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
-------