COMPOSITION OF LEACHATES
FROM ACTUAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
by
J. Bramlett,
C. Furman,
A. Johnson, and
H. Nelson, Ph.D.
Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
68-03-3113, Work Assignment 39-7
Project Officer
Charles I. Mashni
HAZARDOUS WASTE ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded, wholly or in part,
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No.
68-03-3113, Work Assignment 39-7, to Science Applications International
Corporation. This document has been reviewed by the Hazardous Waste
Engineering 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 Pro-
tection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial
products and practices frequently carry with them the increased generation
of solid and hazardous wastes. These materials, if improperly dealt with,
can threaten both public health and the environment. Abandoned waste sites
and accidental releases of toxic and hazardous substances into the environ-
ment also have important environmental and public health complications.
The Hazardous Waste Engineering Laboratory assists in providing an authori-
tative and defensible engineering basis for assessing and solving these
problems. Its products support the policies, programs, and regulations
of the Environmental Protection Agency, the permitting and other responsi-
bilities of State and local governments, and the needs of both large and
small businesses in handling their waste responsibly and economically.
This study was undertaken to look for patterns in the composition of
leachates from several hazardous waste sites in different parts of the
country and to assess the feasibility of formulating synthetic leachates
representative of those from actual hazardous waste sites. The acquisition
of such data is crucial for designing proper containment barriers and for
developing proper treatment procedures to minimize the harmful impact on
the environment. This publication provides much needed information on the
complexities of the problems we are facing and better prepares us to deal
with them rationally.
David G. Stephen
Director
Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This study was initiated with two overall objectives: 1) evaluate
data on the composition and characteristics of leachates generated at
hazardous waste landfills, and 2) assess the feasibility of formulating
synthetic leachates to pretest liner materials and components.
Samples of leachate were collected from 13 hazardous waste landfills
located throughout the United States. The samples were analyzed for
various parameters and the analytical data was statistically evaluated.
An attempt was made to correlate the analytical findings with climate,
geography, and disposed waste.
The following observations were made: 1) the leachates were approxi-
mately 99% aqueous and 1Z organic by weight; 2) only 4Z of the analytical
total organic carbon (TOC) was characterized; 3) of the characterized TOC
(by total mean mole fraction percentage), 39.OZ was organic acids, 35.8Z
was oxygenated/heteroatomic hydrocarbons, 11.OZ was halogenated hydrocar-
bons, 7.2Z was organic bases, 6.0Z was aromatic hydrocarbons, and 0.9Z was
aliphatic hydrocarbons. Based on these observations, a generic formula and
two specific formulas for a synthetic leachate were derived.
Recommendations were made with respect to a synthetic leachate formu-
lation and follow-on studies. Recommendations regarding the uncharacter-
ized organic fraction included representing it: 1) with the organlcs
already named in the formulas; 2) based on site-specific disposed wastes;
or 3) with high molecular weight liquid n-alkanes or a refined petroleum
product. The study also recommended ah organic portion of at least 50Z to
represent a localized concentration of leachate. Metals were not included
since evidence from other studies indicates that these elements do not have
an impact on synthetic liners. Also, correlations of leachate character-
istics to factors such as climate, geographic region, and disposed waste
cannot be made without comprehensive information on all factors.
Recommendations for follow-on studies included the analysis of leach-
ate from one site to determine exactly what portion of total organics can
be characterized. Analytical approaches which more comprehensively charac-
terize leachate samples were also recommended.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-311$,
Work Assignment 39-7, by Science Applications International Corporation,
Inc., under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This report covers the period April 1, 1985 to September 30, 1985, and
work was completed as of September 30, 1985.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vi
Abbreviations and Symbols ix
Acknowledgments x
1. Introduction • • • 1
2. Compilation of Information Regarding Chemical
Compatibilities with Liner Materials 3
2.1 Flexible Membrane Liners ... .... 3
2.2 Clay Liners 6
3. Collection and Analyses of Leachate Samples 9
3.1 Site Selection Methodology 9
3.2 Leachate Sampling Procedures . 13
3.3 Analytical Procedures 28
3.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Results 30
4. Study Findings 49
4.1 Analytical Results 49
4.2 Leachate Formulation 74
5. Conclusions and Recommendation 82
5.1 Conclusions 82
5.2 Recommendations 82
References 86
Appendices
A 87
B 93
-------
FIGURES
Number
Average Annual Evaporation and Precipitation Rates in
the United States
Geographic Distribution of Forty-three Master List Sites and
Thirteen Final Sites Selected for Leachate Sampling ...
Page
12
15
TABLES
Number Page
1 Chemical Compatibilities of Flexible Membrane Liners 5
2 Overview of Thirteen Sites Selected for Leachate Sampling
and Analysis ..... 14
3 Sample Containers and Preservation Methods 16
4 Summary of Sampling Activities . 19
5 Methodologies Used for Fraction Analyses of Leachate Samples . . 31
6 QA/QC Analytical Results for Field Duplicates and Field Blanks -
Metals, Total Cyanide, COD, and TOC 33
7 QA/QC Analytical Results for Field Duplicates and Field Blanks -
Volatile Organics 34
8 QA/QC Analytical Results for Field Duplicates and Field Blanks -
Semi-volatile Organics . 35
9 QA/QC Analytical Results for Field Duplicates and Field Blanks -
Non-priority Pollutants 37
10 QA/QC Analytical Results for Laboratory Blanks -
Semi-volatile Organics 40
11 QA/QC Analytical Data for Laboratory Blanks -
Volatile Organics 41
12 QA/QC Analytical Results for Laboratory Sample Splits - Metals . 42
13 QA/QC Analytical Results for Laboratory Sample Splits -
Semi-volatiles 43
14 QA/QC Analytical Results for Laboratory Sample Splits -
COD and Cyanide 39
15 QA/QC Analytical Results for Laboratory Sample Splits - TOC . . 45
16 QA/QC Analytical Results for Laboratory Surrogate Spikes -
Trace Metals 46
17 QA/QC Data for Laboratory Surrogate Spikes - COD and
Cyanide 48
18 QA/QC Analytical Results for Laboratory Surrogate Spikes - TOC . 48
19 Statistical Data for Organic Acids 50
20 Statistical Data for Oxygenated/Heteroatomic Hydrocarbons ... 52
vi
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
21 Statistical Data for Halogenated Hydrocarbons 54
22 Statistical Data for Organic Bases 55
23 Statistical Data for Aromatic Hydrocarbons 56
24 Statistical Data for Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 57
25 Statistical Data for Metals, pH, Eh, Conductivity, Temperature,
Total Cyanide, and COD 58
26 Percent of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Accounted for by
Leachate Sample Analysis 60
27 Organ!cs Data Based on Site Waste 67
28 Organics Data Based on Site Climate 69
29 Organics Data Based on Site Geography 71
30 Summary of Leachate Organic Chemical Occurrence Data 76
31 Formulation of Generic Synthetic Leachate Organic Fraction ... 78
32 Formulations of Two Specific Synthetic Leachate
Organic Fractions 79
A-l Volatile Priority Pollutants 88
A-2 Semi-volatile Priority Pollutants 89
A-3 Metals 90
A-4 Non-priority Pollutants . . 91
B-l Organic Acids—Occurrence Data 94
B-2 Oxygenated/Heteroatomic Hydrocarbons—Occurrence Data 98
B-3 Halogenated Hydrocarbons—Occurrence Data 102
B-4 Organic Bases—Occurrence Data 106
B-5 Aromatic Hydrocarbons—Occurrence Data 108
B-6 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons—Occurrence Data 110
B-7 Metals, pH, Eh, Conductivity, Total Cyanide, COD, and TOC—
Occurrence Data 112
vii
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
Butyl * isobutylene isoprene
°C - degrees Centigrade
CFR - Code of Federal Regulation*
CI/EI - chemical ionlzatIon/elec-
tronic ionization
CLP * Contract Lab Program
cmpd - compound
cm/sec - centimeters per second
COD - chemical oxygen demand
CPE - chlorinated polyethylene
CSPE - chlorosulfonated poly-
ethylene
CV - coefficient of variation
Dacthal - tetrachloroterephthalic
acid
DDI - double delonized (water)
ECD - electron capture detector
Eh - redox potential
EPDM - ethylene propylene diene
monomer
GC/MS - Gas chromatography/
mass spectrometry
HOPE - high density polyethylene
HPLC - high performance liquid
chromatography
HWDMS - Hazardous Waste Data
Management System
HWERL - Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
(of USEPA)
Hypalon - chloroaulfonated poly-
ethylene (CSPE)
Hypo - Hypalon
LDPE - low density polyethylene
LSD - linear scale dimension
m - meter
MEK - methyl ethyl Ice tone
HIBK - methyl isobutyl Icetone
m.f. - mole fraction
ml - mllliliter
NPK - methyl propyl feetone
mV - millivolt
Neoprene - polychoroprene
NIH - National Institute of
Health
g - gram
PCBs - polychlorinated blphenyls
pH - negative log of hydrogen
ion concentration
ppb - parts per billion
ppm - parts per million
PVC - polyvinyl chloride
RPD - relative percent difference
SAIC - Science Applications
International Corporation
TECL - Trace Environmental Chemistry
Laboratory (of SAIC)
TSDP/RIA - Treatment, Storage, Disposal
Facility/Regulatory Impact
Analysis
TDI - toluene diisocyanate
TOC - total organic carbon
ug/1 - microgram per liter
umole/1 - micromole per liter
USEPA - United States Environmental
Protection Agency
UV - ultraviolet
VOC - volatile organic compounds
SYMBOL:
z
•*•
- less than
- greater than
- percent
- plus or minus
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was prepared by Science Applications International
Corporation (formerly JRB Associates) for the USEPA's Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory (HWERL), Office of Research and Development.
Mr. Charles I. Mashni, of the HWERL, served as the USEPA Project Officer.
For Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Dennis
Pennlngton was the Project Manager and Dr. Edward W. Repa was the Task
Manager. Major contributors from SAIC included Jennifer A. Bramlett,
Claudia F. Furman, Ann Johnson, Dr. William Ellis, Dr. Henry P. Nelson,
and John W. Mentz.
The major contribution of Dr. David Taylor, an independent consultant,
is gratefully acknowledged.
Analyses of the leachate samples were conducted by members of the SAIC
Trace Environmental Chemistry Laboratory (TECL) under the direction of Dr.
William Vick.
The valuable cooperation of staff from the USEPA Regional Offices and
privately owned and operated hazardous waste management facilities is also
gratefully acknowledged.
ix
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory (HWERL) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Land Pollution Control
Division has been exploring the feasibility of formulating a synthetic
hazardous waste leachate for use in testing containment liners currently
being considered for use in landfills and other hazardous waste storage,
treatment, and disposal facilities. A data base containing information on
a variety of hazardous wastes and associated leachate compositions is
required to assess the feasibility of such an undertaking. As such a data
base does not currently exist, the USEPA issued, under Contract Number 68-
03-3113, Work Assignment 39-7 entitled "Composition of Leachates from
Actual Hazardous Waste Sites". The assignment or study objectives were
to gather data on the composition of leachate from representative hazardous
waste sites and assess the feasibility of formulating a synthetic leachate.
The study data will aid in determining the type and concentration of leach-
ate that different hazardous wastes generate and will also be available as
a general reference on leachate composition.
The proposed and general approach of this study was as follows:
• Sample and analyze leachate from hazardous waste landfills
located in different climatic regions in the U.S. and accepting
a variety of wastes
• Develop and evaluate data on the composition of the hazardous waste
leachates
• Correlate the leachate composition data with climate and the
originally disposed waste to the extent possible
• Assess the feasibility of formulating synthetic leachate using the
data base generated under this assignment.
The steps taken during the execution of the proposed approach
consisted of the following:
• Review of existing information on liner and leachate
compatibility
• Selection of thirteen hazardous waste landfill sites for leachate
sampling
-------
• Collection of leachate samples at the selected sites
• Leachate sample analysis for relevant parameters
• Evaluation of analysis results to determine leachate characteris-
tics and coaparison of results with site characteristics
• Feasibility assessment of formulating a synthetic leachate
for liner compatibility testing.
This report describes the completion and results of the above
steps and provides conclusions and recommendations regarding the
formulation of a synthetic hazardous waste leachate.
-------
SECTION 2
COMPILATION OF INFORMATION REGARDING CHEMICAL
COMPATIBILITIES WITH LINER MATERIALS
Two significant problems regarding chemical compatibility testing of
liners should be highlighted before summarizing available information on
the subject because these problems directly influence the data base to be
presented.
First, information on the compatibility of liners and multi-compound
hazardous waste leachates is lacking, generally because a representative
formula of such a leachate is not available. Chemical compatibility
testing experiments generally have involved only a single chemical compound
at a time, therefore any synergistic effects present in a multi-compound
hazardous waste leachate are still relatively unknown. This study will aid
in determining the formula of a synthetic, multi-compound hazardous waste
leachate through the analyses and evaluation of leachate samples collected
from hazardous waste sites. This multi-compound formulation could be used
to more appropriately test the compatibility of liners and hazardous waste
leachates by taking into account any synergistic effects.
A second significant problem is that chemical compatibility testing
procedures have not been standardized, thus only generalized conclusions
can be drawn from the various published reports. A possible factor contri-
buting to this lack of test procedure standardization is the extensive
timeframe - ranging from many months to years - required for each experi-
ment. As a result of the excessive testing times and associated high
costs, experimentation may simply be too limited to date to have determined
an acceptable standardized testing procedure.
2.1 FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERS
The chemical compatibility of organic constituents of hazardous waste
leachates with flexible membrane liners has received much investigation
over the past 15 years. Immersion tests represent the most commonly used
laboratory procedures for reducing testing times and simulating the field
environment. In these tests, a piece of flexible membrane liner is Immers-
ed in a container of the desired constituents at room temperature. The
liner is exposed to chemical reactions on both sides as opposed to the
single sided exposure that is actually experienced in a waste site. Quan-
titative results of compatibility can be obtained in roughly one year by
comparing the physical properties of the liner before and after immersion
(Haxo, 1979b).
-------
The raising of test solution temperatures to 70°C can produce results
in hours, however, these results compare unfavorably with those obtained at
room temperature or in the field (Haxo, 1979a). On the basis of this fact,
the generalizations on chemical compatibility that follow are derived
solely from in vitro tests at room temperature and in situ tests.
The flexible membrane liners most commonly tested for use at hazardous
waste sites are as follows:
• Isobutylene Isoprene (Butyl) Rubbers
• Chlorinated Polyethylene (CPE)
• Chlorosulfonated Polyethylene (CSPE or Hypalon)
• Elasticized Polyolefins
• Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM)
• Polychloroprene (Neoprene)
• High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE)
• Polyvlnyl Chloride (PVC)
The information presented in Table 1 on the chemical compatibility of
these liners was compiled after a review of the literature from manufacturers
and independent researchers. Some of the chemical compatibility data was
listed by the generalized categories found in Table 1. Other data was
listed by specific compound. When the latter occurred, specific compounds
representative of the leachate under study were used to draw the necessary
generalized conclusions. Tests have shown that heavy metals are chemically
compatible with the flexible membrane liners when tested with saturated
solutions (Stewart, 1978), thus metals have been excluded from Table 1.
Isobutylene Isoprene (Butyl) Rubber
Stewart (1978) describes butyl as "a highly reliable synthetic rubber
with more than twenty years of field service in the storage of potable
water". Butyl shows low resistance to hydrocarbon solvents, petroleum
oils, aromatic solvents, and halogenated hydrocarbons; moderate to good
resistance to neutral polar liquids and bases; and high resistance to acids
and oxygenated solvents.
Chlorinated Polyethylene (CPE)
CPE has excellent weathering characteristics and combines well with
other ethylene polymers and vinyls to impart these characteristics
(Stewart, 1978). However, as Table 1 shows, CPE has only fair to poor
resistance to chemicals, oils, and other hydrocarbons.
-------
Table 1. CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITIES OF FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERS
Chemical
Category
Organic Acids
Organic Bases
Halogenated
Hydrocarbons
Oxygenated
Hydrocarbons
Aliphatic
Hydrocarbons
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Butyl
Rubber CPE
3 2,3
2.3 2,3
1 1
3 1
1 2,3
1 i
CSPE
2*
3*
1
1
2
1
Elastlclzed
Polyoleflns
2*
No data
1
3
1
1
EPDM
3
3*
I
3
1
1
Neoprene HOPE
3 3
3 3
•
2 1.2
2 3
2,3 2
1 1 .
PVC
3
3
2,3
2,3
2.3
2,3
'Compatibility data Inferred in tha literature
1 • Poor chemical compatibility (low resistance to degradation)
2 • Pair chemical compatibility
3 • Good chemical compatibility ('high resistance to degradation)
Sources: Stewart, 1978; E.I. OuPont, not dated; Gundle, not dated; Schlegel, not dated.
-------
Chlorosulfonated Polyethylene (CSPE)
CSPE, or Hypalon, is the second most widely used of polymeric flexible
liner materials (Genetel11, 1976). Like CPE, CSPE has fair to poor resis-
tance to aromatic, oxygenated, or halogenated hydrocarbons; and only fair to
good resistance to oils (aliphatic hydrocarbons). CSPE shows good resistance
to organic acids and bases. CSPE has been successfully used for lining
holding pits and ponds in mining operations in which highly acidic fluids
are encountered (Genetel11, 1976).
Elasticlzed Polyoleflns
These polymers exhibit good resistance to oxygenated hydrocarbons; but
have only fair to poor resistance to organic acids, halogenated and aromatic
solvents, and aliphatic hydrocarbons.
Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM)
EPDM shows excellent resistance to oxygenated solvents; good resist-
ance to organic acids and bases; and poor resistance to halogenated, aro-
matic, and aliphatic hydrocarbons.
Polychloroprene (Neoprene)
Although generally too ..costly to be used as a liner, Neoprene demon-
strates good resistance to organic acids and bases, and halogenated,
oxygenated, and aliphatic hydrocarbons. Only aromatic solvents exhibit a
poor chemical compatibility with Neoprene.
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE)
Like Neoprene, HDPE is typically inert to solvents. Unfortunately,
even with a relatively low initial cost, HDPE is difficult to form
into seams and.put into place in the field. Low Density Polyethylene
(LDPE) demonstrates compatibility properties similar to HDPE.
Polyvlnyl Chloride (PVC)
PVC is the most widely used liner material because of a relatively
low initial cost and a tolerance to a wide range of chemicals, oils,
greases, and solvents (Genetelli, 1976). Of the liners listed in Table 1,
PVC has the best chemical compatibility for the categories considered.
0
2.2 CLAY LINERS
The use of clay liners as a barrier to organic leachates depends on
the ability of the clay to maintain a low permeability. In the presence of
water, under normal conditions, a compacted clay is well dispersed and can
maintain a permeability of 10~<* centimeters per second (cm/sec) or lower.
Many clay-organic leachate responses, however, tend to increase permea-
bility. For this reason, the USEPA has excluded clays as possible
-------
materials for primary liners at hazardous waste sites. Clay liners are
discussed here because there is still significant interest in research
regarding their use (Ground Water, 1985).
Clay permeability failure mechanisms initiated by leachate inter-
actions typically fall into two categories: 1) development of soil
structure through the pulling together (flocculation) of soil particles
into aggregates with subsequent shrinkage and cracking of the clay soil
structure; and 2) dissolution and piping, the dissolution of clay particles
and clay binding constituents and subsequent piping (movement of the clay
particles with the percolating leachates out of the clay structure)(Ander-
son, 1983). These two mechanisms are discussed further, and additional
information on clay soil mechanics is available in references Anderson
(1981) and Haxo (1980).
The failure of clays caused by the development of soil structure
in a properly designed clay liner generally occurs when the cationlc cloud
surrounding the particles decreases in size. This change in cationic cloud
size is the most common cause of clay swell-shrink and aggregate formation.
When an organic liquid of lower dielectric constant (reduced ability to
transmit charge) replaces water in the cationlc cloud, the cloud must
shrink to regain charge equilibrium, resulting in reduced spacing between
clay particles (Anderson, 1983). The cationlc cloud can also be reduced
in size when the predominant cation is replaced with a cation of higher
valence or of equal valence but smaller molecular size (Anderson, 1983).
This is why sodium montmorillonite clays are less permeable than calcium or
potassium montmorillonites.
An increase in the salt concentration of the leachate can also reduce
the cationic cloud size by competing with the clay particle for water
molecules (Haxo, 1980). Similarly, the cloud decreases with decreasing
dipole movement of the cloud absorbed liquid. Although many of these
mechanisms are reversible, some charges result in cationic cloud shrinkage
that permanently shrink and crack the clay liner Irreparably.
The second major category of clay failures, dissolution and piping,
occurs: 1) when organic bases dissolve silica compounds from the clay
particles or the organic constituents binding the particles; or 2) when
organic acids dissolve aluminum or iron compounds. Commonly occurring
organic bases were found to be too weak to produce appreciable dissolution
and piping (Anderson, 1983). Research has shown, however, that even weak
organic acids will dissolve clay particles. The reaction seems to be
enhanced when the size and geometry of the acid anion are similar to the
clay component (Haxo, 1980). One source of organic acids in the landfill
environment is the anaerobic by-products of decomposed wastes; thus both
the acid anion and the reactant clay component may be readily available in
a clay lined landfill. In fact, the process of increasing permeability in
clays by the addition of acetic, formic, or citric acid is commonly used in
the oil Industry to increase oil productivity and is called acidification
(Anderson, 1983; Haxo, 1980). As an indication of the dissolution pos-
sible, a montmorillonite clay was found to have 33Z soluble alumina (Haxo,
1980).
-------
Piping is the mechanism that actually Increases the clay's perme-
ability. The dissolution and freed particulate matter initially decrease
permeability by clogging the tiny pores in the clay structure (Anderson,
1981). Piping occurs when the soil below the liner contains 15? clay or
less (Anderson, 1983) and the leachate is able to flush the freed clay
components from the liner starting at the bottom and working up, gradually
producing pores of increased diameter. Unlike inorganic compounds, organic
solutes generally reduce surface tension of pore water (Haxo, 1980), there-
by increasing flow rates which further promote piping. Some of the organic
compounds that can replace water are acetonitrile, xylene, cyclopentane,
alcohols, glycols, and ketones (Haxo, 1980).
An effective clay liner can be designed by considering the effects of
various leachates on clay liners and accurately predicting the nature of
the anticipated leachate. Conversely, leachate quality can sometimes be
controlled in such a way that it will remain compatible with a given clay
liner makeup. This may Involve neutralization of high concentrations of
acids and bases and may even require exclusion of certain leachate com-
ponents entirely. The results of a USEPA-sponsored study by Lehigh
University regarding the effects of various hazardous and toxic chemical
solutions on three clay types are expected to be available in September
1985 (Ground Water, 1985).
-------
SECTION 3
COLLECTION AND ANALYSES OF LEACHATE SAMPLES
This section describes the collection and analyses of leachate samples.
Leachate samples were collected from a total of 13 hazardous waste land-
fills. Field and laboratory analyses of the leachate samples were conducted
and the analytical results are presented in Section 4.
3.1 SITE SELECTION METHODOLOGY
The objective of site selection was to identify at least 10 operational
and professionally managed hazardous waste landfills for the purpose of
leachate sampling and analysis. The three major steps in the site selection
process were:
• Compilation of a Master List of Operating Landfills. Locating
landfills throughout the United States that accept either hazardous
waste or a combination of municipal and hazardous wastes.
• Preliminary Screening of Candidates. Screening of located land-
fills based on conformance with site-specific criteria; e.g., the
existence of a leachate collection system, site age, and the
availability of waste type information.
• Final Site 'Selection. Selecting candidate landfills based on site
willingness to participate, site location, waste type, and USEPA
approval.
These steps are discussed in detail in the following subsections.
3.1.1 Compilation of a Master List of Operating Landfills
Site selection began with the compilation of a master list of operat-
ing landfills accepting either hazardous waste or a combination of munici-
pal and hazardous waste. To maximize geographic and climatic coverage of
landfills on this master list and provide the most complete information
possible, all potential sources of information were investigated including:
• Hazardous Waste Data Management System (HWDMS), an in-house
computerized data base
• Selected in-house documents and literature
-------
• USEPA, Office of Solid Waste, Headquarters, including the Treatment,
Storage, Disposal Facility/Regulatory Impact Analysis (TSDF/RIA)
computerized data base and related studies
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi
• USEPA/HWERL, Cincinnati, Ohio
• USEPA regional offices and state regulatory agencies.
The completed master list consisted of 43 sites. Subsequent referral
to a published document (McCoy, 1985), which listed all operating and
commercial hazardous waste landfills in the U.S., confirmed that the master
list of 43 sites accounted for the total number of operating hazardous
waste landfills in the country.
3.1.2 Preliminary Screening of Candidate Sites
The second step of the site selection process was screening of
candidate sites on the basis of their conformance with certain site-
specific criteria. These criteria are listed below, in decreasing order
of importance, and are discussed in the paragraphs that follow:
• Existence of a leachate collection system
• Accessibility of the site for leachate sampling
• Age of the site
• Accessibility of information on waste input
• Geographic and climatic location of the site.
The first of the five criteria, the existence of a leachate collection
system, was mandatory. A site was eliminated from further consideration if
it did not have an operating leachate collection system. Samples could
be expeditlously collected only at sites with operating leachate collection
systems.
The second criterion, accessibility of the site for leachate sampling,
Included two factors: 1) the willingness of the facility to cooperate with
the contractor; and 2) the physical ease with which leachate could be
sampled from the collection system. Potential sites which satisfied the
criterion were ranked more positively than those sites where leachate col-
lection appeared to be more difficult and time consuming. Many facilities
could not verbally grant site access to SAIC without first receiving a
written description of the project's scope and a formal request for per-
mission to access the facility. For this reason, sites at which all other
screening factors appeared favorable received letters which described
the project's scope and contained a Leachate Sampling Permission Form
to be returned to SAIC. The results of this effort are described in
Section 3.1.3, Final Site Selection.
10
-------
The age of a site, the third criterion, was important because age
affects leachate generation rates and the quality of the leachate. A
site in operation for less than five years may not generate sufficient
leachate for sampling, and the generated leachate may not be representa-
tive of all the disposed wastes at the site. For these reasons, a minimum
age of five years was originally designated for site screening. However,
many sites or cells with leachate collection systems had operated for less
than five years. Therefore, screening emphasis was Instead placed on
whether or not the site's leachate volume was sufficient for sampling.
The fourth significant site selection criterion was the availability
of information on waste input. Adequate correlation of leachate quality
to specific waste type(s) is critical in designing containment systems,
thus reliable information regarding the types and quantities of disposed
wastes was necessary. While this type of information was found to exist
at each site, it was available at varying levels of detail and accessi-
bility. Each site contact, however, was able to indicate whether his
particular site accepted a variety of organic and inorganic wastes or only
wastestreams from a specific industrial process. In some cases, complete
waste input data was not made available until formal permission for project
participation was granted by the site operator. Therefore, formal docu-
mentation of waste input was not available from the selected sites until
after the actual sampling efforts had been completed.
The fifth significant criterion in the site selection process was site
location and associated climate. Precipitation and evaporation rates af-
fect leachate generation rates, thus climate must be considered in the
design of liner containment systems for hazardous waste facilities.
Climate of a site was characterized during this process based on an area's
net precipitation. Net precipitation indicates the potential for leachate
generation rates at a site, and is calculated for a region by subtracting
the average annual lake evaporation from the mean annual precipitation.
The information shown in Figure 1 was used in the calculation of net pre-
cipitation.
An original objective of the site screening process was to select
sites in areas with varying climatic conditions, thereby permitting a
representative spectrum of existing site conditions. However, optimum
diversity in climate was difficult to achieve while still satisfying the
more important criteria discussed above. Therefore, during the final
selection stage (described in Section 3.1.3), emphasis was also placed on
selection of sites located in diverse geographic locations, while still
maximizing climatic diversity to the extent possible.
On the basis of conformance with these screening considerations,
twenty-three candidate sites were selected from the original master list
for further evaluation. Site conformance with the criteria was confirmed
through telephone conversations with USEPA regional offices, state regu-
latory agencies, and site contacts. The names and phone numbers of site
contacts were, for the most part, provided by USEPA regional personnel.
11
-------
MMH innud pnKipitMion in tfw UniMri Stctw. in inch**. (U.S. fmrironmtmrni Dn» S«rvfe*l
Avcrag* «nnual craponnion linch«t) from •hallow UkM. ll/.S. Nmionil MdMtftcr S«rvic«.l
FIGURE 1. Average Annual Evaporation and Precipitation Rates
in the United States
12
-------
3.1.3 Final Site Selection
The final evaluation of sites for leachate sampling and analysis
Included only those sites which had formally agreed to participate in the
study. Formal permission for project inclusion was granted in a timely
manner by 16 of the 23 candidate sites. Two additional sites also subse-
quently agreed to participate, but not in time to be included in the final
site selection and site visit planning stages of the project. The 16
candidates were narrowed down to 13 by USEPA and SAIC project staff based
on relative geographic locations and waste types. The selected sites
demonstrated the greatest geographic and climatic diversity possible, given
the criteria that had to be met, and accepted the greatest variety of
wastes. Table 2 presents an overview of 13 sites selected for leachate
sampling and analysis. Figure 2 Illustrates the geographic distribution of
both the 13 final sites and the 43 master list sites.
Several sites agreed to participate only if their own employees could
conduct the sampling without the on-site participation by SAIC personnel.
Three of the 13 final candidates were permitted to perform this activity,
enabling generation of leachate data at three additional sites without
labor expenditures. The remaining ten sites were visited by SAIC personnel
and sampled as described in Section 3.2, Leachate Sampling Procedures.
3.2 LEACHATE SAMPLING PROCEDURES
As noted above, leachate samples were collected from 13 sites
selected for project inclusion. Samples from ten of these 13 sites were
collected by SAIC sampling teams, while samples from the remaining three
sites were collected by site employees using SAIC sample containers.
Prior to the actual sampling effort, each of the 10 sites was contacted
to: 1) determine the most convenient time and date for sample collection;
and 2) gather more detailed information regarding waste input, sampling
point accessibility, and leachate collection system design. This site-
specific Information was necessary to predetermine the sampling technique
and types of equipment that would be required in order to collect the most
representative sample.
Three sampling teams, each consisting of two investigators, were
assembled to conduct leachate sampling at the 10 sites which granted access
to SAIC. The sampling visits to these 10 sites were scheduled over the
two-week period from June 9 to June 21, 1985. The sites were divided among
the three SAIC teams based on their relative geographic locations, as shown
in Figure 2. Team 1 visited three Southern U.S. sites (Sites 1, 2, and 3)
during the week of June 9, 1985. Team 2 visited two Western U.S. sites
(Sites 5 and 6) and one Central U.S. site (Site 4) during the week of June
16, 1985. Team 3 visited three Northeastern U.S. sites (Sites 7, 8, and 9)
and one Central U.S. site (Site 10) during the same week of June 16, 1985.
Sampling activities common to all sites are described below in Section
3.2.1. Site characteristics and sampling activities specific to each site
are described in Section 3.2.2, Site Descriptions and Site-specific Sampl-
ing Procedures.
13
-------
Table 2. OVERVIEW OF THIRTEEN SITES SELECTED
FOR LEACHATE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Site
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Sice
Age
(Years)*
3
3
5
4
5
3.5
6
7
13
2
10
5
5
Waste Type Input*
Alkaline inorganics
Variety
Wide variety; inorganic
and organic
Wide variety; but organic
concentrations are <5t
Wide variety; inorganic and
organic
Variety; mostly petrochemical
and electroplating wastes
Mostly (952) wastewater
treatment sludge
Mostly (65Z) wastewater
biological treatment sludge
Variety; inorganic and organic
Variety; including Incinerator
and refinery wastes, asbestos,
fly ash
Wide variety; organic and
inorganic
Seventy percent PCs-containing
materials, 29Z wastewater
treatment sludge, 1Z cyanides
and corrosives
Wide variety; inorganic and
organic
Geographic Net
Location Precipitation Range
(Inches)
Southern U.S.
Southern U.S.
Southern U.S.
Central U.S.
Western U.S.
Western U.S.
North-
eastern U.S.
North-
eastern U.S.
North-
eastern U.S.
Central U.S.
North-
eastern U.S.
Central U.S.
Southern U.S.
-10 to +5
+10 to +15
+5 to +10
-10 to +5
<-10
<-10
+5 to +10
+5 to +10
+10 to +15
-10 to +5
+5 to +10
•
+5 to +10
+10 to +15
*This information is only for the sampled portion of a site.
14
-------
NORTHEASTERN U.S.
14 MASTER LIST SITES
4 FINAL SITES
WESTERN U.S.
CENTRAL U.S
10 MASTER LIST SITES
2 FINAL SITES
11 MASTER LIST SITES
3 FINAL SITES
SOUTHERN U.S.
I f I
8 MASTER LIST SITES
FINAL SITES \
FIGURE 2. Geographic Distribution of Forty-three Master List Sites
and Thirteen Final Sites Selected for Leachate Sampling
-------
3.2.1 Preparatory and Generic Sampling Procedures
The SAIC Trace Environmental Chemistry Laboratory (TECL) provided the
sampling teams with prepared sample bottles containing the necessary pre-
servatives for specific chemical group analysis. Each sample bottle set
consisted of a total of six containers. Table 3 describes the sample
containers and preservatives provided for each type of analysis. The TECL
also provided sample bottle sets that had been pre-filled with double
deionized (ODD water. These DDI samples served as trip blanks for each
traveling sampling team.
Table 3. SAMPLE CONTAINERS AND PRESERVATION METHODS
Analysis
No. of Volume of Type of Preservative
Sample Container Container
Containers
Extractable
Organlcs
Metals
Cyanides
COD
Volatile Organ! cs
1
1
1
1
2
2.3 liters
(0.5 gallon)
• • 1 liter
1 liter
250 ml
40 ml
glass amber
bottle
plastic
bottle
plastic
bottle
glass amber
bottle
vials
none
nitric acid
sodium hydroxide
sulfuric acid
none
Upon receipt of the prepared sample containers from the laboratory, 23
sample bottle sets were packaged and secured in 13 portable thermal chests.
Three of the 13 chests were packed with 1 sample set each and shipped to
the 3 facilities that conducted their own sampling. The remaining 10
thermal chests, 1 per site, were packed with 2 prepared sample sets each.
Each sampling team collected 1 baseline sample per site, and 1 duplicate
sample and 1 trip blank per travel route of a team's trip. Four extra
sample sets were packed in case there was bottle breakage during the sampl-
ing efforts. In total, 19 samples were collected: 13 baseline samples, 3
duplicates, and 3 blanks.
Sampling techniques and equipment for each site were selected based on
sampling point accessibility and health and safety risk to the sampler.
All sampling equipment was cleaned prior to the site visit using a low
16
-------
residue detergent wash and rinsed with DDI water. Level C personal protec-
tion equipment was used during all sampling efforts. All reusable sampling
equipment was decontaminated prior to leaving each site and disposable
material, e.g., coveralls and gloves, were disposed on site.
All information pertinent to field sample collection, such as field
test results, point of collection, leachate appearance, etc., was recorded
in a field notebook. Leachate sample collection followed US EPA sample col-
lection protocols. As noted above, field quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) samples were collected as performance checks for sample handling
and laboratory analysis. Each team collected 1 duplicate leachate sample
and 1 trip blank during their week of sampling. The duplicate leachate
sample served as a check on laboratory handling and analytical procedures.
At those sites where duplicates were collected, both leachate samples were
collected using the same technique and equipment. The trip blanks were
included to document any sample contamination resulting from sample han-
dling and transport In the field and laboratory. Each trip blank traveled
with a field leachate sample to the laboratory.
Each container was labeled and numbered after sample collection and
carefully repacked in the thermal chests. The sample temperature was
maintained at 4°C with bagged ice. In order to ensure site confidential-
ity, USEPA approval was obtained to modify standard chain-of -custody proce-
dures for samples collected during this study. A preasslgned site number
was indicated on the chain-of -custody form, instead of the facility name
and location. These forms were then enclosed in their respective thermal
chests. The thermal chests were taped shut and securely sealed in a manner
which permitted identification of any tampering during shipment to the
laboratory.
The chests of samples were shipped to the laboratory, counter-to-
counter, via priority freight within 24 hours of sample collection. A
team member called the laboratory the day after each shipment to confirm
that the samples had arrived intact. Incidents of container breakage or
evidence of tampering during sample transport were not noted.
In addition to the laboratory analyses discussed earlier, four field
tests were performed, when possible, on the leachate at the time of sample
collection. These measurments included pH, temperature, redox potential
(Eh), and conductivity. Temperature, pH, and Eh were determined using a
Hach Digital pH meter, Model 19000, operated by a 9 volt transistor bat-
tery, as follows:
• Temperature was determined using the temperature probe provided
with the Hach meter. The meter is able to measure temperatures
from 0 to 100°C, with a resolution of 0.1 °C and an accuracy of
pH was determined using a Hach combination pH electrode containing
a calomel reference element. The meter operates over a 0 to 14 pH
range with a resolution of 0.01 pH. Values are accurate to +0.01
17
-------
pH, +_1 linear scale dimension (LSD), at Standard Temperature. The
meter was calibrated daily using buffers with pH values of 4.01+
0.02 and 9.00+0.02 at 25*C. ~
• Eh was determined using an Orion Research platinum redox electrode,
Model 97-78, in conjunction with the Hach meter. The glass envelope
of the platinum redox electrode contains a silver/silver chloride
reference electrode. The range of the Hach meter is -1999 milli-
volt (mV) to +1999 mV for Eh measurements. The meter has a resolu-
tion of 1 mV and is accurate to +0.3Z of the full scale, +_1 LSD.
The filling solution used in the Orion Research electrode consisted
of 4 milliliters (ml) of potassium chloride saturated with silver
chloride.
• Conductivity of the leachate samples was measured with a Hach Model
16300 Portable Conductivity Meter, which uses a Hach conductivity
probe with a cell constant of 2. Specific conductance is measured
in five ranges: 0-2, 0-20, 0-200, 0-2000, and 0-20,000 micromhos
per centimeter (micromhos/cm). Temperatures between 0°C and 100°C
are compensated for automatically.
3.2.2 Site Descriptions and Site-specific Sampling Procedures
Leachate samples were collected from all 13 sites between June 9 and
21, 1985. Table 4 summarizes the sampling activities at each site.
Descriptions of each site's relevant characteristics and the site-specific
sampling procedures are in the following paragraphs.
Site 1 accepts a wide variety of hazardous wastes, which are segre-
gated into cells based on whether they are acidic inorganics, alkaline
inorganics, or organics. Some overlap of waste type does occur, but in-
compatible wastes are never disposed in the same cell. The disposed wastes
include both drummed materials and bulk solids. Approximately 60 percent
of all disposed wastes are bulk solids. Nothing is added to these wastes
at the time of disposal and the cells are not covered until closure. A
cell is closed and covered once filled to capacity, and another cell is
opened to continue acceptance of that particular waste type.
Each cell at Site 1 has its own leachate collection system, in which
leachate drains by gravity to a collection sump. The leachate is removed
from the sump into a portable, open-topped storage tank by means of a
submersible pump. The sumps are visually monitored on a daily basis and
leachate is removed from any sump with more than about one meter of leach-
ate accumulation.
Leachate from Site 1 was sampled on June 10, 1985. On that day, the
site was removing leachate generated by a closed cell containing alkaline
inorganics. The cell had accepted wastes from 1982 to the beginning of
1984, and was receiving final cover. The leachate was pumped from the sump
into the storage tank several hours before sample collection. Leachate
Samples 1 and 2 (duplicate) were collected by dipping a Teflon beaker into
18
-------
Table 4. SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
Site
No.
Sample
Nos.
Collection Point
Sampling Method
1
2
4
5
17
18
19
Leachate storage tank
Leachate storage tank
(duplicate)
Leachate collection
sump
Surface of leachate
storage lagoon
Trip blank
Leachate storage tank
Leachate storage tank
(duplicate)
Bleeder valve of
leachate collection
system
Collected with Teflon
beaker dipped into tank,
poured from beaker into
sample bottles
Collected with PVC pipe
used as a bailer,
poured from bailer into
sample bottles
Collected with Teflon
beaker dipped into
lagoon, poured from
beaker into sample
bottles
Collected by site
personnel by sub-
merging the sample
bottles in the tank
Collected in plastic
beaker, poured from
beaker into sample
bottles
(Continued)
-------
Table 4. (Continued)
Site Sample
No. Nos.
Collection Point
Sampling Method
NJ
O
20
21
7
11
12
Leachate collection
sump
Trip blank
Bleeder valve of
leachate collection
system
Bleeder valve of
leachate collection
system (duplicate)
Drainage pipe discharge
into collection ditch
Trip Blank
Collected with a
Teflon point source
bailer, poured from
bailer into sample
bottles
Collected with a plastic
jug, poured from jug
into sample bottles
Collected directly
In sample bottles
(Continued)
-------
Table 4. (Continued)
Site Sample
No. Nos.
Collection Point
Sampling Method
N>
10
11
12
13
10
14
15
16
Leachate collection
sump
Galvanized tub
collecting pumped
leachate
Transfer line
discharge into
leachate storage
tank
Pipe connected to
collection system's
pump
Pipe connected to
collection system's
pump
Collected with a
Teflon beaker lowered
by twine to sump, poured
from beaker into sample
bottles
Collected with a glass
beaker, poured from
beaker into sample
bottles
Collected with a glass
beaker, poured from
beaker into sample
bottles
Collected directly
in sample bottles
Collected directly in
sample bottles
-------
the tank and pouring the beaker's contents into the sample containers.
Field tests for pH, conductivity, and temperature were conducted and re-
corded on site.
Leachate at Site 2 was sampled on June 11, 1985. The leachate was
generated by a closed and covered trench. A variety of. hazardous wastes
have been disposed at the site, although specifics were not available. All
of the wastes contained in the trench are bulk solids, drummed wastes were
not disposed at the location.
The sampled trench at Site 2 was constructed in a chalk unit charac-
terized by low permeability. The trench does not have a synthetic liner,
compacted chalk serves as a natural liner. The trench has its own leachate
collection system, wherein leachate flows by gravity to one sump. A rein-
forced concrete riser pipe, enclosed in a manhole 15 meters deep and approxi-
mately 1 meter in diameter, provides access to the leachate sump. The
leachate generation rate is unknown, but site personnel believe it is very
low because of the low permeability of the natural cover.
Sample 3 was collected at Site 2 directly from the leachate collection
sump. A PVC bailer was lowered down the riser to the sump. The leachate
sample was poured directly from the bailer into the sample bottles. Field
tests for pH, conductivity, and temperature were also conducted on site*
The leachate had a clear to slightly cloudy appearance.
Site 3 began accepting hazardous wastes In 1980. Waste disposal has
occurred in numerous trenches located in two areas. One area was closed
and capped in 1982, and the other area is still operating, but is currently
not accepting wastes. The site has accepted a wide variety of wastes,
which primarily include the following: asbestos; filter cake; residues,
spent halogenated solvents, and toluene diamine from toluene dlisocyanate
(TDI) production; residues of cumene, isobutyl alcohols, methyl benzene,
and 2-butanone; furnace dust from steel production; dimethyl ester tetra-
chloroterephthallc acid (Dacthal) solids; and amine solids containing lead,
chromium, and TDI residues. The wastes have been disposed as bulk solids,
liquids solidified with kiln dust, and drummed solids. Wastes have never
been disposed as free liquids, even in drums.
Each trench at Site 3 has a dedicated leachate collection system.
Leachate flows by gravity to the collection sumps and is removed by either
vacuum suction or submersible pumps. Removed leachate is transported in
tankers to a leachate storage surface lagoon. The on-site leachate genera-
tion rate is about 12 X 107 liters per month. The leachate Is not treated
or agitated in the lagoon. The leachate is periodically removed from the
lagoon for injection well disposal and to keep the leachate head below the
permitted level.
Leachate at Site 3 was sampled on June 12, 1985. Sample 4 was
collected from the storage lagoon's surface. A Teflon beaker was dipped
into the lagoon's surface and the leachate was poured directly from the
beaker into the sample containers. Conductivity and temperature were
22
-------
recorded. A pre-fllled trip blank of DDI water (Sample 5) was shipped
with Sample 4.
Site 4 has operated since 1977 and has received both hazardous and
non-hazardous wastes. Until 1981, the site operated Individual disposal
trenches with their own leachate collection systems. These areas are now
undergoing formal closure. Since 1981, the site has used a continuous
trench system of waste disposal with interconnected leachate collection
systems. Seventy-five to eighty percent of the wastes disposed in this
system are bulk solids. Wastes have included wastewater treatment sludge
from pesticide production, paint sludges, spill clean-up wastes, and heavy
metal-containing wastewater treatment sludge. In addition, the site's
leachate is solidified on site with cement kiln dust and returned to the
disposal area. The facility does not accept liquid wastes or wastes which
contain organics at a concentration greater than five percent.
Each disposal trench at Site 4 has a leachate collection trench which
carries the leachate to a sump. All leachate from the sump drains Into the
Interconnected leachate collection system's main leachate collection sump.
The leachate is pumped from this main collection sump into an enclosed,
aboveground storage tank and is later solidified for disposal. This system
annually generates approximately 9,000 liters of leachate. Leachate from
this system was sampled on June 17, 1985. As requested by facility manage-
ment, Samples 17 and 18 (duplicate) were collected by facility personnel
under the observation of SAIC sampling team members. Both the baseline
sample and the duplicate were collected from the leachate storage tank.
The leachate had been pumped into the storage tank three days earlier.
The sample containers were manually submerged Into the leachate through an
opening located on the top of the tank. The samples were green in color.
Sample temperature, conductivity, pH, and Eh were measured and recorded on
site.
Site 5 accepted a wide variety of both non-hazardous and hazardous
wastes between 1980 and 1982. Most of the solids and liquids were contain-
erized in drums, although some bulk solids were accepted for disposal.
Approximately 34,500 drums were disposed at Site 5, along with other
miscellaneous containers, and a little more than half of the drummed
materials were solids. Containerized solids primarily included labora-
tory packs, asbestos, and catalyst pellets; but also filter cakes, pure
caustics, cyanide-bearing solids, and some spill clean-up materials.
Containerized liquids were mostly organics Including various spent non-
halogenated and halogenated solvents, alcohols, and aliphatic hydrocarbons.
Other liquid wastes included concentrated acids and acid solutions; cor-
rosive and caustic solutions and sludges; paint wastes and sludges, includ-
ing Latex paint wastes; ink and dye wastes; and a few pesticides, mostly
Llndane. Most of the bulk solids disposed at Site 5 were electroplating
wastewater treatment filter cake, lime and dirt, and tetraethyl lead sludge
and dirt. The wastes were covered during disposal and cover material was
placed between all drums. The site is currently undergoing formal closure,
whereby all wastes are being exhumed and disposed at other locations.
23
-------
The leachate at Site 5 flows by gravity through drains and Into the
collection system sump. Submersible pumps are used to remove the leachate
from the sump through riser pipe to the surface. The leachate is pumped
out of the landfill at a daily rate of between 1,800 and 3,600 liters and
is transported off site in tankers.
Leachate Sample 19 was collected at Site 5 on June 18, 1985. The
sample was collected directly from a bleeder valve connected to the riser
pipe. Disposable plastic beakers were filled from this valve and used to
fill the sample containers. The leachate was buff white in color and was
effervescent. The effervescence was probably caused by the combined effect
of the pump pressure and the manner by which the leachate sprayed from the
valve.
Site 6 has accepted hazardous wastes since late 1981. Disposed wastes
have predominantly Included petrochemical and electroplating wastes and
sludges, and creosote contaminated solids. The wastes are disposed as bulk
solids, drummed solids, and liquids solidified with fly ash.
Leachate from a cell at Site 6 was sampled on June 19, 1985. The cell
had a dedicated leachate collection system above a 1.5 meter thick, com-
pacted clay liner. Site 6 is located in an area of negative net precipi-
tation, therefore, the leachate generation rate is very low. Leachate
Sample 20 was collected from the.cell's open leachate collection sump. The
sump was approximately 13.6 meters deep and, at the time of sampling, held
about 450 liters of leachate. The sump is purged only after heavy rain-
fall. A Teflon point source bailer was used to collect the leachate sample
from the sump. The bailer contents were then transferred directly to the
sample containers. The leachate was light brown in color. A trip blank
containing DD1 (Sample 21) was shipped to the TECL with Sample 20.
Site 7, which has operated for the past ten years, consists of an
aboveground landfill which accepts a wide variety of drummed industrial
wastes and wastewater treatment sludge. Areas within the landfill are
closed once they reach capacity and new areas are opened for waste dis-
posal.
The landfill at Site 7 is lined with a double Hypalon liner with a
leak detection system between the liners. Leachate flows continuously
out of the landfill's collection system to a sump. A level control in
the sump automatically activates a pump for leachate removal and transfer
through lines to the site's wastewater treatment plant. A faucet or
bleeder valve located on the transfer line was Installed specifically
for leachate sample collection.
Leachate at Site 7 was sampled on June 17, 1985. The sampled leachate
was generated by landfill areas which had been, on a combined basis, ac-
cepting wastes for the past six years. Over 95Z of the waste disposed in
these areas was wastewater treatment sludge. The sludge is sufficiently
dry (452 solids) to also serve as cover for the drummed wastes. The
24
-------
drummed solid wastes are from the production of a wide variety of organic
chemicals. The drums are set in and covered with the sludge. The areas
have also accepted a small amount of solid material from spill cleanups.
Prior to sample collection at Site 7, the leachate pumping system
had been kept inactivated for twenty-four hours to assure a sufficient
quantity of leachate. Leachate Samples 7 and 11 (duplicate) were col-
lected from the system's bleeder valve, as leachate was being pumped from
the sump. The leachate was first collected with a plastic jug used by the
facility during leachate sampling. The leachate was poured directly from
the jug into the sample containers. Leachate conductivity and temperature
were recorded. The leachate was clear in color.
Site 8 has operated for the past seven years. The site's landfill
is an aboveground facility which has accepted both non-hazardous and
hazardous wastes. Approximately two percent of waste disposed during the
past two years has been municipal and industrial trash. Other wastes have
included lime grit (15Z), wastewater biological treatment sludge (65Z)
and organic chemical production waste (18Z). The wastes are not formally
segregated by cells and are disposed in bulk without containers. Nothing
is added to any of the wastes prior to disposal. A cover, however, is
applied as the wastes are placed in the landfill.
The landfill at Site 8 is lined with a double clay liner. The
leachate collection system consists of three collection pipes. Leachate
Is drained by gravity from these pipes into a clay lined, open ditch
The rate of leachate flow is not continuous, but does increase after
rain and the disposal of sludge. The ditch also collects surface runoff.
The leachate and runoff flow through the ditch to the site's wastewater
treatment plant.
The leachate at Site 8 was sampled on June 17, 1985. Sample 8 was
collected from one of the three pipes which discharge into the open ditch.
The pipe did not drain any specific waste area at the landfill; but, ac-
cording to site personnel, the leachate may have been generated primarily
by the organic chemical production wastes. The leachate, which was cloudy
in appearance, was collected directly into the sample containers from the
pipe's discharge point. Leachate conductivity was recorded. A trip blank
of 001 water (Sample 12) was shipped to the laboratory with Sample 8.
Site 9 is a secure landfill which has operated for the past 13 years.
The landfill has formally defined cells, but the wastes are not segregated
by type among the cells. The disposed wastes include both bulk solids and
drummed liquids and incinerator ash. The drummed liquid wastes are mostly
phenollcs, toluene, other non-halogenated solvents, and oily residues. All
drums are placed upright in the landfill. The bulk solids are mostly heavy
metal-containing pigments. The cells are covered only at the time of their
closure.
The landfill at Site 9 is lined with almost one meter of compacted
clay, which is underlain by approximately 61 meters of clay and till.
The leachate flows through the leachate collection system by gravity to
25
-------
one collection sump. The sump has a submersible pump which automatically
pumps the leachate through a transfer line to the site's vastewater treat-
ment plant. The puap is only activated when the leachate reaches a certain
level in the sump. Purging after pump activation does not continue until
the sump is empty, but ceases once the leachate head is below a predeter-
mined level. The landfill's leachate generation rate is approximately
4,500 liters per day after rainfall events that allow rainfall to travel
directly through the open cells to the collection system. During non-
rainfall times, the rate is about 900 liters per day. The flow is general-
ly continuous but not substantial, except during periods of precipitation.
The leachate at Site 9 was sampled on June 18, 1985. Sample 9 was
collected using a Teflon beaker lowered with nylon twine into the leachate
collection sump. During sampling, the pump was on for about 20 seconds.
The leachate was poured directly from the Teflon beaker into the sample
containers. The leachate was oily, black in color, and foamy. The leach-
ate separated into two phases soon after being poured into the containers.
An oily, black, and viscous layer formed at the top and a slightly cloudy
and more liquid'layer formed on the bottom. Field tests were not attempted
because of this physical separation of the leachate components.
Site 10 has operated for a total of nine years and has accepted
various industrial wastes including incinerator wastes, refinery wastes,
asbestos, and fly ash. The wastes are either disposed in drums or as bulk
solids. Acutely hazardous wastes are not accepted. Free liquids are
either completely rejected, or are solidified with kiln dust and disposed
as a bulk solid.
Site 10 has two cells, one of which is closed. Each cell is approxi-
mately 15 meters deep and is constructed with a double synthetic liner and
dedicated leachate collection systems. The open cell has been accepting
wastes for almost two years. To date, the open cell has primarily accepted
bulk solids, which are spread and compacted. Drums are placed throughout
the cell to provide stability. Accepted drums may not contain any free
liquids. They are placed on their sides to save space and permit further
checking for liquids. All wastes are covered daily.
The open cell at Site 10 actually has two leachate collection systems
which are opposite each other on the east and west sides of the cell. The
systems are reported to collect leachates which differ in composition,
although wastes are not segregated or separated within the cell. The
leachate is pumped from the collection sumps into 23 kiloliter (15,000
gallon) tankers for off-site treatment and disposal. On the average,
approximately four tankers are filled every three days.
The leachate sampled at Site 10 on June 19, 1985 came from the open
cell. Sample collection occurred after most of the collection sump's
contents had been pumped into a tanker. The last 20 liters in the sump
were pumped into a galvanized tub. A glass beaker supplied by the facility
personnel was used to collect the leachate from the tub. The leachate was
26
-------
poured directly from the beaker into the sample containers. Leachate
conductivity and pH were recorded. Leachate pH was recorded using a meter
supplied by the site personnel.
Site employees at Sites 11, 12, and 13 collected leachate samples for
SAIC using SAIOprepared sample containers. Site samplers were experienced
in sample collection and were familiar with USEPA sampling protocols. The
sites did not conduct field tests on the leachate; i.e., pH, Eh, conductiv-
ity, or temperature.
Site 11 has operated as a waste disposal facility for approximately
SO years. Landfills on the site accept a wide variety of hazardous
wastes including, but not limited to, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
organics, and flammable solids. Not more than five percent of all disposed
wastes can be acutely hazardous, without first obtaining state permission.
Leachate at Site 11 was sampled on June 18, 1985 by site personnel.
The leachate was generated by three closed landfills which share a leach-
ate collection system. Each landfill is covered with a synthetic liner
and the rate of surface infiltration is very low. Each landfill also has
a double bottom liner system consisting of compacted clay and a poly-
ethylene liner. Two of the landfills have bottom liner systems containing
three meters of clay, and the other landfill has a liner system containing
one meter of clay. Both drummed wastes and bulk solids were accepted.
One landfill accepted free liquids in drums; another accepted only bulk
solids; and the third also accepted drummed wastes, but was not permitted
to have greater than five percent of free liquids in the drums.
Leachate at Site 11 is removed from the bottom of the landfills
through the use of submersible pumps and stand pipes. The leachate flows
by gravity from the stand pipes through transfer lines to a nearby 1,700
kiloliter (380,000 gallon) open leachate storage tank. The generation rate
during May 1985 was 270 kiloliters. The leachate is ultimately transferred
from the storage tank to an on-site wastewater treatment plant. Sample 14
was collected with a glass beaker from the transfer line at the point of
discharge into the storage tank. The leachate, which was yellow, was then
poured into the sample bottles.
Site 12 has operated since 1980 and accepts a wide variety of hazard-
ous wastes. Wastes are segregated into one of three kinds of landfill
cells based on waste type: 1) PCBs, wastes containing heavy metals, and
wastewater treatment sludges; 2) amphoteric wastes (e.g., arsenic); or 3)
all other wastes which have mostly included solvents and other organics.
Each cell has its own leachate collection system. The leachate is removed
with a submersible pump from the collection sump, through a PVC riser pipe,
and to an aboveground holding area.
Leachate at Site 12 was sampled on June 17, 1985 from the collection
system of a closed cell. The cell began accepting wastes in 1980 and was
closed in 1982. Approximately 702 of all wastes disposed in the cell are
PCB materials; 292 are wastewater treatment sludges (e.g., heavy metal
27
-------
hydroxide sludges); and 1Z are cyanides, oxidlzers, and other corrosive
materials. Most of the waste materials were disposed in the cell as bulk
solids, and not more than five percent of any drum's contents were free
liquids. Seventy-five percent of the PCB material was disposed in bulk
and twenty-five percent were solidified PCB liquids contained in drums.
Ninety-nine percent of the wastewater treatment sludge was disposed as bulk
solids and one percent was drummed. Ninety-five percent of the cyanides
and other wastes were contained in drums, and five percent were disposed
in bulk. Based on these figures, approximately 80% of all wastes in the
cell are bulk solids and 20Z are containerized. The cell is lined with a
40 ml, nylon reinforced Hypo liner and the final cover consists of 1 meter
of clay, a 20 ml PVC liner, and 30 centimeters of top soil.
Leachate Sample 15 from Site 12 was collected from the aboveground
branching of the cell's riser pipe. The piping was disconnected and the
leachate, black in color, was collected directly into the sample bottles.
The leachate came out of the piping as a steady stream and did not spray
or foam.
Site 13 has operated for the past five years and has accepted several
hundreds of different waste types including petrochemical wastes, paint
wastes, caustics, acids, spent chlorinated solvents, laboratory packs,
industrial sludges, aromatics, and plasticlzers. The site landfill has
individual cells, but wastes are not segregated by type into or within
specific areas of cells.
The leachate at Site 13 was sampled on June 11, 1985 from a closed
and covered cell. The cell had accepted a variety of hazardous wastes
between 1980 and 1981. All wastes were either disposed in drums or as
bulk solids. The drummed wastes were placed upright in the cell. Liquids
were not accepted. A total of approximately 88,600 metric tons of waste
were disposed in the cell.
The cell sampled at Site 13 has a dedicated leachate system with
two collection sumps on one side. The leachate flows by gravity to
these sumps. The leachate generation rate is at least 4,500 to 7,000
liters every three months. Leachate Sample 16 was obtained by using a
submersible pump to bring leachate from the bottom of one of the sumps
up a riser pipe to the surface. The sample was collected directly into
the sample bottles. The leachate stream was steady and did not bubble
or foam.
3.3 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The SAIC Trace Environmental Chemistry Laboratory (TECL) in La Jolla,
California, conducted the analytical tests on samples collected during the
course of this study. The TECL is certified to handle and analyze hazard-
ous waste and is a participant in USEPA's Contract Lab Program (CLP). The
following is a chronology of the handling and analytical procedures utiliz-
ed on each shipment of samples from the field.
28
-------
Upon receipt of the leachate samples, the laboratory inspected the
shipping containers (thermal chests) for tampering. All containers arrived
at the laboratory intact. The samples and any subsequent splits were then
assigned laboratory control numbers and were recorded in the laboratory
log book. The TECL followed USEPA-approved laboratory QA/QC procedures;
including those for equipment calibration, sample analysis, and internal
laboratory control checks.
Laboratory sample analyses included tests for the following constitu-
ents and parameters:
• Volatile organlcs
• Semi-volatile organlcs; including acids and base/neutral
extractables
• Heavy metals
• Cyanide
• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
• Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Analyses for volatile and semi-volatile organlcs included methods identi-
fied in the Federal Register; Volume 49; No. 209; October 26, 1984; 40 CFR
Part 136. Metals, cyanide, COD, and TOC analyses were carried out in ac-
cordance with the guidelines Identified in "Methods for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Wastes," EPA 600/4-79-020, updated March 1983, as modified to
CLP protocol for the USEPA. Gas chromatography followed by mass spectro-
metry (GC/MS) was used to identify volatile organlcs within three days
after receipt of the samples by the laboratory, and semi-volatile organics
(base/neutral and acid extractables) were analyzed within forty-two days
after arrival at the laboratory.
GC/MS analyses were conducted on a Finnigan Model 4021 Automated
Switchable chemical lonization or electronic ionization (CI/EI) source,
GC/MS data system. The GC/MS system is equipped with the hardware and
operating systems which provide all functions normally associated with a
GC/MS data system; including a special library compiled from NIH/USEPA
libraries, capabilities for spectral plots, listings of ions and their
abundances, and plotting total ion chromatograms. In addition, the GC/MS
system is capable of comparing selected spectra against a library of more
than 26,000 entries by pattern recognition techniques. These various
functions aided in the process of identifying compounds in the leachate
samples. High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was performed to
quantitatively evaluate water soluble components and relatively non-
volatile organics within the aqueous fraction.
A gas chromatographic method using an electron capture detector (ECD)
was also used to determine PCBs and chlorinated pesticides in a sample from
Site 12. The analyses were performed using a Hewlitt-Packard Model 5880A
29
-------
Alpha T2 gas chromatograph with BCD; dual columns 2 meters x 4 millimeters
with 3Z OV-1 on 100/120 Supelcoport analytical column; temperature 2078C
isothermal, 35 minute hold; injection volume 4 mlcroliters.
Metal analyses were performed using a Perkin-Elmer Model 603 atomic
absorption spectrophotometer equipped with an HGA 2200 graphite furnace,
standard acetylene burner, nitrous oxide burner, deuterium arc background
collector, and an AS—1 automatic sampler. The atomic absorption data was
rapidly reduced via an in-house DEC 10 computer.
An Hitachi UV-visible spectrophotometer, model KONTRON UV1 KON 810, was
used to quantitatively determine the concentration of cyanides drawn from
the leachate samples by means of a reflux-distillation operation and
absorbed in a scrubber containing sodium hydroxide solution.
The analytical procedures utilized in the laboratory to identify TOC
and COD levels also followed standard EPA protocols.
The specific methodologies used for each of the fraction analysis are
presented in Table 5.
3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS
Both sampling procedures and laboratory analysis quality assurance and
quality control checks were performed during this study to ensure the
generation of representative and valid conclusions. These activities were
conducted in accordance with USEPA recognized and approved QA/QC protocols.
This section describes the procedures and evaluates the results of QA/QC
sample analysis.
3.4.1 QA/QC Field Procedures and Results
During sampling, several steps were taken to ensure representativeness
of samples and to check sampling and laboratory procedures. Sample repre-
sentativeness was maximized by:
• Selecting a sampling point, to the extent possible, which was
closest to the generation source and least likely to expose
leachate to air or direct rainfall
• Taking samples directly from leachate collection systems, whenever
possible, (e.g., without the use of bailers) to eliminate the
potential for contamination introduced by sampling equipment
• Cleaning any required sampling equipment with a low residue
detergent and a DDI water rinse prior to sampling
• Using only suitable and prepared containers supplied by the TECL
to collect the samples.
Table 4 in Section 3.2.2 summarized the collection points and sampling
activities by site. Sample collection points varied widely because of
30
-------
Table 5. METHODOLOGIES USED FOR FRACTION ANALYSES OF LEACHATE SAMPLES
Fraction Analyzed
Analytical Method
Comments
Volatile Organlcs
Semi-volatile Organlcs
(Base/neutral and acid
extractablea)
Heavy Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanides
Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD)
Total Organic Carbon
(TOC)
Method 624, Federal Register,
Oct. 26, 1984. 40 CFR Part 136
Method 625, Federal Register,
Oct. 26, 1984, 40 CFR Part 136
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
204.
206.
210.
213.
218.
220.
239.
245.
249.
272.
270.
279.
289.
2,
2.
2,
2.
2.
2.
2,
1.
2,
2,
2.
2,
2,
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
600/4-79-020,
600/4-79-020,
600/4-79-020,
600/4-79-020,
600/4-79-020,
600/4-79-020,
600/4-79-020,
600/4-79-020,
600/4-79-020,
600/4-79-020,
600/4-79-020,
600/4-79-020,
600/4-79-020,
updated
updated
updated
updated
updated
updated
updated
updated
updated
updated
updated
updated
updated
3/83
3/83
3/83
3/83
3/83
3/83
3/83
3/83
3/83
3/83
3/83
3/83
3/83
Method 335.2, EPA 600/4-79-020, updated 3/83
Method 410, EPA 600/4-79-020, updated 3/83
Samples diluted 5 or 10 times to reduce
concentrations to testable levels.
Samples diluted 5 or 10 times to reduce
concentrations to testable levels. The
24 hour continuous liquid/liquid solvent
extraction system was used rather than
separation funnel technique to avoid
possible emulsion formation.
Atomic absorption, furnace technique
Atomic absorption, furnace technique
Atomic absorption, furnace technique
Atomic absorption, furnace technique
Atomic absorption, furnace technique
Atomic abaorptlon, furnace technique
Atomic absorption, furnace technique
Cold Vapor, Manual
Atomic absorption, furnace technique
Atomic absorption, furnace technique
Atomic absorption, furnace technique
Atomic absorption, furnace technique
Atomic absorption, furnace technique
Titrlmetric; Spectrophotometric
Titrlmetric, using Hach Kit
Method 415.2, EPA 600/4-79-020, updated 3/83 Titrlmetric Combustion or Oxidation
-------
leachate collection system accessibility. The following lists the various
sampling points:
• A leachate collection sump - Sites 2, 9, and 6
• The valve or discharge point on a pipe which carried leachate
froa the sump - Sites 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13
• A container which collected leachate recently discharged from the
pipe for the purposes of the sampling effort (Sites 1, 4, and 10)
• A storage lagoon which had held the leachate for a lengthy period
(Site 3).
Leachate representativeness (i.e., sampled versus actual) was probably
good for all sites except perhaps Sites 1, 3, 5, and 6 based on site obser-
vations. The sumps at Sites 1 and 6 were open to the environment and
the leachate was old. The leachate ac Site 3 was collected from an open
storage lagoon, and the leachate at Site 5 sprayed forcibly from the bleed-
er valve during collection. All of these situations could have resulted in
substantial loss In volatile and semi-volatile compounds.
Field QA/QC samples, i.e., field or trip blanks and duplicate samples,
were collected as performance checks for sample collection, sample handling
and laboratory analysis. One field blank sample and one duplicate sample
were collected during each of the three sampling trips. Three field blanks,
Samples 5, 12, and 21, were shipped to the laboratory with leachate Samples
3, 8, and 6, respectively. The three pairs of field duplicates, Samples 1
and 2, 7 and 11, and 17 and 18, were collected at Sites 1,4, and 7,
respectively.
The field blanks were sample containers prefilled with DDI water and
supplied by the TECL prior to the site visits. Any contaminants found
in the field blanks could be a result .of improper sample handling, by
either the samplers or the laboratory, or cross-contamination during sample
shipment. Contamination may also be a result of improperly cleaned sampl-
ing or laboratory equipment or inaccurate laboratory equipment.
The field duplicate samples are two leachate samples which were taken
at the same collection point and at the same time. Largely different
measurements between the samples for the same parameter may be attributable
to sampling conditions or methods, imprecise analysis, or improper cleaning
of analytical equipment.
The results of the laboratory QA/QC analyses of these field blanks and
field duplicate samples for trace metals, TOC, COD, and cyanide are present-
ed in Table 6 and for organlcs in Tables 7, 8, and 9. In addition, the
relative percent difference (RPO) of the duplicates is calculated to provide
a means of result comparison. The RPD expresses the variance of analyses in
terms of how far from the average either figure occurs. RPD is calculated
by the equation: Duplicate 1 minus Duplicate 2 divided by Duplicate 1 plus
Duplicate 2, wherin absolute values are used. The result is multiplied by
32
-------
Table 6. QA/QC ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR FIELD DUPLICATES AND
FIELD BLANKS - METALS, TOTAL CYANIDE, COD, AND TOC
'•motor (••>!• UapU ta*pU *•*>(• MapU SiapU
no.1 no.2 WO no. 7 no.11 WO no. 17 no. 18 WO
Held !!•*•
B>» MB>U tt
S 12 21
Hot«l«
• 1 illw
2 Anonlc
1 Otrylllui
4 Coctolia
S Otroalia
6 C«e|i*r
7 Horary
8 HlclMl
9 Uod
10 Ant tony
11 tolontui
12 ftalllia
11 line
Totol Cyintdt (BO/ I)
OB (•*/!)
IOC (•a/I)
10.4
468
42.20
14.2
1S24
1117
4910
7S90
1072
169
1178
64.9
1828
40
12100
2100
10.S
448
42.20
11.2
1271
1209
4121
4218
941
291
1799
40.4
1440
40
9110
2184
0.48
2.18
M
.S9
.OS
.07
.4S
.78
4.S1
11.8
8.90
1.41
S.42
0.00
11.71
1.84
O.S
S96
40.1
0.7
18.8
211
44
474
SS.4
18.1
627
10.7
7S.1
40.02
19SO
1018
1.2
408
40.062 '
1.S
17.S
249
4 102
492
43. S
19.1
811
9.7
81.4
0.02
1940
1077
41
18.7
MA
14.4
i.sa
I.7S
M
1.4S
4.41
2.14
14.1
4.90
4.01
100
0.11
2.82
1.4
4181
O.I
1.9
S1.S
11.1
128
714
14.8
18.7
917
14.1
4.94
40.02
2S60
764
1.4
4181
0.4
2.4
Sl.l
21.1
401
826
1S.9
110
864
17.8
S.I
40.02
1200
672
4.7
M
14
12
1.72
14.1
10.0
S.90
2.7S
70.9
2.98
10.9
1.S2
M
11.11
4.41
40.10
44.9
40.101
40.1
40.7
40.4
128
41.40
40.4
411.0
410.8
40.1
7.J9
40.02
4»
4
40.2
4181
40.1
1.0
40.S
40.9
18
40.192
S.8
41.4
42S4
41.1
41.0
40.02
- lilotlv* f«re«nt Olftwonc*--
( |M»1 • «UP2| / (OUP1 • OU>2> I I 100
«lwr« SUH U on* A^llcot* and DUT2 U tho other
-------
Table 7. QA/QC ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR FIELD DUPLICATES AND FIELD BLANKS - VOLATILE ORGANICS
—
1 Oiloroajtthana
) Vinyl Ollorlda
4 chloroatkana
» Nathylana Oilorlda
6 Acalona
7 Carbon Olaulllda
6 Olckloroatkylona, 1.1-
9 Olctiloroatkana. 1,1-
10 Iran. I.J Olrtloroathana
11 Oilorolona
12 Blchloroatkana, 1.2-
11 tutanm, 2-
14 trlckloroathm. 1,1.1-
15 Cartoon latrachlorlda
16 Vinyl Acatata
17 8roandicMoro>*thana
18 latrartloroalhana. 1.1.2.2-
19 Olehloropropana, 1.2-
20 frana-1,3 Oichloropropana
21 IrlcMoroathylana
22 OlbroaBctllorOMtkant
21 IrlrtCoroatbana. 1,1.2-
24 laruana
25 Cla-I.l-Dlchloropropcm
26 OltoroatkylvtnylatlMr. 2-
27 Iroaoloral
28 toianon*. 2-
29 lkitkyl-2-Nntanon*, 4-
10 fatrachloroitkylana
11 loluant
12 Chlorobaniana
11 Itkylbantana
14 (tyrant
15 Total lylann
i • attlamad nlu>
M - Hot Aypl Icablc
• • Ik* coapoml Ha* analyic
Ik* na«>*r la Ih* ailnlai
Saapl*
no.1
(m/l)
400
400
400
400
17800
15700
•250
•no
•no
1520
6B90
•no
14600
•no
•no
•too
•no
•no
•no
•no
5940
<250
•750
169
•no
400
•no
1740
400
875
7470
264
70
•no
416
no.2
(Uf/l)
400
400
400
400
41100
17600
<250
•no
•no
1710
7610
•no
IJJOO
•no
•no
400
•no
•no
•no
•no
6820
•no
•no
185 J
•no
400
•no
1970
400
1450
8B70
•no
1100
<258
5580
.«
M
M
M
M
4.42
5.71
M
U
M
5.88
4.97
M
2.14
«
M
U
M
M
M
U
6.90
M
U
4.52
M
M
M
6.20
M
24.7
8.57
100
88.0
m
86.1
taapla
no. 17
(MVH
400
400
400
400
2970
2UO
•no
•no
111
14.7
•no
•no
1060
116
•no
400
•no
•no
•no
•no
14.4
•no
•no
9.1
•no
400
•no
1060
12.1
5.5
547
•no
119
•no
763
no. 18
(u«/l)
40
40
40
40
2700
2500
<25
•n
112
i 12 j
5 i
•n
949
289
•n
40
•n
•n
•n
•n
1 12 J
•n
•n
t 8 1
•n
40
<2S
870
t 10 J
J 4 1
421
•n
112
•n
670
wo
U
M
M
M
4.76
6.19
M
M
8.57
10.1
100
M
5.51
7.52
M
M
M
M
M
M
9.09
M
M
7.51
M
M
M
9.84
9.50
15.8
12.8
M
l.OJ
M
7.78
IPO- Mlatlm Parcant
id for but not
dttactad.
m allainabla datactlon Halt
I |n»
1 - ot»2|
«ftara OUP1 la or
lor tka aaai
>l«.
no.7
400
400
400
400
608
21600
•no
•no
•no
•no
I860
•250
596
•no
•no
400
•no
•no
•no
•no
80 J
•no
•no
295
•250
400
•no
2790
400
•no
965
2110
<250
•no
•no
Olfltrenca--
/ (Du>1 • tunt
no.1t
400
400
400
400
601
21000
•no
•no
•no
•no
1850
<250
659
•no
•no
400
<250
•no
•no
•no
n
•no
•250
246
<250
400
•250
2910
2480
•no
946
2090
•no
•no
•no
1 I 100
* dupllcata ardour? la
Maid tlanta
Iby aaapl* «1
M 5 12 21
M
M
M
8*
8.579
1.14
M
M
M
M
0.270
M
5.02
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
j i.a
M
M
9.06
M
M
M
2.45
100
M
0.994
0.948
M
M
M
(ha otkar
08
•10
•10
107
42
4
4
4
4
4
4
-------
Table 8. QA/QC ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR FIELD DUPLICATES AND FIELD BLANKS -
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANTCS
U)
abound
1 II UlroioJlMthylMlnt
nwnol
Anil In.
Oii<2-Cftloro>tkyOftk*r
atlaroffttnol. 2-
Oicklarobmimt. 1,1-
7 Olcklarabtmtnt. 1.4-
0 Owwyl Alcakol
9 Olcklorobonltn*. 1,2,-
10 HttkylpMnol, 2-
11 IIX2 cklorolufx-apyDftktr
12 MlkylplMnol. 4-
11 « •Itroto-OI-n-fr^iylMiIno
14 •tucfclarattlunt
IS lltrobmitm
U Itopkwont
17 •ltropnral,2-
10 OlatlkylptMnol. 2,4-
19 Otnnlc Acid
20 IIKI-OilorotllloiyMlttlunt
21 OlckloraKMnol, 2,4-
22 IrlcMonfctnnn*. 1.2,4-
21 tac*tk>ltnt
24 CftlorMnlllnt. 4-
2S •tMcklwtfeuttdltm
2* Ckloro-l-Hitkytcdtnol. 4-
27 Mttkylntcftiktlim, 2-
21 *tucklararyclap«nttd!tn!
29 IrlcklaroctMnol, 2.4.4-
10 IrlcMoropntnol, 2.4.5-
11 OilM-amcJitMltnt. 2-
12 lltratnlllnt. 2-
11 »l«tkyl rktktUtt
M Actnqpfttkylm
St*>U
no.1
OOOO
27700
47100
OOOO
1410
111 J
2M i
1200
IOS J
1720
OOOO
ISM
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
9IS J
12100
OOOO
<1000
OOOO
201 J
OOOO
•1000
oooo
OOOO
oooo
1120
2960 J
OOOO
4000
OOOO
OOOO
IMPU
no. 2
400
22000
14700
400
1900
100 t
1M J
270 t
161 J
2S40
400
4S70
400
400
400
400
400
1070
11400
400
400
400
1S4 I
400
400
72 i
400
400
4400
1920
400
<2SOO
400
400
m
M
9.70
S2.«
M*
10.1
24.9
10.0
•4.4
•-94
19.2
M
12.1
M
•A
M
M
•A
14.1
20.7
M
M
M
11.7
M
M
100
M
M
14.0
14.0
M
M
•A
M
ftMpl0
no. 17
(ui/ll
OOO
210
000
ooo
000
ooo
000
000
000
000
000
240
000
000
000
000
000
ooo
4400
ooo
II J
000
000
ooo
000
ooo
000
000
ooo
400
ooo
400
ooo
000
!•*>(•
no. 10
tut/n
000
4SOO
ooo
•too
• 100
•100 .
•too
•too '
•100 .
•too
•too
240
•too
•too
•too
•100
•100
•too
2100
• 100
70 J
•100
SI t
•100
•100
•too
•too
•too
OOO
400
•too
400
•too
•too
tfO
M
90.1
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
4
- M
M
M
M
M
•A
IS. 4
M
1.09
M
100
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
no.7 no.ll
(ui/l) (ui/O
•400 <600
7000 l
S
<««/» •
•to
•10
•10
•10
•to
•10
•to
OO
•10
•10
•10
•10
OO
•to
•to
•to
•to
OO
40
•10
•to
•10
•10
•10
•to
•to
•to
•to
•10
40
•10
40
•10
•to
lid Olwk
1 ••»«•
12
(ui/O
•10
•10
•10
•to
•10
•10
•to
•10
•10
•to
•10
•to
•10
•10
•to
•to
•to
•10
40
•10
•to
•10
•U
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
40
•10
40
•10
•to
1
n
21
|u»/O
•10
•to
•to
•to
•to
OO
•to
• 10
•10
•to
•10
, «10
00
00
00
•10
•to
•to
40
•to
•10
OO
•10
•to
•10
•to
• 10
•10
•10
40
•10
40
•to
• 10
fMtcd wlu*
Ik* co^xonl mm volylod tor tut not dit X 100
rtitrt OUT1 It on* llc"« tnt OUT2 It tM after
(Continued)
-------
Table 8. (Continued)
OJ
m.l
(ut/l)
m.2
(ui/D.
tiaplo
no.17 n».tl
(ut/l) lui/l)
no.7
no.11
fUld llmkt
It* ««pU41
I 12
«<*/!> (mm
IS •Uranium. J-
16 *cmphthm
17 Dlnltrofhral. 2.4-
M lltro|*Mnol. 4-
39 Olbmofurin
40 olnltrotolutm, 2,4-
41 Olnltrotolun*. 2.*
42 DlithylpktlMUU
4J Oilorophtnyl -plMnyUthtr. 4-
44 Muorm
45 lltro«nlllnt. 4-
44 Otnllro-2 •ttMl'Mnol. 4>-
47 I lltroudlptMnrlHlnMI)
46 iri»n*in|>l -HunyUthtf . 4-
4» MucMorabvuMM
M Mntadilorot*ral
SI MMrantlmm
S2 •ntlH-Km
SlOI-n-OutrlpMlwUt*
S4 MuorcntlHnt
SS Omldlnt
S« Pyrm
S7 ftrtrlb>niyl|*ithilit«
M DIcMorobMwIdlm. 1,1-
M •vuirKyl>'lillMlil*
41 diryMm
42 Ol-n-Oclyl PtitlwUM
41 ««1.2.1-cd)Pyrm
67 Olbm(*,k)«nthrKOT*
68 MnKKt.k.D'vylm
*rc«nt tlffircnu-
I IOUPI • M»2| / IDUrt • OUP2) > I tOO
«h*r* Bl»1 It on* A«>llc*lo md OUT2 li tko otkn-
-------
Table 9. QA/OC ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR FIELD DUPLICATES AND FIELD BLANKS -
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Capoinl
1 Alkml
2 ••run. 1.2,1-lrlwlkyl-
1 •muna. 2-Etkyl-1.*-*l*»tkyl-
4 fenm 1.2-dlurtaiiyllc Acid
S (•nMnHultoMldt. 2-Natkyl-
6 ••niOTMUl f oncild^ 4-Ntlkyl
7 (onialc Acid. 4-(t,1-tl*»tkyUtkyl>-
• lutmlc Acid. 2-IKtkyl-
V Cyclobutm. 2-*r«panyHdm-
10 Cyclokuram
11 Cyclopontmal. 2-Mtkyl
12 Etlwm. l,l'-OKytaU(2 Nttkoiy
11 Etlwnot. 1-(2-lutoiyattMiy)-
14 ElMnol, 2.2'- Iklcbic
IS Etkonl. 2 <2-tuty>-
16 Ilkmol, 2-Outo*y
17 EtlMnol.2-(2-ltlMiy«tko*y)-
M ••)ll»l«l ••
19 Kumiic Acid. 2-Etkyl-
20 lairal. 2-ftkyl-. 1-
21 Natfim. lulfonylbU-
22 l*j*itkaCSiryrin-1,l-Dlont, »,]••
21 HMnai, 2,t-DlMtkyl-
24 MMml. 2-Cklwo-
25 MMnol, }-(1,l-OlMtkyl«tkyl>-
26 fMnol, 4-INttkyltkle)-
27 M«nyl«*tlc Acid
2t rtitnylpraiaralc Acid
29 frocmlc Acid, 2-Mlkyl-
10 ttunam. S-ltatkyl-. 2- *
• S-Nttkyl-2-l«unoni mt dttictid only
•• • lot 0*IMC«d
M • Rat AftlllcAl*
*•*>!•
no.l
l^/l)
2340
1910
--
--
• •
• •
4620
21000
10M
2860
10M
••
• -
••
--
-•
• •
-•
1000
IOW
• •
-.
• •
10MO
In Ik* fUli
ta?U
no. 2
<«/!!
2040
2110
••
-•
IIM
1020
1240
146M
2460
MM
ll»
2420
IIM
2100
IIM
IIM
--
61)
IIM
1110
• •
••.
IM«*|
IfO
IM
IM
•A
M
M
IM
IM
M
17.6
10.0
IM
IM
27.2
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
•A
IM
1.26
IM
M
IM
•A
IM
•A
tapU *•*>(• S«pl« tMpI*
no. 17 na.1l WO no. 7 na.11 00
Jug/I) fu|/l| (i«/l> (>•/!)
M
•A
.. • .. M
M -;
164 146 S.OI
216 IM 9.M
M
M
100 •• too
M
.... M
M
M
•A
M
M
M
M
M
614 •• IM
M
• .. M
M
M
M
712 7S7 1.62
M
M
.... M 7J20 10
M •
WO- Itlitlv* rcranl OIHtrmc*--
i |ouri • a»2| /
-------
100 to get a percentage. A high RPD value indicates poor replicability of
results. However, if concentration levels are low, a high RPD value is not
critical.
The metal analyses results for field duplicates presented in Table 6
show very good replicability with the exception of antimony values in
Samples 17 and 18. One sample reportedly contained almost six times more
antimony than the other. The reason for this is unknown, however, the
discrepancy is not serious because the concentrations were low.
The field blank QA/QC analytical results presented in Table 6 show
contamination of mercury in all three blanks, lead and cadmium in both
Samples 12 and 21, and selenium, thallium, and chromium in Sample 21.
Mercury was detected in all of the samples which traveled with the field
blanks, hence cross-contamination cannot be ruled out. Lead, zinc,
cadmium, chromium, and thallium were also detected in the leachate samples
traveling with the blanks containing these elements. However, both lead
and selenium were detected in the companion leachate sample from Site 6 at
a lower concentration than detected in the respective field blank. The
reason for this could be the analytical procedures or inherent contamina-
tion in the DDI water.
Field duplicate analyses for organic compounds had very good repli-
cability as shown by Tables 7, 8, and 9. The only Instances of RPD values
greater than 75Z were found between Samples 1 and 2. Nevertheless, the
concentrations reported were also small. Discrepancies in these analyses
might be attributable to the fact that the original samples had very high
concentrations of numerous chemical species, which makes Interpretation of
data subject to some ambiguity.
Results of field blank analyses for organics Indicate small contamina-
tion levels of acetone, 2-butanone, and di-n-butylphthalate. Also, at
larger concentrations, methylene chloride was detected in all three field
blanks. More interestingly, 5-methyl-2-hexanone was detected only in field
blanks and not in any of the leachate samples. The latter suggests either
Improper analytical procedures, improperly cleaned sample containers, or
inherent contamination in the DDI water and rules out cross-contamination.
Nevertheless, the field blank analytical results for organics did not show
any serious problems and demonstrated good overall QA/QC.
3.4.1 QA/QC Laboratory Procedures and Results
Internal steps taken by the TECL to assess QA/QC included:
• Analyzing laboratory blank samples in addition to field blanks
to assess laboratory sample handling and equipment cleaning
• Splitting selected samples into two or more separate samples to
verify analytical precision
• Analyzing samples of known concentrations (surrogate spikes) to
calibrate and check the accuracy of instruments.
38
-------
Tables 10 and 11 present the results of laboratory blank QA/QC anal-
yses for organics. The results are excellent from the standpoint of QA/QC,
and only show detected contamination In three instances. Di-n-butylphthal-
ate was estimated as present In Lab Blank 1, but at below the detection
limit. Acetone and 2-butanone were detected at small concentrations In Lab
Blank 5.
Table 12 presents the results of laboratory sample split QA/QC anal-
yses for metals. The laboratory chose to split leachate Samples 7 and 15
for the analyses. The results were very good with respect to QA/QC.
Table 13 presents the results of laboratory sample split QA/QC anal-
yses for semi-volatlies. The laboratory split leachate Sample 17 for the
analyses and, again, the results show very good repllcability.
Table 14 below presents the results of laboratory sample split QA/QC
analyses for COD and cyanide. Leachate samples 17 and 8 and internal
samples were analyzed. The QA/QC analytical results for these laboratory
splits were very good.
Table 14. QA/QC ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LABORATORY SAMPLE SPLITS -
COD AND CYANIDE
Parameter and
Sample I.D.
Replicate 1
(tng/D
Replicate 2
(mg/1)
RPD
COD
8506 0455*
8506 0954*
Sample 8**
<5
42
13,700
<5
43
13,600
NA
1.1
.4
Cyanide
8506 0280*
8506 0699*
8506 0093*
Sample 17**
<0.02
<0.02
15.9
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
10.2
<0.20
NA
NA
21.8
NA
* EPA QC Sample I.D.
** Leachate study baseline sample
RPD - Relative Percent Difference
NA - Not applicable
39
-------
Table 10. QA/QC ANAYLTICAL RESULTS FOR LABORATORY BLANKS - SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS
Oapound
t 0-OltroMdtetfcyloBlnt
2 rixnol
1 Anlllnt
4 ll»<2 OitorotthyDCItMr
5 CMoroplMnol. 2-
6 Dldiloraboniono, 1.J-
7 Olckloroboniom, 1,4-
0 Ooniyl ftUotwl
9 OlcMorobniMno. 1.2.-
10 Htthylphoml. 2-
11 OI>(2-diloroltopro|Yl)Eth*r
t2Mtthyl|*onol. 4-
11 0-Oltro»o-*l-n-PropyloBln>
14 OmocMoroothoni
n Oltrabmiont
1* lioftoront
17 •HroptMnol,2-
10 Olatthylpfionol, 2,4-
19 Ooniolc Acid
20 ll<(2 Oitoro*thoiy)Mthon*
21 OlcMoroftenot. 2.4-
22 IrlcMorobmiont, 1,2.4-
21 loffttholom
24 CMoroonlllnt, 4-
21 Otiorhlorobutodlont
26 Ckloro 1 Mtthrl|*enol. 4-
27 IKthyln*f*>tlMltni. 2-
20 HtucklorocyclopmtKllcm
29 trlcMoropMnol, 2.4.6-
10 trldiloroflwnal. 2.4,5-
11 CMoroncjfttlMtRM, 2-
12 lltrotnlllm. 2-
11 DlMthyl ftithtltt*
14 tt.n*,.hyl«n.
J Mtl.l«l nlu*
• Cmot b« Mpvattd «ro» atft*,
Lob llv* 1 lob OIK* 2
Mnrl«thor, 4-
44 fluorom
41 litroontllm. 4-
44 >lnltro-2-H»thylplMnol. 4.6-
47 0-OHroMdlpiMnylojrino •
40 liw<l nuiiilillur, 4-
49 loiucklorobiniono
50 Pont«cfiloco»*«nol
51 ftvononthrono
52 tMHricon*
51 DI-n-OutytpfctlMlm
54 Muorontrxno
» tontldlm
56 ryrm
57 OutylbontylptitlwUto
50 Dlcklorobonlldlno. 1,1-
59 lonioOlhitkrocon*
60 OI«l2-Ethylniiyl)Mithiloto
61 Olrysoiw
62 Ol-n-Octyl Pktlwloto
61 ttnio(b>riuorinthm
64 0*nio(k>rluorontlMra
65 Ooniotolfyrm
66 IndonoCt^.I-cdtrYToni
67 OlbonlU.hMnthrorent
60 0«o<,.h..^.ryl«
molytod for but not dtltctid.
mln(mm otttlMbt* dtttctlon Hall (or tht ••
lob Oloi* 1
-------
Table 11. OA/QC ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LABORATORY BLANKS
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Cuapuml ' lab tlant 1
1 CkloroBatkana <10
2 Oroaoaatluna «10
1 Vinyl Cklorlda «10
4 CkloroatMna
-------
Table 12. QA/QC ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LABORATORY SAMPLE SPLITS - METALS
Seaple 7
Metal*
Silver
Areenic
Berylliui
Cadalua
ChroBiui
Copper
Mercury
Hlckel
Lead
Antlanny
Selenlui
Thalliua
Zinc
7a
0.519
551.0
HD
0.494
19.5
231
HD
486
59.7
15.8
613
9.23
80.0
7b
0.471
723.0
HD
0.812
19.5
219
HD
450
53
20.6
650
10.7
70.5
7e
0.454
515.0
HD
0.710
17.4
243
HD
492
54
18.5
619
12.2
74.9
Mean
0.481
596
HA
0.672
18.8
231
HA
476
56
18.3
627
10.7
75.1
X
DSD
7
19
HA
24
6
5
HA
5
6
13
3
14
6
Saapte 15
"'
2.70
8993
HD
2.64
0.250
5726
561
1159
0.367
133
1189
U. 7
1606
15b
2.45
8109
HD
2.43
0.186
3624
688
1103
0.322
146
1875
44.7
1496
ISc
2.79
8565
HD
2.57
0.201
4007
569
1159
0.308
132
1370
49.4
1524
Mean
2.65
8556
HA
2.55
0.212
4452
606
1140
0.332
137
1478
46.3
1542
X
•SO
7
5
HA
4
16
25
12
2
• Metal data I* In •Icrograaa per liter (except for Hg. which It In namogran/liter)
HO • Hot Detected
HA • Hot Applicable
•SO- Relative Standard Deviation (alto called the coefficient of variation)
-------
Table 13. QA/QC ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LABORATORY SAMPLE SPLITS - SEMI-VOLATILES
U)
Compound
• ••iiraodlHtkyloBln*
Pk*nol
Anllln*
IIM2 CklarMthylMtiMr
dlloroj«Mnot. 2-
Olcklorabmim, 1.1-
Otcftlorobmion*. 1,4-
Mruyl Alcohol
9 •IdHaratunim. I.I,-
10 Mtkylpk*n>l. 2-
II »li<2 <*lorol«opropyl)€lh*r
12 lbtkyl|**nol. 4-
11 •••itrato orn-PropylMlm
14 •*McMoro*tk>n*
IS lltrobmun*
16 iHftoron*
17 •ltroali*nol,2-
10 •l*»tkylf*«nol. 2.4-
19 Icniolc Acid
20 IIM2 CMorMtlxwyMtotkm
21 OldilorofMnal. 2.4-
22 Irlcklorobmion*. 1.2.4-
21 taffttlMlont
24 Cklorotnllln*. 4-
2S Mucklorotutldlon*
26 ailwo-I-HttkylplMnol. 4-
27 mtkyln*pktlMl*n*. 2-
2* ftuucklorocyclaiMntidion*
29 trlcklarontwnol. 2.4,6-
M trldiloroalwiol, 2,4. J-
11 Oiloraniptitkdon*. 2-
12 lltroMllln*. 2-
11 •l«*tkyl Pktk*l*t*
14 AcMpktkylM
J - «tlMt*d «*lu*
J' • calculated (King *t Uut a
iMdi
17*
Cu^l)
•too
230
•100
• 100
•too
•too
•too
•too
•loo
•100
•100
260
•100
• 100
•100
•too
• 100
• 100
4400
•too
•1 J
•too
• 100
•too
•100
•too
•too
•too
• 100
•soo
•too
•soo
•100
•too
v «ti*»t*d nlui
•t* tapl*
lib
(UB/I)
•too
MO
•too
•too
•too
•too
•too
• 100
•too
• 100
•too
MO
•too
• 100
•too
•too
•too
•too
4MO
• 100
110
•100
•too
• 100
•100
•too
•too
• 100
•too
•soo
•too
•soo
•too
•100
17
IPO
M
tt.i
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
wt
7.14
M
M
M
M
M
I*
1.1S
U
IS.2
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Co*fX»nJ
IS UtroOTllliM. I-
16 »c«n*(*tMn*
17 Olnltranktnol. 2.4-
M •Itrofftonol. 4-
M OlbmofuTM
40 Olnllrotalum*. 2.4-
41 Olnftrotolum. 2.6-
42 Ol*tkylplitk*l*t*
41 CMorap**nyl-plMnyUtk*r. 4-
44 Fluorm
4S lltreinllln*. 4-
46 Olnllro 2 NtlkylpMnol. 4.6-
47 •••Uro*odlpJi*nrl*Bln*<1>
44 OroM|A*nrl-Pk*nyl*Ui*r, 4
49 toucklarabmun*
SO P*nt*ckloropk*nol
SI Pkcnmtkrtn*
)2 *ntkr*c«n*
SI tl-n-lutyl|*tlwUt*
S4 Huor*ntk*n*
SS tauldln*
S6 Pyr*n*
S7 •utylbmylptillMUt*
S* Olcklorobmldln*. 1.1-
S9 0*nio4«Mntkr*c*n*
60 IU(2-ftkylkuyl)PktluUU
61 CkryMn*
62 Dl-n-Octyl Pktlulit*
61 0*nior*nt
66 IndjnBd.l.l-aUPyrm
67 •lb*ni(*.k)«ntlir*c*n*
61 Mmo(«.k.l>P*ryl*n*
M - lot Appllubl*
ifO- l*l*tlv* P*rc*nt Dlll*r*nc*
Lt*du
17*
(""I)
•SOO
•too
•soo
•so*
•too
•100
•too
•too
•too
•too
•soo
•soo
•too
•too
•100
•too
•soo
•100
21 t
•100
•1000
•too
•too
•200
•100
•too
• 100
•too
•too
•too
•too
•too
•too
•too
I* f«pU 1
lib
"*"'
•soo •
•too
•soo
•soo
•100
•too
•too
•100
•100
• 100
•soo
« too
uh*r* CUP1 U on* dupllctl* and OUP2 U Ik* olkw
-------
Table 15 presents Che results of laboratory blank analysis for TOC.
The laboratory split all the samples submitted for analyses by SAIC, includ-
ing the field blanks. The data in the table are based on three replicates.
Based on this data and the data in Tables 12 through 14, analytical preci-
sion is very good.
The laboratory also analyzed samples of known concentrations, or
spikes, to calibrate and check analytical accuracy. Table 16 presents the
results of this analysis for metals. The high spike levels were at five
times the low spike levels for respective elements. The percent recovery
results are very good, with the exception of arsenic in Sample No. 3.
The reason for the high percent recoveries for this compound is not known.
Table 17 presents the spike recovery results for COD and cyanide. The
percent recoveries are again very good. Table 18 presents the spike re-
covery results for TOC. These results are also very good.
Laboratory spiked sample analyses for volatile organic compounds are
not presented because recovery data were lost during the dilution of the
highly contaminated samples. Extractable surrogate spikes added (50-100
ppb) were not detected at the lowered detection limits. In the absence of
spiked sample analyses, field duplicates can be used to assess the accuracy
of the laboratory methods for organic analysis. These data were reviewed
above and indicate that overall laboratory accuracy is of acceptable
quality.
44
-------
Table 15. QA/QC ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LABORATORY
SAMPLE SPLITS - TOC
Sample
No.
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Mean
mg/1
2,300
2,386
2,004
2,278
4
1,018
11,750
309
4,078
1,077
4
4,909
6,602
2,453
764
672
195
1,579
3
Standard
Deviation
208
190
374
142
3
155
978
81
886
149
3
405
850
178
72
65
57
166
2
Z Relative Standard
Deviation (CV)
9.0
8.0
18.7
6.2
75
15.2
8.3
26.2
21.7
13.8
75
8.3
12.9
7.3
9.4
9.7
29.2
10.5
67
45
-------
Table 16. QA/QC ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LABORATORY SURROGATE SPIKES - TRACE METALS
Element
Silver
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Low Spike
Added (ug)
0.05
3
0.10
0.050
0.50
0.20
10.0
0.50
1.0
3.0
0.50
2
Low Spike
Recovered (ug)
0.06
27
0.082
0.039
0.45
0.24
9.8
0.55
1.2
5.6
0.45
1.7
Sample No. 3
Z High Spike
Recovery Added (ug)
120Z
900Z
822
78Z
90Z
120Z
98Z
not
120Z
187Z
90Z
85Z
0.25
15.0
0.50
0.25
2.5
1.0
50
2.5
5.0
15.0
2.5
10
High Spike
Recovered (ug)
0.30
38.1
0.50
0.31
3.1
1.1
63
3.1
5.5
16.7
2.3
9.1
Z
Recovery
1201
254Z
100Z
124Z
124Z
110Z
126Z
124Z
110Z
1112
92Z
91Z
(Continued)
-------
Table 16. (Continued)
Element
Silver
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Low Spike
Added (ug)
0.05
20.0
0.50
2.0
100
50
500
50
20.0
20.0
2.0
100
Sample No. 1
Low Spike % High Spike
Recovered (ug) Recovery Added (ug)
0.74
22.5
0.54
1.8
112
38
551
39
24.4
12.4
1.5
91
148Z
113Z
108Z
90Z
1122
76Z
110Z
78Z
122Z
62Z
77Z
91Z
2.5
100
1.0
10.0
500
250
2,500
250
100
100
10.0
500
High Spike
Recovered (ug)
2.9
143
1.25
9.4
512
197
2,402
277
55
46
9.9
465
Z
Recovery
116Z
143Z
125Z
94Z
102Z
79Z
96Z
91Z
55Z
46Z
99Z
93Z
-------
Table 17. QA/QC ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LABORATORY
SURROGATE SPIKES - COD AND CYANIDE
Parameter/ Sample I.D.
COD
WP782 #3
WP782 #3
Cyanide
WP179 #5
WP179 #5
WP284 #2
True
Value
15.6
15.6
0.22
0.22
1.52
Recovered
Value
13.0
17.4
0.20
0.21
1.39
Z
Recovery
83
111
91
95
91
Table 18. QA/QC ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LABORATORY
SURROGATE SPIKES - TOC
Leachate
Sample
11
11
17
Unspiked
Value
1,000
1,500
500
Spike
1,077
1,077
764
Recovered
Value
2,062
2,600
1,284
Z
Recovery
98.5
101.5
104.0
48
-------
SECT-ION 4
STUDY FINDINGS
Analytical results for the leachates sampled during this study are
statistically summarized and discussed in Section 4.1. Based on this
analytical and statistical evaluation, three synthetic leachate formulas
are proposed in Section 4.2.
4.1 ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND STATISTICAL EVALUATION
The leachate samples collected from the 13 active hazardous waste
disposal sites were analyzed for 35 volatile, 68 semi-volatile, and 13
metal priority pollutants. These constituents are respectively listed in
Appendix Tables A-l, A-2, and A-3. In addition, the matching of the GC/MS
spectra with library spectra identified 102 non-priority pollutant com-
pounds and families of compounds* The compounds are listed in Appendix
Table A-4. The results of the leachate sample analyses for the compounds
at each site are presented by organic class in Appendix Tables B-l (organic
acids), B-2 (oxygenated/heteroatomic hydrocarbons), B-3 (halogenated
hydrocarbons), B-4 (organic bases), B—5 (aromatic hydrocarbons), and B—6
(aliphatic hydrocarbons). The six general classes of organic compounds
are frequently used to discuss the compatibility of hazardous waste with
various containment liners. Compounds within the individual classes are
listed alphabetically. Appendix Table B-7 presents the analytical results
for metals, pH, Eh, conductivity, temperature, total cyanide, COD, and
TOC. The analytical results for duplicate samples collected at Sites 1, .
4, and 7 are averaged for all parameters.
The respective statistical summaries of the organic classes and com-
pounds in Appendix Tables B-l through B-7 are presented in Table 19
(organic acids), Table 20 (oxygenated/heteroatomic hydrocarbons), Table 21
(halogenated hydrocarbons), Table 22 (organic bases), Table 23 (aromatic
hydrocarbons), and Table 24 (aliphatic hydrocarbons). Table 25 presents
the statistical summary for metals, pH, Eh, temperature, total cyanide,
TOC, and COD. The tables present, for each parameter, the range of
detected values in micrograms per liter (ug/1), the mean concentration
(ug/1), the standard deviation of the mean concentration, the mean mole
fraction percentage, and the number of sites at which the organic compound
or metal was detected in the leachate samples. A value of zero was
assigned when the parameter was not detected in the leachate sample of a
site. The compounds in Tables 19 through 24, representing the six classes
of organics, are listed in order of decreasing total mean mole fraction
percentage. The analytical results for Che aqueous (instead of the oil)
fraction of the sample collected at Site 9 were used in the statistical
49
-------
Table 19. STATISTICAL DATA FOR ORGANIC ACIDS
Coapound
1 Phenol
2 Nethylphenol. 4-
3 •eruoic Acid
4 lutanolc Acid
5 ProfMnole Acid, 2 -Methyl-
6 Pentanotc Acid
7 Methyl phenol, 2-
8 Mkenoic Acid
»-" 9 Nexanotc Acid
10 Dle»thylphenol, 2,4-
11 Phenylecetle Acid
12 Phenol. 2.6-bl«(1.1-dle»thylethyl)-4 Methyl-
1] Mexanolc Acid. 2-ttbyl-
14 Pentanoic Acid. 4-Methyl-
IS Phenol. 4--
16 Octanoic Acid
17 iutenolc Acid. 2-Nethyl-
18 Dichlorophenol, 2.4-
19 Phenol, 2,4.6 Iria*thy(-
••nge
Of Detected Ca*>ov(id>
Hin Max
(ug/l) (UB/I)
2400
110
3090J
2400
3660
4180
94 J'
1120
3600
30 J*
1660
--
295
1180
--
• •
510
B6.8J*
• "
110000
47000
20600
49400
17000
21500
24000
50100
39700
12000
6400
26700
4530
2630
770
9440
2610
2900
5720
New
OJQ/I)
21600
11400
7120
6120
2580
. 3230
4780
3940
3330
2640
1440
2050
810
293
59.2
726
420
471
440
StdDtv
28700
14300
7420
13)00
4810
6850
6940
13300
10500
3690
2120
7110
1260
744
205
2520
888
928
1520
NurtMr of SltM
Where ttffamt
Un Detected .
13
12
8
4
4
3
10
2
2
9
S
1
6
2
1
1
3
4
1
Mean
Holt Fraction
(K100)
11.76
1.40
1.27
3.32
2.38
2.06
2.01
1.42
1.13
0.83
0.67
0.39
0.29
0.24
0.21
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.14
•- - Compound um detected it only one site
J • e*tinted value
J' - calculated using at least one estimated value
(Continued)
-------
Table 19. (Continued)
Compound
20 PtienylprofMnolc Acid
21 Pent «cli lorophcnol
22 Propanoic Acid, 2.2-DlMthyl-
2J Mnioic Acid. 4-CMoro
24 IrtcMorophenol, 2.4.6-
25 AMtlc Acid. (2.4-Dldiloraf*Mn-
16 Mnitn* 1.2-dic«rboxylic Acid
37PtMnal, 2.5-DI»thyl-
38 CMoro 3 *«thylph«f»l. 4-
Rmo.
Of D«l«ct*d Co^mnti
Nln Hu
(ua/l) (UQ/D
27.2 2230
1900
228
8220
I860
898
3440
2760
618
5540
1790
1090
675
710
1210
525
12.5
318
J6J'
Ntm
(UB/I)
274
146
17.5
632
297
69.1
265
212
47.5
426
138
81.8
51.9
54.6
93.1
40.4
2.5
24.5
2.77
Muter «
MOT* Ct
Std 0«v KM D«l
611
506
60.8
2190
1030
239
917
735
165
1480
477
290
180
189
322
140
8.66
84.7
9.59
if Site* NMH
»fnund NoU Fraction
t«ct«t (1100)
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
.00
39.01
•• • Capound MM dtt*ct
-------
Table 20. STATISTICAL DATA FOR OXYGENATED/HETEROATOMIC HYDROCARBONS
01
Compound
1 Acetone
2 futenone. 2-
3 Beniyl Alcohol
4 Hexenone, 2-
5 Pontanol. 4-Nethyl-, 2
6 Cyclopentanol. 2 -Me thy I
7 Ethane. 1.1'-OxybUI2 Nethoxy-
8 Cthenol. 2-Dutoxy-
9 Methyl -2-Pentanone, 4-
10 Ethanol, 2-(2-»utoxyethoxy)-
11 Cyclohexanone
12 8entene-1.2-dlearbaxyllc Acid Anhydride
13 Pentenediol. 2.2.4-frlMthyl-. 1,3-
14 Isophorone
15 Propenedlol, 2,2-Oiaethyl-.1,3-
16 Phosphoric Acid Trtbutylmter
17 Nexenol. 2-Ethyl-,1-
18 Propenol, 1 <2-Methoxy-1-Methylethoxy)-, 2-
19 Tetrathiepane, 1.2.4,6-
20 Ethanol. 1-(2-8utoxyethoxy>-
•- - Compound wet detected at only one tlte
J • estimated value
J* • calculated using at leest one estimated velue
Hen)
Of Detected
Min
(ug/l)
344
62
1740J*
17J
2450
1130
540
1560
9J
940
1650
1020
810
•-
588
•-
434
112
--
1230
It
Coapoundi
Max
(U*!)
77500
42900
68000 .
17200
33000
17800
16600
3740
3790
10800
3930
6720
5490
15000
2440
18200
I860
1550
3020
8860
Mean
(ug/l)
23200
13600
11100
4610
2730
1460
1320
408
775
1290
708
917
485
1150
233
1400
222
128
232
776
Nuafaer of Site* Mean
Uhere Compound Mole fraction
Std Oev Wee Detected (X100)
24600 13 16.51
15800 12 6.83
22100 6 4.57
5820 13 1.92
8760
4730
4410
1050
1290 1
3050
1380
2010
1460
4000
656
4850
508
412
805
2360
0.95
0.56
0.50
0.43
0.42
0.42
0.29
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.22
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.12
(Continued)
-------
Table 20. (Continued)
Ol
CJ
r.-^^.-.i
21 Et Hanoi. 2.2'- Thiobis-
22 lenialdehyde, * Hydroxy-J Hetboxy
21 laolndole-1.3(2N)-Oione. IN-
24 NajAthotl.8 CDJPyran 1,3 Oione, IN. IN
25 Nelhene, SulfonylbU-
26 Pentanedlol, 2-Nethyl-, 2.4-
27 Di-n-lutylphthelete
28 Ethenol.2-(2-Etho«yethoxy>-
29 Ethanol, 2-J2-C2 Ethaxyethoxy)Ethoxy|-
30 Anthracenedlone, 9,10-
31 l*oindole-1,3(2N)-Oione. 3A.4.7.7A-Tetrehydro-.cts-
32 Pho*pHr*oxld*. Triphtnyl-
33 ProfMn-2-ol, 2-Ptnnyl-
M Cyeloh«x«n-1.2-dle«rboxyllc Acid Anhydride
3S Mkwwl
36 •i((2-EthyllM>yi)l>hth*l*U
37 Olwthyl MithilcU
M Methyl Ac«toph«w(w
39 01 n-Octyl Phth*l*t«
•• - Caapound IK* detected «t only one *lte
1 • ettiMted value
J* • celculeted using et least one estimated value
tange
Of Detected Compound*
Nin Nu
(ufl/l) (ug/l)
3930
770
1490
31.2 692
1560
2660
22. 5J- 996
1210
1560
750
.IN- •- 1630
2390
226 402
1030
1020
1400
620
131
31
Mean
(ug/l)
302
59.2
115
. 55.6
120
205
216
93.1
120
57.7
125
184
48.3
79.2
78.5
114
63.1
10.1
2.38
Umber of tlte* Mean
Where Coefmnl Note Fraction
Std Oev Me* Detected (X100)
•
1050
205
397
184
416
709
299
322
416
200
434
637
118
274
272
394
219
34.9
8.26
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
.00
.00
35.82
-------
Table 21. STATISTICAL DATA FOR HALOGENATED HYDROCARBONS
Compound
1 Nethylent Chloride
2 OlcMorobcruene. 1.2,-
3 trlcliloroethane, 1.1.1-
4 Trlchloroethylene
5 CM or of ona
6 Chlorofaentene
7 Oichloroethane, 1,2-
8 Olchloroethsne, 1,1-
9 Oichlorobentene. 1,4-
10 Tetrachloroethylene
It Trans- t.2-Dlchlero*thylene
12 Olchlorobeniene. 1.3-
13 Carbon letrachlorlde
14 Trlchloroethane, 1.1.2-
15 Olchloropropene, 1.2-
dsnge
Of Detected
Min
(ug/l)
19
173J*
37
13.2J1
2.5J1
107
•-
47
186J'
4.75J'
11J
150J-
-•
42J
67J
MaM
(ug/D
56800
46000
22000
11300
7250
2480
9040
1620
6300
1800
1610
990
879
231
186
Mean
(ug/l)
14100
3550
1830
. 2040
1940
480
695
182
499
430
166
87.7
67.6
21
33.2
ttdOev
17300
12200
5830
3260
2600
815
2410
443
1680
579
428
264
234
61.6
64.4
Muter of Sites
UnftT0 CO^pOlaftB
Has Detected
13
2
3
11
10
6
1
4
2
7
5
2
1
2
3
Mot* fraction
(1100)
6.79
1.01
0.92
0.71
0.67
0.2S
0.17
0.1S
0.14
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.01
11.01
•- - CoKpoind IMS detected mt only one lite
J • estlMted value :
J* - calculated using at least one estlMted value
-------
Table 22. STATISTICAL DATA FOR ORGANIC BASES
Compound
1 Aniline
2 AcetvBtde. H, •-Di>ethyl-
3 Chloroeniline. 4-
4 Pyrrol Idinone. 1 -Methyl -.2-
5 iMojiinoline
6 Azcpin-2-One. HeMhydro-. 2N-
7 Pyridine
8 Pyridine. 2 Chloro-
9 MnienenjIfancBtde. 4 -Methyl
10 Mniene. 1,3 DlaBlno-4-Methyl-
11 taniene, 1.4-0fee>fno-
12 Mntene, 1.2-Olealno-
13 ••niealdt
14 Aniline. 2,3 Dlchloro-
IS Mphthelene, 2-Aatno
16 Aniline. 2-Methoiy
17 MnienetulforuBide, 2-Nethyl
18 Pyridirwelne. 2-
19 Norpnollne. 4 Ethyl -
•enge
Of Detected Caepotnfc
Hln MM
(ug/l) (ug/l)
14200 56000
13600
12000 15500
360 14400
3020
7410
11500
3680 6200
202 6020
2480
1940
835
1500
1150
942
515
114
560
520
Neen
(ug/l)
7780
1060
2120
1420
232
570
885
775
661
191
149
64.2
its
88.5
72.5
39.6
8.77
43.1
40
IMfcer c
Where C
Std Oev MM Ot
16400
3680
5010
3870
80S
1970
3060
1870
1590
661
517
223
400
306
251
137
30.4
149
139
if Site* Keen
^epaund ' Mole Fraction
itected (X100)
2.92
1.07
0.97
0.60
0.29
0.26
' 0.23
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
7.21
Copound MM detected «t only one «ite
-------
Table 23. STATISTICAL DATA FOR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Coapound
Of Detected Compounds
Nln N«
(ug/l) (ug/l)
Mean
(ug/l)
StdOev
of Site*
Uwr» Ceapound
UM Detected
NoU fraction
(1100)
1 Toluene
2 Totel lylenet
I Naphthalene
4 8entene
5 Ethylbcniene
6 Triaethyl Benzene. Uoaer
7 Nethylnaphthalene. 2-
8 leniene, t.Z.I-Triaethyl-
9 Phenenthrene
10 lentene, 2-fthyl-1,4-Ole»thyl-
11 $tyrene
12 leniene, 1-Ethyl-2-Methyl-
15 Aceraphthylene
U Tetmvthyl •entene, I tamer
IS lenzene, Propyl-
31
60
26.5J'
8.6SJ-
16J
143
120J
35600
5160
5200
720
1100
500
3400
2240
500
965
637
546
150J
255
176
8540
1540
468
305
554
34.1
271
172
23.1
74.2
49
26.6
11.5
19.6
13.5
11100
1720
1580
241
565
85.6
904
597
79.9
257
170
92.2
40.0
67.9
46.9
13
11
4
12
10
2
2
4.25
0.81
0.30
0.18
0.16
0.10
0.09
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
6.05
•• • Coopmfid was detected at only one site
J - ettiMted value
J< - calculated using at leait one estiaated value
-------
Table 24. STATISTICAL DATA FOR ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
Compound
Range
Of Detected Compounds
Kin Max
(ug/l) (ug/l)
Mean
(ug/l)
Std Oev
Nuaber of Sites
Where Compound
Was Detected
Mean
Mole Fraction
(K100)
1 Bicyclol2.2.1]Hept-2-ene. 1,7.7-TriMethyt•
2 n Atkanes 1C]'
3 Heptane. 2,2,4,6,6 PentaMethyl
4 Heptadecane
5 n-Alkane* IA]«
6 n-Alkane§ ID)'
7 n-Alkane* IB]*
8 Cyclobutene, 2-Propenylidene-
575
17300
9540
4760
5440
3 MO
3740
2700
75
1330
734
366
463
260
288
208
5.77
4610
2540
1270
1440
901
997
719
20.0
0.41
0.12
0.09
0.08
'0.07
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.89
-• • Ccnpound was detected at only one site
• n-Alkanes are catagoriied on the basis of retention tiMe as follows:
n-Alkanes (A] 10:00 14:59 Minutes
n-Alkanes [Bl 15:00-19:59 Minutes
n-Alkanes ICI 20:00-24:59 Minutes
n-Alkanes [0] 25:00-29:59 Minutes
-------
Table 25. STATISTICAL DATA FOR METALS, pH, Eh, CONDUCTIVITY,
TOTAL CYANIDE, TOC, AND COD
Cn
OO
Paraaeter
i
•anae
Of Detected Constituent
Din Max
Metal*
1 Silver
2 Arsenic
1 Beryl I lu.
* Cadvjiiai
5 Chrontua
6 Copper
7 Mercury
8 Nickel
9 le«d
10 Antlanny
It Selenlua
12 Thill lua
11 line
pH**
Eh** (volts)
Conductivity*' (uicrovhos/oj)
Tenperature" <°C)
Total Cyanide"* (eg/I)
COO*** (ng/l)
TOC*** (ng/l)
0.5
458
0.2
0.7
0.2
2.5
»S
17.5
0.5
15
221
9.*
5.12
7.1
•0.5*5
4,250
19.9
0.01
1950
195
52.8
129600
7.*
102
175*
17050
59500
67110
1006
52*0
5*88
15*
2*510
9.5
•0.095
12.000
52
55
25500
11750
Mean
6.55
15097.08
0.81
18.7*
280.5*
1885.07
4973.0*
6*16.95
115.58
522.55
1167.88
56.92
2512.77
8.2
•0.226
1*69*
26.7
9.95
10217
1097
Std Oev
9.56
538*8.52
1.96
28.25
558.80
4525.28
10508.56
17609.15
265.09
1167.79
890.25
*5.62
6*05.20
0.857
0.126
6588
6.2
17.85
6*75
5071
Nutter of Site*
Where Constituent
Was Detected
15
10
6
15
15
15
12
15
IS
11
15
11
15
9
Mean
Mole fraction
(1100) ,
0.02*9
11.9*56
0.090*
0.1572
2.2826
11.0760
0.0101
22.5979
0.37*0
3.9791
16.9132
0.1221
8.*268
100
Metal Data Is in aticrograna per liter (euept for Na. which is in nanrogran per liter)
Statistical data does not include sites where no seasureiaent was taken
All saaples were analyzed for Total Cyanide, TOC,and COD
-------
evaluation. The analytical data from specific analytical measurements
(metals, cyanide, TOG, organics, etc.) are presented in the number of
significant figures allowed by the procedure. Range, mean, and standard
deviation are rounded conservatively to three significant figures. The
mean mole fraction percentage is rounded to the closest hundreth.
The analytical findings and statistical evaluations are discussed in
Sections A.1.1 (TOC), 4.1.2 (organics), and 4.1.3 (inorganics). Section
4.1.4 discusses the attempt to correlate the leachate characteristics
with other site characteristics, i.e., disposed waste, climate, and ge-
ography.
4.1.1 Evaluation of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Data
During the formulation of this study's analytical program require-
ments, GC/MS analytical methodology was used to identify and quantify
the constituents present in the leachate samples because of its cap-
abilities to detect volatile and semi-volatile priority pollutant and
non-priority pollutant compounds. However, a yardstick with which to
gauge the success of the analytical program in achieving maximum identi-
fication of constituents was necessary. Therefore, the determination of
analytical TOC was also incorporated into the program. This TOO represents
the total of all organic compounds present within a leachate sample, as
determined by a single analytical procedure. Ideally, a calculated TOC
based on concentrations of the detected organic compounds in a leachate
sample should equal the analytical TOC. Thus, the sum of the calculated
TOC values, when presented as a percentage of the sample's analytical TOC,
provides a gauge of program effectiveness in identifying all organic
compounds present.
Table 26 presents the analytical TOC of leachate samples from each
site and the percentage of this TOC which is accounted for by the cal-
culated TOC. The percentage of analytical TOC which is accounted for by
the total detected organic compounds is less than 10 percent for 11 of
the 13 sites and less than 5 percent for 6 of the 13 sites. The leachate
samples from Sites 5 and 9, for which a substantial percentage of the
analytical TOC is accounted for (40.42 and 59.52, respectively) have much
lower analytical TOC values than the other leachate samples examined. The
low percentages of analytical TOC accounted for by the detected compounds
probably reflect substantial concentrations of non-volatile low or high
molecular weight organics, or other constituents which did not extract or
chromatograph well. Other factors which could lead to incomplete qual-
itative and quantitative organic results Include:
• Incomplete extraction of water soluble semi-volatlies may occur
during sample preparation. In addition, 'non-volatile materials
(e.g., large molecular weight or polymeric organics) may not
chromatograph successfully and may not display coherent peaks.
This class of materials would be incompletely characterized under
the conditions used in this study for extracton and GC/MS analysis.
59
-------
Table 26. PERCENT OF ANALYTICAL TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC) ACCOUNTED FOR BY
LEACHATE SAMPLE ANALYSIS
Sit*
IOC
(•B/D
Priority Pollutant*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
2343
2004
2278
718
195
1579
1048
11750
309
4078
4909
6602
24S3
(X)
VoUtllt
1.734
I.MS
0.1886
0.659
34.4
0.167
1.90
0.00393
20.98
2.075
1.995
1.510
0.314
Mai -Volet II*
2.86
0.876
3.94
0.604
1.137
2.392
2.20
0.743
18.12
1.718
3.06
1.551
1.049
•on-Prlorlty Pollutwitt
<«>
2.176
5.86
1.951
0.2917
4.89
0.487
1.939
0.1820
20.41
0.468
0.500
0.3520
1.020
Tot*l
<*>
6.77
8.30
6.08
1.55
40.43
3.05
6.04
0.93
59.51
4.26
5.56
1.41
2.38
-------
• The combination of sample concentration (very high In organlcs)
as well as sample complexity (a large number of diverse compounds)
may contribute to mlsidentlflcation of compounds. The problem of
mlsldentlflcatlon Is probably relatively minor because of the
technique of computer matching mass spectrometric results. However,
GC peak overlap was frequently observed, even when the peak compon-
ents were Identified via mas's spectrometry, and concentration
errors were difficult to avoid.
• The GC/HS methodology used in this study was highly sensitive. The
leachate samples contained a large organic component. In order to
keep instrumental readings on scale, the samples required large
dilutions, which Increased the minimum detection limits. As a re-
sult, many trace constltutents which may have been detectable
in an undiluted sample were rendered undetectable.
Approximately 96Z of the overall organic fraction of the leachate
samples is not accounted for by the TOG calculated from the detected
organic compounds. This inability to account for a substantial percentage
of the analytical TOC with detected compounds in nearly all of the leachate
samples suggests that a synthetic leachate formulated according to this
study's detected compounds alone may not be fully representative of most
leachates. However, suggestions will be made in Section 4.2, Leachate
Formulation, with respect to how to represent the unaccounted analytical
TOC in a synthetic leachate-formula.
4.1.2 Evaluation of Organic Data
As presented in Tables 19 through 24, the total mean mole fraction
percentage represented by each of the six classes of organlcs are, in
decreasing order: organic acids - 39.OZ, oxygenated/heteroatomic hydro-
carbons - 35.82, halogenated hydrocarbons - 11.OZ, organic bases - 7.2Z,
aromatic hydrocarbons - 6.0Z, and aliphatic hydrocarbons - 0.9Z. In
general, classes of organics containing compounds with relatively high
aqueous solubilities account for higher mean mole fraction percentages than
do classes of organics containing compounds with lower aqueous solubilities
For example, the mean mole fraction percentages accounted for by the or-
ganic acids (39.OZ) and the oxygenated/heteroatomic compounds (35.8Z) are
much greater than those accounted for by the aromatic hydrocarbons (6.0Z)
and the aliphatic hydrocarbons (0.9Z).
Within a given class of organics, the compounds accounting for the
highest mean mole fraction percentages tend to have higher aqueous solubili-
ties than compounds accounting for lower mean mole fraction percentages or
compounds which were not detected. Of course, the amount of a compound
disposed at a site will also affect its concentration in leachate.
The statistical data for the organic class of each respective table
is summarized in the next six subsections. Pesticide and high performance
liquid chromatography analytical results are discussed in Section 4.1.2.7.
61
-------
4.1.2.1 Organic Acids (Table 19)
Of the 39.0 total mean mole fraction percentage represented by organic
acids, 11.8Z is phenol, 9.5Z is contributed by 17 substituted phenols, 5.42
is benzole acid and 4 substituted benzole acids, and 12.32 is alkanoic
acids. The compounds accounting for .the greatest mean mole fraction per-
centages are phenol (11.8Z), 4-methylphenol (5.42), benzole acid (5.3Z),
butanolc acid (3.5Z), and 2-methylpropanoic acid (2.42). The compounds
detected in leachate samples from the greatest number of the sites are
phenol (13 sites), 4-nethylphenol (12 sites), 2-methylphenol (10 sites),
2,4-dlmethylphenol (9 sites), and benzole acid (8 sites). All of the five
organic acids which account for the greatest mean mole fraction percentages
were also detected at the greatest number of sites, except for butanoic
and 2-methylpropanoic acid. Phenol ranks first in the mean mole fraction
percentage and was detected in leachate samples from all 13 sites.
4.1.2.2 Oxygenated/Heteroatomic Hydrocarbons (Table 20)
Of the 35.8 total mean mole fraction percentage represented by oxygen-
ated/heteroatomic hydrocarbons, 16.5Z is acetone, 9.2Z is common ketone
solvents (2-butanone, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, and 2-hexanone), and 8.1Z is con-
tributed by 16 different alcohols. The compounds accounting for the greatest
mean mole fraction percentages are acetone (16.5Z), 2-butanone (6.8Z), benzyl
alcohol (4.6Z), 2-hexanone. (1.92), and 4-methyl-2-pentanol (l.OZ). The
compounds detected in leachate samples from the greatest number of sites
are acetone (13 sites), 2-hexanone (13 sites), 2-butanone (12 sites),
4-methyl-2-pentanone (11 sites) and di-n-butylphthalate (9 sites). Of the
five oxygenated/heteroatomic hydrocarbons accounting for the greatest mean
mole fraction percentages, only acetone, 2-butanone, and 2-hexanone are
also among the five compounds detected at the greatest number of sites.
Acetone ranks first in the mean mole percentage and was detected in leach-
ate samples from all 13 sites.
4.1.2.3 Halogenated Hydrocarbons (Table 21)
Of the 11.0 total mean mole fraction percentage represented by halogen-
ated hydrocarbons, 6.8Z is methylene chloride, 1.4Z is contributed by four
chlorinated benzenes, and 2.8Z is from ten chlorinated alkanes/alkenes.
The compounds accounting for the greatest mean mole fraction percentages are
methylene chloride (6.8Z), 1,2-dichlorobenzene (l.OZ), 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(0.9Z), trichloroethylene (0.7Z), and chloroform (0.72). The compounds
detected in leachate samples from the greatest number of sites are methylene
chloride (13 sites), trichloroethylene (11 sites), chloroform (10 sites),
tetrachloroethylene (7 sites), and chlorobenzene (6 sites). Of the five
halogenated hydrocarbons accounting for the greatest mean mole fraction
percentage, only methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and chloroform are
also among the five compounds detected at the greatest number of sites.
Methylene chloride ranks first in the mean mole fraction percentage and
was detected in leachate samples from all 13 sites.
62
-------
A.1.2.4 Organic Bases'(Table 22)
Of Che 7.2 total mean mole fraction percentage represented by organic
bases, 2.9Z is aniline and 1.4Z is contributed by six substituted anilines.
The compounds accounting for the greatest mean mole fraction percentages
are aniline (2.9Z), N,N-dimethylacetamide (1.1Z), 4-chloroanillne (l.OZ),
l-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone (0.6Z) and- isoquinoline (0.3Z). No single organic
base was detected at greater than half of the sites. The compounds detect-
ed at the greatest number of sites were 4-methylbenzenesulfonamide (5 sites),
aniline (3 sites), l-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone (3 sites), 4-chloroaniline (2
sites), and 2-chloropyridine (2 sites). The remaining fourteen organic
bases were each detected at only one site. Although 4-methylbenzene-
sulfonamide ranks first in the number of sites at which it was detected,
it ranks ninth in the mean mole fraction percentage represented. Although
aniline ranks first by a large margin in the mean mole fraction percentage
represented, it was detected in the leachate samples of only 3 of the 13
sites sampled.
4.1.2.5 Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Table 23)
Of the 6.0 total mean mole fraction percentage represented by aromatic
hydrocarbons, 4.2Z is toluene and 1.4Z is benzene and alkyl benzenes other
than toluene. The compounds accounting for the greatest mean mole fraction
percentages are toluene (4.2Z), total xylenes (0.8Z), naphthalene (0.3Z),
benzene (0.2Z); and ethylbenzerie (0.2Z). The aromatic hydrocarbons detected
in leachate samples from the greatest number of sites are toluene (13 sites),
benzene (12 sites), total xylenes (11 sites), ethylbenzene (10 sites) and
naphthalene (4 sites). Toluene ranks first by a large margin in the mean
mole fraction percentage represented and was detected in leachate samples
from all 13 sites.
4.1.2.6 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons (Table 24)
Aliphatic hydrocarbons account for a total mean mole fraction of only
0.9Z and no single compound is predominant.
4.1.2.7 Pesticide and High Performance Liquid Chromatography Analytical
Results
A GC/ECD analysis for PCBs and chlorinated pesticides was carried out
on the leachate sample from Site 12, which is a site accepting PCB-contam-
inated wastes. Seven different PCBs and pesticides were detected in leach-
ate from Site 12. In order of concentration (ug/1) the compounds are:
endosulfan sulfate (14.8), endrin ketone (11.4), heptachlor epoxlde (8.6),
dieldrin (4.5), 4,4'-DDD (2.2), endrin (1.9) and alpha-BHC (1.7). The
combined contributions of these substances, in terms of mole fraction
percentage of organic compounds of all types (including volatile and semi-
volatile organics) is negligible at less than .01 mole fraction percentage.
In addition, in terms of TOC measured at Site 12, the above compounds
account for only a very small part of the total. The overall contribution
of these compounds to synthetic leachate composition cannot be assessed on
the basis of data from only one test site. Based on this single case, PCBs
63
-------
and chlorinated pesticides do occur In leachate when they have been deposit-
ed In the waste site, but not in significant concentrations.
High performance liquid chromatography was performed on leachate
samples and method blanks from all the sites. The HPLC analyses yielded no
information regarding identification or quantItation of organic compounds.
Therefore, no interpretation of these results is offered In this report.
4.1.3 Evaluation of Inorganic Data
Table 25 presents the data for inorganic parameters (i.e., metallic
ions, cyanide, pH, etc.). The analytical results are reliable from the
standpoint of quality control (Section 3.4), with the exception of the lack
of complete pH and Eh data. Data for these parameters were obtained from
only a few sites because of suspected field instrument malfunction.
Liner materials of all types are known to be affected by high or low
pH (Section 2). For that reason, pH is an important factor with respect to
leachate and liner compatibility. The pH reported during this study ranged
from neutral to mildly alkaline.
The metallic ion concentrations of the leachate samples are, in general,
in the fractional parts per million (ppm) range or less. Information on
landfill liner and chemical compatibility indicates that aqueous solutions
of the salts of the detected metal ions have little effect on plastic liner
materials even when highly concentrated. For this discussion, one ppm is
an arbitrarily selected conservative estimate of metallic ion concentration
below which reaction with liner material is not anticipated. More than half
of the sites (2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13) have only one metal in a concen-
tration greater than one ppm. Three sites (1, 3, and 12) have five or more
metals at concentrations greater than one ppm. Arsenic and selenium are the
most commonly encountered elements (seven sites each) at greater than one
ppm, followed closely by nickel, zinc, and copper.
4.1.4 Comparison of Analytical Results With Site Characteristics
One goal of this study was to attempt to correlate the chemical char-
acteristics of the leachates with the climatic region, geographic location,
and waste acceptance characteristics of the respective hazardous waste
disposal sites. Unfortunately, this objective can not be fully met mainly
because of two reasons: 1) detailed information on the waste character-
istics of the sites was generally not available and 2) there is not a large
enough representation of sites within a particular climatic region, geo-
graphic location, or waste acceptance category to draw valid conclusions.
Also, in addition to climate and waste type factors, the detected chemical
concentrations could have been affected by other factors:
• The quantities of wastes disposed
• The physical forms of Che disposed wastes (e.g., solids or liquids,
containerized or bulk)
64
-------
• The procedures by which the leachate was collected, stored, and
handled at each site prior to sampling, which affects leachate
representativeness
• The effectiveness of any waste site cover or other environmental
controls
• Physical characteristics of the surrounding environment, e.g.,
site-specific precipitation patterns and the assimilative capacity
. of the site soil.
All of these factors interrelate to affect leachate quality and quanti-
ty. Correlations between chemical concentrations and a general category,
such as climate or waste type, are difficult to make without complete
information on all of the factors. The probable impacts and significance
of these factors are discussed below.
Site-specific information on the quantities and types of disposed
waste was either not available from the sites or was too general or
incomplete. For the most part, however, general information was available
regarding the physical forms of the waste. This information is used in
the categorization of sites based on waste input, which is explained in
more detail later.
Section 3.4.1 discussed the steps taken by the samplers to maximize
the representativeness of the leachate samples. However, situations beyond
sampling team control at several sites probably decreased sample representa-
tion. Good leachate representativeness might not have been obtained from
Sites 1, 3, 5, and 6 based on age of the leachates and exposures to the air.
The extent of leachate representativeness probably impacted the analytical
results for volatile organics. Samples of leachate from Sites 1, 3, and 5
do contain levels of volatile organics lower than those present, for the
most part, at other sites. For example, Site 3 leachate samples were taken
from a lagoon open to the atmosphere. The site accepted a variety of
wastes, both inorganic and organic, as did six other sites. The ratio of
TOG at Site 3 to TOG values at most other sites is larger than the ratio of
total volatile organics at Site 3 to the total volatile organics at other
sites. This might support the hypothesis that volatiles were lost prior to
sampling and the leachate sample is, therefore, probably not represent-
ative. However, a conclusion can not be made without complete information
on characteristics waste types and factors which affect leachate character-
istics.
Design, operation, and environmental characteristics of a site can
also affect leachate quality. For example, most of the study sites are
operating landfills without final cover, although wastes are at times
periodically covered with bulk solid wastes or fill. This diversity in
exposure to precipitation affects the validity of making comparisons or
correlations between sites with respect to leachate quality.
Analytical data at the sites has been compared in an attempt to
identify trends, despite the limitations mentioned above. Tables 27, 28,
65
-------
and 29 present the mean concentrations in ug/1 of 40 organic compounds
found at three or more of the thirteen sites. Inorganic parameters are
not included because they are believed to have little impact on liner
effectiveness, as noted in Section 2. The sites are grouped within each
table based on common factors with respect to either waste type (Table 27),
climate (Table 28), or geography (Table 29).
Table 27 presents site data grouped by waste type:
• Group 1, high variety of both inorganic and organic wastes,
includes Sites 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 13
• Group 2, also high waste1variety, but the leachate is expected to
be low in organics based on specific waste types and whether the
wastes were containerized or disposed in bulk, includes Sites 4,
7, and 9
• Group 3, low waste variety, alkaline inorganics only, Includes
Site 1
• Group 4, low waste variety, mostly PCs-contaminated materials,
includes Site 12
• Group 5, low waste variety, mostly wastewater biological treatment
sludge, includes Site 8.
Each site was placed into one of the above groups based on the waste
information received from the site contacts. The amount of detail in
this information varied greatly between the sites and for the most part
was very general.
Three of the five groups represent sites with very specific wastes,
i.e., Groups 3 (inorganic alkalines), 4 (PCB-contamlnated materials), and 5
(wastewater biological treatment sludge). For the most part, evaluation of
the complete analytical data for each of these sites would be more meaning-
ful than an evaluation based on the compounds in Table 27. Wastes at these
sites are specific and their chemicals may not be represented among the 40
common compounds. Nevertheless, the data in Table 27 does show fewer of
the common chemicals at these sites of low waste variety. However, compar-
ison of Groups 3, 4, and 5 against the other two groups may not be valid
because the former groups contain only one site each. For example, Group
5 shows the highest phenol concentration of the five groups. However,
even higher concentrations of phenol are found at certain sites in Groups
1 and 2 and were averaged in with the lower concentrations at other sites
in these two groups. Leachate from Site 11 in Group 1 actually has the
highest phenol concentration.
Group 1 shows greater variety of organic compounds than Group 2, which
supports the assignment of the sites to the respective groups. All 40 of
the organic compounds are found in Group 1, which includes sites accepting
a wide variety of both organic and inorganic wastes. Group 2 includes only
66
-------
Table 27. ORGANICS DATA BASED ON SITE WASTE
Compound
Mean Concentrations (ug/l) for Site Gratings*
214
Organic Acfdi
•eniofc Acid
lutanolc Acid
lutanolc Acid, 2-Nethyl-
Dlchloropnenol, 2,4-
Olacthylphenol. 2,4-
Nexanofc Acid, 2-Cthyl-
Nethylphenol. 2-
Nethylphenol, 4-
Pentanotc Acid
Phenol
Phenyl acetic Acid
Phenylpropanofc Acid
Propanolc Acid, 2-Nethyl-
Aroaatlc Mydrocarbona
•muana
Ethylbeniene
Naphthalene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Organic latca
Aniline
•eruenesulfanaBide, 4-Hethyl
Pyrrol idinone, 1-N«thyl-,2-
• 1 • High mate variety, both Inorganic an
2 • High uaate variety, but expected lou
I - Lot* watte variety, alkaline Inorganic
7240
11000
707
447
2990
1)40
$150
16)00
3670
27000
1040
74.)
3500
M7
299
97.1
8020
1550
8000
339
2060
d organic. Set
1070
800
0
28.9
10
0
80)0
1)90
0
4170
0
269
1220
IS)
197
8.8)
10900
)))
4730
67.)
120
of 7 altes
15200
0
510
0
1)90
1150
21)0
4080
0
25300
1660
0
S400
177
58)
178
8170
MOO
31000
0
3690
11500
0
0
2900
12000
0
0
2)000
0
16000
3350
2230
0
720
1070
0
11400
5160
0
6020
0
11900
0
0
0
0
0
0
1900
16)00
38000
6400
0
0
14
0
5200
109
60
0
0
0
In organlca. Set of ) aitea.
wastea only.
4 • low Matte variety, eestty PCI-contaailnated •aterialt
Set of one site
and HastetMter
S • Lou ua*te variety, aoatly phthalic uastea and wasteiuter treataent
.
treatment sludge. Set of 01
sludge.
Set of one site.
ie alte.
(Continued)
-------
Table 27. (Continued)
00
Conpound
Nalogenated Hydrocarbons
CMorobenzene
Chloroforn
Dichloroethane, 1.1-
Olchloropropane, 1,2-
Methyl em chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trans- 1,2-Dlchloroethylene
Trichloroethar*. 1,1.1-
Trlchloroethylene
Oxygenated/Heteroatonie Hydrocarbons
Acetone
Beniene-1.2-dicarboxylic Acid Anhydride
•enzyl Alcohol
Butanone, 2-
Cyclohexanone
DI-n-Butylphthalate
Ethanol. 2-(2-Butoxyethoxy>-
Hexanol, 2-€thyl-,1-
Hexanone, 2-
Nethyl-2-Pentanone, 4-
1
465
634
321
35.1
11700
511
25
3300
2510
25200
140
2710
14400
753
84.7
2260
266
5020
1230
Mean Concentrations
2
703
3010
40.7
0
1590
1.58
4.47
104
560
16800
0
0
8780
0
269
0
145
1890
475
(ug/l) for
3
132
7250
0
0
39600
1160
1610
0
6380
16600
0
1740
15000
3930
996
940
590
I860
0
Site Growings*
4
740
4470
0
186
56800
849
347
394
850
57800
6720
68000
34700
0
310
0
0
17200
9
5
0
9
0
0
W
0
11
0
0
344
4180
56000
62
0
100
0
0
17
17
1 - High waste variety, both inorganic and organic. Set of 7 sites
2 • High waste variety, but expected low in organic*. Set of 3 sites.
3 - Low waste variety, alkaline inorganic wastes only. Set of one site.
4 • low waste variety, easily PCB-contaninated Materials and wastewater treatment sludge. Set of one site.
5 - Low waste variety, aestly phthalic wastes and wastewater treatment sludge. Set of one site.
-------
Table 28. ORGANICS DATA BASED ON SITE CLIMATE
VO
Compound
Organic Acids
Benzole Acid
Butanoic Acid
Butanoic Acid, 2-Methyl-
Dfchlorophenol, 2,4-
Dfaethylphenol, 2.4-
Hexanoic Acid. 2-Ethyl-
Nethylphenol. 2-
Ke thy I phenol, 4-
Pentanoic Acid
Phenol
Phenylacetic Acid
Phenylpropanoic Acid
Propanoic Acid. 2-Hethyl -
Arontic Hydrocarbons
Benzene
Ethylbeniene
Naphthalene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Organic Bases
, Aniline
Benzenesulfonaaide. 4-Methyl
Pyrrol idinone. 1 -Methyl -.2-
Nean Concentrations (ug/l) for Site Groupings*
6789
9500
0
0
475
1200
120
2080
5060
0
7700
0
0
0
136
108
140
16800
1180
0
140
0
6140
0
170
28.9
1460
797
5710
13100
0
10200
553
9.07
1800
260
314
68.2
4030
1740
10300
321
6150
8800
3880
468
580
3790
306
1670
16600
7560
42000
2410
602
2230
366
261
1040
3730
1260
14000
1200
0
3690
20100
870
727
871
2120
10800
5070
1390
8290
1670
in
5670
219
624
0
14700
2050
0
443
0
• 6 - Net annual precipitation of < -10 inches. Set of 2 sites.
7 - Net annual precipitation of -10 to +5 inches. Set of 3 sites.
8 • Net annual precipitation of +5 to +10 inches. Set of 5 sites.
9 • Net annual precipitation of +10 to +15 inches. Set of 3 sites.
(Continued)
-------
Table 28. (Continued)
Compound
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Chlorobenzene
Chlorofora
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dlchloropropane, 1,2-
Nethytene Chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trans- 1,2-Diehloroethylene
Irtchloroethane, 1,1.1-
Trichloroethylene
Oxygenated/Heteroatoaic Hydrocarbons
Acetone
Benzene- 1.2 dicarboxyllc Acid Anhydride
Benzyl Alcohol
Butanone, 2-
Cyclohexanone
Di-n-Butylphthalete
Et Hanoi, 2-(2-Butoxyethoxy>-
Hexanol. 2 Ethyl -.1-
Hexanone, 2-
Methyl-2-Pentanone. 4- •
Mean Concentrations (ug/l) for Site Groupings*
6789
0
1300
854
0
8910
900
0
11000
5650
10800
0
0
6290
825
IS
5400
0
13*0
1920
44
2520
235
0
21100
432
599
458
2350
26300
0
4910
18800
2520
390
1980
961
6410
73
1090
1570
0
53.6
16500
376
71.6
78.8
1040
32200
23BO
25200
16100
0
186
0
0
6230
392
223
2390
0
54.7
6550
206
0
0
973
13300
0
1360
9060
0
227
0
0
2270
1350
6 - Net annual precipitation of < -10 inches. Set of 2 sites.
7 • Net annual precipitation of -10 to +5 inches. Set of 3 sites.
8 - Net annual precipitation of +5 to +10 inches. Set of 5 sites.
9 • Net annual precipitation of +10 to +15 inches. Set of 3 sites.
-------
Table 29. ORGANICS DATA BASED ON SITE GEOGRAPHY
C expound
Organic Acidi
lenxoic Acid
lutanoic Acid
•utanoic Acid, 2-Nethyl-
Olchlorophenol. 2.4-
Di«thylptienol. 2,4-
Meianolc Acid, 2-Ethyl-
Nathylphenol. 2-
Nethylphenol, 4-
Pentanofc Acid
Phenol
Phenyl acetic Acid
Phenylpropanoic Acid
Propane ic Acid, 2-Methyl-
Arosmic Hydrocarbons
•eniena
Ethylbeniena
Naphthalene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Organic latet
Aniline
Benienesulforaaide, 4-Nethy!
Pyrrol Idinooe, 1 -Methyl -.2-
Mean Concentrations (ug/l) for Site Groupings*
10 11 12 1)
2980
600
0
0
1280
0
7020
4200
4080
39500
2170
195
915
197
174
1100
9610
333
17600
0
0
11700
19300
1360
545
1460
2260
3720
1MOO
6420
21500
1660
130
7470
289
500
44.5
5270
2240
7750
333
923
4910
0
0
996
7000
413
5000
19400
0
7070
1120
752
0
441
476
8.83
5110
2460
0
2330
4920
9500
0
0
475
1200
128
2080
5060
0
7700
0
0
0
336
108
340
16800
1180
0
140
0
10 - located In Northeast U.S. Set of 4 sites.
11 • Located in Southern U.S. Set of 4 sites.
12 • Located in Central U.S. Set of 3 sites.
13 - Located in Western U.S. Set of 2 sites.
(Continued)
-------
Table 29. (Continued)
N)
CoMpowid
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dlchloroethane, 1,1-
Dichloropropane, 1.2-
Nethylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trans- 1.2-Dichloroethylene
Trlchloroethane, 1.1,1-
Trlchloroethylene
Oxygenated/Neteroatonlc Hydrocarbons
Acetone
leniene-1.2-dlcarboxylic Acid Anhydride
•eniyl Alcohol
lutanone, 2-
Cyclohexanone
DI-n-Butylphthalate
Ethanol, 2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)-
Hexanol, 2 Ethyl -,1-
Nexanone, 2-
Nethyl-2-Pentanone, 4-
Mean Concentrations (ug/l) for Site Grotpings*
10 It 12 IS
1150
2640
0
20.5
6680
258
2.75
0
1480
31400
1040
14000
17100
0
221
0
0
3830
531
227
1820
0
41
14500
444
402
0
1930
8480
255
1920
4900
982
352
235
148
1830
970
247
1600
235
62
26800
328
178
589
503
40000
2240
27000
25400
1210
161
1670
765
11500
76
0
1300
834
0
8910
900
0
11000
5650
10800
0
0
6290
825
15
5400
0
1340
1920
10 • Located in Northeast U.S. Set of 4 sites.
11 • located in Southern U.S. Set of 4 sites.
12 - Located in Central U.S. Set of 3 sites.
13 • located in Western U.S. Set of 2 sites.
-------
30 of the compounds. Although the sites in Group 2 accepted a wide variety
of wastes, the leachate should be relatively low in organlcs because most
of the wastes were inorganic or because most of the organic wastes were
containerized and most of the inorganics were disposed as bulk wastes.
Table 28 presents a grouping of the sites based on four ranges of
net precipitation (i.e., precipitation minus evapotranspiration):
• Group 6, sites with a net precipitation of less than -10
inches, includes Sites 5 and 6
• Group 7, sites with a net precipitation range of -10 to
+5 inches, Includes Sites 1, 4, and 10
• Group 8, sites with a net precipitation range of +5 to +10
inches, includes Sites 3, 7, 8, 11, and 12
• Group 9, sites with a net precipitation range of +10 to +15
inches, Includes Sites 2, 9, and 13.
Net precipitation was selected as an indicator of site climate because
precipitation and evaporation rates affect leachate generation rates and
the concentration of chemicals in the leachate. Other factors which
might affect the impact of net precipitation on leachate quality include:
the existence and nature of intermediate or final cover at the sites, the
amount and types of wastes which are containerized or disposed as bulk,
and the solubilities of chemicals in the disposed wastes. The correlation
of climate to leachate quality is most meaningful if sites very similar
with respect to these factors are studied within different climates.
However, these factors vary widely between some of the sites in this study.
Therefore, any correlations between climate and compound concentrations
in Table 28 probably would not be valid.
The set of sites in Group 6 of Table 28 shows fewer organics than the
other groups, probably because there are fewer sites in the group. The two
sites in this group actually accepted a wide variety of organic wastes.
Group 9 has the next lowest representation, mostly in the chemical
classification of halogenated and oxygenated hydrocarbons. Only one of
the three sites (Site 9) might be expected to generate leachate low in
organics based on waste input. Group 7 has the highest organic represent-
ation, yet as many as two of the three sites (Sites 1 and 4) can be expect-
ed to generate leachates low In organics based on waste input. In fact,
analytical data on the full organic representation in the leachate from
these sites does show relatively few organics. Therefore, many of the
organics represented in Group 7 were perhaps generated by Site 10, a site
which accepted a wide variety of organic wastes. Group 8 had the next
highest representation of the forty organics, which is not surprising
because it contains the most sites (5). Organic acids are represented
least in the two groups of lowest net precipitation, while all of the
organic acids are represented by the two groups of highest precipitation.
73
-------
Table 29 presents site data grouped by geographic location within
the continental United States:
• Group 10 consists of sites located in the Northeastern U.S. and
Includes Sites 7, 8, 9, and 11
• Group 11 consists of sites located in the Southern U.S. and
Includes Sites 1, 2, 3, and 13
• Group 12 consists of sites located in the Central U.S. and
includes Sites 4, 10, and 12
• Group 13 consists of sites located in the Western U.S. and
includes Sites 5 and 6.
Most of this country's hazardous waste landfills are located in the
Northeastern and Southern sections of the U.S. (McCoy, 1985), so the
above distribution is not surprising. Group 11 shows the greatest re-
presentation of the forty compounds, containing all except two halo-
genated hydrocarbons (1,1-dichloroethane and 1,1,1-trichloroethane).
Three of the four sites in Group 11 can be expected to generate leachate
containing a high number of organics, based on waste input. Group 11
sites are also in close proximity to the oil industry and the organic
chemical companies which depend on hydrocarbons for feedstock. Many of
the sites in Group 10 are not expected to generate a leachate high in
organics, based on the waste input. The halogenated hydrocarbons
1,1-dichloroethane and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, plus several oxygenated/
heteroatomic hydrocarbons are not represented by Group 10.
Both sites in Group 13 can be expected to generate leachate high in
organics, yet there is a poor representation of organics in Table 29 for
this group. However, the group contains only a few sites. All of the
groups in Table 29 show a representation of the five aromatic hydro-
carbons.
4.2 LEACHATE FORMULATION
Three synthetic leachate formulas (one chemically generic and two
chemically specific) have been derived based on the analytical and
statistical results of this study. This section presents the formulas
and the justifications for the components Included therein.
As noted in Section 2, liner materials are known to be affected by
pH. However, pH (and Eh) of the aqueous phase of the leachate samples
are not well characterized in this study. Nevertheless, based on the
reported results, a pH range of 7+2 is proposed for a synthetic leachate.
Priority pollutant metals were generally in the low or fractional ppm
range and were well characterized in this study. However, evidence does
not suggest that these elements, occurring in the concentration ranges
observed, have any impact upon liner-leachate compatibility. On this
basis, priority pollutant metals are not included in the proposed synthetic
74
-------
30 of the compounds. Although the sites in Group 2 accepted a wide variety
of wastes, the leachate should be relatively low in organics because most
of the wastes were inorganic or because most of the organic wastes were
containerized and most of the inorganics were disposed as bulk wastes.
Table 28 presents a grouping of the sites based on four ranges of
net precipitation (i.e., precipitation minus evapotranspiration):
• Group 6, sites with a net precipitation of less than -10
inches, includes Sites 5 and 6
• Group 7, sites with a net precipitation range of -10 to
+5 inches, includes Sites 1, 4, and 10
• Group 8, sites with a net precipitation range of +5 to +10
inches, includes Sites 3, 7, 8, 11, and 12
• Group 9, sites with a net precipitation range of +10 to +15
inches, includes Sites 2, 9, and 13.
Net precipitation was selected as an indicator of site climate because
precipitation and evaporation rates affect leachate generation rates and
the concentration of chemicals in the leachate. Other factors which
might affect the impact of net precipitation on leachate quality include:
the existence and nature of intermediate or final cover at the sites, the
amount and types of wastes which are containerized or disposed as bulk,
and the solubilities of chemicals in the disposed wastes. The correlation
of climate to leachate quality is most meaningful if sites very similar
with respect to these factors are studied within different climates.
However, these factors vary widely between some of the sites in this study.
Therefore, any correlations between climate and compound concentrations
in Table 28 probably would not be valid.
The set of sites in Group 6 of Table 28 shows fewer organics than the
other groups, probably because there are fewer sites in the group. The two
sites in this group actually accepted a wide variety of organic wastes.
Group 9 has the next lowest representation, mostly in the chemical
classification of halogenated and oxygenated hydrocarbons. Only one of
the three sites (Site 9) might be expected to generate leachate low in
organics based on waste input. Group 7 has the highest organic represent-
ation, yet as many as two of the three sites (Sites 1 and 4) can be expect-
ed to generate leachates low in organics based on waste input. In fact,
analytical data on the full organic representation in the leachate from
these sites does show relatively few organics. Therefore, many of the
organics represented in Group 7 were perhaps generated by Site 10, a site
which accepted a wide variety of organic wastes. Group 8 had the next
highest representation of the forty organics, which is not surprising
because it contains the most sites (5). Organic acids are represented
least in the two groups of lowest net precipitation, while all of the
organic acids are represented by the two groups of highest precipitation.
73
-------
Table 29 presents site data grouped by geographic location within
the continental United States:
• Croup 10 consists of sites located in the Northeastern U.S. and
include* Sites 7, 8, 9, and 11
• Group 11 consists of sites located in the Southern U.S. and
Includes Sites 1, 2, 3, and 13
• Group 12 consists of sites located In the Central U.S. and
includes Sites 4, 10, and 12
• Group 13 consists of sites located in the Western U.S. and
Includes Sites 5 and 6.
Most of this country's hazardous waste landfills are located in the
Northeastern and Southern sections of the U.S. (McCoy, 1985), so the
above distribution is not surprising. Group 11 shows the greatest re-
presentation of the forty compounds, containing all except two halo-
genated hydrocarbons (1,1-dichloroethane and 1,1,1-trichloroethane).
Three of the four sites in Group 11 can be expected to generate leachate
containing a high number of organlcs, based on waste input. Group 11
sites are also in close proximity to the oil Industry and the organic
chemical companies which depend on hydrocarbons for feedstock. Many of
the sites in Group 10 are not expected to generate a leachate high in
organlcs, based on the waste input. The halogenated hydrocarbons
1,1-dichloroethane and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, plus several oxygenated/
heteroatomlc hydrocarbons are not represented by Group 10.
Both sites in Group 13 can be expected to generate leachate high in
organlcs, yet there is a poor representation of organics in Table 29 for
this group. However, the group contains only a few sites. All of the
groups in Table 29 show a. representation of the five aromatic hydro-
carbons .
4.2 LEACHATE FORMULATION
Three synthetic leachate formulas (one chemically generic and two
chemically specific') have been derived based on the analytical and
statistical results of this study. This section presents the formulas
and the justifications for the components included therein.
As noted in Section 2, liner materials are known to be affected by
pH. However, pH (and Eh) of the aqueous phase of the leachate samples
are not well characterized In this study. Nevertheless, based on the
reported results, a pH range of 7+2 is proposed for a synthetic leachate.
Priority pollutant metals were generally in the low or fractional ppm
range and were well characterized in this study. However, evidence does
not suggest that these elements, occurring in the concentration ranges
observed, have any impact upon liner-leachate compatibility. On this
basis, priority pollutant metals are not included in the proposed synthetic
74
-------
leachate formulas. Commonly occurring metallic Ions of such elements as
sodium, potassium, calcium, and aluminum may have significant effects on
clay liner permeability when present In solution concentrations of a few
percent by weight. However, concentrations of these commonly occurring
ions were not investigated in this study, except perhaps in a very indirect
manner by means of solution-specific conductivity. There is also a lack
of information regarding the importance of conductivity with respect to
liner and leachate compatibility. Therefore, the proposed synthetic
leachates do not include a recommended value for this parameter.
Additionally, there is a lack of information on the importance of
cyanide concentrations, temperature, Eh, and COD with respect to leachate-
liner compatibility, even though these parameters were determined for most
of the leachate samples. Thus, a value for these parameters is not pro-
posed.
Generally, from the standpoint of chemical effects on clay or plastic
liner materials, most of the inorganic parameters analyzed in the leachate
samples are largely non-reactive and may have little significance in
synthetic leachate formulation. Therefore, the proposed formulations are
based only on this study's organic results. However, recommendations made
in Section 5.2 include continued testing for many of the inorganic para-
meters.
A summary of this study's leachate organic compound occurrence data
is presented in Table 30. The following observations can be made:
• Organic acids, as a class, are approximately 55Z (by mole fraction)
phenol and substituted phenols, and 45Z carboxylic acids Including
benzole acid and alkanoic acids with 4 or more carbon atoms.
• The oxygenated/heteroatomic classification is approximately 46Z
acetone, 26Z common ketone solvents, and 23Z alcohols. Methanol
or ethanol was not detected at any site. Ethers, esters, and
aldehydes usually occurred at only one site, and in low concentra-
tions. These three classes are not well represented by any
particular compound.
• Methylene chloride accounts for approximately 61Z of halogenated
hydrocarbon occurrences. Dlchlorinated benzenes and chlorobenzene
account for about 13Z, but these compounds are generally not
widely distributed; none occurred at half the sites or more.
• Organic bases occurred infrequently and are absent at four sites.
A single organic base did not occur at half or more of the sites.
• Toluene, benzene, and other alkyl-substituted aromatics account
for approximately 92Z of the aromatics group. Toluene is the
most representative compound, occurring in the greatest concen-
tration for the group and at all of the sites.
75
-------
Table 30. SUMMARY OF LEACHATE ORGANIC CHEMICAL OCCURRENCE DATA
Chemical Classification Percent Occurrence
Representative Chemical(s) and Occurrence (Mole Fraction)
Organic Acids
39. OX
Phenol (11.8Z)
Substituted Phenols (17 compounds at 9.5X)
Benzole Acid and Substituted Benzole Acids (5 compounds
total at 5.4Z)
Alkanolc acids (13 compounds at 12.3Z)
Oxygenated/Heteroatomlc
Hydrocarbons
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Organic Bases
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Aliphatic Hydrocarbpns
35.8Z
11.02
7.2Z
6.0Z
0.9Z
Acetone (I6.5Z)
Common Ketone Solvents, e.g., Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK),
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (M1BK), and Methyl Propyl Ketone
(MPK)(9.2Z)
Alcohols of all types (16 compounds at 8.1Z).
Methylene Chloride (6.8Z)
Chlorobenzenes (4 compounds at I.4Z)
Multichlorlnated Alkanes/Alkenes (10 compounds at 2.8Z)
Aniline and Substituted Anilines (7 compounds total at
4.3Z)
Toluenes (4.2Z)
Benzene and Alkyl-substituted Benzenes (except Toluenes)
(1.4Z)
This group does not have any good representatives in
terns of level of occurrence or site distribution.
-------
• Aliphatics occurred infrequently and are absent at 10 of the 13
sites. No aliphatic occurred at half or more of the sites.
On the basis of these analytical findings, certain conclusions can
be drawn about the composition of a synthetic model leachate. First, the
leachate should be approximately 99Z. aqueous by weight and 1Z organic.
This estimate is based on an analytical average TOG of about 0.3 grams per
100 milliliters of sample, or about 0.3Z carbon. This amount of carbon
would produce a weight of 1 gram (or less) of organic compounds per 100
milliliters.
As noted in Section 4.1.1, the analytical results of this study
characterized only an average of about 4Z of the analytical TOG present
in the leachate samples. Thus, only a small portion of the 1 gram of
organic material can, in the strictest sense, be defined here. However,
the information generated about the characterized 4Z is comprehensive.
Therefore, some generalizations regarding the composition of a generic
synthetic leachate, as well as specific leachate formulas, can be proposed.
The organic component of the generic synthetic leachate should be composed
of compounds representing several chemical groups; Table 31 presents the
corresponding proportions of each group. Potential representative com-
pounds for each group are also listed in Table 31. The organic acid
group should consist of representative phenols and carboxyllc acids in
approximately equal proportions with respect to mole fraction. The
oxygenated/heteroatomic group should consist of representative ketones
and alcohols, in a ratio of about two to one, respectively. The composi-
tion of the organic portion in terms of mole fraction percentage of a
specific chemical present is listed in Table 31.
Two more detailed examples of specific leachate organic fractions are
shown in Table 32. These formulas carry the process of synthetic leachate
formulation a step further than the general formula shown in Table 31.
Results of this study were considered when assigning chemicals to the
formulas. The frequency of occurrence of a given chemical (i.e., occur-
rence in >5 sites) was the criterion for inclusion in Synthetic Leachate A.
The concentration level of a chemical was the criterion for inclusion in
Synthetic Leachate B (i.e., occurrence at an average mole fraction percen-
tage M*0). The contribution of a chemical is shown by a mole fraction
percentage. The Information utilized to develop these synthetic leachate
formulations was taken directly from the data presented in Tables 19
through 24.
Any attempt to formulate a synthetic leachate mixture should also
take into account the approximately 96Z of the organic fraction which
this study did not characterize. Three approaches for this characteriza-
tion are proposed.
First, the 96Z unidentified portion of the organic fraction could be
represented by a high molecular weight liquid n-alkane, or simply by motor
oil or another refined petroleum product that forms a water suspension at
the one percent level. This is proposed based on the following obser-
vations of this study:
77
-------
Table 31. FORMULATION OF GENERIC SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
ORGANIC FRACTION
Chemical Type
Phenols
Carboxylic Adds
Ke tones
Alcohols
Halogenated
Bases
Aroma tics
Aliphatics
Example(s) Mole Fraction
Percent
Phenol, Cresols
Benzoic, Hexanoic
Acetone, Methyl Ethyl
Ketone (MEK), Methyl
Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK)
Benzyl, Hexanol
Methylene Chloride,
Chloro benzene
Aniline
Toluene, Benzene
Heptadecane
21
18
26
10
11
7
6
1
78
-------
Table 32. FORMULATIONS OF TWO SPECIFIC SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
ORGANIC FRACTIONS
Compound Contribution as a Mole Fraction
(m.f.) Percentage
Compound
Synthetic Leachate A
Chemicals Occurring
at >5 Sites
Synthetic Leachate B
Chemicals Occurring at
Average Concentrations
>1.0 m.f. (xlOO)
ORGANIC ACIDS
Phenol
4-Methylphenol
2-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methylpropanoic Acid
Benzole Acid
Phenylacetic Acid
Butanolc Acid
Pentanoic Acid
Hexanoic Acid
2-Ethylhexanoic Acid
Subtotal
OXYGENATED/HETEROATOMIC
HYDROCARBONS
Acetone
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Me t hyl-2-pe ntanone
Di-n-butylphthalate
Benzyl Alcohol
Subtotal
HALOGENATED HYDROCARBONS
Methylene Chloride
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Chloroform
Tetrachlorethylene
Trlchlorethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
trans-1,2-Dichloro-
ethylene
Subtotal
122
62
32
22
62
52
_5Z
392
172
52
32
22
12
82
362
52
12
12
12
12
12
12
112
122
62
52
12
62
42
32
22
162
72
42
82
362
92
22
112
(Continued)
79
-------
Table 32. (Continued)
Compound Contribution as a Mole Fraction
(m.f.) Percentage
Compound Synthetic Leachate A Synthetic Leachate B
Chemicals Occurring Chemicals Occurring at
at >5 Sites Average Concentrations
"" >1.0 m.f. (xlOO)
ORGANIC BASES
Aniline - 3Z
N,N-dimethylacetamIde - 4Z
4-Methylbenzenesulfon-
amide " J7Z ^
Subtotal 7Z 7Z
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Toluene 3Z 6Z
Ethylbenzene 1Z -
Xylene(s) 1*
Benzene ' 1Z ^__
Subtotal 6Z 6Z
80
-------
• The leachate samples, in general, had Che appearance of homogenous
suspensions or solutions, indicating that the organic mixture
present was not so tarry or oily that it would not stay in
suspension at the one percent level.
• Descriptions of materials disposed at the waste sites included
general classifications such as "spent lubricants, oils, and
greases", "industrial petroleum residues", "petroleum-based
materials," and so forth. These descriptions ascribe a
petroleum-like nature to the unidentified organic material.
Second, the unidentified organic fraction could be formulated based
on known waste materials at a particular disposal site. This would be
appropriate when testing a liner for application at a specific site.
Third, the organlcs already specified in the formulation could also
be used to represent the unidentified fraction.
Other recommendations regarding the use of the synthetic leachate
formulas will be made in Section 5.2.
81
-------
SECTION 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
This report presented discussions of site selection methodologies,
physical data and sample collection methodologies, and detailed chemical
analyses of leachate samples from 13 widely dispersed and varied active
hazardous waste landfills. On the basis of statistical analyses of organic
analytical data, a very long list of detected compounds was reduced to a
short list of those compounds most representative of the major groups of
components present. Utilizing this short list of chemical groups, a model
or generic synthetic leachate formula and two specific formulas were deriv-
ed and presented in Section 4.
The synthetic leachate formulations proposed were derived solely on
the basis of the analytical data generated during this study. Any uncer-
tainties or shortcomings in this study's data base will be directly mani-
fested in the proposed synthetic leachate formulations.
The organic compounds quantified in this study account for, on the
average, only about 4% of the carbon known to be present in the samples.
Within the identified 4%, certain classes of chemicals predominate (phenols,
carboxylic acids, ketones, etc.). While this information is Important, it
is nevertheless incomplete. Within the 962 unknown carbon, there could be
organic compounds that have a large impact on liner compatibility such as
halogenated, aliphatic, and aromatic hydrocarbons. Thus, this study's
leachate models should be viewed only as prototypes to demonstrate the
feasibility of formulating a synthetic leachate.
Attempts to compare leachates within the context of the characteris-
tics of the respective waste sites (i.e., waste types accepted, climate,
geographic region) are difficult for a number of reasons (Section 4.1.4).
This study demonstrated that such leachate and waste site correlations are
hindered, if not Impossible, without complete and comprehensive records
of the disposed wastes and knowledge of all other probable factors.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
A series of recommendations are proposed which focus on expanding the
significant, although in some aspects incomplete, findings generated by
this study. Specifically, recommendations are geared toward: 1) use of
the leachate formulas derived in this report; and 2) filling some of the
data gaps regarding leachate characteristics to enable future refinement of
the proposed leachate formulas.
82
-------
A generic and two specific leachate formulations were proposed in chis
report. SAIC recommends that the best suited of these three synthetic
leachate formulations be selected, following a review of the known data
regarding an actual or hypothetical site and the type of waste material it
does or will receive. If site-specific data are limited, a recommendation
can not be made, at this point, as to which formula is best suited for
liner testing.
A firm recommendation can not be made regarding how best to characterize
the approxlmatley 96Z unidentified organic fraction in the leachates analyzed
during this study. However, three solutions were proposed in Section 4.2,
namely:
• Represent the fraction with a high molecular weight liquid n-alkane
or a refined petroleum product which will form a water suspension
at the one percent level
• Formulate the fraction based on known waste materials, if a site-
specific application is anticipated
• Use the organics already specified to represent the complete
formulation.
The leachate samples characterized in this study are estimated to
contain approximately 99% water. A mixture of 1 percent organics in water
is so dilute that the action of the mixture on a plastic liner would be
minimal. Also, the organic concentration in a leachate is probably quite
variable with time and location within a site. Therefore, a worst case
strategy is recommended for testing the effect of any proposed synthetic
leachate whereby the organic portion of the leachate is at a much larger
fraction than 1 percent (i.e., at least 50 percent or higher). This al-
lows a more rapid evaluation of liner compatibility. A larger organic
fraction is also a truer representation of the situation that might occur
if a localized, high concentration seepage of organics came in contact
with a liner (e.g., from a punctured or corroded drum).
Recommended follow-on studies are of relatively narrow scope and are
designed to characterize and quantify the organic material present in a
leachate as comprehensively as possible with state-of-the-art analytical
techniques. Subsequent studies can branch out In many directions to better
correlate leachate chemistry with site waste input, climate, site design,
etc., after comprehensive characterizations of leachates are consistently
performed.
With this general philosophy in mind, the next recommended step in
follow-on work focuses on the enhancement of analytical results for leachate
characterization and is limited to leachate from only one or two facilities.
Site selection is extremely important to maximize utility of data, and the
following site selection recommendations are important:
83
-------
portion of the leachate. In the present study, the percent water
was roughly estimated from TOG data.
Analyze samples on-site for pH, Eh, temperature, and conductivity
as was done during this study. Although Eh and conductivity are
of unknown utility in synthetic leachate formulation, these
parameters can be measured -along with pH and temperature with
minimal effort and may prove useful.
Either on-site or in the laboratory, determine whether the leachate
sample is homogenous or whether it has a separable organic fraction
that either floats or sinks. This factor determines whether or not
a mainly aqueous phase or a mainly organic phase is in contact with
the liner. An analytical scheme can be developed, based on this
observation if necessary, for the phase that is in contact with the
liner.
85
-------
REFERENCES
Anderson, D. C., K. W. Brown, and J. Green. 1981. "Organic Leachate Effects
on the Permeability of Clay Liners". In: Management of Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites.
Anderson, D. C. and S. G. Jones. 1983. Clay Barrier - Leachate Interaction.
In: National Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Sites.
E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Not dated. Flexible Membranes for Pond and
Reservoir Liners and Covers.
Genetelll, E. J. and J. Cirello. 1976. Gas and Leachate from Landfills:
Formation, Collection and Treatment. EPA-600/9-76-004, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. NTIS PB-251161.
Ground Water, Vol. 23. Number 4. No author. 1985. "Clay Landfill Liners:
How Effective?"
Gundle Lining Systems, Inc. Not dated. Gundle Information.
Haxo, H. E., Jr., R. S. Haxo and T. F. Kellogg. 1979. Liner Materials
Exposed to Municipal Solid Waste Leachate. Third Interim Report.
EPA-600/2-79-038, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. NTIS PB-299336.
Haxo, H. E., Jr., R. M. White, P. D. Haxo and M. A. Fong. 1976. Liner
Materials Exposed to Municipal Solid Waste Leachate. EPA-600/2-76-255,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. NTIS PB-259913.
Haxo, H. E., Jr., S. Dakessia, M. Fong, R. White, J. Pacey, D. Shultz
and K. Brown. 1980. Lining of Waste Impoundment and Disposal
Facilities. EPA-530/SW-870c, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
NTIS PB-81-166365.
Haxo, H. E., Jr., R. S. Haxo and T. F. Kellogg. 1982. Liner Materials
Exposed to Municipal Solid Waste Leachate, Third Interim Report.
EPA-600/2-82-097, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. NTIS
PB-83-14780.
McCoy and Associates. March/April, 1985. The Hazardous Waste Consultant.
Volume 3, Issue 2.
Schlegel Lining Technology, Inc. Not dated. Technical Bulletin, Chemical
Resistance.
Stewart, W. S. 1978. State-of-the-Art Study of Land Impoundment Techniques.
EPA-600/2-78-196, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
86
-------
APPENDIX A
LISTING OF COMPOUNDS
Leachate samples from 13 hazardous waste disposal sites were analyzed
for 35 volatile, 68 semi-volatile, and 13 metal priority pollutant compounds.
In addition, the matching of spectra generated by the laboratory with
library spectra enabled Identification of 102 non-priority pollutant
compounds and compound families.
The tables in this appendix list the names of the priority and non-
priority pollutant compounds as follows:
Volatile Priority Pollutants Table A-l
Semi-volatile Priority Pollutants Table A-2
Metals Table A-3
Non-priority Pollutants Table A-4
87
-------
TABLE A-l. VOLATILE PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Acetone
Benzene
Broaodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bronoaethane
Butanone, 2-
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethana
Chioroethylvinylether, 2-
chlorofom
Chioromethane
Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibronochloromethane
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-
Oichloropropane, 1,2-
Ethylbenzene
Hexanone, 2-
Methyl-2-Pentanone, 4-
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene
vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
88
-------
TABLE A-2. SEMI-VOLATILE PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Aniline
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)Anthracene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)Methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Bis(2-chloroisopropy)Ether
Bromophenyl-Phenylether, 4-
Butylbenzylphthalate
Chloro-3-MethyIphenol, 4-
Chloroaniline, 4-
Chloronaphthalene, 2-
Chlorophenol, 2- '
Chiorophenyl-phenylether, 4-
Chrysene
Di-n-Butylphthalate
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate
Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2,-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3-
Dichlorophenol, 2,4-
Diethylphthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
DiaethyIphenol, 2,4-
Dinitro-2-MethyIphenol, 4,6-
Dinitrophenol, 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Isophorone
MethyInaphthalene, 2-
MethyIphenol, 2-
MethyIphenol, 4-
N-Nitroso-Di-n-Propylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodipheny1amine*
Naphthalene
Nitroaniline, 2-
Nitroaniline, 3-
Nitroaniline, 4-
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenol, 4-
Nitrophenol,2-
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-
* cannot be separated from diphenylanine
89
-------
TABLE A-3. METALS
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
90
-------
TABLE A-4. NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Acetamide, N, N-Dimethyl-
Acetic Acid, (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)-
Alkanoic Acid
Alkanol
Aniline, 2,3-Dichloro-
Aniline, 2-Methoxy
Anthracenediona, 9,10-
Azepin-2-One, Hexahydro-, 2H-
Benzaldehyde, 4-Hydroxy-3-Methoxy-
Benzanide
Benz ene, 1,2,3-Trimethyl-
Benzene, 1,2-Diamino-
Benzene, l,3-Diamino-4-Methyl-
Benz ene, 1,4-Diamino-
Benzene, l-Ethyl-2-Methyl-
Benzene, 2-Ethy1-1,4-Dimethyl-
Benz ene, Propyl-
Benzene-l,2-dicarboxylic Acid
Benzene-l,2-dicarboxylic Acid Anhydride
Benzenesulfonamide, 2-Methyl
Benzenesulfonamide, 4-Methyl
Benzoic Acid, 3,4-Dichloro-
Benzoic Acid, 4-(l,l-Dimethylethyl)-
Benzoic Acid, 4-Chloro
Bicyclo[2.2.l]Hept-2-ene, 1,7,7-Trimethyl-
Butanoic Acid
Butanoic Acid, 2-Methy1-
Cyclobutene, 2-Propenylidene-
Cyclohexan-1,2-dicarboxylic Acid Anhydride
Cyclohexanone
Cyclopentanol, 2-Methyl
Ethane, 1,1•-Oxybis[2 Methoxy-
Ethanol, 1-(2-Butoxyethoxy)-
Ethanol, 2,2'- Thiobis-
Ethanol, 2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)-
Ethanol, 2-Butoxy-
Ethanol, 2-[2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)Ethoxy]-
Ethanol,2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)-
Methyl Acetophenone
Heptadecane
Heptane, 2,2,4,6,6-Pentamethyl-
Hexanoic Acid
Hexanoic Acid, 2-Ethyl-
Hexanol, 2-Ethyl-,l-
(Continued)
91
-------
TABLE A-4.(continued)
Isoindole-1,3(2H)-Dione, 1H-
Isoindole-l,3(2H)-Dione, 3A,4,7,7A-Tetrahydro-,cis-,1H-
Isoquinoline
Methane, Sulfonylbis-
Morpholine, 4-Ethyl-
Naphthalene Carboxylic Acid, 1-
Naphthalene, 2-Amino
Naphtho[l,8-CD]Pyran-l,3-Dione, 1H, 3R
Octanoic Acid
Pentanediol, 2,2,4-Trimethy1-, 1,3-
Pentanediol, 2-Methyl-, 2,4-
Pentanoic Acid
Pentanoic Acid, 4-Methy1-
Pentanol, 4-Methyl-, 2
Phenol, 2,4,6-Trimethyl-
Phenol, 2,5-Oichloro
Phenol, 2,5-Dimethyl-
Phenol, 2,6-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)-4-Methyl-
Phenol, 2-Chloro-
Phenol, 3-(1,l-Dimethylethyl)-
Phenol, 4,4'-Methylenebis-
Phenol, 4-(Methylthio)-
Phenylacetic Acid
Phenylacetic Acid, 4-Methoxy-
Phenylpropanoic Acid
Phosphineoxide, Triphenyl-
Phosphoric Acid Tributylester
Propan-2-ol, 2-Phenyl-
Propanediol, 2,2-Dimethyl-,1,3-
Propanoic Acid, 2,2-Dimethyl-
Propanoic Acid, 2-Methyl-
Propanol, l-(2-Methoxy-l-Methylethoxy)-, 2-
Pyridinamine, 2-
Pyridine
Pyridine, 2-Chloro-
Pyrrolidinone, l-Methyl-,2-
Tetramethyl Benzene, Isomer
Tetrathiepane,1,2,4,6-
Trimethy1 Benzene, Isomer
n-Alkanes
92
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA FOR ALL PARAMETERS
The results of analyses for the compounds listed In Appendix A are
presented In the tables of this Appendix, as well as the results for pH,
Eh, conductivity, total cyanide, COD, and TOC.
The organic compounds are listed alphabetically within a table.
Each table of organics represents one of six organic classes. All of the
organic data is in mlcrograms per liter (ug/1). The analytical results of
duplicate samples from Sites 1, 4, and 7 were averaged and presented as one
value. Detection limits are presented when available for a given compound
and site.
The tables in this Appendix present the occurrence data as follows:
Organic Acids Table B-l
Oxygenated/Heteroatomic
Hydrocarbons Table B-2
Halogenated Hydrocarbons Table B-3
Organic Bases Table B-4
Aromatic Hydrocarbons Table B-5
Aliphatic Hydrocarbons Table B-6
Metals, pH, Eh, Conductivity,
Total Cyanide, COD, and TOC Table B-7
93
-------
Table B-l. ORGANIC ACIDS—OCCURRENCE DATA
Caapound
Sit* 1
Sit* 2
s«u I
(It* 4
(ug/l)
Sit* S
(ui/D
tit* &
sit* r
1 Acttlc Acid. (2,4 OlchtorophanoJiy)-
1 AUanolc Acid
) •eram 1,2 dlcerbojiyllc Acid
4 Mrualc Acid
5 lenioic Acid. 3,4 Dldiloro-
6 Icniolc Acid. 4-O.1-Dle»thyl*thyl)-
7 Beniolc Acid, 4-diloro
S tutanotc Acid
9 lutenolc Acid. 2-N*thyl-
10 Oiloro J Hethylphenol, 4-
11 Oilorophenol, 2-
12 Dlchloraphenol. 2.4-
1] Dlavthytphenol. 2.4-
14 Dlnltro 2 H*thyl(*i«nol, 4.6-
1$ Dlnltroc«i*nol. 2.4-
16 H*««nolc Acid
\T Numolc'Acld. 2-fthyl-
18 H*thylc«ienol. 2
19 Pt*lhrlc*wnol. 4-
20 Naphthalene Cirfaoxyllc Acid, 1-
21 Mitroftienot, 4-
1S200
675
$10
16 1'
1790
<100
<500
<500
<100
260
<500
<100
<100
<100
<100
«500
<500
255
350
110
<500
<200
<200
950
2400
<1000
<1000
3800
10000
618
<1000
«3000
2400
«600
<600
30 J>
<3000
OOOO
94 J>
<600
<3000
i • ettiMted value
J' • calculated utlng at lent one estimated valu*
•- -Not Detected
< • 1h* coapound tat analyied for but not detected.
Ih* m*xr It the ailnlaui attainable detection Halt for the Maple.
• Saapl* 9 aeparated Into an oil and an aqueous pitas*
(Continued)
-------
Table B-l. (Continued)
Compound
(lit S
(ug/l)
Sit* 9w|*
(ug/l)
Silt Volt*
(uo/1)
Silt 10
(UB/I)
Silt II
(UB/D
Silt 12
tilt »
(U|/O
1 Acttic Acid, (2,i-DlcMorof*Mnaj<•
• SM|ilt 9 teptrtttd Into «o oil and tn nfttam fhmtt
(Continued)
-------
Table B-l. (Continued)
Compound
Sltt 1
tilt 2
(ug/l)
lit* 1
III* *
Sit* 5
CUJ/l)
lite 6
lit* 7
VO
22 Hltrophenol.2-
21 Oclenolc Acid
24 Pentachlorophenol
25 Pentanolc Acid
26 Pentenolc Aeld, 4-Nethyl-
27 Phenol
28 Phenol. 2.4.6-THnthyl-
29 Phenol. 2.5 Dlchloro
MPlMnol. 2.5 Dlosthyl-
II Phtnol. 2.6 bU(1,1 dl««thyl«thyt)-4 ««thyl-
12 nranol. 2-Chloro-
II Phtnol, l-(t,t OlwthyUthyD-
M Ptwnol. *,4'-N«thyl«n*l»-
IS Ptwnol. 4 (Mthylthlo)-
16 Mranylwttlc Acid
17 PhcnylKttlc Acid. 4-Hcthoxy
18 Phenylpropanoic Acid
19 Propmlc Acid. 2.2-Dlwtbyl-
40 Propralc Acid, 2-Nethyt-
41 TrlcMorophtnol, 2,4,S-
42 TrlchloropMnol, 2.4.6-
-------
Table B-l. (Continued)
Compound
Site 8 SiteVaq* Sit* 9oll*
(UO/I)
Sit* 10
Sit* 11
Sit* 12
(UB/I)
sit* 11
22 mtraph«nol,2-
23 Octanofc Acid
24 PtntacMorophenol
n Pentanoic Acid
26 Pentenolc Acid. 4 Methyl -
27 Phenol
28 Phenol. 2.4.6-TrlMthyl-
29 Phenol. 2.$-Dlchloro
M Phenol. 2,$ Olevthyl-
It rtMiwI, 2,6 bl«(1,1-dlMthyl*thyl)-4 Methyl
32 Phenol, 2-Oiloro-
SI Phenol. }-(1.1-OlMthyl*thyl>-
M Phenol. 4.«'-Methyltntbli-
3J Phenol. 4-(M*thylthlo>-
36 Phenylecetlc Acid
37 Phenylecetic Acid, 4-Hethoxy-
38 Phenylpropenoic Acid
39 Propenolc Acid, 2,2-Oiwthyl-
40 Propenoic Acid, 2-H*thyl-
41 Irichlorophenol. 2,4,t-
42 Irichlorophenol, 2,4,6-
<500
<2000
<10000
-------
Table B-2. OXYGENATED/HETEROATOMIC HYDROCARBONS—OCCURRENCE DATA
Compound
Site 1
Sltt 2
(Ui/l)
tilt 3
<«*/!>
fltt «
(ug/l)
Sltt S
(m/i)
lit. r
vO
oo
1 Acttont
2 Alkanol
3 Anttiracentdlont. 9,10-
4 i«m*ldehydt. 4-Rydroxy3-N*thoiiy
J tenzene-1.2-dlctrbojiyllc Acid Ariiydrld*
6 Benzyl Alcohol
7 (U(2-Ethylh*jiyl)Pt>thalate
8 lutanont, 2-
9 tutylbanzylpHthalate
10 Carbon Ol*ulfId*
11 Cyclohtnan 1.2-dlc*rtx»ytlc Acid Anhydrld*
12 CyclolMxinont
11 Cyclopmtmol. 2-Ntthyl
U 01 n »utxl|*th»l«t«
IS Dl-n-Octyl HltlMUU
16 Ol«thylphth«l*t*
17 DlMthyl ffith»l«t«
18 Ethmt, 1>1<-0«ybU(2 Mthaxy
19 Ethanol. t-(2-lutoiy«thoiiy>-
20 Etlunol. 2.2'- IMoblt-
21 Etlunol, 2 <2-«utcwy«thoxy>-
22 Elh«nol, 2-lutoxy-
16600
1020
1740 J*
\UO i'
15000
-------
Table B-2. (Continued)
Compound
sit* a
(ug/i)
Sit* 9ao*
fit* toll*
(ue/O
Sit* 10
(uo/O
flu 11
tltt 12
(UJ/O
tit* IS
(uf/D
vO
1 Acetone
2 Alkanol
I Anthracenedlon*. 9,10-
4 lanMldehyd*. 4-a>dro*yJ-N*tha*y
5 Semen*-1.2-dlc*rtaaylic Acid Anhydride
* Mntyl Alcohol
7 lli(2-Ethylh*jiyl)Plith*lat*
• •utanone. 2-
• lutylbeniylphtMUt*
10 Carbon DleulfId*
11 Cyclohoan 1.2-dlearbojiyllc Acid Antiydrldt
12 CyclotMianone
1) Cyclopentanol. 2-Mtthyl
U DI-n-Butylphthatate
IS Ol-n-Octyl rtithalat*
It Ol*tkyl|*tk«l«t«
17 Olvlhyl Hitlwlat*
11 fthm. 1,1>-0«ybl«(2 Ntthoiy-
19fth«nol, 1-(2-luto«y«tlMuiy)-
20flh«nol. 2.2'- Ikl«bU-
21 flhanol. 2-(2-luto«yitliaxy)-
22 Ethanol. 2-lutoxy
544
7SO
25SOO
J9700
77500
57800
42M
4180
5AOOO
<500
62
<500
<25
--
••
100 J
<500
<500
<500
-•
<2000
.<2000
24700
<4000
<250
..
••
6BO J
<2000
<2000
<2000
-•
<500
<500
••
<500
**
--
-•
160 i
<500
<500
<500
11000
<500
40400
<500
<250
--
1620
150 J
<500
<500
<500
-•
<1000
<1000
42900
<1000
<250
--
••
<1000
<1000
«tooo
<1000
6720
66000
<1000
J4700
«1000
<250
1030
••
110 J
<1000
<1000
820 J
••
<550
<5JO
24W
,
-------
Table B-2. (Continued)
Coqnund Silt 1 till 2 Silt S Sltt 4 SIU S tltt 6 IIU 7
(ug/l) (U9/I) (u|/|) (us/1)
23 Ethanol. 2-(2-(2-Ethoxy*thoxy)Cthaxyl-
U Eth*nol,2-(2-Cthoiiy*thwy>- 1210
25 Neural. 2 Ethyl'.1- ' *W " " 434
26 Neurone. 2- 1660 3740 4M 964 2S70 10» 2860
27 l»otndole1.3<2N> Diane, IN- •• ' ••
28 Uolndole-1.3<2«>-0lane. 3M.7.7A-t«tr4iydro-.cli-,1N-
29 Itophorm 400 <1000 <1000 «100 «100 . TrlplMnyl-
38 Ph(Mftiorlc Acid IrlbutylnUr
39 Prcfwt-2-ol. 2-rtMnyl- 402 226
40 PropMwHol. 2.2-Olwthyl-,1,3- •- •• -• 588
41 frcp«nol, 1-(2-Htth«iy-1-Htthyltthoiiy)-, 2- •• -• -• 112 -• 1550
42 Tttrilhicpvw. 1,2,4.6-
43 Vinyl Aett.t. «500 «500 <50 «50 <500 <50 <500
J - ntloettd vtlut
J* - cilculitcd using «t tract one MtlMted valu*
-• - Mot OctKtcd
< - tht ciMpound MM iralyitd for but not «tottct«d.
Iho nurtwr U th« m\n\mm (ttiirabU detection Malt for tht «Mpl*.
• S«pl« 9 «ep«r»ted Into *n oil and in (queout ph«»t
•• Th« tall (*••• MM not mlyied for volatile priority pollutant*
(Continued)
-------
Table B-2. (Continued)
Compound fit* 8 Sit* 9*o* Sit* 9oll« (It* 10 Sit* 11 Sit* 12 sit* IS
(ug/O (ug/l) (ug/l) Ethoxyl -• •• •- «60
24 Eth*nol.2-(2-fthMyetho*y)-
2S Nmenol, 2-fthyl-.t- •• •• •• 1860
26 *«»«nan*. 2- 17 J . I860 •• 16400 10600 17200 1220
27 l(olndol*-1,3(2M-Olan*. «• 1490
28 l»lndole-1.3(2N>-Olone. 3A.4.7.7* Tetrehydro-.cU-.l* •• •- •• •• •• 1630
29 iMfftoron* <500 <2000 «500 1SOOO «1000 <1000 yr*n-1,S-Olon*. IN, 3N
S4 P*nt*radiel. 2.2.4-TriMthyl-. 1.S- -- •- -• 810
SS P*nt*n*dlol. 2-N*thyl-. 2.4- •• •• •• •• 2660
36 P*nt*nol. 4-N*thyl-. 2 -• •• •• •• •• 2410
57 FtM*|*itn*eiil
-------
Table B-3. HALOGENATED HYDROCARBONS—OCCURRENCE DATA
Coapound
fit* 1
Silt 2
lit* )
tltt 4
t Detected
< - Th* catftxra IMS aralyicd for but not dtt*ct*d.
Th* number I* th* •Inlau *tt*ln*bl* detection MBit for th*
• taq>U 9 *ep*r*t*d into in cojutoui -and m ell pti***
•• 1h* 9oll ph*M HM not mlyied for volatile priority pollutant*
(Continued)
-------
Table B-3. (Continued)
Compound
site a
(ug/1)
Sit* 9eo*
(ug/l)
Sit* tail*
-------
Table B-3. (Continued)
Compound
Sit* 1
(ug/l)
Silt 2
(ug/l)
Site S
(US/I)
Sit* *
Sit. S
(Ui/l)
SIU«
(Ui/l)
tit* 7
(ui/O
21 OlcMoroberuldin*. 1,3
22 Dlchloroethane. 1,1-
2) Dlchloroethan*. 1,2-
2* Olchloroethylene. 1.1-
25 Olchloropropan*. 1.2-
26 IM»chlorotMnt*n*
27 lUnechlorobutedlene
28 n*«aclilorocyclopentadi*n*
29 N*ii*chloro*tlMn*
10 N*thyl*n* Cklorldt
11 T*tr*cliloro*tlMn*. 1.1.2.2-
12 letrachloroethylan*
11 Tr*n§-1,2-Dldilora*thyl*n*
M Trans 1,3 Dlchloroproptne
IS TrlchlorolMni*n*. 1.2.4-
16 Trlchtoroeth*n*. 1.1.1-
17 Irlchloroethm*. 1.1.2-
U TrlcMoro*thyl*n*
19 Vinyl Chi or I*
<1000
«250
«2SO
<2»o
«HO
<)00
<500
-------
Table B-3. (Continued)
Compound
Sit* a Sit* 9«qT Sit* toll* Sit* 10
Sit* II
(UB/I)
Sit* 12
sit* »
(UB/I)
o
tn
21 Dldilorobvuldln*. 3,3-
22 Olchloroctlun*. 1,1-
2) OlcMoro*th*n*. 1.2-
24 Oldilaro*thyl*n*. '.'"
2$ Olchloroprap*n*, 1,2-
24 iMKliloratanMn*
27 «*jt*chlorotMt*dl*n*
2f N*i*cMoracvclop*nt*di*nt
29 N*Mchloro*tlMjm
M N*tkyl«n* Cklerld*
SI t*tr*clilaro*tlun*. 1.1.2.2-
12 l*tr*chloro*tkyl*n*
S3 tm-1.2-OlcMoro*thyl*n*
M Tf«n* 1,3 Dldiloroprop«n*
IS lrl<*lorab*ni«n*. 1,2,4-
M frlcklaro*tkin*, 1.1.1-
17 Trlcfcloro*th*n*. 1.1.2-
SS Irlctiloro*tM*n*
39 Vinyl Oilarld*
<1000
«25
<»
<2S
«»
*nd *n oil phn*
Ih* 9oll f*i*M MM not *n*lyi*d for volitil* priority pollutants
-------
Table B-4. ORGANIC BASES—OCCURRENCE DATA
Covpamd
Site 1
(og/l)
Site 2
Silt 3
(09/1)
Sit* I
(U8/I)
Sit* I
(UB/I)
Sit* 6
Sit* 7
1 Acetwldt. H. ••DlMthyl-
2 Aniline
] Anil In*. 2.3-Olchloro-
4 Anil Int. 2-Nethoiiy
J *iepln-2-One, Neuliydro-. 2N-
6 MniMld*
7 l«ni*n*, 1.2 OlMlno-
8 Mnitm, t.S-DlMlno-4-Methyl-
9 l*ni*n*. 1,4-OlaBlno-
10 MntenenilfofieBlde. 2-Netfcyl
11 MfueneMlfoneDlde, 4-NMkyl
12 Mntldlm
IS OiloroOTlllnt. 4-
14 Isoqulnolln*
IS Norpholln*, 4-Ethyl-
16 li-Hltroco-Dl-n-PropylMlni
17 • Mltro*odlMthylMln*
18 ••NltrModlplMnylMtni"
19 «^*th»l*n*, 2-talna
» •ltro*nllln*. 2-
2t Nllrovilllnt, J
22 Hltromllln*. 4-
23 Pyrldln«lnt. 2-
24 Pyridlnt
K Pyrldlnt, 2-diloro-
26 PyrrolIdlnonc, 1-Methyl-.2-
31000 <1000 <1000
7410
1500
<100
<100
* and «n equrou* phat*
•• cannot be eepereted fro» dlpn
-------
Table B-4. (Continued)
Coepouvi
Sit* 8
(uo/D
Sltt 9*q*
(ug/D
Sit* 9oll«
(U9/I)
Sltt 10
(OB/I)
Sit* 11
(ug/l)
Sit* 12
(UB/O
Sit* 11
(U|/D
1 AcetMlde, I. H-DlMthyl-
2 Anil In*
1 Anil Ira. 2,1-Olchloro-
4 Anil Ira. 2-Hethoxy
S Aiepin-2-One. Neunydro-, 2H-
6 leniMlde
7 lentene. 1.2-OltBlno-
8 Seraene. 1,)-DleBfno-4-N*thyl-
9 Benien*. 1.4-DI*Blno-
10 ••nunmulforaaid*. 2-N*thyl
11 Mni*nMulfon«ild*. 4 Methyl
12 ttnildln*
13 OiloroMiillra. 4-
14 Isoqjlnolln*
» HorjAolira, 4-Ethyl-
16 •-IMtro*o-DI-n-Prapyl«in*
17 li-llltra*odlMthyl*Bln*
18 ••Nltra*adl|*i*nyl*Bim<1)
19 H«phth*l*ra. 2-talra
20 Hltro*nlltn*. 2-
21 Hllrocnlllm. 1-
22 UltroOTlllra. 4-
2) •yrldiraBlm, 2-
24 Pyrldlra
K Pyrldlra, 2 Chloro-
26 •yrrolldlnon*. l-H.thyl-,2-
<500
<2000
-------
Table B-5. AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS—OCCURRENCE DATA
o
oo
Compound
1 Acenaptitbene
2 teeneptithylene
1 Anthracene
4 lentene
5 lentene. 1,2.3 trlaathyl-
6 lentene. 1 -Ethyl -2-N*thyl-
7 lenten*. 2-fthyl-1.4-Ola»thyl-
8 lenien*. rropyl-
9 lento<*)Anthr*c*ne
10 l*nio(a>*yr*n*
It l*nioMuorantlMn*
12 lento<*,h,l>r*ryl*ne
11 l*nioMuorenth*nt
14 ehrywn*
15 Olbani(*.h>Anthrac*n*
16 Oiberuofurm
U Dlnltrotoluene. 2.4-
18 Olnltrotoluene, 2.6-
19 llhylberaen*
20 Fluorenthen*
21 fluorene
22 lndeno(1.2.1-cd>*yr«n*
a Hethylnaphthalan*. 2-
24 Naphthalene
25 •Itrobenien*
26 Mienantfirena
27 •yren*
28 ttyrene
29 letreacthyl lentene. leaeer
10 Toluene
11 total Xylenr*
12 trievthyl Bentcn*, Itoaer
tit* 1
400
•500
400
177 J1
2240
961
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
•500
400
400
581
400
400
400
•500
178 J'
400
400
400
•250
•-
8170
MOO
* *
tit* 2
• 1000
•tooo
• 1000
124
••
• 1000
• 1000
•1000
• 1000
•1000
• 1000
•torn
• 1000
•1000
•1000
MOO
•1000
•tooo
•1000
•tooo
• 1000
• 1000
•1000
•1000
•250
12100
4780
" "
tit* 1
• 1000
•1000
• 1000
502
-•
••
• 1000
•1000
• 1000
•torn
•1000
•1000
• 1000
•tooo
•1000
•1000
16 J
•1000
• 1000
•1000
•1000
•1000
• 1000
•1000
•tooo
•25
-•
12
74
" "
tit* 4
• 100
•100
•too
8.65 J«
••
••
• 100
•too
• 100
•too
• 100
•too
•too
•too
•too
•too
116
•too
•too
•too
•100
26.5 J>
•too
400
•too
•25
••
485
726
MO
tit* 5
•100
•too
•too
671
••
146
176
• 100
•100
•too
•100
•100
•too
•100
•too
•too
•too
216 J
•too
•100
•too
•100
•too
•100
400
•100
•250
255
11600
2160
141
lit* 6
«*/!>
•200
ISO J
•200
•25
••
••
••
••
•200
•200
•200
•208
•208
•200
•200
•200
•200
•200
•25
•200
•200
•200
120 t
680
•200
MO
•200
•25
•-
It
•21
tit* 7
•600
•600
•600
270
••
••
••
•600
•600
•600
•600
•600
•600
•600
•600
•600
•600
•250
•600
•600
•600
•600
•600
•600
•600
•600
•250
••
956
•250
J • **tl*»ted value
J' • calculated uelna at lee»t on* ettleated velue
< • 1h* compound wee enelyied for but not detected.
the nuvber I* the alnleue attainable detection Halt for the eeapl*-
•• • Rot Detected
e taapl* 9 Mparated Into an oil end en i
•• the 9oll phot* MM not analytad for volatile priority pollutant*
(Continued)
-------
Table B-5. (Continued)
o
VD
Ccapounl
1 Ac*Mf4ith*n*
2 Ac*n*pMM«tt
1 Anthr*c*n*
4 Mni«n*
J tmatnt. 1.2,3-lrl«ttbyl-
6 •*iu*n*. 1-fthyl-2-N*tliyl-
T Mni*n*, 2 Ethyl-M-O'Mthyl-
• Mrutn*, Propyl-
9 (*nio<*)*nthr*c*M
10 MfuoU)r>r*n*
11 Mrur*ryl*n*
IS Mnio(k)fluor*ntlMn*
14 ChryMn*
n Dib*ni(*.h>*nthr*c*n*
It Olb*mofur*n
17 Olnitrotolum*. 2,4-
It Dlnltrotolucn*. 2,4-
19 f thyltanun*
20 Muor*nth*n*
21 Muortn*
22 lnd»no(1.2,3-cd)»yr*n*
2) MthylnipntlMlm, 2-
24 HaphtlMlcn*
25 MltrotMnMn*
26 Mwfwithrm*
27 f>yr*n*
28 Styrcn*
29 r*tr*wthyl Mfutrw, Itoatr
30 Tolutn*
31 Total Xyl«nn
32 TrlMthyl Mfucrw, ItOHr
tit* B Silt 9*q* SIU 9oll* Sit* 10 Sit* 11 Sit* 12
(ug/l> (UB/I) (UB/I) (uo/O (UB/O (U9/D
-------
Table B-6. ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS—OCCURRENCE DATA
Coqmni
Sit* 1 Sit* 2 Sit* 1
(US/I)
lit* 4
Sit* i Sit* • Sit* 7
(Ul/l) Cul/l)
1 Slcyclo(2.2.1)N*pt 2 «n*. 1,7.7 Trlwth/1-
2 Cyclobuten*. 2-Bropenylldm*-
J NeptKfccm*
4 N*pt*n*. 2,2,4,6,A-P*ntM*thyl-
S n Alk*nn Ml"
6 n-«lk*n*( {«••
7 n-Alkmn 1C)"
8 n *lk*nw 0>J"
$75
2700
9UO
S740
•• -Hot Detected
• SMple 9 •ep«r*t*d Into *n oil *nd *n *qu*ou«
•• n-Alkmc* *r* citcgorlied on the bml* of retention tlae n follom:
n-Alkenet Ml 10:00-14:19 •fnutes
n *U*net IS) 15:00- 19:S9 •Inutn
n-*U*n*« 1C] 20:00-24:19 •Inutm
n-*U*rm (D) 25:00-29:59 Mlnutn
(Continued)
-------
Table B-6. (Continued)
Compound
tit* a
Sit*
(ug/O
Sit* toil*
(ug/O
Sit* 10
(ug/i)
Sit* 11
(ug/O
Sit* 12
tug/1>
Sit* 1]
(ug/l)
llcyclo[2.2.t|N*pt-2-*n*. 1.7.7-Trl«*thyl-
Cyclofautwtt. 2-Frop*nyl tdm*-
N*pt*d*c*m
**pt*n*. 2,2,4.6,0 ••ntMthyl
n-AlkMM IA1**
7 n-Alkann 1C]**
8 n-Alkmn 0>l**
17300
M40
47eO
UW
825
•• -Not Detected
* Siapl* 9 tcp*r«t*d Into m oil ml m aqmnui phu*
•• n-Alk*nM «r* c*t*garlt«d an th* bMU of retention tl>* •* foil OH*:
n-Alk«nn (Al 10:00 14:59 •Inuto
n-Alkmn CM 15:00-19:59 BinutM
n-*lk*n*> |CI 20:00-2t:59 *)inut*i
n-Alkant* 101 25:00-29:59 ainut**
-------
Table 13-7. METALS, pll, Eh, CONDUCTIVITY, TOTAL CYANIDE,
COD, AND TOG—OCCURRENCE DATA
»*r**»t*r lit* 1 Sit* 2 lit* 1 tit* 4 lit* 5 tit* 6
N*t*l*
1 tllvw 10.15 1.1 12.6 1.5 0.4 22.2
2 Arunlc 458 2096 129600 <181 <18I 5741
I Mrylllia <2.20 <0.222 0.262 0.15 <0.1 1.6
4 C«MuB 12.7 0.7 1.61 2.15 27.2 102
5 OircBluB 1198 11.0 17M 52.4 41.5 5.1
6 Copp*r lira 2.1 114 17.2 15.2 178M
7 Ntrcury 6616 449 1229 164.5 45 WMO
6 Nickel 6914 178 67110 780 456 548.0
9 lud 1006 9.0 55.6 16.15 6.9 2.6
10 AntUnny 130 24.S 285 64.15 <3.4 124
11 t*ll*nli» 1486 284 1104 890.5 612 2522
12 Ihilliu* 62.75 9.4 16.8 16.05 11.1 156
11 Zinc 1734 49.1 1516 5.12 59.7 24516
p»
Eh (volt*)
Conductivity (•lcrortio*/c*>>
tc*P*r*tur* (*C)
Total Cymldt (ag/l)
COD (18/1 >
IOC (Mo/l)
a.as
•••
> 20, 000
12
40
10815
2141
8.1-6.2
••«
7.500
30 31
0.01
11600
2004
••• 7.87
••* -0.141
6.500 »20,000
11 19.9
55 <0.02
6570 2680
2278 718
9.1"
•0.241"
4,250
**
<0.02
1950
195
•*•
•0.091
> 20,000
*""
6.09
6490
1579
N*t*l d*t* I* In •lcrogr*M/llt*r (*jtc«pt for *9. which I* In imntagrtm p*r llt*r)
RMuItt *r* a>mtlon*bl* du* to *9jlpMnt •»! function
NcMuroKnt not ttktn
lh» coapomt MI cmlyied for but not d*tect*d.
1h* fufccr I* th* alnlw* itlilmlil* detection Halt for th*
(Continued)
-------
Table B-7. (Continued)
fit* 7
Sit* 8
Sit* 9
Sit* 10
Sit* 11
Sit* 12
III* 11
mill*
tllv*r
Arunlc
••rrlllu*)
ChroiluB
Coppw
Ittrcury
•lck*l
l**d
10 Ant (Bony
It UllcnliM
12 Ihalllui
11 line
0.85
502
1.1
18. IS
240
484
59.55
18.7
710
10.2
78.25
0.6
1574
7.4
9.8
0.1
88.8
205
992
81.4
II
52.5
0.1
)
12.0
>20.000
7.1
.20.000
20
•••
•••
total Cyinld* (•g/l)
COP (••/It
IOC Oa/l)
0.01
1945
1048
<0.02
11700
11750
0.04
2070
509
0.15
16400
4078
27.6
18400
4909
0.18
21100
6602
<0.02
10700
2451
• N*UI d»t» li In •IcrofTW/lltir (txctpt for N, i*lcti I* In i
•• ••cult* *r* o>mtlon*bl* du» to x^ipwnt Hlluwtlon
••* N***ur«Mnt not t*k«n
« - fh* cunjuuid HH *n*lyi*d lor tout not d*t*ct*d.
Th« iwtMT U tb* utnlmm •tulncbl* diKctlon Halt for the u«pl*.
littr)
------- |