
•
.100 «
•
.10(1 <
5
— •
.
»
m
•
.
.
•
.200
.too
.210
.140
.140
.160
.140
.180
.050
.100
.440
II
.210
.112
.
•
.
•
•
.
.
•
•
•
„
.
.
•
•
M
.
•
.
.
«
.too <
•
.100 <
•
.100 <
•
.100
6
^
.
.
»
•
.
.
«
1.600
.760
.160
.420
.880
.400
.640
.470
.400
.200
.740
II
.625
.181
.
»
.
«
-
.
•
*
•
*
—
.
*
•
-
*
.
.
*
*
4*
.100
•
.100
.
.100
.
.100
9«Nlt»R» LtNDFILL
to
4 .010 < .010 < .010
< .010 < .010 « .010
.010
.080
-------
ISJ
Ui
O
I IIHS
Xf »M
SID DtV
ft :
* OHS
M[»N
S7D ntv
Hi/If /in
\it 5/7*
1/17/75
4/12/75
7/19/75
*/l4/75
9/21/75
l/lt/70
2/lt-/7*
1/IO/7H
«/ 5/7(1
5/10/7*
6/ «/7*
7/12/76
A/ 9/7*
9/11/7*
10/12/7*
II/I4/7H
I2/ 5/76
i . ifli) < .lun < .100 « .100
< .IIIIJ
9
.1117
.0)2
H.IOO
4.0UO
1.500
I.HOO
l.bOO
79.000
14.000
I2.KOO
I9.«pn
21.400
12.700
21.100
12.400
•
.
»
57.000
1 4
20.ROO
22.4b2
« .1110
10
.051
.on*
4. (00
.440
.110
• .220
.190
44.000
24.1011
t .500
21. i>0o
11.200
*,0«i«
15.900
21. '00
11.510
*.52il
2.100
JO. 000
17
I2.R54
12.714
< .lun < .100 < .100
10
.liHb
.Ibl
I/. HII I)
19.1100
• *M 0
« .010
h.**l»0
1 0 . II II 0
S.4IMI
25 .HOD
11. mm
i.2iio
4. 75H
16. ion
24.SSO
7.SSII
1.900
1.950
12.100
17
I2.41b
II. bO)
. .' . b
.000
.000
.•
.
• .
•
. •
2.900
h.HOO
2.000
4.000
4.400
1.170
4.240
l.«70
2.990
.2)0
^.920
7.600
12
).4)5
2.172
h
.000
.000
.
.
•
•
•
l).i»00
.BOO
1.200
2.100
1.500
1.020
4.
-------
••'••.',. PERMITTED 9»NIT*R» LANDFILL
MONITOR POINTS
: '. 10
ui
P*R»M
MN
• OBS
MEAN
STD 01 V
NA
t OBS
MEAN
STD OEW
*>B
« OHS
Mf. Afc "
sin nrv
?N
"j
•'•• V
DATE
-'1/17/75
4/12/75
7/14/j.S
.8/14/75
4/21 /TS
1/11/78
2/16/78
3/10/78
4/. 5/78
5/10/78
6/ 8/78
7/12/78
8/ 4/78
4/13/78
10/12/78
11/10/78
I2/ 5/78
1/17/75
1/12/75
8/14/75
4/21/73
I/I7/7S
0/12/73
7/19/75
8/14/75
4/21/75
1/11/78
2/I6/7A
3/10/7B
O/ 5/78
5/10/78
6/ 8/78
7/12/78
8/ 9/7A
9/13/78
IO/IJ/7B
11/14/78
I2/ 5/78
1/17/75
4/I2/7S
. 7/19/75
•8/14/75
.•4/21/75
. V -..
»'
'• »*..
.09ft
. * .100
.070
.580
.276
.174
.580
.344
.263
.303
.265
• .
•
• 0
.549
12
.300
.187
15.000
17.000
17.000
18.000
0
16.750
I.25Q
0
•
< .030
o .030
< .030
.006
i .005
« .005
.014
.009
..013
.042
-.248
'0
'•
.-
..143
12
.040
.077
'..ojn
•.oso
0 '
Join
-.010
: ;'
2
. '•'
• .'
.020
.030
.020
.(.BO
.150
.086
.730
.138
.210
.160
.086
.172
.115
,045
.351
15
.213
._22S
5.500
5.2UO
4.300
5.500
4
4.625
.907
a
tt
4 .030
.090
« .030
.012
< .005
< .005
.077
.011
.Oil
.023
.061
.023
«' .005
.oon
.0*5
15
. .027
.014
.040
.070
• ' .
.IIS'I
.050
3 ..'
.
•
.110
.100
.ISO
. 1.030
.'.72
.600
,020
|6I5
.228
.202
.057
.160
.187
,«l89
15
.326
.271
280.000
207.000
210.000
180.000
4
214.250
42i6S8
o
0
« .030
a ,0)0
t .010
..038
« .005
.017
.018
.070
.037
.070
.142
.064
< .005
;02fc
.175
15
.044
.051
. ISO
.120
•
.1)20
.110
«•;£'•;
0f ?•'
0., \ •
*•''":.'
•;!'*:,
• 0;'.' • •''
.500
.058
.574
1.500
2.310
1.016
3.400
.530
.550
.325
1.470
2.460
12
1 .249
1.058
• ' ,- •
m :•
a
0 ''' '
0 '•
•. . •. '
,
0 . •
•*•'
0
0-. ...
.006
< .005 <
« .005
.020
.006
.005
.059
< .005
.031
4 '.005 <
.•Oil «
.041
• '12
.01 5
:.oi4
..
"0 '/ .
•••".' •'
•0 •".'
-•?'•'•
.•'.'•
"5-.:'.
„ •'•
•
-' \'
•'
;»' '
•,2"io
^094
.130
.110
.1 35
ilS3
.164
.054
.161
.115
.044
.184
U
.136
.047
'.. ;
•
•.
a " -
0 ~
o' '
;• •
„•
m
, 0
o •'
•
.021 «
.005 <
.006 «
.016
..038 «
.017 4
.039
.078
.027
.005 «
.005
.171
12
.014
.048
. .
•
0. '
. .
••
6
•
0 : •_
0
0
0 *
.230
.368
.222
.260
.US
.100
.177
.079
.189
.173
.176
.213
12
.142
.078
.
0
.
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0 ,
.005 «
.005
• .005 •
.005
10
.000
.000
.007 .010
.010 .040
* -
• • « •
', * ••" :
10
i. 0
V ' 0
' 0
- '0
0
, .0
;• '0
• • 0
0
. 0
" 0
0
0
0 '
0
0
0
0
a
a
4.600
5.000
0
0
i
4.800
.283
.
0
«
0' •
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.110
. .130
: .
0
•
-------
1/11/78
to
in
•2/16/78 4
3/10/78
4/ 5/78 <
5/10/78
6> 8/78 «
7/12/78
8/ 9/78 4
9/IJ/78
10/12/78
I2/ 5/78 <
• DBS :
HE IN
S10 DEV
POO 5 8/14/75
9/21/75
• ORS . .
HE»I»
SID DEV
1C 8/H/.75
.9/21/75
* nns
HC>M -. '. . ;.
SID 01 V -:
CN 8/14/75 4
9/21/75
1/11/78
2/16/78
1/10/78 4
4/ 5/78
5/10/78 '
(,/ 8/78 4
7/12/78
• 8/ 9/78
9/IJ/78
10/12/78
.500 4
•
.500 4
•
.500 4
• " . ''.
.500 «
• .V
* •':';'"'
;500: 4
9
.Olt
.018
2.0
• ' 4
1 '
2.6
«••
.*"';''
i-.-
b** .
o;
.005 <
• '. " ' 4
•
• ;
.005 «
• '„•
• '.''
.00,5 «
* ••'
• '•'
• - ; *
• ,
.500 4
»
.500 4
•
.500 4
• •
.500 4
» .
.SOU 4
.500 4
10 .
,021
.028
1.0
1.0
2
.5
• '
l«o.
170.
I .
115.
7 .
.OOS 4
.005 «
• . .
'-
.005 <
• •
»
.005 «
•
• • .
.UOS 4
•"
.500 4
»
.500 4
• .
.500 <
•
.500 4
•
.500 4
.500 <
10
.060
.112
1.0
1.0
2
2.0 .
1."
6».
b| .
a
M.
1.
.oo*>
.oos
*
• '
.0115 «
«•
• ,
.005 4
*»
»
.005 4
-
.500 ;4 .500 «
• ' • .
.500 : 4 .500 4
• : •- ' •'' '
.500' .4 ^500 «
•r " ' " • ••
.500, « .500 <
• : , ' . . •• : .
.500 4; -.500 «
.500: 4:..'.500 «
."' 6. • 61 '•
.000 .000
.000,. .i;000';
• ».;.'.V .V\.' .'•'•
• . ,' •-...•..•;• .
»'~.\ .-••, .' ,*' •'•-
.:}; •'.[, . .:,»'i";
- ",•"' '•,' ' ~m • • '
v'vi- ;;- '*•-.:/'' "'.
••'y ", ' • • •'•,*» '.•
•'•O'-'' • ••
'• .••;'., • '•>'.!'.-': '
•:3;.' ' ;*-.^.:-: '
»'-..v. •' - :' .''-y- "' •
• • '.'i ".' \;;;»
• ••">.'". •' .-•,'.",
•'';^:'... • •"•"'v,'
;005 4 .005 4'
•- ' •" . ' "/:•• •-,
• :,;"; " :?«r:. " :.
idos 4 .;."oo5 «
'•': ^ •-;•" ' • •- '•'.r.
• •^...., "' '•'••.
..oos Vs,;op> «
i^1;''".- ' VV^' '
.500 » .. :-
• • • -.
.500 - -
• . • . • • •
;500 4 .500 4 ..500:
• • ' -•
.500 . . v ;>
•. ; •- • '••
.500 ' • •
.500 - - :••':•'.
6 . • J ' ': i
.000 . .007 .006
.000 .006 . .005
•• •:. ... «
• • •
-••'.• ..•
»•...« • • '
..... . ••.
- ; •• •'-' •• ' ;
• • . • » . • . • •
• . . .
•..'..-.'••••. • ' •
" •. :- "' .. * •
'.. --' ' • V '. / . -:'.
• ' - * , . • '
» - . » . *
. - " / • ' .
.005 . - -, '-. ;••
. • . ' . '- •
•' '. . • •'
.60S - •
... '. :
. • • " . ' .
.005 - - :
• ' • • .
. - . '.-••"
. .
. .
. _ .
-'.••• .. ' * '
• . ' » .
. . •'
. • • •
* • '• .•
. -. - . • '
• 2.' '-'z
.015 .UO
• .007 .000
• • *
. • •
• . •'
. . ...
* ,. " '.
.'• :. ^ ...
- " : • "
• ' . . • «•
' *'. '• *
.* *
' '•/'•' .' • " ' .
^ ' . •
- * . *'
-: •»• «
. • ' . "'
" . * . ' "
• . " • • •
. . .. ;
• ; '. * . .
• "." . • v
»• ' -• . .
• * • • •-
. ,
12/5/78 « .005 « .005 < .005 « .005 •» ^005 « .005
• ORS « h h .- • r ••/'•• «
MEAN .000 .040 .000 .000 -.000 .000
sto otv .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
-------
PFRMTTTFt) StNITlRV LiNDFILL
MONITOR POINTS
7 a
tO
(Jl
u>
P»R«M
COLOR
* PBS
ME>N
STfi DEV
H«RO
» 088
ME«N
STO OEV
PHENOL
* DBS
ME *N
STO OEV
SET 8
• OPS
MF«N
STfl OFV
ss
a f'F«S
wt«f
STD 1 t V
«S
n«TE
H/la/75
9/21/75
1/1U/T5
9/21/7.5
1/11 /7B
2/16/7B
1 / 1 0 / 7 B
4/ S./7B
5/IO/7B
6/ H/7B
7/12/TB
B/ 9/7B
9/ll/tfl
10/12/7B
11/10/7*
I2/ 5/7*
8/K4/7S
4/21/75
I/I1/7B
2/16/78
1 / 1 « / 7 «
4/ 5/7B
5/IO/7R
6/ B/7B
7/I2/7B
B/ 9/7B
9/1 1/7«
10/I2/7B
1 1 /IU/7B
12/ 5/7B
H/10/7S
9/21 /'5
1 / \ ii / 7 S
1/?l /7S
-i'i../;s
. 1 •
5.
0.
'
49.0
540.0
541 .0
520 . 0
510.0
510.6
510.0
486.0
•'
»
400.0
10
«M .2
150.*
.002
'i
•
* .020
-
< .020
•
< .020
•
< .020
»•
•
_
< .010
It
.000
.001
'•.in'
-
.' I
. \t\
.00'
lil.,1 II
-
1
9 a . 'in
. ntt
' < .'l
Ik. '10
y-* . -<<*
/ ,'M'i
15.
5.
2
10.
7.
194.0
J54.0
100.0
102.0
A2.0
IB. 5
46.0
46.0
66.0
71.0
70.0
94.0
90. 0
54.0
14
115.7
111.8
< .001
.002
•
< .020
•
< .020
•
< .020
•
.025
• '
< .010
»
< .010
a
.003
.11(19
.211
I .no
P
.60
.57
7u.oo
f 1 0 . 0 0
f
\ if. 'a,
1 11.59
< . II \<\
4
•
212.0
162.0
245.0
120.0
120.0
218.0
216.0
219.0
210.0
210.0
212.0
168.0
12
144.7
41.9
•
- '
- •
« .020
-'
< .020
-
< .020
-
.060
• •
< .010
•
4 .010
6'
.010
.024
.
•
-
•
• '
.
-
•
-
-'
- .
5
•
750.0
2?6.0
245.0
106.0
210.0
212.0
218.0
211.0
195.0
200.0
245.0
156.0
12
209.1
42.0
.
.
•
4 .020
•
4 .020
•
4 .020
•
4 .020
•
4 .010
•
.014
6
.002
.006
.
•
•
•
-
_
-
_
.
-
.
6
.'
140.0
46.0
118.0
127.0
116.0
146.0
170.0
I5B.O
161.0
240.0
122.0
160.0
12
105.1
44.1
.
.
•
.011
•
4 .020
•
4 .020
•
4 .020
•
4 ,OJO
•
.055
6
.015
.024
.
•
•
•
-
_
-
_
.
-
.
10
118.0 116.0
1
118.0
.0
180.0
2
152.0
50.9
Reproduced from
best available copy
-------
ro
J/in/TH < .OOS < .Ol>5 .012 4 .005 < .005 .005
'
5MO/7H - •' - - «..•..'•••'
6/ «/T» < .DOS 4 .DOS < .005 < .OOS « .005 < .005
T/I2/I6 - , - - ....
9/11/M • < .005 4 .DOS 4 .005 < .005 4 .OOS
'• '
.
II/IO/TA - -• • - . - . .
ta/ 5/J8 .016 • .004 .OOS .002 .001 .001
• DBS . t - b b .4 4 4
MF«N .004 ' • .001 .00) .poo .001 .ooa
5)0 OEV . .008 .001 .005 .001 .00| .OOJ
8 «/l«/75 4 ,2 4 .1 .» ••.,•• -
»/«i/»s 4 .a .6 • ; .
• DBS I t 2 . . .
Ml AN .0 .0 .6 - • -
310 OtV .0 .0 .0 • " . . >
-------
• ,v PERMITTED SANITARY LANDFILL
M'ONITOR POINTS
4'..;•. ' 5 '" '6 . .7 8
10
U1
U1
BA l/tl/78
2/16/78
1/10/78
4/ 5/78
5/10/78.
: . 6/ 8/78
7/12/78
'• 8/ 9/78
9/1 J/78
10/12/78
11/14/78
12/ 5/78
• DBS
MEAN
310 OEV
. C« 1/17/75
: 4/12/75
7/19/75
A/14/75
9/21/75
« ORS
MEAN
STD DtV
: CO 1/17/75
4/12/75
7/19/75
8/14/75
9/21/75
I/II/7B
2/16/78
1/IO/7R
4/ s/70
5/10/78
6/ A/78
7/12/78
8/ 9/78
9/11/78
IO/12/7R
'.' '• 11/14/78
; : 12/ 5/70
'- « ».OBS '
V • MEAN"'
; 8TO OtV '
CH :' .•:l/ll/78
/ ! . '' 2/16/78
• 3/10/78
4/ 5/78
5/10/7S
. -., 6/ 8/7B
• - ' :. '7/12/78
') • .' «/ 9/78"
: 9/13/78
'. 10/12/78;
.170
4 .100
.200
.200
.200
4 .100
4 . .100
.200
»
»
•
.100
9
.1 1 »
.095
136.00
120.00
*_.
loS'.oo
135.00
4
114.00
10.16
4 .010
4 .010
«•
« .010
4 .010
.008
4 .001
4 .001
4 .001
.001
4 .001
4 .ooi
4 .001
•
- •
- . •
.004
'•IB
.001
.002
.030
4 .005
.006
4 .005
4 .01)5
.00*
.006
.0.10
• .-
•. ' \
.210
4 .100
4 .100
.200
.200
4 .100
4 .100
.200
. .100
.100
.200
.200
; 12
.153
.118
175.00
185.00
«
200.00
190.00
'•. 4
187.50
10.41
4 .010
4 .010
0."
4 '.010
4 .010
.001,
4 .001
4 .001
4 ..001
'.001
.001
4 .001
4 .001
4 . .001
.002
.001
.0011
• 16
.001
.002
...030
..019
-. .006
• .Old
4 .005
4 .005
4 '.OU5
•:.022
.040
'iOU
I.
4 ,
''*
.
.
< ,
•
2.
.
•
•
,
.
.
12
81
•
III!
100
•80
34
4 .
4 ,
0
4 .
4 .
•
4.' i
.4 .
4 .
,
4' .
.
4 .
4 .
4 .
•
*
.
.
•
•
.
4 ,
< .
.
•
230
100 4
300 '
400
300
too
100
050
500
500
500
500
12
548
567
.00
.00
.00
.00
. 4
.:75
,65
010
010
010
010
005
ooi
001 4
OOI
001
001
001 4
OOI
001 4
OOI
OOI
003 4
16
OOI
OOI
030 4
008
016 4
014 4
OOS 4
005
008 4
026
065
006 4
.160
.100
.300
.400
1400
.300
J300
.600
.600
.500
.100
.100
' ; . 1 2
i!47
.178
.;. •'
• -: .
• '."
.• y '
•• . -
»./ '
'•'.' '
•'-' '
•'•'•
'•;
•'•*
w •'
- ••-
.00!
.001
.001
..002
'.005
V.002
.001
.002
.001
.001
.001
.001
12
: .002
,002
.020
i; Oil
i005
,005
.005
, .000
.005
- i015
,-.040
.i.005
4
4,
4
4
4
.4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4'
4
4-
4
'4
;4
.220
.200
.100
.300
.100
'.100
.100
.100
• .200
.300
.200
.100
12
.177
.122
«*
•
'»
».,
. •
«
'.
•'
•.
.
« '
0
»
.004
.001
.001
'.001
-.001
.001
,001
.001
.001
.001
.002
.002
12
.001
.001
.020
.005
.005
.005
.005
.006
. .005
.021
:.005
.005
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
.050 4
.100
.200
.100 .
.21)0 .
.100
.100
.100 -
..100
.100
.100
.100
12
.067
.078
„
»
0
• ' . .
•
a ' .
«
•
« 4
• • 4
-
•
•
.002 i
.001
.001 •
.ooi
.001 '
.ooi
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001-
.001,
• 12
.000
.000;
i02o' 4
.019
.008
.OOfi
.005
.005
.005
.019
',006.'
.007'
.450 4 ..050 , ". -.
1 V' . '• • . "' •
•• . '•••'.• '.• •'•
•* ' •. • '• • .
••' '•.'."• "i • ' •
•, . . '• . ' m, . .
•". • '•• ' • ; ' '•* • •
«i' • /.'•••' ' ••'.'
» •" • -!••
« • '. . :•
« • - '
a •
1 1 "•'.'.
.000 <000 ' •".'•
• .000 : .000 .." • .
47.00 17.00 71.00 :
17.00 •'. 12.00 72.00 •
• • '. • .' ' '
' • •' '• •"''/• .; '.
* ' .0 • • a ' ' •
2 ' "•' 2 •' " l'~\
42.00 14,50 " 72.50
7.07 1.54 .71"
.010 4 .010 4 .010 4
.010 4 .010 4 ,010:4
• . • i •
• . • .> •-'.
• •', • : • * : '
.002 .- .001 - : .
• • .•. •. • • :v'
• • • ' '; • '.' : '•'
* .' • . •' '-
• ' • ] " •
• • '• •
w a •
• « •
• • •
» - '. . .":
• ' • \ m ' '
• -. "• ', • '- •
' 3 "'.- 1 :•• 2 •'
.000 :• .ooi • .000 •
.000 / .002 .000
.020 '4 .020 •• •
• • ' • 0 .•.-.'
• F • -' '
*• • • - •'
• ' " •
• • **
* • ' • " ""-.
." - :- » -
: * . • » .* •
•I :- •' ' . \ - '-:•
••..*
';•-»
;"•
•;' '«•
.-'.
.''-ۥ
;'.,
; •
' •
•
a
•
•
»
"
Tl.OQ
14.00
•
0
e
2
71.50
.71
.010
.010
a
0
-
•
0
-
•
•
•
-
•
a
•
•
•
2
.000
.000
.
»
•
-
»
4V
•
.
•
-------
10
ui
a\
a OHS
Ml AN
SIO PI'V
F
a (IBS
.MEAN
STO DEV
MG
• OB 3
MEAN
5TO DEV
HG
• ORS
MEAN
5TD ntv
11/10/70
I2/ 5/7*
8/10/7S
9/2«/l5
8/10/75 4
9/21/15
1/11/78
2/lfc/78
1/10/78 4
4/ 5/7* 4
5/10/78 4
fc/ 8/78 .
7/12/78
A/ 4/7* 4
9/11/78
10/12/78
It/14/7*
I2/ 5/78 4
I/IT/T5
4/lZ/fS
7/19/75
A/I4/TS
9/21/75
• '; 4
.021
9
.011
. .011
.21:
• '.':.
: i":
.21
.III)
.0005 4
- :'• 4
.0005 4
.0008
.0002 4
.0002 4
.0002.4
.0002 .:
.0001 4
,0002 '4
. :
• • 4
• • • .'
.0002 4
10
.0002
.0001
15.00
2?. 00
.
oo. no
JB.OO
:4
15.00
5.72
.mis '«
.024 '
1
• * . *
« •
• • » *
• ;' *
» • •» •;.
. • - • ;• '
' ••• •'• •- .-
'. * " '!
• " » '.
- •• . ' '
• • »
• • "
' •- • ' , -
• • • •
- ". -• . • •'-
• » r
.- •
. '•'. » •-
. •. • • - • . •
4* •
' • - . • ' .
'; *' . . » •
* - • *
23.00 2a.OO
21.00 21.00
•. •.
• • .. • . •
«•'.'.'. • ' -
2 2
22.00 22.50
1.41 2.12
-------
NI
• OHS
MEAN
STO OEV
1/17/75
4/12/75
7/19/75
H/14/75
9/21/75
Ol
at
• OB3
ME>N
STO OEV
B/IO/75
9/21/75
1/11/78
2/16/78
3/IO/7A
«/ 5/78
5/10/78
6/ 8/7B
7/12/78
8/ 9/78
9/13/78
10/12/78
11/14/78
12/ 5/78
.01
.42
.OJ
.01
4
.10
.21
PFBMITTED 3»NIT»m LiNOFILL
MONITOR POINTS
to
.01 4 .01
2.no 29.00
.0! 4 .0}
.0! 4 .01
4 ' 4
.70 7.25
1.40 14.50
.01 4
.01 4
: 2
..00
I'.00
.01 <
.01
2
.00
.00
.01 4
.17 4
.08
..12
.01
.01
2
.00
.00
.010 4
•
.010 4
.00!
.002 4
.010
.075
.006
.001 4
.001 4
. '
• 4
•
.001
10
0082
0215
.010 4'
• • 4
.010 4
.001
.002 4
.020 4
.015
.011 4
.001 4
.001 4
.002 4
.001 4
.001
.001
II
.0040
.0068
.010
.010
.010 «
.005 <
.002 <
.010
.010
.001 <
.001 •
• .001
.003
.001
.014
.001
14
.0021
.0045
•
•
I .010 4
1 .001 4
i .002 4
.010
.006
1 .001 4
.001 4
.001 4
.00! 4
.001 4
.001
.001 4
12
.0011
.0032
.
• '
.010
.001
.002
.010
.017
.001 <
.001
.001
.003
. .001
• .006
.001
12
.0027
.0055
.
•
1 .010
1 .001
I .002
.020
.004
1 .001
1 .001
.001
.003
.001
.001
.001
12
.0024
.0061
4 .010 4 .010
I
.0000
.0000
I
.0000
.0000
-------
APPENDIX E
CHEMICAL ANALYSES, PRESENT STUDY
KEY TO APPENDIX E
TEMP Temperature, expressed in degrees centigrade
PH pH, expressed in pH units
ALK Alkalinity, total, as CaCO- *
ACID Acidity, hot, as CaCO-
S04 Sulfate .
SC Specific conductance, expressed in micromhos/centimeter
CL Chloride
TOC Total organic carbon
COD Chemical oxygen demand
TS Total.solids ,
TDS Total dissolved solids .
N03-N Nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen
NH3-N Ammonia nitrogen- ,
PO4-P Phosphate, total ,
TKN Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
CU , • ;Copper : '...••''•; '' ' • '.-; .'•-.'•'••;• -.. '•'••. '".'.':••',:,; '••'-'-, .'.•;•'•>•-. :"•:' - • • .-••.''' • ..--
FE .. Iron, total • ' '
MN Manganese
NA Sodium
PB Lead
ZN Zinc
* All analyses in milligrams/liter unless otherwise noted,
- Dashes indicate no data.
a Chemical interference-value excluded from the mean.
b Handling error-value excluded from the mean.
c Analytical error-value excluded from the mean.
258
-------
. to
en
UN* • l/IT/ll
. II/I«/I4
4/I1/T4
1/14/14
• Oil
NC4N
•TO 01 V
PH -1/II/T9
II/I9/T9
f/fl/14
9/ll/te
0 MB
• TO OIV ••'
A.LC 1/IT/IO
11/11/19
I/II/I9
i/ll/T*
T/I4/T4
• om • '
t»«n
9TO 01 U
ACID 't/IT/?B
ll/ll/Tt
I/OI/T9
9/01/19
1/09/19
• one
MtN
iio 010
109 1/IT/TI
II/I9/T9
1 lit no
l'tl/l«
1/14/14
t 090
HI id
•TO 01 »
DC 9/IT/TO
II/I1/TO
1 /II/T9
4/I1/T4
1/14/11
• 'Ml
HftH '
•TO 01 •
t/»j/n
4/M/I9
• OKA
•in 01 v
"• "' •'';
II. 0 • Hi*
14.0 11.0
1 . 1
I.I: .0
4.4 , 4.1
4.4 ' T.I
1.9 '. 4.9
1.9 I.I
110.0 4140.0
III.O 1140.0
114.9 1444.9
141. 0 '1410.0
4 4
114.9 1111. 5
14.1 411.1
-149. -1900.
• HI. -1119.
•190. «I419.
•119. -1140,
a a
•191. -1119.
94. 149.
149.0 11000.0
II. 0 1.1
91.9 4 1.9
•1.0 4 1.4
41.0 a 1.0
9 9
49.0 1441. 1
19.9 9144.9
.
JOO.O 14000.0
100.0 1100.4
119.0 1400.9
100.0 1109.9
0 . 4
9M.O TOfl.o
111.4 1141.9
11.0 040.4
11.0 1»i.4
« 1
4.01 4M.40
.•: ;
10.0
II. 0
i
4.4
4.4
4.9
4.1
419.0
999.0
119.0
499.0
Q
494.1
11.0
•40o!
-IIO.
?410.
a
•444.
44.
IM.O
• 90.0
410.0
149.0 ;
. *9 ''
119.0
91. 1
.
1919.0
1400.0
1140.0
1404.0
a
140?. 1
"**•'
I'.o
il.ll
S
• —
10.0
II. o
1
1.4
1.4
4.4
•
4.1
410.0
944.0
490.4
640.0
0
414.0
U.I
.-440.
•990.
-400.
-414,
0
*»I9.
10.
• 10.0
140.0
110.0
140.0
100.0
9
149.0
114.1
.
1490.0
1400.0
1100.0
1100.0
0
I1M.9
ttt.4
11.0
9
I*. 40
• • '
T.9
9.4
11.9
.1
.1
•44.0
uo!«
410.4
410.4
0
119.9
III. 9
.••II.
•40o!
?I9Q.
4
-III.
l«0.
140.0
140.0
140.0
•110.0
140.0
140.0
14.6
.
1400.0
1 099.0
IPOO.O
1900.0
9
ID4l.il
440.0
lllo
1
IB4.1?
"!
•'
• •
•
• ;
•
m
• r
•
• •
. ,
m
m'
•
• .
•
* '
I
•
•
0
• '
•
»•
• ;
,. '
•
•>
* •
e
" •
„•
*
0
•
*
•
•
"
•
. •
•
.!.'.' naitlTna POINT! .*
;'rf •'.•• •'•
'• V 14.4'.
: -: 14.4 .
.1".
• ; ».».
S I.!-:-
-:,'..».» ':•
• . '
''•' l.l '
! •' 014.0 .
141.0' '
. 144.0
1
OII.T
.-•-. 41.1
' • -111.
'•" -|la*
' g
' • -141.'
•0.
'. 111.0
49.0 -
' " •»
91.0
•9.0
'a
'..• 49.0
T40.0
400.0
— - '
«90.0
' . 400.0
• '• • 4
.. 441.9
41.0
.. • 41.0
',
." 44.10 '
1 ; ••
•
•
"
-
6,6
• ;
. •
• :
1
„ .
* '
• '
• :
•
9*
•
a '
' • •
•>
•>
•
"
113.0
».
*
o
*
1
m.o
.0
•90.0
•
.
•
1
MO.O
.0
• m •
•
,
H.Ofi
I '/=.
«.o
II. «
»
I.I
f •
l.t
•_
. ' 0
•30.0
600.0
Off 0.0
,OI«. 3
a
690.9
14.4
__.
•T94.
•IIO.
•|OIO«
0
-044.
119.
ioo.o
loo.o
190.0
•9.0
140.0
9
141.0
99. D
1199.0
1100.0
1900.0
1100. 0
1490.0
9
1140.0
141.4
<«.o
15. 0
10.0
44.4
T.!
m.
• 4.4
. ' 8
119.0
144.0
119.9
140.4
0
149.8
ii4.e
••it.
•110.
•940.
3
-I4C.
• (14.
•.
140.0
110.0
IIO. 0
IIO.«
4
111.9
41.0
.
1440.0
1400.0
• 10.0
1190.0
4
1100. 0
141.4
111.0
40.9
1.4
',
40.11
• .
; '
• * :
U.O
f.l
*>
•
m\
B
. ^ '
•
a
6fl*0
1
"*
•
e
•»T,
i
-in.
i.
119.9
•
•
•
199.0
e
101,0
1.1
1100. 0
• •
•
•
1000.0
1
1010.0
10. 1
•
-
41.0
1
If. 14
.r
ii
9.9
11.9
1
1.1
.
I.T
II. •
'j 4
III. 9 •'
1144.9
44.4
419.4
a •
4T4.1
444.4
•1490.
-11.-.
-994, .
0
-919.
991.
•
144.4
14.0 .
14.1
11.0
0
14.9
41.1
.
' TOO.O
1100.0
410.4 '
4(4.0
4
1141.9
1141. 1
loio
14.4
14.4
4
4I.1«
14.11
• . J
19
'-.' ;'
4.9
11.4
•' 1 .
1.1.
t.4.
- •»
•' 8
a ".
• •" '
•86 .9 '
•66,6
0
M.6
o
•119,
•II40
• - &
•910.
8.
149.0
-_
0
119.8
191.0
D
149.0
14.0
III.O
• - •
'. •
440.0
194.0
9
411.1
14.0
m
9.0
• i
'l
LIT
1.91
I.I
141.0
I
148.0
.0
I
419.0
I
191.90
,44
-------
MMIfO* fOINII
K)
cn
o
P41AM . Mil
IM . t/ll/ll
II/IVII
.I/H/II
- l/ll/ll
f/M/tt
MM
•n MI
CM t/lt/it
it/ii/ti
I/M/II
- 1/tl/ll
l/M/tl
• Ml.
MM •-.•.'"
•it M» ;
it i/it/ti
ii/n/ii
• KM/14
• 4/11/14
• ".' • KM/11
• Ml ; ' V-
M4. ••".• . .:
tit Ml. . •'•"
ll/ll/ll
l/U/tl
. -•/ll/ll
' t/M/tt
• Ml
MM -. -• '.
lit Mil ... •'•..
MM: t/ii/ti
ii/ii/ii
' - 't/ii/ti
•/•i/ti
I/II/M
I Ml
MM.
Ill M»
MM 1/lt/tl
< ll/ll/ll
• I/II/M
•/M/14
t/14/M
• Ml
MM'-
II. Mv
•04.*' 1/lt/tl
ll/ll/ll
l/ll/l*
4/11/14
t/M/tl
• Ml'
tUM .-.
lit If* -
l.t
li.l
ll.l
• M.I
ll.l
ll.l
M.I
ll.l
11 .»•
II.M
.' -.
•M.
Ml.
..-•4
i,%
•M.
} ••ft,
44*,
••••
.*••
.11*
.1*0
.It!
.-
.•»•
« .41*
.Mt
1
.1**
441*. *
•44.*
'**!,*
111.*
III.*
lltt.l
1041.4
110*4.*
1*****
1104.0
MO.*
IK.*
I
IMI.**
44M.lt
. .•
44*0.
MM.
•Mf!
••44.
411*, -
IIM.
•Ml.
•«•«.
*
' *'*•
I.Mt
.11*
.It*
- I.I**
. .It*
«
.*!•
.4*1
. ,
til. 444
41 4. M*
44.4*0
•1 .444
141.044
' ii •
IF.O
: ii.*
•>.*
I'.O
i
I*.*
4.4
41.4
IB.*
It.*
44.*
. It.o
1
U.4*
14.14
»
ll*l.
114*.
Ilil.
10*1.
iiii.
ur.
in*;
IMI.
•11.
1*41.
.41*
IIM
IIM
. •*••
.1*1
. .144
'- » •
.41*
.41*
1*114
.111
- .411 Ifel.ttf .4*1
.It*
1.1*0
.4*1
.«**
.14*
-1
.III
' .Ml
'.!*•
.0*0
.I**/
..II*
.fit*
*:
; •**':
.1*0
t«fc
.*•!
.•II
»«•
.Mt
II***
It.t
9
U.*
Ml.*
14.4
•*.•
'1*4.44
%
lilt.
1*14
lltl
•If
I*S*
IU«
I*M
Ml
IIM
If*
**••
.11*
.lit
• IM
»
.I*!
m
. *M
M*
•M
*4f
I.M*
.«!*
.04*
• *ll
1*1*
44.4
»*.4
1*.*
II.*
• 1.*
•
41. •
•*.l
104.*
HI.*
44.4
U.* .
14*.*
in.** :
44.11
'.
Ill*
tit*
414
IMI
1*1*
tit*
141
.11*
. .00*
V
.It*
.11*
.
t.ut
ll*t*
I.MI
1.49*
.M*
.44*
.441
*ftl*
.014
1*1*
»" •'•' - ' 1.4 '
• 'v-', 'ii.*
« .* ,• . •'••••
• . ': T." I.I
-^:%, »••'
• -.'•;,:" ' •'
'•';,. vj. •••."
. £$'' V it.*-
. -,X •£•-»•••
' •^'•'.fl*.*
. •;.••,-,. «.*
."f^/i*:"
„"':*''--"'/'•-''• '" .
- .'. >' ;.-•;'-. «l*.
'•:C.~- ;*i*.
• .-,-••; - ; •*•*.
•'•/..'•;•:" • I;
• .•/«> -,4»i,-
•-,'•.'?• 441,"
• •'* '>• ' ' 414.
' -W' •'-
».^-; :' 4%1,
J>fr-V'.- 1!"
-'•" ", •''- "' " ".
•»''•'• •-!'••
'i-;--1.1:-' .*«*
..-;.• , .11*.
•- -•,•,. T
!•;>'.. . '.1*1.
••/'': . ••*!*"
'•''•' - ,aio>
•-..•/' ' *•!!•
'i '-• ; • • ....
• " • .410
• ; « .001
'-•-. •" '• 4
. • .444
. .Oil
4.1
' •
, ,'"' 1
. 4.1
.0
.••*•
,- ^»
'1
».**
y '.'•
" 'V '
.< •
">\ •
.Ml
.- •'
-':-' •
.M*
':»
, .-
, - • '
- -'• '
'• »
: ,o?o
•. •
i
: .STO
- .000
1*.* '
11.0
It.*
1*.*
40. t
B
•1.4
10.4
141.4
It.*
tl.*
».»
•t.»
*
M.44
M.t*
. v
IIM.
1*44.
tt*.
IIU.
• . ' : 4
IIII.
141.
1*14.
•44l
III*.
:- 4
!•»*.
III.
.11*
.*••
.*••
.14*
.100
*-
.11*
,-
I.***
* *•!•
l.**0
4
,B4«
,IM
.4**
.14*
*|04
,11*
•
,141
•
14.*
•I.*
11.*
It.*
*
. ll.l
• *l
,
I**.*
41. *
4*.*
•1.*.
*
»*.o*
v
111*.
III*.
«**.
Ml.
,4
IM*.
•M.
Illf.
10*1.
•14;
4*1.
til.
II*.
.11*
.*'•
.11*
»•!•
- 4
.!*>
*!!•
, •
.4**
.*••
1.44*
4
I.MI
»
.•It
,0ftt
.014
.0.4
4
.oil
.Bit
I.I
'. !*.•
a
*•*
•*t
It.O
-' u.t
; **'jj
• • •
wf.
•ii.
I::
f»».
. i
. ' • , **
.M*
1 •
.14*
.!*•
•If*
.
•-
.IM
1
' .IM
.Ml
.141
' •
..
. .Ill
1 .424
.111
11 ' .
.' • -.
' • II.
' 14.
. II.
- U*
MM.
114.
!•'.
lltllt
: •
tit.
1141.
111!
• ' 1
«:
•44f
1*11.
1*1.
14*.
. - *
111.
If*.
-' •'
.*••
.14*
.444
.»!•
„ •
4 .**•
i.m
.tit
.itt
.4
.111
.Mt
..
.*tl
* 1*
. I*
. tl
4
* tt
• 1*
tl 14 . IB -
•1.4 |.«
1.4
•- I ' .
»••
-.' 4.1 '
*
I*.*
1
II. *•
*.H
.
Ml.
U*.
•
•U*
U.
;
4*0.
ttl.
' •
4*1.
I.
4 ,*l*
• .41*
• .*!*
1
.4*0
•
.114
.44*
.«!•
.IM
. .444
"
•
.441
.041
.•14
•
^
1.4;
.•
11*4
•
' ' *:•
' • ; ' •
." '
•— .
•
'•
.11*
•
1
,•••
.- • :
*
* :
*
* .
•
••••
. ' * '
«•
. i
.04*
.014 ,404 ,
-------
I TO* POINT*
!••> ' »/11 'II I, II tit.II | ill 1.1* I. «0 • • .1* -,*t 1.10
It/ll'd • tlt.ll , .4* .11 t.fl - .It * 1.40
i.ti in.**
I. «0 ItO.II
• »
1,40 a. to
I'll/It .III .111 .It* .III .Oil • , - • .Oil .It* •
•'11/1* 4 .III 4 .III 4 .III 4 .11* 4 .III » . 4 .111 • 4 .Oil « .III • <
r/14/M « .11* .III « .III 4 .III 4 .III - « .III . 4 .III « .III « .11* <
• 01* • 0 4 • • • 1 . 40 I
MfA* .111 ill! .••• .001 .Oil • .001 - .001 .001 .•••
•10 01¥ .111 .011 .III .111 .lit * . .lit • .lit .III .III
ro
• oil
MAN
IfD Dl«
••.*•• lll.UI *.«U
1
•lint
S.fll II.Ill
tm/i*
4/ll/t*
f/14/f*
i.ui
.«4l
.*io :
.in I.IH
.4tl 1.111
.!•« 1.1**
.10*
.!••
.«•
.411
.«••
*
.*»•
• HI •
4 .«!•
!.••*
.*••
1.1*1
.14*
I.I**
.It* 4
• 4
.•I*
.10*
•It*
.114 4
.01* •
.*!* . •
I
I.ill 1.114
• OBI
HfltH
•10 DCV
i/»/n II.*•• 4ii.ui n.iii i*.loo u.es
«/»S/T* !«.*•* »**.••* ll.ll* I.tO« !•.»*
1/14/t* •*.»•• »*.••» Ililll II.1*1 »IO.«*
t.OII
I4.ui ir.io* • *r.«o*
IT.*** !.*•• • I*.*** 14.***
11.101 II.Ill 11.111 II.Ill !«.**•
I * I 4 t
|*.«»* «».«•• ll.lll I*.901 !*.*••
11/19/11 l.kSI 4 .110 « .111 • .110 4 .*>! . • .•» • « .111 < .110 • « .01*
4/O/I* • .11* « .010 « .010 4 .01* • .Oil • < .010 • 4 .*>* * .*!* " * >*>4 • 4>IO
• Oil
Httk
•10 0(V
.•00 .*!• .001
.*** .14* .*••
••1*
.•ft
• 01*
Ht»N
•10 OCV
-------
HUP
ntTE
11/15/78
1/25/79
4/26/79
7/26/79
« PHS
MEtN
STO OEV
PH
11/15/78
1/25/79
4/26/79
7/26/79
to
CTl
K)
« DBS
MEAN
STO OEV
UK 11/15/78
I/25/T9
4/26/T9
T/26/T9
I (IBS
MEAN
STO OEV
•CIO .11/15/78
1/25/79
4/26/79
7/26/79 -
• cms
ME**
STD DtV
304
* PHS
STD OEV
SC
11/15/78
1/25/79
4/.?6/79
7/26/79
11/15/7*
t/fi/Tf
.7/26/79-
0 OBS
ST» DIV '
CL Vl/lS/78.
'4/?6/79
7/?6/l9
o ens
MMN
sin ntv
MONIKIH POIWIS
•••;.« s
BALEFUL
5.0
10.0
.' 24.0
| V A
« 1 J . o
• T.2
. , -
. 6.0
6*9
1
.6
2600.0
.
2770.0
2820.0
1
2T10.0
115.1
•2100.
•
-2520.
•2840.
1
:r25Sl.
.-• 272.
'2040.0
•- •
' *•"".
2.h'«
1
204O.O
.O
66 in. n
*
60011.0
60011.11
^
62IO;0
16J.7
776.0
- -.
85ll.ll
625. (I
I
7sn.»i
1 14. K)
IU.O
H.O
10.0
1
91
• 3
T.5
T.2
7.1
T.5
4
.2
640.0
218.0
?10.0
192.0
4
JTO. 0
196.7
• 480.
-240.
-266.
-161.
4
-117.
109.
2.7
14.0
1.6
1 .0
4
S.|
6.1
910.0
U » 0 , 0
475.0
»/5.n
4
hOO.O
242.2
•15. 0
ft ') . '>
5'
. 24.0
34.0
16.0
' 16.0
;'•• 4
. lj>.5
''•'•' •5*>-
080.0
, 500.0
450.0
450.0
. 4
470.0
?4.5
1 S . 0
I « . n
I.S
5.0
4
H.I8
5.?2
10.0
8.0
»
2
1.4
T.6
8.2
•
2
.«
116.0
•
12.0
w
2
80.0
T).5
-128.
•
-19.
•
2
-74.
T7.
II. 0
95 0
«*
2
SJ.O
59.4
780.0
.
250.0
.
2
515.0
174.8
21.0
•
i.O .
.
>
\ i.no
1 1.11
9.0
8.0
10.0
1
1.0
6.8
6.9
7 .8
8.0
4
.6
280.0
250.0
254.0
243.0
4
256.8
16.2
•284.
-294.
•260.
-222.
4
•265,
12.
21.0
24. »
18.6
16.0
'; 4
19.8
V?
510.0
450.0
450.0
160.0
.' •' 4
442.5
61.8
16.0
7.5
2.0
5.0
4
7. hi
6.02
9.0
8.0
10.0
1
1.0
T.I
T.4
T .2
8.6
4
If
266.0
224.0
2SI.O
211.0
4
218.0
19.0
-294.
•256.
T21I.
•251.
4
-259.
25;
21.0
28.0
21.0
25.0
4
24.8
2.4
5?0.0
425.0
425.0
400.0
4
44?. 5
SJ.O
19.0
iO.n
h.S
5.0
II
10.1 J
6.?8
-------
P«R»M
tPC
DATE .
1I/I5/7S
1/25/79
4/26/79
7/26/79
;» DBS ;.
STD OEV
cno
« OB3
STD DtV
TS
11/15/78
1/25/79
4/26/79
7/26/79
9.73
7.26
385.
284.
305.
283.
4
314.
48.
292.
278.
303.
251.
4
281.
22.
.480
.030
.020
.010
4
.135
.230
< .020
. .090
< i020
« .020
4
.022"
.045
.030
.053
.019
.034
4
. ifl34
. .014
.. 1 '_.
;"., 5>a;'
1 els'
6.3'.
••: 14.0'
. 4'
V 8.S
; 3.9
1.9
4.0
25.0
20.0
• . -'4
13.23
10.90
577i
306.
340.
352.
4
394.
124.
; 318.
302.
328.
290.
. 4
IIS.
22.
7.300
5.900
4.500
3.500
4
5.300
1.657
.090
.090
• .040
« .020
. 4
.055
.044
.110
.051
.057
.021
4
', .o'ss
• .040
-------
:•.'.:.- - .: ••••'.- .'• : • . B»LEFILI
' MONITOR RUINTS
PtRtM IUTF I ' •' 2 ' 1 ;« • ". • 5. (, 7
?u.no .21 - ' .'09 4 .0? 4 ;o2 .09
.37 9.00 ,'. .30 -- .10 ,48
4/26/74 ?70.0n .43 10.00 , •'::-' .15 .19 . .13 .6*
7/26/74 lio.nn 4 .02 .77 4.;v: ,02 . . - 4. ;02 4 .02
• OPS •. . •'.-' ..)••• « 3 :•:://;•• *• ••• z •'••«••• 4
MF»N 203.67 .25 6.59 - ., i;l> •:. .09 .11 .31
STO PEV ' 81.43 .19 5.07 .-;i>•-".!* •''/''•. .13 .14 .32
Cll II/1S/7B : .1*0 .020 - jV'iOlO,,., .010 4 .010 .050
1/25/74 . •'. • '• 4 .010 4 .010 4 :,010 •'•; - 4 .010 4 .010
4/26/79 ', .540 « .010 4 .010 4'!'V.OIO 4 ,0|0 4 .010 « .010
7/26/74 \.I50 4 .010 4 .010 V , ,010. , > 4 .010 4 .010
* OBS . ' -3 -4 3 ",;:".' :.«'-' 2 • .' 4- • • 4
ME*M ' ;290 .005 .000 .00? .005 .000 .012
STO OEV .217 .010 .000 ;..005 .007 .000 . .025
FE 11/15/78 20.500 8.300 - ' lO^OOO ?.4IO 4.840 3.420
' I/25/F4 - .060 .060: "l.ilK"- , . ' • . .990 .050
4/26/79 12.300 .120 20.100. ;.'ril50"- .100 . .• .??0 .090
7/26/74 7,400 .740 .080. r :;!;050!' .-;. V .050 i068
• » OB'S ' - . ' • '' ' 3 • 4 3 '-.»"•'''".• *•":-.. 2 • . - 4 .'. 4
HtHi I3.567 2.305 6.747 iVjj.545 , 11>55 'i;SlT .405
STO DEV ; 6.195 4.008 I 1.564 ,5 ,4.937 " 1.633 2.278 1.677
MM 11/15/78 :.3IO Ii270 - ::' 1.100 .'.' .150 3.200 .470
K, , 1/25/74 •'.-:••.. il.TO 1.650 .>',,T40., - -.1.260 . .040
!r . 4/26/7S .280 .310 1.100 ',:! ~;S4p ' , .130 ; .600 ,140
•£ 7/26/74 .520 1.180 I.500 Y, ;370, - .280 i860
I DBS • - ' 3 4 . 3. '-•& '-:'. 4 :j . ' 2 .'''.-;• 4 ' 4
«E»N .310 .712 1.417 :;v1;i700 , ••:•.-.(40 .;1.135 - ,140
STD OEV ,1131 .573 .284 Sjn>3l8:. i .014 1.304 .,140
N* ll/V*>/78 640.000 16.000 - 9.000 1.300 6:000 5.200
1/25/79 .'.-•'•-. 32.000 47.000 :.'-.9.006 • . 4^200 6.050
' 4/26/79 5SO.OOO 25.100 38.300 5'.«IO S.550 4.050 5.620
7/26/79 52S.OOO ?«.000 6.400 :.-;•,»«0 "' - 3.400 5.600
• OBS'" . • ' •''..» 4 " •!••?:••:••.'.•.. •::••..• 2. '• ''-4 •• . 4
ME»N 571.667 24.275 30.567 .-.'7i652 1.425 4.518 5.617
STD Orv. 60,484 6.555 21.376 i; 2..26S .177 .983 .347
PB tt/IS/71 4 .030 4 .030 - 4',.031) 4 .030 < .030 4 .030
1/25/74 - 4 .ilSrt 4 .0)0 4;, .010 - 4 .010 4 ^030
4/26/79 4 .030 4 .030 4 .030 4. i030 4 .030 4, .030 4 .030
7/26/79 4 .010 4 .030 4 .030 « ..030 - 4 .030 4 .030
• OBS " V 1 4 1 •'•••'. 4 -' 244
«E»N .. •">.' .boh .000 .000 •. : .000 .000 ,000 .000
STO OEV •. ' '.* .000 .000 .000 ::.OflO .000 ,000 .000;
IN I1/1S/7H - .120 ,rt»0 - :' ; .130 : .860 .120 .090
1A?S/79 '" ' v .020 5.310: .' .010 - .020 .030-
«/?6/79 ,': .'ISO .050 1.ISO -.-,..050 : .040 ,?30 ,IOO'
• 7/26/74 •• . .*5I« .010 1.640 : .080 . .120 .080 :
B "RS ' 1 (, J .;> «. g 4 4
"E«N : . ' .?(,« .oao 2.721 .067 ,«sn .1?) .n7S
STO OfV .n<)S .nil 2.311 •-.-' .051 .5HO ,0»6 .031
-------
Ul
; ; MONITOR POINTS
PARAM HATE
TEMP |2/ B/7H;
2/14/79
5/ 2/74
8/ 2/79'
» OB3
MEAN
STO OEV
PH I?/ 8/7*
2/14/79
: 5/ 2/79
a/ 2/79
» PUS
MEAN
STO DEV
ALK \?.t B/7H
2/14/79
5/ 2/79
fl/ 2/79
o OBS
MEAN
STO OEV
ACIO I2/ B/78
2/1 0/79
5/ 2/79
•/ 2/71
a (IRS
MEAN
STD OEV
S04 I?/ B/7S
2/14/79
5/ 2/79
8/ 2/79
0 OHS
MEAN
STO DEV
SC I?/ 8/7B
2/111/74
5/ 2/79
B/ 2/79
a CBS
MEAN
STO DEV :
CL I2/ K/7B
2/14/79
5/ 2/79
«/ 2/79
« OHS .
MEAN
sro orv
1
12.0
7.0
9.0
is.o
a
10. S
3.7
7.2
k.9
•>.«
8.2
Q
7.2
.8
190.0
179.0
170.0
170.0
4
17B.]
8.7
-19a.
-196.
•175.
-1B7.
4
-188.
9.
24.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
4
21.6
1.7
14(1.0
170.0
400.0
JSO.O
4
190.0
J9.2
U.O
n.o
15.0
16.0
4
15.00
• 1.41
2
1 1 . 'I
4.0
7.S
11.0
4
A. 4
5.4
'.1
7.2
7.5
7.4
4
7.J
.i
290.0
441.0
404.0
440.0
4
39S.8
Tl.l
-290.
-495.
-4IB.
-ISO.
4
-196.
15.
2.]
7.7
6.7
28.0
4
11.2
11.5
540.0
650.0
700.0
600.0
4
622.5
6S.5
7ifc
10.0
. 10.0
25.0
4
1 1.15
T.I*
i
11 .0
»
H.O
10.0
3
9.7
1.5
1.1
7.1
7.6
7.5
4
7.4
.a
58.0
61.0
(.7.0
6J.O
4
62.3
5.8
• 50.
-6».
-59.
-64.
4
-60.
8.
23.0
21.0
16.0
17.0
4
19.3
3.J
140.0
140.0
140,0
150.0
4
142.5
5.0
5.1
10. 0
5.0
3.0
4
•).7«
•>.•*«
•«..
9.0
3.0
6.0
14.0
4
8.0
«.7
7.6
7.J
7.8
7.2
4
7.5
.3
64.0
31.0
52.0
tso.o
". 4
7«.3
52.3
-5«.
-15.
-40.
-110.
' 4
•55.
40.
24.0
28.0
.23.0
11,0
4
21.5
7.3
. 140.0
105.0
120,0
145.0
4
127.5
16.5
5.1.
n.o
, 5.0
2S.O
q
12.02
9.
-------
MILLFUL
en
PARAM n«IE
TOC 12/ 8/78
2/11/79
5/ 2/79
8/ 2/79
* OBS '
MEAN
STD OEV
CflO . 12//8/78
2/14/79 *
5/ 2/79
8/ 2/79
» OBS
MEAN
STD OEV
TS 12/ 8/78
2/14/79
5/ 2/79
• 8/ 2/79
» OBS
MEAN
STD DEV
TDS I2/ 8/78
2/14/79
5/ 2/79
8/ 2/79
* OBS.
Mf AN ,
STD OEV . .'
NOS-N 12/8/78
2/14/79
5/ 2/79
8/2/79
« OHS
MEAN
STO 01 V
MHJ-M 12/ «//« <
2/14/79
5/ 2/79
»/ 2/79
» OHS
MF»N
STD Of V
P04-P \fl H/7»
2/14/79
S/ 2/79 <
«/ 2/79
« OBS
MEAN
STO orv
l
7.5
9.6
5.2
3.3
4
6.4
2.7
3.9
1*0 <
12^0
4
5.43
5.00
284.
258.
267 .
274.
4
271.
H.
292.
246.
252.
231.
4
255.
26.
.870
.770
1.300
.670
4
.903
.277
./>?» <
)fl70
.090
'.050
4
.OS3
.039
.032
.1)07
.00) <
.026
n
.Olh
.015
2
8.9
Ih.O
6.9
5.8
4
9.4
4.6
12.0
1.0 <
7.8
15.0
4
8.70
6.51
350.
486.
478.
414.
4
412.
63.
513.
172.
462.
937.
4
396.
83.
.060
.030
.120
.060
4
.1)67
.038
.020
.100 «
.100
.141)
4
.085
.060
.021)
.<> )«?
.001
.ilOS
U
.1)11
."15
MON
3
1.1
2.8
I ,
1.
2.
1.
1.0
23.0
4
10.48
10.49
140. '
95.
126.
105.
4
117.
20. .
134.
92.
150.
It.
4
112.
• 23. ..
.220 !
.160
..2,40 ,.
.090 V.
4 : '
.178 , •
.068
.050 <
.020
.150
.500
4
.175
.225 •.•;•-
.Off'
. oos
.007
.052
4 '. >
.019 •
,01-j
I10R POINTS
4 S
12.0
1.
.3. -
6.
•
S.
4. -
'•
3.
12.0
4 -
6.32
4.57
390.
292.
199.
237.
4 -
,880.
83.
222.
108.
126.
IBS.
4 -
•160.
53.
.508 . .
.220
.530
.tori
4 ' -
.337
.211
.020
.090
.140. -
.110
4 . •
.085 . -
.060
.190
.460 -
.089 -
.ISO
4
.222
.164
6 .
11.0
8.5
5.5
3.4
4
7.1
3.3
16.0
12.0
12.0.
4
10.00
6.93
212.
249.
307.
270.
4 :
260. •
10. ,
220.
239.
295.
245.
. : 4
250.
32.
1.800
1.500
1.?00
.540
4
1.260
.539
.030 <
.150 <
.110
.100
4
.097
.050
.044
.049
.067
.049
4
.052
.010
7 8
10.0
7.
7. 8350.0
3. .
1
7. 8350.0
2. .0
31.
3. 2J690.0
12.0
4 1
11.7323690.00
13.79 .00
270.
286.
349. 28870.
279.
4 1
296. 28870.
. 36. 0.
264.
: 270.
314. 19500.
275. »
4 |
28). 19500.
ZJ. «.
.590
.770 -
1.000 2.800
I. 100
4 1
.865 2.800
; .230 .000
.020
.020
.140 120.000
.670
4 1
.202 120.000
.319 .000
.040
.028
.006 1.800
.087
4 1
.040 1.800
.014 .000
-------
MONITOR POINTS
4 S
MILLFILL,
••» - • '• ,' 7
2/14/79.
V 2/79!
*/ 2/79'
..* QHS
STD OEV
Cll
* DBS
l»l 8/78
2/14/79
S/ 2/74
!V »/79
STO OEV.
FE'
. .09
.10
.11
.010 4
.010 4
. .010-4
• .010 4
4
•;000
.000
.02
.11
.10
.14
.010
.010
.010
.010
4
.000
.000
* 088
HE IN
STD OEV
MN
\tl 8/78
.V 2/79 ; aiv
.010 :
.010 •
, .010
: .010
4
.005
.006
7.000 ':'
(,.100
6.IBS
.414
.nllp
.0*0
4
.oon
.100
.Jt-n
.170
.710
.640. 4
.890 4
.620 4
4-
.71S.
.121
8.100
8.000
7.740
7.090
4
7.7H!
.SIS
.OS »
.14
.08
.67 '
4
.2!
.010
.010
.010
.010
'• 4
.000
.000
.120
.010
.010
.010
.• 4
.010
.060
.020
.010
.010
.010
4
.005
.010
.04
.55
.29
.85
4
.41
.35
.010
..OJO
.010
.010
4:
.007
.015
.800
.600
IlOO
4
.007
.736
.180
.110
.510
.470
4
.127
.202
.08 >.:
.-.,: .75 ..•':•
'• ' •' .i' :-V
. 4 '•':'
.11 •''
.Z9
4 .010 4
4 .010 4
4 .010 4
4 .010 4
'• 4' -
.000"
iono.
.140
.120
.220- 4
.200
4
.270
.070
,.10
.06-,
.i?:
?<5i
.»?
.010
.010
.010
.010
4
.000
.000
ISO. 00 ;
150.00.
. .00;
.070
.070*
.000
.110 - : .
.250 '; - .-.'.'
.0101308.000
.ito' - ..- '
4 '1
.1981308.000
.141 .000
3.400 4.600
3.0UO 2.600
2.760 1.140
1.070 1.950
4 4
J.057 1.622
.264 .854
.150 .110 :-.'.
.140 .010
.150 • .010 102.000
.180 4 .010 • '
4 '4 1
.167 .047 102.000
.021 .057 -.000
5.100 4.900 •>
4.100 1.700 •
1.890 1.810 828.000
1.900 4.410
4 4 I
4.147 4.210 828.000
.661 .554 .000-
.0)0 < .630 -4''
.010 < .030 «
.010 4 .010 4<
.010 4 .010 4
4 4
.000 .000 „
.000 .000
.100
.240
.nan
.ouo
4
.IDS
.0911
.140
.010
.1130
.010
4
.060
.OH1
.010
.010
.010
.010
4
.000
.000
.210
.090
.220
.020
4
.115
.097
.030 < .030
.010 4 .010
.010 4 .030
.030 4 .030
4 4
.000' .000
.000 .000
.010
•' I.
.000
.000
.420
.100
.nso
.000
4
.1S2
.110
.210
.060
.inn !8.oi)A
.010
4 'I
.09! 18.000
.088 .000*
-------
Is)
Ot
00
P»R*H OME
TEMP I2/ 2/78
2/22/79
5/ 9/79
8/16/79
» ons
MftM
STO OEV
PH ia/ 2/78
2/22/79
5/ 9/79
8/16/79
• OR8
HI I*
STO OtV
at*. i?/. 2/7*
2/22/79 •'
" S/ 9/79 /
8/16/79
• HAS •':'
MEAN '• :•'
STO 0£V V
ACID I?/ 2/78 v
2/22/79 *
5/ 9/79
8/16/79
• (IRS
ME«N . ••-: . ;
STD. BEV.
SOU I?/ 2/78 " .
2/22/79;
5/ 9/79'..
8/16/79
• IIHS
MEAN • . •". :*
STD OtV
SC If/ 2/7»
«/?2/79
S/ 9/79
H/16/79
a OHS !
»f»N
STI1 OEV
CL \n rti*
itff'11
S/ M/7»
8/I6//4
0 IIHS
'siii nfv
i
•
o.o
15.6
11. 0
1
9.
8.
m ;
7.
7.
7.
7.5
.2
70.0
7.0 .'0
97.0
121.0 .
'.4
?IV5
22.7
-6 a.
-71.
-102.
-114.'
• '£
-88.
24.
"5.0
75.0
80.0
II 0.0
* .*-
A7*S
15. S
>a0.6
?so,o
100.0
460. n
4'
J22.5
-61.4
••. I.'
| *»-.!>
' ^ • S
(..1
u
*!»s
2
.
2.0
18.0
10,0
1
II. 1
8.J
. • .'
7i4
7.6
7.5
1
7.5
.1
9*.0'
9U.O
122.0
115.6
4
III.!
20.9
-86.
-94.
-118.
-127.
4
-III.
25 .
us. 6
72.0
84.0
42.0
'4
81. i
8.1
180.0
260.0
tso.o
asn.o
•' 4
IhO.l)
74.7
•1.*
S.I.
'1. S
s.<>
a
*!'•>
STHtP MINE LtNDFILL
MONITOR POINTS
5 . 6 7
10
».- : •
16.0
17.0
'•' *-
• :**
m • ' .
6.6
7.2
' ' ,-" 2,
6.9
' '•'•?*''
. i'.'' -'
•' .•'".','.•.•
118^0
328,0
' '".:'.*
121.0
. ;'»'.',•
;«:>."•
-169.
•lio;
V :- ' 2
•i'so.
'•.2.8.' .
•V ':
• . ' • :
91.0
120.0
:'•{• 2
106.5
,V*^'
'i" _• : '
V_ ^ •
fiSO ; 0
850. n
'•••• 2
7.SO.O
lai.a
'».
.'•'.'
V5.0
' • ,'2.S
•.-.•• 2
•Bi7S
H.H4
8.5
9.0
9.5
f7.2
6^8
'•!
• . ' • , -§
7.1
'.'•'• "lil
„••; •
170.0
iir.o
«74.0
.• r--j -
lUil
IS2.I
-161.
'••'" • 'i
-129.
I2J.
•'.'..•.'.•
180.0
190.0
170.0
1
180.0
10.0
'. » •.
7?5iO .
.700.0
1100. 0
1
Dm. 7
224.1
• _
fO,U
« n . (i «
*•'
2?.?*
lh.7fc
4.0
8.0
14.0
1
5.0
7.8
6.9
7.6
1
7.4
...-.*.-
8i*
20.0
17.0
11.0
• '.4
**•*
10,3
-Hi
•12.
,''•«
"*'*'
'*•'.
100.0
99^0 •
110.0.
55 iO
4
91 .0
24. S
210.0
25I>.0
200.0
175.0
4
211.8
11.0
2.4
2.5
< 2.0
2.5
4
I.8S
1.2!
8.0
9.0
9.0
1
,6
*
?•«
.-».!
T^4
%3
'*.»••
; • •.*.:'
188.0
204.0
147.0
2J1.0
."-• - -: V: 4'
241^0
; • "**
>JIM.
•402.
•210.
•• -:4
••261.
425.0
410^0
310.0
400.0
• ••:' 4
186,5
51.9
1100,0
1075.0
1000.0
450.0
• • 4-
10)1.1
68.8
17.0
2?.0
6.5
25.0
a
17.61
a. 12
.
25.0
• •
; 1
»fL
.0
• ^
V.i
•
. 1
7.1
•°
.. "_.
»••;.
5620. 0
• •."
/ I
5620.0
:.«
-'•-.' '
-looo.
•
I
•looo.
:o.
. '
• • i
. '-6.8'
• '.
1
0;l>
.0
..
•.
9000.0
•
1
9000.0
.0
.
.
IIOA.O
.'
1
1 ino.no
.no
.
. zi.o
19.0
e
3A -A
20. 0
? •
»*»
7.4
2
7.1
.4
.•
] •
lltO
47.6
• - :"i •
40.0
;***
*
-27.
•11.
- • - '-2
•10.
«.
.•.'•:'
. •
170.0
28.0
2
49.0
100.4
.
•
150.0
200.0
' . • 2'.
.275.0
106.1
.
^
< 2.0
2 ,S
J
I.2S
1.77
4.0
— .
•
' 1
4.0
.0
. 1.1
• •
. -
1
7.1
.0
20.0
126.0
.• • "
•' '.
2
11. 0-
1 '*••
6.
-Iff.
•
2
.6*.
;•'*••.
115.0
44.0
•
.. •-
• • : 2
79.5
50. 2
100.0
400.0
-
««
'2
JSO.O
70.7
2.0
7.5
. •
»
2
«.7S
. 1.19
-------
to
-tft
10
HAK'AH DATE
TOC: I?/ 2/7B
• 2/22/74
• 5/ 9/79
6/16/79 4
• DBS
MEAN
sfo OEV
COO |2/ 2/78
2/22/79 4
5/9/74
6/16/74
« OHS
MEAN
STO OEV
TS I2/ 2/76
2/22/74
5/ 4/74
8/16/74
• OHS
MEAN
STD OEV
TOS I2/ 2/78
2/22/74
5/ 4/74
'6/16/74
* (IBS
MEAN
STO OtV
NOJ-N |2/ 2/7K
2/22/74
5/ 4/74
6/16/T9
• tins
MEAN
STO OfV .
NH3-N I2/ 2/TA 4
2/22/79 .
5/ 9/79
6/16/79 .
« (IMS ;
Mf AN
STO OIV
P04-P I?/ ?/7«
5/ 9/79 4
I 8/16/79
• n»s :
MEAN : ;• '• '
STO OtV ,
l
' 4.6 .
1.2 .:
8.7 .
1.0 V
4 '••
4.1
1.6
1.9
1.0 4
12.0
19.0
4 -
8.71
8.46
241.
21 5w
280.
in.
4
277.
.68.
194.
98*.
264. •
142.
4-
225..
104..
.610
.750
.260
.740
4
.590
.229
.020. 4
.060 4
.040
.110
4
.OS!
.046
.OOH
.003 4
.005
• 4 '
= ."II ..
. .014 '
t
ll.o
1.7
1.4
5.4
4
5.9
5.0
47. 0
1.0"
16.0
21.0
4
21.50
19.54
252.
211.
104.
186.
4
216.
75.
202.
168.
10).
147.
4
255.
»«.
.610
.900
.470
.600
II
.695
.192
.020
.020
.050
.060
4
.012
.019
.01,?
.003
.067
4
.027
.1129
S1HIP MINE LANDFILL
MdNiToa POINTS
5 6 T
10
t*.o
*2
1.6
. '
.
24.0
11.0
'. '2 ,
>7.50 1
4.95
.
-. . .
512.
565.
: 2
51.9.
"•
•
498.
555.
2
527.
40.
7.6
14. n
4.4
4.7
• 4
1.0 4
20.0
11.0
1
17.11
15.16
•
51).
669.
615.
I
666.
151.
.
444.
6)1.
'41.
1
621.
175.
1.0
1.4
6.7
1.0
4
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.9
16.0
4
6.48
7.86
157.
144.
216.
140.
4
1".
15.
111.
160.
176.
114.
4
141.
11.
1.1
6.8
12.0
7.2
4
4.4
1.4
4 l!o
20.0
21.0
' 4
11.71
11.46
886.
407.
1020.
442.
4
451.
65.
604.
812.
705.
440.
<|
617.
46.
1070.0
»
.'.' .1
1 Af f\ A
3U f U * U
.0
m
,
4560.0
•
|
9580.00
.00
. .'
• '
12060.
m
\
12060.
0.
.
.
11145.
•
}
11145.
0.
.060
1.200
. 2
I .630
2.220
1.200
2.100
2
1.750
.778
.005
.018
• 2
.nil
.009
.210
.010
1.000
1
.411
.516
.020
.090
.2)0
1
.107
.116
.029,
.1)0
.026
.062
,OS9
.250 .160
.120 .090
.010 4 .010
.120 .140
4 4
.1)0 .147
.091 -.15)
.240
I
.240
.000
.020
.020
.040
.080
4
.010
.018
.016
.0)0
.0)6
.005
4
.017
.010
.020
. .020
• .050 150.000
.140
4 I
.047 150.000
.066 .000
.040
.025 -
.006 1.900
'. .016
.4 '. 1
.027 I.4(l0
.015 .000
8.6
7.8
2
6.2
.6
16.0
141.0"
': 2
IS.O
.0
291.
•148.
2
221.
10).
101.
114.
2
214.
120.
.010
.160
2
.185
.247
.060
.110
.045
.044
.oir
.Oil
.'2
.014
.004
4.0
1.0
2
1.5
.1
7.4
1.0
2
1.45
5.54
144.
241.
2
221.
11.
181.
2)0.
2
206.
15.
.060
8.600
2
4.410
6.160
.0)0
.300
2
.165
.141
.008
.016
2
.012
.006
-------
10
-J
o
PtRAM DATE
TUN I2/ 2/78 <
2/22/79
5/ 9/79
8/16/79
» OBS
MEAN
STD UEV
CU I2/ 2/78 <
2/22/79 «
5/ 9/79 «
8/16/79 <
« DBS
MEAN
STD OEV
ft 12/ 2/78
2/22/79
5/ 9/79
8/16/79
1 (IBS
MEAN
3TD DEV
MN I2/ 2/78
2/22/79
5/ 9/79
8/16/79
* OHS
MEAN :
STO OtV
NA 12/ 2/78
2/22/79
,S/ 9/79
8/16/79
» OBS
MEAN
STD OEV
PB I?/ 2/78 <
2/22/79 <
5/ 9/79 <
8/16/79 <
» OBS
MEAM
STO orv
IN 12/ 2/7«
?/??/79
• 5/ 9/79
8/16/79
• OPS
MEAN
STD DEV
l
.02
.20
.10
.32
4
.16
.11
.010
.010
.010
.010
4
.000
.000
.120
.140
.090
.110
4
.MS
.021
.100
.150
.030
.060
4
.OHS
,OS2
5.900
9.200
7.000
7.200
a
7.325
1.374
.030
.030
.030
.030
-" 4
•'.000
.000
1090
"•.» SO
.100
.030
4
.Oh7
.035
2
« .02
.42
.11
.48
4
.25
.23
< .010
.020
< .010
« .010
4
.005
.010
.120
.140
.070
.150
4
.120
.036
.190
.210
.060
.230
4
.172
.077
H.420
9.200
10.500
8.700
4
9.205
.922
« .0)0
< .010
< .010
< .030
a
.000
.000
.090
< .0)0
.OhO
.OHO
a
.057
.040
STRIP MINE LANDFILL
MONITOR POINTS
5 6 T
1.6,0
2.70
2
2.15
.78
.010
.010
2
.000
.000
J.JO
.'•I
.67
I
1.60
1.47
.010
.010
.010
1
.003
.006
.01
.09
.52
.19
41
.20
.23
.010
.010
.010
.010
4
.000
.000
.910
•: 1.600 .100
7.010 5.700 .970
3.900 (1.000 2.ISO
2 1 • 4
5.465 5.100 1.107
2.213 1.242 .741
4.210
5.700
• :2
4.955
1.054
64.000
64.000
.2
64.000
.000
.010
.030
2
.000
.000
.•010
.080
. 2
.055
.035
.3*0
.710
.aio
3
.640
.231
14.000
51.000
US.000
1
50.000
35.511
;280
.180
.220
.100
4
.265
.087
I. I 00
1.500
.851
4
1.111
.270
.01
.09
.71
.28
4
.28
.11
.010
.010
.010
.010
4
.00;
.oos
.150
.210
.160
.240
4
.195
.047
.090
.160
.910
.100
"4
.115
.19*
180.00
180.00
.00
.050 <
• <
1
.050
.000
46.800
96.800
.000
7.740
7.740
.000
.88
..52
2
.70
.25
10
.02
1.10
2
.65
.92
« .010
< ,010
.010
.010
2 2
.000 .000
.000 .000
• .060
1.700
.120
.050 -
2 2
.185 .880
.191 1.160
.160
.010
2
.085
.106
2.680
4 . 100
15.0001500.000
4.400
• •
6.5451500.000
5.686 .000
•1.800
• .636
2
1.218
':.823
.060
.920
2
.490
.608
1,100
27,000
2
14.150
18.173
- < .030
.030 < .030
.010 « .030
.OJO < .030
1 4
.000 .000
.000 .000
.040
.200
1
.1"
.057
.110
.250
.270
.060
- 4
.172
.103
.030
.010
.030
.030
4
.000
.000
.040
.020
.050
.200
4
.078
.083
- . < .010
. . ;« ,030
.080 « ,030
- < .010 • :.
I - I--: i
.080 • .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
.910
1
.910
.000
.380
.020
2
.200
.255
.030
.170
2
.100
.099
-------
HFKM1TIEO StNIURf -LANDFILL
MOhltOB POINI8
to
PAMH
.TEMP
'-• ' •'••
V •' OH 5
Mf AN
STO DtV
PH
• ims
MEAN
SID OfV
AL«
' * 003
MEAN
STO OEV
AC 10
K OHS
MEAN
STD DtV
S04
0 (IHS
»EAf»
STD.ntv
sc
\
•„.* OHS .
*MN .'
. sin D(v
CL
• ; ',
B'^OHS
Wf Ah'
8,1 D Uf V
-HATE
12/ 6/TH
2/11/79
S/ 2/7»
*/ 1/79
1 9 1 ttjm
\er n/ I n .
2/11/79
5/ 2/79
8/ 1/79
I2/ 6/M
2/11/79
5/ 2/79
8/ 1/19
12/6/7*
2/11/79
5/ 2/T9-
8/ I/T9
f
li>/ 6/7fl
2/11/79
S/ ?/79
«/ 1/79
I?/ 6/70'
2/11/79
5/ 2/79
«/ 1/79,
I2/ 6/71
?/1 9/79
S/ ?'/79
'«/ l/79\
'•It '.
10.0
; • .0
.0
: •.' '- , 5
• 4
•' • •6,:
B'
_ ._
.a.
.6
4
T.I
."
440.0
016.0
441.0
462.0
4
440.1
18.9
-4S«i
-4R6.
-492.
•426.
4
-466.
10.
50.0
46.0
19-. 0
19.0
4
41.5
. 5'"
" 960.0
. 900.0
1000.0
'; 900.0
4
140.0
49.0
6H.O
..75.ll
»«.»
•\ 4 . >
' ' 0
S6.HO
2
10.0
7.0
8.0
9iO
4
lil
7 4
6^9
6.0
4
6.9
.6
698.0
419.0
467.0
740.0
4
581.0
161.5
-746.
-091.:
-557 .
-670.
4
-616.
114.
10.0
11.0
11. II
SO.O
4
11.0
1.4
1400.0
925.0
9?5.<>
1000.0
4
1062.5
227.8
9.0
10. 0
4 I?. »
I.I
4
S.Orf
1
11.0
11,0
12.0
12.0
4
12.0
.8
1 4
7 [4
4
7.5
.1
412.0
117.0
172^0
281.0
4
146.0
57.)
-418."
-164.
-2771
4
-381.
78.
'.«
15.0
**• I
«».Q
4
17.4
16.2
1600.0
1400.0
IhllO.O
14-10.0
4
I4II7.S
8-1.4
214.0
f. 6 4 . 0
/MO.O
4/0.0
•4
iltb.7.S
'
4
- ,11.0
7.0
'. 7,0
'•'
4
8.5
1.*
7.2
4
7.2
F *5
'v>258.0
.V 211.0
227.0
-227.0
•4
211.1
19.0
-26«.
-247.
, -2«"».
. -225.
4
-247.
14.0
22.0
20.0
48.0
4
26.0
15.1
' 400.0
" 400.0
4bO.O
> 180.0
4
407;5
29.9
7.0
11.0
;< 2.1)
6.i
.4
6.S7,
''
S
10.0
8.0 .
8.0
10.0
4" '
9.0
1.2
»'I
4
7.4
.2 .
294.0
265.0
292.0
265.0
4
279.0
16.2
-100.
-110.
-121.
-260.
4
-100.
27.
7.4
10.0
5.9
4
14.6
11.7
600.0
400.0
700.0
850.0
4
762.5
117.7
49.0
i^a.o
s^.O
151.0
. 4'
MS. 00
-;."•
.. 6 ;
I0.0:
8.0
8.0 '
9.5
•: '.; •"'
8.9
l.o
1.7
4
7.6
.2
196.0
122.0
179.0
145.0
• • 4
171.0
14.4
-200.
-119.
•191.
•188.
4
•180.
27.
25.0
18.0
19.0
41.0
4
15.8
7.1
080.0
425.0
425.0
450.0
4
445.0
26 ;1
24.0
15.0
16.0
4UO
•4
14.00
:7.i6
1 .
V'),0 ':
: «,.•;
l«,6
4 '.
9.8 .
6.0
7.8
4
7.9
.2
0,0*
111.0
115.0
174.0
4
134.0
34.T
208. e
•110,
-121.
•166.
4
139.
S3.
2200. fl«
11.0
24.0
52.0
4
S57
14-6
220.0
250.0
250.0
400.0
: 4
280.0
81.2
42.0
20.0
14.0
25.0
4
^S-'.i'S
12.04
'. • " .'
- c
2.O..
0.0.
6.0
14.0-
*.'
5..S
6.2
7.8
8.0
'. a
8.0
; it
116.0
lil;o
io6-.o :
147,0
•• •
120.0
18.5
• i.14.
-129. .
•61. :.
•18.9. i
' 4 ;
-12). '.:
53." :
15.0/
26;0
21.0
50.0
4
11.5
12.1
220;o
lOO'.O
225.0 :
125.0 .;
•• 4 ':.
26 7'. 5
51.0
11.0
21.0
12,0 • •
r».o
^ 4 '-
21.00 -
8.04
to
-------
•PfHMf MED SANIIARV LANDFILL
MOWIIOH PII1NIS
to
••J
ro
PAPAM DAtE
IOC I?/ 6/7H
2/11/79
5/ 2/79
8/ 1/79
• OHS
MC AN
SID DEV
COD I2/ 6/7*
2/11/79
5/ 2/79
8/ 1/79
• DBS
MEAN
STD DEV
IS 12/6/7*
2/11/79
5/ 2/79
8/ 1/79
* DBS
MEAN
STD OEV
TDS |2/ 6/7*
2/11/79
5/ 2/79
a/ 1/79
» OHS
MEAN
STO DEV
N01-N |2/ 6/7*
2/11/79
5/2/79
8/ 1/79
• UBS ;.
MIAIK •:-...
STD OtV .
NHl-N |2/ fc/7H
, 2/H/T9
2/H/79
S/ 2/79
»/. 1/79
h (IHS
Hf AH
STD nry /
i
*.*
14.0
• 22.0
: ' -2.5
* 4
II. »
'(a.-j
16.0
« -1.0
12.0
8.0
4
9,00
6.81
645,r
617.
677.
4
671.
502.
625.
640.
620.
. . -• 4
6j 7 .
.' ;Z7
.l«l
.01*
,.005
< .00)
< .0111
It
,1'IIS
.OOH
2
10.0
IS.O
ll.o
2.6
4
10. 1
•'..:' 5.4
« 1.0'
< 1.0
2.2
« -1.0
4
.55
1.10
772i
622.
540.
764.
4
675.
111.
64*.
5M.
527.
601.
,9
607.
72.
1.210
1.101
4.100
1.000
4
1.902
1.601
,.OJ'>
« ,0?0
,150
.100
4
.128
.116
.001
.-II ni
< .mil
.009
1
. .lilh
. UO<|
I
fc.7
*.2
IS.O
17.0
4|
11.7
5.0
55.0
4.6
18.0
42.0
4
29.90
22.79
001.
820.
861.
860.
4
816.
30.
795.
005.
861.
847.
4
827.
12.
.010
.100
.100
.050
4
.065
.044
.050
.000
.120
.810
4
.110
,J56
.1124
.0^4
.Oil
.025
4
.021
.007
4
4.4
6.1
7.7
10.0
4
7.1
2.4
1.9
« 1.0
4.1
19.0
4
6.75
8.38
2*0.
254.
252.
, 261.
4
262.
11.
247.
242.
244.
260.
*
248.
.».
.020
* 4.500
.040
.140
4
1.175
2.217
< .020
« .020
'.100'
.350
4
.112
.165
.ot;
.OIS
« .001 <
,004
4
.OIK
.Old
5
4.
6.
7.
5.
5.
1.
20.
2.
8.
27.
14.13
11.22
101,
500.
001.
626.
' 4 "
478,
ni.
169.
494.
198.
558.
• • 4
455.
87.
.010
*
.110
.150
1
.097
.076
,n«o
.too
.240
.260
4
.1 fcO '
.107
.00*
.01)1
.00!
,1109 <
4
.ons
.004
6
1.
• 4.
5.
7.
5.
1.
12.
1.
10.
12.
8.78
3.20
106.
241.
101.
147.
• 4
Z99.
271.
210.
2*9.
121.
'4
271,'
07.
.040
•
.040
.010
I
.010
.017
.060
.140
.1*0
.500
• 4
.220
.191
.004'
.012
.014
.001
4
.007
.007
•'• 7 '•
6.1
6.1
5.0
7.1
Q
6.2
**'
1.8
« 1.0 «
8.0
a.o
4 •
5.9S
J.»7
2662.0
206..
186,
265,
4 .
• :':- • tl«.'-
•• 41. ,
155,
135.
189.
4
232.
90.
: .170
: .no
.500
.200
• ' :• 4
= • .115
' .157
«; .020 «
••:' .050
' .090
.110
4
.061
.049
: .02*
.00*
« .001 «
' iOl 1
4
.012
.012
'a- '••
5.1
4 ,9
4.9
6.1
*
5.1
'•' •*
12.6
1.0
6.1
a. 6
4
6.52
s.oo
208,
196.
165.
211.
• 4
201 i
28.
204.
16A,'
165;
189,
4'
182.
18.
.6*0
.180
.140
.220
"-.'«
- ^255
..I «
.020
,040
..090
.050
:' 4'
.045
.017
.016
.01?
.001
.004
4
.00*
.007
10
-------
PERMITTED SANITARY LANDFILL
MONITOR POINTS
10
~I
U)
PAHAM
TUN '
« DBS
MEAN
STD DfV
CD
• 063
MEAN
STD OEV
FE
• (IBS
MEtN
STD DEV
MN
• DBS
MEtN
STO DEV
NA
1 OHS
Ml AKi
STD DEV
PB
* OHS
MEAN
DATE
lit 6/76
2/13/79
5/ 2/79
»/ 1/79
12/ 6/70
2/13/79
5/ 2/79
8/ I/TV
12/ 6/78
2/13/79
5/ 2/71
8/ 1/79
12/ 6/7H
2/13/79
5/ 2/79
8/ 1/74
I2/ 6/78
2/13/79
5/ 2/79
«/ 1/79
12/ 6/7B
2/13/79
5/ 2/79
8/ 1/79
STD DfV,
IN
* OHS
MEAN
STD Dtv
I2/ 6/7fl
2/15/79
S/ 2/79
«/ 1/79
1
.OH
< .02 4
.19
.on
«
.17
.17
< .010 <
4 .010 <
< .010 <
< .010 4
II
.000
,000
5.770
2. ADO
.140
3.230
a
2. 90S
2.319
.260
.100
.170
.100
4
.197
.012
32.600
50.000
33.100
3S.OOO
a
31.175
.591
< .030 <
< .050 <
< .050 <
4 .030 <
a
.0011
.000
.500
,1RO
.021)
< . II 1 0
4
.125
.112
2 •
.05
.02
.11
.51
a
.14
.15
.010
.010
.010
.010
11
.000
.000
.300
.070
.070
.280
4
.IftO
.127
.050
.020
.020
.070
4
.040
.024
5.000
4.200
7.160
7.300
4
5.915
1.554
.010
.050
.050
.030
a
.000
.000
.220
,»uo
.050
.010
a
.ISO
.I1**
3
.21
.14
.57
.61
.4
.43
.31
« .010
< .010
< .010
< .010
4
.000
.000
.830
.210
.160
.080
4
.320
.344
.060
.OHO
.050
.090
4
.070
.018
295.000
252.000
370.000
246.000
4
267.750
22.867
< .030
< .050
< .030
< .030
4
.000
.000
.020
.1HO
.0)0
< .010
4
.OS7
. IIBJ
4
.25
< .02
.10
.40
'
.19
.16
« .010
< .010
< .010
< .010
4
.000
.000
.300
.080
.070
.040
4
.122
.120
.480
.040
.020
.020
4
.140
.227
12.700
B.600
10. UOO
21.000
4
13.175
5.480
< .030
< .030
< .030
< .030
4
.000
.000
.050
.030
.110
< .010
4
.OU7
.041,
5
.18
.15
.47
.69
4
.37
.26
.020
< .010
< .010
< .010
4
.005
.010
.300
< .010
.070
.050
4
.105
.133
.070
.080
.070
.120
4
.085
.024
60.700
75.000
hi. 200
70.000
4
66.725
6.977
< .030
« .030
< .050
« .030
a
.000
.000
.010
.050
.OAO
.020
4
.0
------- |