Jfydrcycvlcyy of
ScKd Waste Disposal Sites
injfcrtheastern Illincis
-------
-------
-------
An environmental protection publication in the solid waste management series (SW-12d)
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, B.C. 20402 - Price $1.50
Stock Number 5502-0034
-------
FOREWORD
This is the final report on a study supported in part by the Solid Waste
Management Office under one of the demonstration grants (No. GO6-EC-
00006) authorized by the 1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act. The study,
conducted mainly by personnel of the Illinois State Geological Survey, was
sponsored by the Survey, the Illinois Department of Public Health, and the
University of Illinois at Urbana. The period of the original grant was from
June 1, 1966, through May 31, 1968, and the grant was extended for an
additional two years through May 31, 1970.
This demonstration study attacks one of the problems inherent in
disposing of refuse on land: the ever-present danger that—unless properly
engineered in a sanitary landfill—the wastes will adversely effect ground-
water resources. The initial objective of the investigation was to obtain
hydrogeologic information about landfills. After the first two years of work,
however, it was apparent that a considerable amount of precise data on
water quality could be gathered with relatively little effort or expense, and
this was emphasized during the final year of the project. The present volume
includes both the early and later data and thus supersedes an interim report
on the project published by the Solid Waste Management Office in 1969.
Although the conclusions reported apply specifically to the soil types that
were tested, the procedures and methods used for the testing are applicable
for future hydrogeologic-landfill research.
—RICHARD D. VAUGHAN
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management
m
-------
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT viii
SUMMARY OF RESULTS, AND CONCLUSIONS viii
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK k
INTRODUCTION 1
Acknowledgments 1
THE SOLID WASTE PROBLEM 2
Scope 2
Previous Research
Composition of Solid Wastes 3
Processes and Products of Decomposition 4
Attenuation and Migration of Dissolved Solids in
the Subsurface 4
Pollution of Ground Water 5
Regulatory Versus Operational Attitudes 5
HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION OF THE LANDFILLS 6
The Hydrogeologic Approach and Flow Systems 6
Physical Setting of northeastern Illinois 8
Investigative and Analytical Procedures 9
The Old DuPage County Landfill 12
Winnetka Landfill 18
Elgin Landfill 25
Woodstock Landfill 33
Blackwell Forest Preserve Landfill 40
Results and Interpretation of Specific Yield
and Infiltration Calculations 40
Ground Water Mounding 41
Summary—Hydrogeologic Investigation 41
GEOCHEMICAL STUDIES OF LEACHATE, GASES, AND EARTH MATERIALS . . 43
Composition of Leachate from the Refuse 43
Variations in Composition of Leachate with Migration
through Sand 44
Variations in Composition of Leachate with Migration
through Glacial Till 46
Variations in Composition of Leachate with Age of Refuse 47
Other Variations in Composition of Leachate 47
Chemical Analyses of Earth Materials and Soluble Salts 50
Leachate from Blackwell Forest Preserve Landfill 50
Effects of Leachate on Glacial Till 52
Treatment of Leachate from Refuse 52
Analysis of Landfill Gases 52
-------
SELECTION OF SITES, DESIGN, AND OPERATION OF SANITARY LANDFILLS 53
Objectives in Design . -54
Techniques and Procedures 58
Other Considerations 62
REFERENCES . . . 63
TABLES
1. Refuse Composition 68
2. Process of Decomposition of House Refuse 69
3. Piezometer and Sampling Point Data 71
4. Textural Analyses 80
5. Clay Mineral Analyses 82
6. Water Quality Analyses by the Illinois Department
of Public Health 83
7. Water Quality Analyses by Allied Laboratories 94
8. Neutron Activation Analyses 97
9. Comprehensive Water Quality Analyses 101
10. Analyses of Soluble Salts in Split-Spoon Samples
from DUP LW 4B and DUP LW 3C 102
11. Analyses of Soluble Salts in Split-Spoon Samples
from DUP LW 8 and DUP LW 9 103
12. Chemical Analyses of Till Samples Taken Beneath
the Old DuPage County Landfill 104
13. Analyses of Exchangeable Cations 105
14. Analyses of Landfill Gases 106
15. Permeability Values Obtained from Slug Tests 107
16. Old DuPage County Landfill Till Wells 110
17. Winnetka Landfill Till Wells Ill
18. Woodstock Landfill Selected Wells 112
19. Infiltration and Specific Yield Data 113
20. Comparison of Various Wastes with U.S. Public
Health Service Standards (in parts per million) 114
APPENDIX A: DRILLING, PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION,
AND SAMPLING 117
Installation Procedures .. 117
Evaluation of Installation Procedures 118
Reducing Standpipe Diameter . . . . ... . .119
Water-Sampling Procedures . .. 119
APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES
FROM CONTRACT BORINGS 121
APPENDIX C: METHODS USED FOR WATER
QUALITY ANALYSES 127
The Illinois Department of Public Health 127
Allied Laboratories 131
Tenco Hydro/Acrosciences Inc 131
APPENDIX D: FLUOROMETRIC PROCEDURE FOR DETECTING
LEACHATE IN GLACIAL MATERIALS (by I. Edgar Odum) 136
APPENDIX E: HYDROGRAPHS 138
Stabilization and Instrumentation • • -138
Response to Recharge . . . . ... • • • • ... .138
VI
-------
Other Fluctuations 139
Continuous Hydrographs 139
Weekly Hydrographs 141
Calculation of Specific Yield 141
APPENDIX F: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF
PERMEABILITY CALCULATIONS 144
Slug Tests 144
Pumping Tests 144
Laboratory Tests 144
Other Work in Area 145
APPENDIX G: QUANTITATIVE DATA AND
CALCULATIONS 146
Old DuPage County Landfill 146
Winnetka Landfill 148
Elgin Landfill 149
Woodstock Landfill 149
APPENDIX H: ANALYTICAL METHODS USED
IN HYDROLOGIC INVESTIGATION 150
Water-balance Studies 150
Darcy's Law 151
Ground Water Velocity 151
Flow Net Analyses 151
Permeability Determinations 152
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
1. Hypothetical Flow System 7
2. Solid Waste Disposal Sites Investigated 10
3. General Area of the Old DuPage County Landfill
and Cross Section A-A' . . . . 13
4. History of Filling at the Old DuPage County Landfill 14
5. Plan View of the Old DuPage County Landfill, Showing
Location of Borings and the Top of the Zone of Saturation 16
6. Cross Section A-A' and B-B' of the Old DuPage County
Landfill 17
7. Selected Chloride Concentrations in Surficial Sand
and Gravel at the Old DuPage County Landfill 19
8. General Area of the Winnetka Landfill and Cross
Section A-A' 21
9. History of Filling at the Winnetka Landfill 22
10. Plan View of the Winnetka Landfill, Showing Location
of Borings and the Top of the Zone of Saturation 23
11. Cross Section A-A' and B-B ' of the Winnetka Landfill with
Selected Chloride Concentrations 24
12. Selected Chloride Concentrations in the Alluvium
at the Winnetka Landfill 26
13. General Area of the Elgin Landfill and Cross Section A-A' 27
14. History of Filling at the Elgin Landfill with
Selected Chloride Concentrations 29
15. Plan View of the Elgin Landfill, Showing Locations of
Borings and the Top of the Zone of Saturation 3C
vii
-------
16. Cross Sections A-A' and B-B' of the Elgin Landfill with
Selected Chloride Concentrations 31
17. Water Quality Data for the Elgin Landfill 32
18. General Area of the Woodstock Landfill and Cross Section
A-A' 34
19. History of Filling at the Woodstock Landfill 35
20. Plan View of the Woodstock Landfill, Showing Locations
of Borings and the Top of the Zone of Saturation 37
21. Cross Section A-A' and B-B' of the Woodstock Landfill with
Selected Chloride Concentrations 38
22. Water Quality Data for the Woodstock Landfill 39
23. Relationship Between Age of Landfill and Specific Yield
of Refuse 42
24. Range in Permeability of Different Soil Classes, Modified
fromTodd, 1959, p.53 45
25A. Relationship Between Refuse Age and Chloride Content 48
25B. Relationship Between Refuse Age and Chemical
Oxygen Demand 48
26. Diagram of Leachate Movement 49
27. Continuous Hydrograph from Blackwell Forest Preserve Landfill,
10/7/69 to 10/16/69 51
28. Example of Hydrologic Containment With Gradient
Maintained Towards Site (A) by Gravity Drainage and
(B) by Pumping Well 60
29. Diagram of Piezometer Installation With Removable Reducer 120
30. Fluorescence of Aqueous Solutions Centrifuged from
Core Samples Beneath DuPage and Winnetka Landfills 137
31. Traces of the Continuous Hydrographs for DuPage LW 7
and DuPage LW13, March 19 Through 30, 1969 140
32. Weekly Hydrographs for DuPage LW 7 and DuPage LW 13
for the Period October 1, 1968, through September 30, 1969,
Together with Precipitation and Temperature Records 142
33. Illustration of Conditions Similar to Those Found at
the DuPage County and the Winnetka Landfills and of the
Components of Ground Water Flow Calculated in Appendix G 147
Vlll
-------
ABSTRACT
Hydrogeologic and water quality studies of
five landfills in northeastern Illinois were carried
out over a four-year period. The distribution and
concentration of dissolved solids in the vicinity
of four of these landfills was found to be con-
trolled by the configuration of the ground-water
flow system. The major factors influencing the
attenuation of the dissolved solids after they
have left the landfill appear to be the particle
size of the earth materials through which these
dissolved solids move and the distance that they
move.
Precipitation in northeastern Illinois is ad-
equate to infiltrate a completed landfill and to
leach the refuse. Where the natural environment
is not capable of containing or assimilating this
leachate the landfilling operation can probably
be made safe by lining the disposal site, by col-
lecting and treating the leachate, or by other
relatively simple engineering procedures.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
(1) Sanitary landfill designs in most of north-
eastern Illinois need not include protective mea-
sures to prevent ground water pollution, because
the hydrogeologic environment is naturally pro-
tective. Where this is not the case, it should be
feasible to incorporate protective measures into
the site design.
(2) Under typical landfill conditions approxi-
mately one-half of the yearly precipitation infil-
trates the surface. Infiltration begins by channel-
ing through the refuse before the moisture
content of the refuse has reached field capacity.
This water, in the form of refuse leachate, leaves
the disposal site either in the subsurface or on
the surface.
(3) Preliminary work indicates that in refuse
more than 5 to 9 years old and up to at least 21
years old, there is a yearly decrease in specific
yield (effective porosity) of 1 to IVi percent.
(4) Ground water mounds formed below the
disposal sites studied. The presence of such
mounds is proof of infiltration and downward
movement of ground water. The mounds are
caused by the reduction of the horizontal per-
meability along the margins of the landfill dur-
ing construction. The seepage of minor amounts
of leachate from the sides of the old DuPage
County and Winnetka landfills is caused by the
formation of the ground water mound.
(5) The migration of the dissolved solids in
refuse leachate is related to time, age of refuse,
distance, and earth materials. Fine-textured tills
were found to be effective in removing dissolved
solids from refuse leachate. This effectiveness
decreased rapidly as the grain size of the in-
volved materials increased.
(6) At each of the sites studies, ground water
flow patterns are relatively simple, and the
hydrogeologic factors responsible for these pat-
terns can, in most cases, be readily understood.
The distribution of dissolved solids in the
ground water is in general accord with the flow
system determinations, the dissolved solids from
the various landfills moving in a predictable
manner. The hydrogeologic approach used in
this investigation should, therefore, be applic-
able to proposed disposal sites.
(7) Dissolved solids which originated in the
landfill are present in the shallow earth deposits
below and around the four landfills. At the Elgin
landfill these dissolved solids have migrated to
affect a shallow domestic well between the land-
fill and the Fox River. The shallow deposits at
the other three sites are not being, and probably
will not be, used for water supplies.
IX
-------
RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER WORK
(1) Determine the effects of slope, vegetation,
and materials on infiltration through landfill
covers by study of existing landfills.
(2) Determine the effectiveness of earth liners
by study of existing landfills with earth liners.
(3) Determine the effects of earth and of
other-types of liners by encouraging their instal-
lation on new landfills and initiating a monitor-
ing program on these landfills.
(4) Initiate a laboratory and field study to
determine the mechanisms by which dissolved
solids are removed from refuse leachate during
its migration through the earth and the effect of
refuse leachate on the physical properties of
fine-textured materials that could be used as
liners.
(5) Investigate methods of leachate treatment.
(6) Investigate methods of collecting and an-
alyzing samples of leachate.
(7) Confirm the analyses of trace elements
presented in this report by running additional
samples. Run additional analyses for organic
components in the leachate.
-------
HYDROGEOLOGY OF SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL SITES IN NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS
A FINAL REPORT ON A SOLID WASTE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PROJECT
This report presents the results of a detailed
hydrogeologic and water quality investigation of
four landfills in northeastern Illinois and initial
results, from the study of a fifth landfill. These
investigations were carried out to develop guide-
lines that could be used to evaluate the pollution
potential -of existing and proposed landfill sites.
Well points and piezometers were installed
around, within, and below existing landfills to
determine the pattern of ground water flow and
then samples of ground water were collected
from selected points in the flow field and an-
alyzed. Data were collected on the dissolved
solids leached from refuse of various ages and on
the attenuation of these dissolved solids as they
moved away from the disposal site. Guidelines
for appropriate site designs in various hydro-
geologic environments are presented together
with a discussion of various techniques and pro-
cedures that can be applied to these designs.
Hydrogeologic and climatic conditions in
most of Illinois, northern Indiana, northern
Ohio, Iowa, northern Missouri, North Dakota,
and eastern South Dakota are comparable to
those in northeastern Illinois, and hence, most
of the results of this investigation are directly
applicable in those areas as well.
Hydrogeologic conditions in the karst (lime-
stone solution) areas of Kentucky, parts of
Tennessee, Missouri, southern Indiana, southern
Illinois, and Florida, where ground water moves
through channels and fractures and turbulent
flow is possible, are not, however, comparable to
those in northeastern Illinois nor is the climate
in the semiarid southwestern United States. Here
the results of this investigation apply poorly or
not at all. Data from this report may or may not
apply in other areas, depending on local con-
ditions.
The tables for this report are assembled
together from data gathered in the investigation.
Detailed descriptions of the field and analytical
methods; used to gather and interpret the water
quality and hydrogeologic data are presented in
the appendices.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers wish to thank the owners and
operators of the landfills studied, as well as the
owners of adjacent property for granting us
access to their land, tolerating the inconvenience
of our operation, and providing us with the
background information. Machinery operators
and attendants on the various fills were partic-
ularly helpful.
Thanks are also due to the personnel of the
State Water Survey for advice and the use of
their equipment, to Dr. John R. Sheaffer of the
Center for Urban Studies at the University of
Chicago for critically reviewing the manuscript,
and to Professor B. B. Ewing of the University
of Illinois at Urbana and the Illinois Water Re-
sources Center for the use of chemical supplies
and a portable power auger.
In addition, we are grateful to the personnel
of Layne-Western Company, and in particular to
Bob Johnson, for their interest and advice.
Chemical analyses were made under the
direction of John Murray of the Illinois De-
partment of Public Health, and chemical and gas
analyses under the direction of Dr. Neil F.
Slump, John A. Schleicher, Dr. Rodney R.
Ruch, William J. Armon, and Wayne F. Meents
of the Illinois State Geological Survey. Clay
mineral analyses were done under the direction
of Dr. Herbert D. Glass and textural analyses
and engineering properties determined under the
direction of Dr. W. Arthur White and Mrs.
Cheryl W. Adkisson. The authors also wish to
thank the summer assistants who worked on this
project and in particular Charles R. Lund, Daniel
E. McMeen, Michael J. Miller, Thomas E. Jensen,
Stephen S. Palmer and Gary C. Brown.
Special equipment for this project was made
under the direction of R. J. Helfinstine and
Walter E. Cooper of the Illinois State Geological
Survey.
1
-------
THE SOLID WASTE PROBLEM
SCOPE
We are currently (1967) generating more than
360 million tons of household, commercial, in-
dustrial, and municipal solid wastes per day,
which are disposed of at a cost of 4.5 billion
dollars per year (Black et al, 1968, p. 48 and
50). Of budgeted community funds, 80 percent
is spent for collection of solid wastes and only
20 per cent for disposal (Black et al., 1968, p.
14).
Household refuse—consisting of food wastes,
packaging, containers, lawn trimmings, and dis-
carded furniture and appliances—is the largest
single source of solid waste generated. Most in-
dustrial waste, with the exception of paper and
wood packaging, does not become mixed with
household waste. Industrial waste was not con-
sidered in this report, although the results of this
study will, in most cases, apply to the near-
surface disposal of these types of material.
Solid waste disposal is a widespread problem
that is most acute in the metropolitan areas,
which are characterized by concentrations of
people and intense competition for land. Dis-
posal sites in use are being filled rapidly. In ad-
dition sprawling urbanization is making it more
difficult to develop new sites. Efforts to find
remote sites have encountered similar diffi-
culties.
The landfill is the most commonly used
approved method of solid waste disposal and has
in most areas replaced the open burning dump.
A sanitary landfill is defined by the American
Society of Civil Engineers as "a method of dis-
posing of refuse on land without creating nui-
sances or hazards to public health or safety, by
utilizing the principles of engineering to confine
the refuse to the smallest practical area, to
reduce it to the smallest practical volume, and
cover it with a layer of earth at the conclusion
of each day's operation or such more frequent
intervals as may be necessary" (American
Society of Civil Engineers, 1959, p. 1). This de-
finition implies that if a landfill is truly a "sani-
tary landfill" it will not adversely affect the
quality of surface or ground water, and most
regulations involving landfills prohibit their
location where this is likely to occur.
Besides the sanitary landfill other approved
methods of solid waste disposal include inciner-
ation and composting. Incineration is most com-
monly used in the metropolitan areas in order to
obtain a significant volume reduction of the
waste; however, incineration produces an ash
residue that also requires disposal, and a landfill
is still necessary. Composting of refuse is prac-
ticed on a very limited basis owing to the small
market for the compost material.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Major investigations have been done on the
production and migration of contaminants
leached from buried solid waste. Only those par-
ticularly related to this project are discussed
here. A comprehensive bibliography on sanitary
landfills has been compiled by Steiner and Kantz
(1968), and a series of bibliographies on refuse
collection and disposal has been prepared by the
U. S. Public Health Service (Van Derwerker and
Weaver, 1951; U. Si Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, 1954; Williams, 1958;
Williams and Black, 1961; Black and Davis,
1963; Weaver, 1963; Black et. al., 1966).
Some of the earliest landfill investigations
were in New York (Carpenter and Setter, 1940;
Eliassen, 1942a,b). Existing fills of various ages
were sampled to determine the composition of
the refuse, leachate, and gases produced.
Major studies were made in California. The
University of Southern California (1952) pub-
lished the results of an investigation of leaching
in incinerator ash dumps. The quantity, quality,
and ion exchange characteristics of leachate
produced by water percolating through cylinders
filled with ash were determined and a field study
was made at a manhole installed in an existing
ash dump from which leachate was collected
from various depths within the ash. The semiarid
climate of southern California made it necessary
-------
to apply water at the surface to produce a
leaehate.
The University of Sc ithern California also
carried out a study of leaching in a sanitary land-
fill from 1952 to 1960 (University of Southern
California, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1958, 1960).
Wells were installed and samples of the ground
water in the vicinity of the landfill were collected
and analyzed. Percolation of water through bins
of refuse, gas production, and the temperature of
the refuse were also studied.
Other studies.of shrinkage, gas production,
and temperature of refuse in drums or in spe-
cially constructed cells have been made in the
same area (Merz, 1964; Merz and Stone, 1963a,
1964, 1965,1966).
A series' of investigations was made by En-
gineering-Science Inc. for the California State
Water Quality Control Board. The first of these
(Engineering-Science Inc., 1961) reviewed the
available information on the effect of refuse
dumps on ground water quality and included
discussions of vertical and horizontal movement
of leaehate, decomposition processes, and gas
production and movement. Additional (Engine-
ering-Science Inc., 1963-1966) studies were pri-
marily field studies concerned with the pro-
duction and migration of gases produced at fill
sites and with landfill construction (1969).
In Great Britain, a comprehensive laboratory
and field study (Ministry of Housing and Local
Government, 1961) was made of the quantity
and quality of refuse leaehate produced under
saturated and unsaturated conditions and the
changes in this leaehate as it moved through
sand and gravel filters. Bevan (1967) reviews the
science and practice of the controlled tipping of
refuse in Britain, including discussion of specific
case histories. Because of climatic similarities,
the results of this study are generally applicable
to northeastern Illinois.
Several papers (McCormick, 1966; Sawinski,
1966; and Andersen and Dornbush, 1967) were
published on the study of a landfill in. South
Dakota. This study made use of bored sampling
points to describe the envelope of dissolved
solids that had moved from a landfill located in
a shallow sand above a clay unit that had rela-
tively low permeability.
Fairly comprehensive investigations on the
chemical quality of leaehate (Qasim, 1965), acid
and gas production (Lin, 1966), and micro-
biology (Cook, 1966) of landfills have been
done at West Virginia University.
In Pennsylvania, investigations of the decom-
position of refuse and the production and
migration of leaehate from landfills are being
conducted at the Drexel Institute of Technology
(Fungaroli et al., 1968, 1968a, 1968b, 1968c)
and at the Pennsylvania State University (Lane
and Parizek, 1968). These studies are similar to
those conducted in Illinois and described in this
report inasmuch as they examine the movement
of leaehate through the subsurface and the
amount of renovation of the leaehate.
An investigation of the hydrogeology of solid
waste disposal sites is being conducted in
Madison, Wisconsin (Kaufmann, 1969) that is
also similar to this study but that considers dif-
ferent hydrogeologic environment.
COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTES
Both the physical and chemical compositions
of refuse are highly variable and dependent on
factors such as geographic location, economic
standard of the generating community, and sea-
son of the year. A typical breakdown of the
physical and chemical compositions of house-
hold refuse is given in table 1 (Fungaroli et al.,
1968b, p. 11).
A basic reason for the tremendous increase in
the volume of waste generated today is the in-
dividual packaging of foodstuffs and the near
elimination of returnable containers. This has
resulted in a greater percentage of paper and
paper products in the waste and the abundance
of glass bottles, aluminum cans, and plastic con-
tainers. Prepared foodstuffs and household gar-
bage disposal units have reduced the actual
garbage content in today's refuse. Conversion to
oil and gas heating has also reduced the ash con-
tent of domestic wastes.
-------
PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS
OF DECOMPOSITION
Natural decomposition of organic refuse is
performed by bacteria or other microorganisms
that use the refuse as food to convert it to their
own cell substances through the biochemical
process of respiration. The basic decomposition
is aerobic in the early stages but soon becomes
anaerobic. Engineering-Science, Inc. (1961) gives
a full account of the decomposition process and
Sevan (1967, p. 24) gives a detailed chart
showing the process and products of the decom-
position of household refuse (table 2).
Refuse decomposes at various rates, sugars,
starch, fats, foodstuffs, and proteins being easily
metabolized and fibrous cellulose materials such
as wood and paper being more slowly decom-
posed. In addition to the composition of the
refuse itself, the major factors controlling the
rate of decomposition are the presence or
absence of oxygen, time of burial, the age of the
landfill, compaction, the temperature, and the
moisture contept. Eliasson (1942b) found that
increased amounts of paper in the refuse re-
sulted in a decrease of refuse breakdown and
that the breakdown was dependent on moisture
content, the optimum moisture content being
40 to 80 percent. The various organic and
inorganic substances in refuse can be leached
by—water moving through the refuse—either
ground water or water from precipitation. This
leachate can be described as a liquid high in
dissolved solids and in chemical and biological
oxygen demand. A portion of the leachate is
derived immediately after implacement during
the initial compaction and settlement of the
refuse.
Gas generated by the decomposition of refuse
is released both to the atmosphere through the
cover material and to the surrounding ground
and ground water and carbon dioxide and methane
are the most important gases produced. Carbon
dioxide increases the hardness and acidity of the
water, which in turn adds to the solution and
leaching of acid-soluble constituents in the
refuse. Methane forms a flammable mixture in
air (5 'to 15 percent).
ATTENUATION AND MIGRATION
OF DISSOLVED SOLIDS IN THE SUBSURFACE
As refuse leachate migrates through the
ground it is attenuated by ion exchange*, dilu-
tion, dispersion, complexing, and filtration.
Fine-textured materials have a high capacity for
retaining the dissolved solids in refuse leachate
and, owing to their low permeability, permit
only a low rate of ground water movement.
Sands and gravels have less capacity to retain the
dissolved solids, and higher rates of movement
are possible. Fractured rocks retain relatively
small amounts of the dissolved solids, and
extremely high rates of ground-water movement
are possible.
The amount of ion exchange a particular ion
undergoes depends on several factors, including
the following: (1) the type of material involved;
(2) the ions already present on the surface of the
clays; (3) the other elements in solution and
their concentration.
Laboratory experiments to determine how
much exchange will take place as a solution is
passed through a given material may yield useful
results, although extrapolation to field con-
ditions requires care (McHenry et al., in de
Laguna, 1955, p. 190). In such experiments
most of the soil is in contact with the solution,
but under field conditions, in which per-
meability varies because of minor sand bands or
fractures, this may not be the case.
Considerable work has been done on ion ex-
change on soils in relation to radioactive wastes
disposal (de Laguna, 1955). For more basic
understanding of ion exchange on clay minerals,
the reader is referred to Grim (1953, 1962).
*Grim (1953, p. 126) explains ion exchange as follows: "The clay minerals have the property of sorbing certain anions and
cations and retaining these in an exchangeable state, i.e., these ions are exchangeable for other anions or cations by
treatment with snrh ions; in a watpr snliitinn "
-------
In studies of a landfill in Britain, self purifica-
tion, particularly of organic matter, was shown
to take place within the landfill itself (Ministry
of Housing and Local Govt. 1961, p.26). The
degree of purification was thought to depend on
the length of time the refuse leachate remains in
the fill. The same study (p. 23) established that
by passing refuse leachate through sand and
gravel filters "general purification from organic
matter can be effected under anaerobic con-
ditions." Purification from chlorides, sulfates,
and ammonia was found to be much less
complete. Although aerobic purification would
be more efficient, it is not likely to be effective
in ground waters.
Investigation by McCormick (1966, p. 41-45)
in South Dakota disclosed that the hardness of
leachate-contaminated ground water was sub-
stantially reduced as the water passed through a
small surface pond. Although no use has been
made of this phenomenon, it may be worth con-
sidering in the selection of disposal sites.
According to McKee and Wolf (1963, p. 19),
less dilution and dispersion of contaminants will
take place in ground water than in surface
waters because ground water flow is almost al-
ways laminar, whereas flow of surface water is
generally turbulent. For this reason, the total
volume in a ground water reservoir cannot be
considered effective for diminishing the con-
centration of contaminants. McKee and Wolf
(1963, p. 20) also pointed out that the low
travel velocities and diffusion rates in ground
water reservoirs can produce serious con-
sequences when contamination occurs. Con-
tamination may not be noticed for years or
decades, and consequently no complaints are
registered. Even after contamination is dis-
covered, the quality of water is already degraded
and the damage cannot be repaired merely by
stopping the source of contamination. A longer
time may be required to purify ground water
than to contaminate it.
POLLUTION OF GROUND WATER
If dissolved solids are allowed to migrate from
a disposal site, they may reduce ground water
quality below recommended drinking water
quality standards. Relatively few instances of
well pollution from solid wastes have, however,
been described in the literature. A partial ex-
planation for this is that most water quality
analyses focus on the bacteriologic aspects and
few chemical analyses are undertaken. Moreover,
inorganic contaminants generally must be at
relatively large concentrations before they can
be tasted, and funds are seldom available to in-
vestigate reported instances of "bad water."
Lang (1932), Lang and Bruns (1940 p. 8),
Rbssler (1951), and Schlinker (1956) report in-
stances of ground water contamination from
solid waste disposal sites in Germany. Two in-
stances of pollution of water wells by landfills
have been reported in Illinois (Walker, 1969,
p. 38, 39).
These examples of ground water pollution
have resulted from the emplacement of refuse in
materials that allowed for the rapid movement
of dissolved solids and little attenuation. They
indicate the importance of hydrogeologic con-
ditions present at the disposal site.
REGULATORY VERSUS
OPERATIONAL ATTITUDES
Because ground water pollution can result
from the land disposal of solid wastes, a po-
tential public health problem exists. Thus there
is a need for regulations to protect the public
interest when a site is proposed for a landfill'
operation. The various regulatory agencies-
local, county, or State health departments-are
concerned with the overall operation of the
landfill and among other things with the migra-
tion of leachate and its effect on the ground
water. Landfill operators, on the other hand, are
more concerned with the economics of site
acquisition, local zoning requirements, and
general public acceptance.
Conflict about the suitability of a proposed
landfill site can be attributed to several factors.
Until recently, criteria did not exist within the
regulatory agencies for evaluating the suitability
-------
of a proposed landfill site from a water pollution
control standpoint. Presently a limited number
of states have published standards and rules and
regulations governing landfill operations. Some
of these, however, are incomplete or unrealistic
with regard to specific hydrogeologic criteria.
Probably the primary reason that suitable site
selection has been difficult for both the reg-
ulatory agency and the landfill operator is that
the site is seldom treated as an engineered in-
stallation, such as a dam or a building. This
would entail a determination of existing geologic
and hydrogeologic conditions by borings and a
landfill operation designed to use the natural
conditions where possible and subject to modif-
ications where necessary. It could also entail the
control and monitoring of dissolved solids
migrating within the ground water flow system
with possibly the collection and treatment of
affected ground water to ensure an efficient
operation acceptable to the regulatory agencies.
Regulation is apt to be strongest in areas where
water use is high, alternate sources of water are
not readily available, and the environment itself
is not protective. Here pollution may be very
expensive to remedy.
HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION OF THE LANDFILLS
THE HYDROGEOLOGIC APPROACH
AND FLOW SYSTEMS
The specific objectives of this study were to
study landfill sites in northeastern Illinois in
various hydrogeologic environments, to deter-
mine the effect of geologic and hydrogeologic
factors on the flow system at these sites, and to
gather information concerning the quantity,
types, and attenuation of dissolved solids
moving from the fill area. An understanding of
ground water and contaminant movement in
three dimensions is necessary for evaluating the
suitability of a site for use as a sanitary landfill.
A ground water flow system- describes the
progressive movement of water through the
earth. In the shallow subsurface of a humid
region such as northeastern Illinois ground water
occupies all the openings in the earth materials
below the top of the zone of saturation or the
water table. Above the water table the openings
are filled with both water and air. Rain or other
water that has entered the ground in what is
called a "recharge area" moves downward to the
top of the zone of saturation and becomes part
of the ground water reservoir. This water is dis-
charged again to the surface in a "discharge
area," where it forms the base flow in streams
and, together with surface runoff, is the source
of water in permanent swamps, marshes, and
lakes. The driving force for ground water move-
ment is gravity. The direction of ground water
movement is a function of pressure. A set of
flow lines that remain adjacent throughout their
path from the recharge to the discharge area
form a ground water flow system (Toth, 1962).
More comprehensive discussions of flow systems
are given by Hubbert (1940), Toth (1962),
Meyboom (1966), Meyboom, Van Everdingen,
and Freeze (1966), and Freeze and Witherspoon
(1966, 1967, 1968).
In any flow system, the discharge area is at a
lower elevation than the recharge area. Figure 1
illustrates a hypothetical flow system that could
exist in northeastern Illinois. It is composed of
small local systems superimposed on larger
systems. A small system might include only a
small pond acting as a discharge area for the
uplands immediately adjacent to it, which would
be the recharge area. This small system could be
superimposed on a secondary system that dis-
charges into a secondary stream and receives re-
charge from a much larger system that in turn
discharges into a major stream or Lake Michigan.
The foregoing is not the complete picture of
conditions, because the shallow aquifer systems
-------
Top of saturated
zone nearly coin-
cides with land
surface
Ar'•%.*/•
''•- / :0;--:
Glacial till
Dolomite aquifer
E3 Sand and gravel aquifer —^Direction of ground water flow
Figure 1. A hypothetical flow system that could exist in northeastern Illinois. Contaminants cannot enter the ground
water flow system in discharge areas, because in these areas, water moves toward the water table's surface, and this
upward flow prevents leachate from waste disposal operations near the ground surface from moving downward to
pollute deeper aquifers.
-------
are penetrated by pumping wells. These pump-
ing wells have, to some extent, distorted the
natural flow system by creating discharge areas
in the subsurface in the form of pumping cones.
The actual travel path of the ground water is
controlled by a number of factors; the major
ones are the following: (l)the sequence and
hydrologic properties of the earth materials,
(2) the topography and elevation of the top of
the zone of saturation, and (3) the pumpage in
the area.
In northeastern Illinois nearly all the recharge
to the shallow aquifers originates as pre-
cipitation in upland areas. After entering the
ground, this water migrates downward to the
top of the zone of saturation and then in the
direction of the potential gradient (or from a
point of higher head to a point of lower head) to
discharge at the surface at a lower elevation, pro-
vided, of course, that it is not intercepted by a
well. In the recharge area migration down the
potential gradient corresponds to movement
away from the water table surface whereas in a
discharge area the water is moving towards the
water table surface.
In some parts of northeastern Illinois a
general flow system can be determined from in-
formation obtained from two or three piezo-
meters installed at depths of less than 30 feet. In
other parts of the area determination may be
more complicated and expensive.
A concept of ground water flow that con-
siders only flow in the plane of the water table
surface or parallel to the slope of the ground
surface can be misleading. A third dimension,
the vertical component of flow, must also be
considered, even though it may be much less
obvious than the horizontal component. Where
there is an upward component to ground water
flow, dissolved solids from waste disposal oper-
ations near the ground surface cannot move
downward to pollute deeper aquifers but may
move into surface waters. Where a downward
component of flow is present, the possibility
that dissolved solids will move downward must
always be considered.
PHYSICAL SETTING OF
NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS
PHYSIOGRAPHY. Northeastern Illinois is
near the center of the physiographic Central
Lowland Province, a glaciated lowland with
generally low relief. The maximum elevation is
1,192 feet above mean sea level in northwestern
McHenry County, the minimum is 505 feet
where the Des Plaines River leaves western Will
County. The present level of Lake Michigan to
the east is about 580 feet above sea level.
A low north-south-trending drainage divide is
present a few miles west of Lake Michigan. West
of this divide, drainage is into the Mississippi
River system. Natural drainage east of the divide
was originally into Lake Michigan; however,
much of this has been diverted to the west into
the Mississippi River system. In the flatter parts
of the area, most of the drainage has been im-
proved initially for agricultural development and
as urbanization spread for the alleviation of
flooding problems. Much of the morainal or
hilly country is without integrated drainage, and
swamps and lakes are common.
CLIMATE. The climate of Chicago is con-
tinental (U.S. Weather Bureau, 1962). The mean
annual temperature is 51° F, with monthly
normal means ranging from 26° F in January to
76° F in July. The mean annual precipitation is
33.18 inches with monthly means from 1.60
inches in February to 4.07 inches in June. The
mean annual snowfall is 36 inches. Mean annual
evapotranspiration (Jones, 1966, p. 5) is ap-
proximately 25 inches, with a potential evapo-
transpiration of 28 inches.
During the 1938-1957 period the region
averaged 90 days per year with mean daily
temperatures below freezing. The growing sea-
son for the Chicago region ranges from 150 to
180 days with most of the region in the 160- to
170-day range (Suteretal., 1959, p. 13).
GEOLOGY Unconsolidated deposits over-
lie the bedrock in most of the region. They
range from less than 1 foot to more than 400
feet thick and include recent and glacial
deposits.
-------
The major unconsolidated deposit is glacial
till, an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, and
boulders deposited directly from the glacial ice.
The uppermost bedrock is a fractured dolomite
of Silurian Age, a major aquifer in the region.
The structure of the area is relatively simple, the
rocks dipping eastward at 10-15 feet per mile.
More detailed descriptions of the geology of
this area are presented in reports of Suter et at
(1959), Willman (1962), Zeizel et al. (1962),
and Buschbach( 1964).
GROUND WATER. Ground water is an
important resource in northeastern Illinois. In
1963, 24 percent of the population obtained
water from this source (Sheaffer and Zeizel,
1966, p. 62). There are three major sources of
ground water in this area, the deep bedrock
aquifer system, the shallow bedrock aquifer
system, and the glacial drift aquifer system. The
glacial drift aquifer system and the shallow bed-
rock aquifer system are most susceptible to
pollution from solid waste disposal because they
are at or near the ground surface. Susceptibility
of the shallow bedrock aquifer system is further
increased because it is composed of fractured
rocks. Recharge to the glacial drift and shallow
bedrock aquifer systems is locally derived from
precipitation or surface water.
The top of the zone of saturation (or the
water table) is generally within 5 to 10 feet of
the ground surface except in places where the
presence of permeable materials at or near the
ground surface has allowed drainage.
INVESTIGATIVE AND ANALYTICAL
PROCEDURES
SITE SELECTION. Four sites were studied
during the first 2 years of the investigation and
one, the Blackwell Forest Preserve site, in late
1968 (figure 2). These were selected from a list
of disposal sites in northeastern Illinois compiled
by Sheaffer et al. (1963, p. 70-71). Existing sites
were chosen because they are in environments
typical of those likely to be used for future sites,
they represent common hydrogeologic environ-
ments in northeastern Illinois, and the altered
ground water leaving them provides a tracer to
verify hydrogeologic findings. Selection of the
sites was based on their hydrogeologic environ-
ment, age, access, and extent of the fill.
During the final years more emphasis was
placed on the water quality aspect of this in-
vestigation. Additional borings were installed at
the DuPage County and Winnetka sites, where
the hydrogeology was simple and would not
obscure water quality relationships, and one
boring was installed in a high above-ground land-
fill in the Blackwell Forest Preserve.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANAL-
YSIS. The investigation of each site included
field examination supplemented by study of
maps and air photos, surveying, searching for
leachate springs, and discussion with operators.
At each site, except Blackwell, initial sub-
surface information was obtained by drilling a
series of four holes to bedrock with standard
rotary equipment. Drill cuttings were collected
and described, and an electric log, with a con-
ventional self potential and resistivity curve, was
run for each hole. Subsequent borings were
made by a hollow-stem auger rig, an air drilling
rig, two small power augers, and by wash boring.
After each boring had been completed, one or
more piezometers or well points were installed
and the hole was backfilled.
A piezometer is a screen or permeable plastic
tip fastened to the end of a pipe or tube. This
screen or tip is installed in a boring, and the
annulus above it is sealed so that water level
measurements or water samples obtained from
this installation apply only to a restricted area in
the bottom part of the boring below the seal in
the annulus. A well point is similar to a piezo-
meter except that there is rio seal in the annulus
and therefore measurements or water samples
obtained from a well point may reflect con-
ditions over a large vertical interval.
Many of the piezometers installed by contract
boring are multiple completions; that is, several
piezometers, at different depths, are installed in
one bore hole and separated hydraulically from
one another by an impermeable sealing plug
above and below the screen.
Drilling, sampling, and piezometer con-
struction procedures are described in some detail
in appendix A, and descriptions of samples from
-------
_WIS.
ILL.
Woodstock
landfill
Me HENRY CO.
LAKE CO.
Elgin
landfill
Winnetko
landfill
KANE CO.
0 2 4 6 B 10
MILES
~i
DuPoge County
landfill
Blackwell Forest
preserve
DUPAGE CO.
~\
i
i
H
COOK CO.
WILL CO.
Figure 2. Solid waste disposal sites in northeastern Illinois investigated during the first two years of the study These
sites were chosen on the basis of their hydrogeologic environment, age, ease of access, and extent of fill.
10
-------
the various contract borings are given in ap-
pendix B. Table 3 gives construction details of
the various well points and piezometers, and
tables 4 and 5 give the results of textural and
clay-mineral analysis.
After a preliminary determination of the flow
system had been made, additional well points
and piezometers were located to give the max-
imum amount of information on both the
hydrology and the composition of the ground
water. During the last year most of the instal-
lations "Were located to sample leachate of
various ages and to investigate changes in the
composition of affected ground water over short
horizontal and vertical distances within the same
geologic unit.
The steps used for collecting samples from the
well points and piezometers varied with the
sampling point involved and are discussed in
appendix A.
Water quality analyses by the Illinois Depart-
ment of Public Health are presented in table 6,
by Allied Laboratories in table 7, and by the
State Geological Survey in table 8. Table 9
presents the results of more detailed chemical
analyses, most of which were by Tenco Hydro/
Aerosciences, Inc. The laboratory procedures
used in the chemical analyses are discussed in
appendix C.
Analyses of soluble salts in the materials
associated with the landfills are presented in
tables 10 and 11, chemical analyses of the till
itself in table 12, and analyses of cation ex-
change capacity and exchangeable cations in
table 13.
Under the direction of Professor I. Edgar
Odom, Department of Geology, Northern
Illinois University, extracts of soluble salts were
obtained from the materials underlying the land-
fills and submitted to a fluorescence analysis.
These data are presented in appendix D.
Gas samples were pumped from a perforated
iron pipe driven approximately 3 feet into the
ground. The pipe hoses and pump were flushed
with landfill gas and then the sample was col-
lected by displacing water in a submerged mason
jar. The results of the analyses of these gases are
presented in table 14.
The Illinois State Geological Survey also con-
ducted approximately . 200 field conductivity
measurements, 300 field sodium chloride tests
with a Hach Kit, and 50 field tests for methane.
These data are on file at the State Geological
Survey.
Hydrographs, or graphs of water levels, were
necessary in the hydrogeologic analysis. Water
levels were recorded by float-activated recorders
in borings with 4-inch-diameter casing and by
electronically activated recorders in borings with
smaller diameter casings.
In the second study year three recorders were
available. These were moved about to gather
specific data. During the last year eight per-
manent recorder installations were constructed:
two each at the old DuPage County, Winnetka,
and Woodstock landfills and one each at the
Elgin and Blackwell landfills. In other piezo-
meters periodic measurements of water levels
were made with a measuring tape, and hydro-
graphs were constructed from these measure-
ments. These hydrographs were begun when the
well was completed and have been continued to
the present, with measurements at various
intervals.
Microbarographs were obtained by recording
barometers installed at each site. The records
were necessary for correcting the hydrographs
for barometric effect. Precipitation records from
automatic rain gauges and manual rain gauges at
each site were also obtained and checked against
those from the U.S. Weather Bureau stations at
Wheaton, Aurora, Elgin, O'Hare Field, and
Antioch. Hydrographs, microbarographs, and
rainfall data from the investigation are on file at
the Illinois State Geological Survey. The hydro-
graphs are interpreted in some detail in appendix
E.
Slug tests were run to determine the per-
meability of materials associated with the land-
fills. This is accomplished by lowering metal
cylinders into a boring to displace the water
level upward and then measuring the subsequent
decline in water level with a steel tape.
11
-------
Results were checked by measuring the rise in
water level after the metal cylinders had been
removed. Slug tests were also run by adding or
removing water from the bore hole, but this
method is less convenient. The results of these
tests are presented in table 15.
Pumping tests were conducted to verify the
results obtained from the slug tests, and, in ad-
dition, a sample of the till similar to that at the
DuPage County site was subjected to a lab-
oratory permeability test. The results of per-
meability testing are discussed in appendix F
To calculate the amount of water infiltrating
into the landfill, the effective porosity or
specific yield of refuse was determined by filling
a 110-gallon container with water and refuse and
then measuring the amount of water that would
drain from the mixture. This procedure is dis-
cussed further in appendix E.
Resistivity and temperature studies as well as
a study of effect of storage on leachate were also
conducted. These are described in appendix F
and G of the interim report of this project
(Hughes et al., 1968).
Also included as appendices are calculations
of the flow into and out of the landfills and
discussions of the analytical methods used in the
water balance estimate and permeability cal-
culations (appendix H).
THE OLD DUPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL
GENERAL DESCRIPTION. The old
DuPage County landfill is located in the NW% of
sec. 32, T. 40 N., R. 9 E., DuPage County, on
both sides of the Chicago Great Western Rail-
road where it crosses Powis Road, south and east
of the county airport. Figure 3 is a map of the
general area with a cross section showing the
topography and general geologic sequence.
The old DuPage County landfill lies on a flat
upland area between the Minooka Moraine on
the west and the West Chicago Moraine on the
east. The elevation is about 750 feet above mean
sea level. The area was originally swampy and
much of the drainage was through tiles emptying
into Kress Creek, which flows to the south along
the eastern side of the fill area.
Before filling operations began, the south-
eastern part of the landfill was used as a holding
area for livestock enroute to Chicago. Filling,
which was by the trench and fill method, began
in September 1952 and was completed in
November 1966. Initially, there was controlled
burning of wood or paper on the north side of
the fill, but this was discontinued. Figure 4
shows the history of the filled areas.
According to the operator, 'trenches were dug
to the top of the water table and were as much
as 6 feet deep. At times these trenches contained
water. On the south side of the railway, refuse
was piled 6 to 8 feet above the original ground
surface in a single lift, or layer, and north of the
railway, refuse was piled about 15 feet above
original ground surface in two lifts.
Household and garden refuse was the major
component of the fill, but small amounts of
spent battery acid, construction debris, and
sewage sludge were also buried at this site. The
daily cover material was at least 6 inches thick
and the final cover 2 to 3 feet thick. The cover
material is primarily silt loam, clay, silty clay
loam, and clay loam (designation of soils from
U.S. Department of Agriculture classification of
soils) although many stones are present in some
parts.
Fine-textured waste material from an asphalt
plant is being used to fill low areas on the north
side of the railway.
Weeds cover most of the surface of the land-
fill. The east half of the south side supports a
fairly dense growth of trees, predominantly
cottonwoods but with some white ash and black
cherry. Trunk diameters of the trees on the
berms between the filled trenches are up to 4
inches at 4 feet above ground level. Smaller trees
are present over the trenches, but most of these
die before their trunks reach 2 inches in dia-
meter. An unsuccessful attempt at farming was
made on the western part of the south side of
the fill, but according to the farmer the cover
material was too stony. We hope to investigate
further the factors affecting plant growth on
landfills.
The central part of the landfill is relatively
flat, but slopes increase towards the edges, be-
12
-------
900
800
700
600
A'
Sand and gravel
Silurian dolomite
Vertical exaggeration 52 X
Miles
I
Horizontal scale
Figure 3. Map (top) shows the general area surrounding the old Du Page County landfill. Cross section (bottom)
shows the topography and general geologic sequence of the area between A and A' on the map.
13
-------
Center NW %, Sec.32,
T. 40 N., R. 9 E..
Du Page County
w-
Direction filled
400
800
Scale in feet
Figure 4. History of filling at the old Du Page County landfill. The filling, which was by trench and fill methods, was
begun in 1952 and completed in 1966.
-------
come quite steep, and are eroded slightly along
all but the southern margin. Since the surface is
poorly drained and there is little runoff, most of
the precipitation infiltrates or evaporates.
A fairly simple sequence of geologic materials
is present. Beginning with the surface, it is as
follows:
Cover material on landfill-2 to 3 feet of clay
loam, clay, silty clay loam, and silt loam.
Surface material around landfill-generally 2
to 3 feet of silty clay loam and clay loam.
Upper sand (surficial sand)-sandy silt to silty
sand, generally present surrounding and below
the landfill. As much as 21 feet thick below
the landfill; generally about 10 feet thick
along the southern edge; thins at the northern
edge, the western edge, and in the field south
of the landfill; absent in the northeastern
corner. Sand and gravel bar present in the
southeastern corner and other bars are scat-
tered in the field south of the fill. Probably
represents a thin outwash from the West
Chicago Moraine Approximately 1 mile to the
east.
Upper till-clayey silt till, 5 to 25 feet thick,
similar to the predominant surficial deposit
throughout the entire region east to Lake
Michigan.
Middle till—sandy silt till, 12 to approxi-
mately 20 feet thick. Not continuous beneath
the site.
Interbedded sand—sand and fine gravel, 11/2 to
5 feet thick. Not continuous beneath the site;
limited to the eastern half and probably as-
sociated with the sandy silt till already
mentioned.
Lower till—silt till at base of section; 20 feet
thick. Unit has also been recognized in
western DuPage County.
Bedrock—fractured dolomite of Silurian age.
A major aquifer in the area.
HYDROGEOLOGIC ENVIRONMENT. Fig-
ure 5 is a plan view of the landfill and sur-
rounding area showing the location of the bor-
ings and the contours of the top of the zone of
saturation.
A ground water mound 6 feet high has devel-
oped below the landfill. The reasons for its
formation are discussed at the end of this
section. This mound is the major feature of the
ground water surface, and, because of it, springs
or seeps have developed along the sides of the
fill, particularly to the south. The area with
springs seems to be growing larger, and standing
puddles of leachate from these springs are pre-
sent south of the landfill area. Flow from the
springs along the south side of the landfill was
measured at F/2 gallons per minute on July 15,
1969.
The formation of the mound indicates that
precipitation has infiltrated the fill surface and is
moving through the refuse. Springs develop
where the ground surface intercepts the top of
the zone of saturation, commonly along the
margin of the fill where the ground slopes more
steeply than the slope of the ground water
mound.
The configuration of the contours on the top
of the zone of saturation south of the filled area
has probably been influenced by drainage
through field tiles. Some of these tiles were
broken during construction of the factory south
of the landfill. Tiles east of this factory were
about 2 feet deep with a total flow estimated at
5 gpm on June 19, 1969. A tile located im-
mediately north of the factory was broken dur-
ing the spring of 1969. It was about 5 feet deep
and reported to be flowing at a substantial rate
when broken.
Figure 6 shows vertical sections across the
filled area with lithology and equipotential lines.
Section A-A' shows predominantly lateral move-
ment with a downward component through the
surficial sand and a nearly vertical gradient
downward through the underlying till. This high
downward gradient through the glacial drift may
reflect the lowering of ground water potentials
in the underlying dolomite aquifer by pumping
at the industrial plant immediately north of the
site. Section B-B' shows the influence of Kress
Creek on the configuration of the flow system
along the east side of the landfill.
QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION. In-
filtration into the DuPage County landfill was
calculated by the method described by Williams
and Lohman (1949, p. 127-129). This method is
based on the premise that the cumulative annual
15
-------
QLW1 Piezometer location
X Piezometer destroyed
,-753-,, Contour on top of zone of
saturation
(Sept. 3. 1969.M.S.L.)
A- ^X Lines of cross sections
15. 25. 26. 27
/
/
/
/ ,
j I
16A. B
751 — _____
^""""•^N
Tiled - locations unknown
750-
17
\ 42, 45
\ LW1
,38
7*8'
400
800
33
\
753
,« 48,3'r~^*5°\35.,*
' X I -I / 34
-^
40
X
Factory
Hit
Road
CX 41-500
<$/'
1
Figure 5. Plan view of the old Du Page County landfill and surrounding area, showing locations of borings and the
contours of the top of the zone of saturation. A ground water mound 6 feet high has developed beneath the landfill,
and ground water movement is away from the landfill in all directions.
16
-------
M7,8
760-, LW3.
Railroad
Kress Creek
Dolomite Bedrock
Vertical Exaggeration 10X January 18, 1968
0 200 400
Scale in Feet
760 -i
750-
740 -
730 J
B'
1630
-754
-* /' J
MM65.66
—r
1336 f
/
--751--
--749--
No vertical exaggeration August/, 1969
Kress Creek
w.
809 f •• ,
748-S.a.nd__
Till
10
Scale in Feet
__2__ Water Table
—750 Line of Equal Head
Approximate Direction of Ground-water Flow
i
Piezometer with Chloride Concentration
eos
Figure 6. Verticle sections across the filled area of the old Du Page County landfill with lithology and equipotential
lines. Section A-A' shows predominantly lateral ground water movement with a downward component through the
surficial sand and a nearly verticle gradient downward through the underlying till. This high downward gradient through
the glacial drift may reflect the lowering of ground water potentials in the underlying dolomite aquifer by pumping.
Section B-B' shows the influence of Kress Creek on the configuration of the flow system along the east side of the
landfill.
17
-------
rise at the top of the zone of saturation, multi-
plied by the specific yield of the materials in-
volved, represents the annual ground water re-
charge. Discharge occurring concurrently with
recharge is not considered, but the error is prob-
ably not significant in the present study.
Infiltration calculated by this method was
90,000 gpd. Of the 28.58 inches of rain that fell
from October 1, 1968, through September 30,
1969, approximately 15.6 inches infiltrated.
This is higher than the percentage measured in a
British study (Ministry of Housing and Local
Government, 1961, p. 11), in which approxi-
mately 40 percent of precipitation was reported
to have infiltrated.
Discharge from the landfill was calculated to
be 100,000 gpd, 87,000 gpd moving laterally
through the surficial sands and 13,000 moving
downward through the till beneath the landfill.
Water discharging as springs has not been con-
sidered. As discussed in appendix G much of the
laterally moving water also moves downwards
through the glacial till outside the margins of the
landfill. The figure obtained for infiltration into
the landfill is 10,000 gpd lower than the
obtained for discharge from the landfill. This
discrepancy does not mean that more water
leaves the fill than infiltrates but reflects in-
accuracies in our data. The figure obtained for
infiltration, 90,000 gpd, is more accurate. This is
discussed further in appendices F and H.
The velocity of fluid moving through the sur-
ficial sand south of the fill was calculated to be
approximately 60 feet per year. The reliability
of these velocity calculations is discussed in
appendix H.
WATER QUALITY. Figure 7 presents sel-
ected chloride concentrations in the surficial
deposits in the vicinity of the old DuPage
County landfill. Chlorides were selected to illus-
trate the migration of dissolved solids from the
landfill because they are an excellent tracer; that
is, they are not readily attenuated during migra-
tion, and since a reasonable quantiative analysis
of chlorides is relatively simple, a large amount
of data on the distribution of this element was
gathered. These data show a genciol decrease in
the chloride concentration with distance from
the landfill.
Chlorides have moved at least 600 feet but
not more than 900 feet southward from the
landfill. The landfill along this side when
sampled was about 11 to 16 years old. On the
assumption that chlorides move at a velocity of
60 feet per year (appendix G) time has been
adequate for them to have migrated this dis-
tance.
Road salt is believed responsible for the high
chloride values in MM 33 and MM 80, inasmuch
as these wells are adjacent to the road.
Water from the broken tiles south of the land-
fill has a chloride content of 90 ppm. These tiles
are apparently collecting some leachate from the
landfill; however, because they are shallow and
do not fully penetrate the surficial sand they
would not completely block the southward
migration of all the leachate.
Table 16 lists the wells that best illustrate the
movement or lack of movement of chloride
from the landfill into the till underneath the
landfill. It appears that chlorides have reached
LW 15 and LW 16, which are 4.3 and 2.6 feet
respectively below the landfill (LW 10 has a
leaky seal), but have reached none of the other
wells. These data are discussed in more detail in
the section on geochemical studies.
According to our hydrogeologic data approxi-
mately 4.5 x 104 gpd of water is moving out of
the east side of the landfill (fig. 6, cross section
B-B'). If this water contains 809 ppm chloride as
is present in MM 65 and it all enters Kress Creek
to be diluted 39 times (appendix G), it would
raise the chlorides in Kress Creek by about 20
ppm. This has not occurred, because as shown in
figure 6, only part of the leachate that leaves the
east side of the landfill moves into the creek.
A few wells were sampled on November 11,
1967, and again on February 19, 1969. Only in
MM 12 was an appreciable change in water
quality noted. In this case the concentration of
dissolved solids rose.
WINNETKA LANDFILL
GENERAL DESCRIPTION. The Winnetka
landfill is located in Cook County in SE1/^ sec.
19, T.42 N., R.I3 E., on Willow Road east of
18
-------
EXPLANATION
Sampling point
X Sampling point destroyed
ppm chloride
a Sample taken and analyzed 8/69
H Hach kit analysis
Aluminun
extrusion
plant
29, 30>1200H
962 385
^H X4S.3965 'P
A120H
tf 41-500' south)
23
Figure 7. Selected chloride concentrations in surficial sand and gravel at the old Du Page County landfill.
Quantitative analyses of this tracer material indicate the migration of leachate; that is, there is a general decrease in
chloride concentrations with increasing distance from the landfill.
19
-------
the Skokie River. The topography is flat and the
elevation is 620 feet above sea level. The landfill
itself is the highest point in the vicinity. Figure 8
is a map of the area, with an east-west cross
section showing the topography and general
geologic sequence.
Filling was begun in January of 1947, and the
landfill is still operating. Figure 9 shows the
history of the various parts of the fill. With the
exception of the southwest corner, which was
used for materials such as bricks and concrete,
and some ash in the western third, the area was
used for the disposal of household refuse, grass,
leaves, and commercial packaging. Filling was
done in trenches, 5 to 6 feet deep, the refuse
being piled 6 to 8 feet above the original land
surface in two lifts.
The cover materials consist of clay loam,
loam, and sandy loam. Weeds cover most of the
fill surface, which is relatively flat, poorly
drained, and has steep slopes at the edges. Dur-
ing the winter of 1968-1969 a dike was con-
structed on the top of the landfill along the east
side.
A simple sequence of geologic materials is
present at the Winnetka site. From the surface
down, it is as follows:
Cover on landfill-IVi to 3 feet of clay loam,
loam, and sandy loam.
Topsoil adjacent to landfill— IVz to 4!/2 feet of
silt loam and loam, some cinders and roadfill
from construction.
Alluvium—sandy clay and silt—5 to 11 feet
thick (thins to the west) with minor amounts
of silty sand and gravelly sand; probably of
alluvial origin and related to flooding by the
Skokie River.
Transition zone—5 to 6 feet thick, inter-
bedded fine sand, silt, and silty clay.
Tills-silty clay till 96 to 100 feet thick,
sandier and stonier at depth.
Sand and silt—thin interbedded sand and silt
stringers, gravelly in places; less than 2 feet
thick; commonly 6 inches to 1 foot thick
interbedded with the till; cannot be correlated
from one boring to another with certainty;
response to pumping also indicates short
lateral extent.
Bedrock—fractured dolomite of Silurian age; a
major aquifer in the area.
HYDROGEOLOGIC ENVIRONMENT. Fig-
ure 10 is a plan view of the fill and surrounding
area, showing the location of the borings with
contours of the top of the zone of saturation.
As at the DuPage County landfill, a ground
water mound approximately 8 to 10 feet high
has formed below the filled area. The slope on
the west side of this mound is steep, showing the
influence of the deep sewer line. The slope is less
abrupt on the southeast part of the fill in the
more recent refuse.
Cross sections of the filled area, showing the
lateral and downward flow through the surficial
alluvium and downward gradients through the
underlying till, appear in figure 11. Minor sand
and silt beds within the till section are not
shown, because they cannot be correlated from
boring to boring.
The location of the sewer on the west side of
the filled area is shown on cross section B-B'.
This sewer distorts the flow system and serves as
a collector for part of the water moving from
the west side of the landfill.
A series of piezometers (MM 15-23 inclusive)
were installed west of the southwest corner of
the Winnetka landfill to determine whether
fracturing could be detected in the tills. Each of
these installations was completed and sealed in
the same manner, and slug tests were run on
each. The permeability values obtained should
be high for any of these piezometers open to
fractures. No firm evidence of fracturing was
obtained in these wells, nor in any of. the other
sealed piezometers which were installed in the
tills during this project.
QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION. In-
filtration into the Winnetka landfill was cal-
culated to be 28,300 gpd. Of the 35.20 inches of
rain that fell from October 1, 1968, to Sep-
tember 30, 1969, approximately 15.6 inches in-
filtrated.
Discharge from the landfill was calculated to
be 31,800 gpd, 30,000 gpd of this moving later-
ally through the alluvium and 1,800 gpd moving
downward through the till beneath the landfill.
As discussed previously, the higher figure ob-
tained for discharge reflects inaccuracies in our
data.
20
-------
Silly clay tills
Sandy and stony at depth
Silurian dolomite
Vertical exaggeration 50 X
A1
Miles
0.5
Horizontal scale
Figure 8. Map of the general area of the Winnetka landfill (top), and east-west cross section A-A' (bottom) showing
the topography and general geologic sequence.
21
-------
L
Willow Road
isJ
Scale in feet
Figure 9. History of filling at the Winnetka landfill from the beginning, in 1947, to the present. With the exceptions
of the southwest corner, which was used for materials such as bricks and concrete, and of the western third, which
containes some ash, the area was used for the disposal of household refuse, grass, leaves, and commercial packaging.
Filling was done in 5-to-6 foot deep trenches, the refuse being piled 6 to 8 feet above the original land surface in two
lifts.
-------
to
U)
Piezometer location
l_
W
100 200 300 400
I I I I
Scale in feet
620 Contour on top of zone of saturation
(Sept. 3, 1969 M.S.L)
X Piezometer destroyed
Figure 10. Plan view of the Winnetka landfill and surrounding area, showing locations of borings and the contours of
the top of the zone of saturation. A ground water mound about 8 to 10 feet high has formed beneath the landfill, and
ground water movement is away from the landfill in all directions.
-------
/
620
oOO
580
5fin
540
520
500
\
Sttokie River
MM 13, 14 Soil LWZ
^J^ ^~ ^
r i ~ ^
j
•
(-
i
Lf
c^ — "' ~ \ *""
- '. \ I
2"
Silly cloy hll
So~d er a^d slonier Gt deptn
-
1
Dclo^n'e bedrock
{•
Vt Cover LW
^ y
75«> Refuse .' ~~vl
240
ne?
6OO 1- - ^
1
i
60
3!
Verhcol exoqgerolion 5X
p 100 200
to
625
600
575
550-
V
44
24 LW8A
LW6A f 47 LW8B 28 2g 30 32 LW5A
LW6B - Alluvium 26 27 LW8C ^Q <-WOB
l
l
1
jrtical Exa(
i F ,
-= H '
Till
50 |
58 1 ,-'J
610 '("
600
====^=ITII^P^^P^L_ ^2'3 __Landfill___ i1"
i
geration 2 X Aug. 7. 1969
XL i i T'"
if | ------ 610 -J ^
~-- --600
37
-=- Water Table
---600 Line of Equal Head
Piezometer with Chloride Concentration
Feet
Figure 11. Cross sections A-A' (top) and B-B' (bottom) of the filled area of the Winnetka landfill, showing the
lateral and downward flows of ground water through the surficial alluvium and downward gradients through the
underlying till. Minor sand and silt beds within the till section are not shown, because they cannot be correlated from
boring to boring. The location of the sewer on the west side of the filled area is shown on cross section B-B ' This sewer
distorts the flow system and collects part of the water moving from the west side of the landfill.
-------
The velocity of the water moving laterally
through the alluvium was calculated to be ap-
proximately 85 feet per year at the edge of the
landfill where gradients are steepest.
WATER QUALITY. Figure 12 shows the
chloride concentrations in water from the sur-
ficial alluvium in the vicinity of the Winnetka
landfill. As at the old DuPage County landfill
these data show a general decrease in chloride
concentration with distance from the landfill. A
reasonable value for the velocity of chloride
migration through the surficial alluvium along
the north, east, and west sides of the landfill is
85 feet per year, and at this velocity time has
been adequate for dissolved solids from the land-
fill to reach MM 25, 36, and 12. The velocity
along the southern edge of the landfill, where
the ground water gradient is lower, is approxi-
mately 50 feet per year, a rate adequate for
chlorides to have reached MM 6, but apparently
not MM 43. It is believed that the relatively high
chloride values in MM 37 and LW 7 are from
polluted water migrating south from a ditch
along the south side of the landfill. This ditch
contained polluted storm water pumped out of
the landfill trenches during filling operations.
Data gathered west of the landfill in the
vicinity of LW 8 indicate that the sewer is acting
as an interceptor for the shallow ground water.
Wells west of MM 9 contain little chloride. The
permeability of the alluvium is lower in this area
(appendix F), and this indicates finer textured
sediments and consequently a greater atten-
tuation of the chlorides moving through them.
Table 17 lists the wells that best illustrate the
movement or lack of movement of chlorides
from the landfill into the till beneath the
Winnetka landfill. Large concentrations of
chlorides are present in LW 9A, LW 10A, and
LW 12.
We have no reason to suspect that leachate is
leaking down the annulus of Winnetka LW 10A,
and we must therefore assume that a reliable
sample was obtained and that chlorides have
migrated to this depth through 18.8 feet of
alluvium and transition zone and 14.5 feet of
till. The rate of movement of chlorides through
the till appears to be greater here than at the old
DuPage County landfill and could be approxi-
mately 1 foot per year or more. A more exact
25
estimate is not possible without knowledge of
the rate of travel through the transition zone
and alluvium, which might contain localized
channels of high permeability.
The presence of large concentrations of
chlorides in LW 9A is more difficult to explain.
The following possibilities exist:
(1) This hole was drilled with air. During the
drilling the annulus was plugged and air pressure
built up enough to fracture the ground and force
air (or methane) to the ground surface up to 20
feet away from this boring. These fractures
could allow downward migration of leachate
into this sampling point.
(2) The seal leaks or the pipe is broken.
LW 12 is 0.9 foot below the top of the till
and is separated from the refuse by a total of
about 9 feet of alluvium and "transition zone,"
a unit containing fine sand stringer. Since the
landfill is 16 years old at this point it is not
surprising that chlorides have migrated this far.
A few wells were sampled on December 4,
1967, and again on February 25, 1969. In some
of these the quality of water changed appreci-
ably. LW 8A and 9A showed an increase in
chlorides, sulfate, calcium, magnesium, and
hardness, and LW 8B showed an increase in
chlorides. These wells should be resampled be-
fore we attribute these increases to the migra-
tion of leachate.
Explanation of the water quality data at this
site requires more speculation than we would
like. It is hoped that subsequent studies will con-
firm the conslusions we have drawn.
ELGIN LANDFILL
GENERAL DESCRIPTION. The Elgin land-
fill is located in Kane County, in SWA sec. 35T.
42 N., R8E., off the Frontage Road north of the
Northwest Tollway, on the west side of the Fox
River
The elevation at the fill is approximately 750
feet above sea level, and the ground surface
slopes to the south and east towards the Fox
River. Figure 13 is a map of the general area of
the landfill with an east-west cross section show-
ing the sequence of materials and topography.
The site was originally a gravel pit. A berm of
tailings from this operation forms the eastern
side of the landfill, and other trenches and
berms are present in the northeastern part of the
-------
l_
Willow Road
to
ON
100 200 300 400
1 ' ' i
Scale in feet
Sampling point
Sampling point destroyed
300 ppm chloride
i Sample taken and analyzed 8/69
H Hach kit analysis
Figure 12. Selected chloride concentrations in the alluvium at the Winnetka landfill. Quantitative analyses of this
tracer material indicate the migration of leachate; that is, there is a general decrease in chloride concentrations with
increasing distance from the landfill.
-------
860
820 -
Maquoketa shale and dolomite
700
66O
Silurian dolomite
Vertical eiaggerotian SOX
Miles
0.5
Horizontal scale
Figure 13. Map (top) of the general area of the Elgin landfill, and an east-west cross section A-A' (bottom) showing
the topography and the sequence of materials.
27
-------
site.
Filling was begun in 1948, and the site was
operated as an open burning dump, primarily in
the western half of the area. Recent excavation
in this part of the fill exposed approximately 3
feet of ash covering the original soil. In May
1964, the site was converted to a sanitary land-
fill, and 10- to 15-foot trenches were excavated
and filled along the eastern side and the north-
ern part of the site. More recently sections of
the southwest and northern part of the site have
been excavated and refilled with new refuse, the
excavated ash being used for cover. In 1968 and
1969 a new lift was placed over the central and
north-central parts of the landfill.
Forty percent of the fill material is reported
to be household and garden refuse, and 60
percent industrial waste. Some acid waste has
also been buried, and several lime sludge pits are
present in various parts of the landfill.
The surface of the landfill is smoothly graded.
Refuse is covered daily with loam and clay loam,
and grass is planted on the older, completed
parts.
Figure 14 shows the age of the refuse in
various parts of the site. This map is of question-
able accuracy because records were not kept in
the early stages of filling, and since then, parts
of the older fill have been excavated and refilled.
The sequence of geologic materials from the
surface down is as follows:
Cover material on landfill—2 feet loam and
clay loam with some sand, gravelly in part.
Topsoil adjacent to landfill—clayey silt to
sandy silt 2 to 3 feet thick.
Sand and gravel-generally coarser textured
between the landfill and the river; 8 feet thick
west of the fill, 3 to 9 feet thick beneath the
fill (most removed in gravel operation), as
much as .20 feet thick east of the fill, and
approximately 10 feet thick near the river.
Tills-several sandy silt tills 5 to 39 feet thick
(generally 15 feet) underlying the sand and
gravel; peat or soil zone at depth of 16 feet in
the tills adjacent to the Fox River.
Basal sand and gravel-thin (2 to 5 feet) sand
and gravel overlies bedrock beneath the fill;
thickness 2 to 5 feet at the river to 17 feet
west of the fill.
Bedrock-fractured dolomites of Silurian age
beneath the site; dolomite and shale of the
Maquoketa Group 5 feet at the river to 17
feet west of the fill.
Bedrock-fractured dolomites of Silurian age
beneath the site; dolomite and shale of the
Maquoketa Group present immediately west
of the site.
HYDROGEOLOGIC ENVIRONMENT. Figure
15 is a plan view of the Elgin landfill and sur-
rounding area, showing the location of borings
and contours of the top of the zone of satura-
tion. There is no evidence of a ground water
mound at this site, and the water table slopes
relatively smoothly to the east and southeast
towards the Fox River.
Figure 16 shows east-west sections through
the fill area. Section A-A', the northern section,
shows predominantly lateral movement with a
downward component, except for the area near
the Fox River, where movement is upward.
Section B-B', the southern section, shows up-
ward movement dominant in the deeper till unit
and lateral movement in the shallow sands. It
also shows that the lower part of the refuse at
LW 7 is saturated.
The Elgin site is located in the discharge area
bordering the Fox River, and since the Fox
River is one of the major drainages in north-
eastern Illinois, this is probably a major dis-
charge area.
QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION. Infil-
tration into the Elgin landfill was calculated to
be 66,000 gpd. Of the 26.62 inches of rain that
fell from October 1, 1968, to September 30,
1969, approximately 15 inches infiltrated.
The hydrogeology at this site is more com-
plicated than that at the old DuPage County and
Winnetka sites, and the data did not warrant
estimating the output from the filled area.
On the assumption that 66,000 gpd of ground
water from this landfill enters the Fox River it
would be diluted approximately 120 times at
low flow and 7,400 times at average flow. Since
low flow is likely to be accompanied by low
ground water levels and therefore by low output
from the fill, the higher figure for dilution is
probably more representative. This appraisal
does not consider that the ground water leaving
28
-------
S.W. Corner Sec. 35, T. 42 N., R. 8 E., Kane County
Figure 14. History of filling at the Elgin landfill. This landfill was begun in 1948 and completed in 1970. This map is
of questionable accuracy because records were not kept in the early stages of filling, and since then, parts of the older
fill have been excavated and refilled.
29
-------
Cultivated
land
LW3 New Open Pit
Frontage Road
Northwest Tollway
Piezometer or well locations
Lines of cross sections
Contour on top of zone of saturation
(March 4, 1969 M.S.L.)
Piezometer or well destroyed
Figure 15. Plan view of the Elgin landfill and surrounding area, showing locations of borings and the contours of the
top of the zone of saturation. There is no evidence of a ground water mound at this site. The water table slopes
relatively smoothly to the east and southeast toward the Fox River.
30
-------
A
LW3
720 -
700 -
680 -
Spoil bank
Vertical exaggeration 5.9X
B
720
700
680
LW7
B'
Fox
River
Sandy silt ti
Dolomite bedrock
-X_ Water table
-710— Line of equal head (Jan. 18, 1968)
* Approximate direction of ground-
water flow
^ Piezometer with chloride
198 concentration
Feet
118
236
Vertical exaggeration 5.9X
Horizontal scale
Figure 16. East-west cross sections A-A' (top) and B-B' (bottom) of the filled area of the Elgin landfill. Section
A-A', the northern section, shows predominantly lateral ground water movement with a downward component, except
for the area near the Fox River, where movement is upward. Section B-B', the southern section, shows upward
movement dominant in the deeper till unit and lateral movement in the shallow sands. It also shows that the lower part
of the refuse at LW 7 is saturated.
-------
I LW9m
B 1383 138 610 1090 22' ,S
EXPLANATION OF MAP NUMBERS
Figure 17. Water quality data for the Elgin landfill. Dissolved solids from the landfill are not present in the deep
aquifers, because ground water movement is mainly upward or lateral under the site.
32
-------
the landfill has been diluted by ground water
moving into the landfill from the west.
WATER QUALITY. Figure 17 shows water
quality near the Elgin landfill. The correlation
between distance from the landfill and the water
quality is not as good as that at the other sites.
This is probably because variations in the per-
meability of the shallow sands and gravels allow
differential lateral movement.
Dissolved solids have not and cannot move
downward through the tills, because ground
water movement is mainly upward or lateral
under the site. The anomalous quality in LW 4C,
LW 5B, and LW 6B can be accounted for by
leakage between piezometers in the same bore-
hole. Unpolluted water is moving upward from
LW 4B to LW 4C, and LW 5A and LW 5B are so
closely spaced and poorly sealed that samples
are not representative.
On the assumption that the water in LW 1C,
with a total dissolved solid content of 2,000
ppm, is representative of that entering the Fox
River from the landfill, it would raise the dis-
solved solids level in the river by approximately
0.30 (2,0004-7,400) ppm, half of which is hard-
ness.
The data shown in figure 17 were gathered on
November 28, 1967 Analyses of samples taken
on February 25, 1969, show no significant
changes other than an increase in dissolved solids
in water from well Number 1. The significance
of this increase is not known.
WOODSTOCK LANDFILL
GENERAL DESCRIPTION. The Wood-
stock landfill is in McHenry County in NEJA sec.
17, T. 44N., R. 7E., south of Davis Road. The
elevation of the landfill is between 920 and 940
feet above sea level. It is in morainic topo-
graphy, possibly on a stagnant-ice moraine, and
lies on the top and south flank of an east-west-
trending linear upland and in the swampy low-
land to the south of this upland. Figure 18 is a
plan view and cross section of the region.
The site was first operated as an open burning
dump, beginning in June 1940. It was converted
to sanitary landfill in 1965, and operations are
continuing. Early filling was in the swampy
southern part of the area. The eastern and south-
eastern parts of the area are currently being
filled. The material in the fill is reported to be
about 40 percent household and garden refuse
and 60 percent industrial refuse. Lime soda
sludge is disposed of in the southern and south-
eastern parts of the fill area. Records of filling
(figure 19) are not as reliable here as at the old
DuPage County and Winnetka landfills.
Daily cover material is at least 6 inches thick
with a final cover of 2 to 3 feet. Cover over most
of the fill is loam, silt loam, silty clay loam, and
sandy loam. The present landfill surface at the
base of the upland is gently undulating, with
patches of weeds and grass. The upland part of
the landfill has a more irregular surface.
The sequence of geologic materials, from the
surface downward is as follows:
Cover on landfill—approximately 2 feet of
loam, silt loam, sandy loam, and silty clay
loam, gravelly in part.
Topsoil adjacent to landfill—1 to 2 feet of
loam and sand at northern end; 1 to 4 feet of
silty clay over the reaminder of the site.
Swamp—peat and nonorganic silts (5 to 19
feet thick) in marshy areas around and below
most of southern two-thirds of the site; thick-
est in the field between the landfill and the
Kishwaukee drainage west of the site.
Sand and gravel-5 to 19 feet of sand and
gravel generally becoming finer textured at
base; sand and gravel and sandy silt till de-
posits present on the higher land at northern
end of site; exposures indicate probable ice
contact origin.
Upper till-3 to 25 feet (generally 20 feet) of
silty clay till, thinner below the landfill.
Lower tills-several silty, sandy tills present to
a depth of at least 225 feet at LW 1.
Interbedded sands and gravels-sand and
gravel deposits commonly 5 feet or more
thick, interbedded with silty sandy tills. A
few of these deposits can be correlated be-
tween borings, but most cannot and are
probably of limited areal extent.
Soil-3 to 5 feet soil zone encountered in two
borings at a depth of 165 to 167 feet.
33
-------
U)
780
740
700
660
Sandy silt till
Moquoketa shale and dolomite
Vertical exaggeration SOX
Silurian dolomite^
(Alexandrian Series)
Miles
Q5
Horizontal scale
Figure 18. Map (left) shows the general area surrounding the Woodstock landfill. Cross section (right) shows the
topography and general geologic sequence of the area between A and A on the map.
-------
Trench direction
Center Sec. 17, T. 44 N., R. 7 E., McHenry County
Scale in feet
Figure 19. History of filling at the Woodstock landfill. The site was first operated as an open burning dump, from
1940 to 1965. In 1965 it was converted to sanitary landfill, and operations are continuing.
35
-------
Bedrock—not encountered, but from nearby
well information, it is probably at a depth of
more than 225 feet and consists of shales and
dolomites of the Maquoketa Group.
HYDROGEOLOGIC ENVIRONMENT. Fig-
ure 20 is a plan view of the landfill and sur-
rounding area, showing the location of the bor-
ings and contours of the top of the zone of
saturation. Gradients are away from the upland
in the northern part of the landfill in all direc-
tions. In the older part of the filled area, the
gradient is southward to swampy areas bordering
the landfill or to the drainage ditch west and
southwest of the landfill. Some influence of the
landfill is shown by a steepening of gradients on
the southern edge; this indicates that a small
ground water mound lies below the landfill.
Figure 21 shows vertical sections across the
filled area. A strong component of lateral flow
in the shallow materials above the silty clay till
is evident, as is a vertical gradient in the silty
clay till.
A number of interbedded sands and gravels
have not been shown on the Woodstock cross
sections. These deposits are generally more per-
meable and thicker at Woodstock than at
Winnetka and would tend to magnify any
horizontal component of flow.
The drainage ditch west of the landfill area
acts in much the same manner as the deep sewer
at Winnetka, distorting the flow system and
"collecting" the ground water moving from the
western side of the landfill.
QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION. Infiltra-
tion into the Woodstock landfill was calculated
to be 22,500 gpd. Of the 24.07 inches of rain
that fell from October 1, 1968, to September
30, 1969, approximately 12 inches infiltrated.
No quantitative evaluation of flow from the
Woodstock site was made, because of the com-
plex geology and lack of data on the hydrologic
properties of the materials.
The flow in the drainage ditch was estimated
to 1 x 106 gpd, which allows dilution by about
45 times. This calculation does not include the
water moving downward below the landfill area
or dilution of the ground water leaving the land-
fill between the landfill and the ditch; it there-
fore minimizes the figure for dilution.
WATER QUALITY. Water quality data
plotted in figure 22 show the expected inverse
relationship between total dissolved solids and
distance from the fill, with the exception of data
from LW 2E, which is shallow, very close to the
fill, and apparently unaffected. MM 6 does not
show large dissolved solid content; however, the
landfill upgradient from this point is relatively
new and there may not have been adequate time
for the leachate to move this distance.
There is no evidence of downward movement
through the silty clay till at LW 3 or LW 5.
Whether this is because the till has acted as a
barrier to the migration of dissolved solids or
whether inadequate time has elapsed is not
known.
Analyses of water in the drainage ditch on
January 18, 1968, and February 24, 1969
(table 6) show larger contents of chlorides
opposite MM 9 than opposite MM 10. This could
well be a result of ground water's containing dis-
solved solids from the landfill moving into the
ditch, but in view of the larger concentrations of
chlorides both upstream and downstream in this
same ditch, the evidence is inconclusive.
Table 18 lists the wells that best show down-
ward movement of contaminants. It is not
known why LW IB is not contaminated and
LW 6A is. LW 3D is separated from the landfill
by 20.5 feet of till, and data from other sites
would not lead us to expect leachate in this well.
The data shown in figure 22 were gathered on
November 21, 1967. Analyses of samples taken
on February 25, 1969, showed the following
changes:
(1) In MM 7, large increases in alkalinity,
chloride, and sodium (by difference).
(2) In LW ID large increases in alkalinity,
calcium, and sodium (by difference) and
decreases in magnesium.
These variations could reflect seasonal changes
or long-term trends.
36
-------
r^tf
*-
LW1 _ ,,,,.•
• Piezometer or well location
A-A' Lines of cross sections
-920- Contour on top of zone of saturation
(March 5, 1969 M.S. L)
X Piezometer or well destroyed
0 50 100 200 300 400 500
^^^^=
Scale in feet
Figure 20. Plan view of the Woodstock landfill and surrounding area, showing locations of borings and the contours
of the top of the zone of saturation. Gradients are away from the upland of the northern part of the landfill in all
directions. In the older part of the filled area, the gradient is southward to swampy areas bordering the landfill or to the
drainage ditch west and southwest of the landfill. Some influence of the landfill is shown by a steepening of gradients
on the southern edge. This steepening suggests that a small ground water mound lies beneath the landfill.
37
-------
B'
LW2
Sandy sill til
Woler table
-910 Line of equal head (Jan 16,1968)
^ Approximate direction of ground-
water flow
J Piezometer with chloride
60 concentration
100 zoo
Figure 21 Cross section A-A' (top) and B-B' (bottom) of the Woodstock landfill with selected chlor.de concentrations.
A vertical gradient in the silty clay till and a strong lateral flow of ground water in the shallow matenaIs above the till are
evident Ground water discharges into the drainage ditch near MM 7 and MM 8, cross section A-A .
38
-------
\
Ritter
70O' from corner of fill
268 7 13 220 94'
D 583 15 136 540 29'
C 348 10 37 295 73'
B 353 7 II 270 106'
A 343 15 7 250 I2l'
F 1314 243 22 650 8
E 1583 155 15 1010 22
419 4 18 400 65'
C 354 5 25 290 105'
B 404 10 6 310 165'
A 404 6 I 330 195'
Ditch south of Davis Rd.
618 100 152 440
Ditch
478 12 188 465
C 775 72 36O 530
B 427 21 62 310 21
A 404 7 3 280 47
D 6647 2370 345 1000 14
C 617 80 31? 366 25'
B 449 16 87 360 34'
3823 728 2000 1550
1492 278 500 900 18
695 65 220 570
EXPLANATION OF MAP NUMBERS
E 371 8 64 360 5
D 377 13 64 272 9'
C 313 4 40 260 57'
B 337 7 12 260 79'
A 346 10 13 270 148'
Swamp
1646 375 123 830'
Ditch west side of Rt. 47
858 80 398 700'
Sampling
point
LW ffA
TDS
(ppm)
261
Cl
(ppm)
40
S04
(ppm)
Hardness
(ppm)
108
100
200 300
Scale in feet
Figure 22. Water quality data for the Woodstock landfill that were gathered on November 21, 1967. The data show
the expected inverse relationship between total dissolved solids and distance from the till, with the exception of data
for LW 2E, which is shallow, very close to the fill, and apparently unaffected. For unknown reasons there is no
evidence of downward movement of ground water through the silty clay till at LW 3 or LW 5.
39
-------
BLACKWELL FOREST PRESERVE LANDFILL
Studies of the Blackwell Forest Preserve land-
fill (fig. 2), located about 5 miles southeast of
the old DuPage County landfill, are based on
data collected at a single well. This landfill was
begun in October 1965 and is to be made into a
winter sports hill that will eventually be approxi-
mately 150 feet high and cover an area of 30
acres. At the time the sample was collected, the
refuse had been in place for approximately 39
months.
The base of the landfill is lined with 10 feet
of silty clay till, and 15-foot berms are being
constructed along the sides that will completely
enclose the refuse. The sampling well is con-
structed of 5- and 6-inch slotted casing and
when sampled penetrated approximately 38 feet
of refuse to bottom about 3 feet above the basal
liner.
At the time of sampling there was about 5
feet of water in this well. This water rises or falls
in response to rainfall and is probably at least
partly derived from infiltration. Inasmuch as the
well was constructed as part of the investigation
of water quality, the results are discussed in that
section of this report.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
OF SPECIFIC YIELD
AND INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
It was necessary to obtain a value for the
specific yield of refuse before the amount of
infiltration into the landfills could be calculated.
This is discussed in detail in appendix E. Infil-
tration and specific yield data from the four
major sites are presented in table 19. The wells
involved had continuous or weekly hydrographs
over the period from October 1, 1968, to Sep-
tember 30, 1969, and the data apply to this
period. Because of the short time involved, con-
clusions based on these data are preliminary.
The cumulative hydrograph rise is the sum of
all of the water level rises in a particular well
that have resulted from recharge. The specific
yield values calculated from the hydrographs
apply to the materials through which the water
level rose.
The total recharge was calculated by multi-
plying the cumulative rise in hydrograph by the
specific yield. There is considerable variation in
the total recharge values. These variations reflect
differences in the surface drainage near the par-
ticular well, and moisture conditions in the
refuse above the top of the zone of saturation.
According to Remson and coworkers (1968,
p. 312) in Pennsylvania, it should require ap-
proximately 3 inches of rain to raise the initial
moisture content of 1 foot of refuse to field
capacity. With the assumption that the recharge
figures in table 19 are correct, about 12 to 16
inches of rain infiltrates the landfills in north-
eastern Illinois each year, and from Remson's
data this is sufficient to bring 4 to 5 feet of
refuse to field capacity each year. The hydro-
graphs show that recharge has occurred at
Winnetka LW 17, Woodstock LW 8, and at the
Blackwell well, and, since the refuse at these
locations should not as yet have been brought to
field capacity, this is evidence of precipitation
channelling through the refuse.
The year the refuse was emplaced is probably
correct to within 6 months for the old DuPage
County and Winnetka sites. Errors in landfill age
of as much as 5 years are, however, possible in
parts of the Elgin and Woodstock landfills.
The barometric efficiency "can be interpreted
as a measure of the competence of the overlying
confining beds to resist pressure changes"
(Todd, 1959, p. 161). There does not appear to
be any relationship between the grain size
analysis of the cover materials (table 4) and the
barometric efficiency.
The last two columns of table 19 bring out
the following: (l)The hydrographs of wells
DuPage LW 13, Woodstock LW 8 in young
(1963 or younger) unburned refuse are less
sensitive and show lower recharge. Full field
capacity may not have been reached in the
refuse associated with these borings. (2) The
specific yield of wells in ash and burned refuse is
40
-------
variable. This may reflect erratic deposition in
open burning dumps.
Figure 23 is a plot of specific yield versus
refuse age. The close relation of wells completed
in refuse is not surprising if we consider that the
refuse at the old DuPage County and Winnetka
landfills is buried in very similar environments.
The specific yield of materials other than refuse
(Elgin LW7B, Elgin LW 4D, Woodstock LW 7)
is not related as closely to age.
Specific yield is a measure of the part of the
porosity that is subject to gravity drainage. It
does not include specific retention, which is the
part of the porosity containing water that will
not drain by gravity. Specific retention is equiva-
lent to field capacity, which according to
Remson (1968, p. 309), is about 29 percent for
refuse in Pennsylvania. Our work (appendix E)
indicates that the field capacity is approximately
35 percent.
We interpret the curve in figure 23 in the fol-
lowing manner. The steeper, poorly defined part
of the curve represents decomposition of the
younger refuse containing easily degraged
organics. The well-defined flat part of the curve
for refuse more than 5 to 9 years old represents
the more nearly uniform decomposition of the
less easily reduced components of the refuse.
The older refuse appears to lose about 1.2 to 1.3
percent of its specific yield each year.
This curve and the foregoing explanation are
presented with some reservations, because the
data on which they are based need sub-
stantiation by further investigation.
water moving out of the fill, must increase, or
both must change. We consider that the increase
in A, the area through which the water moves,
caused by the ground water mound is neglibible.
The most likely explanation for the decrease
in P (permeability) would be that it is caused by
scarification, reworking, and compaction of the
materials around the sides and bottom of the
landfill during its construction.
The necessary increase in Q may be caused by
the following: (1) the fill cover's being more per-
meable than the surface materials adjacent to
the fill, allowing increased infiltration and there-
fore discharge or (2) less evapotranspiration's
occurring over the landfill because the top of the
zone of saturation is deeper there than in the
adjacent areas.
We believe that at the sites we studied the
decrease in permeability around the fill margins
is the major cause of the ground water mound.
At the Elgin site no mound is apparent, despite
the fact that infiltration is similar to that at the
other sites. We believe that this is because the
permeability of the materials around the site was
initially very high and was not appreciably low-
ered during construction at the landfill. It would
appear, therefore, that infiltration would have to
be exceptionally large or small to affect the
formation of a mound.
The presence of a ground water mound is con-
clusive evidence that (1) there is infiltration
through the landfill surface and leachate is being
produced and (2) there is a vertical component
of ground water flow.
GROUND WATER MOUNDING
Ground water mounds formed beneath the
old DuPage County, Winnetka, and Woodstock
landfills. We believe that these mounds develop
for the following reasons: Consider only water
moving out of the landfill area. The quantity, Q,
of water moving is, according to Darcy's law:
Q = PI A (appendix H). If a mound has formed,
I, the gradient has increased, and according to
Darcy's law if I increases, either P, the per-
meability of the materials the water moves
through, must decrease, or Q, the amount of
SUMMARY
HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
Hydrogeologic studies of four sites showed
that approximately one-half of the annual pre-
cipitation had infiltrated landfills in this area to
produce refuse leachate. This water moved away
from the disposal site through glacial till
materials with very low permeability at a velo-
city of 1 foot per year or less. The study also
demonstrated that ground water levels below
disposal sites could rise to form a ground water
mound and that, at the intersection of this
41
-------
to
-o
03 CD
O 00
— h •
Er ^
ST 2.
•o S
5 6-
o ^
3-0-
03 <0
r-f J?
'
(O 03
SI
-. 3-
^ n>
li
Q.
a
Q)
3
Q.
g
^h
o'
Q.
O
—h
-*
0>
—h
c
tft
It
oT
3
n>
I
S
- O^
o
o
CD
Q.
CO
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
°=_ 34
o^
30
28
26
24
22
20
WINN
LW8
(DUP
*LW13
(WINN
'MMH
(WOOD
'lW6B
(WOOD
'lW7
ELG
LW7B
Value for uncompacted "new" refuse 627o
Value for semicompacted "new" refuse 467o
Appendix E
DUP
MM29
ELGV
LW10
(DUP
'MM32
DUPV
LW7
(WINN
J.W13
(ELG
'l_W4D
WINN
.LW5B
' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Age of Refuse
(Years)
-------
mound and the ground surface, springs and seeps
of leachate would form.
Measurements of the specific yield of refuse
showed an inverse relationship between specific
yield and age of refuse. This appears to reflect
"compaction" of the refuse with time (approxi-
mately 1.2 to 1.3 percent per year in the older
refuse), which we attribute to decomposition of,
first, the easily degradable organics, and later, of
the more stable components of the refuse.
GEOCHEMICAL STUDIES OF LEACHATE,
GASES, AND EARTH MATERIALS
COMPOSITION OF LEACHATE
FROM THE REFUSE
One of the conclusions we have reached in
this investigation is that leachate analyses are
extremely variable and that interpretations
based on a single analysis may be seriously mis-
leading. Time and funds were not available for
running duplicate analyses of all the minor
elements, and this should be kept in mind when
specific water quality data presented in this re-
port are used. Major conclusions are, however,
based on confirmed results.
Table 20 compares refuse leachate with in-
dustrial wastes and sewage and with the drinking
water standards published by the Public; Health
Service of the U.S. Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare in 1962. Raw refuse leachate
sometimes contains larger than acceptable con-
centrations of barium, chromium, selenium, and
possibly arsenic. It compares in dissolved in-
organics with chemical plant wastes and in
organic content with food-processing plant ef-
fluent.
Although the quality of refuse leachate is
objectionable, it is fortunate that the amount
produced is relatively small.
Table 9 presents the detailed chemical anal-
yses of the leachate at the various sites. Most of
the analyses on this table were run by Tenco
Hydro/Aerosciences, Inc.; however, some data
by the State Geological Survey and the Depart-
ment of Public Health are also included. With
the exception of the analyses for bromine, these
additional analyses were run to confirm earlier
results.
Samples obtained for trace element analyses
by Tenco Hydro/Aerosciences, Inc., were
digested in acid and may, therefore include
elements from the "soil" as well as the refuse
leachate. Calcium and magnesium were run as
described and on the liquid portion of the
sample only. Since there was little difference in
the results obtained by the two procedures, we
would not expect a large effect on the trace
elements. A discussion of the analytical methods
and problems encountered in these analyses is
included in appendix C.
The wells shown on Table 9 and listed here
were chosen to illustrate changes in the com-
position of ground water qriginating in the land-
fills caused by changes in the following factors:
(l)The distance moved from the landfill
through the surficial sand
DUPMM48,59,44
(2) The distance moved from the landfill
through glacial till
DUPLW6A, 14, 15, 16, 6B
DUPLW 12A, 11 A, 5B
WINLW 12, 13
(3) The age of landfill
DUP LW 6B, MM 61, MM 63, LW 5B
WINLW5B, LW13,LW17
(4) The need to describe leachate from fills
other than DuPage County and Winnetka
ELG LW 6B, WOOD LW 1C, Black-
well
43
-------
VARIATIONS IN COMPOSITION
OF LEACHATE WITH MIGRATION
THROUGH SAND
Figures 7 and 12 show chloride values from
shallow wells around the old DuPage County
and Winnetka landfills, respectively. These
values are high in the landfill and decrease with
increasing distance from the landfill.
It was anticipated that the dissolved solids
moving with the ground water away from these
landfills would form a pattern of concentration
at the landfill and a regular decrease in con-
centration with distance from the landfill. The
erratic values for chlorides obtained from the
groups of closely spaced sampling points
(MM 46, 47, 57, 58, 59, and 60; MM 42 and 45;
MM 48 and 39; and MM 36, and 37) south of
the DuPage County landfill and at MM 50, 51,
52, 53, and 54 at Winnetka, show that a regular
pattern does not exist, although there is a
general decrease in concentration away from the
landfill. Some of the variations at the old
DuPage County site are probably caused by field
tiles and construction operations. Other vari-
ations at this fill and at the Winnetka fill are
caused by factors that will be discussed later.
Bromine and chlorine show a substantial de-
crease in concentration with distance from both
of these landfills. If this decrease were caused by
precipitation's infiltrating and diluting the
leachate, it would be more pronounced in the
shallower of paired wells. This is not the case in
paired wells DUP MM 46 and 47; 48 and 39;
WINN MM 25 and 45; 24, 44, 26, 46. This in-
dicates that dilution is probably not a significant
factor in attenuation of these components. We
conclude, therefore, that chlorine and bromine
are retained on earth materials and that the con-
centration of these components is reduced by
travel through earth materials.
Similar results were obtained in Great Britain
(Ministry of Housing and Local Government
1961, p. 131). In this study chlorides from re-
fuse leachate were retained in filter beds and
subsequently removed by washing. The effects
of this are to reduce the concentration of the
elements in the ground water but to extend the
"polluting" life of the landfill.
Other components of the leachate are also
attenuated with migration away from the land-
fill. As shown in table 9, in travelling from
MM 44 to MM 48 approximately 600 feet south
of the old DuPage County landfill, BOD, COD,
potassium, and iron values were reduced by
approximately two orders of magnitude or
more, and hardness, sodium, calcium, and
bromine by approximately one order of magni-
tude. Other components were also reduced to
varying degrees. Sulfate, phosphate, and nitrate
are the only components showing a definite in-
crease in concentration. This is attributed to the
fact that they cannot exist in the reducing en-
vironment caused by the large organic content
of the leachate. As the organics are attenuated,
however, reducing conditions become less in-
tense, and the nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate
radicals can exist.
Results obtained in the British study (Min-
istry of Housing and Local Government, 1961,
p. 120), where in leachate was passed through
gravel filters, are similar to those obtained in this
study. Sulfate content rose with migration, and
the drops in chloride and BOD per foot of travel
were comparable.
Generally the most permeable unit in a geo-
logic sequence will control the quantity and the
velocity of leachate movement. As discussed in
appendix H, ground water velocity and volume
of flow are also influenced by the specific yield
and the gradient; however these factors vary
within relatively small limits compared with
permeability. Figure 24 shows the range in per-
meability of different soil classes.
The shallow deposits at the Elgin landfill have
permeabilities of approximately 100 or more
gpd per square foot, those at the old DuPage
County landfill are approximately 25 gpd per
square foot, while permeabilities in the shallow
deposits at Winnetka are approximately 5 gpd
per square foot. Water quality data at these sites
reflect the general influence of permeability.
Direct comparisons are, however, difficult.
44
-------
Permeability, cm./sec.
102 10 1 10"1 10"2 1C
1 1 1 1 1
Clean gravel
Clean sands
mixtures of clean
sands and gravels
r3 io'4 io~5 io~6 10"7 io-8 10
i i i I i i
Very fine sands; silts
Mixtures of sand, silt and clay;
glacial fill; stratified clays; etc.
Unweathered
clays
ii i i i i i ii i i
106 105 104 103 102 10 1 ID"1 10~2 10'3 10-4
-9
Permeability, gal./day/ft.'
Figure 24. Range in permeability of different soil classes (modified from Todd, 1959, p. 53).
-------
VARIATIONS IN COMPOSITION
OF LEACHATE WITH MIGRATION
THROUGH GLACIAL TILL
The hydrogeology at all of these sites except
at Elgin is such that some of the water from the
landfill migrates almost vertically downward
through the underlying glacial till. Four nests of
piezometers, (tables 16, 17, and 9) were con-
structed at the old DuPage County and
Winnetka landfills to determine the changes in
the dissolved solids in the water as it moved
downward through this very tight material.
Analyses from the series of wells at the old
DuPage County landfill (LW 6A, 14, 15, 16, and
6B, table 9) appear best to illustrate the changes
in dissolved solids with migration through till.
There are a number of obvious exceptions to the
pattern of decreasing concentration with migra-
tion shown in table 9. We believe these are
sampling errors, natural variations in water
quality, or laboratory errors. The landfill at this
point is nearly 18 years old, and the leachate
that initially moved into the till probably had a
composition more like that at the Blackwell
landfill, Winn LW 17 or DUP LW 5B, than that
at DUP LW 6B. There is no appreciable decrease
in the dissolved solids in the leachate as it
migrates downward to the top of the till through
the surficial sands below the landfill at DUP
LW6.
Chlorides are a good indicator of leachate
movement. According to the analyses presented
in table 9, chlorides have not reached DUP
LW 14 after traveling through about 15 feet of
silty clay till permeability approximately 1CT7
centimeters per second. There is evidence, how-
ever, that dissolved solids from the landfill have
affected LW 15, 4.31 feet below the top bf the
till, and little doubt that it has affected LW 16,
2.57 feet below the top of the till. If we assume
that the leachate was initially similar to that of
DUP LW 5B or the Blackwell well, a very short
migration (4.31 feet) through this till has ef-
fected a decrease of more than one order of
magnitude in chlorides and total dissolved solids
and a decrease of about two orders of magnitude
in organics. A similar pattern is presented by
analyses from DUP LW 12A, LW11A, and
LW 12B (table 9) and by the data presented in
tables 16 and 17.
This water is moving downwards under a
hydraulic gradient of approximately 0.5 foot per
foot through material with a texture of approxi-
mately 11 percent sand, 55 percent silt, and 34
percent clay. The till has cation exchange capa-
city of about 4.2 milliequivalents per 100 grams
and is composed of about 2 percent mont-
morillonite, 79 percent illite, and 19 percent
chlorite and kaolinite. All these factors are likely
to influence the movement of dissolved solids in
this water and should be considered if these data
are to be applied elsewhere.
The principal exchangeable cation on the clay
minerals in this till is calcium (table 13), and
since all the exchange positions are probably
filled, it was believed that retention of com-
ponents in the leachate was likely to be low. If
retention did take place, we felt it should result
in an increase in ground water hardness. This
increase has not been detected, possibly because
it has been masked by the hardness in the
leachate and the natural hardness of the water
itself.
Calculations based on these water quality data
indicate that the chloride ion moves downward
through the tills at the old DuPage County site
at a velocity of between 0.25 and 0.4 foot per
year. Tracer studies indicate that the velocity of
the chloride ion in ground water is only slightly
less than that of the ground water itself. These
data can therefore, be applied to studies of
ground water movement through fine-textured
materials, as discussed in appendix H to
estimates of the velocity of leachate movement.
Movement of leachate through the surficial
deposits is also discussed in appendix H.
46
-------
VARIATIONS IN COMPOSITION
OF LEACHATE WITH
AGE OF REFUSE
Chloride and COD values are plotted against
age of refuse in figures 25A and 25B. Even
though concentrations are plotted on a logarith-
mic scale there is a poor correlation between age
of refuse and the amount of chlorides and COD
in the leachate associated with the refuse and an
even poorer correlation with other dissolved
solids (not shown). Most of this scatter could be
attributed to the factors discussed on the follow-
ing pages.
OTHER VARIATIONS IN
COMPOSITION OF LEACHATE
The quality of refuse leachate varies in re-
sponse to factors other than its age and the dis-
tance travelled.
Analyses of the! water quality (values in ppm)
from three closely spaced wells on the north side
of the old DuPage County landfill are as follows:
We believe that each sample reflects com-
position of the refuse that has been reached by
the cone developed while the sample is pumped
and is therefore dependent on the composition
of the refuse in the immediate vicinity of the
sampling point, its permeability, and the amount
of water withdrawn before sampling. If this ex-
planation is correct, concentrations of the
various dissolved solids in samples obtained from
the three wells should converge as pumping con-
tinues. This has not been verified. In view of the
variations apparent in these data it is not sur-
prising that a very poor correlation between age
of refuse and quality of leachate was obtained
(figures 25A and 25B).
Similar, though not so extreme, results are
obtained from conductivity and chloride anal-
yses of samples from wells outside the landfill
(DUP MM 47, 57, 58, 59, and 60, MM 16A and
16B, and WINN MM 50, 51, 52, 53, and 54).
These wells were completed in essentially the
same manner at the same depths.
Figure 26 illustrates how the hydrogeology of
a landfill affects the quality of the ground water
at a particular sampling point. A well drilled to
the top of the silt bed at point A samples
leachate that originated in the landfill in 1967.
Well
LW 5C
LW 12B
LW 13
pH
7.2
6.0
5.5
Cl
2,060
2,270
71
Ca
400
2,420
1,080
Mg
583
972
413
Fe
40
750
590
M alkal
as CaCOs
7,300
11,000
4,500
SO4
108
1,300
430
Total hard-
ness as CaCO3
3,400
10,100
4,400
These wells sample the base of the refuse at
approximately the same depth within a 10-foot
circle in a section of the landfill emplaced in
1963. Samples were obtained on February 20,
1969, in essentially the same manner at each
point, except that different amounts of water
were removed from each well before it was
sampled. Although well LW 12B has consistently
larger concentrations of dissolved solids than
LW 5C and LW 13, these latter two wells are not
consistent with each other, and the variation
among the three wells is large.
If this well had penetrated below the silt bed it
would sample water that passed through the
refuse in 1965.
We should also consider the following:
(1) Each flowline passes through a different
amount of fill material and surficial sand.
(2) The quality of leachate in fill of the same
age at the same relative poisition in the
system is not constant.
(3) There is evidence (Sawinski, 1966, p. 52)
that significant seasonal changes in quality of
leachate are caused by variations in the
47
-------
10,000
1,000 -
DUP
LW12B.
DUP '
LW5C
WINN
MM40' DUP,
WINN. MM63
MM11
WOOD
LW1D
. ELGIN
LW5B
'WINN
LW17
WINN
'IW1F
LVVlt
DUP
MM62
oo
DUP
DUP .
MM52«
. DUP
100 -
ELGIN
DUP
MM77
DUP
MM61
DUP
LW6C
WINN .
LW13 . DUP
LW7
WINN
MM10
WINN
LW5B
WINN
MM29
WINN .
MM30
WINN .
MM31
MM32
10
J I I L
I I I
_1_
I I I
I I I
01234567
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Age of Refuse (Years)
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
WINN
LW17
. ELGIN
LW5B
. DUP
MM62
DUP
*MM63
DUP
LW5C
, WINN
MM11
, WINN
MM40
. WINN
LW1E
DUP
MM61
WINN
MM29.
WINN. W,NN.
MM10 LW5B
WINN
LW13
DUP
LW6C
I L
I
0123456
7 8 910111213141516171819202122
Age of Refuse (Years)
Figure 25. A (left): Relationship between age of refuse and chloride concentration in the leachate. B (right):
Relationship between age of refuse and the chemical oxygen demand of the leachate. Thechemical quality of the leachate
does not appear to be closely related to the age of the adjacent refuse.
-------
- Fill cover
Glacial till
1 968
/
Soil
_
&ggggg^^
''' ••'••'•'"•'•"•"'•'•'• ......... • J-.n,-. ...... -.. .. ' ' ...............
•C
r-n Silt
CZI Refuse
ESS Surficial Sand
ra Soil
^B Fill cover
— I — Top of zone of saturation
— *• Direction of leachate movement
1968 Age of leachate
A Sampling well
T
Figure 26. Diagram of leachate movement. The hydrogeology of a landfill affects the quality of leachate at a
particular sampling point since a sampling well obtains water from more than one flow path.
-------
amount of infiltrating water.
These factors can easily explain changes in
quality over short vertical distances such as
found in DUP MM 42 and 45, MM 48 and 39,
and MM 46 and 47, as well as the rather erratic
decrease in the amount of the various dissolved
solids with migration away from the landfill.
It was noticed early in this investigation that the
chloride concentration of water in a sampling
point was not the same before and after pump-
ing or bailing. To see how significant these
changes were, chloride and conductivity were
measured on successive days over a 4-day period
in a series of 10 shallow wells south of the old
DuPage County landfill. Each well contained
about 8 feet of water. Five of these wells were
measured, top and bottom, before and after the
water was exchanged. The other five wells were
measured daily, but the water was not ex-
changed. The following results were obtained:
(1) Conductivity can be as much as 20 per-
cent lower near the top of the fluid column
than near the base.
(2) Variations of 10 to 20 percent are com-
mon in conductivity and chloride measure-
ments taken on successive days with and with-
out an intervening period of pumping to
exchange the fluid. These variations reflect
changes in the composition of the ground
water over short periods of time, possibly re-
lated to individual precipitation events.
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF EARTH
MATERIALS AND SOLUBLE SALTS
Water quality data from sampling wells in-
dicate that dissolved solids are moving down-
wards through the glacial tills underlying the old
DuPage County and Winnetka landfills. The
soluble salts in the tills and the tills themselves
were analyzed to see if the dissolved solids could
be detected.
Table 10 shows the results of analyses of
soluble salts in split-spoon samples from the
sand below the landfill and in the till below this
sand at DUP LW 4B as compared with a sample
from DUP LW 3C from below the uncon-
taminated interbedded sand. Table 11 shows the
results of analyses of soluble salts from samples
taken at very close intervals over the upper
boundary of the till at DUP LW 8 and
DUP LW9.
Table 13 presents the results of analyses of
exchangeable cations in samples of the upper
aprt of the tills at the old DuPage County,
Winnetka, and Elgin landfills, and appendix D
describes a fluorometric investigation of the
upper part of the till at the old DuPage County
and Winnetka landfills. These data do not show
the presence of dissolved solids from the land-
fills in these tills.
Table 12 presents the results of analysis of till
samples from the old DuPage County landfill at
depths corresponding to water samples from
LW 14, 15, and 16. According to analysis of the
water samples (table 9), dissolved solids from
the landfill have reached samples 1,2, and 3 but
not samples 4 and 5.
The data in table 12 show a definite increase
in the amount of most of the components in the
till below sample number 3, except CaO, which
decreases. This could reflect downward move-
ment of dissolved solids or a basic difference in
till composition. Further analysis will be neces-
sary for a proper interpretation.
LEACHATE FROM BLACKWELL
FOREST PRESERVE LANDFILL
One sample of leachate was collected from a
well in a disposal site on the Black well Forest
Preserve, located about 5 miles southeast of the
old DuPage County landfill (figure 2).
Analysis of this leachate (table 9) shows it to
be extremely high in dissolved solids and similar
in BOD and COD to the leachate Steiner and
Fungaroli (1968, p. 309) collected from their
lysimeter before it reached field capacity. They
believed that this leachate was derived primarily
from compaction of the refuse with channelling,
and we believe that this is a reasonable ex-
planation for the leachate in the Blackwell
observation well.
Figure 27 shows the hydrograph and pre-
50
-------
October 1969
30.50
g 30.00
£ 29.50
.y
3.0
2.0
1.0 -
7 8 9
I 1
10
Days
11 12
1
13 14
1
15
16
3.05
.05
38.00
39.00
40.00
41.00
42.00
43.00
44.00
Figure 27. Continuous hydrograph from a well in a disposal site on the Blackwell Forest Preserve landfill, and the
precipitation record from October 7 through October 16, 1969. The rapid hydrographic rise may indicate recharge
along fissures in the refuse.
51
-------
cipitation record for the Blackwell well from
October 7, 1969, to October 16, 1969. The
water level rise was in response to the rain on
October 10. For the following reasons it prob-
ably represented channelled water moving
through the refuse: (l)The response was very
large and occurred within a few hours after the
rain commenced. (2) Water levels declined more
rapidly than in other wells after the pre-
cipitation ceased.
It appears that the well acts as a collector for
the water moving along more or less horizontal
channels in the landfill and that therefore the
initial response to the rain was abnormally high.
The rapid decline represents the movement of
water out of the well into adjacent refuse. The
static water level in this well has risen over the
past 11 months; however we do not have enough
records to know the amount of rise.
EFFECTS OF LEACHATE
ON GLACIAL TILL
A brief study was undertaken to determine
the effects of refuse leachate on till. Samples of
till, similar to that at the old DuPage County
landfill, were treated with distilled water and
with leachate from the Blackwell well, DUP
LW 5C, and DUP LW 6C, and the liquid limit,
plastic limit, and plasticity index were deter-
mined. No significant difference was present in
the results of these tests on the four samples.
Four samples of this till were dispersed in dis-
tilled water and in leachate from the Blackwell
well, DUP LW5C and DUP LW 6C. Solution
densities were measured by a hydrometer. These
readings, taken 118 minutes after dispersion,
were 25.0 for distilled water, 27 for leachate
from DUP LW 6, 29 for leachate from DUP
LW 5C, and 16 for leachate from the Blackwell
well. This indicates that the very concentrated
"young" leachate from the Blackwell well is
capable of partially flocculating this type of till,
whereas leachate from older refuse has no effect.
The tills beneath of old DuPage County,
Winnetka, and Elgin landfills were analyzed for
exchangeable cations and cation exchange
capacity (table 13). The cation exchange
capacity is between 4 and 6.2 milliequivalents
per 100 grams, the major exchangeable cation
being calcium. These data do not indicate the
leachate has had any effect on the clays below
these landfills.
TREATMENT OF LEACHATE FROM REFUSE
A sample of leachate from WINN LW 17 was
aerated for six days at ambient temperatures to
determine whether it could be readily treated.
This procedure reduced the 5-day BOD from
1,840 to 440 ppm and produced a clear fluid.
According to Professor B. B. Ewing (personal
communication) of the civil engineering depart-
ment, University of Illinois, the analyses in table
9 indicate that leachate should be biologically
treatable without special procedures. Treatment
of leachate is discussed further in the last section
of this report.
ANALYSIS OF LANDFILL GASES
During this study 20 samples of landfill gas
were collected and analyzed for carbon dioxide,
oxygen, nitrogen, and methane (table 14). They
show a maximum of 84 percent methane re-
covered from refuse buried in 1955 near MM 52
at the old DuPage County landfill.
In order to check the reliability of our
sampling methods and see whether or not a re-
lationship between landfill age and methane
could be established, parts of the old DuPage
County and Winnetka landfills were resurveyed
in December 1969 with a portable explosimeter.
This showed methane present near WINN LW 13
where it was not detected in the early analyses.
The explosimeter also indicated that methane is
being produced in the oldest part of the
Winnetka landfill (1947) but not in refuse
buried before approximately 1954 on the south
side of the old DuPage County landfill. In this
area there appeared to be a boundary between
areas of younger and older refuse where
methane was and was not detected. It was noted
that where the grass was dead or brown, meth-
52
-------
ane was present and that where it was green, no
methane could be detected with the explosi-
meter. On August 7, 1969, analyses showed 17
percent methane present beside DUP LW 6 in
this general area. On September 7, 1969,
methane was not present in a sample collected
beside DUP LW6 and it was not detected two
weeks later with the explosimeter.
The foregoing suggests that our sampling pro-
cedures should be improved and that methane
production from landfills is erratic. A relation-
ship between refuse age and methane content is
suggested by the fact that older landfill at
Winnetka has less methane than younger landfill;
however data relating methane to landfill age at
the old DuPage County landfill do not confirm
this.
Throughout 1966, 1967, and 1968, methane
was present in an open abandoned boring about
20 feet south of the old DuPage County landfill
near DUP MM 44. Samples taken from this area
and the field to the south on September 7,
1969, did not contain methane. The abandoned
boring itself could not be checked at this time.
Methane was not detected in samples taken
near Elgin at LW 7 and Woodstock LW 7. The
landfill near both of these borings is composed
of inorganic and burned materials. Metjiane was
detected with the explos.imeter in the Blackwell
well.
Unfortunately, this preliminary work on land-
fill gases appears to have raised more questions
than it has answered.
SELECTION OF SITES, DESIGN, AND OPERATION
OF SANITARY LANDFILLS
If we consider only ground and surface water
pollution, at least 80 percent of northeastern
Illinois would probably be suitable for sanitary
landfilling without site modification, because
the surficial materials are fine textured, have low
permeability, and would restrict the movement
of refuse leachate. Of the 20 percent remaining,
10 percent would be suitable because of favor-
able location within the hydrogeologic flow
system. Sites in the remaining 10 percent of the
area would require some modification. Un-
fortunately a disporportionately large per-
centage of those sites proposed as sanitary land-
fills fall into this latter category. These include
the mined-out quarries and gravel pits. These
sites are most easily filled and when filled in-
crease substantially in value. To many, sanitary
landfilling is synonymous with land reclamation.
We believe that nearly all sites are or can be
designed so that they are suitable for solid waste
disposal. If this is so, then the critical factors in
site selection are not hydrogeologic ones but are
the cost of refuse transport, site acquisition, site
modification, and operation balanced against the
value of the reclaimed land. Knowledge of the
hydrogeology of the site is, however, essential
for determining whether or not modification is
necessary to meet water quality standards, and,
if so, how it can best be accomplished. It will be
the cost of this modification considered with the
other costs and benefits that will determine
whether or not a particular site is suitable at a
particular time.
In metropolitan areas, land and transportation
costs are high and "close in" sites are seldom
available. In these areas, large sums can be spent
on site modification, and the initial site selection
will seldom be concerned with the hydro-
geology.
Early in our project we have hoped to be able
to present a hydrogeologic map of northeastern
Illinois that would aid in locating future landfill
sites. It soon became apparent, however, that
landfill hydrogeology is an individual site
problem and that such a map, to be of value,
would have to be on an extremely large scale
with a correspondingly high degree of accuracy.
Hydrogeologic control is not available for such
maps. Another reason for avoiding this type of
map is that even at the 1 site in 10 where the
natural environment is not protective, the cost
of site modification, discussed in the following
pages, may not be a significant part of the total
costs. Such a map could actually perform a dis-
53
-------
service if it were to lead to relocating a landfill
to an area where geologic conditions are natur-
ally more favorable but where the total oper-
ation, including site modification, would be less
economical.
Our investigation has shown that unless
specific preventive measures are taken almost all
refuse disposal sites in humid climates, where
precipitation infiltrates through the refuse, will
introduce some dissolved solids into the environ-
ment. A good landfill site is, therefore, one
which is designed so that the amount of dis-
solved solids released is acceptable in that
particular environment. The evaluation of how
much will be acceptable is usually the re-
sponsibility of a local or state regulatory agency
and is based on factors such as the following: (1)
surface and ground water use in the vicinity, (2)
the amount of contamination already present,
and (3) the need for a disposal site. It is a more
complex decision than those dealing with the
discharge of sewage into a surface stream be-
cause it involves a type of pollution that is
difficult to monitor and once initiated cannot be
easily rectified.
It is probably not possible to establish a rea-
sonable set of rules or regulations that would
control all the environmental factors affecting
the production and migration of leachate from
landfills. For example, a rule requiring the pres-
ence of a certain number of feet of material be-
low a landfill should include specifications on
the exchange capacity of the material, its per-
meability, and the direction of ground water
movement, and rules requiring refuse to be a
certain distance above the top of the zone of
saturation should also have provisions for elim-
inating infiltration through the completed sur-
face of the landfill. A more realistic procedure
would be to require the landfill operator to de-
sign his operation to meet standards set by the
regulatory agency and to submit his design to
the regulatory agency for approval in much the
same manner as for other types of waste disposal
operations.
OBJECTIVES IN DESIGN
The four design objectives discussed in the
following pages are directed at control ot ground
and surface water pollution by management of
the leachates derived from landfills. The use of a
particular design is dependent upon the hydro-
geology of the site, standards imposed by the
regulatory agency, the use to be made of the site
after filling is complete, and the cost. Following
are four design objectives:
(1) Elimination of production of leachate
(2) Migration of leachate under acceptable
conditions
(3) Recovery of leachate after migration
(4) Retention and recovery of leachate
These designs can be accomplished by stand-
ard engineering techniques and procedures. It is
necessary, however, to determine the type of
earth materials present and to understand the
ground water flow system if the capacity of the
environment for self-purification is to be used
advantageously.
ELIMINATION OF PRODUCTION OF
LEACHATE. This objective should be the first
considered in arid areas. It consists of burying
the refuse above the top of the zone of satur-
ation and preventing surface water from entering
the landfill. It is the least expensive design to
accomplish, and according to the results of
studies (University of Southern California, 1954,
p. 13), it is the safest from the standpoint of
avoiding ground water pollution.
Two and possibly three types of leachate are
produced from landfills. One type results from
compression and compaction of the refuse. Al-
though this type of leachate will probably be
present in all landfill operations we would
expect only relatively small quantities to be
produced. Water is also used and produced
during decomposition of the refuse (table 2). We
assume that this type of water is not present in
significant amounts. Leachate is also produced
when refuse comes in contact with and is
leached by water after burial.
In humid areas leachate will almost always be
produced from landfills because precipitation is
usually great enough to infilatrate the refuse and
because the top of the zone of saturation is
generally shallow and the refuse is buried below
the water table.
In arid areas precipitation is not sufficient to
54
-------
satisfy the soil moisture deficiency and to infil-
trate the refuse, and the top of the zone of
saturation is usually deep enough so that refuse
will not be buried below the water table.
In semiarid and possibly in humid climates,
this objective might also be considered if the top
of the zone of saturation is below the base of
the disposal site and if the fill can be covered
and graded so as to reduce infiltration to a neg-
ligible value.
The position of the water table is not always
reflected by the elevation of the water in nearby
wells or the presence or absence of water in an
excavation. Water levels in wells reflect the
ground water potential (or head) across the open
part of the well and are, therefore, dependent on
well depth. Unless a well bottoms at, or close to,
the top of the zone of saturation its water level
is not likely to reflect the elevation of the top of
the zone of saturation. For example, a well com-
pleted at a depth of 100 feet near Winnetka,
Illinois, will have a static water level at about 50
feet below the surface. A well completed at a
depth of 10 feet will have a water level at a
depth of about 7 feet below the surface.
Movement of water into open excavations is
partly dependent on the permeability of the sur-
rounding materials. Free water may not be pre-
sent in an excavation that extends below the top
of the zone of saturation in fine-textured
materials of low permeability-. This is because
the water evaporates as fast as it reaches the
sides of the excavation. After the excavation has
been filled, evaporation ceases, the water table
rises, and the fill materials are saturated.
If it can be determined that the base of a
landfill is above the top of the zone of satura-
tion, the amount of leachate produced will be
controlled by the amount of infiltration through
the fill surface. This in turn is affected by pre-
cipitation, evapotranspiration, and runoff. Sea-
sonal precipitation and evapotranspiration data
are generally available locally from State and
Federal agencies. Runoff will be determined by
the final surface on the fill, its grade, com-
position, and vegetation.
Gas production may be a problem in environ-
ments amenable to this type of design if per-
meable materials surround refuse emplaced
above the top of the zone of saturation. These
problems should be considered in the early
stages of planning.
MIGRATION OF LEACHATE UNDER AC-
CEPTABLE CONDITIONS. This design, like the
designs for migration and recovery and retention
and recovery, assumes that leachate will be
produced from the refuse. It applies, therefore,
mainly to sites in humid areas unless the final
use of-the site involves irrigation or liquid waste
disposal. A design for acceptable migration is the
least expensive of the three methods arid since
very few operating landfills have constructed
facilities for recovery of leachate, it is by default
the most common design currently used in
humid areas.
A design for acceptable migration relies on
the hydrogeologjc environment to reduce the
amount of dissolved solids leaving a landfill to
an acceptable level. The fact that so few landfills
cause serious pollution problems is an indication
of the effectiveness of the environment in this
respect.
There are a range of hydrogeologic environ-
ments for which a design for acceptable
migration can be made. We shall discuss the two
extremes as follows: environments associated
with relatively impermeable materials, such as
clays and some glacial tills, and those associated
with relatively permeable materials, such as
gravels and fractured rocks.
Sites in environments of relatively imper-
meable materials rely on the following: (l)the
earth materials to reduce the dissolved solid con-
tent of the leachate to an acceptable level over a
short travel path before it reaches a point of
water use or before it reaches more permeable
materials (2) a longer retention time for the
leachate to allow more on-site decomposition
and purification.
The mechanisms involved in the attenuation
of dissolved solids by earth materials have been
discussed in some detail and data have been pre-
sented showing the distance the various elements
originating in the landfill had travelled.
With these data we can estimate the relative
amounts of attenuation leachates will undergo
during migration through various materials. Silty
and clayey tills, unfractured shales, and clays
55
-------
should reduce the total dissolved solid content
of leachate by one or two orders of magnitude
in travelling a distance of 5 feet. Sands and silts
will reduce the total dissolved solids in leachate
by about one order of magnitude in travelling
500 feet, and gravels and fractured rocks will be
considerably less efficient.
These data apply specifically to the landfill
sites studied in this report and generally to
conditions in northeastern Illinois. When extra-
polating them to other areas one should
consider, among other things, the ground water
gradients involved and the mineralogy of the
materials through which the leachate moves -
two factors that would affect contaminant
attenuation. These data should, therefore, be
used with some discretion.
Sites located in materials with low per-
meability may develop ground water mounds,
and springs and seeps may form around their
margins. If these surface seeps of leachate are
not acceptable they can be reduced or elim-
inated by reducing infiltration or by collecting
all or part of the leachate.
The Winnetka landfill is in a hydrogeologic
environment for which a design for acceptable
migration is appropriate. Here the leachate is
allowed to migrate downward through the un-
derlying clay tills and laterally through silts,
sands, and clay with relatively low permeability.
Our studies have shown that the dissolved solids
in this leachate have been reduced to negligible
values long before reaching a point of possible
ground water use. Springs of leachate have
developed along the margins of this landfill, but
as yet they are no more than a local nuisance.
A design for acceptable migration may also be
accomplished in hydrogeologic environments in
which the materials are very permeable, and
attenuation of contaminants during a short
migration will not be significant. Such environ-
ments, which would include sites in clean gravels
or those in fractured rocks, rely on the ground
water flow system to dispose of the con-
taminants in a satisfactory manner. Such dis-
posal would include the following: (1) transport
of contaminants into, or through, a large
regional flow system where attenuation could
take place over a very long travel path,
(2) transport into a ground water reservoir al-
ready containing poor quality water, and
(3) transport of contaminants to a surface water
body where they would be diluted to an accept-
able level. Of these three, the last is the most
common.
Transport into or through a large regional
flow system was suggested by Maxey and Far-
volden (1965) for the basin and range area of
the Western United States. In this particular en-
vironment, dissolved solids generated in landfill
located in the mountains would migrate over an
extremely long path to discharge in the inter-
montane valleys. It is assumed that the con-
taminants moving in this manner would be
attenuated to an acceptable level before reaching
a point of water use. This design requires com-
plete understanding the flow system in a par-
ticular area and assumes little or no water use in
the recharge areas where the refuse is buried.
The second design for acceptable migration
through permeable materials is to locate the
landfill so that dissolved solids from the landfill
will migrate into an aquifer containing water
that cannot be used, because it is either highly
mineralized or polluted. A good understanding
of the flow system is also necessary in this case
before the design is accepted.
The third design for acceptable migration
through permeable materials involves allowing
the contaminants to migrate to a body of sur-
face water where they will be diluted to an
acceptable level. This design assumes that solid
wastes and liquid wastes such as domestic sew-
age have similar rights to surface water for dilu-
tion purposes and that dilution water is avail-
able.
This design objective can most easily be
accomplished with landfills located in or near
ground water discharge areas where surface
water is available and the ground water is mov-
ing upward. These conditions are common in
humid areas, where the valleys of the perennial
streams are usually ground water discharge
zones, as well as in the areas around most of the
permanent swamps and lakes.
Use of this design involves estimating the
volume and concentration of the leachate that is
to be diluted, and, inasmuch as the volumes of
56
-------
leachate will often be very small compared with
the amount of dilution water available, estimates
will usually be adequate. Methods of estimating
outflow from landfills are discussed in ap-
pendices H and G.
There are a number of drawbacks to the use
of this type of design in permeable materials as
follows:
(1), There will be contamination of the
shallow materials between the landfill and the
receiving water.
(2) Flooding may be a problem in discharge
areas.
(3) Ground water is often well developed in
permeable stream valley materials. The effect
of diverting the leachate into a pumping cone
must, therefore, be considered. It is con-
ceivable, however, that dilution in the pump-
ing cone itself would reduce the concen-
tration of dissolved solids entering any one
well to an acceptable level.
The Elgin site is typical of the type of en-
vironment that could be used for this design.
Leachate produced in the landfill migrates
laterally down gradient to the Fox River, where
it is diluted. Although some attenuation occurs
during this migration, dissolved solids are at a
large concentration in the water that has reached
the river after passing through the landfill. Dis-
solved solids cannot move down into the under-
lying aquifers, because the ground water
gradient is directed upward toward the river.
The Elgin site can be considered satisfactory
if (1) pollution of the shallow sands and gravels
between the landfill and the river is acceptable
and (2) the landfill can be permitted to raise the
total dissolved solids in the Fox River by an
average of approximately 0.30 ppm.
The extreme cases associated with high and
with low permeability will be far less common
than intermediate environments associated with
materials having moderate permeability as well
as some capacity for attenuating contaminants
moving with the ground water. Each environ-
ment evaluated individually would determine
whether or not a design for acceptable migration
can be accomplished or whether or not some
sort of permanent or temporary collection
facilities must be constructed.
MIGRATION AND RECOVERY OF
LEACHATE. Fills designed for migration and
recovery of leachate depend on the ground
water flow system to concentrate the leachate at
a point where it can be readily collected in the
surface or subsurface. In this type of environ-
ment we assume that attenuation during migra-
tion will not be adequate to reduce the con-
taminants to acceptable levels and that at least.
some of the leachate must be collected.
To achieve this objective the landfill must be
located so that the ground water flow lines that
pass through the refuse converge farther on at a
place where the fluid can be conveniently col-
lected. A favorable location would be near a
natural ground water discharge zone where the
dissolved solids from the landfill will reappear at
the surface. Examples include a slope near a
stream valley or a closed depression such as a
kettle hole.
If flow lines do not converge naturally they
can be made to do so by creating an artificial
discharge zone using ditches, tile drains, or
pumping wells.
In most cases, the volume of fluid that must
be dealt with will be an important consideration.
Sites in saturated, permeable deposits will
handle larger volumes of water than those in
fine-textured materials.
This design could be used at the Elgin site to
collect contaminants moving out of the fill if it
were necessary to reduce the amount of dis-
solved solids moving into the Fox River or to
protect the shallow aquifer between the landfill
and the Fox River. A row of wells or a deep tile
system could be installed between the fill and
the river to intercept dissolved solids moving
from the landfill. In this case large quantities of
water would be involved inasmuch as the
materials are rather permeable.
RETENTION AND RECOVERY OF
LEACHATE. This design is more complicated
and expensive, and its use would probably be
restricted to sites in humid climates that will
benefit greatly from land reclamation or short
refuse haulage. It consists of isolating the refuse
in the disposal site and collecting all the leachate
produced. This may be accomplished with the
various types of liners, covers and collection and
57
-------
treatment facilities discussed in the following
section. Each of these techniques and pro-
cedures is dependent, to some extent, on the
others. The final use of the site will determine
the type of cover and surface grade, which will
in turn determine how much infiltration will
take place. The amount of infiltration and the
amount of leakage through the liner will deter-
mine the collection and treatment facilities.
In a design such as this the amount and
potency of the leachate could be regulated to fit
the method of treatment or disposal over the life
of the landfill.
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES
CONTAINMENT Two techniques can he-
used to prevent the migration of leachate from a
disposal site. One is to line the site with malerial
having low permeability; the other is to create a
hydraulic gradient toward the site.
Liners can be constructed of compacted or
uncompacted earth in its natural state or mixed
with a variety of soil dispersanls, lime, po/,-
zolana, or other soil cements. They can also be
constructed of asphalt or plastic. The type of
liner to be used will depend on the amount of
leakage that will be allowed, the hydrogeology
of the site, the overall site design, and the eco-
nomics. Because liner construction is likely to be
an expensive and technical procedure, qualified
personnel must be retained.
Movement out of a site across a liner will
obey Darcy's law, 0 = PI A (appendix D), where:
0 = amount of water
P = permeability of the liner
I = hydraulic gradient
A = area of liner in contact with fluid.
It can be seen from this that:
(1) There will be movement across the liner
as long as there is a gradient across the
liner. If the gradient is out of the site,
leachate will migrate out of the site; if the
gradient is into the site, ground water will
migrate into the site.
(2) Movement across the liner, in sites that
extend below the top of the /.one of sat-
uration, can be controlled by controlling
the gradient or the respective water levels
inside and outside the liner.
(.>) In sites located above the top of the /one
of saturation some leakage out of the site
cannot be avoided if the permeability is
greater than /,ero. This leakage can be
minimised, however, by minimizing infil-
tration and by removing the leachate from
the site (by tiles and drains) as rapidly as
possible.
(4) The major factor controlling movement
across the liner will be the permeability of
the liner.
(5) The thickness of the liner is not a factor
in this equation and does not affect the
amount of water moving across the liner.
II would, depending on the type of liner,
affect the attenuation of contaminants.
The thickness of the liner is important
from the standpoint of practical con-
struction procedures. Thin or fragile liners
must be carefully constructed and pro-
tected from damage during emplacement
and settlement of refuse.
Leakage through a liner can be easily es-
timated. A liner with a permeability of IO"2 gpd
per square foot and a gradient of 1 foot per foot
across it under a 50-acre landfill would allow
passage of approximately 22,000 gallons of
water per day. If the permeability of the liner
were reduced to IO"6 gpd per square foot, leak-
age would be reduced to 2.2 gpd. The liner that
would be used at a given site will probably be
determined by the materials available, their cost
and the amount of leakage that will be allowed
in that particular environment.
If there is more infiltration than loss by leak-
age through the liner, then the surplus water
must appear as "overflow," which is merely
changing the spatial distribution of the con-
tamination.
'Hie same principles apply if the site is located
in natural materials witli low permeability. Both
permeability and gradient can be estimated or
if necessary, measured.
Earth liners have been used to retain con-
taminants in refuse disposal sites in Illinois; how-
ever, there has not been, to our knowledge, any
investigation of leachate movement through
58
-------
these liners or of the attenuation of con-
taminants moving through a liner. There have
been investigations of earth liners in lagoons
(Lee, 1941, Lambe and Anderson, 1955), and in
these cases satisfactory results were obtained.
We assume, therefore, that earth liners could
also be used for lining solid waste disposal sites.
The physical properties of clay minerals and,
therefore, of earth liners containing clay
minerals are affected by contact with solutions
containing large concentrations of dissolved
solids, such as refuse leachate. Our preliminary
investigation of the effect of leachate on the
silty clay till at the old DuPage County landfill
indicated that very concentrated leachate par-
tially flocculated the till. Hence, reactions be-
tween the leachate and the earth materials to be
used for a liner should be checked.
There has not been, to our knowledge, any
use of other types of liners for solid waste dis-
posal sites; however, as with earth liners, they
have been used successfully for lining lagoons
and should be suitable for lining refuse disposal
sites, provided, of course, they could be em-
placed and maintained without breaking.
In landfills that intersect the top of the zone
of saturation, leachate can be completely con-
fined to the site by maintaining ground water
gradients towards the landfill. This can be ac-
complished by a suitable arrangement of pump-
ing wells or drains (figure 28).
Above the top of the zone of saturation, ex-
cess soil water must move downward through
the soil under the influence of gravity. For this
reason leachate cannot be hydrologically con-
fined in landfills that do not intersect the top of
the zone of saturation.
REDUCTION OF INFILTRATION. Of the
three sources of leachate-producing water —
refuse, the ground water, and infiltration — the
third is probably the most subject to control.
Infiltrating water can originate from a number
of sources: (1) precipitation, (2) surface water
from outside the fill area, and (3) irrigation
sludge or liquid waste disposal. All of these add
to the water content of the landfill, and when
enough has been added to exceed field capacity
of the refuse and cover materials, all of this
water will move downward through the refuse
and become refuse leachate. As discussed earlier
in this report some infiltration through channels
in the refuse will probably occur before the
refuse has reached field capacity.
Constructing the final fill surface for
maximum runoff is probably the least expensive
way of decreasing infiltration. Mr. Julius Dawes
(personal communication) of the Illinois State
Water Survey, Urbana, Illinois, estimates that of
the approximately 33 inches of precipitation
falling in northeastern Illinois, all but 2 inches
could be diverted to runoff fairly readily, and
infiltration could be reduced still further but
probably not completely eliminated by installing
a system of drains and terraces.
As with liners, a proper cover should be in-
stalled by competent personnel. Slopes must be
compatible with the type of soil and the vege-
tation to prevent erosion, and the amount of
water that does infiltrate must be compatible
with the overall landfill design.
In many instances, the landfill cannot be de-
signed for maximum runoff, because this would
interfere with plans for the ultimate use of the
site. In these cases infiltration will depend on
that particular use and climatic conditions.
Specific information on the amount of evapor-
tation and transpiration in a given area can
usually be obtained from Federal or State
agencies.
COLLECTION OF LEACHATE. Two of
the design objectives require collection of the
leachate, either after it has migrated away from
the site or at the site itself.
Collection systems using tiles, French drains,
or ditches should be suitable for most sites.
Hydrologjc confinement that is also a collection
method could also be employed.
Collection systems for lined landfills or land-
fills situated in materials with low permeability
fall into two categories: those designed to re-
duce a ground water mound and prevent seepage
to the land surface along the fill margins and
those designed to minimize leachate infiltration
downward through the base of the landfill.
Collection systems designed only to control
surface seepage from the landfill or to control
water levels within the landfill should be rela-
tively simple and may involve only gravity drains
59
-------
Water table
before excavation
Water table after
construction complete
Water table
Direction of ground water flow
Leachate
discharge
B
Leachate discharge
Figure 28. In landfills that intersect the top of the zone of saturation, leachate can be completely confined to the site
by maintaining ground water gradients towards the landfill by (A-top) gravity drainage or by (B-bottom) a pumping
well.
60
-------
to keep the top of the zone of saturation within
the fill below the ground surface adjacent to the
fill. The permeability of refuse fills, although
variable (appendix F), is approximately that of a
sand, and so tiles or French drains may not be
necessary.
If the base of the landfill is above the top of
the zone of saturation, and collection is designed
to minimize leachate contact with a liner and,
hence, leakage through the liner, a more refined
system must be used that would probably in-
clude tile drains, with the base of the fill graded
to a single collection point. The design of this
system would depend on the amount of leakage
allowable at the site.
MONITORING OF WATER QUALITY.
There are three reasons for including a water-
quality-monitoring program in any landfill
design, as follows: (l)to protect the operator
against false claims that he is causing ground
water pollution, (2) to give an early indication
that something is wrong with the design of the
landfill so that remedial measures can be taken,
and (3) to provide a means of evaluating the
effectiveness of the design used on the landfill.
Monitoring points should be installed in
accord with the hydrogeology both up and
down the hydraulic gradient from the disposal
site, and if possible in materials permeable
enough to yield a sample within a 24-hour
period. This will reduce the possibility of water
quality changes occurring in the sampling well.
Silts will generally have permeability adequate
for this purpose. Monitoring should begin before
disposal operations have started and continue
until the fill has stabilized or until the dissolved
solids output of the landfill reaches an accept-
able level. Sampling intervals will be determined
by the hydrogeology but after base levels have
been established these intervals might be annual
or semi-annual. Out work has indicated that
total dissolved solids and chlorides are good
tracers for this purpose.
CONTROL OF LANDFILL GASES. The
main problem-producing gases are methane,
carbon dioxide, and odors. These gases can
migrate through permeable, unsaturated mate-
rials for considerable distances. Although there
have been few (Engineering-Science Inc.,
1963-1966) studies on migration of gases in the
subsurface, problems should be anticipated in
environments where the refuse is emplaced in
permeable materials above the top of the zone
of saturation. This would include landfills in
thick, unsaturated gravels or landfills high above
ground. The installation of a thick, impermeable
cover to reduce infiltration may impede the
movement of gases out through the landfill sur-
face and force them to move laterally. Methane
is the most hazardous of landfill gases, since it
forms a flammable mixture (5 to 15 percent
methane in air) with air. An explosion in a
warming house on a landfill in the city of
Elmhurst in northeastern Illinois has been attrib-
uted to methane's migrating into heating ducts
and being ignited.
In northeastern Illinois, odors from one fill
high above ground are dealt with by venting it
with perforated pipes and burning the odors
with the methane, which is also present. Workers
at this fill have noticed that gas production
generally began about 2 years after the fill had
been completed and is higher in those parts of
the fill containing grass and leaves.
Venting (Eliassen, et al. 1957, p. 115) and
burning (Engineering News Record, 1948, p. 86;
Dunn, 1960, p. 68) are the most common pro-
cedures for dealing with landfill gases to prevent
odors and explosions. To date, however, there is
little documentation of the effectiveness of
various venting methods under different con-
ditions. Design of gas-tight structures for sani-
tary landfills is discussed by Sowers (1968,
p. 115) and First et al. (\ 966).
TREATMENT. In two of the landfill de-
signs, collection of the leachate is necessary,
and, if it is not possible to dispose of this leach-
ate into a sewerage system, on-site treatment is
necessary. Unfortunately very little information
is available on leachate treatment; however, the
data collected in this study indicate that treat-
ment should be possible. In Britain (Ministry of
Housing and Local Government, 1961) a con-
siderable reduction in dissolved solids, par-
ticularly organics, was accomplished by passing
leachate through horizontal sand and gravel
filters. In Bristol, England, treatment by ballast
filters and holding ponds were also effective
61
-------
(Bevan, 1967, p. 146).
In Pennsylvania simple natural aeration
lagoons with a flow-through time of about 1 or
2 weeks decreased the iron and the BOD of
leachate moving from a landfill by 90 percent.
It appears that because the quantities of
leachate are relatively small compared with
those of domestic sewage, relatively simple treat-
ment facilities will be possible.
Design of treatment facilities will depend to a
certain extent on the concentration and
quantity of the leachate to be treated. These
factors a're, in turn, dependent on factors such as
the fill cover, the liner, and final use of the land.
Treatment should therefore be considered early
in planning the disposal site.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS. The oper-
ational problems concerned with the geology
and the hydrology of landfills are those con-
nected with excavation, with handling surface
water, and with ensuring a supply of cover
materials. Excavations should be planned to
provide cover material for the fill, if other
sources of cover are not available, and their
depth should be related to the final height of the
fill. This is primarily a matter of planning and of
material balance; however, the design procedures
adopted may be the controlling factor.
Most states discourage disposal of refuse into
open water to avoid the production of hydrogen
sulfide. Procedures have been developed
(Furness 1954, 1956) to control the generation
of gases in this manner. These entail the con-
struction of dikes and rapid filling of relatively
small area. Aeration and other methods of con-
trolling the production of hydrogen sulfide were
also investigated in the study by Furness.
In excavation below the top of the zone of
saturation in materials with appreciable per-
meability, serious problems may be encountered
in removing ground water from the site, and the
deeper the excavation extends below the top of
the zone of saturation the more water will have
to be removed. In fine-textured, less permeable
materials influent ground water should be easily
controlled.
REUSE STABILIZATION OF LAND. In
areas where land values are high, it is usually
planned to use the landfilled areas for some
other purpose after filling has been completed.
In some areas, the presentation of a plan for
final land use is a requirement of local reg-
ulatory agency, but in any event, final use
should be considered when the landfill design is
being determined since the two must be com-
patible.
Four major problems are associated with
reuse of this land, as follows: (1) settlement of
the fill materials, (2) gas production, (3) surface
seepage, and (4) final cover.
Settlement will continue for a considerable
period, and any construction on the fill must
take this into consideration. According to the
American Public Works Association (1966,
p. 126), settlement ranges from 10 to 25 percent
within 6 months to 2 years of emplacement,
depending on compaction techniques, and in
New York (American Public Works Association,
1966, p. 128) 90 percent of the total settlement
occurred in the first 2 to 5 years. The data pre-
sented in figure 23 imply a more regular de-
crease in volume (specific yield). According to
Eliassen (1947, p. 757) landfills continue to de-
compose for 30 or more years. Data from this
study show methane production at Winnetka in
refuse 23 years old, indicating that the decom-
position is still underway.
A fairly comprehensive discussion of foun-
dation and construction problems in landfills has
been given by Sowers (1968). He raises the fol-
lowing points:
(1) "If there is any thing consistent about the
sanitary landfills, it is their erratic composition
and extremely erratic but low densities" 50 to
75 pounds, per cubic foot."
(2) . . the ability of a sanitary landfill to
resist foundation loads without failure is seldom
greater than 500 Ib to 800 Ib per sq ft." Surface
inspection and load tests may be misleading and
yield higher results.
(3) Differential settlement will probably
occur. This will affect buildings and sewer lines.
(4) Steel and concrete may be affected by
corrosive action of the refuse leachate.
62
-------
(5) Excavations are irregular, need heavy
equipment, may produce odors, and may con-
tain dangerous gases.
(6) "Many of these construction hazards can
be minimized by proper planning of the fill be-
fore installation."
Settlement in landfills is also discussed by
Merz and Stone (1963a, 1963b, 1964, 1965,
1966), Fungarole and Steiner (1968).
The control of surface seepage will probably
involve tiles or other subsurface drainage to re-
duce the ground water mound within the land-
fill. This is likely to become more of a problem
as larger fills are constructed. These remedial
measures will be easier to install during con-
struction of. the landrill rather than after it is
completed and should, therefore, be considered
early in the fill design.
The final cover on the fill surface will depend
to a large extent on the amount of infiltration
acceptable by the regulatory agency. Vegetation,
grading, and drainage will all affect infiltration.
If fine-textured earth, asphalt, or some other
material that is subject to cracking is used as a
cover, enough methane may be concentrated at
these cracks to burn if ignited. This would not
be acceptable in most instances.
Land values and needs in the particular com-
munity will determine the final use of the com-
pleted landfill. It can be used for many pur-
poses, however, if final use is considered in the
design.
REFERENCES
AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN WATER WORKS
ASSOCIATION, and WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERAL-
TION. Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water
including bottom sediments and sludges. 12th ed. New York, American
Public Health Associations, 1965. 769 p.
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION. Municipal refuse disposal. 2d ed.
Chicago, Public Administration Service, 1966. 528 p.
ANDERSEN, J.R., and J.N. DORNBUSH. Influence of sanitary landfill on
ground water quality. American Water Works Association Journal,
59(4):457-470, Apr. 1967.
BEVAN, R.E. Notes on the science and practice of the controlled tipping of
refuse. London, Institute of Public Cleansing, 1967. 216 p.
BLACK, R.J., and P.L. DAVIS. Refuse collection and disposal; an annotated
bibliography, 1960-1961. Public Health Service Publication No. 91.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. 69 p. Suppl. E.
BLACK, R.J., A.J. MUHICH, A.J. KLEE, H.L. HICKMAN, JR., and R.D.
VAUGHAN. The national solid wastes survey; an interim report.
Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1968.
53 p.
BLACK, R.J., J.B. WHEELER, and W.G. HENDERSON. Refuse collection and
disposal; an annotated bibliography, 1962-1963. Public Health Service
Publication No. 91. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1966. 134 p. Suppl. F.
BUSCHBACH, T.C. Cambrian and Ordovician strata of northeastern Illinois.
Illinois Geological Survey Report of Investigations No. 218. Urbana,
1964.90 p.
BUTLER, W.J. A study of the movement of chemical wastes into a ground-water
reservoir. M.S. Thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, 1965. 66 p.
CARPENTER, L.V., and L.R. SETTER. Some notes on sanitary land-fills.
American Journal of Public Health, 30(4):385-393, Apr. 1940.
COOK, H.A. Microbiological and chemical investigation of seepage from a sani-
tary landfill. M.S. Thesis. West Virginia University, Morgantown, 1966.
72 p.
DIVISION OF SANITARY ENGINEERING SERVICES. Refuse collection and
disposal; a bibliography, 1951-1953. Public Health Service Publication
No. 402. Washington, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, 1953. 39 p. Suppl. A.
63
-------
DUNN, W.L. Storm drainage and gas burning at a refuse disposal site. Civil
Engineering, 30(8):68-69, Aug. 1960.
ELIASSEN, R. Decomposition of land-fills. American Journal of Public Health,
32(9): 1029-1037, Sept. 1942.
ELIASSEN, R. War conditions favor landfill refuse disposal. Engineering News-
Record, 128(22):912-914, June 4, 1942.
ELIASSEN, R. Why you should avoid housing construction on refuse landfills.
Engineering News-Record, 120(18):756-760, May 1, 1947.
ELIASSEN, R., F. N. O'HARA, and E.G. MONAHAN. Sanitary landfill gas
control American City, 72(12): 115-117, Dec. 1957.
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC. Effects of refuse dumps on ground-water qual-
ity. California Water Pollution Control Board Publication No. 24.
Sacramento, 1961. 107 p.
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC. In situ investigation of movements of gases
produced from decomposing refuse. California Water Quality Control
Board Annual Reports 1-4; Progress Reports 1-13. Sacramento,
1963-1966.
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC. Second annual report on development of con-
struction and use criteria for sanitary landfills. Prepared for the County
of Los Angeles, Department of County Engineers. Public Health
Service, Solid Wastes Program Grant. Los Angeles, 1969. 400 p.
FIRST, M.W., F.J. VILES, and S. LEVIN. Control of toxic and explosive
hazards in buildings erected on landfills. Public Health Reports,
81(5):419-428,May 1966.
FREEZE, R.A., and P.A. WITHERSPOON. Theoretical analysis of regional
groundwater flow: I. Analytical and numerical solutions to the mathe-
matical model. Water Resources Research, 2(4):641-656, Fourth
Quarter 1966.
FREEZE, R.A., and P.A. WITHERSPOON. Theoretical analysis of regional
groundwater flow. II. Effect of water-table configuration and sub-
surface permeability variation. Water Resources Research,
3(2):623-634, Second Quarter 1967.
FUNGAROLI, A.A., and R.L. STEINER. Foundation problems in sanitary land-
fills. American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Sanitary Engi-
neering Division, 94(SA4):764-766, Aug. 1968.
FUNGAROLI, A.A., R.L. STEINER, G.H. EMIRCH, and I. REMSON. Analyti-
cal procedures for chemical pollutants. Research Project on pollution
of subsurface water by sanitary landfills. Drexel Institute of Tech-
nology, Department of Civil Engineering Mechanics, Series 1, No. 10.
Philadelphia, 1968. 27 p.
FUNGAROLI, A.A., R.L. STEINER, and I. REMSON. Design of a sanitary
landfill laboratory lysimeter. Drexel Institute of Technology, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering Mechanics, Series 1, No. 9. Philadelphia,
1968. 27 p.
FURNESS, J.F. Tipping in wet pits. MunicipalJournal, 62:1811-1817 Aug. 6
1954.
FURNESS, J.F. Egham continues wet pit tipping test. Municipal Journal,
64:1055-1059, May 11, 1956.
Gas fires in a sanitary fill. Engineering News-Record, 140(l):86-87, Jan. 8, 1948.
GRIM, R.E. Clay mineralogy. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1953. 384 p. (Shrock, R.R., ed. McGraw-Hill Series in Geology).
GRIM, R.E. Applied clay mineralogy. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1962. 422 p. (Shrock, R.R., ed. International Series in the Earth
Sciences).
HUBBERT, M.K. The theory of ground-water motion. Journal of Geology,
48(8):785-944, Nov.-Dec. 1940.
HUGHES, G.M., R.A. LANDON, and R.N. FARVOLDEN. Hydrogeology. of
solid waste disposal sites in northeastern Illinois; an interim report on a
solid waste demonstration grant project. [Cincinnati], U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969. 137 p.
64
-------
HVORSLEV, M.J. Time lag and soil permeability in ground-water observations.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experimental Station Bulle-
tin No. 36. Vickburg, Miss., 1951. 47 p.
JONES, D.M.A. Variability of evapotranspiration in Illinois. Illinois Water
Survey Circular No. 89. Champaign, 1966. 13 p.
KAISER, E.R. Chemical analyses of refuse components. In Proceedings; 1966
National Incinerator Conference, New York, May 1-4, 1966. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. 84-88.
KAUFMANN, R. Preliminary report; hydrogeology of solid waste disposal sites
in Madison, Wisconsin. Unpublished report prepared for the City of
Madison, 1969. 32 p.
LAMBE, T.W., and O.E. ANDERSON. The impermeabilization of the lagoon at
the International Paper Co., Chisholm, Me. Tappi [Technical Associa-
tion of the Pulp and Paper Industry], 38(l):39-44, Jan. 1955.
LANE, B.E., and R.R. PARIZEK. Leachate movement in the sub-soil beneath a
sanitary landfill trench traced by means of suction lysimeters. In 2nd
Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference Proceedings, Philadelphia,
Nov. 18-20, 1968. Drexel Institute of Technology, p. 261-277.
LANG, A., and H. BRUNS. Ueber die verunreinigung des grundwassers durch
chemische stoffe. [Concerning the contamination of ground-water by
chemical substances.] Gas und Wasserfach, 83(l):6-9, 1940.
LEE, C.H. Sealing the lagoon lining at Treasure Island with salt. American
Society of Civil Engineers Transactions, 106:577, 1941.
LIN, Y.H. Acid and gas production from sanitary landfills. Ph.D. Thesis, West
Virginia University, Morgantown, 1966. 97 p.
MAXEY, G.B., and R.N. FARVOLDEN. Hydrogeologic factors in problems of
contamination in arid lands. Ground Water, 3(4):29-32, 1965.
MCCORMICK, J.H. Chemical variation of ground-water quality in the vicinity of
a refuse landfill. M.S. Thesis, South Dakota State University, Brook-
ings, 1966. 59 p.
MERZ, R.C. Investigation to determine the quantity and quality of gases pro-
duced during refuse decomposition; final report. California Water
Quality Control Board, University of Southern California Engineering
Center Report No. 89-10. Los Angeles, 1964. 35 p.
MERZ, R.C., and R. STONE. Factors controlling utilization of sanitary landfill
site; final report to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Institutes of Health, United States Public Health Service. Los
Angeles, University of Southern California, [1963]. 125 p.
MERZ, R.C., and R. STONE. Landfill settlement rates. Public Works,
93(9): 103-106, 210, 212, Sept. 1962.
MERZ, R.C., and R. STONE. Factors controlling utilization of sanitary landfill
site; first progress report to United States Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, National Institutes of Health, Public Health
Service. Los Angeles, University of Southern California, [1964]. 32 p.
MERZ, R.C., and R. STONE. Factors controlling utilization of sanitary landfill
site; final report to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Institutes of Health, United States Public Health Service,
January 1, 1964, to December 31, 1965. Los Angeles, University of
Southern California, [1966]. 77 p.
MERZ, R.C., and R. STONE. Special studies of a sanitary landfill. Bureau of
Solid Waste Management for release through National Technical Infor-
mation. PB-196 148. Springfield, Va., 1970. 240 p.
MEYBOOM, P. Unsteady ground-water flow near a willow ring in hummocky
moraine. Journal of Hydrology, 4(l):38-62, Apr. 1966.
MEYBOOM, P. Groundwater studies in the Assiniboine river drainage basin. II.
Hydrologic characteristics of phreatophytic vegetation in south central
Saskatchewan. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin No. 139. Ottawa,
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, 1967. 64 p.
65
-------
MEYBOOM, P., R.O. VAN EVERDINGEN, and R.A. FREEZE. Patterns of
groundwater flow in seven discharge areas in Saskatchewan and
Manitoba. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin No. 147. Ottawa,
Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, 1966. 57 p.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Pollution of water
by tipped refuse. Report of the Technical Committee on the experi-
mental disposal of house refuse in wet and dry pits. London, Her
Majesty's Stationary Office, 1961. 141 p.
QASIM, S.R. Chemical characteristics of seepage water from simulated landfills.
PhD Thesis West Virginia University, Morgantown, 1965. 145 p.
REMSON, I., A.A. FUNGAROLI, and A.W. LAWRENCE. Water movement in
an unsaturated sanitary landfill. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, 94(SA2):307-317, Apr.
1968.
ROESSLER, B. Die einflussung des grundwassers durch muell und schuttable-
gerungen. [The influencing of groundwater by garage and refuse
dumps.] Vom Wasser, 18:43-60, 1950-1951.
Sanitary engineering aspects of the atomic energy industry; a seminar sponsored
by the Atomic Energy Commission and the Public Health Service,
Robert Taft Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Dec. 6-9, 1955. Atomic
Energy Commission Report TID-7517, pt. la. 322 p.
Sanitary landfill. Manuals of Engineering Practice, No. 39. New York, American
Society of Civil Engineers, 1959. 61 p.
SAWINSKI, R.J. Ground-water quality variation at a refuse landfill. M.S. Thesis,
South Dakota State University, Brookings, 1966. 89 p.
SCHICHT, R J., and W.C. WALTON. Hydrologic budgets for three small water-
sheds in Illinois. Illinois Water Survey Report of Investigations No. 40.
Champaign, 1961. 40 p.
SCHLINKER, K. Methoden zum rechtzeitigen erkennen grossraeumiger grund-
wasser verunreinigungen. [Methods of timely identification of large
scale ground-water contaminations.] Wasserwirtschaft-Wassertechnik,
6(5):137,May 1956.
SHEAFFER, J.R., B.V. BOEHM, and I.E. HACKETT. Refuse disposal needs and
practices in northeastern Illinois with refuse disposal policies for north-
eastern Illinois. Northeastern Illinois Metropolitan Area Planning
Commission Technical Report No. 3. Chicago, June 1963. 72 p.
SHEAFFER, J.R., and AJ. ZEIZEL. The water resources in northeastern Illi-
nois; planning its use. Northeastern Illinois Metropolitan Area Planning
Commission Technical Report No. 4. Chicago, June 1966. 182 p.
SOWERS, G.F. Foundation problems in sanitary landfills. Journal of the Sani-
tary Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,
94(SA1): 103-116, Feb. 1968.
STEINER, R.L., and A.A. FUNGAROLI. Construction of laboratory and field
facilities for the investigation of leaching from sanitary landfills. In 2nd
Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference Proceedings, Philadelphia,
Nov. 18-20, 1968. Drexel Institute of Technology, p. 301-324.
SUTER, M., R.E. BERGSTROM, H.F. SMITH, G.H. EMRICH, W.C. WALTON,
and T.E. LARSON. Preliminary report on ground-water resources of
the Chicago region, Illinois. Illinois Geological Survey and Illinois
Water survey Cooperative Ground-Water Report No. 1. Urbana 1959
89 p.
TODD, D.K. Ground water hydrology. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc
1959. 336 p.
TOTH, J. A theory of groundwater motion in small drainage basins in central
Alberta, Canada. Journal of Geophysical Research, 67(11):4365^387,
Oct. 1962.
U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. Drinking water standards; revised 1962.
Public Health Service Publication No. 956. Washington, U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1962. 61 p.
66
-------
U.S. WEATHER BUREAU. Climatic guide for Chicago, Illinois, area. Clima-
tography of the United States. No. 40-11. Washington, U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, 1962. 48 p.
UNIVERS1 Y OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, SANITARY ENGINEERING
RESEARCH LABORATORY. Investigation of leaching of ash dumps.
California Water Pollution Control Board Publication No. 2. Sacra-
mento, 1952. 100 p.
University of South California, Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory
reports on continuation of an investigation of leaching of rubbish
dumps. University of Southern California Engineering Center Report
38-3, 19-55; 46-3, 1956; 64-3, 1958; 72-3, 1960.
VAN DERWERKER, R.J., and 1. WEAVER. Refuse collection and disposal; a
bibliography, 1941-1950. Public Health Service Publication No. 91.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1951. 40 p. Suppl. A.
VAN EVERDINGEN, R.O. Ground-water flow diagrams in sections with exag-
gerated vertical scale. Geological Survey of Canada Paper No. 63-27.
Ottawa, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, 1963. 21 p.
WALKER, W.H. Illinois ground water pollution. American Water Works Associa-
tion Journal, 61(1):31-40, Jan. 1969.
WALTON, W.C. Selected analytical methods for well and aquifer evaluation.
Illinois Water Survey Bulletin No. 49. Champaign, 1962. 81 p.
WALTON, W.C. Ground-water recharge and runoff in Illinois. Illinois Water
Survey Report of Investigations No. 48. Champaign, 1955. 55 p.
WATER RESOURCES DIVISION. Water resources data for Illinois, 1966. Pt. 1.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 1967. 249 p.
WEAVER, L. Refuse collection and disposal; an annotated bibliography,
1954-1955. Public Health Service Publication No. 91. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1958. 48 p. Suppl. C.
WILLIAMS, C.C., and S.W.LOHMAN. Geology and ground-water resources of a
part of south-central Kansas with special reference to the Wichita
municipal water supply. Kansas Geological Survey, Ground Water Divi-
sion Bulletin No. 79. Wichita, 1949. 455 p.
WILLIAMS, E.R. Refuse collection and disposal; an annotated bibliography,
1956-1957. Public Health Service Publication No. 91. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1958. 48 p. Suppl. C.
WILLIAMS, E.R., and R.J. BLACK. Refuse collection and disposal; an annota-
ted bibliography, 1958-1959. Public Health Service Publication No. 91.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961. 73 p. Suppl. D.
WILLIAMS, R.E. Shallow hydrogeology fo glacial drifts in northeastern Illinois.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1966. 179 p.
WILLIAM, H.G. The Silurian strata of northeastern Illinois, and description of
stops 2nd day in Silurian rocks of the southeastern Lake Michigan area.
Illinois Geological Survey Reprint No. 1962-M. Urbana, 1962. 8 p.
ZEIZEL, A.J., W.C. WALTON, R.T. SASMAN, and T.A. PRICKETT. Ground-
water resources of DePage County, Illinois. Illinois Geological Survey
and Illinois Water Survey Cooperative Ground-Water Report No. 2.
Urbana, 1962. 103 p.
67
-------
Table
1
REFUSE COMPOSITION
23.38
9.40
6.80
5.57
2.75
2.06
1.98
0.76
0.76
2.29
1.53
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
1.53
1.53
1.53
0.76
0.76
0.38
0.38
0.76
0.76
1.53
6.86
7.73
9.05
100.00
Composition of refuse
Percent2
Corrugated paper boxes
Newspapers
Magazine paper
Brown paper
Mail
Paper food cartons
Tissue paper
Plastic coated paper
Wax cartons
Vegetable food wastes
Citrus rinds and seeds
Meat scraps, cooked
Fried Fats
Wood
Ripe tree leaves
Flower garden plants
Lawn grass, green
Evergreens
Plastics
Rags
Leather goods
Rubber composition
Paints and oils
Vacuum cleaner catch
Dirt
Metals
Glass, ceramics, ash
Adjusted moisture
Component
Crude fiber
Moisture content
Ash
Free carbon
Nitrogen
(a) free
(b) organic
Water solubles:
(a) sodium
(b) chloride
(c) sulfate
COD
Phosphate
Hardness
Major metals:
aluminum, iron, silicon
Minor Metals:
calcium, magnesium, potassium
Gms. pollutant/gm. dry refuse or
wt. Percent3
38.3%
18.2%
20.2%
0.57%
0.02 mg/gram
1 .23 mg/gram
2.33 mg/gram
0.97 mg/gram
2.19 mg/gram
42.29 mg/gram
0.1 5 mg/gram
10.12 mg/CaCO3/gram
>5.00% (by spectrographic analysis)
4
1.0-5.0% (by spectrographic analysis)
1 Fungaroli etal. (1968 p. 11)
2 Kaiser (1966) as presented in Fungaroli et al. (1968, b p. 11)
Preliminary results.
Of nonvolatile portion.
-------
TABLES
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Table 3
PIEZOMETER AND SAMPLING POINT DATA
Screened
interval
Well No. (ft.)
MM 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16A
16B
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10.40-13.40
9-9.5
8.3-8.8
8.4-8.9
9.5-10.0
9.0-9.5
18.6-19.1
9.4-9.9
19.9-20.4
9.1-9.6
14.6-15.1
12.1-12.6
11.68-12.18
11.5-12.0
6.4-6.9
9.5-10.0
18.8-19.3
8.1-8.6
14.0-14.5
15.5-16.0
12.5-13.0
8.1-8.6
9.1-9.6
7.0-7.5
5.5-6.0
18.0-18.5
18.3-18.8
18.2-18.7
7.8-8.2
19.0-19.5
Sand Pack
interval
5 gpm.
1 Pumping rate 1-5 gpm.
2Can be bailed at 1/5 gt/min. to 1 gpm.
Will recover in 1 to 2 hours when bailed dry.
^Requires more than one day to recover after being bailed dry.
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
PIEZOMETER AND SAMPLING POINT DATA
Well No.
MM 30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Screened
interval
(ft.)
7.6-8.1
18.8-19.3
11.7-12.2
11.4-11.9
11.2-11.7
10.0-10.5
12.5-13.0
7.0-7.5
3.5-4.0
10.8-11.3
11.0-11.5
11.0-11.5
11.8-12.3
13.8-14.3
6.7-7.2
6.6-7.1
14.8-15.3
5.0-5.5
16.0-16.5
6.8-7.25
4.9-5.4
1.4-1.9
8.1-8.6
8.3-8.8
6.8-7.3
6.3-6.8
12.5-13.0
12.3-12.8
14.2-14.7
12.3-12.8
6.2-7.2
10.8-11.8
15.8-16.8
19.0-20.0
8.85-9.85
15.9-16.9
15.5-16.5
OLD DUPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL - CONTINUED
Sand pack
interval Well Principle unit measured
(ft.) rating or sampled Sealed
2.0-10.2
17.3-22.0
7-13.2
0-13.0
0-1 1 .7
0-10.5
12.0-1.3.0
0-7.5
0-4.0
0-14.0
0-12.0
0-12.0
0-12.30
0-13.27
0-7.15
0-7.12
0-15.31
0-5.5
0-16.56
0-7.25
0-5.42
0-1 .92
0-7.55
5.78-8.8
0-7.30
0-6.80
0-13.08
0-12.83
0-14.7
0-12.74
0-7.20
0-1 1 .80
0-16.85
18.57-20.07
0-9.85
14.0-16.9
0-1'6.5
Dry
3
3
1
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2-3
4?
2-3
Refuse
7 ft. below refuse in upper sand
Near base of refuse
Near base of upper sand
About middle of upper sand
Same
Near base of upper sand
About middle of upper sand
Near top of upper sand
Near base of upper sand
Base of upper sand
Same
Base of upper sand
Same
Same
Middle of upper sand
Same
Base of upper sand
Middle of upper sand
Base of upper sand
Near base of upper sand
Near top of upper sand
In landfill
Near base of upper sand
Near middle of upper sand
Same
Same
Near base of upper sand
Same
Same
Same
In refuse
In refuse, near base
4 ft. below refuse in upper sand
6 ft. below top of upper till
Near middle of upper sand
In upper till near top
5 ft. below refuse in upper
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Possibly
Yes
Comments
Generally above zone of
saturation— gas
Destroyed 9/69
Destroyed 9/69
Destroyed 9/69
Pipe raised
Destroyed
Destroyed 6/68
Destroyed 6/68
Destroyed 8/68
Replaces MM 2
Destroyed 4/69
Destroyed 4/69
Sealed in till, reduced
1/2 in. pipe 8/69
Sealed in till ?
Destroyed 8/69
sand
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
PIEZOMETER AND SAMPLING POINT DATA
Well No.
68
68A
69
70
71
71A
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
LW 1A
1B
2A
2B
3A
3B
3C
3D
4A
4B
4C
5A
5B
5C
Screened
interval
(ft.)
10.1-10.64
4.5-5.0
9.3-10.3
8.8-9.8
7.0-10.0
5.47-5.87
7.3-10.30
7.68-8.18
7.60-8.10
8.64-9.14
12.14-12.64
13.50-14.00
13.83-14.33
10.90-11.40
6.01-6.51
11.70-12.20
72.0-75.0
29.5-31.0
71 .0-75.0
38.0-41 .0
68.5-71.5
17.5-20.5
39.5-42.5
47.5-49.0
90.0-93.0
48.0-51 .0
28.5-31.5
47.0-50.0
20.0-23.0
13.0-13.5
OLD DUPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL - CONTINUED
Sand pack
interval Well Principle unit measured
(ft.) rating or sampled Sealed Comments
9.64-10.64
0-5.00
9.17-10.30
8.80-9.80
9.00-10.00
0-5.87
9.30-10.30
1-8.18
1-8.10
8.14-9.14
0-12.64
1.0-14.00
1-14.33
1-11.40
3-6.51
0-12.20
70.0-75.0
-33.0
-75.5
-41.0
-73.0
-20.0
-45.0
47.5-50.0
85.0-93.0
45.5-51 .0
-32.0
47.0-50.0
18.0-23.0
12.0-13.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
3
1
3
4
1
4
2
3
3
1
2
2
Near base of upper sand
Near middle of upper sand
Near base of upper sand
Same
Same
Near middle of upper sand
Near top of upper sand
In refuse
Same
Same
In middle sand
In refuse
In refuse
Middle of -upper sand
Same
Same
Top of Silurian
16ft. below top of till
Top of Silurian
24 ft. below top of till in
interbedded sand
Top of dolomite
3.5 ft. below top of till
20.5 ft. below top of till in
interbedded sand
Top of lower till
Top of dolomite
13ft. below top of till
Base of upper sand
21 ft. below top of till in
interbedded sand
Base of upper sand
1 ft. below refuse
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes Crack in piezometer
near surface
Yes
Yes Partially plugged
Yes
Yes
Partially Reduced
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Possibly
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
PIEZOMETER AND SAMPLING POINT DATA
Well No.
6A
6B
6C
7
8
9
10
LW 11 A
O
•*>• 11B
12A
12B
13
14
15
16
OLD DUPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL-CONTINUED
Screened Sand pack
interval interval Well Principle unit measured
(ft.) (ft.) rating or sampled Sealed
45.5-48.5 41.0-48.5 1
18.0-21.0 15.0-21.0 2
7.5-8.0 5.0-11.0 2
5.2-9.2 0-9.17 1-2
39.1-39.6 38.12-39.62 4
29.0-30.0 28.20-30.03 4
23.8-24.8 3
33.6-34.6 33.37-34.57 4
14.8-15.3 3
9.7-13.7
39.2-39.8 38.26-39.26 4
29.2-30.2 29.14-30.31 4
26.2-27.2 25.92-27.00 4
17.33 ft. below top of till
in interbedded sand
Lower part of upper sand
Upper part of upper sand
Refuse
12.22 ft. below top of upper
till
2.30 ft. below top of till
Base of upper sand
7.47 ft. below top of upper
till
Near base of refuse
In refuse
15.19 ft. below top of till
4.31 ft. below top of till
2.6ft. below top of till
Yes
Yes
Possibly
No
Partly
Yes
Possibly
Yes
Possibly
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Comments
4 in. observation well
Caved and abandoned--
samples only
Caved and abandoned-
samples only
2 in. sampling well,
sealed in clay, reduced
8/69
2 in. sampling well.
sealed in clay, reduced
8/69
Possibly sealed in
refuse
4 in. observation well
Sealed in till, reduced
2 in. sampling well.
sealed in clay, reduced
2 in. sampling well,
sealed in clay, reduced
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
PIEZOMETER AND SAMPLING POINT DATA
-j
Well No.
MM 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Screened
interval
(ft.)
13.5-14.0
4.5-5.0
10.5-11.5
16.5-17.5
4.0-4.5
5.5-6.00
17.5-18.0
5.0-5.5
4.5-5.0
4.5-5.0
8.5-9.0
8.5-9.0
17.0-17.5
7.5-8.0
10.5-12.0
10.5-12.0
10.5-12.0
10.5-12.0
10.5-12.0
10.5-12.0
10.5-12.0
10.5-12.0
10.5-12.0
8.56-9.06
5.71-6.21
8.83-9.13
10.62-11.12
8.77-9.27
0.48-3.48
Sand pack
interval
(ft.)
12.0-14.0
0.5-5.0
9.0-11.0
15.0-17.0
0.5-4.5
0.5-6.0
16.0-18.0
0.5-5.5
0.5-5.0
0.5-5.0
0.5-9.0
0.5-9.0
16.0-18.0
0.5-8.0
9.8-12.0
10.0-12.0
10.0-12.0
10.0-12.0
10.0-12.0
10.0-12.0
10.0-12.0
9.7-12.0
10.0-12.0
0.5-9.06
1.0-6.21
1.0-9.13
1.0-11.12
1 .0-9.27
0-3.48
WINNETKA LANDFILL
Well Principle unit measured
rating or sampled
3
3
3
4
3
2
4
2
3
2
3
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
2-3
3-4
3
1-2
Upper part of till
Upper part of alluvium
Upper part of till
Upper part of till
Upper part of alluvium
Alluvium
Upper part of till
Alluvium
Alluvium
Refuse
Refuse
Alluvium
Upper part of till
Alluvium
Base of alluvium
Base of alluvium
Base of alluvium
Base of alluvium
Base of alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Refuse
Sealed
Partly
IMo
Partly
Partly
No
No
Partly
No
No
No
No
No
Partly
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Comments
Buried by fill
Buried by fill
Reduced with 8 ft. of
Vi in. tubing
Reduced with 12 ft. of
1/2 in. tubing
Reduced with 8 ft. of
Vi in. tubing
Plugged with Bentonite
at 5 ft.
Pulled piezometer off
while back filling
Plugged dry at 8ft.
Tubing pulled off
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
PIEZOMETER AND SAMPLING POINT DATA
-0
a\
Well No.
MM 30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
LW 1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
2A
2B
2C
2D
3A
3B
3C
3D
3E
4A
Screened
interval
(ft.)
2.64-5.64
6.00-9.00
3.44-6.44
0.30-3.30
8.45-8.95
8.28-8.78
8.46-8.96
5.38-8.38
8.14-11.14
6.31-9.31
13.13-16.13
5.62-6.12
8.86-9.36
9.30-12.30
19.61-20.11
17.11-18.11
19.79-20.79
19.99-20.99
29.82-30.32
29.82-30.36
6.87-7.37
6.39-6.89
6.61-7.11
6.55-7.05
6.60-7.10
8.0-8.5
8.0-8.5
120.5-123.5
95.5-98.5
83.0-86.0
54.5-57.5
12.0-15.0
121.5-124.5
67.5-70.5
34.0-37.0
7.5-10.5
115.0-118.0
63.5-66.5
27.5-30.5
11.0-13.0
4.0-4.5
123.5-126.5
WINNETKA
Sand Pack
interval Well
(ft.) rating
0-5.64
1.0-9.0
1.0-6.44
0.0-3.30
1.0-8.95
1.0-8.78
1.0-8.96
1 .0-8.38
1.0-11.14
1.0-9.31
1.0-16.13
1.0-6.12
1 .0=9.36
1.0-12.30
17.11-20.11
15.11-18.11
17.79-20.79
19.49-20.99
27.32-30.32
27.86-30.36
0.00-7.37
0.00-6.89
0.00-7.11
0.00-7.05
0.00-7.10
7.0-8.5
7.0-8.5
110.0-124.0
92.0-99.0
79.0-99.0
55.0-57.5
1.0-15.0
112.0-124.5
65.0-70.5
30.0-37.0
1.0-10.5
112.0-118.0
54.0-66.5
24.0-30.5
8.5-13.5
2.0-4.5
118.0-126.5
1-2
1-2
1-2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
2-3
3
2-3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
?
?
2
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
2
Dry
1
LANDFILL - CONTINUED
Principle unit measured
or sampled Sealed
Refuse
Refuse
Refuse
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Refuse
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Upper part of till
Upper part of till
Upper part of till
Upper part of till
Upper part of till
Upper part of till
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Upper part of silurion
Near base of till
Near middle of till
Upper part of till
Base of refuse
Upper part of silurion
Near middle of till
Near top of till
Base of alluvium
Upper part of silurion
Near middle of till
Upper part of till
Base of alluvium
Top of alluvium
Top of silurion
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Probably
Probably
No
No
No
No
No
Probably
Probably
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
No
Yes
Yes
Partly
No
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
No
Yes
Comments
Flowing at ground
level
Some surface leakage
Over sewer
Slotted for gas sample
In ditch surface leakage
Destroyed
Reduced
Injection testarray
Injection testarray
Injection testarray
Injection testarray
Injection testarray
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
PIEZOMETER AND SAMPLING POINT DATA
Well No.
4B
4C
4D
4E
5A
5B
6A
6B
7A
7B
7C
8A
SB
8C
9A
9B
10A
10B
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Screened
interval
(ft.)
82.0-85.0
55.0-58.0
32.0-35.0
13.0-16.0
32.0-35.0
9.5-12.5
55.5-58.5
27.5-30.5
92.0-95.0
42.0-45.0
9.5-12.5
60.0-63.0
26.0-29.0
11.5-12.00
64.0-66.0
10.0-10.5
35.30-35.80
11.31-11.81
14.91-15.91
19.89-20.89
3.75-8.00
33.49-33.99
24.46-25.46
19.38-20.38
14.58-19.38
WINNETKA LANDFILL - CONTINUED
Sand pack
interval Well Principle unit measured
(ft.) rating or sampled Sealed
77.0-85.0
44.5-58.5
30.0-35.0
11.0-16.0
30.5-36.0
0.0-12.5
52.0-58.5
24.5-31.5
88.0-95.0
38.0-45.0
6.0-12.5
55.0-66.0
23.0-30.0
0.5-12.0
57.5-66.0
0.5-10.5
34.80-35.80
7-11.81
14.91-15.91
19.89-20.89
0.00-8.00
33.32-33.99
24.45-25.46
19.20-20.38
0.00-19.38
3
2
3
2
4
2
2
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
4
2-3
4
4
1
4
4
4
2
Near base of till
Near middle of till
Upper part of till
Base of alluvium
19.5ft. below top of till
Base of refuse
Near middle of till
Near top of till
Lower part of till
Near middle of till
Base of alluvium
Near middle of till
Upper part of till
Base of alluvium
Lower part of till
Base of alluvium
Till, 23.3 ft. below refuse
Base of refuse
Till, 0.41 ft. below refuse
Till, 9.4 ft. below refuse
Base of refuse
Till, 19.5 ft. below refuse
Till, 11.13ft. below refuse
Till, 5.93 ft. below refuse
Base of refuse
Yes
Partly
Partly
No
Probably
No
Yes
Yes
Partially
Partially
No
Yes
Probably
No
Questionable
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No.
Comments
Reduced
Reduced
Reduced
Reduced
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
PIEZOMETER AND SAMPLING POINT DATA
00
ELGIN LANDFILL
Well
LW
Well
Well
No.
1A
1B
1C
2A
2B
2C
3A
3B
3C
4A
4B
4C
4D
5A
5B
6A
6B
7A
7B
8A
8B
9A
9B
10
11
1
2
Screened
interval
(ft.)
41.0-44.0
23.0-26.0
7.5-10.5
60.0-63.0
46.0-49.0
8.0-11.0
55.0-58.0
31.5-34.5
8.0-11.0
46.5-49.5
34.5-37.5
20.5-23.5
8.5-11.5
18.5-21.5
10.5-13.5
38.0-41 .0
18.5-21.5
30.0-33.0
22.0-25.0
33.5-36.5
15.0-18.0
28.0-31.0
12.0-15.0
15.97-16.47
9.86-10.36
4.90-7.90
17.8-19.8
Sand pack
interval
(ft.)
37.0-44.0
20.0-26.0
3.0-10.5
53.0-63.0
39.5-49.5
7.0-11.0
51.0-58.0
27.0-34.5
-11.0
-52.0
-37.5
19.0-23.5
0.0-11.5
17.5-21.5
6.0-13.5
35.0-41.0
-21.5
28.0-33.0
18.0-25.0
31.0-36.5
10.0-18.0
25.0-31.5
11.0-15.0
11-16.47
0-10.36
0-7.90
0-19.8
Material
Well
Sealed
Comments
set in rating
Dolomite
Gravel
Sand and gravel
Dolomite
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel
Dolomite
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel
Dolomite
Sand & pea gravel
Sand & pea gravel
Sand & pea gravel
Silty sand
Sand and gravel
Silty sand
Sand and gravel
Silty sand
Sand and gravel
Sand
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel
1
2
1
1
1
7
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
7
?
2
1
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Partly
Partly
Partly
No
Partly
No
Yes
No
Partly
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Partly
No
No
No
Buried, 8/68
Buried, 8/68
Buried, 8/68
Foot valve removed
Foot valve removed
Foot valve removed
Lost
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
PIEZOMETER AND SAMPLING POINT DATA
Well No.
MM 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
LW 1A
1B
1C
1D
2A
2B
2C
2D
2E
3A
3B
3C
3D
3E
3F
4A
4B
4C
4D
4E
5A
5B
5C
6A
6B
7
8
Screened
interval
(ft.)
7.5-8.0
17.0-17.5
6.5-7.0
18.5-19.0
10.5-11.0
6.0-6.5
8.5-9.0
{5.0-15.5
8.5-9.0
8.0-8.5
220.5-223.5
31.0-34.0
22.0-25.0
11.5-14.5
145.0-148.0
76.0-79.0
53.5-56.5
8.5-9.0
4.5-5.0
192.0-195.0
162.0-165.0
101.5-104.5
62.0-65.0
19.0-22.0
7.0-7.5
118.0-121.0
102.0-105.0
70.0-73.0
26.5-29.5
13.0-13.5
44.0-47.0
18.5-21.5
9.5-10.0
31.0-34.0
8.0-11.0
9.79-13.79
13.08-17.08
WOODSTOCK LANDFILL
Sand pack
interval Material Well
(ft.) set in rating
0.0-8.0
11.0-18.0
0.5-7.0
12.0-21.0
8.5-11.0
0.5-6.5
0.5-9.0
14.0-15.5
0.5-9.0
0.5-8.5
209.0-223.5
30.0-34.0
-25.0
-14.5
-148.0
-79.0
-56.5
-9.0
-5.0
180.0-195.0
158.0-169.0
98.0-104.5
55.0-65.0
-22.0
-7.5
113.0-121.0
98.0-105.0
65.0-73.0
-29.5
11.0-13.5
43.0-51 .0
18.0-21.5
8.0-10.0
22.0-34.0
6.0-1 1 .0
0-13.79
0-17.08
Sand
Gravelly sand
Silt
Gravel
Silty sand
Sand and gravel
Organic silt
Organic silt
Organic silt
Organic silt
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel
Silt
Refuse
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel
Till
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel
Clay over sand
and gravel
Sandy till
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel
Sand
Silty sand
Sand
Sand and gravel
Sandy silty till
Sand
Sandy silt
Sandy silt
Sand and gravel
Refuse
Refuse
Refuse
1
3
3
1
3
1
2
3
2
3
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1 +
2
3
3
1 +
1
2
2
1 +
1
1
Dry
1
1
2
1 +
3
?
7
Sealed
No
Partly
No
Partly
Partly
No
No
Partly
No
No
Yes
Partly
Partly
No
Yes
No
No
Probably
No
Partly
Partly
Partly
Partly
Probably
No
Probably
Probably
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Comments
Buried, 1968
Reduced
Destroyed, 10/69
Destroyed, 10/69
Destroyed, 10/69
Destroyed, 10/69
Destroyed, 10/69
-------
Table 4
TEXTURAL ANALYSES1 2
Well No.
Depth
(ft.)
Stratigraphic
position
Total sample
Gravel (%)
Sample <2 mm diameter
Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%)
Classification
DuPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL
Near LW
oo
o
' 4
5
1
6
3
1
7
7
13
13
1B
TB
2B
4B
4B
1B
2B
3B
4B
5
26
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
1.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
3-4.5
10.5-12
12-13.5
18-19.5
27.5-29
17-18.5
17-18.5
17-18.5
48-49.5
42-43.5
40-41.5
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Topsoil adjacent
to fill
Topsoil adjacent
to fill
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Surficial sand
Surficial sand
Surficial sand
Surficial sand
(below fill)
Surficial sand
(below fill)
Upper till
Upper till
Upper till
Middle till
Middle till
Interbedded sand
3
8
3
8
9
15
18
1
5
24
38
0
14
1
1
5
6
10
23
21
29
Near LW
2B
3C
5
6
Near LW 7
IME corner
South side
of fill
41.5-43
42-43.5
50-51.5
44.5-46
0-1
1.5
1.5
Interbedded sand
Interbedded sand
Interbedded sand
Interbedded sand
30
36
14
3
Cover on fill
Adjacent to fill
Adjacent to fill
WINNETKA LANDFILL
1
5
1 Analyses performed under the supervision of W. Arthur White.
2 Gravel > 2mm sand 2-0.062 mm silt 0.062-O.0039 mm clay
-------
WINNETKA LANDFILL (Continued)
Well No.
Near LW 6
6
6
6
6
13
13
17
17
6
5
5
5
Depth
(ft.)
1.5
9.5-11
24.5-26
34.5-36
47-48.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
4.5-6
13.5-15
26-27.5
31 .5-33
Stratigraphic
position
Adjacent to fill
Upper till
Upper till
Upper. til I
Lower till
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Surficial silt
Upper till
Upper till
Upper till
Total sample
Gravel (%)
0
9
3
5
1
3
2
2
0
1
3
4
Sample <^2 mm diameter
Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%)
26
19
17
10
42
48
65
40
40
21
bad
13
10
46
53
49
41
45
29
20
31
26
51
reading
48
46
28
28
34
49
13
23
15
29
34
22
39
44
Classification
Loam
Loam
Sand loam
Clay loam
Clay loam
oo
Near LW
7
7
7
8
8
6
6
6
6
0-1
0.5
1.5
15-16.5
17.5-19
19.5^21
24.5-26
32-33.5
38-39.5
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Surficial sand
Surficial sand
Surficial sand
Upper till
Upper till
Basal sand
ELGIN LANDFILL
40
15
18
3
14
55
13
7
55
WOODSTOCK LANDFILL
40
33
39
10
96
79
27
33
76
27
36
37
84
41
42
4
21
24
33
31
24
6
32
25
Near LW 6
SW corner
Near LW 2
4
NW corner
Near LW 7
7
8
8
5
5
6
5
6
6
0-1
0-1
0-1
1.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
24.5-26
42-43.5
35-36.5
49.5-51
39.5-41
54.5-56
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Topsoil adjacent
to fill
Topsoil adjacent
to fill
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Cover on fill
Upper till
Upper till
Upper till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
33
16
9
1
0
29
29
2
14
8
3
4
11
12
22
53
26
15
50
94
48
55
72
58
14
11
10
39
44
41
31
61
49
34
39
31
14
25
44
51
48
36
38
36
16
13
36
16
13
14
14
17
42
38
42
25
18
23
Clay loam
Clay loam
Loam
Sandy loam
Silt loam
Silty clay loam
Loam
Sand
Loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
-------
TABLE 5
CLAY MINERAL ANALYSES' 2
Landfill
DuPage County
Winnetka
Elgin
Well
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
No.
6
6
5
5
5
5
Percent <
Depth Mont-
(ft) morillonite Illite
26-27.5 2 79
39.5^1 2.5 71.5
12-13.5 3 80
17-18.5 2.5 81
16.5-17 15 67.5
21-22.5 11 65
2 l-i fraction
Chlorite and
kaolinite Unit sampled
19 Upper till
26 Upper till
17 Alluvium?
16.5 Upper till
17.5 Upper till
24 Lower till
Analyses performed under the supervision of Herbert D. Glass.
Percentages obtained by x-ray diffraction of the <^2-micron-size fraction.
Oo
-------
Well no.
TABLE 6
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BY THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Date
sampled
Total
dissolved
solids
(ppm)
pH
Total Organic Hardness Sodium Manga-
COD acids (as CaCO3) Sulfate (est) Chloride Iron nese
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
Comments
LW
00
MM
DUPAGE COUNTY
1A
1A
2B
3C
3C
4A
4C
5A
5B
5B
5B
5B
5B
5B
5B
5C
6A
6A
6B
6B
6B
6C
2
2
3
10-3-67
11-29-67
10-3-67
10-3-67
11-29-67
10-3-67
11-13-67
8-8-67
8-8-67
8-31-67
9-6-67
9-21-67
1 0-3-67
10-24-67
11-7-67
8-8-67
8-9-67
11-28-67
8-9-67
9-6-67
11-28-67
8-9-67
9-21-67
10-3-67
9-6-67
382
314
426
376
388
382
374
348
6,712
1 1 ,254
1 1 ,875
12,589
13,409
1 1 ,465
8,047
6,712
353
381
1,703
1,715
2,075
1,372
1,976
1,988
4,980
7.5
8.0
7.7
7.6
8.0
7.5
8.4
7.7
6.7
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.2
7.6
6.5
6.7
7.9
7.9
7.3
7.1
7.5
7.3
7.0
7.2
7.4
32
24
44
20
22
91
4
36
1,813
35,700
51 ,400
44,600
45,646
20,700
17,088
1,863
8
22
167
180
238
143
202
206
873
40
neg
20
55
neg
neg
neg
70
1,840
7,650
4,500
3;950
9,200
6,850
9,150
6,700
0
neg
60
neg
neg
80
neg
neg
20
290
265
320
340
330
340
336
310
4,620
8,700
9,000
9,000
10,600
8,900
5,200
4,960
350
320
590
590
500
590
840
740
840
8
4
29
23
21
17
68
18
295
940
1,600
820
1,200
451
190
380
16.8
30
7.6
6.4
24
8.4
15
26
42
23
49
17
27
19
17
18
962
,200
,323
,651
,292
,180
,310
806
2
28
512
518
725
360
523
9I4
1,904
18
6
25
15
9
23
11
8
1,100
2,250
1,900
2,000
1,750
1,075
10
10
185
220
240
400
800
126
55
139
97
18
70
27
2.3
38
206
409.6
400
774
762
461
40
6.8
38
6
25.6
110
15.2
49.6
416
192
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
neg
0
0
Detergents, 2.
-------
oo
TABLE 6 (continued)
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BY THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Well No.
Date
sampled
Total
dissolved
solids
(ppm)
Total
COD
pH (ppml
Organic
acids
(ppm)
Hardness
(asCaCO-,)
(ppm)
Sulfate
(ppm)
Sodium
(est)
(ppm)
Chloride
(ppm)
Iron
(ppm)
Manga-
nese
(ppm) Comments
DUPAGE COUNTY
5
5
12
15
17
18
18
19
20
20
21
22
23
24
34
34
39
40
41
62
Asphalt
plant
Farm well
Aluminum
plant
8-9-67
11-28-67
10-3-67
10-25-67
10-25-67
8-9-67
1 1 -28-67
10-3-67
10-3-67
11-29-67
10-3-67
10-25-67
9-6-67
9-6-67
9-2-67
11-29-67
10-25-67
10-25-67
10-24-67
2-19-69
9-6-67
11-1-67
8-9-67
8-9-67
1,084
1,012
9,004
908
1,488
3,250
3,091
2,865
2,334
2,842
788
618
802
494
1,506
1,291
599
636
594
3,001
317
319
321
392
7.4
7.3
6.7
7.4
6.9
7.5
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.5
7.4
6.3
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.8
7.3
7.2
7.4
6.7
7.7
7.5
7.9
7.7
68
103
19,068?
40
58
480
260
210
249
290
91
20
51
63
71
68
18
20
246
4,900
14
6
0
4
100
neg
5,900
neg
neg
40
neg
neg
50
neg
neg
neg
neg
neg
neg
neg
neg
55
neg
1,960
neg
neg
40
40
720
470
6,100
520
1,040
1,450
780
1,600
780
740
520
460
570
400
820
460
480
570
460
240
250
270
320
146
66
58
34
27
92
31
4
9
25
22
18
9
76
10
43
339
230
646
10
11
20
68
167
249
1,336
178
206
828
1,063
582
715
967
120
73
107
43
316
382
55
30
62
35
32
23
33
120
1,500
250
300
2
450
925
325
380
157
48
175
58
248
220
63
18
23
385
5
5
8
5
4.2
400
454
288
400
27.7
440
142
67
300
403
333
24
22.8
144
440
22
70
30
1
1
0.55
0.2
Tr 0.1
0.2
0
0.2
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0.3
0.3
0
0
0
0.5
0.2
0
0
0
0
Dolomite well
Dolomite well
Dolomite well
Dolomite well
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BY THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Well No.
Aluminum
plant
Electronics
plant
Spring on
S. side
of road
near
MM 3
Kress
Creek
200 ft N
MM 9
Kress
Creek
near
MM 12
Kress
Creek
near
MM 53
Kress
Creek
near
MM 53
Kress
Creek
at bend,
middle
of field
Date
sampled
11-1-67
9-6-67
1-24-68
2-19-69
1-24-68
2-19-69
1-24-68
1-24-68
2-19-69
1-24-68
Total
dissolved
solids
(ppm) pH
407 7.3
358 7.8
2,695 7.0
2,682 7.1
551 7.8
506 7.8
554 7.9
559 7.3
562 7.6
563 7.3
Total
COD
(ppm)
6
16
230,
475
2
2
4
3
5
8
Organic Hardness Sodium Manga-
acids (as CaCO3) Sulfate (est) Chloride Iron nese
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) Comments
DU PAGE COUNTY-continued
neg 310 88 44 8 0.2 0 Dolomite well
20 330 54 13 6 0.6 0 Dolomite well
50 500 150 1,010 290 78 0
70 275
neg 330 162 102 48 0.4 0
40 33
35 330 160 103 51 0.4 0
neg 350 164 96 37 0.6 0
30 39
50 370 195 89 38 0.7 0 Old channel-equiva
to stream near MM 56
-------
Kress
Creek
near
MM 56
TABLE 6 (continued)
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BY THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Well No.
Total
dissolved
Date solids
sampled (ppm)
Total
COD
pH (ppm)
Organic
acids
(ppm)
Hardness
(as CaCO3l
(ppm)
Sulfate
(ppm)
Sodium
(est)
(ppm)
Chloride
(ppm)
Iron
(ppm)
Manga-
nese
(ppm)
2-19-69
551
7.8
DU PAGE COUNTY-continued
30
39
oo
cr\
1A
1A
1E
1E
2A
26
2B
2B
2C
2C
3A
3A
3A
3A
3B
3B
3C
3C
3D
3D
10-18-67
12- 5-67
8-17-67
11-15-67
8-16-67
8-18-67
10-28-67
12- 4-67
9-20-67
10-18-67
8-21-67
8-23-67
10-18-67
12- 5-67
8-30-67
10-18-67
8-30-67
10-18-67
8-21-67
10-17-67
332
439
5,146
4,750
247
1,060
548
463
2,548
2,471
223
442
365
389
1,286
1,827
1,715
1,882
1,501
1,939
7.7
7.5
7.4
7.6
8.0
7.3
7.5
7.5
6.9
7.1
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.9
7.0
7.0
7.1
6.8
7.0
6.9
24
43
737
668
18
57
36
28
169
113
18
22
20
18
129
190
186
145
119
157
neg
20
20
110
0
0
neg
neg
neg
neg
0
20
neg
15
neg
neg
neg
neg
0
neg
140
180
990
1,080
98
590
290
230
1,480
1,340
190
260
170
172
810
1,110
1,200
1,270
800
1,170
6
20
0
48
24
114
36
26
227
210
8
18
4
7
38
14
6.8
14
32
15
88
119
1912
1688
69
216
119
107
491
520
15
84
90
99
219
330
237
282
322
354
60
65
115
1040
46
249
113
88
770
695
51
61
90
62
200
475
360
440
275
440
128
8
27
68
30
34
304
160
170
83
30
27
50
3
150.4
342
45.2
80
36
362
0
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0
0
0
0
-------
LW
do
MM
TABLE 6 (continued)
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BY THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Date
Well No. sampled
Total
dissolved
solids
(ppm)
Total
COP
pH (ppm)
Organic
acids
(ppm)
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
(ppm)
Sulfate
(ppm)
Sodium
(est)
(ppm)
Chloride
(ppm)
Manga-
Iron nese
(ppm) (ppm)
Comments
WINNETKA - Continued
4A
4C
4C
4E
4E
5B
5B
6A
6A
6A
7A
7B
7B
7C
8A
8A
8B
SB
3C
9A
5
6
6
8
8
9
9
9
9-10-67
9-18-67
10-16-67
9-19-67
10-17-67
8-17-67
11-15-67
9-20-67
9-28-67
2-26-69
12-5-67
11-6-67
12-5-67
12-5-67
11-10-67
11-14-67
11-16-67
2-26-69
2-26-69
11-10-67
12-5-67
8-16-67
10-16-67
12-5-67
1-25-68
12-5-67
1-25-68
2-26-69
224
631
450
1,330
1,341
2,918
2,941
218
261
221
593
376
436
1,022
268
238
435
2,378
676
301
2,524
1,236
1,466
1,625
1,421
4,235
4,060
3,244
8.0
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.0
8.0
8.1
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.1
7.8
8.3
8.2
7.2
7.5
7.6
7.0
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.3
121
20
28
52
48
299
280
8
6
162
18
23
39
22
0
4
31
189
189
19
581
31
20
102
50
102
35
171
40
neg
neg
neg
neg
0
40
neg
neg
20
neg
neg
20
neg
neg
neg
30
30
120
30
40
0
neg
30
neg
neg
35
neg
80
370
240
890
1,020
760
720
92
108
370
90
230
880
172
100
152
124
1,320
920
1,390
840
710
1,500
1,480
6
66
26
157
274
18
11
16
0
116
67
66
340
28
20
130
22
140
500
730
38
103
215
208
66
120
97
202
148
993
1,012
58
70
103
132
95
65
44
63
130
81
554
145
35
361
327
1,258
1,187
31
118
110
323
295
590
610
34
40
33
39
33
31
80
39
37
33
850
188
45
360
190
208
390
355
1,950
2,000
1,625
9.6
20.4
262
14.8
108
22
269
4.8
28
15
29
5
30
339
25
26
78
150
7
110
300
162
140
68
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.2
1.2
0
0
neg
0
0.2
0
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.8
0.5
0.2
0
0
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BY THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
00
00
Well No.
MM 10
10
11
11
11
12
12
25
26
28
29
33
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
47
48
49
52
2061
2062
Date
sampled
8-15-67
11-15-67
9-20-67
11-15-67
2-26-69
11-15-67
12-5-67
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
2-26-69
10-6-67
10-6-67
Total
dissolved
solids
Ippm)
3,379
3,250
5,560
5,938
3,304
1,328
1,119
927
1,427
2,403
1,735
5,263
479
1,052
1,888
4,459
4,280
944
1,107
931
683
401
279
595
220
250
pH
7.1
7.7
6.7
7.3«
6.9
7.8
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.1
6.7
7.1
7.5
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.9
7.1
7.1
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.3
7.6
7.6
Total
COD
(ppm)
517
384
5,826
10,800
1,240
0
32
439
128
470
443
880
85
500
104
947
848
510
98
164
377
62
86
1,374
6
8
Organic Hardness Sodium
acids
(ppm)
0
70
3,400
3,000
160
neg
neg
0
20
0
0
40
0
30
40
70
70
0
40
70
0
20
0
0
neg
neg
(asCaCO3) Sulfate (est)
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
WINNETKA-continued
890 0 1,145
920 17 1,072
3,280 26 1,049
3,440 192 1,149
1,300 1,000 13
930 460 87
76 2 66
84 1 76
Manga-
Chloride Iron nese
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) Comments
650 23 0
600 211 0
1,130 323 neg
620 589 0
725
80 10 0.3
205 83 0.8
60
73
1,100
280
2,550
13
58
800
1,050
975
100
10
27
14
95
22
61
36 0.2 0 Dolomite wells
36 0.2 0 Vi to 1/2 miles north
of LW3
-------
LW
00
TABLE 6 (continued)
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BY THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Date
Well No. sampled
Total
dissolved
solids
(ppm)
Total
COD
pH (ppm)
Organic
acids
(ppm)
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
(ppm)
Sulfate
(ppm)
Sodium
(est)
(ppm)
Chloride
(ppm)
Iron
(ppm)
Manga-
nese
(ppm)
ELGIN
1A
1A
1A
1B
1B
1C
1C
2A
2A
2A
2B
2B
3A
3A
3A
3B
3B
4A
4A
4A
4B
48
4C
4C
5A
5A
5A
7-27-67
8-2-67
9-27-67
7-27-67
8-30-67
7-27-67
8-30-67
7-27-67
8-2-67
9-26-67
7-27-67
9-26-67
7-27-67
8-2-67
9-26-67
7-27-67
9-26-67
7-26-67
8-2-67
9-26-67
7-26-67
8-30-67
7-26-67
8-30-67
7-26-67
7-27-67
8-2-67
498
412
401
415
428
523
1,946
412
393
376
391
383
349
371
376
374
383
374
383
389
398
386
368
398
2,470
2,246
2,237
7.2
7.0
7.3
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.7
7.6
8.0
7.3
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.2
7.0
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.7
7.3
7.3
50
20
16
30
28
70
44
23
12
4
20
8
110
22
8
235
10
290
8
8
60
12
60
neg
1,000
1,500
800
0
0
30
35
neg
35
40
0
20
neg
0
30
35
0
neg
0
neg
75
20
100
0
20
35
neg
3,360
330
230
380
328
308
348
350
408
1,010
344
332
324
332
332
272
340
320
248
308
328
324
332
348
310
348
350
812
844
860
76
6
2
14
6.4
40
650
44
34
20
28
20
18
8
0.4
30
6
3
5
0.4
4
2
6
14
16
10
5
est. 54
est. 39
43
est. 31
36
est. 53
431
est. 31
est. 28
24
est. 27
23
est. 35
est. 14
26
est. 58
35
est. 21
est. 27
26
est. 23
35
est. 9
22
est. 763
est. 645
est. 645
28
9
6
9
8
29
500
9
10
6
9
5
16
7
6
7
6
7
7
5
11
5
7
5
7.2
3.2
4.2
4
4.8
19.2
4.4
3.2
2.6
4.8
0.2
0
0.1
0.7
0.8
1.7
1.6
0.3
0
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.6
0
0.2
0
0.2
0
0
0
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BY THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Well No.
LW 5B
5B
5B
6A
6A
6A
6B
6B
7A
7A
7A
7B
8A
8A
8A
SB
SB
9A
9A
9B
9B
9B
Well 1
1
1
2
2
Date
sampled
7-26-67
7-27-67
8-30-67
7-26-67
8-2-67
9-27-67
7-26-67
8-30-67
7-27-67
8-2-67
9-27-67
7-27-67
7-27-67
7-27-67
9-27-67
7-27-67
8-30-67
8-2-67
9-27-67
8-2-67
8-29-67
11-28-67
9-15-67
10-24-67
2-24-69
9-15-67
10-24-67
Total
dissolved
solids
(ppm)
2,570
2,287
2,470
379
395
395
1,647
1,383
374
371
365
710
386
359
395
1,123
1,605
371
359
1,262
2,272
1,529
2,129
1,699
2,471
437
452
pH
7.4
6.9
6.8
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.7
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.3
7.7
7.9
7.2
8.0
7.5
7.6
Total
COD
(ppm)
1,400
1,700
992
23
160
4
170
10
230
40
12
2,600
30
15
8
70
20
468
12
472
34
50
417
236
176
42
26
Organic
acids
(ppm)
ELGIN
270
160
260
75
0
neg
40
neg
0
0
neg
0
20
0
neg
0
neg
0
55
0
20
neg
90
60
20
neg
30
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
(ppm)
— Continued
1,140
912
1,100
352
340
332
1,420
1,090
316
332
316
580
348
348
324
856
1,260
360
280
788
1,390
670
700
640
360
325
Sulfate
(ppm)
60
51
28
4
10
5
1,000
810
8.2
9
0.4
343
13
3
0
480
910
44
33
487
1,360
542
trace
20
7
8
Sodium
(est)
(ppm)
est 658
est 633
630
est 12
est 25
29
est 104
135
est 27
est 18
23
est 60
est 17
est 5
33
est 1 23
159
est 5
36
est 218
314
395
657
487
35
58
Chloride
(ppm)
510
7
7
5
165
138
9
7
5
28
7
7
5
145
198
15
7
198
435
290
655
595
1,600
59
88
Iron
(ppm)
75
8.8
4
10.4
6.4
3
12
27.2
95
12.8
54
0.8
11
Manga-
nese
(ppm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.3
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
1.2
0
0
0.4
0.5
0.3
neg
0
0
0
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BY THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Well No.
Date
sampled
Total
dissolved
solids
(ppm)
pH
Total
COD
(ppm)
Organic
acids
(ppm)
Hardness
(as CaCO3l
(ppm)
Sulfate
(ppm)
Sodium
(est)
(ppm)
Chloride
(ppm)
Iron
(ppm)
Manga-
nese
(ppm) Comments
ELGIN— continued
Farm
Airport
Fox River
at LW1
Fox River
• at Marina
Fox River
at Well 1
Marina
Marina
Marina
11-28-67
11-1-67
10-24-67
2-24-69
2-24-69
7-27-67
8-30-67
11-1-67
458
452
404
478
481
1,372
1,284
1,284
7.6
6.9
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.3
7.3
7.2
24
21
30
25
35
55
20
23
neg
neg
neg
40
50
0
neg
neg
240
350
320
928
840
810
2
18
89
620
650
900
100
47
38
est 204
.204
218
7
4
38
49
44
200
220
210
10
24
3
1.6
2.4
800 ft west of site
0.1 1/2 mile west of LW 3
0
1.1
1.0
0.8
WOODSTOCK
LW1B
16
1C
1C
1C
1D
1D
2A
2B
2C
2C
2C
9-13-67
11-7-67
9-13-67
11-7-67
11-20-67
11-7-67
11-20-67
10-6-67
10-6-67
8-10-67
8-11-67
10-6-67
448
449
1,003
805
617
6,647
7,265
346
337
338
335
313
7.6
7.2
7.6
7.5
7.0
7.7
8.2
8.1
8.1
7.7
7.7
8.3
12
0
85
19
564
4
2
8
10
10
neg
neg
75
neg
80
neg
neg
0
0
neg
340
360
420
320
366
1,000
1,110
270
260
270
270
260
68
87
28
31
345
13
12
12
14.0
40
50
41
268
223
115
2,598
2,831
35
35
31
est 30
24
22
16
190
135
80
2,370
2,400
10
7
6
5
4
137.6?
12
39.6
22.4
34.4
24
6.8
32
13.9
13.6
0.4
0
? Detergents, .2.0
0
0
0.2
0.2
0
0.2
0
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BY THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Well No.
Date
sampled
Total
dissolved
solids
(ppm)
pH
Total
COD
(ppm)
Organic
acids
(ppm)
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
(ppm)
Sulfate
(ppm)
Sodium
(est)
(ppm)
Chloride
(ppm)
Iron
(ppm)
Manga-
nese
(ppm)
WOODSTOCK -continued
LW2D
2E
2E
3A
3B
3C
3C
3D
3D
3D
3D
3E
3F
3F
4A
4B
4C
4C
4D
4D
5A
5A
58
5B
5C
5C
6A
6A
6A
9-13-67
8-10-67
11-20-67
10-6-67
10-6-67
9-13-67
10-5-67
8-10-67
9-1 3-67
10-5-67
11-20-67
9-13-67
9-13-67
11-20-67
10-6-67
10-6-67
10-6-67
11-20-67
11-7-67
11-20-67
8-11-67
11-29-67
8-14-67
11-29-67
8-14-67
11-29-67
8-11-67
11- 7-67
11-20-67
377
371
398
404
404
352
354
452
490
419
472
1,583
1,235
1,314
343
353
353
348
805
583
397
404
407
427
645
775
1,129
1,133
935
7.7
7.4
7.3
7.9
8.1
7.8
7.4
7.5
8.1
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.1
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.5
8.3
7.5
8.0
7.3
7.7
7.2
7.7
7.0
7.2
7.7
0
4
98
0
24
12
12
4
14
129
428
8
0
2
0
31
0
8
34
6
26
8
28
81
69
58
neg
0
neg
neg
neg
neg
20
neg
neg
neg
75
neg
neg
neg
neg
neg
neg
0
neg
0
neg
0
neg
0
20
neg
272
360
330
330
310
300
290
390
420
400
395
1,010
670
650
250
270
280
295
480
540
350
280
360
310
500
530
770
520
520
64
64
1
6
2.4
25
14
9.6
18
14.8
22
7
11
46
37
175
136
14
3
66
62
190
360
28
13
7
48
est. 5
31
34
43
24
29
est. 29
32
8
35
264
260
305
43
38
34
24
150
20
est 22
57
est 22
54
est 67
113
est 1 65
282
191
13
8
15
6
10
15
5
2
8
4
10
155
195
243
15
7
8
10
65
15
4
7
19
21
80
72
120
113
19.2
1
1.1
25
123.2
48
1.4
3.4
1.3
24.8
71.2
48
10
1.8
12
4.8
4
1.2
20
3.1
38
3.7
38
5.9
8
17
0.5
0
0
0.4
0.6
0.4
0
0.2
0
0
0
0.2
0
0.3
0.5
0
0.3
0
0
0
0.1
0.4
1.1
0.2
0
0
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BY THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Well No.
Date
sampled
Total
dissolved
solids
(ppm)
pH
Total Organic Hardness Sodium Manga-
COD acids (as CaCO3) Sulfate (est) Chloride Iron nese
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) Comments
MM
WOODSTOCK-co ncluded
1
4
4
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
Stream near
MM 10
Swamp south
of LW 2
Stream near
MM 8 and 9
Stream south
side Davis Rd.
Stream west
side Rt. 47
J. Ritter
Windmill
8-14-67
9-13-67
11-20-67
8-11-67
11-20-67
11-7-67
11-20-67
11-7-67
11-20-67
2-24-69
8-14-67
11-7-67
11-20-67
8-14-67
11-20-67
2-24-69
1-18-68
2-24-69
1-18-68
1-18-68
2-24-69
1-18-68
1-18-68
11-20-67
9-13-67
1,545
730
664
416
417
3,823
3,743
1,492
1,342
1,236
638
695
718
524
583
563
478
450
1,646
710
595
618
858
268
348
6.8
7.3
7.9
7.3
8.1
7.4
7.1
7.2
7.9
7.2
7.4
7.1
6.9
6.8
7.3
7.0
7.0
7.5
7.2
7.1
7.5
7.5
7.2
8.2
7.5
59
8
0
4
0
108
61
4
1,103
51
61
39
31
68
29
49
80
25
60
20
33
4
0
0
neg
neg
20
neg
neg
neg
neg
0
0
neg
0
neg
0
50
0
35
50
20
neg
120
neg
neg
1,160
720
625
390
375
1,550
1,720
900
980
500
570
590
470
540
465
830
560
440
700
220
320
233.3
290
235
72
76
2000
500
400
136
220
56
120
188
123
300
152
398
13
30
est 177
5
18
12
19
1,046
931
272
167
est 64
58
59
est 25
20
6
375
69
82
73
22
13
16
9
12
11
728
680
278
268
238
15
65
60
5
9
18
12
44
375
60
60
100
80
7
8
12.2
24.8
17
3.4
14
33.6
53
9.6
2.5
20
15.2
19
2
7
1
8
13
0.8
2.8
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0
0.1
0
0.1
0
0.3
1.1
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
Y2 mile upstream
1/2 mile downstream
400 feet NE of site
200 feet S of LW 3
-------
TABLE 7
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BY ALLIED LABORATORIES1
Well. No.
Du Page
MM 3
12
12
20
35
36
36
MM 39
42
45
46
47
MM 49
50
53
54
55
MM 56
58
64
65
67
LW 28
28
2B
4A
4A
5A
5A
5B
5C
5C
LW 128
13
c
<5
CO
Q
2/19/69
2/19/69
11/18/67
2/19/69
2/19/69
2/19/69
2/20/69
1 1 /2S/67
2/19/69
2/19/69
2/20/69
2/19/69
2/19/69
2/19/69
2/19/69
2/19/69
2/19/69
2/19/69
2/19/69
2/19/69
2/19/69
2/19/69
11/28/67
11/28/67
2/20/69
11/28/67
2/20/69
11/28/67
2/20/69
11/28/67
11/28/67
2/20/69
2/20/69
2/20/69
5
o
CO
Q
12/1/67
12/1/67
12/1/67
12/1/67
12/1/67
12/1/67
12/1/67
12/1/67
a
7.0
6.4
5.9
6.9
7.0
7.5
6.5
6.7
6.3
6.8
6.7
7.5
6.6
7.1
6.9
6.9
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.1
6.5
5.9
6.9
6.9
6.6
7.3
6.9
6.7
6.7
5.9
6.2
7.2
6.0
5.5
a.
Q,
Q
o
1.43
85
150
1
neg
3.3
0.03
0.5
51.8
3.5
4.6
0.05
2.45
0.23
2.11
0.1
neg
0.05
0.1
1
63.8
1,050
0.4
0.6
0.05
0.8
0.10
0.5
0.26
450
330
40
750
590
a
>- a
!
^ c .2 >• '£ —
Co) ~° 3 co
Q) Q) — V) ~ "
"5 .t: o JS !5 ^ z
o .e .t: £ "o o iS
5.5 6,840
0.7 340
1 .7 325
1 325
1.2 210
0.9 240
11.2 7,010
14.4 8,560
Winnetka
MM 6
10
10
1 2/4/67
12/4/67
2/26/69
12/8/67
12/8/67
6.7
6.6
6.7
1.1
28.5
25.2
363
1,970
2,010
210
687
1,028
492
3
4
263
68
68
85
169
199
1,010
868
988
77 4.2
958 193
1,156
0.9 1 ,030
1 .4 2,740
^ Chicago, Illinois.
-------
TABLE 7 (Continued)
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BY ALLIED LABORATORIES
Well No.
FP 2061
FP 2061
LW 1E
1E
2A
2A
8A
8A
8A
9A
9A
10A
11
Elgin
LW 1B
1C
3B
3B
6A
6A
6A
6B
8A
8A
8B
8B
Marina
Woodstock
MM 7
7
9
9
LW 1C
1C
10
1D
S
re
O
2 12/4/67
2 2/26/69
2/4/67
2/26/69
12/4/67
2/25/69
12/4/67
12/4/67
2/26/69
12/4/67
2/25/69
2/26/69
2/26/69
11/28/67
11/28/67
11/28/67
2/25/69
11/28/67
11/28/67
2/25/69
11/28/67
11/28/67
2/25/69
11/28/67
2/25/69
2/25/69
11/21/67
2/25/69
11/21/67
2/25/69
11/21/67
11/21/67
11/21/67
2/25/69
3
O
0}
+rf
re
Q
12/8/67
12/8/67
12/8/67
12/8/67
12/8/67
12/8/67
12/1/67
12/1/67
12/1/67
12/1/67
12/1/67
12/1/67
12/1/67
12/1/67
11/24/67
11/24/67
11/24/67
11/24/67
11/24/67
a
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
7.8
7.5
7.7
7.7
7.1
7.9
6.9
7.0
6.8
7.0
7.0
7.2
6.9
63
6.8
6.7
6.8
7.0
6.8
7.1
6.7
6.6
6.8
7.0
6.7
7.0
6.9
6.9
73
7.6
a
a
c
o
0.8
0.35
17.5
14.3
2.2
1.2
1.6
1.2
0.29
1.2
0.1
0.4
0.46
0.6
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.26
0.6
0.3
0.55
0.5
0.35
0.85
10.3
3.5
7.2
2.59
17
25
6
1.62
>i
Jo"
JS
re
7
9
93
243
13
14
10
7
33
16
67
20
156
40
76
46
40
36
32
39
104
33
41
154
131
124
287
306
51
41
48
46
262
22
v, a
I-
"f "«
*$
50
o S
h-3
89
84
1,170
1,290
106
140
144
92
306
123
644
200
1,430
346
606
352
330
328
321
340
766
328
340
1,050
892
808
1,610
1,700
568
520
366
346
1,100
1,510
.£
E
11
* "•
w a
72
1,640
1,561
66
55
40
72
74
65
90
114
372
42
194
21
21
31
31
32
116
42
49
233
134
134
686
2,070
153
96
112
86
1,650
2,622
flj Q.
2 2
O .S
t- c
1.1
374
2.5
2,8
4.3
5.8
5.5
3.0
2.3
1.5
1.6
2.5
4.5
1.8
3.9
2.5
1.5
3.2
S —
.- c
15 Z. o
(-'E 'c
1.4
1.0
0.6
1.0
1.2
1.3
0.7
1.0
12
1.4
0.5
0.3
0.7
1.0
1.4
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.5
I >!
8 > —
.2 >• 'Z ~
•O .0 o O
"re -5 -O Z
31§J
205
4,280
205
205
205
220
240
940
188
220
220
630
240
850
3,350
580
375
445
6,850
^Dolomite well, 1/4 mile north of LW 3.
-------
TABLE 7 (Continued)
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BY ALLIED LABORATORIES
c
0>
Well No. Q
2E
2E
3D
3D
3F
3F
11/21/67
2/25/69
11/21/67
2/25/69
11/21/67
2/25/69
3
O
a)
O
11/24/67
11/24/67
11/24/67
X
a
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.1
6.8
7.0
a
_a
c
o
5.9
1.43
1.4
0.85
22
3.3
Alkalinity
CaCO3 (ppm)
5 a
328
340
422
452
886
684
1
a
_o
t-
0
19
11
12
17
288
303
a
a
q>
m
JI
a
3
56
56
8.2
13
10
4.6
E
a
a
E
3
O
68
74
48
70
63
78
agnesium (ppm)
5
36
40
66
57
50
111
Dtal hardness
s CaCO3 I (ppm)
H-2
318
348
393
412
363
652
ll
w3
44
30
26
35
432
214
•S a
« ' —
~ c
~m o
K c
1.8
3.0
1.5
Dtal nitrate-
trite
trogen (ppm)
1- 'E 'c
0.9
0.7
0.6
Dtal dissolved
>lids by
mductivity
sIMaCI) (ppm)
*~ "'0-
310
275
1,060
-------
TABLE 8
NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSES1 2
Well No.
Bromine
(ppm)
Sodium
(ppm)
FEBRUARY 1967
Chlorine
(ppm)
Manganese
(ppm)
Comments
Dup. LW 3C
Dup. LW 2B
Dup. MM 2
Dup. MM 29
<0.09
<0.11
6.2
13.6
7.6
16
187
875
2.1
2.4
262
1,150
0.12
0.04
< 0.01
<0.03
I nterbedded sand—not affected
Interbedded sand—not affected
Immediately south of fill in
surficial sand
Below fill in surficial sand
DECEMBER 1967
Well No.
DuPage LW 5B
DuPage MM 12
Winnetka MM10
Winnetka LW 1E
Elgin LW 5B
Elgin LW 1C
Woodstock LW 1 D
Woodstock LW 3E
Bromine
(ppm)
8.23
4
3.63
11
3.63
1.9
153
0.5
Selemium
(ppm)
<0.2
<0.3.
<0.1
<0.3
Sodium
bromine
156
188
95
69
115
115
128
340
Comments
Surficial sand below fill
Surficial sand immediately
east of fill
Point within refuse
Point at base of refuse
Sand and gravel below refuse
Surficial sand east of fill
beside Fox River
Point in refuse
Surficial sand immediately
west of fill
1 Irradiated for 1 hour in Triga Reactor in January, 1967. No long-lived radioactivity detected after 2 weeks.
2 Analyses performed by R. R. Ruch, Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, Illinois.
Average of duplicate runs. Estimated accuracy ±25% relative value.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE 9
COMPREHENSIVE WATER QUALITY ANALYSES1-2-3 - CONTINUED
Well No.
DUP
DUP
DUP
DUP
WIN
ELG
WOOD
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
6A
14
15
16
6B
12A
11A
5B
48
59
44
61
63
17
12
13
5B
6B
1C
» E
J3 3
3 'o
C/3 O
91
72
116
224
102
66
98
308
131
111
500
156
447
100
72
109
109
209
115
c
o
o
to
1.60
BDL
BDL
BDL
15.60
28.40
1.16
96.80
41.20
25.40
20.40
20.
35.20
..
26.40
24.80
37.20
--
„
rs
*|J
m£
0.15
0.27
0.14
0.31
0.91
0.21
0.48
5.35
—
0.13
2.70
-
--
_
0.60
-
--
--
._
luminum
<
0.3
1.1
0.4
0.1
0.9
0.7
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.2
BDL
0.3
BDL
0.5
BDL
0.4
0.2
to
1
to
5
BDL
0.17
BDL
0.10
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.15
0.09
0.83
0.24
0.09
1.14
0.06
0.20
0.09
0.11
0.11
t-
0
1
"*
6.6
6.9
3.8
BDL
4.6
6.
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
r-
E
3
'E
jj
&
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
s
a
0.30
0.25
0.15
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.80
0.20
1.2
7.5
0.3
3.5
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.50
0.20
0.20
^E
ffi
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
InterbeddedSd.Well not polluted; samples 17.33 feet below top of till
Samples 15.19 ft. below top of till
Samples 4.31 ft. below top of till
Samples 2.57 ft. below top of till ,.„
Screen 5ft. below base of refuse (1952)'
Samples 7.47 ft. below top of till
Samples 2.30 ft. below top of till
Screen 3 ft. below refuse in sand (1963)
Samples top of surficial sand 650 ft. south of fill
Samples base of surficial sand 325 ft. south of fill
Samples base of surficial sand 30ft. south of fill (1957)
Samples refuse (1955)
Samples near base of refuse (1960)
Samples near base of refuse (7/11/67)
Samples transition zone, 7 ft. below refuse
Sam pies refuse (1953)
Samples refuse (1948)
Samples near base of refuse ( 1964)
Samples near base of refuse (1961)
Blackwell
320
-- 2.2
1.66
4.3
2.7 8.5
BDL Samples refuse probably "squeezed" leachate in part
-------
TABLE 10
ANALYSES OF SOLUBLE SALTS IN SPLIT-SPOON SAMPLES FROM DUP LW 4B AND DUP LW 3C1
Sodium
Well No. (ppm)
LW 4B
S11 4.1
LW 4B
S13 32.6
LW 4B
S15 5.7
LW 48
S17 4.3
LW 3C
_ S11 4.9
O
to
Potassium Chloride Sulfate Soluble salts Depth
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) meq./100g (ft)
6.0 <3 404 1.04 26-26.5
19.4 <3 484 1.37 31-31.5
7.4 <3 578 1.44 45-45.5
7.6 <3 452 1.15 50.5-51
14.2 <3 904 1.85 46-46.5
Description
About 10 feet below refuse
in silt with some sand and
clay; odor
About 15 feet below refuse
in silty clay with some sand
About 10 feet below top of
silty clay till
About 15 feet below top of
silty clay till
Silty clay till; control
sample uncontaminated
1 Analyses performed by D. B. Heck and L. R. Comp, Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, Illinois.
-------
o
OJ
TABLE 11
ANALYSES OF SOLUBLE SALTS IN SPLIT-SPOON SAMPLES FROM DUP LW 8 AND DUP LW 91 2
Well
LW
LW
No.
8-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9-t
2
3
4
5
Soluble
salts
meq/IOOg
0.62
0.70
0.54
0.62
0.58
0.54
0.58
0.62
0.68
0.62
0.60
0.52
Sodium
(ppm)
11.7
12.4
7.6
6.7
12.7
7.8
7.1
9.2
4.6
4.6
5.3
5.5
Potassium
(ppm)
20.3
21.5
9.8
10.9
14.8
10.5
14.8
8.2
9
9.8
10.9
11.7
Comments
Refuse and soil— prob cavings
Sand immediately above till
Top of till
Reworked zone within till
Reworked zone within till
Till
Till
Stony brown clay— some cavings
Gray silt
Gray silt
Gray till
Till -9 in. deeper
Approx
depth
(ft)
<22
22
22.5
23
24
24.5
25
22
22.5
23.5
23.6
'Analyses performed by D. B. Heck, Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, Illinois.
2No soluble chlorides were detected in any sample. Method—1:1 extract 50 gr sample and 50 cc H2O.
-------
TABLE 12
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF TILL SAMPLES TAKEN BENEATH THE OLD DUPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL1 2
Sample No.
SiO2
TiO2
AI203
Fe2O3
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Mn
Be3
V
Cr
La
Co
Sc
Br
Sample No.
1
2
3
4
5
<%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
42.03
0.45
9.20
2.97
5.97
12.44
0.88
2.75
800
2X
400
146
27
14
8
<11
Boring LW
Boring LW
Boring LW
Boring LW
Boring LW
44.28
0.45
7.73
3.12
5.94
12.83
0.87
2.90
1000
X
400
157
32
13
8
<14
Description
14, top of till, 23.4 ft.
14, 25.8 ft. compare to LW
14, 28.5 ft. compare to LW
14, 39.5 ft compare to LW
41.69
0.44
7.79
3.21
5.50
12.86
0.87
2.77
700
X
400
150
26
14
8
<16
16 on table 9
15 on table 9
14 on table 9
46.29
0.55
11.05
4.30
7.02
10.32
0.87
3.22
700
X
400
190
34
17
11
<23
45.36
0.52
11.55
4.16
7.53
10.81
0.72
3.24
1200
X
400
186
33
15
10
<16
6, 42 ft compare to LW6A on table 9
l Analyses by R. R. Ruch, J. A. Schleicher, J. K. Kuhn, L. R. Henderson, D. B. Heck, and L. R. Camp, Illinois State Geological
Survey, Urbana, Illinois.
2 XRF; Na2O by flame emission; trace elements by EUV; Cr, La, Co, Sc, Br, by neutron activation analysis.
3 Be is of the order of 1—10 ppm.
-------
TABLE 13
ANALYSES OF EXCHANGEABLE CATIONS i, 2
Water-soluble
cations
(meg/100 g)
Well No. (ft) Mg Ca Na K Total
Mg
Exchangeable
cations
(meg/1 00 g)
Ca Na K Total
Cation
exchange
(meg/100 g) Comments
DUPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL
LW 6 25.7-26.0 1.9 5.7 0.9 0.2 8.7
27.0-27.5 5.8 4.8 2.3 0.3 13.2
39.5-41.0 7.6 2.0 2.1 0.3 12.0
6.0
4.0
4.5
49.2 0.5 0.3 56.0
48.5 0.3 0.3 53.1
38.9 0.4 0.4 44.2
4.3 Top of til I
4.2 1 .5 to 2 ft.
below top of
till
5.7 About 15 ft
below top of
till
WINNETKA LANDFILL
LW 5 12.0-13.5 6.9 5.2 1.6 0.2 135
17.0-18.5 6.2 6.7 1.3 0.2 14.4
3.5
4.5
43.2 0.4 0.3 47.4
41.7 0.4 0.3 46.9
4.0 Top of till
4.2 About 5 ft
below top of
till
ELGIN LANDFILL
LW 5 16.5-17.0 3.0 1.8 1.2 0.2 6.2
22.5-24.0 12.7 6.0 1.6 0.3 20.6
4.0
3.5
36.0 1.0 0.4 41.4
43.5 0.3 0.2 47.5
6.2 Top of til I
5.2 About 7 ft
below top of
till
1 Because of the presence of soluble salts and CaCOg in these samples, exchangeable cations greatly exceed the total cation
exchange capacity of the tills.
2 Analyses performed by D. B. Heck and.L. R. Camp, Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, Illinois.
-------
TABLE 14
ANALYSES OF LANDFILL GASES1
Well No.
Age of refuse
CO,
Methane
Comments
Date
OLD DUPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL
LW 6
LW 6
MM 52
Near MM 44
MM 75
MM 73
MM 30
LW 5
LW 5
MM 44
MM 42
Near MM 42
1952
1952
1955
1957
1957
1959
1960
1963
1963
1957
1957
1957
8.1
5.4
2.8
14.5
14.0
21.8
27.3
18.3
18.1
1.6
2.8
4.5
1.2
10.6
0.4
4.5
2.6
0.5
0.2
0.7
1.0
19.2
16.4
7.0
73.7
84.0
12.8
23.9
45.0
15.7
1.0
5.4
32.8
79.2
80.8
88.5
17.0
Possibly a good sample
84.0
57.1 On landfill 50 ft north
of MM 44
38.4
62.0
71.5
75.6
48.1
20 feet south of landfill
30 feet south of landfill
50 feet south of landfill
8/7/69
9/7/69
8/7/69
9/7/69
9/7/69
9/7/69
3/30/67
8/7/69
9/7/69
9/7/69
9/7/69
9/7/69
WINNETKA LANDFILL
LW 5
LW 13
MM 11
LW 17
LW7
LW6
1948
1953
1963
1967
1958
1964
12.5
2.1
13.4
18.1
5.0
10.4
1.2
16.5
8.4
0.5
ELGIN
4.5
1.1
73.5
81.4
47.0
33.4
LANDFILL
90.5
65.4
WOODSTOCK
LW 7
LW 8
1963
1967
3.3
15.7
15.7
1.0
81.0
58.5
12.8
Poor sample 3
31.2
48.0
Cinders, glass, and sand
23.1
LANDFILL
Ashes and inert fill
24.8
9/7/69
9/7/69
9/7/69
9/7/69
9/7/69
9/7/69
9/7/69
9/7/69
1
Analyses performed by W. S. Armon.
*
Methane collects in abandoned boring near this point.
Subsequent test with "gas sniffer" showed methane present.
-------
TABLE 15
PERMEABILITY VALUES OBTAINED FROM SLUG TESTS
Well No.
Material set in
K permeability (cm/sec)1
Comments
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
IV /I IV /I
IVIIVI
MM
MM
MM
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
MM
MM
LW
I W
LVV
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
73
75 Refuse
77
78
5
21
29
44
46
47
49
58
59
63
68
70 sand
71
76
4C
4C
5B
6B
6B
7
64
1B
11 A till
12A
14
15
16
DUPAGE COUNTY
7.3 xlCT4
>7.4x103 (est)
>7.4x103 (est)
2.7 x Kf4
1.4 x 1(f3
1.3x 105
2.4 x 10"3
1.6x10"3
1.3x 10 3
1.0 x 10~3
1.7x10"3
2.1 x10"2
>7.4x103 (est)
1.35x10"3
9c v irj~4
.O X I \J
1.8x 10 "s
1.8x10"3
>7.4x103 (est)
5.1 xlti"4
5.0 xlO"4
1.8x 10""4
1.6x 10 3
2.2x10~3
1.9x 10~7
5.3 x 10~6
6.3 x 10~7
q n v 1 ri~7
& .\j A i \j
1.1 x 10~7
5.8 x 10~8
2.3 x10"8
9.6 x 10"9
1.4x 10~7
Water level rose after slugging
Too fast for accurate measurement
Too fast for accurate measurement
Possibly plugged screen
Possibly refuse
Too fast for accurate measurement
Too fast for accurate measurement
1 1 cm/sec = 2.12 x 104 gpd/ft2
-------
TAB LEI 5 (Continued)
PERMEABILITY VALUES OBTAINED FROM SLUG TESTS
Well No.
Material set in
K permeability (cm/sec)'
Comments
O
oo
LW ?r 4 Interbedded
LW 6A sand
MM10
MM 11
Refuse
MM 30
LW 1C
LW 10B
MM12
MM 13
MM14
MM 33
MM37 Alluvium
MM 50
MM 52
MM 16
MM 19 glacial
MM 21 till
MM 23
MM 48
DUPAGE COUNTY
4.7 x 10"4
5.7 x 10~3
WINNETKA SITE
6.0 x 10~3
Water level did not drop after
being raised by slugs
> 8.5 x 10 Too fast for accurate measurement
Too slow— screen probably clogged
2.2 x 10~5
6.4 x 10"4
1.2 x 10""
2.3 x 10""4
2.5 x 1CT4
2.6x10-^
7.3 x 10s
4.9 x 105
1.0x 10~7
3.2 x 10 7
1.0x 107
2.1 x 10 7
8.1 x 10~8
1.4 x 10~5 Leaking seal.
1 1 cm/sec = 2.12 x 104 gpd/ft2
-------
TABLE 15 (Continued)
PERMEABILITY VALUES OBTAINED FROM SLUG TESTS-CONTINUED
Well No.
Material set in
K permeability (cm/sec)1
Comments
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
MM
MM
MM
LW
LW
LW
6B
9A
10A
Deeper
till
12
15
16
6B and
8B gravel
2
3
1C gravel
3E
6A
WINNETKA SITE-continued
1.3x 1ti~6
5.5 x 10 5
3.4 x 10~7
3.5 x 1CT7
2.6 x 10~9
2.9 x 10 9
6.4 x 10 8
ELGIN
> 2.7 x 10~3
WOODSTOCK
2.0 x 10"4
1.7 x 104
9 Q v 1 (T4
<£ .3 A 1 \J
1.1 x Id"4
>4.4x10~3 (est)
>2.7x103 (est)
Well completed in thin sand stringer
at a depth of approximately 60 feet
Water level rose instead of dropping
after slugging
Too fast— water level dropped below
original level
Water level dropped too fast for
accurate measurement
1 1 cm/sec = 2.12 x 104 gpd/ft2
-------
TABLE 16
OLD DUPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL TILL WELLS
Well
No.
Age of landfill
when sampled
in years
Location
Comments
MM 64
LW 3C
LW 6A
LW 14
LW 15
LW 16
LW 5A
LW 10
LW 12A
LW 11A
12
17
17
17
17
6 feet below top of till-20 feet south of landfill.
Travel distance 20 feet through sand—6 feet
through till
20.5 feet below top of till in interbedded sand
5 feet north of landfill
Under landfill—17.33 feet below top of till in
interbedded sand
Under landfill-15.19 feet below top of till
Under landfill-4.31 feet below top of till
Under landfill—2.6 feet below top of till
Under landfill—21 feet below top of till in
interbedded sand
Under landfill—12.22 feet below top of till
Under landfill—7.47 feet below top of till
Under landfill—2.3 feet below top of til
No evidence of leaking seal.
Chlorides—35 ppm.
Not contaminated
No evidence of leaking seal.
Chlorides—15 ppm.
Not contaminated
No evidence of leaking seal.
Chlorides—7 ppm.
Not contaminated
No evidence of leaking seal.
Chlorides—17 ppm.
Not contaminated
No evidence of leaking seal.
Chlorides—94 ppm.
Velocity >0.25ft/yr.
Contaminated
No evidence of leaking seal.
Chloride-309 ppm.
Contaminated
No evidence of leaking seal.
Chlorides—26 ppm.
Not contaminated
Hydrograph suggests leaking seal.
Chlorides—150 ppm.
(Hach Kit). Questionable
No evidence of leaking seal.
Chlorides—12 ppm.
Not contaminated
No evidence of leaking seal.
Chlorides—7 ppm. (Maximum
est 25 ppm.)
Velocity <0.38ft/yr.
Not contaminated
-------
TAB LEI 7
WINNETKA LANDFILL TILL WELLS
Well no.
Age of landfill
when sampled
in years
Location
Comments
MM 49
LW 9A
LW 10A
LW 11
LW 12
LW 14
LW 15
LW 16
15
and
18
16
16
16
2
2
2
5 ft. S of fill, 8 ft. below top of till.
Under landfill set 45 ft below top of
till in sand stringers
Under landfill set in till 23.3 ft below
refuse. 14.5 ft below top of till
Under landfill set in transition zone
0.41 ft below top of alluvium
Set 0.9 ft below top of till. 9.4 ft
below base of refuse
Set 10.33 ft below top of till. 19.58 ft
below base of refuse
Set 1.88 ft below top of till. 11.13ft
below base of refuse
Set 2.18 ft into transition zone. 5.93 ft
below base of refuse
No evidence of leaking seal.
Chlorides 22 ppm.
Not contaminated
Installed 30 ft dry bentonite seal.
Chlorides 53 and 134 ppm. Contaminated.
Unexpectedly high chloride value
No evidence of leaking seal. Chlorides—
60 ppm. Contaminated
Hydrograph shows leaking seal.
Chlorides 440 ppm. Not meaningful
No evidence of leaking seal. Chlorides
99 ppm. Contaminated
No evidence of leaking seal. Chlorides
20 ppm. (Hach) Not contaminated
No evidence of leaking seal. Chlorides
20 ppm. (Hach) Not contaminated
Hydrograph shows leaky seal. Slug test
does not. Chlorides 18 ppm. (Hach)
Not contaminated
-------
TAB LEI 8
WOODSTOCK LANDFILL SELECTED WELLS
Wall No.
Age of
landfill when
sampled in years'
Location
Comments
LW 1B
LW 3D
LW 6A
1
and
2
4
Separated from refuse by 5 ft of silt and
10ft of sand and gravel
40 ft west of fill separated from surficial
sand by 20.5 ft of till, 12.5 ft of sand,
silt, and gravel
Under landfill separated by 8 ft of peat and
clayey silt
Uncontaminated.
Chlorides 22 ppm
Uncontaminated.
Chlorides 17 ppm
Contaminated.
Chlorides 120 ppm
Not reliable.
-------
TABLE 19
INFILTRATION AND SPECIFIC YIELD DATA
o
~S
g
DUP LW
MM
MM
LW
WINN LW
LW
MM
LW
WOOD LW
LW
LW
ELGIN LW
LW
LW
7
32
29
13
5B
13
11
17
6B
7
8
7B
4D
10
Jmulative
fdrograph rise (ft)
V1/68-9/30/69
Dec yield based on
mtinuous hydrographs
i)
O .c *- V) o «
5.58 25
4.40
4.30
3.03
8.45
4.16 25
3.80
3.81
2.65
3.91 25
1.53 est 40
2.52 50
5.60+
4.90
Dec yield based on
eekly hydrographs (%)
Dtal recharge (ft)
V1/68-9/30/69
w 3 H?
1.40
28 1.23
33 1 .42
39 1.18
18 1.52
1.04
34 1 .29
46 1.75
31 0.94
0.98
0.61
1.26
20 1.09+
30 1 .47+
aar refuse emplaced
irometric
ficiency %
> CD "a
1954 10-15
1955
1960
1963 15-25
1948
1953 15-18
1964
1967 15-25
1963?
1963? 5-16
1967 0
1954- 10-12
1958
1958?
1958?
Materials in which
water level is fluctuating
Badly decomposed refuse, mainly cans.
plastic, earth
Mainly silty sandy clay
Refuse— paper, glass, earth
Refuse— mainly cans, bottle caps, etc.
Cover— silty clay
Refuse— glass and paper, earth?
Refuse
Refuse— paper, plastic relatively fresh
Ashes and indistinguishable fill
Black dirt, wood, wire, cans
Refuse— paper, etc— relatively fresh
Cinders, glass, sand
Wood, glass, metal, earth
Cinders, glass, cans, gravel
Comments on hydrographs
Hydrograph sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive in 1968, some
time lag in 1969
I ^sensitive
Very sensitive, well
located in depression
Sensitive, some time
lag in hydrograph
Moderately sensitive
Recorder flooded and
frozen during winter
Moderately sensitive,
located on slope
Sensitive
I nsensitive
Not sensitive in 1969,
located on slope
Dry 1 1 /68 - very sensitive-
located on slope
Dry 10 and 1 1/68— very
sensitive— located on slope
1 Barometric efficiency is not stable throughout year.
-------
TABLE 20
COMPARISON OF VARIOUS WASTES WITH U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE STANDARDS
(in parts per million)
U.S. Public Health
Service standards '
Substance
Alkyl benzene sulfonate
Arsenic
Chloride
Copper
Group I2-3
0.5
0.01
250
1
Group II4'5
0.05
Leachate 12
Blackwell 6
4.31
1,697
0.05
LW5 B
Dupage7
0.72
<0.10
1,330
< 0.05
C g,
L W6B | ™
Dupage8 JE 8
0.30
4.6
135
< 0.05 0.450
g g, Slaughter
2 I house
uj ft wastes10
320
0.032
Chemical
plant
effluent11
1,070
2.1
Carbon chloroform extract 0.2
Cyanide
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Nitrate
Phenols
Sulfate
Total dissolved solids
Zinc
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (Cr+6)
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Ammonium
Alkalinity (as CaCO-j)
Hardness (asCaCOg)
Phosphate
Titanium
Aluminum
Sodium
Hexane solubles
Biological oxygen
demand 1 3
Chemical oxygen
demand pH
0.01
0.3
0.05
45
0.001
250
500
5
0.2
3.4
1
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.05
2 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1962).
Nitrates exceeding 45 ppm dangerous for infants.
4 Should not be used if more suitable supplies available.
0.024
5,500
1.66
1.70
680
19,144
8.5
<0.05
0.20
2.7
<0.1
3,255
7,830
6
2.20
900
350
54,610
39,680
8
9
10
11
< 0.005
2
6.3
0.06
0.70
2
6,794
0.13
0.80
< 0.05
0.15
0.50
< 0.10
< 0.1
4,159
2,200
1.20
0.10
810
18
14,080
8000
6.3
0.02
0.31
0.6 2.600
0.06
1.60
2
1,198
< 0.10 0.638
0.30
< 0.05 0
< 0.05 0
0.50 0.138
< 0.10
< 0.1
19
1,011
540
8.90
0.90
74
7 22.4
225 104
40 240
7.0 7.2
0.051
0.938
370
2,690
0.366
0
0
0.138
16
440
66
11
17 3,700
70 8620
7.4 8.1
800
51
0.48
864
8,120
16,090
198
760
0
74
0.97
6.4
6,190
6.2
6.2
Leachate from refuse about 1 7 years old.
Data provided by Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.
Data from the files of the Illinois Department of Public Health.
Rarp Ftarth anH thrtriiim nrnHi ir~t-r/-\n IRiitlar MOCK n CQfl 1
6 Probably represents leachate from compaction and infiltration.
n Leachate from refuse about 6 years old.
13 Questionable values underlined.
20-day biological oxygen demand for leachate. Other values are
5-day BOD.
-------
TABLE 20
COMPARISON OF VARIOUS WASTES WITH U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE STANDARDS
(in parts per million )
1 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1962).
2 Nitrates exceeding 45 ppm dangerous for infants.
3 Should not be used if more suitable supplies available.
4 Larger concentrations should be rejected.
5 Fluoride is temperature dependent.
6 Probably represents leachate from compaction and infiltration.
7 Leachate from refuse about 6 years old.
8 Leachate from refuse about 17 years old.
9 Data provided by Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.
10 Data from the files of the Illinois Department of Public Health.
11 Rare earth and thorium production (Butler, 1965, p. 63).
12 Questionable values underlined.
13 20-day B 0 D for leachate. Other values are 5-day BOD.
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
DRILLING, PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION, AND SAMPLING
INSTALLATION PROCEDURES
Much of the drilling for the landfill inves-
tigation was done under an hourly contract with
Layne-Western Company, Aurora, Illinois, but a
substantial number of the shallow borings were
made by project personnel with a portable
Mobile Minuteman auger drill loaned by the
University of Illinois Water Resources Center,
and a small truck-mounted rig owned by the
State Geological Survey. A total of approxi-
mately 4,700 feet-was bored and 274 piezo-
meters and sampling points installed. Pertinent
data regarding these borings are given in table 3.
The contract drilling program during 1966
and 1967 proceeded as follows. A rotary rig, in
most cases a Franks FA 54 with bentonite or
natural drilling fluid, drilling a 4-3/4-inch to
7-7/8-inch hole was used first at each site to
establish the sequence of materials. Piezometers
were then installed to get preliminary infor-
mation on ground water elevations. Samples of
drill cuttings were collected at the mud tank,
and these, with information from the driller on
the drilling characteristics of the materials and
from a Wideo electrical resistivity drill hole log,
provided data for the selection of points at
which the piezometers were to be set.
The next series of contract borings used the
hollow-stem auger method and generally a
Mobile B61 auger rig boring a 10-inch hole.
These holes were limited to a depth of approxi-
mately 55 feet. Split-spoon samples were taken
inside these augers to get a more precise def-
inition of the character of the materials by visual
and laboratory methods.
Additional contract borings were made by
using one of these methods, and in one case the
air-drilling method was used.
Five types of piezometers* were used, as
follows:
(1) 24- x l^-inch No. 10 brass well screen (3
ft. total length) on 1%-inchABS plastic
pipe
(2) A 6- x PA-inch No. 10 brass suction
strainer on l^-inch ABS plastic pipe
(3) A porous plastic IVz- x 18-inch piezo-
meter tip on 3/8-inch ID (internal dia-
meter) polyethylene tubing
(4) A 6- x 1%-inch No. 8 or No. 10 slotted
PVC plastic screen on 1%-inch ABS
plastic pipe (1968-69)
(5) A 4-ft x 4-inch No. 8 slotted PVC plastic
screen on 4-inch PVC plastic pipe (float-
activated recorder wells)
(6) A 2- x 12-inch No. 8 slotted PVC plastic
screen on 2-inch PVC plastic pipe (1968)
During 1966 and 1967 well screens and
suction strainers were set in materials considered
permeable enough to produce water samples
easily for chemical analyses. The porous plastic
piezometer tip was used only in relatively im-
permeable materials. The suction strainer was
used only in holes less than 20 feet deep.
The installation of screened piezometers in
rotary borings proceeded in the following
manner. After the boring was made, the screen
attached to the 1^-inch plastic pipe was in-
stalled in the hole at the proper depth. If the
screen were to be set above the bottom of the
hole, backfill was added until a solid bottom was
present at the proper depth. The bore hole was
then backflushed, through the plastic pipe and
screen, until returns were relatively clear. An
average of 200 gallons of water was necessary to
flush a 100-foot hole. Sand**was then poured
*Peizometer types 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 can be obtained from water well suppliers. Type 3 was obtained from Terratest,
Weston, Ontario, Canada.
**Commercially bagged silica sand (St. Peter Sandstone, with 60 and 30 percent retained on U. S. sieves 30 [0.589 mm]
and 40 [0.417 mm] mesh, respectively) was used in most contracted borings. Local sand was used on some shallow
borings.
117
-------
into the boring or washed down a half-inch pipe
to approximately 1 foot above the screen. The
latter method was most efficient. Next, a seal
was installed above the sand by one of the fol-
lowing methods.
(1) A bentonite slurry was pumped down a
half-inch pipe in the annulus. If the slurry
is too thick, backfill will not settle and
subsequent piezometers will sink.
(2) Dry bentonite pellets or granules were
poured down the annulus. This method
was used only in shallow borings, since
the bentonite tended to bridge.
(3) Clay cuttings and mud returns from the
rotary drilling were poured down the
annulus.
The hole was then backfilled with cuttings or
a fill, sand, and cuttings mixture to the approxi-
mate base of the next piezometer, and the fore-
going procedure was repeated. As many as six
piezometers were installed in one boring. In
holes subject to caving, two piezometers were
hung in the hole at the same time so that if
caving occurred the hole could be flushed
through both piezometers.
Installations drilled by the hollow-stem auger
method, in which screened piezometer tips were
used, were made in a similar manner except that
the piezometer was installed inside the hollow-
stem augers. The augers were raised a little at a
time to allow placement of the sand around the
piezometer tip and the seal. The porous plastic
tips were also installed through a hollow-stem
auger and dry bentonite pellets used as a seal.
In the boring made by the air-drilling method,
casing was used to shut out any shallow water,
and the hole was advanced dry to the first per-
meable zone below the casing. A screened piezo-
meter was installed opposite this zone, sand was
blown around the point, and dry bentonite
blown down above the sand to form a seal. Dry
bentonite coats and seals the sides of the boring,
making multiple installations less practical. This
type of installation can be used if no appreciable
quantities of water are encountered.
During the summer of 1968 a series of borings
was made to collect materials and water samples
from the till below the landfill. The borings for
materials samples were constructed with a hol-
low-stem auger rig as described previously.
Samples from these borings were sealed with
wax in glass jars or carefully wrapped in double
polyethylyne bags. The borings for water
samples were advanced into the top of the till
with a 10-inch hollow-stem auger, and casing
was set to prevent leachate from moving out of
the landfill into the boring. Six-inch augers were
then used to advance the boring inside the casing
to the proper depth. The boring was washed
clean and pumped dry, and a 2-inch plastic pipe
with a 1-foot slotted plastic screen was installed.
This was followed by a sand pack saturated with
water and a dry bentonite seal. The casing was
then pulled and the boring backfilled.
Four-inch plastic pipes and screens for float-
activated water level recorders were also in-
stalled at the old DuPage County, Winnetka, and
Woodstock landfills in 1968. Borings for this
purpose were made with 6-inch solid augers and
the pipe and screen washed into place. This
method could not be used at Elgin, because of
the presence of course, caving gravel.
Borings made with the portable Mobile
Minuteman power auger and the Geological
Survey rig were generally less than 15 feet deep.
Screened piezometers (1- to 1%-inch diameter)
were installed in these borings with and without
flushing. Seals were installed at land surface to
prevent vertical leakage and occasionally em-
placed at depth by dropping dry bentonite down
the annulus of the bore hole or inside aluminum
casing that had been pumped dry.
During the summer of 1968 and 1969 a
number of shallow well points were washed into
place at the old DuPage County landfill with a
contractor's pump. These installations could not
be sealed.
EVALUATION OF INSTALLATION
PROCEDURES
Whereas the foregoing methods of installing
piezometers are relatively inexpensive, it is dif-
ficult to install adequate seals between units
with a bentonite slurry, and these seals leaked in
a number of instances. Leakage was established
118
-------
by adding or removing water from a suspect
piezometer and noting changes in water level in
adjacent piezometers in the same boring. Those
units in which appreciable leakage could be
established are as follows: (1) DuPage County
landfill-LW 3B to surface sand; (2) Elgin land-
fill-between LW4A and B; LW 5A and B;
LW 7A and B; (3) Winnetka landfill-LW 1A, B,
C, and D; LW 2C and D; LW 3B, C and D;
LW 4D and E; LW 7A, B, and C; LW 9A and B;
(4) Woodstock landfill-LW IB and C; LW 2B
and C; LW 3A, B, and C. The leakage appears to
be decreasing as the backfill in the borings com-
pacts. The major problem arising from this
leakage is in obtaining reliable water quality
data.
Winn LW 9A is the only leaky piezometer in-
stalled with a dry bentonite seal, and as noted in
the text, this may not be the fault of the seal.
REDUCING STANDPIPE DIAMETER
Two methods were used successfully for re-
ducing the diameter of a piezometer standpipe
to increase its sensitivity.
In the first method, a cork cut to the inside
diameter of the standpipe was attached to a
length of polyethylene tubing (3/8-inch ID) and
placed in the annulus just above the screen. The
apparatus was installed by threading it through a
half-inch iron pipe and pushing the iron pipe and
tubing with the cork on the end into the stand-
pipe. The half-inch iron pipe could be removed.
Dry bentonite or a bentonite slurry was poured
into the annulus above the cork for a seal.
A removable reducer (fig. 29) was used in
piezometers that were to be used again for
water-sampling points. This consisted of a half-
inch pipe to which a cork, cut to fit the
standpipe, was bolted. The array was inserted
into the standpipe and the annulus filled with a
bentonite slurry. To reduce further the volume
of the standpipe and to provide easier access for
a steel measuring tape (deposits tended to build
up on the inside of the iron pipe), a length of
polyethylene tubing was inserted into the half-
inch iron standpipe.
WATER-SAMPLING PROCEDURES
After each piezometer or sampling point was
installed, it was developed and pumped with a
windmill pump jack, a contractor's pump, an air
compressor or a hand bailer. For wells pumped
with the pump jack, a plastic seat had been in-
stalled with the well screen, into which a ball
bearing could be dropped to serve as a foot
valve. The pipe was used as the cylinder. The
ball bearing was removed by a magnet after
pumping had been completed. This initial pump-
ing was continued until the water was clear or
the chloride content became constant, as mea-
sured in the field with a Hach kit.
In wells that would recover within 1 day,
samples were taken after the fluid had been ex-
changed at least once in the screen and stand-
pipe. This was done with the pump jack, con-
tractor's pump, air compressor, or a bailer. Use
of the air compressor was the most efficient
method of exchanging the water before sampling
in borings that had water levels deeper than 25
feet. In wells that would not recover in 1 day,
the water in the well was not exchanged. The
samples were usually collected with a rinsed
bailer, put in glass jars, and sent immediately to
the laboratory for analysis. No special pre-
cautions were taken to avoid loss of gases or to
impede biologic activity during transportation to
the laboratory. During sampling from a well
attached to a water system, the water was
allowed to run for 5 to 10 minutes and the
sample taken from as near the pump as possible.
Samples of surface water from ditches, streams,
or tiles were dipped up in 1-quart fruit sealers.
119
-------
Lock
Protective cover with hinged top
- Top of Vi" pipe threaded through
metal plate to hold in position
- Vi" O.D. polyethylene tubing
- Vz" iron pipe
-Annulus filled with water
-2" PVC plastic pipe
- Bentonite seal
- Coupling (V2" iron)
-Side of boring (approx. 10")
- Washer welded to V2" pipe
- Cork (installed below static water level)
Nut threaded to V2" pipe
Bentonite seal
-Coupling (2" PVC)
-2-inch-diameter slotted
PVC plastic screen
Sand pack
Figure 29. Diagram of piezometer installation with removable reducer. Use of this device is a relatively inexpensive
method of increasing the sensitivity of a piezometer by reducing the diameter of its standpipe.
120
-------
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES FROM CONTRACT BORINGS*
Old DuPage County landfill
Boring LW 1
Black, clayey silt topsoil
Yellow-brown to black silty
sand, coarse-grained grading
to fine grained; black oily staining
and ordor
Gray, silty clay till
Gray, sandy silt till
Gray, silt till
Yellow-brown to light gray
pebbly dolomite
Depth (ft)
0-3
3-14
14-24
24-46
46-64%
64%-76
Boring LW 2
Sand and gravel grading to
silty sand at base 0-15%
Gray, silty clay till 15%-40
Brown to black fine-grained
sand 40-41%
Gray, silty clay till 41%-45
Gray silt till 45-70
Light gray and pinkish gray
dolomite 70-77
Boring LW 3
Brown to black clayey silt
topsoil, sandy at base 0 - 3%
Silty sand, fine grained,
dirty at top and base 3%-14
Gray, silty clay till 14-21
Gray silt till, pebbly 21 -40%
Gray, silty clay till 401/2-411/2
Sand gravel 411/2-461/2
Gray silt till, pebbly
at 60-65 ft 46%-65
Yellow-brown to light gray
dolomite 65-73
*Location of borings shown as Figures 5, 10,15, and 20.
Boring LW 4
Depth (ft)
Clayey silt cover material 0- 1%
Refuse-some garbage, glass, 1958
and 1964 newspapers 1%-15
Gravelly sand, silty 15-19
Silty sand, very fine grained; black
staining and odor; bedded at 28-
29 ft.; medium to very coarse
grained at 30-36 ft. 19-36
Gray, silty clay till 36-41
Sandy silt till 41-50
Gray silt till, pebbly (poor samples
at 50-80 ft.) 50-88
Light gray dolomite 88-93
Boring LW 5, 10, 11, 12, and 13
Clayey silt cover material 0- 3
Refuse—legible papers, wood, cans 3-15%
Silty sand to sand, fine grained;
bedded at 17%-l 9 ft. 15%-25.9
Brown to gray silty clay till 25.9-33%
Arbitrary pick for base
Gray, sandy silt till, pebbly 33%-45
Gray, sandy silt 45-46%
Sand and gravel, medium to coarse
grained 46%-50%
Gray silt till (poor samples) 50%-51 %
Boring LW 6, 14, 15 and 16
Clayey silt cover material 0-3
Refuse and gravel—cans, bottles-
little if any odor 3-12
Silty sand, fine-grained grading to
medium grained 12-16
Black sandy silt 16-23.67
Gray, silty clay till 23.67-43
Silty sand, medium-grained grading
to very fine grained 43-48%
Gray, silty clay till (no sample) 48%-49%
121
-------
Bonng LW 7, 8, and 9 Depth (ft)
Black clay with stones and odd bits
of refuse—cans, plastic, and some
cloth 0-16
Dark gray fine sand 16-21
Gray silt 21-22.5
Gray silty clay till 22.5-28
Gray clay
Shale sand and gravel
Gray, clayey silt till
Gray, sandy, clayey silt till, often
gravelly; sand stringers at 62-
62% ft., 78 ft., 82 ft., 92%-
93ft.
White to light gray dolomite
bedrock
Depth (ft)
8%-ll
11-13
13-28
28-1121/!
112%-118
Winnetka landfill
Boring LW 1
Black, sandy, clayey silt cover
material 0-1
Cinders 1-2
Refuse—paper, plastic, wood 2-14
Probably silt (poor samples) 14-20
Gray, clayey silt till 20-38
Silty sand (no samples) 38-40
Gray, sandy, clayey silt till; thin
sand, some gravel at 48-48% ft.,
58-64% ft., 83%-88 ft., 94-96 ft.,
101-103 ft. 40-118
White to light gray dolomite
bedrock; creviced (lost
circulation) 118-124
Boring LW 4
Fill (not refuse) 0-3
Black sandy silt 3-4
Brown to gray silty clay 4-13%
Black shale sand 13%-14
Gray, clayey silt till 14-32
Shale sand, medium grained 32-33
Gray, sandy, clayey silt till;
gravelly till at 35%-36 ft.;
shale sand at 51-52 ft.; sand at
64-65 ft.; very gravelly till at
95-110 ft. , 33-110
White to light gray dolomite
bedrock; some till gragments
(probably cave) 110-121
Boring LW 2
Cinder fill 0-2
Black organic clay, soil 2-3
Brown sandy silt 3-8%
Gray, clayey silt till 8%-31
Black shale, pebble gravel 31-32
Gray, sandy, clayey silt till, pebbly;
thin sand stringers at 66%-68% ft.
and 85%-86 ft. 32-108
White to light gray dolomite
bedrock; some till fragments 108-125
Boring LW 3
Fill material (not refuse) 0-4%
Brown, clayey, sandy silt 4%-8%
Boring LW 5
Gray to black silty sand clay cover 0-3
Refuse—glass, fiber, mostly
unrecognizable black material 3-1 1%
Probably silty alluvium (poor
samples) 11%-13%
Gray, clayey silt till; more stones
near base; 1 in. sand at 33 ft.,
33% ft. 13%-36
Boring LW 6
Black, clayey silt soil 0-1%
Gray, sandy silt l%-5%
Gray, clayey silt till; borwn to
brown-gray at 5%-8% ft.; sandy
till at 14%-16 ft. 5%-52%
122
-------
Depth (ft)
Gray, sandy, clayey silt till; very
sandy at 5 2%-5 4 ft. 5 2%-5 7
Gray, fine to medium-grained sand 57-58%
Boring LW 7
Black, sandy silt soil 0-3%
Brown silt with sand stringers 3%-5
Gray, clayey silt 5-11
Gray, clayey silt till 11-33
Gray, sandy, clayey silt till -~ 33-41%
Black shale sand 41%-43%
Gray, sandy, clayey silt till; silty
sand at 91%-94 ft. 43%-95
Boring LW 8
Black, sandy silt soil 0-21/2
Yellow-brown clayey silt, sandy at
5V2-6V2 ft; possible sand at 12-13
ft. 21/2-13
Gray, clayey silt till 13-26
Black shale sand 26-27
Gray, sandy, clayey silt till; black
shale sand at 42%-43 ft., 60%-
63 ft. 27-70
Boring LW 9 (no samples)
Soil and clay cover 0-1 %
Refuse—only a few cans were
distinguishable 1%-12%
Gray, clayey, silt till (?); possible
fine sand at 22 ft. 121/2-421/2
Drilling break, possible silt 421/2-431/2
Gray, clayey till, softer 43%-47
Possible shale sand 47-48
Harder till 48-63%
Gray silt to fine sand 63%-69
Gray fine sand 69-73
Boring LW 10, 11, 12, and 13
Sandy loam cover material 0-2
Refuse-glass, paper soil, black dirt
and muck below 6.5 ft. 2-11.5
Gray, fine — to medium-grained
sand and silt and brown silty
clay alluvium
Gray and brown silts and silty
clay, transition zone
Gray clayey silt till
Boring LW 14, 15, 16, and 17
Clay loam, cover material
Refuse—paper, bricks, bottle-caps.
Not badly decomposed
Brown and gray sand, silt, and silty
clay alluvium
Gray, fine sand, silt, and silty clay.
Transition zone
Gray clayey silt till
Elgin landfill
Boring LW 1
Black, sandy .silt soil; sand and
gravel fill
Sand and gravel
Light pink, sandy silt till
Peat or soil horizon
Brown-gray, sandy silt till
Sand and gravel
Gray, sandy, silty till
Silty sand; white clay
Light gray dolomite bedrock
Boring LW 2
Clayey, silty sand cover material
Refuse—glass, cinders
Sand and gravel
Pink, sandy silt till
Yellow, light pink, sandy silt till
Brown-gray, sandy silt till
Gravel
Yellow-brown, sandy silt till
Yellow-brown to light gray dolomite
bedrock
Depth (ft)
11.5-14.5
14.5-20
20-35
0-2
2-13.75
13.75-17.5
17.5-23
23-34
0-7%
7%-ll
11-16
16-16%
16%-24%
24%-26%
26%-30
30-32
32-46
0-2
2-7
7-10
10-20
20-27
27-44%
44%-48
48-53%
53%-63
123
-------
Boring LW 3
Brown, silty clay topsoil
Sand and gravel
Pink, sandy, silty till
Brown-gray, sandy, silty till; some
yellow-pink thin gravel seams at
16-18 ft.; wood at 28% ft.
Sand and pea gravel, very coarse
grained
Yellow-brown to light gray
dolomite bedrock
Boring LW 4
Brown to black, sandy silt cover
material
Refuse—wood, glass, metal
Sand and pea gravel
Light pink, sandy silt till
Brown-gray, sandy silt till
Sand and pea gravel
White clay and weathered
dolomite
Yellow-brown to light gray
dolomite bedrock
Boring LW 5
Brown to black sandy silt cover
intermixed with refuse—cinders,
ash, paper board
Sand and gravel (no sample)
Pink, sandy silt till
Brown-gray, sandy silt till
Silty sand, fine grained
Brown-gray, sandy silt till
Boring LW 6
Logged cover, refuse—paper, wood,
glass, ashes (no samples or poor
recovery)
Sand and gravel becoming silty
with depth
Depth (ft)
0-3
3-11
11-13
13-32%
32V2-49
49-58
0-2
2-14
14-23
23-30
30-34%
34%-37%
37%-39
39-52
0-11%
11%-16%
16%-18
18-21
21-21%
21%-28%
0-14
14-22
Depth (ft)
Light pink, sandy silt till 22-27
Brown-gray, sandy silt till 27-34x/2
Sand and pea gravel 34J/2-35
Brown-gray, sandy silt till; wood
fragments 35-36%
Sandy silt, silty sand and gravel 361/2-391/2
White clay, weathered dolomite
fragments 39%-41
Refuse; probably bedrock 41
Boring LW 7
Cover, refuse—cinders, ash, glass 0-15
Silty sand, minor gravel 15-25%
Light pink, sandy silt till 25%-28
Gray to balck silty sand 28-29
Brown-gray, sandy, silty till 29-32
Silty sand, very fine to fine grained 32-32%
Brown-gray, sandy silt till 32%-33
Boring LW 8
Gravel and sand, fine grained; very
coarse sand at base 0-19%
Pink, sandy silt till 19%-20
Light gray, sandy silt 20-21
Brown-gray, sandy silt till 21-31
Sand, coarse to very coarse grained 31-35%
Brown-gray, sandy silt till; white
silty clay and dolomite fragments 35%-36%
Boring LW 9
Black, sandy topsoil 0-2
Sand and gravel, poorly sorted 2-20
Brown-gray, sandy silt till 20-25
Gravel and sand, fine grained 25-30%
Dolomite bedrock 30%-31 %
Boring LW 10
Cover, medium — to coarse-grained
sand and gravel Q-3
124
-------
Refuse—cinders, cans, wire glass and
gravel
Brown medium-grained sand and
gravel
Boring LW 11
Cover, mainly fine — to coarse-
grained sand
Refuse—wood, cloth, cans and
paper—not badly decomposed
Gravel, coarse
Sand, no recovery
Woodstock landfill
Boring LW 1
Refuse—cinders, glass, metal
(poor samples)
Gray silt (poor samples)
Sand and gravel, very coarse
grained
Brown-gray, silty clay till
Pink, sandy silt till; pebbly at
67-71 ft.; wood fragments at
105-110 ft.—possibly cave; silty
sand, possible stringers at 110-
115ft.
Gravel; some very coarse-grained
sand
Pink, sandy silt till; pebbly at 145-
150ft, 155-160 ft.
Brown, pebbly, sandy silt,
probably till; wood fragments
Black, silty clay, probably soil
Brown-gray, sandy silt till
Fine sand (no samples)
Brown-gray, sandy silt till
Sand, medium to coarse grained
Brown-gray, sandy silt till
Sand and gravel; some till-
probably cave
Boring LW 2
Black, silty clay soil
Depth (ft)
3-16
16-22
0-2
2-8
8-10
10-15.5
0-19%
191/2-241/2
241/2-421/2
421/2-50
50-123
123-132
132-160
160-167
167-170
170-180%
1801/2-1871/2
187%-203
203-207
207-213
213-225
0-1%
Gravel, sandy
Gray, silty clay till
Pink, sandy silt till; stringer of
sand and gravel at 50-52 ft.,
55-57 ft., 66-69 ft., 76-78 ft.
Sand and gravel
Boring LW 3
Black, silty clay soil
Brown, sandy clay
Sand and gravel, sandier at base
Gray, silty clay till
Pink, sandy silt till; medium-
grained sand at 53%-54 ft.; sand
and gravel at 57-64 ft.; brown
clay (not till) at 64-67 ft.; sand
and gravel at 67-70 ft.; very
little sand in till at 70-80 ft.
Gray, sandy silt till; some pink
Pink, sandy silt till
Brown-gray, sandy silt till
Brown-gray, sandy silt till, pebbly;
possibly a very silty sand and
gravel (E-log would indicate
former)
Black, silty clay soil
Brown-gray, sandy silt till
Sand and gravel
Brown-gray, sandy silt till
Sand and gravel
Boring LW 4
Black, silty clay soil
Brown, sandy clay, gravelly
Sand and gravel
Pink-brown, sandy silt till,
gravelly; mostly gravel at
10-20 ft.—probably ice-contact
Gray sand and gravel, very coarse
grained
Brown-gray, sandy silt till, gravelly
Gray, silty clay till
Gravel
Pink-gray, sandy silt till, gravelly;
till in chunks
Depth (ft)
P/2-7
7-32
32-138
138-155
0-2
2-3
3-22
22-42%
42%-122
122-130
130-149
149-161
161-165
165-172
172-180
180-185
185-187%
1871/2-195
0-1
1-4
4-7
7-25%
25%-29
29-44
44-68
68-72%
72%-92%
125
-------
Depth (ft)
Sand and gravel 921/2-951/i
Pink, sandy, silty till 95y2-100
Silty sand, medium grained; some
gravel 100-106
Pink, sandy, silty till; sand at
116^-118 ft. 106-121
Boring LW 5
Black silt soil 0-4
Brown to gray sandy silt, very
finely grained 4-23
Gray, silty clay till 23-44
Sand, fine to coarse grained 44-45V2
Pinkish gray, sandy silt till 45l/2-51
Gray, silty clay till
Pinkish gray, sandy silt till; pink
at 36V2-3T/2 ft.
Boring LW 7
Loam to sandy loam cover
material—contains glass and
cinders
Sand and coarse gravel, cinders,
glass, and plastic
Black dirt, wood, wire, cans
Gray organic silt
Depth (ft)
341/2-371/2
37%-58
0-2
2-4
4-12?
127-16
Boring LW 6
Cover, refuse-ashes, wood, and
indistinguishable fill
Peat and clayey silt, spongy
Sand and gravel, coarse grained
grading to fine grained
Boring LW 8
0-15 Cover material-sandy loam
15-23 Refuse-paper, glass, etc
not badly decomposed
23-34V2 Drilled like gravel-no returns
0-2
2-13
13-18
126
-------
APPENDIX C
METHODS USED FOR WATER QUALITY ANALYSES
THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC HEALTH
This section, by the Illinois Department of
Public Health, lists the procedures used for the
various analyses they performed and the pre-
cision of these methods. Where these procedures
differ from the procedure described in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and
Waste Water (American Public Health Associ-
ation et al, 1965), they are described separately.
Table 6 presents the results of these analyses.
Organic Acids
(Colorimetric Method)
Note: This colorimetric procedure is more
precise and accurate than the old distillation
procedure and about equal to the column
chromatographic method. The test requires less
than 30 minutes and is particularly advantageous
where more than one digester is to be analyzed
since several tests can be run simultaneously
almost as easily as one test.
Determination
Procedure
Precision
Specific conductance
pH
Chemical oxygen demand
Organic acids
Hardness
Sulfate
Sodium
Chloride
Iron
Manganese
Nitrate
Standard Methods 12th
ed.
Standard Methods 12th
ed.
Standard Methods 12th
ed.
Colorimetric
Description follows
EDTA Titrimetric Method
Standard Methods
12th ed..
Turbidimetric Method
Description follows
Estimation
Description follows
Mercuric Nitrate Method
Description follows
Phenanthroline Method
Standard Methods 12th
ed.
Persulfate Method
Standard Methods 12th
ed.
Phenoldisulfonic Acid
Method. Standard
Methods 12th ed.
±5%
± 0.1 pH unit
Standard deviation
with glucose is ± 8.2%
of mean
±2%
±3%
±5%
± 1.4%
±3%
±3%
±2%
127
-------
Principle
This procedure converts the organic acids
(called volatile acids in the past because they
were vaporized and separated by distillation) to
colored materials that are measured by light
absorption in a suitable instrument (colori-
meter).
Sample
A very small portion (0.5 ml) is used for the
test; therefore, a 6-oz water bottle is sufficient
for organic acids and related tests.
Equipment
(1) Colorimeter. The Bausch and Lomb Spec-
tronic 20 with 3/4-inch-diameter test tubes
is an excellent instrument for this test
because the entire test can be run and
measured in the test tube without a transfer.
(2) Boiling water bath or a kettle of boiling
water on an electric hot plate or Bunsen
burner.
(3) Test tube rack to hold 3/4-inch test tubes.
Reagents
The following reagents are necessary, either to
make reagent solutions or to use directly as
purchased.
(1) Sulfuric acid, H2SO4, concentrated, reagent
grade.
(2) Ethylene glycol, reagent grade.
(3) Sodium hydroxide, Na OH, pellets, reagent
grade.
(4) Hydroxylamine hydrochloride, reagent
grade.
(5) Ferric chloride, FeCLs 6H2O, lump,
reagent grade.
Solutions
(1) Sulfuric acid, diluted. Mix equal volumes of
reagent grade, concentrated sulfuric acid and
distilled water. CAUTION: Always add acid
to water-never water to acid.
(2) Ethylene glycol, reagent grade. Use as pur-
chased .
(3) Sodium hydroxide 4.5N. Dissolve 90 g of
sodium hydroxide pellets in distilled water
and dilute up to 500 ml.
(4) Hydroxylamine solution, 10 percent. Dis-
solve 10 g of hydroxylamine hydrochloride
in distilled water and make up to 100 ml.
(5) Ferric chloride reagent. Dissolve 20 g of
ferric chloride hexahydrate (FeCls. 6H20)
in distilled water, add 20 ml of concentrated
sulfuric acid, and dilute to 1 liter.
Procedure
(1) Clarify a few milliliters of sample by
filtration or centrifugation or both (It is
desirable to have a relatively clear sample
since turbidity will interfere with light
transmission..)
(2) Provide test tubes in a rack-one for a blank
and one for each sample.
(3) Pipet carefully and exactly 0.5 ml of
distilled water into the blank tube and 0.5
ml sample into each sample tube. If the
organic acids are more than 2,000 mg/liter,
an aliquot diluted to 0.5 ml is used.
(4) Add 1.5 ml ethylene glycol to each tube.
(5) Add 0.2 ml of the diluted sulfuric acid
(1-1) to each tube. Mix well by swirling
tube.
(6) Heat in a boiling water bath exactly 3
minutes.
(7) Cool immediately in cold water.
(8) Add 0.5 ml hydorxylamine solution.
(9) Add 2.0 ml of 4.5 N sodium hydroxide.
Mix well by swirling tube.
(10) Add 10.0 ml ferric chloride solution.
(11) Add 5.0 ml distilled water.
(12) Stopper and invert to mix.
(13) Let stand 5 minutes, unstoppered, for color
development.
(14) Read at 500 millimicrons after 5 minutes
standing but within 1 hour.
(15) Calculate mg organic acids per liter from
calibration.
Note: A calibration curve can be made by
using a 2,000 mg/liter standard acetic acid
128
-------
solution. A series of 6 tubes are used containing
0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 ml standard acetic
acid made up to 0.5-ml volume with distilled
water where necessary. This ste-by-step pro-
cedure is followed and percent transmission
readings are plotted on semilog graph paper.
Reporting
Report as mg organic acids per liter.
Comment
This method is suitable for the determination
of organic acids in sewage treatment plant
digesters and in raw sludge. It is particularly
advantageous where several tests can be run
simultaneously.
REFERENCES
Montgomery, H. A. C., J. F. Dymock, and N.
S. Thorn. The rapid colorimetric determination
of organic acids and their salts in sewage-sludge
liquor. Analyst, p.949-955, Dec. 1962.
Mueller, H. F., T. E. Larson, and M. Ferretti.
Chromatographic separation and identification
of organic acids. Analytical Chemistry,
32:687-690, May 1960.
Sedlacek, M. The colorimetric determination
of fatty acids in sludge and sludge waters.
Chemical Abstracts, 62:8822, 1965.
SULFATE
Principle
Sulfate ion is precipitated in a hydrochloric
acid medium with barium chloride in such a
manner as to form barium sulfate crystals of
uniform size. The absorbance of the barium
sulfate is measured by a photometer and the
sulfate ion concentration and is determined by
comparison of the reading with a standard curve.
Sample
At least 100 milliliters is required.
Reagents
All distilled water should be sulfate free.
(1) Hydrochloric acid—sodium chloride
reagent: Dissolve 240 g NaCl in about 200
ml of distilled water. Add 20 ml of
concentrated HC1 and dilute to 1,000 ml
with distilled water.
(2) Blank reagent: Dissolve 2.5 g acacia (gum
arabic USP grade) in 250 ml of hot distilled
water, adding the acacia in small amounts,
and mixing well until dissolved. Cool to
room temperature. Add 250 ml of
propylene glycol. Add 0.5 g of Hyamine
1622 (Rohm & Haas quaternary am-
monium germicide) and mix well until dissolved.
Filter through a fine paper (Whatman 40). This
is accomplished most easily with suction and
Buchner funnel.
(3) Barium reagent: Dissolve 2.5 g of acacia in
200 ml of hot distilled water as for blank
reagent above. Dissolve 10 g of BaCl2 in 50
ml of hot distilled water and add to acacia
solution. Cool to room temperature. Add
250 ml of propylene glycol. Add 0.5 g of
Hyamine 1622, and mix to dissolve. Filter
as for blank reagent.
Preparation of Standard Curve
(1) Prepare a standard sulfate solution, 1.00
ml=0.10 mg SO4, by diluting 10.4 ml of
the standard 0.020 NH24 solution specified
in alkalinity to 100 ml with distilled water.
(2) Prepare a suitable series of standards from
0 to 100 mg/liter in 10 mg/liter increments
by diluting 0, 2.5, 5".0, 7.5, 10.0 ml, etc, to
25.0 ml with distilled water. The standard
curve does not follow Beer's law.
Significance
Sulfate is relatively abundant in hard waters.
Concentrations larger than 300 mg/liter often
produce a laxative effect in human beings and
some animals. The 1962 U. S. Public Health
129
-------
Service Drinking Water Standards specified 250
mg sulfate per liter as the maximum desirable
limit.
REFERENCES
Sheen, R. T., H. L. Kahler, and E. M. Ross,
Turbidimetric determination of sulfate in water.
Industrial Engineering Chemistry Analytic
Edition, 7: 262, 1935.
Standard methods for the examination of
water and waste water, llth ed., 1960, p. 237
Reisch, R. F. Modification of the Sheen-
Kahler and Ross procedure for turbidimetric
determination of sulfate. Unpublished, 1960.
SODIUM
(Estimation in Water)
Principle
The sodium content of water can be approxi-
mated from the mineral content and the hard-
ness.
Sample
At least 100 milliliters is required.
Equipment
None
Procedure
(1) Determine total mineral content.
(2) Determine total hardness.
(3) Estimate the sodium content as follows:
(Total mineral x 0.02 total hardness x 0.02) x
23 = Sodium (Na) in mg/liter
Reporting
Report as mg Na per liter.
Significance
Sodium content in water is important to the
medical profession in some cases of heart disease
and hypertension.
REFERENCE
Standard methods for the examination of
water and waste water: 11th ed., 1960, p. 231.
DETERMINATION OF CHLORIDE
Modified Mercuric Nitrate Method
Reagents
(1) Standard sodium chloride solution,
0.014N: Dissolve 8.243 g NaCl, dried by fusing
at 900° C for % hour, in 500 ml distilled water.
Dilute 50.0 ml to 1,000 ml. Each ml of this
solution contains 0.500 mg Cl.
(2) Mercuric nitrate solution, 0.0141N: Dis-
solve 2.42 g Hg (NOs)2 H20 in 20 ml distilled
water to which 0.25 ml concentrated HNO3 has
been added and dilute to 1 liter. Determine the
exact normality of this solution by standardi-
zation against 10.0 ml standard sodium chloride
solution diluted to 100 ml.
(3) Diphenylcarbazone-bromphenol blue
mixed indicator solution: Dissolve 0.5 g
diphenylcarbazone and 0.05 g bromphenol blue
in 100 ml 95 percent ethyl alcohol. Store in a
brown bottle.
(4) Nitric acid solution, 0.2N: Dilute 12.9 ml
concentrated nitric acid to 1 liter.
Procedure
Add 5 drops of the mixed indicator solution
to the sample and then add 0.2N nitric acid
dropwise until the color becomes a definite
yellow (about pH 3.6). Add 5 drops more 0.2N
nitric acid. Titrate with mercuric nitrate solution
to the first permanent tinge of violet. A few
drops before the endpoint is reached, the color
becomes orange, and then the remainder of the
titration should proceed slowly and with
vigorous stirring.
130
-------
Calculation
ppm Cl= ml Hg(NO^)7-blankxNx35.46x 1,000
ml sample
REFERENCE
DOMASK, W. C., and K. A. KOBE, Mercuri-
metric determination of chlorides and water-
soluble chlorohydrins. Analytical Chemistry 24:
989, 1952.
ALLIED LABORATORIES
The methods to be described are those used
by Allied Laboratories, Chicago, Illinois, to
obtain the results shown on table 7. The samples
,were taken to the laboratory the day they were
collected. Analytical methods used are from
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Waste Water (American Public Health Assoc-
iation et al., 1965) and are listed here, with
appropriate page references to that book:
pH Glass electrode method (Beckman pH
meter)-p. 226
Iron—tripyridine method-p. 159
Bicarbonate ("M" alkalinity)-titration with
methyl orange -p. 48
Chloride—argentometric method-p. 86
Sulfate—turbidimetric method -p. 291
Calcium-EDTA titration -p. 74
Magnesium (by difference between Ca and
total hardness)
Total hardness-EDTA titration -p. 147
Sodium and potassium (by difference be-
tween total hardness and total anions)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen -p. 404
Total nigrate-nitrite nitrogen—phenol-
dinsulfenic acid -p. 195
TENCO HYDRO/AERO SCIENCES, INC.
The following review of methods used and
problems encountered in the analyses of
leachate samples was prepared by Alfred M.
Tenny of Tenco Hydro/Aerosciences, Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois. This discussion refers to
analyses presented on table 9.
I Metal Analyses
II General Condition
All metals were measured with a Jarrell-Ash
maximum versatility atomic absorption spectro-
photometer. The gas mixtures and wave lengths
are listed under analytical conditions. A laminar
flow burner was used in all cases, and at least
five standards were measured to prepare a
calibration curve. Internal standards were not
used in most analyses.
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
ANALYTIC CONDITIONS
Gas mixture
Wave length oxidant*
3092-A
1937-A
5535-A
2349-A
2288-A
4227-A
3579-A
3247-A
2483-A
2170-A
N2°
Ar
N2O
N9O
4*
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Fuel
CH
CH
22
CH
22
Remarks
Added
lanthanum
carrier
131
-------
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Zinc
Chemical symbols
ANALYTIC CONDITIONS
2852-A Air
2795-A Air
7665-A Air
1961-A Ar
3 281-A Air
5890-A Air
2139-A Air
N2O
H2 "
Ar
A
nitrous oxide
acetylene
hydrogen
argon
angstrom units
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
H2
C2H2
C2H2
C2H2
*Oxidant or inert gas used to aspirate sample.
Sample preparations
All samples except where noted were treated
with dilute nitric acid (1% v/v of the con-
centrated acid) and digested for l/2 hour. The
samples were filtered and returned to original
volume.
In the case of calcium and magnesium, both
the total and soluble contents were determined.
The soluble metals were measured on the filtrate
of laboratory-filtered samples with medium-
porosity filter paper. Arsenic and selenium
samples were prepared with HC1, since HNO3
appears to interfere with the atomic absorption
procedures when the argon-hydrogen flame is
used.
Special problems
For most procedures few problems were
encountered. An abnormal zinc result was found
in one sample (DUP LW 6B). The same sample
was rechecked on two separate occasions and
continued to give a high result. A recheck by the
State Geological Survey gave a low result on a
new sample from the same well but a high
abnormal result from the next sample in analytic
series (DUP LW 11 A). Rechecks by the State
Geological Survey on a series of samples gave
lower results for both lead and zinc. The State
Geological Survey analyzed for soluble
materials, while Tenco Hydro/Aerosciences
checked for total materials present (acid leach-
able).
Problems were also noted in the arsenic
analysis, which gave several high readings. These
samples were all rechecked with internal
standards to compensate for interferences, but
results still indicate the presence of arsenic. No
reasonable explanation can be given either for
the presence of arsenic or for the cause of the
anomalous instrument readings.
The presence of barium is also very difficult
to explain from a geological viewpoint, but the
atomic absorption method of analysis gave
definite readings.
Discussion on methods selected
In several samples a precipitate of hydrated
iron had formed by the time samples were
received in laboratory. Since iron hydroxide
tends to scavenge most trace ions in solution,
132
-------
any method of testing soluble metals could not
provide meaningful data. It was assumed that
the source of metals was the leachate and not
the clay till. Later analysis of the till in
uncontaminated areas indicated a larger than
expected concentration of several metals.
It appears that a dynamic system to filter
samples in the field, before exposure to the
atmosphere or air, may be a better method of
sample collection. The presence of fine suspend-
ed material in leachate samples received to date
has prevented filtration of large volumes without
changing filtering medium frequently.
Boron
Procedure
Boron was measured by the carmine colori-
metric method given in Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Waste Water,
1965 Edition. No interferences are listed that
should affect results, except the use of boro-
silicate glass. The analyst used borosilicate glass
to concentrate samples. Although this procedure
is not recommended, many laboratories use it
since the cost of large-size platinum vessels is
prohibitive. The sensitivity of the carmine
colorimetric method requires the use of about a
1-liter sample for boron concentration of less
than] ppm.
Hardness
Hardness was titrated by a standard procedure
for well and boiler waters (Standard Methods).
The calculated values did not compare with the
titrated values. The analysts complained of
trouble with end point in titration. A number of
possible interferences exist in the titration
method, and the calculated value is preferred in
all situations. Interferences include suspended
and collodial organic matter.
Cyanide
The only two results reported were at about
the limit of accuracy of the test. A colorimetric
method with pyridine-pyralzolone reagent was
used as given in "Standard Methods." Samples
were distilled before analysis.
Bod-Cod
The ratio of COD divided by BOD is usually a
number greater thanj, frequently quite large.
There were eight cases in which the COD-to-
BOD ratio was reversed. It has been noted on
other occasions that this phenomenon occurs
when a volatile organic is present. The organic
could volatilize and be lost before being
oxidized in the COD test. The same material, if
biodegradable, would be detected in the BOD
test.
While the possibility of an air leak or bubble
entrapment exists, this tends to give low, rather
than high, BOD results. The BOD test was run
according to "Standard Methods" with modifi-
cations adopted by the Chicago Program Office
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Associ-
ation and Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago. Filtered raw sewage is used to
seed the dilution water. Both seed and dilution
water controls are included in the procedure. All
dilution water is aged at 20° C for at least 5 days
before being used in the test.
COD is also tested according to "Standard
Methods."
Ag2SO4 is added to prevent problems from
the chloride ions present and to serve as an
oxidation catalyst.
Alkalinity
Alkalinity can be measured by several
methods. The original results were determined
by the potentiometric method on page 368 of
Standard Methods. This was selected because of
turbidity in samples and possible unknown
interferences. From a literature review, the
potentiometric procedure appears to 'be the
most reliable. The direct titration method using
sulluric acid as titrant and either methyl orange
or mixed bromcresol green-methyl red as in-
dicator was employed by the State Geological
Survey. Results showed considerable differences.
A third method using a hot alkali titration and
back titration of the hot solution with acid is
133
-------
given on page 438 of Standard Methods.
The alkalinity of many leachate samples
varied with the method used, even within the
same laboratory. It is felt that alkalinity cannot
be used to determine carbonate concentration
without measurement of other parameters.
These can include but are not limited to pH,
organic and mineral acids, ionic strength, and
temperature.
Other Tests
All procedures according to 12th Edition,
Standard Methods, except where noted.
Parameter
Chloride
Sulfate
Surfactants (MBAS)
Hexane solubles
Fluoride
Dissolved solids
Nitrate
Total nitrogen
Sample treatment
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
None
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
None
Procedure
Argentometric
Turbidimetric
Methylene blue
FWPA method
Antimony tartrate
Ascorbic acid
SPADNS
Dried at 105°C
Phenoldisulfonic
acid
Kjeldahl digestion
Problems
None
None
Foaming
None
Numerous
interference
None
None
Occasional
foaming
Pesticides Analyses
Since the number of pesticides presently
being used is very extensive, it was necessary to
limit testing to a few of those more commonly
used and of a residual nature. Because of the
necessity of having a long residence time before
degradation, chlorinated pesticides were
selected. Final selection was also guided by the
availability of standards.
Samples were checked for the following
pesticides: Lindane, Heptachlor, Heptachlor
Eposide, Aldrin, DDE, Ortho, Para DDT, Para,
Para-DDT, Dieldrin, and Endrin.
One-liter samples were extracted as per pro-
cedures of the FWPCA (FWQA). The sample size
was limited, owing to amount of leachate
available.
An electron-capture detector on a gas chro-
matograph was used for actual determination.
By use of standards a detection limit of at least
0.1 nanogram per microliter was verified for all
nine pesticides tested.
The extract of leachate, after being concentrated
to 2 milliliters, was injected in 20 lamda
(microliter) aliquots. This gives an effective
detection limit of approximately 5 micrograms
per liter. Owing to the large number of steps in
the preparation, concentration, and redilution of
the samples, a large inherent error exists, which
was not evaluated.
Peaks were noted in the Blackwell sample, but
they did not correspond to any of the reference
standards. Whether these are other pesticides or
decomposition products cannot be specualted
with limited information available. Extraneous
134
-------
peaks were also noted in several other samples ticides in leachate is suspected, larger volume
but were of lesser intensity. samples be used in the study to increase chances
It is suggested that if the presence of pes- of positive results.
135
-------
APPENDIX D
FLUOROMETRIC PROCEDURE FOR DETECTING
LEACHATE IN GLACIAL MATERIALS
I. Edgar Odom
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, Illinois
Procedure. 25 grams of fresh material
(sample) is dissaggrated in 25 ml of distilled
H2<3 for about 15 minutes. The suspension is
then transferred to a 50-ml centrifuge tube and
the flask is cleaned by washing with an ad-
ditional 20 ml of H20. This liquid is also added
to the centrifuge tube (total 45 ml).
The suspension is then centrifuged for 25
minutes at 2,500 rpm. The supernate liquid is
then transferred into a fluorometer curette and
the fluoresence is read immediately (SM read-
ing). A second reading is taken after sufficient
HC1 has been added to obtain a 5 percent
solution (SM and HC1 reading).
Fluorescence Background. The fluorescence
characteristics of several glacial tills known not
to be contaminated by landfill leachate were
studied to ascertain fluorescence background
characteristics. SM readings averaged 43 (ff=7),
whereas SM-HC1 readings averaged 26 (cr=5).
Summary of Results. Two cores from two
different landfills were studied. These cores were
sealed in polyethylene from the time they were
collected until they were opened in the labor-
atory for sampling. The cores were sampled at
closely spaced intervals. Two samples from each
sampling position were processed simul-
taneously. The fluorescence values shown on the
accompanying diagram (fig. 30) represent the
average recorded for these two samples.
It was found that leachate and carbonate are
the principal materials in tills that produce
fluorescence above background. Treatment with
HC1 eliminates the fluorescence caused by the
carbonate but does not eliminate the fluor-
escence due to leachate. It is assumed that the
high fluorescence of the leachate is produced by
organic acids in solution.
Fluorescence values out of harmony with
adjacent samples were obtained in sandy
materials (see DuPage 23.25 feet and Winnetka
13.8, 14.2, and 15.6 feet). This relation might
be caused by the fact that the leachate has been
flushed by ground water movement or that the
sandy sediments contain little mineral matter
such as clay minerals that absorbs organic acids.
Core LW 14 DuPage Landfill. * Fluorescence
producing organic acids appears to have per-
meated to 23.5 feet.
The low fluorescence value at 23.2 feet is
related to the sandy nature of the material.
The reading slightly higher than normal back-
ground at 29 feet is due to contamination of the
material during sampling.
Core LW 14 Winnetka Landfill.f Organic
acids in the leachate have penetrated to a depth
of 16.5 feet, the low fluorescence value at 15.5
feet is due to the sandy nature of the materials
as are those at 13.8 and 14.1 feet.
The high fluorescence value at 19.5 feet does
not appear to be due to contamination that is
visible although this is probably the best ex-
planation.
*Below landfill 1 6 years old at time of sampling. Top of till at 23.67 ft.
fBelow landfill 1.5 years old at time of sampling. Base of refuse at 13.75 feet. Top of till at 23 feet.
136
-------
LW14 DuPage
LW14 Winnetka
U)
Surficial
Sand
22
23
0)
Q
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
I
\
100 +
Base of Refuse
Alluvium
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Fluorescence
Transition
Zone 20
Till
Standard Mixture
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Fluorescence
Standard Mixture with HCI
Figure 30. Fluorescence of aqueous solutions centrifuged from core samples beneath DuPage and Winnetka
landfills. There is no indication that components from the refuse have moved downward into the underlying till.
-------
APPENDIX E
HYDROGRAPHS
STABILIZATION AND INSTRUMENTATION
Hydrographs obtained from float-operated
recorders studied in conjunction with micro-
barographs and precipitation records provide the
best information for analysis of the mechanics
of the flow system. The factors influencing these
hydrographs must be understood before such an
analysis can be made.
The water level in a piezometer finished in a
permeable zone responds quickly to changes in
fluid pressure in the ground. Piezometers finish-
ed in material of low permeability respond more
slowly because it is necessary to move a volume
of water into or out of the piezometer to change
the water level in the piezometer standpipe. This
water must be transmitted into the piezometer
at the screened interval. The larger the diameter
of the piezometer standpipe the larger the
volume of water that must be moved. The lower
the permeability of the materials the slower this
water is able to move. Piezometers with large
standpipes in materials of low permeability will,
therefore, react slowly to changes in fluid
pressure. Thus, a single water level measurement
on a piezometer in clay is not a reliable index of
the fluid pressure at the screen. The time
required for stabilization is known as "time lag."
In order tp ensure that the piezometer reading is
reliable, one must either stabilize the piezometer
by adding or removing small amounts of water
or else wait until the hydrograph indicates
stability by reversal of a rising or declining
trend.
In this study, after each piezometer had been
pumped and developed, water level measure-
ments were taken to determine whether it had
been stabilized and to determine its sensitivity.
Measurements for this purpose were carried out
at weekly or shorter intervals, depending on
rainfall and other factors, until sufficient data
had been gathered. When the piezometer's re-
sponse time was very slow, water was added or
removed to stabilize the unit. The diameter of
he standpipe of most of the piezometers with
slow response time was reduced as described in
Appendix A.
After each piezometer had been stabilized,
routine measurements were made at monthly
intervals to determine seasonal changes in water
levels. Additional measurements were made at
shorter intervals after rain had fallen or the units
had been pumped and sampled. Rainfall at each
site was also measured during 1966 and most of
1967 with nonrecording gages.
In the early fall of 1967 a recording rain gage
and a recording barometer were installed at the
DuPage County site, in conjunction with three
water level recorders equipped with Keck water-
level-sensing devices. The recorders were used to
determine the relative effects of precipitation
and barometric changes on water level and aided
in evaluating the routine measurements. Two of
the water level recorders and sensing devices were
stolen in November, and this operation was
abandoned for the winter.
In the fall of 1968 two float-actuated re-
corders were installed at the Old DuPage
County, the Winnetka, and the Woodstock
landfills, while one recorder equipped with a
Keck device was installed at the Elgin landfill
and at Blackwell. Recording rain gages and
barometers were installed at all sites except the
Blackwell Forest Preserve.
Water level data obtained in this investigation
have been plotted on hydrographs, which are
filed at the Naperville office of the Illinois State
Geological Survey.
RESPONSE TO RECHARGE
Hydrographs reveal long-term trends in water
levels within the saturated zone, which are
related to recharge and drainage of the ground
water system. During the spring months, soil
moisture is at field capacity, the maximum
138
-------
amount of water that the soil can retain against
gravity drainage. Under these circumstances any
infiltration will result in downward movement
and recharge to the ground water reservoir.
During the growing season, beginning early in
April, water demands by the plants reduce the
soil moisture content to below field capacity by
evapotranspiration, creating a soil moisture de-
ficiency. Recharge cannot occur unless
infiltration is sufficient to overcome this soil
moisture deficiency, allowing drainage of the
excess soil water (during the summer this re-
quires heavy, sustained rains).
In long intervals between recharge events the
hydrographs show a gradual decline, indicating
slow drainage of the ground water reservoir. The
rise in the water table followed by a long,slow
decline is a measure of the amount of recharge.
Infiltration through refuse follows the same
pattern as through earth materials except that
(1) refuse may reach the landfill with a moisture
content far below field capacity, and consider-
able quantities of water may have to be added
before normal infiltration can proceed; and (2)
there is evidence of recharges through channels
in the refuse occurring before the moisture
content of the refuse reaches field capacity.
Remson et al. (1968, p. 312) calculated that in
Pennsylvania approximately 2.98 inches of rain
would be required to bring 1 foot of refuse to
field capacity. If moisture does move in refuse
through channels, this figure cannot be used to
estimate when infiltration will first penetrate a
landfill to produce leachate.
OTHER FLUCTUATIONS
Wells that respond to changes in barometric
pressure indicate confined (artesian) conditions.
The ratio of water level to barometric change is
the barometric efficiency. This condition is
usually attributed to the presence of a confining
aquiclude or relatively impermeable stratum that
bears some portion of the changing load owing
to air pressure. Thus, a well in an aquifer with a
free water surface should have a barometric
efficiency of zero. Most of the continuous
hydrographs obtained in this study indicate a
significant barometric efficiency even where
there is no apparent confining stratum. Under
these circumstances the apparent confinement
must be attributed to a flow system in which
artesian conditions exist without the require-
ment of the confining stratum. The barometric
efficiency did not remain constant in every well
but appeared to be affected by frozen ground
surface, flooding, and changes in the moisture
content of the soil.
In many instances the hydrograph shows a
rapid rise after a rain begins and a decline within
hours to the prerain level. These fluctuations are
similar though not identical to fluctuations
described by Meyboom (1967, p. 14) in
Saskatchewan, where the fluctuations were re-
lated to an increase in pressure above the
capillary fringe caused by light precipitation
(Lisse effect). They are not related to ground
water recharge, and continuous hydrographs or
closely spaced measurements are necessary to
separate these effects from genuine recharge
events.
CONTINUOUS HYDROGRAPHS
Traces of the continuous hydrographs for
DUP LW 7 and DUP LW 13 are presented on
figure 31 with precipitation and barometric
records, as well as the hydrograph traces cor-
rected for barometric effect.
The hydrograph of LW 7 is the simpler of the
two. It shows a recharge event beginning shortly
after the rain of March 24 and continuing until
March 29. A barometric efficiency of about 5
percent was used to correct the hydrograph.
This was obtained by considering the ratio of
water level change to barometric change at a
time when no other effects were present. The
total rise in water level caused by this rain was
approximately 0.33 foot.
139
-------
Hydrograph DUP LW13
-o o- Hydrograph DUP LW13 with barometric correction
Hydrograph DUP LW7
-o-o Hydrograph DUP LW7 with barometric correction
Barometric Pressure - not corrected to M.S.L
Raingage Trace
Figure 31. Traces of continuous hydrographs for DuPage LW 7 and DuPage LW 13, March 19 through 30, 1969.
Precipitation and barometric records, as well as hydrograph traces corrected for barometric effect, are also presented.
The rain of March 24 produced a consider amount of recharge in LW 7 but little or none in LW 13, where the refuse is
younger.
-------
In contrast, working with the hydrograph of
DUP LW 13 is much more difficult. It shows a
large rise immediately after the rain commenced
and a rapid decline beginning before the rain was
finished. This type of fluctuation is described by
Meyboom (1967) in Saskatchewan. There is
another rise on the 27th and 28th that appears
to be related to a decline in barometric pressure;
however, the barometric efficiency based on this
rise is not the same as that calculated for the
20th. If we consider water levels up to the 23rd
and after the 28th, the rise in water level
amounts to no more than 0.10 foot. Most of the
water from this precipitation event has gone to
bring the moisture content of the materials
above the zone of saturation to field capacity.
Each of the seven continuous hydrographs
was evaluated in this manner and the total rise in
water level computed for the period October 1,
1968, to September 30, 1969.
In most cases water levels in the shallow wells
begin to rise a few hours after rain begins to fall,
provided precipitation is intense enough to raise
the materials above the top of the zone of
saturation to field capacity or to move down
through cracks in the refuse. With heavy rains
this rise may continue for a week after pre-
cipitation has ceased.
WEEKLY HYDROGRAPHS
Weekly hydrographs were kept on seven wells
from early in 1968 to the present, and inter-
mittently on these and other wells through 1966
and 1967. Weekly hydrographs were also com-
piled for wells with continuous hydrographs. An
example of weekly hydrographs for DUP LW 7
and DUP LW 13 from October 1, 1968, to
September 30, 1969, together with precipitation
and temperature records, are shown in figure 32.
Also plotted in this figure is the water level rise
attributed to infiltration for DUP LW 7 as taken
from the continuous (hydrograph).
The first significent recharge shown on the
hydrograph of DUP LW 7 occurs after December
24, 1968, in response to rain on December 27
and 28, 1968. Rains in October and November
,had not been sufficient to bring the materials
above the zone of saturation to field capacity,
and there was only one minor recharge event
near the end of November. The second major
recharge event follows the warm weather on
January 21, 1969. Winter recharge such as this
was not anticipated, since we expected that the
ground surface would be frozen and relatively
impermeable. Other recharge occurs through
March, April, June, and July of 1969, in
response to precipitation.
The hydrograph of LW 13 shows a more
subdued response. The first appreciable rise
occurs early in April, and subsequent rain caused
a gradual rise that continues into August. The
late and sluggish response of this hydrograph is
probably the result of the refuse's not having
completely reached field capacity. Recharge
events did occur in LW 13 prior to October
1968, but it is felt that these were caused by
water's channelling through the refuse.
Both hydrographs decline through August and
September. It is possible that the slower decline
in LW 13 reflects the fact that the ground water
mound at this location has not reached its
maximum height.
Evapotranspiration from plants is effective
throughout the growing season. The effect of
this evapotranspiration in reducing soil moisture
is shown by the relatively large rains that are
necessary in June and July to produce a rise in
water level and by the fact that there is no
response to rains in August and September.
Precipitation in June and July was abnormally
high and may have caused greater infiltration
than usual during these months.
Infiltration can be estimated from the weekly
hydrographs in the same manner as it is from the
continuous hydrographs, but because they can-
not be corrected for anomalous readings such as
that shown on March 24, 1969, and for
barometric fluctuations, the results are less
accurate.
CALCULATION OF SPECIFIC YIELD
Specific yield was calculated by selecting a
recharge event at a time when the materials
above the top of the zone of saturation were at
141
-------
OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER
10 20 10 20 10 20
M | I I I
JANUARY FEBRUARY
10 20 10 20
MARCH
10 20
AUGUST SEPTEMBER
10 20 10 20
T
to
1 ^ c
CJ ^
0
80
70
50
- 40 > »
32 Q v
UJ 00
20 £
>
<
10
0
Figure 32. Weekly hydrographs for DuPage LW 7 and DuPage LW 13 for the period October 1, 1968, through
September 30, 1969, together with precipitation and temperature records. Also presented is a plot of the rise in
water level attributed to infiltration for DuPage LW 7 as taken from the continuous hydrograph. Individual recharge
events are summed to yield the total recharge for the year.
-------
or near to field capacity and assuming that all
the precipitation falling on the landfill in-
filtrated and contributed to the water level rise.
During this event specific yields can be cal-
culated by using the equation Sy = Rppt/Ahas
discussed in appendix H.
This calculation assumes that (1) the field
capacity of the materials above the zone of
saturation has been reached and (2) there is little
or no runoff or ponding and a representative
amount of the precipitation enters the ground.
We assumed that the materials were at field
capacity for about 1 week after a substantial
recharge event and calculated field capacity for
subsequent recharge events falling within this
time span.
The effect of runoff and ponding was es-
timated from the slope of the ground in the
vicinity of the recorder and considered in
selecting the specific yield value to be used for
calculating total infiltration (appendix G).
As can be seen, a considerable amount of
personal judgment is involved in this procedure.
If the material is not at field capacity or there is
runoff, a high figure for specific yield will be
obtained. If there is ponding, a low specific yield
will be calculated.
Specific yield, total porosity, and field
capacity were, on two occasions, measured
directly in the field on refuse placed in two
55-gallon drums welded together. On the first
occasion the two drums were filled to the top
with measured amounts of uncompacted refuse
and water, left overnight, and then drained for
24 hours. On the second occasion, the refuse
was compacted with a tamper as the water was
added. The mixture was left for 7 days before
being drained. During this interval more water
was added as necessary to cover the refuse.
Calculations were based on the following
relationships:
Specific yield =
Volume of water drained from barrel x 100
Total volume of barrel
Total porosity =
Volume of water added to barrel x 100
Total volume of barrel
Field capacity
= Total porosity — specific
yield
The specific yield, porosity, and field capacity
obtained on the first occasion were 63, 73, and
10 percent respectively and on the second
occasion 44, 79, and 35 percent respectively.
Results from the first measurements are not
realisitic, inasmuch as the refuse was not com-
pacted sufficiently, nor was the refuse and water
mixture left long enough for all of the pore
space to become saturated. A field capacity of
35 percent as obtained on the second occasion
can be compared with measurements of 29
percent made with an asbestos tension table by
Remson et al. (1968, P.309) in Pennsylvania.
The specific yield value of 44 percent compaires
well with that obtained for Winn LW 17, on
table 19.
143
-------
APPENDIX F
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
OF PERMEABILITY CALCULATIONS
SLUG TESTS
Table 15 shows the results of slug tests for
permeability grouped according to site and
materials. Permeability values obtained from
sands and gravels at the old DuPage County,
Elgin, and Woodstock landfills reflect the
variable texture of these glacial deposits. Values
for glacial tills and for the alluvium at Winnetka
show more consistency. Values for refuse are
also variable, as would be expected from its
heterogeneous nature.
In some instances valid results could not be
obtained. These are noted in the comments
column in table 15. If the permeability of a unit
is high and the diameter of the standpipe is
small, the drop in water level is too rapid to be
measured by the method used. In these cases we
have given an estimated value for the per-
meability.
In a number of wells water levels continued
rising after slugging, dropped below their
original level, or remained stationary. These are
noted in the comments column as a matter of
interest.
A value of 25 gpd per square foot was taken
to represent the permeability of the survicial
sands around the edges of the old DuPage
County landfill. This rather arbitrary figure is
derived by averaging all the slug tests taken in
this unit except those from MM 29, 59, 63, and
76. We believe that rejection of these higher
(and possibly erroneous) values may compensate
for the fact that most of the slug tests were run
on the south side of the landfill, where the
materials appear to be coarser textured.
PUMPING TESTS
Pumping tests were run on the shallow de-
posits at the old DuPage County and Winnetka
landfills to verify the permeability values arrived
at through slugtesting. The first such test was
run on wells MM 46, 47, 57, 58, 59, and 60,
south of the old DuPage County landfill. These
wells are approximately 12 feet deep, in a line
spaced at intervals of 5 and 10 feet on either
side of MM 58, the pumping well. MM 58 was
pumped with a peristolic pump at between
0.125 and 0.10 gpm for 16 hours. This test was
repeated with a contractor's pump at a pumping
rate of 0.50 gpm on MM 59. The results
obtained with the unsteady-state leaky artesian
mithod of analyses (Walton, 1962,p. 5) com-
pared well with those obtained by slugtesting.
A similar test was run on DUP MM 68 to 72,
inclusive, to compare results between sealed and
unsealed well points. These are wells about 9
feet deep and arranged as the arms of a cross 2
and 5 feet from the center well MM 68, the
pumped well.
Two tests were run on this array. In the first
test, MM 68 was pumped at different rates from
0.605 gpm to 1.73 gpm with a small contractor's
pump for about 4 hours and step drowdown
analysis was made as described by Walton (1962,
p 27) In the second test MM 68 was pumped at
1.21 gpm with the contractors pump for about 4
hours and the results analyzed by the non-
steady-state leaky artesian method (Walton,
1962, p. 5). Both of these methods gave similar
results, which indicated that the materials had a
permeability one to two orders of magnitude
higher that given by slugtesting. There was no
indication that different results would be
obtained in sealed versus unsealed wells.
An input test was run on the alluvium at
Winnetka MM 50-54 inclusive. These wells are
about 7 feet deep in a line spaced at 2 and 4 feet
from MM 52. The center well, MM 52, was injec-
ted at 0.101 gpm for 24 hours and the results
analyzed by the nonsteady-state leaky artesian
method (Walton, 1962, p. 5). These results com-
pared well with those obtained through
slugtesting.
LABORATORY TESTS
Vertical and horizontal values for per-
meability were obtained on a sample of till
collected from an excavation about 4 miles
144
-------
south of the old DuPage County landfill. The
vertical permeability obtained was 2.8 x 10~7
centimeters per second, with a constant head of
5.25 pounds per square inch over an area of 37.0
square centimeters for 23.40 hours. The vertical
permeability was 2.2 x 1CT7 centimeters per
second a head of 0.43 pound per square inch
over a sample area of 35.6 square centimeters
for 16.25 hours. These compare well with values
obtained from slugtests in the till at the old
DuPage County site.
OTHER WORK IN AREA
Coefficients of vertical permability based on
pumping cone analyses calculated from the drift
materials (Walton. 1965, p. 34) raged from 2.17
x 10"7 centimeters per second for a clay till with
some sand and gravel and shaley dolomite to 4.8
to x 10"7 centimeters per second for sand and
gravel with some clay. Other studies in this area
have yielded calculations of permeability for the
drift from 9.4 x 1CT9 centimeters per second to
3.8 x 1CT2 centimeters per second. The latter has
been interpreted as a joint in clay till (Williams,
1966, p. 48).
145
-------
APPENDIX G
QUANTITATIVE DATA AND CALCULATIONS
This appendix lists pertinent quantitative data
and calculations of water movement. Figure 33
is a sketch of conditions similar to those found
at the old DuPage County and Winnetka landfills
and illustrates the components of ground water
flow that were calculated. The value of " lateral
movement " applies to the quantity of water
moving from the fill across section A-A' at the
fill margin. It is a measure of the amount of
water from the fill moving outward above the
first zone of very low permeability (top of the
glacial till) on all four sides of the fill area. The
value for "vertical movement" applies to the
quantity of water from the fill moving across
section A'-B below the fill. It is a measure of the
amount of water from the fill moving downward
beneath the fill itself. It is not a measure of total
downward movement from the fill, because
some downward movement also occurs outside
of the margin of the fill (below area indicated by
C).
The maximum distance that dissolved solids
from the landfill can move laterally should be
fixed hydrologically at the point where the flow
line leaving the landfill at A enters the top of the
till. An estimate of the distance to this point
from the landfill has been made for the south
side of old DuPage County landfill
The spreading effect of the sand bed within
the till section is effective only if the sand
extends part way below the filled area. If it
underlies all the fill area, it will move the zone
of vertically moving water over as a unit. The
right side of figure 33 illustrates the effect of a
tile on the flow system. Note the diversion of
both downward and laterally moving water to
this tile.
DUPAGE COUNTY LANDFILL
3.40 x 106 ft2 . . Surface area of fill
8.5 x 103 ft Length of landfill edge North,
south, and west sides
l.Sx 103ft East side
1.30 ft/year .... Estimated yearly recharge
based on table 19
Estimated average horizontal
gradient in surficial sand at
2 x 10'2 ft/ft . . fill edge
North, south, and west sides
l.Vx 10"1 ft/ft. .East side
25 gal/day/ft2 . . Estimated average permea-
bility of surficial sand at fill
edge based on table 15
•y
30 gal/day/ft . . Estimated permeability of
surficial materials in area
south of landfill
Average saturated thickness
of surficial sand at fill edge
10 ft North, south, and west sides
7ft East side
8x 10"3gal/day/ft2.Estimated average permea-
bility of till below fill based
on table 15
0.5 ft/ft . ... Average vertical gradient at
top of till unit
0.15 Estimated specific yield of
surficial sand unit
Recharge by precipitation (October 1, 1968, to
September 30, 1969)
Recharge is calculated by the method de-
scribed by Williams and Lohman (1949, p.
127-129).
Total recharge = 1.30 ft/yr x 3.40 x 106 ft2 =
4.4 x 106 ft3/yr=90,000 gpd Discharge from fill.
Lateral movement through surficial sand
North, south, and west sides of fill.
25 gpd/ft2 x 2 x 10"2 ft/ft x 10 ft x 8.5 x 103
= 4.25x 104gpd.
East side of fill
25 gpd/ft2 x 1.7 x 10'1 ft/ft x 7 ft x 1.5 x
103 ft = 4.46 x 104 gpd.
146
-------
Ground surface and approximate top of zone of saturation
Landfill
A /
Sand
i^r
J-4v
'* .} ;\ \
A1
; i
.;_,,J
\Tile
Silty and sandy
clay tills
1
Interbedded sand j
i
! \
/
fc."
kf I*-'
Dolomite
< p|OW |jne Qf water wh,ch has passed through the fill
< •--• Flow line of water which has not passed through the fill
Figure 33. Illustration of conditions similar to those found at the old Du Page County and the Winnetka landfills and
of the components of ground water flow calculated in Appendix G. The right side of the figure illustrates the effect of a
tile on the flow system. Both downward and laterally moving water are diverted to this tile.
-------
Total lateral discharge through surficial sand
= 87,100gpd.
Vertical movement downward through till
beneath fill.
8 x l(r3 gpd/ft2 x 0.5 ft/ft x 3.40 x 106 ft2
= 13,600 gpd.
Total discharge = 100,700 gpd or approxi-
mately 100,000 gpd.
Estimated velocity of ground water flow.
South of landfill with a horizontal gradient of
6 x 10"3 and specific yield of 0.15
30 gpd/ft2 x 6 x 10"3 ft/ft x 3.65 x 102
7.48x0.15
= 60 ft/yr
Dilution of leachate by Kress Creek.
Flow from east side of fill = 4.46 x 104 gpd
Flow in Kress Creek measured at 2.6 ft3/sec
or 1.7 x 106 gal/day on 7/15/69. Appeared to
be slightly lower
than average flow
Dilution =1.7x10* gpd = 38 6 times
4.46 x 104 gpd
Hydrogeologic limitations on the migration
of dissolved solids from the landfill, south side
of the old DuPage County landfill.
Assume that the amount of water leaving
through A-A, figure 32, is equal to the
amount of water entering over the interval C.
According to Darcy's law, Q = PIA, as
discussed in appendix E, and therefore:
Pill (A-A') =
C =
30 gal/day/Ft2 x 2 x IP'2 Ft/Ft x 10 Ft
8 x 10'3 gal/day/Ft2 x 0.5 Ft/Ft
1,500 Ft
The calculated distance would be strongly
affected by variations in vertical permeability
within the surficial sands through which the
dissolved solids move, and we know from our
drilling that these variations in permeability
are present.
WINNETKA LANDFILL
1.06x 106 ft2
4,900 ft
2x 10-1 ft/ft
1.30ft .
5 gal/day/ft2
6ft
3.4 x 10'3 gal/day/ft2
0.5 ft/ft
. Surface area (A) of fill
. Perimeter of fill
Estimated average
horizontal gradient (I)
in surficial alluvium
around perimeter of
fill
. Estimated yearly re-
charge based on table
19
. Estimated average per-
meability (P) of sur-
ficial alluvium at fill
edges (table 15)
. Estimated saturated
thickness of surficial
alluvium
Estimated permea-
bility of till below fill,
based on table 15
Estimated vertical
gradient (I) in till be-
low fill
Recharge by precipitation
Total recharge = 1.30 ft/yr x 1.06 x 106 ft2 =
1.38 x 106 ft3/yr = 2.83 x 104 gpd or 28,300
gpd
Discharge from fill
Lateral movement through surficial alluvium
5 gpd/ft2 x 2 x la1 ft/ft x 4.9 x 103 ft x 6 ft =
30,000 gpd
Vertical movement through clay till below fill
3.4 x 10-3 gpd/ft2 x 0.5 ft/ft x 1.06 x 106 ft2 =
1,800 gpd
Total discharge from fill = 31,800 gpd
Estimated velocity of ground water flow
through alluvium on north, east, and west sides
of landfill with a horizontal gradient of 3.5 x
148
-------
10"2 ft/ft and a specific yield of 0.10
5 gpd/ft2 x 3.5 x 10'2 ft/ft x 365 = 85 2 ft/yr
T48X0.10
ELGIN LANDFILL
1.45 x 106 ft2 Surface area (A) of
fill*
1.25 ft/yr Estimated yearly infil-
tration based on table
19
Total infiltration = 1.45 x 106 ft2 x 1.25
ft/yr = 1.81 x 106 ft3 /yr = 6.6 x 104 gpd
Dilution in Fox River
Low flow 7.76 x 106 gpd -=- 6.6 x 104 gpd =
120f
Average flow 4.89 x 108 gpd-^ 6.6 x 104 gpd
= 7,400t
This estimate assumes that all the water
infiltrating into this landfill moves to the river.
Since this is a discharge zone, there is no
downward movement. The estimate maximizes
the possible level of pollution entering the river
by making no allowance for dilution by ground
water infiltrating between the landfill and the
river.
WOODSTOCK LANDFILL
1.1 x 10s ft2 Surface area (A) of fill
1 ft/yr Estimated yearly infil-
tration based on table
19
Total infiltration = 11 x 10s ft2 x 1 ft/yr =
11 x 10s ft3/yr-22,500 gpd (2.2 x 104)
Estimated flow in the drainage ditch is 106
gpd and on the assumption that gpd reaches this
ditch, it would allow dilution of (1 x 106 gpd -^
2.35 x 104 gpd) = 45 times. This does not take
into account water moving downward inside or
outside of the fill boundaries or dilution and
attenuation of leachate between the fill and the
drainage ditch.
*A maximum figure, since it includes old ash, which appears to have nearly stabilized, and relatively thin fill.
IfStream flow data from Water Resources Data for Illinois, 1966 (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey Water
Resources Division, 1967), Part 1, p. 111.
149
-------
APPENDIX H
ANALYTICAL METHODS USED IN
HYDROLOGIC INVESTIGATION
There were two objectives to our hydro-
geologic investigation. The first was to obtain a
water balance in order to determine how much
water was entering and leaving the landfills and
by what means. The second was to describe the
subsurface travel path of the water as leachate
leaving the landfill. A water balance equation
was developed and solved to obtain the first
objective, and modified flow nets were con-
structed to describe the movement of the
ground water.
WATER BALANCE STUDIES
Hydrographs of observation wells indicate
that the ground water flow systems in and
around the landfills are in a quasi-steady-state
condition. This means that the water flowing
out of the system is replaced by water flowing
into the system, either recharged from infil-
tration of precipitation or by ground water
inflow. A water balance equation for this
situation is:
Rpptn + IGW = OGW + ETGW ± SGW
where
Rpptn = recharge from infiltration of precipi-
tation
= inflow of ground water
C>GW = outflow of ground water
ETG^Y = evapotranspiration loss from the
ground water reservoir
and
= change in volume of ground water in
storage
Ground water inflow, IG\y is zero if a ground
water mound has formed under the site so that
all gradients are away from the site. This is the
case in three of the studied sites. Evapo-
transpiration from the saturated zone (ETG\\r>is
small if the water table is low or if the plants
present are not heavy users of ground water.
This factor was neglected as minor in the
calculations. Because we are assuming the
mound to be stable or nearly so the change in
volume of ground water in
considered zero. In view of
equal
storage SGW is
this, Rpptn will
R
pptn
where
Sy
= recharge by infiltration
Ah = rise in water level due to infil-
tration of precipitation
and Sy =
specific yield of material at the water table
Specific yield is the effective porosity of the
medium and is described by the expression:
N = Sy + ST
R
where
N
Sy
porosity of the medium
specific yield, the volume of
water yielded by gravity drainage
and
specific retention, the volume
retained by a unit volume of
material after gravity drainage.
Specific yield of refuse was calculated from
the continuous hydrographs by dividing the
rainfall by the corresponding rise in hydrograph,
Rpptn/Ah at a time when the materials above
the zone of saturation were at field capacity. It
was also measured directly on refuse compacted
in a barrel filled with water (appendix E).
The value for Ah is taken from continuous
hydrographs where a rise due to a rainstorm
indicates a recharge event. It was necessary to
distinquish water level changes caused by other
150
-------
factors from those due to recharge and
depletion. The total recharge for a year is the
sum of all recharge events (Williams and
Lohman, 1949, p. 127-129), and recharge to
each landfill was calculated by this method
(appendix E).
The remaining unsolved factor in water
balance equation, OQW is obtained by Darcy's
law and a flow net analysis.
DARCY'S LAW
The flow of water is governed by Darcy's law,
which can be written:
Q= PIA, where Q = rate of
flow
P= permeability of the
medium
1= hydraulic gradient, the
rate change of hydraulic
head along a flow path dh/
dl
and
A= cross sectional area
through which flow occurs
The permeability, P, of a material refers to
the ease with which a fluid will pass through it.
In this study permeability was measured with
slug tests, pumping tests, and laboratory tests on
samples (appendix F). I, the hydraulic gradient,
is a measure of ground water potential or
hydraulic head and is determined from water
levels in piezometers.
To calculate OQW tne outflow of ground
water, we applied Darcy's law to vertical
sections along the sides of the landfill and to the
horizontal section at the base of the landfill and,
knowing P, I, and A, we calculated the amount
of water leaving the landfill area. Because of the
difficulties involved in arriving at an accurate
value for P, the measurement of input is
considered to be much more reliable than that
for output based on Darcy's law.
GROUND WATER VELOCITY
The velocity of ground water movement, both
lateral and vertical, can be calculated by the
relationship:
V = P I
7;48 SY
where V is the velocity in feet per day, P the
coefficient of permeability in gallons per day per
square foot, I the hydraulic gradient, and Sy the
specific yield, a fraction expressing the amount
of water that will drain from a saturated
material.
Velocity calculations based on this relation-
ship can be considered only as rough estimates
because P, the permibility, is (appendix F) very
difficult to measure accurately and we do not
have reliable data on the specific yield of the till.
Tpdd (1959, p. 25) gives a value of 3 percent for
the specific yield of materials similar to glacial
till, whereas Schicht and Walton (1961) arrived
at values of about 10 percent in basin studies in
Illinois. Specific yield values of approximately
20 percent would be necessary to explain the
velocity as estimated from the resistivity data
gathered in this study (Hughes et al, 1968), and
values of 51 to 78 percent would fit the velocity
figures indicated by the water quality data
gathered in this investigation. Variations in
specific yield of this magnitude could be
accounted for easily by errors in the estimates of
the till's permeability. Travel velocities through
till were therefore based on water quality data,
which is more appropriate in a study of this
nature.
Specific yield for the surficial sand at the old
DuPage County landfill and for the alluvium at
the Winnetka landfill could be estimated fairly
accurately from data given by Todd (1959, p.
25) for similar materials. At these sites cal-
culated velocities agreed fairly well with
velocities based on chloride movement through
the surficial deposits.
FLOW NET ANALYSES
A flow net is a graphical solution to the
LaPlace equation:
+ d2h where h = ground water
fluid potential
x,y = cartesian coordinates
151
-------
This equation relates the distribution of head
or fluid potential in two dimensions, for steady
-state flow.
Distribution of head in the field is found by
plotting the elevation of water levels in piezo-
meters and contouring them. A smooth pattern
is some confirmation of the validity of the
measurements. Anomalous values that cannot be
reasonably accounted for from natural con-
ditions are usually good clues to faulty piezo-
meter installation.
Flow lines are drawn to intersect the equal
potential contours at right angles, and if the two
sets of lines are made to form a network of
curvilinear squares, the analysis is simplified.
Darcy's law again provides the expression for
calculating the rate of flow. Permeability is
found from field tests of piezometers and
laboratory tests of core samples. The gradient I
and area A are derived from the flow net.
Gradient is merely the difference in potential
between two points on a flow line divided by
the length of the flow line. Area is the product
of the distance between two lines and the
thickness of flow field. For flow nets in cross
sections thickness is set at unity so that area is
numerically equal to the distance between flow
lines. For flow nets in plan view on maps, the
thickness is based on geology and is taken as the
thickness of the aquifer through which most
flow occurs.
The true steady-state condition implied in the
flow net analysis is seldom, if ever, met in the
field. In this study, well hydrographs show
considerable fluctuation in water levels with
time, which is proof of unsteady flow. The
fluctuations are not, however, so great that
water levels at any one time are not reasonable
representations of the average potential dis-
tribution throughout the year. Water levels for
flow net analyses were chosen at times when
piezometers were stable, to reduce error caused
by time lag.
The materials of the subsurface have widely
varying hydrogeologic properties that are usually
related to the geologic origin. The materials are
classified and grouped into hydrostratographic
units according to their properties.
Where a flow line crosses a boundary between
hydrostratographic units with different per-
meabilities, it is refracted so that:
k i Tan 0 i
k2 Tan 0 2
where kj and k2 equal the permeabilities of the
two units and 0 j and 0 2 equal the angles of
incidence of the flow lines on the boundary
between the two units. In practice this means
that water moving downward below a ground
water mound and encountering material of
lower permeability is refracted into this
material, increasing the downward component
of flow.
Determining the distribution of the units in
the subsurface and evaluating their hydro-
geologic properties are important tasks to the
hydrogeologist because these are the factors that
control the ground water flow system.
Flow direction shown on the cross sections in
this report are corrected for vertical ex-
aggeration and permeability variations, as dis-
cussed by van Everdingen (1963). The use of
vertical exaggerations in cross sections has the
effect of suggesting more lateral movement than
is actually taking place. The effect of per-
meability on flow has already been discussed.
PERMEABILITY DETERMINATIONS
Slug tests were made on selected piezometers
to determine values of permeability in situ.
These involve changing the water level in a
piezometer and then plotting the hydrograph as
the water level returns toward equilibrium at the
static level. According to Hvorslev (1951, p.43)
the permeability of the screened zone of a
piezometer can be found from expression:
where j^ __2_
FT
K = cross section area of piezo-
meter tube, cm-2
F = shape factor, depending
upon the area of the inter-
face between piezometer
bore and formation
152
-------
and
T = basic time lag, the time
required for complete re-
covery if the initial flow
rate, q, remains constant
until stabilization is
reached. If the total
volume of flow is V then T
= V/q, sec.
For most of the piezometers in this study the
shape factor for a well point filter in uniform
soil is most suitable (Hvorslev, fig. 18, case G).
An important consideration is the ratio of
horizontal permeability to vertical permeability,
l%/kv, and the square root of which is the
transformation ratio, m.
The expresssion for K^ for this case is:
L • T
where
d =
piezo-
L =
D =
diameter of the
meter tube, cm
length of the piezometer
screen, cm
diameter of the piezo-
meter screen, cm
and the other terms as previously
stipulated
For piezometers in clay, the. simplified form
given by Horslev was used:
Kr, = d2/n
8 • L • T
Table 15 shows the results of slug tests for
permeability. The method is subject to con-
siderable error, in part because of subjective
evaluation.
Pumping tests, input tests, and laboratory
tests were also run and their results compared
against those obtained from slug testing.
The major source of error in applying Darcy's
law to ground water flow is the value used for
permeability. Earth materials are seldom homo-
geneous, and permeability values may vary by an
order of magnitude over short distances in the
same deposit. This is particularly true of the
upper sand and alluvium deposits at the old
DuPage County and Winnetka landfills. For this
reason, calculations of the amount of water
coming out of the landfill are must less reliable
than calculations of input, which are not de-
pendent on the accuracy of the permeability
factor.
In order to obtain some quantitative ideas
concerning the potential distribution and thus
the ground water flow patterns in the old
DuPage County waste disposal site, a two-
dimensional digital model was constructed by
Dr. Paul C. Heigold of the Illinois .State
Geological Survey. The model was set up to
handle anisotropic, nonhomogeneous, steady-
state flow with fixed hydraulic potentials at the
water table surface and at the points where
piezometers were located, and fixed hydraulic
potential gradients at boundaries other than the
water table.
Essentially the model involves the solution of
the boundary value problem given by the partial
differential equation for steady-state flow
H
90
)0 9z
where
H = hydraulic conductivity at a
point P (x,z) in the field of
interest
0. = hydraulic potential at a
point P (x,z) in the field of
interest
and its attendant boundary con-
ditions
0 = f (x) at the water table
0 = f (x,z) at points where
piezometers were located
153
-------
3 n - constant at those bound-
aries other than the water
table (n is the director
normal to boundary)
In this study a numerical solution that involved
the method of finite differences and the Gauss
Seidel iteration technique was applied to the
boundary value problem outlined.
Input to the finite-difference equations for
the nodes of the grid superimposed on the field
of interest included water table elevations,
potential values obtained from piezometers
located within the field of interest, vertical and
horizontal hydraulic conductivities dependent
on the lithology within which a node was
located, and reasonable hydraulic potential
gradients at boundaries other than the water
table.
The iteration procedure was carried out on
the IBM 360/75 at the University of Illinois. A
total of 4,000 iterations were made with a
resultant residue of 0.006 foot.
The ground water flow pattern obtained from
this procedure is more accurate than had been
previously obtained; however the procedure is
relatively expensive and has the same depend-
ence on reliable permeability measurements as
the simple methods of flow analyses do that are
used in appendix G.
154
U. S. GOVERNMENT
------- |