AEPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
             Municipal Environmental Research
             Laboratory
             Cincinnati OH 45268
FPA 600 2-78 096
May 1978
             Research and Development
Chemical and
Physical  Effects of
Municipal  Landfills
on Underlying Soils
and Groundwater

-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate turther development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

      1.  Environmental Health  Effects Research
      2.  Environmental Protection Technology
      3   Ecological Research
      4.  Environmental Monitoring
      5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6.  Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.  Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.  "Special" Reports
      9.  Miscellaneous Reports

This report has  been assigned  to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is.available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield,, Virginia: 22.161.

-------
                                           EPA-600/2-78-096
                                           May 1978
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
         ON UNDERLYING SOILS AND GROUNDWATER
                         by

          Environmental Effects Laboratory
   U.S.  Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
            Vicksburg, Mississippi  39180
      Interagency Agreement No. EPA-IAG-D4-0569
                   Project Officer

                 Robert E. Landreth
     Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
     Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
               Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
     MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
         OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
        U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               CINCINNATI, OHIO  45268

-------
                                 DISCLAIMER
     This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
                                     ii

-------
                                  FOREWORD
     The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people.  Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.

     Research and development is that necessary first step in problem sol-
ution and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and search-
ing for solutions.  The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops
new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and
management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges
from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of
public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social,
health, and aesthetic effects of pollution.  This publication is one of the
products of that research; a most vital communications link between the
researcher and the user community.

     This report presents results from the field investigation of three munic-
ipal solid waste landfill sites to determine their effects on surrounding
soils and groundwater.  It provides basic data on the potential pollution
from land disposal of municipal solid waste and will add to the knowledge re-
quired to determine the environmental consequences of the land as a rector of
waste materials.
                                       Francis T. Mayo, Director
                                       Municipal Environmental Research
                                       Laboratory
                                      iii

-------
                                 ABSTRACT


     Three municipal landfill sites in the eastern and central United States
were studied to determine the effects of the disposal facilities on surround-
ing soils and groundwater.  Borings were made up the groundwater gradient,
down the groundwater gradient and through the landfill.  Soil and groundwater
samples from the test borings were examined.  Groundwater samples were ana-
lyzed chemically.  Soil samples were tested physically and distilled water
extracts and nitric acid digests of the soils were analyzed chemically.

     Groundwater samples from under and downgradient from the landfill showed
elevated levels of sulfate in every case.  At some sites increased levels of
nitrate, total organic carbon and cyanide could be related to the presence
of the landfill.

     No changes in physical characteristics could be related to the presence
of the landfill at any site.  No evidence was found in this study to indicate
that sub-landfill soils seal themselves.

     Distilled water extracts prepared from soil samples showed consistently
low levels for all soluble constituents.  Generally, there was more sulfate,
chloride, organic carbon, nitrate and higher levels of trace metals in
extracts of soils from under the landfill than from soils collected at similar
depths outside the landfill.

     Nitric acid digests of soil samples showed great variability in chemical
composition.  At two of the three sites; iron, manganese, boron, beryllium
and zinc were found in higher concentrations in nitric acid digests immedi-
ately under the landfill.

     The results of this investigation indicate that chemical characteristics;
but, not physical characteristics were altered in sub-landfill soils.  Removal
of pollutants from leachate through the action of soil was observed for only
a very limited number of pollutants.

     This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Interagency Agree-
ment Number EPA-IAG-D4-0569 by the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station under the sponsorship of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This report covers the period from June 1975 to December 1977.
                                      iv

-------
                                  CONTENTS
Foreword	    ill
Abstract	     iv
Figures	     vi
Tables	     ix
Acknowledgment 	   xiii

   1.  Introduction  	      1
   2.  Conclusions	      7
   3.  Recommendations 	      9
   4.  Methods and Materials	     10
            Site selection	     10
            Sampling procedures  	     13
            Sample handling and preparation techniques . 	     16
            Physical testing methods 	     21
            Chemical analytical methods  	     22
   5.  Results and Discussion	     26
            Physical testing 	     26
            Chemical analyses of groundwater 	     31
            Chemical analyses of distilled water extracts   	 .    36
            Chemical analyses of nitric acid extracts  	     68
            Discussion	     95

References	    102
Appendices	    104

   A.  Sub-surface information for Site A	    104
   B.  Sub-surface information for Site B	    117
   C.  Sub-surface information for Site C	    128

-------
                                   FIGURES

Number                                                                Page

  1   Sketch of typical landfill showing sampling plan 	     3

  2   Sketch of HvorsleV sampler 	    14

  3   Sketch of split spoon sampler  	    15

  4   Topographic map of site A	    17

  5   Topographic map of site B	    18

  6   Topographic map of site C	    19

  7   Variation of total organic carbon (TOG) concentration in
        distilled water extracts of soil/sediment samples with
        elevation in boring 1 at site A	    51

  8   Variation of sodium concentration in distilled water extracts
        of soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 2, 6, and
        7 at site A	    52

  9   Variation of cyanide concentration in distilled water extracts
        of soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 3 at
        site B	    53

 10   Variation in total organic carbon (TOC) concentration in
        distilled water extracts of soil/sediment samples with
        elevation in borings 2, 3, and 6 at site B	    54

 11   Variation of calcium concentration in distilled water extracts
        of soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 3, 5, and
        6 at site B	    55

 12   Variation of iron concentration in distilled water extracts of
        soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 2 at site B  ,    56

 13   Variation of sodium concentration in distilled water extracts
        of soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 2, 3, and
        5 at site B	    57

 14   Variation of boron concentration in distilled water extracts of
        soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 2 at site B  .    58
                                    vi

-------
Number                                                                Page

 15   Variation of chromium concentration in distilled water extracts
        of soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 2 at
        site B	     59

 16   Variation of zinc concentration in distilled water extracts of
        soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 2 at site B .     60

 17   Variation of calcium concentration in distilled water extracts
        of soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 1, 2, and
        9 at site C	     61

 18   Variation of zinc concentration in distilled water extracts of
        soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 1 at site C .     62

 19   Horizontal variation in chemical composition of distilled
        water extracts at site A	     65

 20   Horizontal variation in chemical composition of distilled water
        extracts at site B	     66

 21   Horizontal variation in chemical composition of distilled water
        extracts at site C	     67

 22   Variation of boron concentration in nitric acid digests of
        soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 1, 2, and 6
        at site A	     81

 23   Variation of beryllium concentration in nitric acid digests of
        soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 3 at site A .     82

 24   Variation of selenium concentration in nitric acid digests of
        soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 3 and 6 at
        site A	     83

 25   Variation of arsenic concentration in nitric acid digests of
        soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 2, 3, and 5
        at site B	     84

 26   Variation of copper concentration in nitric acid digests of
        soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 2 and 5 at
        site B	     85

 27   Variation in manganese concentration in nitric acid digests of
        soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 2, 3, and 5
        at site B	     86

 28   Variation of lead concentration in nitric acid digests of
        soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 2 and 3 at
        site B	    87
                                     vii

-------
Number

 29   Variation of zinc concentration in nitric acid digests of soil/
        sediment samples with elevation in borings 2, 3, and 5 at
        site B	      88

 30   Variation of beryllium concentration in nitric acid digests of
        soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 2 at site C . .      89

 31   Variation of iron concentration in nitric acid digests of soil/
        sediment samples with elevation in boring 1 at site C  .  .  . .      90

 32   Variation in manganese concentration in nitric acid digests of
        soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 1 and 3 at
        site C	      91

 33   Variation of nickel concentration in nitric acid digests of
        soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 1,  6, and 9
        at site C	      92

 34   Variation of zinc concentration in nitric acid digests of soil/
        sediment samples with elevation in borings 1,  2,  3,  6, and
        9  at site C	      93

 35   Horizontal variation in chemical composition of nitric acid
        digests at site A	      96

 36   Horizontal variation in chemical composition of nitric acid
        digests at site B	      97

 37   Horizontal variation in chemical composition of nitric acid
        digests at site C	      98

 A-l   Water  table map of site A	     105

 B-l   Water  table map of site B	     118

 C-l   Water  table map of site C	     129
                                   viii

-------
                                   TABLES
Number                                                                   Page

  1   Chemical Constituents Analytically Determined in Groundwater
        Filtrates, Distilled Water Extracts and Nitric Acid Digests .  .      5

  2   Summary of the Characteristics of the Three Sites Selected
        for Study	     11

  3   Character of Waste Deposited in Landfill at Site A as Listed by
        the Municipality	     12

  4   Methods of Preservation of Water Extracts and Filtered Ground-
        water Subsamples for Chemical Analysis  	     20

  5   Descriptions of USCS Soil Groups	     23

  6   Techniques Used in the Analysis of Distilled Water Extracts,
        Nitric Acid Digests and Groundwater Filtrates 	     24

  7   Physical Testing Data for Samples from Site A	     27

  8   Physical Testing Data for Samples from Site B	     28

  9   Physical Testing Data for Samples from Site C	     29

 10   Comparison of the Physical Properties of the Uppermost Samples
        Collected Within and Outside the Landfills  	     30

 11   Chemical Composition of Groundwater Obtained from Borings at
        Landfill A	"	     32

 12   Chemical Composition of Groundwater Obtained from Borings at
        Landfill B	     33

 13   Chemical Composition of Groundwater Obtained from Borings at
        Landfill C	     34

 14   Results of Analysis of Variance for Groundwater Chemistry ....     35

 15   Analyses of Distilled Water Extracts of Soil Samples from
        Experimental Borings at Site A	     38
                                     ix

-------
Number                                                           „
	                                                           Page



 16  Analyses of Distilled Water Extracts of Soil Samples from

       Control Borings at Site A	                     40
 17  *"£«; CV}8i11«led Water ^tracts °f Soil Samples from
       Experimental Borings at  Site B  ....... .             m     41



 18  Analyses of Distilled Water Extracts of Soil Samples from

       Control Borings at Site  B ......                          42
 19
 20          iosc      c::.  o.s?mpl?s ,f- ...     44


 21   Ra               °n Dlstill<* Water Extracts of

                                  ? ^dmi? ?^ ^ <«^  .     ,5


 22   C°£;Sas±^f ^ff1 tnalySeS °f DlstiHed Water Extracts of
       Soil Samples with Sample Elevation at Site A  ........     48
 23    Sois          T   nalySeS °f ^tilled Water Extracts of
       Soil Samples with Sample Elevation at Site B  ........     49



 24   Correlation of Chemical Analyses of Distilled Water Extracts of

       Soil Samples with Sample Elevation at Site C           .    .     50
 25
 26        natue                 o    ^es <™ C-rol
                           ********"•••••*•»•»•     '



 27   AI1S.^tS11^^^v^8^ f3!^6? !r?m ......     72



 28   ^riSsit^iteV?" ?ige:t? :f.s?^ f^ fr?m.c?— \  .     73


 29   Analyses of Nitric Acid Digests of Soil Samples from
       Experimental Borings at Site C  .....                       74


 30   Analyses of Nitric Acid Digests of Soil Samples from Control
       Borings at Site C  .........                             c
 31  Results of Randomization Test on Nitric Acid Digests of Soil

       Samples Directly Under the Landfills and at Comparable Depths

       Outside the Landfills .......                    F

-------
Number                                                                  Page

 32   Correlation of Chemical Analyses of Nitric Acid Digests of
        Soil Samples with Sample Elevation at Site A	      78

 33   Correlation of Chemical Analyses of Nitric Acid Digests of
        Soil Samples with Sample Elevation at Site B	      79

 34   Correlation of Chemical Analyses of Nitric Acid Digests of
        Soil Samples with Sample Elevation at Site C	      80

 35   Comparison of Average Chemical Composition of Groundwater and
        Soil Samples from Experimental and Control Borings for
        all Sites	     100

 A-l  Log of Boring 1 at Site A	     106

 A-2  Log of Boring 2 at Site A	     107

 A-3  Log of Boring 3 at Site A	     108

 A-4  Log of Boring 4 at Site A	     109

 A-5  Log of Boring 5 at Site A	     110

 A-6  Log of Boring 6 at Site A	     Ill

 A-7  Log of Boring 7 at Site A	     112

 A-8  Log of Boring 8 at Site A	     113

 A-9  List of Samples Examined from Site A	     114

 B-l  Log of Boring 1 at Site B	     119

 B-2  Log of Boring 2 at Site B	     120

 B-3  Log of Boring 3 at Site B	     121

 B-4  Log of Boring 4 at Site B	     122

 B-5  Log of Boring 5 at Site B	     123

 B-6  Log of Boring 6 at Site B	     124

 B-7  Log of Boring 7 at Site B	     125

 B-8  Log of Boring 8 at Site B	     126  .

 B-9  List of Samples Examined from Site B	     127

 C-l  Log of Boring 1 at Site C	     130


                                     xi

-------
Number                                                                  Page




 C-2  Log of Boring 2 at Site C	     131




 C-3  Log of Boring 3 at Site C	     132




 C-4  Log of Boring 4 at Site C	     133




 C-5  Log of Boring 5 at Site C	     134




 C-6  Log of Boring 6 at Site C	,.	     135




 C-7  Log of Boring 7 at Site C	     136




 C-8  Log of Boring 8 at Site C	     137




 C-9  Log of Boring 9 at Site C	     138




 C-10 List of Samples Examined from Site C	     139
                                     xii

-------
                              ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
     This field investigation was conducted by the Environmental Effects
Laboratory and the Soils and Pavements Laboratory of the U. S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station (WES) under sponsorship of the Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency.

     The coordinating author was Dr. Philip G. Malone.  The authors included
Dr. Bobby L. Folsom, Mr. James M. Brannon, Mr. John H. Shamburger, and
Mr. Jerald D. Broughton.  Significant technical input and advice were provided
by Mr. Richard B. Mercer, Dr. Jerome L. Mahloch, Mr. Douglas W. Thompson, and
Dr. Larry W. Jones.  The project was conducted under the general supervision
of Dr. John Harrison, Chief, Environmental Effects Laboratory, Dr. Rex Eley,
Chief, Ecosystem Research and Simulation Division, Mr. Andrew J. Green, Chief,
Environmental Engineering Division and Mr. Norman R. Francingues, Chief, Treat-
ment Processes Research Branch.

     The guidance and support of Mr. Robert E. Landreth, Mr. Norbert B. Schomaker,
and the Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency  are gratefully
acknowledged.  The Soils and Pavements Laboratory performed the physical
testing under the direction of Mr. G. P. Hale.  The Analytical Laboratory
Group performed the  chemical analyses under the direction  of Mr. James D.
Westhoff, Dr. Donald W. Rathburn and Mr. Jerry W. Jones.   The  diligent
and patient efforts  of Ms. Rosie Lott and Ms. Cherry  Shaler,  typists, and
Mr. Jack Dildine, senior graphics coordinator, are gratefully  acknowledged.
Directors of WES during the course of this study were  COL  G. H. Hilt, CE, and
COL J. L. Cannon, CE.  Technical Director was Mr. F. R. Brown.
                                       xiii

-------
                                   SECTION 1

                                 INTRODUCTION


     Disposal on land is the oldest method of municipal solid waste disposal
and is still the most widely used system.  Over 90% of all municipal wastes
are currently disposed of on land in open dumps or sanitary landfills.  The
sanitary landfill with systematic deposition, compaction and burial of refuse
emerged in the 1930's as the safest, least objectionable system of land-based
disposal.  Some 1,400 cities are currently using landfills to dispose of some
318 thousand metric tons per day of solid wastes.  The expenditure of money
on solid waste disposal is surpassed only by that spent on schools and roads
in most municipal budgets(1).

     The disposition of solid wastes in landfills carries the inherent poten-
tial for degrading the quality of groundwater in the area of the landfill.
There are numerous examples of municipal landfills producing groundwater
pollution.  Garland and Mosher(2) have cited several examples where the
pollution from landfills could be detected; including one case where effects
could be observed at a distance of 3 kilometers due to high selenium values
in groundwater samples.  Exler(3) reported that a landfill in Germany had a
groundwater pollution plume that was also detectable for a distance of 3
kilometers down the flow gradient from the fill.  The polluted groundwater in
this case showed high levels of chloride and dissolved organic material.

     The pollution of groundwater by landfills has in some cases caused severe
degradation of drinking water supplies to the extent that such water is no
longer potable.  Incidences of pollution of this sort cause grave economic
hardship on local governments that must attempt to relieve the pollution prob-
lem or provide a new water supply.

     Some landfills are designed to contain all contaminants, but many allow
the slow downward leakage of water that has come in contact with the buried
refuse.  This latter design anticipates the removal of undesirable materials
in this leachate either by filtration through or adsorption onto the earth
materials between the bottom of the landfill and the water table.  This puri-
fication process is referred to as attenuation.  The attenuated leachate that
does reach the water table is then diluted by the much larger quantity of
groundwater into which it flows.  Groundwater pollution occurs when this
filtration, adsorption and dilution process does not operate successfully.

     Although some prediction of attenuation properties can be made from soil
characteristics, such as clay content, particle size distribution, cation
exchange capacity, etc., there is no conclusive method for verifying that
attenuation is not effective until groundwater pollution is observed.  The

-------
 soil beneath  a  landfill  should  show  an  increase  in  contaminants  if  attenuation
 is  occurring.   Therefore,  the examination  of  earth  materials beneath  sanitary
 landfills  should  be  a useful technique  for gauging  the  extent  of pollutant
 attenuation.

     The objectives  of the present investigation are  to examine  three landfills
 that are situated in widely different geological circumstances in order  to:

     a)  discover if changes have occurred in the chemical  characteristics  of
         local  groundwater because of landfill operation,

     b)  determine the influence of  the landfilled  refuse on the chemical
         characteristics and physical properties of the geologic materials
         directly below  the landfill,

     c)  determine if chemical  constituents that are  present in  the soil below
         the  landfill can  be released into contacting water,

     d)  establish if a  relationship exists between the depth  below the  refuse
         and  the  chemical  and physical  properties of  the earth materials, and

     e)  discover if any physical or chemical  characteristics  of the  material
         beneath  a landfill can be used to predict  the  extent  of contaminant
         attenuation.

     To meet  these objectives, an idealized concept or  model (Figure  1)  for
 leachate movement and attenuation was developed  to  provide  a rationale for  the
 sampling program.  In this model the rainwater falling  on the  landfill satu-
 rates the  refuse  and then  percolates through  the soil directly below.  A
 variable portion  of  the  filterable and  exchangeable material in  the leachate
 is deposited  in the  soil below the landfill.   This  attenuated  leachate con-
 tinues downward into the water table.   Groundwater  flowing  under the  landfill
 dilutes the leachate and carries the pollutants  in  a  plume  down  the ground-
 water gradient.   Based on  this idealized model,  borings  were located  in  such
 a way as to produce:

     a)  groundwater from wells beneath the landfill  and from  wells located
         both up  and down  the groundwater  flow gradient  in  the area of the
         landfill,

     b)  samples  of  soil from beneath the  landfill  and  from comparable depths
         outside  the landfill,

     c)  soil samples collected at different  levels down the boreholes both
         outside  and beneath the landfill, and

     d)  samples  collected near the top of the saturated zone  (water  table)
         around and inside the landfill.

     Physical testing of soil samples collected below the landfill  and at
comparable depths outside the landfill was undertaken to evaluate changes
related to the buried refuse.   The physical characterization included percent

-------
Figure 1.  Sketch of typical landfill showing sampling plan.  The updip
           control holes show background levels.  The experimental wells
           and downdip control holes show contaminant movement from the
           landfill.  Bold arrows indicate direction of groundwater
           movement.

-------
 moisture,  dry  density,  grain size  distribution,  permeability  and  soil  class-
 ification.   Randomization was used to  test  for  significant  differences in
 physical properties.  Vertical variability  in selected  bore holes was  also
 evaluated.   The  small sample sizes did not  allow the  use  of statistical tests.

      The samples of groundwater  collected in this  study were  used to indicate
 loss  of contaminants from the landfill or the soil beneath  the  landfill into
 the local  groundwater.   If  contaminants are moving to the water table,  their
 concentrations should be higher  beneath and downdip from  the  landfill.   A
 list  of analyses run is  given in Table 1.   A one-way  analysis of  variance
 technique was  employed  to assess the significance  of  changes  in water  quality.

      Soil  samples from beneath the landfill and  from  comparable depths outside
 the landfill were treated in two ways:   One aliquot of  soil was extracted with
 distilled water  to remove all ions that could be dislodged  by water alone.  A
 list  of analyses run is  given in Table 1.   The distilled  water  extract gives
 a  rate of release of material from the soil into the  surrounding  water.  The
 water extract  is assumed to represent  the maximum  concentration available in
 water contacting the soil,  not the maximum, total  amount  capable  of being
 leached from the soil.   The distilled  water leach  then  indicates  the mobility
 of various  ions  being held  in the  soil.  The most  effective attenuation is
 occurring when the soil  beneath  the landfill shows an ability to  accumulate
 a  contaminant  and to release the contaminant at  a  very  slow rate.  A
 randomization  technique  was used to test the significance of  differences
 observed in the  composition of the distilled water extracts of  soil samples
 collected directly beneath  the landfill and samples collected at  comparable
 depth outside  the landfill.   The significant results  of the randomization
 test  point  out those elements  at each  site  whose mobility in  aqueous solution
 is effected by material  from the landfill.  A second  aliquot  of fresh  soil
 was digested with hot, 8N nitric acid  to bring all ions not bound into  sili-
 cate  lattices  into solution.   A  list of  analyses run  is also  given in  Table 1.
 This  digest represents the  total of all  materials  that  could  potentially be
 leached from the soil under the  most severe conditions.   Since  it is assumed
 that  there  is  no lateral movement  of leachate above the water table, differ-
 ences in composition between  digests of  these samples can be  interpreted as
 the loss or gain of material  in  the soil due to  the presence  of the landfill.

      A randomization technique was  used  to  test  for significant differences in
 composition between acid digests of soil samples collected  directly below the
 landfill and samples collected at  comparable depths (and  above  the water
 table) outside the landfill.   The  significant results from  the  randomization
 tests point  out  those elements at  each site that are  being  added  to the soil
 or removed  from  the soil by the movement of leachate  from the landfill.

      If the  soil beneath the landfill  is being altered by leachate from the
 landfill,  any  change should be most pronounced directly beneath the refuse
 and the magnitude  of this change should  decrease with depth.  Samples of soil
were  taken  at  intervals  down the boreholes  to determine if  any  correlation
between the  concentration of materials in the soil and depth  (or  sample
elevation)   could be observed.  Correlation with  sample elevation was only
attempted with those elements  that had shown a significant  contrast in con-
 centrations  available under and  away from the landfill at each  site.  A

-------
   TABLE 1.  CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS ANALYTICALLY DETERMINED IN GROUNDWATER
             FILTRATES, DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS, AND NITRIC ACID DIGESTS

Constituent
S°4
S°3
Cl
NO -N
N02-N
CN
TOC
Ca
Fe
Mg
Mn
Na
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
Groundwater
filtrate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Water
extract
of soil samples
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nitric acid
digests
of soil samples
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
—
X
—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

— = Not determined.

-------
Spearman rank correlation technique was employed.   The correlation technique
made it possible to see if consistent relationships could be observed between
sample elevation and sample composition in borings made inside and outside
the landfill.

     Samples of soil collected near the top of the saturated zone both outside
and inside the landfill were examined to see if any effects of lateral move-
ment of leachate could be observed.  Distilled water leaches and nitric acid
digests of these soil samples were analyzed.  Plots of analyses were prepared
to assess any changes in constituents that could be related to the presence
of the landfill.  No attempt was made to evaluate these analyses statistically
because of the small sample sizes involved.

-------
                                  SECTION 2

                                 CONCLUSIONS
     At all three municipal landfill sites, changes in the chemical composi-
tion of the groundwater could be related to the position of the borings with
respect to the landfill.  Water quality below and down the groundwater flow
gradients from the landfills showed increased sulfate levels in every case.
At several sites increased nitrate, total organic carbon, and cyanide levels
could be related to the presence of the landfill.

     No changes in physical parameters measured in soil samples in this study
could be related to the effect of the landfill.  No consistent alterations
in dry density, water content, permeability, or percent fines could be related
to the position of soil samples with respect to the landfill.  Physical char-
acteristics of sub-landfill soil samples as measured by standard engineering
techniques were not significantly different from samples collected at com-
parable depth outside the landfill.  No consistent vertical changes in soil
physical characteristics in borings through the landfill could be detected.
The percolation of leachate did not alter the permeability of the soil beneath
the refuse.  No evidence was found in this study to substantiate the idea that
sub-landfill soils seal themselves.

     Distilled water extracts prepared from soil samples showed all soluble
constituents were present in very small quantities.  Many variations observed
were not consistent from one site to another.  In general, there was more
leachable sulfate, chloride, organic carbon, nitrate and more available trace
metals in soil from under the landfills than in soils from similar depths
outside the landfill.  Calcium, iron and zinc were the only metals that showed
decreased availability under any of the landfills.  The lack of water-
extractable iron under the landfill at the one actively operating site was
probably due to its precipitation"as an insoluble compound such as sulfide.
In another series of distilled water extracts, many constituents showed de-
creasing availability with increasing sample depth in borings below the land-
fill, suggesting their source was the refuse in the landfill.  Calcium and
zinc were exceptions to this trend and showed increasing levels in distilled
water extracts with increasing depth.  This trend may be due to removal by
leaching by organic acids from the refuse  (especially in the case of calcium)
or the formation of insoluble compounds under the landfill.

     Analyses of distilled water extracts of soil samples taken from near the
water table shows that the maximum concentration of many constituents as
measured in the water extract can be displaced down the groundwater gradient
from the landfill.  Displacement of the concentration maxima was noted with
nitrate, organic carbon, calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, sodium and boron.

                                       7

-------
     Nitric acid digests of soil show great variability in chemical composition.
At two sites iron, manganese, boron, beryllium and zinc were found in higher
concentrations in nitric acid digests from immediately under the landfill than
at comparable depths outside the landfill.  This suggests that these metals
are being added to the soil under the landfill (i.e. attenuated).  Only arsenic
showed a decreased level under the landfills suggesting it was being mobilized
or leached from the sub-landfill soil.

     Analyses of nitric acid digests from soil samples collected at increasing
depth below the landfill indicate that iron, manganese, arsenic, boron,
beryllium, lead, selenium and zinc (at site B) are accumulating in soil imme-
diately beneath the landfill.  Only two metals, nickel and zinc (at site C),
showed an increasing abundance with increasing depth indicating these metals
are leaching out of the upper layers of sub-landfill soil.

     Analyses of nitric acid digests of soil samples taken from near the water
table also show that the maximum concentration of some of the landfill con-
stituents can be displaced down the groundwater gradient from the landfill.
This trend was noted for the maximum concentrations of arsenic, manganese,
copper and lead.

     The results of this investigation indicate that chemical characteristics,
but not physical characteristics, were altered in soil under the landfill, and
chemical changes in the sub-landfill soil can be related to the capacity of
the soil to filter, absorb or precipitate the contaminants from the refuse.
Instances were noted where the leachate added material to the soil and also
mobilized normal soil constituents to effect changes in soil composition.

-------
                                  SECTION 3

                               RECOMMENDATIONS
     The interaction between leachate from municipal refuse and soil is com-
plex varying with the character of the soil and the composition of the
leachate.  The chemical character of the soil is itself changed as material is
added or leached out.  The landfill leachate varies with the nature of the
refuse disposed and the type of decomposition occurring.  The results of this
survey indicate that significant chemical changes occur in the soil that can
be related to the attenuation process.

     Future investigations should include characterization of the landfill
leachate before and after contact with the soil as well as analysis of acid
digests of the soil.  Any future study of sub-landfill soils should include
soil variables such as mineralogy, cation exchange capacity, and slurry pH.
Any continued work on leachate-soil interaction could include following soil
changes through several annual cycles until stabilization of the refuse
occurs.  Further physical testing should be undertaken on a very fine scale,
carefully including the soil-refuse interface.

     Field investigations of this nature while involving many variables, re-
present the best approach to the understanding of how attenuation processes
operate and their effect on groundwater quality.  Continued work of this type
may allow us to predict and overcome the hazard to groundwater resources
involved in landfill disposal.

-------
                                  SECTION 4

                            METHODS AND MATERIALS
SITE SELECTION

     Three municipal landfills were selected from widely different geographic
areas in the Eastern United States.  All sites were selected from areas where
rainfall and infiltration rates were sufficient to produce an abundance of
leachate.  A summary of the important engineering and geologic characteris-
tics of each of the sites selected for this survey is given in Table 2.  The
sites are designated only by letter.


     Two principal factors effecting the character of the contaminants leaving
a landfill are the nature of waste buried, and the age of material in the
site.  Other factors that impinge on the problem of the character of leachate
from a landfill are oxidation-reduction conditions in the landfill, temper-
ature in the landfill, and dilution of the leachate by local groundwater flow.
The exact type and amount of waste material deposited in each site is difficult
to determine, especially if the landfill has been completed and closed.  Only
in the case of site A is there a reasonably complete listing of wastes avail-
able from the local Department of Public Works (Table 3).  Note that several
types of industrial wastes have gone into this site including wastes from local
rubber manufacturing, meat packing and paper mill operations.  The information
regarding the nature of waste placed at site B is not available. The waste is
thought to be largely municipal (household and commercial) with only minor
industrial input since there are no large manufacturing operations in the area
served by the landfill.  No waste survey is available for site C; but,
engineering reports associated with the project state that the site received
900 tons per day of commercial and household refuse and 200 tons per day of
incinerator ash.  This site also received a great deal of sewage sludge and
has been top-dressed with this material.

     Sanitary landfill leachate typically changes in composition as the mater-
ial in the landfill degrades (4,5) therefore the age of the landfill is an
important consideration.  Site A had been officially closed for fifteen years
when the samples for this study were collected.  However, there was some
evidence of recent, unauthorized use of the site as an open dump for household
refuse. The refuse was originally placed in trenches and was not compacted.
Differential settling produced a series of shallow gullies where the trenches
had been dug.   The municipality later filled in the depressions with sewage
sludge.  At site B,  the landfill was completed in 1972, and then regraded to
produce a recreation area.  The regrading included exposing and reburying part
                                       10

-------
TABLE 2.  SUMMARY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THREE SITES SELECTED FOR STUDY
Characteristic
Site A
Site B
Site C
Geographic area within  North Central
  the U.S.
General geologic
  setting
Mean annual rainfall

Mean annual air
  temperature

Nature of waste
Liner used below
  refuse

Thickness of refuse
  observed

Thickness of unsatu-.
  rated zone

Nature of material in
  unsaturated zone

Average hydraulic con-
  ductivity below
  refuse

Average thickness of
  covering material

Character of covering
  material

Dates of operation of
  site

Tvpe of operation
Glacial outwash
  (valley train
  deposits)


74 cm
8°C
Municipal and
  industrial

None
4.82-6.52 m
  (avg. 5.40 m)

18.23-20.24 m
  (avg. 19.33 m)

Sand
1x10   cm/sec
1.65 m


Sand and  gravel


1947 -  1961


Trench  and fill
South Central


Wind-blown silt
  and clay
  (loess)


124 cm
19°C
Municipal and
  industrial(?)

None
1.92-4.88 m
   (avg. 3.08 m)

0.91-3.51 m
   (avg. 2.47 m)

Clayey silt
                                     East Central
Deeply weathered
  residual soil
  (metamorphic
  terrane)

104 cm
13°C
Municipal and
  industrial(?)

None
14.02-24.70 m
   (avg. 19.45 m)

0.91-10.88 m
   (avg. 4.79 m)

Silty sand
7.3x10    cm/sec    2.9x10    cm/sec
0.09 m
 Clay
 1959  -  1972
 Surface fill
0.82 m
Clay
 1964 -  present
 Surface  fill
                                      11

-------
   TABLE 3.  CHARACTER OF WASTE DEPOSITED IN LANDFILL AT SITE A AS LISTED
             BY THE MUNICIPALITY


Mixed demolition refuse
  Sand
  Dirt
  Gravel
  Rock
  Broken pavement
  Construction materials

Household refuse
  Domestic garbage and kitchen wastes
  Domestic incinerator residue
  Cans and glass bottles
  Furniture and carpets
  Major appliances

Yard refuse
  Logs
  Grass and garden clippings
  Brush
  Chipped limbs and leaves

Commercial refuse
  Used tires
  Mixed commercial trash
  Kitchen wastes
  Commercial incinerator residue
  Scrap metal
  Wood crates

Industrial wastes
  Rubber manufacturing wastes
  Rubber scrap
  Liquid and wet chemical waste
  Paper mill sludge
  Oil, tar and asphalt
  Meat packing waste
  Paunch
  Manure
  Sewage grit
  Sewage sludge
                                      12

-------
of the refuse and compacting the landfill prior to partial paving with asphalt.
The regrading took place only a year before this investigation.   Site C was
still receiving wastes; but, the portion where two of the borings (1 and 2)
were placed had been closed from one to three years at the time  of sampling.

     All of the sites selected had been in place long enough to  have possibly
effected the groundwater and soil beneath and around the landfill (see
Table 2).  All of the sites contain domestic and commercial wastes;  but only
site A has received a major amount of industrial waste.   These landfills were
chosen because they have many factors in common with other landfills in the
Eastern United States.  All contain mixed residential and commercial refuse
buried using prevailing landfilling methods.
SAMPLING PROCEDURES

     A general sampling plan for all sites was generated using the theoretical
model as described above (Figure 1) and then modified to fit the requirements
at the individual sites.  The general sampling scheme called for six or more
holes to be bored at each landfill:  a minimum of two holes to be bored
through the buried refuse and five to six holes to be bored outside the land-
fill.  This sampling pattern allowed comparison between typical, uneffected
groundwater and soil, and groundwater and soil which was in contact with
leachate draining from the buried refuse.

     All sampling was done with a truck-mounted, rotary drill using 16.8 cm OD
hollow-stem auger.  The auger with a central plug in place was drilled in to
the desired depth.  The central plug was removed and a Hvorslev fixed-piston
sampler (Figure 2) or a split spoon sampler  (Figure 3) was pressed into the
sediment or soil directly below the end of the auger using the hydraulic
cylinders on the drill rig.  In this way an undisturbed soil or sediment
sample was obtained.  The split spoon sampler was only used in cases where
objects were encountered in the subsurface that could not be penetrated by the
thin-walled tube  (Shelby tube) on the Hvorslev sampler.

     The vertical distribution of soil/sediment samples collected down the
hole was arranged in a way to maximize the probability of collecting samples
at two critical points  in the boring:  the refuse-soil interface, and the top
of the saturated  zone.  Since the strongest effects of leachate on the subfill
material should occur directly below the refuse, a sample was always taken at
the depth predicted by  the landfill design as being the combined thickness of
the refuse and cover.   Sampling then continued at closely spaced intervals
down the hole.  The  top of the water-saturated zone was predicted from water
table measurements that had been recorded for other wells in the area.  A
series of closely spaced samples was taken in this interval.  The holes were
allowed to remain open  for two to  three days with the auger flights in place.
These auger flights  served as a temporary well casing to prevent seepage from
the surface from  entering the well.  Groundwater samples were obtained from
the temporary wells  by  lowering a bailer into the top of the hollow stem
auger.  After a groundwater sample was obtained the auger was removed and
the holes were backfilled with cement and/or bentonite to a point well above
the water table.  The  filling was  then completed with well  cuttings.  This


                                      13

-------
                         r
            L	754	J
                            SAMPLER
                            HEAD
94.49
  cm
                            VACUUM
                            BREAKER  ROD
                            BARREL
                            PISTON TOP
                            PISTON BASE
  Figure 2.  Sketch of Hvorslev Sampler

-------
                        HEAD
                         SOLID OR SPLIT
                         BARREL
                        SHOE
QD. 5.08cm, 635cm, 7.62cm, or 8B9cm
I.D. 3Blcm,5.08cm,6.35cm,or 7.62cm
 Figure 3.  Sketch of split spoon sampler.
                   15

-------
was done to assure that a well would not provide a conduit for flow of poll-
uted water to the water table.

     The locations of all borings at each landfill site are given in Figures
4-6.  Arrows in these figures indicate the most probable direction of ground-
water flow deduced from water level maps (Figures A-l, B-l, C-l in appendices)
and chemical data.  The descriptive well logs are presented in the appendices
(Tables A-1--A-8, B-l—B-8, C-l—C-9).  Tables A-9, B-9, and C-10 list all soil/
sediment samples examined from each boring giving their elevation and other
relevant data.
SAMPLE HANDLING AND PREPARATION TECHNIQUES

     Two different types of soil samples were collected in the boring program:
samples for physical testing and samples for chemical analysis.  Groundwater
samples were also taken from each well for chemical analysis.  The set of
samples obtained for physical testing was used to determine soil class under
the unified soil classification system (6), dry density, grain-size distribu-
tion, water content and permeability.  These physical parameters were determined
using standard engineering test procedures.  This sample set was collected
without disturbing the soil more than necessary. All physical testing samples
were carefully packaged and sealed in coring tubes to retain the original
moisture content and sample texture during transportation.

     Depth to groundwater was measured with a chalked, steel tape at each
boring.  All of the groundwater samples were collected from the borings by
bailing the water from the center of the hollow stem auger using a bailer made
from small diameter tubing.  The groundwater was transferred to polyethylene
bottles which were labelled and packed in an insulated chest filled with
crushed ice.  The samples were stored under refrigeration and kept tightly
capped until they were prepared for chemical analysis.  The preparation con-
sisted of centrifuging each sample at 2200 rpm for 30 minutes.  The resulting
supernatant was membrane-filtered through a 0.45 nm filter and split into five
subsamples which were preserved as shown in Table 4.

     Samples of soil for chemical analysis were collected simultaneously with
the samples for physical testing; but, no attempt was made to maintain the
soil in an undisturbed condition.  Each sample was removed from the sampler,
placed in a wide-mouthed polyethylene bottle, labelled, and packed in an ice-
filled chest.  These soil samples were refrigerated during all subsequent
transportation and/or storage.  Two extracts were made from each soil sample:
one with distilled water and one with 8N nitric acid.  The material that could
be easily leached out with distilled water was considered transient and would
readily be leached from the soil by dissolution in rainwater.  The nitric
acid leach would contain the transient materials and also all of the material
that could be solubilized by a strong, oxidizing acid.  Those elements present
as carbonates or sulfides, or adsorbed to clay minerals,  to iron oxide or to
insoluble organic materials would be freed (7,8).  Elements in non-clay sili-
cate lattices would be leached only to a minor degree  (9).
                                       16

-------
                                                                  X-  LIMIT OF LANDFILL
                                                                     (APPROXIMATE)
                       NOTE:  ARROWS INDICATE MOST PROBABLE GROUND WATER GRADIENT BASED
                             ON WATER TABLE MEASUREMENTS AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES.
Figure  4.   Topographic map of site A  (contour lines are in feet  above mean sea  level).   0.305 m =  1  ft.

-------
CD
            100
                          NOTE:  ARROWS INDICATE MOST PROBABLE GROUND WATER GRADIENT BASED
                                 ON WATER TABLE MEASUREMENTS AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES.
     Figure  5.   Topographic map of  site B (contour lines  are  in, feet above mean sea level).   0.305 m = 1 ft.

-------
                                             WELL LOCATION
                                          X- LIMIT OF LANDFILL

                                                 SCALE
                                           500      0      5OO F T
NOTE: ARROWS INDICATE MOST PROBABLE GROUND WATER GRADIENT BASED
      ON WATER TABLE MEASUREMENTS AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES.
 Figure  6.   Topographic map  of  site C (contour lines  are in
             feet above mean  sea level).   0.305 m =  1  ft.
                               19

-------
TABLE 4.  METHODS OF PRESERVATION OF WATER EXTRACTS AND FILTERED GROUNDWATER
          SUBSAMPLES FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Chemical species to be determined
           Method of preservation
         ,  Cl,
 CN
 Total organic carbon

 Ca,  Fe, Mg, Mn, Na, As,  B, Be,
   Cd, Cr,  Cu, Ni, Pb, Se,  Zn

 Hg
Refrigeration to 4°C

Sample brought to pH 11 with NaOH

Refrigeration to 4°C

Samples acidified with HC1 to pH 1


      added and samples acidified with
  HN03 to pH 1
                                     20

-------
     For distilled water extracts, the contents of each sample bottle was mixed
to assure a homogeneous sample.  A 200-gram subsample of moist soil was weighed
out into a 1000-ml polycarbonate centrifuge bottle and six hundred ml of dis-
tilled-deionized water was added to each.  The centrifuge bottles were shaken
on a rotary shaker for one hour, and then centrifuged at 2200 rpm for 30
minutes.  The supernatant was filtered through a 0.45 nm membrane filter.  The
filtrate was split into five subsamples for chemical analysis.  The subsamples
were preserved as outlined in Table 4.

     A second subsample consisting of 50 grams of moist soil was taken from
each sample bottle for nitric acid digestion.  In each digestion the soil was
weighed into a 250-ml fluorocarbon beaker and 60 ml of 8N reagent grade nitric
acid was added.  The soil-acid suspension was heated to 95°C for 45 minutes
and stirred every fifteen minutes.  After cooling to room temperature, the
suspension was filtered through a 0.45 nm membrane filter.  The digested soil
was washed in the filter three times with 20-ml portions of 8N nitric acid.
The filtrate was quantitatively transferred to a 250-ml volumetric flask and
brought up to volume with 8N nitric acid and then stored in a polyethylene
bottle.  No preservation procedure was necessary.

     A third subsample was taken from each sample bottle to determine the
moisture content of the soil.  These moisture contents were used to correct
subsequent chemical analyses so that soil acid digests could be expressed in
milligrams per kilogram dry weight of soil.
PHYSICAL TESTING METHODS

     The physical tests run on these samples included water content, sample
dry density, permeability, and grain-size analysis.  Data gathered from these
tests and visual examination of the samples were used to classify the
materials into standard soil engineering categories.  All testing was done
using standard soil engineering methods (10).

     To determine water content, a sample taken from a sealed coring tube was
weighed into a tared sample dish, dried at 110°C and weighed periodically
until a constant weight was obtained.

     Sample dry density (or dry unit weight) is the weight of oven-dried soil
per unit volume of soil.  This measurement can be made in two different ways:
by trimming the soil sample into a precisely measured regular shape and drying
and weighing the trimmed sample; or, by sealing the surface of a soil specimen
with wax and measuring its volume by water displacement, then removing the
sealing material and drying and weighing the specimen.  The water displacement
procedure was used with samples containing gravel or other coarse material
that prevented the sample from being trimmed accurately.

    Grain-size analysis was performed by sieving the dried, disaggregated soil
through a standard sieve series.  Standard hydrometer density measurements were
run on a suspension prepared from the fraction passing the 200-mesh sieve.
                                      21

-------
     Permeability measurements were made using a constant-head test system with
coarse-grained soils, and a falling-head test system with fine sands or clays.
In all cases standard procedures and equipment were employed (10).

     The major characteristics (especially grain-size analyses and characteristics
of the fine fraction) of the samples were useH to classify the soils.  The
classification system is summarized in Table 5.  These classification categories
and symbols are used to summarize soil characteristics in the logs presented
in Tables A-l—A-8, B-l—B-8, and C-1--C-9.


CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL METHODS

     The techniques used in analyzing the filtered groundwater samples, dis-
tilled water extracts and nitric acid digests are summarized in Table 6.  In
all cases, the samples were run within the recommended time limits for the
storage of samples (11).

     The analyses of groundwater samples is given in milligrams per liter of
filtered sample.  The water extracts are also presented in milligrams per
liter of filtered extractant.  The water extract represents an equilibrium or
near equilibrium solution with respect to the solid phases and the adsorbed
phases in the soil; therefore, the analytical data are presented on a solution
basis rather than a dry weight basis.  The nitric acid digests are a determi-
nation of the total acid digestible fraction; therefore, the results are
presented as milligrams extracted per kilogram dry weight of soil.
                                       22

-------
                 TABLE 5.  DESCRIPTIONS OF USCS SOIL GROUPS (6)
Group symbol                       Typical group description


     GW             Well-graded (poorly-sorted) gravels, gravel-sand mix-
                    tures, little or no fines

     GP             Poorly-graded (well-sorted) gravels, or gravel-sand
                    mixtures, little or no fines

     GM             Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures

     GC             Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures

     SW             Well-graded (poorly-sorted) sands, gravelly sands, little
                    or no fines

     SP             Poorly graded (well-sorted) sands, gravelly sands, little
                    or no fines

     SM             Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

     SC             Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

     ML             Inorganic silts, very fine  sands,  clayey  silts,  low
                    plasticity

     CL             Inorganic clays, low to medium plasticity, lean  clays

     OL             Organic  silts and organic silty clays of  low plasticity

     MH             Inorganic silts, micaceous  or diatomaceous fine,  sandy
                    or silty soils, elastic silts

     CH             Inorganic clays of high plasticity,  fat clays

     OH             Organic  clays of medium to  high plasticity, organic  silts

     Pt             Peat  and other highly organic soils
                                      23

-------
  TABLE 6.  TECHNIQUES USED IN THE ANALYSIS OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS,
            NITRIC ACID DIGESTS AND GROUNDWATER FILTRATES
Chemical
species
so4
so3
Cl
NO -N
NO -N
CN
TOC

Ca
Fe
Mg
Mn
Na
As
Lowest reporting*
concentration in
Procedures and/or instrumentation* (ppm)
Standard Turbidimetric Method in combination
with a Varian Model 635 Spectrophotometer
Standard Potassium lodide-Iodate Titration
method*
Standard Mercuric Nitrate Titration method
Technicon II Auto Analyzer, Industrial Method
no. 100-70W^
Same as above
Technicon II Auto-Analyzer, Industrial Method
no. 315-74W±
Determined with Envirotech Model No. DC 50
TOC Analyzer
Determined with a Spectrametrics Argon Plasma
Emmission Spectrophotometer Model II
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Determined with a Gaseous Hydride System,
8
1
5
0.01
0.01
0.01
1

0.03
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.001
B
  Perkin-Elmer Atomic Absorption Unit

Determined with a Spectrametrics Argon Plasma
  Emission Spectrophotometer Model II
                                                                 0.02
                                     24
                                                              (continued)

-------
                            TABLE 6   (continued)
Chemical
species
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Procedures and /or instrumentation*
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Determined with a Nisseisangyo Zeeman Shift
Lowest reporting
concentration in
(ppm)
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.0002
              Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer

 Ni         Determined with a Spectrametries Argon Plasma         0.03
              Emission Spectrophotometer Model II

 Pb         Same as above                                         0.1

 Se         Determined with a Perkin-Elmer Heated Graphite        0.002
              Atomizer Atomic Absorption Unit

 Zn         Determined with a Spectrametrics Argon Plasma         0.03
              Emissions Spectrophotometer Model II
* Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
  ment or recommendation for use.

  Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American
  Public Health Association, New York, 13th Edition, 1971.

— Technicon Industrial Systems, Tarrytown, New York.
                                     25

-------
                                  SECTION 5

                           RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
PHYSICAL TESTING

     The soil parameters measured in the physical testing program are those
most likely to be effected by the infiltration of leachate from overlying
refuse.  The literature indicates that the leachate suspension is filtered by
the uppermost layer of soil below the refuse (4).  Filtration of the leachate
should cause the soil to show:

     a)  an increase in density due to the addition of fine material in inter-
         granular spaces,

     b)  a decrease in permeability due to accumulation of fine-grained -
         particles that obstruct the natural pore connections in the soil,

     c)  an increase in the percentage of fine silt- and clay-sized material
         (less than 200-mesh grain size) due to accumulated leachate residue,
         and

     d)  a change in water content due to the accumulation of water retaining
         organic material.

     A complete tabulation of data obtained from the physical testing program
is given in Tables 7, 8 and 9.  A summary contrasting the physical character-
istics found in the samples from directly below the landfill and at comparable
elevations outside the landfill is given in Table 10.  None of the sites show
significant differences in dry density between soil beneath and outside the
landfill.  Likewise, the variation in water content shows no pattern that can
be related to the position of the sample with respect to the landfill.  The
data available on permeability or hydraulic conductivity do show a signifi-
cant difference between inside (sub-refuse) and outside samples for site B.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to obtain reliable, reproducible perme-
ability measurements from this extremely fine-grained, loess-based soil.
Laboratory experiments with reconstituted samples indicated that the perme-
ability is very dependent on the state of compaction of the material.  Slight
disturbances of the samples could account for a great deal of the variation
observed or the differences might have been produced by the grading and
compaction when the completed fill was developed as a recreation area.  There
is no significant difference in the weight percentage of material finer than
200-mesh for samples under and outside the landfills at any of the three  sites.
If the residue from leachate is being trapped, it constitutes a very small
portion of the cored sample.

                                      26

-------
                  TABLE 7.  PHYSICAL TESTING DATA FOR  SAMPLES FROM  SITE A

Boring
no.
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
Sample
no.
PI
P4
P6
PI
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
PI
P3
P5
PI
P3
PI
P3
P5
PI
P3
P5
PI
P3
P4
PI
P3
P5
Depth
(m)
7.20 -
10.94 -
22.65 -
6.25 -
6.92 -
8.81 -
13.87 -
19.51 -
24.39 -
7.86 -
10.82 -
22.25 -
3.20 -
6.25 -
4.57 -
7.62 -
18.44 -
4.72 -
7.77 -
19.00 -
4.42 -
7.77 -
13.26 -
14.32 -
17.38 -
28.65 -
7.70
11.64
22.84
6.68
7.44
9.42
14.39
19.87
24.94
8.32
11.25
22.53
3.90
6.62
5.29
8.20
18.83
5.33
8.42
19.48
4.76
8.26
13.75
15.03
17.96
28.99
Dry
density
(g/cc)
1.60
1.62
1.59
1.61
1.72
1.64
1.50
1.55
1.56
1.63
1.61
1.76
1.59
1.59
1.65
1.67
1.74
1.57
1.71
1.69
1.62
1.78
1.75
1.64
1.66
1.70
Water
content
(%)
4.1
3.1
3.9
3.6
3.3
2.9
6.7
3.8
3.8
5.2
2.5
2.4
7.5
4.0
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.8
3.2
2.9
3.3
3.1
2.9
4.5
3.4
4.2
Permeability or
hydraulic cond.
(cm/sec)
1.1 x 10~*
1.1 x 10~r
1.4 x 10
0.58 x 10"1
_n
1.1 x 10 ,
0.47 x 10":
0.76 x 10
—
0.82 x 10~?"
1.1 x io~:
1.3 x 10"1
2.0 x 10"1
—
	
—
—
	
—
—
—
—
—
	
—
—
Classification
Sand (SP) , brown
Sand (SP) with trace gravel, brown
Sand (SP) with trace gravel, brown
Sand (SP) with trace gravel, brown
Gravelly sand (SP) , brown
Sand (SP) with gravel, brown
Sand (SP), brown
Sand (SP) with gravel, brown
Sand (SP) with trace gravel, brown
Sand (SP) with gravel, brown
Sand (SP) with trace gravel, brown
Gravelly sand (SP) , brown
Sand (SP), brown
Sand (SP), brown
Sand (SP) with gravel, brown
Sand (SP) with gravel, brown
Sand (SP) with gravel, brown
Sand (SP) with gravel, brown
Sand (SP) with gravel, brown
Sand (SP) with gravel, brown
Sand (SP) with trace gravel, brown
Gravelly sand (SP) , brown
Sand (SP) with gravel, brown
Sand (SP) with trace gravel, brown
Sand (SP) with gravel, brown
Sand (SP) with gravel, brown

Note:  — indicates no data available.

-------
to
oo
     Boring
      no.
Sample
 no.
                              TABLE <*.  PHYSICAL TESTING DATA FOR SAMPLES FROM SITE B
Depth
 (m)
Density
(g/cc)
  PI       6.25 - 6.37
  P2        8.41 - 8.87      1.48
  P2        3.66  - 4.15       1.57
 P3        5.79  -  6.52       1.56
 PI        6.10  -  6.77       1.40
 Water
content
                                                        26.7
                                                        33.3
                                                        24.7
                                                        28.8
                                                        20.1
Permeability or
hydraulic cond.
   (cm/sec)
                                                                              ,-8
                                                     8.41 x 10
                                                                              -7
                                                     7.72  x 10
                                                                              -5
                                                                                          Classification
                                                                                      Silt  (ML) gray
                                                     7.72 x 10        Silty clay (CL) gray
                                                                                      Silt (ML) grayish brown
                                       6.22 x 10~       Silt (ML) grayish brown
                                                                                      Silt (ML) brownish tan
                  P3
           9.15 - 9.85
                                            1.57
                          30.3
                                                                     3.24 x 10
                                                              -6
                                                                      Silt  (ML)  grayish brown
 P3       4.57 - 5.27
                 PI        6.10 -  6.68
                                            1.53
                          28.9


                          32.5
                                                    7.84 x 10         Silt  (ML)  brownish  gray
                                                                                      Silt (ML)  olive gray
    Note:  — indicates no data available.

-------
TABLE 9.  PHYSICAL TESTING DATA FOR SAMPLES FROM SITE C
Boring
no.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
6
6
7
9
Sample
no.
PI
P3
PI
P3
PI
P3
PI
P4
P2
P4
P2
P4
Depth
(m)
25
28
18
22
19
22
1
8
0
4
0
7
.91 -
.96 -
.29 -
.26 -
.97 -
.47 -
.70 -
.49 -
.91 -
.57 -
.91 -
.32 -
26.36
29.40
18.96
22.59
20.46
22.92
2.03
8.76
1.46
5.11
1.58
7.88
Dry
density
(g/cc)
1.53
1.71
1.65
1.66
1.69
1.69
1.52
1.64
1.63
1.78
1.52
1.69
Water
content
18.
17.
19.
18.
21.
18.
28.
21.
16.
14.
20.
19.
5
3
4
9
1
1
9
2
4
9
3
2
Permeability or
hydraulic cond.
(cm/sec) Classification
6.
7.
6.
2.
1.
2.
3.
5.
5.
1.
4.
1.
6 x 10"5
8 x 10"5
6 x 10"5
8 x 10
2 x 10~6
9 x 10
0 x 10"7
7 x 10"6
9 x 10
9 x 10"5
3 x 10~
7 x 10~
Sandy silt (ML), brown
Silty sand (SM) , brown
Silty sand (SM) , brown
Sandy silt (ML), brown
Clayey, sandy silt (ML),
Sandy silt (ML), brown
Clayey, sandy silt (ML) ,
Sandy silt (ML) , brown
Clayey, sandy silt (ML),
Sandy silt (ML) , brown
Sandy silt (ML), reddish
Silty sand (SM) , brown




brown

brown

tan

brown


-------
TABLE 10.  COMPARISON OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE UPPERMOST
           SAMPLES COLLECTED WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE LANDFILLS
Dry
Location density
Sample (inside/outside) (gm/cc)
A 1P1
A 2P1
A 3P1
A 4P1
A 5P1
A 8P1
A 6P1
A 7P1
B 1P2
B 2P2
B 6P1
B 7P3
C 1P1
C 2P1
C 3P1
C 4P1
C 6P2
C 7P2
inside
inside
inside
outside
outside
outside
outside
outside
inside
inside
outside
outside
inside
inside
outside
outside
outside
outside
1.60
1.61
1.63
1.59
1.65
1.64
1.57
1.62
1.48
1.57
1.40
1.53
1.53
1.65
1.69
1.52
1.63
1.52
Water
content
4.1
3.6
5.2
7.5
2.8
4.5
2.8
3.3
33.3
24.7
20.1
28.4
18.5
19.4
21.1
28.9
16.4
20.3
Permeability Weight %
(cm/ sec) finer than 200 mesh
1.1 x 10~J
0.58 x 10~{-
0.82 x 10
_ _
—
—
—
—
7.72 x 10~®
8.41 x 10
7.72 x 10";?
7.84 x 10~b
6.6 x 10~5
6.6 x 10
1.2 x 10~5
3.0 x 10 ;
5.9 x 10":
4.3 x 10"5
:g
<2%
<2%
<2%
<2%
<2%
99%
99%
99%
96%
64%
44%
66%
82%
52%
58%
                                30

-------
     In each boring under the landfill a series of samples were taken at
increasing depth.  Again, no consistent pattern could be observed relating
the physical characteristics to the depth (or elevation).

     None of the physical tests with the possible exception of permeability
measurements at site B showed any consistent differences between samples taken
directly under the landfill and those taken outside the landfill.  No consis-
tent pattern could be found in samples taken at differing depths in the same
borings under the landfills.  Any differences which do occur apparently are
confined to a narrow range immediately at the interface between the refuse and
the soil.  Detection of these would probably require examination of a core
through this interface region in very fine detail.  None of the usual
engineering tests demonstrated any effects which could be attributed to
attenuation.
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF GROUNDWATER

     The goal of the groundwater investigation is to determine if changes
in chemical parameters observed in different borings at each site could be
related to the position of the boring with regard to the landfill and the
direction of groundwater movement.  A survey of the literature suggests that
of the chemical parameters measured those most likely to indicate contamination
from leachate in the groundwater are sulfate, chloride, total organic carbon,
calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese and sodium (2,3).  The minor and trace
elements appearing in the groundwater around a landfill vary widely depending
on the concentrations present in the waste at a particular landfill.

     The tabulation of groundwater analyses obtained from wells at sites A,
B and C are presented in Tables 11-13.  The data are divided into three
groups for each site; those up the groundwater gradient from the landfill,
those under the landfill and those down the groundwater gradient from the
landfill.  The three groups of samples at each site show different means for
the parameters measured and initial statistical analysis indicated widely
different variances.  Because of these inhomogeneous variances, the re-
stricted number of samples in each group, and the large number of determina-
tions that fall below the limits of detection, a non-parametric (distribution-
free) analysis of variance techniques was used to determine if differences
between means of parameters measured were significant.  The statistical
technique employed was the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance  (12,13).
This test requires only that data have an underlaying continuous distribution
and that the data can be ranked.  This test does not require that the data
have a normal distribution or be homogeneous with regard to variance. Because
of the differences in numbers of samples at different sites, two different
levels of significance (95.4% and 96.8%) were used.

     The analysis of variance results are given in Table 14.  Strong influence
of the type of geologic material at each site is evident in the differences
in background levels of metals present.  Site A was underlain by clean  glacial
outwash consisting primarily of quartz sand.  The upgradient groundwater
                                       31

-------
TABLE  11.   CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF GROUNDWATER OBTAINED FROM BORINGS AT LANDFILL A
Parameters
so4
so3
Cl
N03-N
N02-N
CN
TOC
Ca
Fe
Kg
Mn
Na
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
Up groundwater gradient
Boring Boring Boring
458
<8
<1
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<1
<0.03
<0.05
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.005
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
< 0.0002
<0.03
<0.1
<0.002
<0.03
<8
<1
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<1
<0.03
<0.05
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.003
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
<0*.0002
<0.03
<0.1
<0.002
<0.03
<8
<1
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<1
<0.03
<0.05
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.006
<0.02
<0.02
<0.003
<0.03
<0.02
<0.0002
<0.03
<0.1
<0.002
<0.03
Under landfill
Boring Boring Boring
132
25
<1
5
0.38
0.09
<0.01
21
34.3
3.5
17.10
3.2
19.80
0.002
0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
<0.0002
0.04
<0.1
<0.002
0.35
47
<1
5
0.02
0.03
0.01
48
69.0
10.5
48.50
3.0
72.10
0.003
0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
<0.0002
0.07
<0.1
<0.002
0.24
23
<1
5
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
50
127.0
18.6
39.50
4.9
63.20
0.007
0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
<0.0002
0.13
<0.1
<0.002
1.36
Down groundwater
gradient
Boring Boring
6 7
26
<1
5
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
20
35.0
22.0
35.00
8.3
41.00
0.006
0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
<0.0002
0.12
<0.1
<0.002
0.29
35
<1
5
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
27
35.5
22.0
35.50
10.3
7.80
0.003
0.02
<0.02

<0.03
<0.02
<0.0002
0.21
<0.1
<0.002
0.44
   Note: All values are in mg/i.

-------
TABLE 12.   CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF GROUNDWATER OBTAINED FROM BORINGS AT LANDFILL B
Parameters
so4
so3
Cl
N03-N
N02-N
CN
TOC
Ca
Fe
Mg
Mn
Na
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
Up groundwater gradient
Boring Boring Boring
456
<8

-------
    TABLE  13.   CHEMICAL COMPOSITION  OF GROUNDWATER OBTAINED FROM BORINGS AT LANDFILL C
Parameters
S°4
so3
Cl
N03-N
N02-N
CN
TOC
Ca
Fe
Mg
Mn
Na
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
Up groundwater gradient
Boring Boring Boring
678
<8
20
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
5
8.0
0.10
7.50
0.20
12.00
0.002
0.04
<0.02
0.03
<0.03
<0.02
0.0081
0.08
0.173
<0.002
0.03
<8
5
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
1
2.6
0.07
1.50
0.15
5.90
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
0.70
<0.03
<0.02
0.0039
0.05
0.114
<0.002
0.69
<8
15
0.68
<0.01
<0.01
4
1.6
0.12
2.30
0.50
6.00
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
0.12
<0.03
<0.02
0.0013
0.08
0.111
<0.002
0.12
Boring
9
<8
5
0.11
<0.01
<0.01
2
7.9
0.13
1.20
0.06
2.90
0.002
0.06
<0.02
0.04
<0.03
<0.02
0.0018
0.38
0.133
<0.002
0.07
Under landfill
Boring Boring Boring
123
9
1
5
0.04
<0.01
0.01
95
37.0
4.90
16.00
7.12
7.50
0.002
0.12
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
0.0012
1.61
0.274
<0.002
2.73
24
415
0.03
<0.01
0.01
208
34.0
18.20
56.00
12.30
220.00
0.003
1.45
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
0.0014
0.42
0.368
<0.002
0.64
8
2
15
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
16
10.0
0.08
4.4
0.19
6.70
0.002
1.06
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
0.0018
0.07
0.140
<0.002
0.06
Down groundwater
gradient
Boring Boring
4 5
8
365
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
30
72.0
2.77
68.00
31.90
71.00
0.002
1.04
<0.02
0.05
<0.03
<0.02
0.0012
0.06
0.493
<0.002
0.20
8
1
25
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
8
7.0
0.09
7.50
5.19
5.90
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
0.09
<0.03
<0.02
0.0012
0.08
0.163
<0.002
0.09

Note:  All values are in mg/fc

-------
    TABLE 14.   RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY

Parameter
SO,
4
SO,
3
Cl
N03-N
N02-N
CN
TOC
Ca
Fe
Mg
Mn
Na
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
Site A*
S

N

S
NS
NS
NS
S
S
S
S
S
S
NS
S
NS
N
NS
N
N
S
N
N
NS
Site B*
S

NS

NS
S
N
N
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
N
NS
N
NS
NS
N
NS
NS
Site C**
S

NS

NS
S
N
S
S
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
N
NS
N
N
NS
NS
NS
N
NS

 S = Significant difference in means.
NS = No significant difference in means.
 N = No present in measurable quantities in any sample.
 * = Tested at 96.8% confidence level.
** = Tested at 95.4% confidence level.

                                      35

-------
samples  (Wells A-4, A-5, A-8) contain very low levels of many elements.  There-
fore the contrast with the sub-landfill samples is strong and the number of
statistically significant differences in averages is large.  Site B and site
C show higher background levels in the upgradient wells reflecting the more
complex chemical composition of the materials in the area (clays at site B;
weathered metamorphic rocks at site C).  Therefore, the contrast between the
upgradient groundwater samples and the sub-landfill samples is correspondingly
weaker and the number of statistically significant differences in mean values
for chemical parameters is lower.

     The most consistent effect of leachate contamination observed in the
groundwater is the increased sulfate noted in wells under the landfill as
contrasted with upgradient wells.  This increase was observed at all three
landfills that were investigated.  Increases in nitrate, or total organic
carbon were observed in the sub-landfill groundwater samples in two out of the
three sites.  At site A, probably because of this site's low background levels,
significant contrasts could also be found in chloride, calcium, iron, magnesium,
sodium, boron, and nickel.  Site C showed a significant contrast in cyanide
levels under and upgradient from the landfill.

     The results of this investigation agree with previous investigations in
indicating that increased levels of sulfate, nitrate and organic carbon levels
are related to pollution from landfill leachate (3,4,14).  Cyanide measurements
are not usually made on groundwater in municipal landfill areas, but as indicated
by site C, cyanide may be a worthwhile measurement to make on leachate-contaminated
water.
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS

     The goal of distilled water extraction was to determine the availability
of the potential pollutants in the soil samples to water in contact with the
soil.  The availability of particular materials in sub-landfill soil to a
distilled water extract may vary greatly from site to site.  The content of
this soil extract depends upon the:

     a)  original constituents in the soil and their solubilities,

     b)  way in which the original constituents have reacted with the weak
         organic acids in leachate and the solubilities of new products
         produced,

     c)  extent to which the water-soluble and leachate-soluble materials
         have been removed from the soil through solution,

     d)  solubilities of materials that are precipitated, filtered, or
         adsorbed from the leachate passing through the soil,

     e)  pH and redox conditions in the soil, especially as this effects the
         solubility of iron and manganese, the survival of nitrates and
         sulfates, and the production of sulfide, and
                                        36

-------
     f)  amount and character of the interstitial water present in the sample.

Comparison of Distilled Water Extracts from Beneath and Outside the Landfills

     The tabulation of analyses of distilled water extracts of soil samples
is given in Tables 15-20.  Many of the analyses are close to or below the limits
of detection indicating that in general very little material is available to
contacting water in soils either under or away from the landfills.  A statistical
comparison was made between analyses of extracts obtained from samples immediate-
ly under the landfill and those collected at comparable depths below the surface
(but above the water table) outside the landfill.  A randomization procedure
was used to test the significance of differences between means of the two sample
sets.  Using five samples, an 80% significance level can be obtained in a two-
tailed test.  The results of the randomization test are given in Table 21.

     Only sulfate levels show a significant difference between means of
samples obtained inside and outside the landfill at all three sites.  There is,
however, no consistent relationship in the behavior of sulfate between sites.
At sites A and B the sulfate levels are slightly higher in the water leach
from soil under the landfill.  At site C the reverse is true.  At all three
sites, sulfate is moving from the landfill through the sub-refuse soil as
shown by the increased sulfate levels in groundwater.  At site C, sulfate
from the leachate may be moving through the soil without being stopped or
sulfate trapped in the soil may be reduced to sulfide through the activity of
anaerobic bacteria decomposing organic materials in the leachate.

     Chloride levels in soil extracts were significantly different  inside and
outside the landfills at sites B and C.  At site C the sub-landfill soil
extract was high in chloride compared to the samples outside the fill.  At
site B the reverse was true.  Groundwater analyses indicated that chloride
levels increased significantly only under landfill site C.  The increased
chloride in the soil sample at site C is to be expected from the increased
supply of chloride from leachate.  Chloride ion is not readily adsorbed to
solid materials and does not readily precipitate.  The increased chloride
observed in the water extract from soil below the landfill at site  C is pro-
bably due to chloride in solution in the water associated with the wet
sample.  At site B the decrease in chloride in extract from soil under the
landfill is consistent with the low chloride levels seen in the groundwater.

     Nitrate levels were significantly different inside and outside of the
landfill only at site C.  Very low nitrate levels were observed inside the
landfill and higher levels outside.  The nitrogen present in soil under the
landfill might be converted from nitrate to ammonium ion through bacterial
activity associated with the leachate; reducing nitrate below levels observed
in similar surrounding soils.  Published analyses indicate much of  the
nitrogen in leachate is present as ammonium ion  (1), not as nitrate, indicating
nitrate reduction can occur, and that nitrogen added to the sub-landfill  soil
probably is in the form of ammonium ion.

     Cyanide levels varied significantly only at  site B.  The analyses are
mostly at or very near the limits of detection for this constituent and so
                                        37

-------
       TABLE 15.   ANALYSES OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS OF SOIL  SAMPLES  FROM  EXPERIMENTAL  BORINGS  AT SITE A
Boring
and sample
Elevation (m)
2C4
243.00
2C5
237.11
2C6
232.08
3C1
250.53
3C2
249.53
3C3
247.60
3C4
240.27
3C5
235.72
3C6
230.73
               Depth below
                 raw/soil
                 interface (m)       7.99     13.87     18.90      0.00      1.01     2.93     10.26     14.81    19.80

               Ht. above water
                 table (m)         11.99      6.10      1.07     19.31     18.31     16.38     9.05     4.50    -0.49
Co
oo
Cone, (mg/8.)
SO,
Cfc3
NO,-N
N02-N
CN
TOC
Ca
Fe
Mg
Mn
Ma
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn

9
<5
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
6
0.18
ND
0.10
<0.03
0.42
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.21

8
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
6
0.15
ND
0.12
<0.03
0.94
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
1.39

9
<5
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
7
2.24
ND
0.80
<0.03
0.70
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.38

9
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
7
0.54
ND
0.22
<0.03
2.29
0.006
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.07
<0.10
<0.002
0.35

9
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
4
0.77
ND
0.14
<0.03
6.47
0.010
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.04
<0.10
<0.002
0.22

9
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
5
0.55
ND
0.23
<0.03
3.58
0.004
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
1.12

9
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2
2.23
ND
1.31
<0.03
0.19
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.06

9
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
7
1.53
ND
0.92
<0.03
2.97
0.004
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.21

9
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
5
0.44
ND
0.13
<0.03
1.90
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
1.14
                ND - Not determined

-------
                                         TABLE  15.   (continued)
    Boring
  and sample
  1C1
 1C2
 1C3
1C4
1C5
 1C6
1C7
2C1
2C2
2C3
Elevation (m)

Depth below
  raw/soil
  interface (m)

Ht. above water
  table (m)
250.57   249.77   247.58    242.08    234.81   230.83   230.83   250.98   250.14   247.99
  0.00
 18.06
 0.82
17.24
 3.02
15.05
8.52    15.78
        19.77
         19.77
9.55
2.28
-1.70    -1.70
         0.00
        19.97
         0.84
        19.13
         2.99
        16.98
Cone, (mg/fc)
S°4
Cl3
NO--N
3
"of*
TOC
Ca
Fe
Mg
Mn
Na
Aa
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn

9
<5
0.
<0.
<0.
9
0.



30
01
01

31
ND
0.
<0.
2.
0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
0.
48
03
94
006
02
02
03
03
03
ND
0.
<0.
<0.
0.
09
10
002
78

10
<5
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
11
1.40
ND
0.97
<0.03
1.40
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
1.10

9
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
8
0.35
ND
0.33
<0.03
1.10
0.001
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.11

10
5
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
8
0.70
ND
0.67
<0.03
2.62
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
0.03
<0.02
ND
0.08
<0.10
<0.002
0.38

9
5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
6
0.59
ND
0.18
<0.03
0.93
0.001
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.13

42
5
0.13
0.06
<0.01
8
3.03
ND
1.69
<0.03
0.53
0.008
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
0.05
0.04
ND
0.05
<0.10
<0.002
0.82

9
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
5
1.22
ND
0.29
<0.03
1.78
0.001
<0.02
0.02
0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.07
<0.10
<0.002
0.29

9
<5
0.38
0.09
<0.01
10
0.41
ND
0.30
0.07
3.20
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
0.28
0.17
ND
2.62
<0.10
<0.002
4.65

9
<5
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
9
3.58
ND
0.68
0.06
1.82
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.10

9
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
10
0.95
ND
0.20
<0.03
1.94
0.001
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
0.03
0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.46
                                                                                         (continued)

-------
  TABLE 16.  ANALYSES OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS  OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM CONTROL BORINGS AT SITE A
Boring
and sample
Elevation (m)
Ht. above water
table (m)
Cone. (mg/X,)
SO
SO*

NO.-N
NOjj-N
CN
TOC
Ca
Fe
Mg
~*o
Mn
Na
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
HE
••*&
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
6C1
251.09

19.99

9
<3_
<5
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
3
0.37
ND
0.16
<0.03
0.27
0.004
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.91
6C2
250.20

19.10

10
<1
<5
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<1
0.30
ND
0.23
<0.03
0.21
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.14
6C3
248.08

16.98

8
<1
<5
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
3
1.26
ND
0.51
<0.03
0.30
0.001
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.25
6C4
242.05

10.95

8
<1
<5
0.16
<0.01
<0.01
2
0.46
ND
0.28
<0.03
0.32
0.001
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
<0.03
6C5
236.86

5.76

8
<1
<5
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
2
0.30
ND
0.21
0.04
0.39
0.001
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.68
6C6
230.84

-0.26

8
^1
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<:L
0.18
ND
0.16
<0.03
0.49
0.001
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.27
7C1
250.49

14.97

8
<1
<5
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<:L
0.51
ND
0.14
<0.03
0.73
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.35
7C2
250.15

14.63

8
^1
<5
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<:L
0.72
ND
0.35
<0.03
0.39
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.09
7C3
247.99

12.47

8
^1
<5
0.27
<0.01
<0.01
<:L
0.98
ND
0.33
0.03
0.70
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.22
7C4
242.23

6.71

9
<1
<5
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
5
0.87
ND
0.35
0.06
0.61
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
<0.03
7C5
236.37

-0.85

10
^1
<5
0.05
-0.01
<0.01
5
1.24
ND
0.54
0.03
0.37
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.20
7C6
233.32

-2.20

10
** J-
<5
0.20
<0.01
<0.01
3
2.02
ND
0.91
0.04
0.33
0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
<0.002
0.39

ND - Not determined
NOTE:  All borings are positioned downdip on the groundwater gradient.

-------
TABLE 17.  ANALYSES  OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM  EXPERIMENTAL BORINGS AT  SITE B

Boring
and sample
Elevation (m)
1C1
55.93
1C 2
54.06
2C1
56.77
2C2
55.85
2C3
53.72
3C1
56.74
3C2
55.74
3C3
53.50
        Depth below soil/raw
          interface (m)        0.00        1.87       0.00       0.92       3.05      0.00      1.00      3.24

        Ht. above water
          table (m)           1.57       -0.30       5.83       4.91       2.78      3.51      2.51      0.27
Cone, (mg/il)
SO
SO,
Cl3
NO.-N
NO,-N
CN2
TOC
Ca
Fe
Mg
Mn
Na
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn

<8
<^
5
0.04
<£*.01
0.01
14
20.00
0.50
11.70
0.30
21.00
ND
0.05
<0.02
<0.03
0.05
<0.02
ND
0.10
<0.10
ND
<0.03

25
<1
8
0.07
<0.01
0.01
10
13.00
0.48
5.60
0.99
6.70
ND
0.06
<0.02
<0.03
0.05
<0.02
ND
0.08
<0.10
ND
<0.05

<8
<1
<5
0.02
<0.01
0.01
16
21.00
0.25
8.50
0.04
30.00
ND
0.15
<0.02
<0.03
0.07
<0.02
ND
0.13
<0.10
ND
<0.10

<8
<^
<5
0.05
<0.01
0.01
14
18.00
0.20
8.00
0.11
13.00
ND
0.09
<0.02
<0.03
0.05
<0.02
ND
0.11
<0.10
ND
<0.10

<8
<^
8
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
6
19.00
0.05
6.60
<0.03
3.00
ND
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.05
<0.10
ND
<0.10

9
<^
<5
0.27
<0.01
0.02
27
6.50
0.40
4.10
<0.03
66.00
ND
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.06
<0.10
ND
<0.10

<8
<^
<5
0.17
<0.01
0.01
12
15.00
0.10
12.00
0.26
9.40
ND
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.05
<0.10
ND
<0.10

13
<^
<5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
4
21.00
0.11
9.90
<0.03
4.10
ND
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.07
<0.10
ND
<0.10
        ND = Not determined.

-------
TABLE 18.  ANALYSES  OF DISTILLED  WATER EXTRACTS OF  SOIL  SAMPLES  FROM  CONTROL BORINGS AT  SITE B
            Boring
          and sample
5C1
5C2
5C3
6C1
                                               6C2
                                               6C3
                                               7C3
        Elevation (m)         55.28        54.38       52.44       54.26        53.35       51.22       42.00

        Ht. above water
          table (m)           1.93         1.03       -0.91        4.11         3.20        1.07        0.10
Position in
groundwater
gradient
Cone. (mg/Jl)
SO.
A
so.
Cl3
NO,-N
NOI-N
CN
TOC
Ca
Fe
Mg
Mn
Na
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn


updip

<8

<]_
8
1.56
<0.01
0.01
3
36.00
0.14
10.50
<0.03
3.30
ND
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.12
<0.10
ND
<0.03


updip

<8


-------
TABLE 19.  ANALYSES  OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS  OF  SOIL  SAMPLES FROM EXPERIMENTAL BORINGS AT  SITE C

Boring
and sample
Elevation (m)
Depth below
mw/soil
interface (m)
Ht. above water
table (m)
Cone. (mg/JO
S°4
SO,
ci3
NO -N
NO^-N
CN
TOC
Ca
Fe
Mfe
Mn
Na
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
1C1
131.41


0.00

4.40

9'
<]_
5
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
21
0.60
0.09
1.60
0.60
2.20
ND
<0.02
<0.02
0.04
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.06
ND
ND
0.06
1C2
130.48


0.93

3.47

<8
<2_
5
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
18
2.10
0.15
1.30
0.27
2.00
ND
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
ND
ND
0.20
1C3
128.34


3.07

1.33

<8

-------
TABLE 20.  ANALYSES OF DISTILLED  WATER EXTRACTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM CONTROL BORINGS AT  SITE  C
Boring
and sample
Elevation (m)
Ht . above
water
table (m)
Position in
groundwater
gradient
Cone, (mg/2)
SO.
SO*
Cl3
NO.-N
NO,-N
cS
TOC
Ca
Fe
Mg
Mn
Na
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
6C1
132.46


5.42


Updip

12
<1
5
1.34
<0.01
<0.01
14
6.90
0.89
1.50
1.76
2.60
ND
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.04
<0.10
ND
0.13
6C2
131.54


4.50


Updip

<8
<1
5
1.69
<0.01
<0.01
13
1.10
0.34
1.20
<0.03
4.60
ND
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
ND
0.07
6C3
129.41


2.37


Updip

11
<1
10
1.75
<0.01
<0.01
14
1.40
5.26
1.50
<0.03
8.10
ND
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
ND
0.07
6C4
127.88


0.84


Updip

<8
<1
5
3.06
<0.01
<0.01
6
2.10
0.10
1.00
<0.03
6.60
ND
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
ND
0.08
6C5
126.06


-0.98


Updip

<8
<1
20
1.54
<0.01
<0.01
2
2.60
0.10
1.00
<0.03
3.20
ND
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.03
<0.10
ND
0.27
7C4
121.80


0.09


Updip

<8
<1
20
0.87
<0.01
<0.01
1
2.20
0.05
1.80
<0.03
3.60
ND
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
ND
0.11
8C3
130.14


-0.36


Updip

<8
<1
30
1.91
<0.01
<0.01
5
2.70
0.08
3.90
0.14
2.30
ND
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.05
1.40
ND
0.18
9C1
143.47


11.47


Updip

20
2
5
1.91
<0.01
<0.01
6
10.00
7.95
2.20
0.03
2.80
ND
0.10
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.05
0.10
ND
0.07
9C2
142.57


10.57


Updip

10
<1
15
1.82
<0.01
<0.01
6
23.00
0.08
2.50
<0.03
2.20
ND
0.04
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.10
0.20
ND
0.34
9C3
140.44


8.44


Updip

16
2
5
1.57
<0.01
<0.01
1
7.40
0.06
2.90
0.05
2.10
ND
0.04
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.05
0.10
ND
0.23
9C4
136.17


4.17


Updip

16
<1
5
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
6
2.30
0.05
0.50
<0.03
1.90
ND
0.04
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
<0.10
ND
0.15
9C5
131.91


-0.09


Updip

<8
<1
15
1.98
<0.01
<0.01
6
2.70
<0.05
1.00
<0.03
2.10
ND
<0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
<0.03
1.59
ND
0.08
4C6
124.74


-0.66


Downdip

<8
<1
75
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
4
14.00
0.12
8.00
3.31
6.70
ND
0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.10
<0.10
ND
0.13
5C4
126.92


-0.12


Downdip

<8
<1
30
1.27
<0.01
<0.01
6
3.80
0.09
1.80
0.26
2.10
ND
0.02
<0.02
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
ND
0.03
<0.10
ND
0.15
ND = Not determined.

-------
TABLE 21.  RESULTS OF RANDOMIZATION TEST ON DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS  OF SOIL
           SAMPLES DIRECTLY UNDER THE LANDFILLS AND AT COMPARABLE  DEPTHS
           OUTSIDE THE  LANDFILLS

Parameters
SO.
4
SO,
3
Cl
NO,-N
3
NO--N
2
CN
TOG
C*
*i!
Mg
Mn
Na
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
Site A
S

N

N
NS

N

N
S
NS
ND
S
N
S
NS
N
N
N
S
S
ND
S
N
N
NS
Site B
S

N

S
NS

N

S
S
S
S
NS
S
S
ND
S
N
N
S
N
ND
NS
N
ND
N
Site C
S

N

S
S

N

N
NS
S
S
NS
NS
NS
ND
NS
N
N
N
N
ND
NS
ND
ND
S

     N  = Too few samples above detection limit.

   ND  = Not determined.

   NS  - Not significant at 80% level.

     S  - Significant at 80% level.

                                       45

-------
 cannot be regarded as firm evidence of increased cyanide levels  under  the
 landfill at site B.

     Total organic carbon (TOC)  analyses show a pronounced difference between
 sub-landfill and control samples  at both sites A and B.   Samples below the
 landfills were consistently higher  in  TOC than those outside  the landfill.
 All of the analyses  under the  landfills were well above  the detection  limits
 and at least double  the  analyses  of control  samples  from outside the landfill.
 The groundwater analyses also  indicated higher TOC levels in  some borings
 beneath each landfill.   These  increased organic carbon levels  can be attri-
 buted  to material derived from  the  refuse.

     Calcium levels  in extracts from soils below the landfills at sites  B
 and C  are significantly  lower  than  those extracts obtained from  similar  samples
 outside the  landfills.   However,  calcium levels in the groundwater showed an
 increase under each  landfill.   These analyses  indicate that the  calcium
 availability  is  significantly decreased at sites  B and C due  to  removal  of
 soluble calcium  compounds by landfill  leachate or the production of insoluble
 calcium compounds by  reaction with  leachate.

    Total  iron levels were  significantly different in soil extracts obtained
 below  and  outside the landfills at  sites  B and C.  At site B  the soil  under
 the landfill  showed more water-extractable iron than the soil samples  outside
 the landfill.  Site C showed the  reverse  trend.   The availability of iron to
 contacting water is related to the  redox  conditions  present,  the complexing
 properties of  organic materials in  the  soil, and  the presence of anions  such
 as sulfide, etc. that can produce insoluble  iron  compounds.  The lack  of
 extractable iron under the  landfill  at  site  C  is  consistent with the evidence
 of sulfate reduction discussed above.

    Magnesium  in water extracts showed  a  significant difference  only at  site
A.  Magnesium  availability was only  slightly higher  in soil under the  landfill
 than in soil outside the landfill.

    Manganese  levels were very slightly higher  in  soil extracts  obtained
under the landfill at site B as compared  to  samples  outside the  landfill.
However, the observed levels are close  to the  analytical  limits  of detection.

    Sodium in  the water extracts showed a significant difference between
 control and experimental samples at  sites A  and B.   At both sites, the avail-
able sodium increased under the landfill  as  compared to  samples  outside  the
landfill area.  Sodium is a common  constitutent in municipal landfill
leachate; it does not really precipitate  and is only weakly adsorbed.

    Boron and  the trace metals chromium,  copper and  nickel  show  higher
levels  in water extracts from soils  under the  landfills  as  compared to soils
outside the landfill.  These elements may be either  freed  from the soil by
organic acids  from the leachate or introduced  in  a soluble  form  in the leachate.

     Zinc levels obtained from water extracts  of  soil samples at  site  C  showed
 significant differences between samples  collected  under  the landfill and those
 collected outside the landfill.  The extracts  from outside  the landfill were

                                       46

-------
 slightly higher suggesting zinc was less available in the  area  affected by
 landfill leachate.   Zinc is the only trace metal that could be  shown  to be
 extracted in greater concentrations outside the  landfill than below the land-
 fill.   The immobilization of zinc may be related to sulfide production at site  C.

      The major factors that control availability of contaminants  to a distilled
 water extract in sub-landfill soils studied are  the supply of materials moving
 from the refuse to  the soil,  and the decrease  in soluble constituents that
 occurs in the soil  either due to leaching or production of insoluble  compounds
 by reaction with leachate.   Sulfate,  if  it is  not reduced  to sulfide, is more
 available under the landfill due to influx from  the refuse.  Chloride, total
 organic carbon,  sodium and magnesium and all of  the trace  metals with the
 exception of zinc can appear in greater  quantities in water extracts  probably
 due to greater supply of these materials in a  soluble form in the  incoming
 leachate.   Calcium  in two cases showed a decrease of availability  in  sub-refuse
 soil possibly due to prior removal by solution or the formation of insoluble
 calcium compounds (possibly calcium salts of fatty acids).  Iron  and  zinc at
 one site (site C) showed decreased availability  in water extracts  that can
 probably be attributed to formation of sulfides  of these metals.

 Vertical Variation  of Constituents
 in the Distilled  Water Extracts of Soil  Samples

     For those elements  at  each site  that did  show a significant  difference in
 means  between control (outside landfill)  samples  and experimental  (inside land-
 fill)  samples,  a  test was made for a  significant  relationship between the availa-
 ble concentration of a particular  constituent  and sample elevation (or sample
 depth).   The model  suggests  that  those materials  derived from the  refuse would
 show a positive correlation with  elevation in  the experimental  borings (below
 the landfill).  Soil constituents  that are being  dissolved by the  landfill
 leachate and moved  down  out of the soil  and into  the groundwater should, in
 the model  situation,  show a significant  negative  correlation with  sample
 elevation.   Outside  the  landfill  the  distribution of available  soil constituents
 depends  on weathering processes and the  concentration and  solubility  of the
 particular material  and  could  therefore  have a significant positive or negative
 correlation  with  elevation, or no  significant  correlation  at all.

     The  Spearman rank correlation was used  to judge the strength  of  association
 because  this  technique could be used with  small sample numbers where  the
 statistical  distribution  is not known.   In several  cases,  the small number of
 samples having detectable quantities  of  a  particular constituent made it im-
 possible to  judge the significance of  the  correlation coefficients obtained.
 The  results  of the statistical  tests  are  given in Tables 22-24.  Plots of
 concentration versus  sample elevation  for  all  constituents that showed
 statistically significant relations with  elevation  in experimental borings are
 presented  in Figures  7-18.  Plots  of  significant  relationships  in  control holes
 are  included  for contrast.  The only  significant  correlation with  sample
 elevation  in borings  through the landfill  at site A (Borings 1, 2, and 3) in-
volves total organic  carbon.   The  correlation is  positive  as would be expected
 for  a  constituent derived from the refuse  in the  landfill.   No  significant
 correlation between sample elevation and  total organic carbon could be observed
 in  the control holes.


                                       47

-------
   TABLE 22.  CORRELATION OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS
              OF SOIL SAMPLES WITH SAMPLE ELEVATION AT SITE A

Boring
No.
S°4
TOC
Mg
Na
Cr
Cu
Ni

1
NS
SP
NS
NS
*
*
NS
Experimental
2
NS
NS
NS
NS
*
*
*

3
NS
NS
NS
NS
*
*
NS
Control
6 7
SP SN
NS NS
NS SN
SN SP
*
* *

SP = Significant positive correlation at 95% level.

SN = Significant negative correlation at 95% level.

NS = Not significant.

 * = Too few samples above detection limit.

-------
TABLE 23.  CORRELATION OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS
           OF SOIL SAMPLES WITH SAMPLE ELEVATION AT SITE B

Boring Experimental
No.
SO.
4
Cl
CN
TOC
Ca
Fe
Mn
Na
B
Cr
Zn
1 2
— ** *
— *
*
SP
NS
SP
NS
SP
SP
SP
SP
3 5
NS *
* NS
SP *
SP NS
SN SP
NS NS
* *
SP SN
* *
* *
* *
Control
6
*
SN
*
SN
SN
NS
*
NS
*
*
*

SP =
SN =
NS =
* =
** =
Significant positive correlation at 95%
Significant negative correlation at 95%
Not significant correlation.
Too few samples above detection limits.
Too few samples for significant test for
level.
level.


this boring.






-------
   TABLE 24.  CORRELATION OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS
              OF SOIL SAMPLES WITH SAMPLE ELEVATION AT SITE C.
- - -
Boring
No.
S°4
Cl
N03
Ca
Fe
Zn

1
*
NS
NS
SN
NS
SN
Experimental
2
*
NS
NS
SP
NS
NS
Control
3
*
NS
NS
NS
*
NS
6
SP
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
9
NS
NS
NS
NS
sp
NS
^~-
SP = Significant positive correlation at 95% level.

SN = Significant negative correlation at 95% level.

NS = Not significant.

 * = Too few samples above detection limit.
                                      50

-------
  255
                     TOC   CONCENTRATION,  mg/t


                2        4         6         8          10
                                                               12
           i     i     i     i     r
                                                        i     i
  250
                   LEGEND


                     D IA
  245
Z
o


1
UJ
_l
UJ
240
  235
                               o	
                                        	Q
  230 L
Figure 7.  Variation of total  organic carbon  (TOC) concentration in

           distilled water extracts  of soil/sediment samples with

           elevation in boring 1  at  site A.   Inverted triangle symbol

           indicates water table.

-------
      0.0
   255
 Na   CONCENTRATION,   mg/t
1.0         2.0        3.0        4.0
5.0
   250
 .245
z"
o
1
3240
UJ
  235
   230 L
                          LEGEND
                                              o 2A
                                              • 6A
                                              • 7A
 Figure 8.  Variation  of sodium concentration in distilled water
           extracts of soil/sediment  samples with elevation in borings
           2, 6,  and  7 at site A.   Inverted triangle symbols indicates
           water  table in each boring.
                                52

-------
      0.000
      58
                CN   CONCENTRATION,  mg/i

             0.005      0.010       0.015       0.020
0.025
      57
      56
 ,55
z
g
h-

UJ
i54
      53
      52
                                        LIMIT  OF  DETECTION
                                             LEGEND

                                               a  3B
Figure 9.  Variation of  cyanide concentration in distilled water extracts of
          soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 3 at site B.
                                 53

-------
       58
       57
       56
      .55
     Z
    UJ
    _l
    UJ
54
       53
       52
       51 L
              TOC  CONCENTRATION,

              10         20         30
                                                      40
                      50
LEGEND

   o 2B

   A 3B

   • 6B
Figure  10.  Variation  in total organic carbon (TOC)  concentration in distilled

           water extracts of soil/sediment samples  with elevation in borings
           2, 3, and  6 at site B.
                                   54

-------
       58
       57
       56
      .55
     z
     o
     1
     UJ
       53
       52
                      Ca  CONCENTRATION,  mg/£
                     10         20        30        40
                                            50
LEGEND
  a 3B
  o 5B
  • 6B
Figure 11.  Variation of calcium concentration in distilled water extracts of
           soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 3, 5, and  6 at
           site B.
                                  55

-------
       0.00

      58
      57
      56
      55
   Z
   g


   I
   UJ
      53
      52
      51




Figure 12.
         Fe   CONCENTRATION, mg/1


       0.05       0.10       0.15       0.20
0.25
                                    LEGEND


                                     o  2B
Variation of iron concentration in distilled water extracts of

soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 2 at site B.
                                56

-------
      58
                    Na  CONCENTRATION,  mg/I
                  20        40        60        80
                                                  100
      57
      56
     .55
   Z
   O
   I
   UJ
      53
      52
                               LEGEND
                                  o 2B
                                  A 3B
                                  a 5B
      5IL

Figure 13.
Variation of sodium concentration in distilled water extracts of
soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 2, 3, and  5 at
site B.
                                 57

-------
      0.00
     58
     57
     56 -
   Z
   o
   I
   Ul
     53
     52
      51 L

Figure 14.
           B  CONCENTRATION,  mg/i
       0.05      0.10       0.15        0.20
0.25
                      LIMIT  OF  DETECTION
                                            LEGEND
                                              o 2B
Variation of boron concentration in distilled water extracts of
soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 2 at site B.
                                 58

-------
       0.00
      58
      57
      56
     .55
   z
   g


   \
   LU

   ul54
      53
      52
      51





Figure 15.
         Cr   CONCENTRATION,  mg/i

       0.02       0.04       0.06        0.08
0.10
                         LIMIT  OF  DETECTION
                                  LEGEND


                                    o  2B
Variation of chromium concentration in distilled water extracts

of soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 2 at site B.
                                 59

-------
     57
     56
    ,55
   Z
   o
   \
   UJ
     53
     52
      5IL

Figure 16.
         Zn   CONCENTRATION,
      0.02       0.04       0.06
                                                  0.08
0.10
                        LIMIT OF DETECTION
                               LEGEND
                                  o  2B
Variation of zinc concentration in distilled water extracts of
soil/sediment samples with  elevation in boring 2 at site B.
                                 60

-------
    145
                    Ca     CONCENTRATION,  mg/Jt
                   5          10         15         20
     140
    J35
   z
   o
   I
   UJ
   -I 130
   ui
     125
     120 L
                25
               —I
LEGEND
  a  1C
  o  2C
  A  9C
Figure  17.  Variation of calcium concentration in distilled water extracts
           of soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 1, 2,  and 9
           at site C.  Inverted triangle symbols indicate water table  in
           each boring.
                                 61

-------
       000

    145
                    Zn  CONCENTRATION,  mg/Jt

            0.05      0.10       0.15       0.20       0.25      0.30
     140
     135
   z
   o
   u
   _l
   UJ
130
     125
     120 L
               LEGEND


                 o 1C
Figure 18.   Variation  of  zinc concentration in distilled water  extracts of

            soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 1 at site C.
                                   62

-------
     At site B, significant positive correlations with sample elevation were
observed with cyanide, total organic carbon, iron, sodium, boron, chromium,
and zinc.  A positive correlation is expected for constituents derived from
the landfill.  The control holes showed significant correlations with depth
only for total organic carbon and sodium.  Both of these correlations were
negative indicating these constituents were being leached away in a normal
weathering situation.

     Calcium at site B showed a significant negative correlation with sample
elevation in borings under the landfill.  Calcium is probably being leached
away or is forming less soluble compounds under the landfill.  In control
holes both significant positive and negative correlations with depth are found.

     At site C, zinc showed a significant negative correlation with elevation
under the landfill indicating that it is becoming more available with increasing
depth.  Control holes indicated no significant relationship in zinc content
between water extracts and elevation.  Calcium showed a positive correlation
with elevation in one of the holes through the landfill and a nagative correla-
tion in a second hole indicating there may be both an increase and decrease
in clacium availability under the landfill.  This may be due to the variation
in the age or character of refuse placed in different parts of the landfill.
No significant relationship between sample depth and calcium concentration in
water extracts could be seen in the control holes.

     Patterns observed in the composition of distilled water extracts for
samples taken from these landfill areas  indicate that the availability of
total organic carbon, iron, sodium, boron, and chromium to contacting waters
increases under a landfill.  The availability of calcium generally decreases
under the landfill at site C.

     Griffin and others  (15) demonstrated that municipal  leachate can remove
calcium from clays.  Calcium was the major exchangeable cation present in the
clays used in their  experimental leachate attenuation system and was  displaced
by other cations from the leachate such  as sodium, or ammonium ion.   The
calcium level was higher in the effluent coming out of the clays than in the
original leachate.  Municipal leachate is mildly acid and contains carbon
dioxide in solution.  Calcium in the soil in the form of  carbonate could be
taken directly into  solution by the leachate and removed  from the soil below
the refuse.

Horizontal Variation  in Distilled Water  Extracts of
Sediment/Soil Samples Near the Water Table

     According to the model for leachate movement  under a landfill  (Figure  1)
horizontal movement  of contaminants takes place below the water  table.  The
model suggests that  upgradient samples  should have low levels of contamination.
The highest  levels of contamination should  occur below the landfill,  and a
gradual decrease should  occur down  the  groundwater gradient  from the  landfill.
The decrease in contaminant concentration is related  to  the  dilution  effects
of  the  groundwater and the  filtration  and adsorption  in  the  soil/sediment.
The distilled water  extracts measure availability  of  the  chemical  constituents
                                       63

-------
to contacting water.  The  concentration of any constituent in the distilled
water extract depends not  only on the amount of contaminant present; but also
on the solubility of the contaminant under the pH and redox conditions present
in the soil/sediment sample.  Chemical analyses of distilled water extracts
of soil samples collected  near the existing water table were examined to deter-
mine if any pattern of contaminant distribution in the extracts could be
related to the direction of movement of groundwater.

     The number of samples available at each site was too small to allow the
use of analysis of variance.  Graphs showing concentration of various con-
stituents versus relative  position of the boring with respect to the landfill
are given in Figures 19-21.

     At site A, maximum levels for sulfate, nitrite, total organic carbon
(TOC), calcium, magnesium, sodium, arsenic, cadmium, nickel and zinc occurred
in distilled water extracts taken from samples under the landfill.  The
amounts available decreased down the groundwater flow gradients.  This is the
pattern expected for materials added from the refuse.  Manganese levels were
below detection limits under the landfill at site A and increased downgradient
from the landfill.  The unusually low levels of manganese below the landfill
may be related to its chemical reduction to the soluble manganous ion and its
loss into water percolating through the soil.

    At site B, maximum levels for sulfate, cyanide, TOC, iron, manganese,
boron and chromium were observed in distilled water leaches from samples taken
under the landfill.  Chloride showed a maximum level in a boring located up-
gradient from the fill.  Chloride may be depleted under the fill due to
slightly increased infiltration through the refuse.  Calcium, magnesium,
sodium, nickel, lead, and  zinc showed maximum levels in the distilled
water leaches in downgradient wells.  The maxima observed in downgradient
wells may represent materials transported in the groundwater and deposited in
surrounding soil.

     At site C, the maximum levels for nitrate, TOC, calcium, iron, magnesium,
manganese, sodium, and boron were all found in extracts from borings down the
groundwater gradient from  the landfill.  No maxima were found under the land-
fill.  Lead and zinc were  both more concentrated in distilled water leaches
from sediment/soil samples obtained from upgradient borings.  The high levels
in downgradient holes may  represent materials displaced from the landfill and
moved downgradient.  Lead  and zinc may have been made less soluble in the
sub-landfill and downdip holes by precipitation in some insoluble form such as
sulfide.

    There is evidence at sites B and C of displacement of materials from the
area under the refuse down the groundwater flow gradient.  In slow flow
through a porous medium such as sediment/soil, some separation of constituents
can be expected due to differing affinities for the solid phases present (clays
carbonates, etc.)  and participation in solution/precipitation reactions.  Zones
of high concentrations of  various contaminants (as seen in water extractions)
may be displaced by this type of chromatographic activity. Recharge events
such as heavy rainfall at  the landfill may further add to the uneven pattern
observed in contaminant distribution.  The sulfides associated with some of


                                      64

-------
            sf
 sw
30 r
2O  -
10  -
 0 t—
                                                   NE
sw
060
O40
O20
0
-
-
BDL BDL BDL ^ — —
i t i 	 -~
3 1 6
NE


i
7
              006
            ? o.&«
            Z 002
                    BDL .
                                     . BDL
                                                           3OO
                                                           2OO
                                                           100
                                                            0
0.02
0
' ~~~~^ — ^__BDL BDL
3 1 6
BDL
7
Ln
               2 -
OO6
0.04
002
-
-
I BDL _,„--
	 _ 	
3


'" "^~-^^ BDL
1 6


BDL
7
                                                                         OO6 r
              120 I
              080
              0.4O
               0 I
                       UNDER
                       LANDFILL
                            DOWN
                             DIP
                                                        WELL BORING NUMBERS
 UNDER
LANDFILL
          Figure 19.  Horizontal variation in chemical composition of distilled water extracts  at site A.
                       BDL  indicates below detection limits.

-------
    30
    20
     10
     0
           BDL
                                            SE
                                            BDL
                                                                   NW
                      1.20
                     0.80
                     O.40
                       0
                                                                        BDL
                                                                                                         St
    0.02
E z
 . o
o
*
a
o
I
     12
     60
     40
     20
      0
           BDL
          	1	
                         BDL,
                                                                  30
                                                                  20
                                                                  10
                                                                   0
                                                                 0.60
                                                                 040
                                                                 0.20
                                                                  015
                                                               Z  010
                                                                  O05
                                                                  1.20
                                                                 O.80
                                                                 040
                                                                   0
0.07 r
0.05 p
O.03 p

BDL
1
5

BDL/
I/ 1
3 1

1
7
-

BDL
5
BDL/
3 1
^•^^^_BDL
7
                                                                        BDL
                                                                                      BDL  BDL
           UP
           DIP
                          UNDER
                          LANDFILL
DOWN
 DIP
                                                 WELL BORING NUMBERS
006 r
0.04 P
O02 p
Or





BDL
5
UP
DIP
™ 	
/
BDL/
i/ i
3 1
UNOER
LANDFILL
	 °


7
DOWN
DIP
Figure 20.   Horizontal variation in  chemical  composition of  distilled water  extracts at site B.
              BDL indicates below detection limits.

-------
                                          NNW
     200
             7 8


c
2
SSE
600
400
200
-
-
BDL BDL BDL BDL
NNV

y
, _x
0 78 9632 54


Z
7.O
5.0
3.0

-
1 \ ^-^^-^~ 	 '
/
/
— /
1 1
1 ft 1 	 1__J 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 ' 	 • 	 '
10 78 9632 54
a.
t-
z
8
16
12
8
4
rt
-
-
-
-
1 I i 1
             7 8
                                                               Z
                                                               o
                                                               a.
003
002
001
ft
-
-
~ BDL BDL
	 1 	 1 	


BDL
	 1 	

s^ "
BDL BDL .X
i ^ 	 1 	 1
                                                                            78
t-
UJ
u
u
0.12
._ 008
Z 004
n
-
-
" BDL/^^ BDL
	 k_J 	 !±aJ 	
f
/
BDL BDL _-.—0/^
i i i—— 	 1 	 1
                                                                            78
2.40

 I 60

 0.80

  0
                                                                            78
                                                                                               ND
                                                                                                I
BDL  BDL
 i    I
120
80
40
0
: ^_^
76 9 63
— — t 	
Z
j
UP DIP UNDER
LANDFILL
/
5 4
DOWN
DIP
                                                  WELL BORING NUMBERS
                                                                                UP DIP
                       UNDER
                      LANDFILL
Figure  21.   Horizontal variation in  chemical composition of distilled water extracts at  site C.

             BDL indicates below detection limits.
 DOWN
  DIP

-------
 the landfills may also reduce the level of some metals in water extracts below
 the concentrations found in sediment/soil samples up the groundwater gradient
 from the landfill.
 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID EXTRACTS

      The goal of the nitric acid digest was  to determine  the concentration of
 pollutants that could be released under the  most extreme  conditions  of  weather-
 ing.   The concentration of materials  in the  nitric  acid digest  depends  upon:

      a)   the original constituents in the soil and  their  reactivity  with  the
          hot acid,

      b)   the extent  to which water-soluble and leachate-soluble materials
          have been removed from the soil by  solution  in rainwater  or leachate
          and,

      c)   the solubility in acid of materials which  have been precipitated,
          filtered or  absorbed from the  leachate  passing through the  soil.

 The analyses of  nitric acid  digests are  given  in Tables 25-30.  The  analytical
 results  are  expressed  in milligrams per  kilogram dry weight  of  sample.

 Comparison of Nitric Acid  Digests  from  Beneath and  Outside the  Landfills

      Soil samples from directly below the  landfill  (experimental samples)  and
 samples  taken at comparable  depths  outside the landfill (control samples)  were
 digested in  nitric acid and  the digests  were analyzed for selected cations.
 Care was taken to select samples outside the landfill that were above the  water
 table so that the samples were  not  contaminated  by  horizontal movement  of
 leachate from the landfill.

     A randomization test was used  to evaluate the  significance of any  differ-
 ences in means observed between experimental samples and control samples.
 This procedure was used to avoid the  assumption  of  normal distribution  and
 homogeneous  variance required by the more commonly  used t-test.  With the
 small sample size, five samples  at  each  site,  the highest level of significance
 that could be assigned  to a  two-tailed,  randomization test was  80%.  The
 results of the randomization tests  are presented  in Table 31.

     In the majority of cases,  the  nitric acid digests of soil samples  from
below the landfills showed higher metal  content  than the nitric acid digest
 of soil outside the landfills.  The increased metal content in the soil
 represents material filtered, absorbed or precipitated from the leachate (i.e.
 attenuated)  on its contact with the sub-landfill  soil.

     At site A, significant differences  in concentration in the acid digests
 of samples beneath and outside  the  landfill occurred with arsenic, boron,
beryllium, nickel and selenium.   Boron and beryllium showed higher concentra-
 tions in the nitric acid digests from samples taken from below the landfill.
 The levels of arsenic, nickel and selenium in the sub-landfill soil were


                                      68

-------
         TABLE 25.  ANALYSES  OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM  EXPERIMENTAL BORINGS AT SITE A
vO

Boring
and sample
Kiev (m)
Depth below
raw/soil
interface (m)
Ht above water
table (m)
Cone, (mg/kg
dry wt)
Fe
Mn
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
1C1
250.57


0.00

18.06


ND
302.25
0.10
2.90
0.07
0.27
2.96
8.06
BDL
5.04
25.19
0.32
17.95
1C2
249.77


0.82

17.24


ND
399.52
0.17
4.10
0.11
0.42
2.73
6.52
BDL
5.57
17.87
0.46
10.93
1C3
247.58


3.02

15.05


ND
444.63
0.15
3.54
0.08
0.35
3.13
8.65
BDL
6.01
26.35
0.53
10.54
1C4
242.08


8.52

9.55


ND
462.02
0.14
2.99
0.09
0.49
2.85
7.34
BDL
6.79
16.31
0.68
7.88
1C5
234.81


15.78

2.28


ND
593.04
0.14
2.10
0.11
0.41
2.58
9.95
BDL
5.93
21.04
0.44
7.36
1C6
230.83


19.77

-1.70


ND
287.36
0.22
2.87
0.30
0.47
5.75
10.54
BDL
6.70
28.74
0.50
11.97
1C 7
230.83


19.77

-1.70


ND
320.14
0.17
1.60
0.09
0.36
2.02
6.74
BDL
4.38
21.90
0.39
8.17
2C1
250.98


0.00

19.97


ND
894.94
0.16
2.07
0.08
0.29
2.96
9.77
BDL
5.23
11.34
0.26
7.44
2C2
250.14


0.84

19.13


ND
374.26
0.14
1.29
0.06
0.28
1.94
5.42
BDL
4.00
12.26
0.40
6.13
2C3
247.99


2.99

16.98


ND
579.75
0.14
1.63
0.07
0.30
2.90
10.99
BDL
5.80
8.48
0.34
7.97
                                                                                                (continued)

-------
                                   TABLE  25.   (continued)
Boring
and sample
Elev (m)
Depth below
raw/soil
interface (m)
Ht. above water
table (m)
Cone, (mg/kg
dry wt)
Fe
Mn
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
2C4
243.00


7.99

11.99


ND
340.26
0.14
1.24
0.06
0.24
2.27
6.80
BDL
4.76
9.64
0.27
6.2*
2C5
237.11


13.87

6.10


ND
618.55
0.16
1.29
0.06
0.30
2.45
10.44
BDL
5.54
11.60
0.30
12.50
2C6
232.08


18.90

1.07


ND
366.97
0.16
0.86
0.10
0.22
1.65
8.13
BDL
4.16
10.40
BDL
6.18
3C1
250.53


0.00

19.31


ND
312.12
0.16
1.35
0.11
0.33
2.48
7.38
BDL
5.25
12.77
0.31
36.18
3C2
249.53


1.00

18.31


ND
1015.93
0.47
1.39
0.08
0.32
2.99
7.17
BDL
5.84
11.83
0.31
54.97
3C3
247.60


2.93

16.38


ND
741.15
0.40
1.50
0.07
0.32
3.44
9.75
BDL
6.24
11.70
0.32
7.80
3C4
240.27


10.26

9.05


ND
410.14
0.26
0.75
0.06
0.27
2.61
8.70
BDL
5.59
12.43
0.31
6.84
3C5
235.72


14.81

4.50


ND
356.57
0.28
0.84
0.06
0.28
2.34
9.02
BDL
4.90
10.03
0.28
6.68
3C6
230.73


19.80

-0.49


ND
209.50
0.19
1.00
0.05
0.22
1.86
7.86
BDL
4.00
9.05
0.27
10.23

BDL = Below detection limits.




 ND = Not determined.

-------
       TABLE 26.   ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID  DIGESTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM CONTROL BORINGS AT SITE A
Boring
and sample
Kiev (m)
Ht. above water
table (m)
Cone, (mg/kg
dry wt)
Fe
Mn
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
6C1
251.09
19.99
ND
566.29
0.51
1.08
0.06
0.27
2.95
7.83
BDL
5.72
8.43
0.36
7.59
6C2
250.20
19.10
ND
503.83
0.64
1.08
0.07
0.27
3.32
9.76
BDL
6.38
10.85
0.36
8.54
6C3
248.08
16.98
ND
546.34
0.60
1.34
0.07
0.27
3.46
10.26
BDL
6.07
8.92
0.31
17.28
6C4
242.05
10.95
ND
417.92
0.49
0.82
0.07
0.29
2.88
9.59
BDL
6.17
9.59
0.30
8.22
6C5
236.86
5.76
ND
632.26
0.55
0.86
0.07
0.28
3.23
11.46
BDL
6.45
9.87
0.32
9.48
6C6
230.84
-0.26
ND
295.05
0.50
0.72
0.05
0.19
1.79
6.75
BDL
3.84
7.15
0.25
4.52
7C1
250.49
14.97
ND
447.30
0.41
0.95
0.07
0.31
2.78
7.05
BDL
5.96
11.52
0.36
6.78
7C2
250.15
14.63
ND
561.80
0.50
1.24
0.06
0.33
3.66
9.21
BDL
6.73
12.41
0.27
10.06
7C3
247.99
12.47
ND
986.56
0.75
1.50
0.06
0.27
7.52
12.45
BDL
7.28
8.93
0.34
9.67
7C4
242.23
6.71
ND
810.06
0.51
1.29
0.07
0.35
3.86
12.02
BDL
7.91
12.22
0.29
10.22
7C5
236.37
-0.85
ND
72.08
0.26
0.79
0.04
0.30
0.92
0.92
BDL
1.44
6.55
0.43
2.29
7C6
233.32
-2.20
ND
96.42
0.24
0.56
0.05
0.24
0.81
1.67
BDL
1.41
6.00
0.46
1.71

Note:   All borings are positioned downdip on the groundwater gradient.




BDL =  Below detection limits.




 N'D =  Not determined.

-------
TABLE 27.  ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM EXPERIMENTAL BORINGS AT SITE B
Boring
and sample
Elev (m)
Depth below
mw/soil
interface (m)
Ht above water
table (m)
Cone, (mg/kg
dry wt)
Fe
Mn
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
1C1
55.93
0.00
1.57


18007.
945.76
4.81
5.63
1.05
0.15
8.78
13.47
0.08
21.56
10.59
2.95
50.54
1C2
54.06
1.87
-0.30


15241.
1443.93
4.30
4.53
1.03
0.54
7.49
12.30
0.08
22.26
9.36
2.95
61.23
2C1
56.77
0.00
5.83


14425.
559.55
5.25
6.96
1.76
0.23
7.46
11.31
0.04
29.23
58.46
2.20
54.28
2C2
55.85
, 0.92
4.91


15552.
450.69
3.84
6.57
1.74
0.21
9.19
9.61
0.03
21.70
8.30
1.52
45.97
2C3
53.72
3.05
2.78


11351.
342.08
2.10
5.14
1.41
0.15
7.60
8.68
0.02
17.87
7.19
1.28
38.47
3C1
56.74
0.00
5.51


17246.
505.12
4.43
8.66
1.70
0.43
8.08
11.55
0.04
22.37
8.66
1.80
57.72
3C2
55.74
1.00
2.51


10028.
343.56
1.75
5.39
1.57
0.19
7.83
10.16
0.05
20.38
7.76
1.94
40.11
3C3
53.50
3.24
0.27


12099.
306.60
1.19
6.78
1.56
0.13
7.60
11.47
0.03
25.33
7.60
1.65
39.28

-------
TABLE 28.  ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM CONTROL BORINGS AT SITE B

Boring
and sample
Elev (m)
5C1
55.28
5C2
54.38
5C3
52.44
6C1
54.26
6C2
53.35
6C3
51.22
7C3
42.00
Ht. above water
  table (m)
Position in
  groundwater
  gradient
Cone, (mg/kg
  dry wt)
     Fe
     Mn
     As
     B
     Be
     Cd
     Cr
     Cu
     Hg
     Ni
     Pb
     Se
     Zn
                1.93
             updip
   1.03
updip
  -0.91
updip
   4.11
   3.20
updip
updip
  1.07
updip
   0.10
downdip
13054.
497.27
3.95
7.32
1.77
0.26
7.80
9.88
0.06
29.72
7.73
3.00
42.68
11336.
352.03
3.04
5.55
1.52
0.18
6.62
9.72
0.04
24.58
7.75
2.03
39.26
13214.
233.26
2.46
5.78
1.51
0.16
9.79
9.57
0.03
24.29
7.49
1.12
37.77
12924.
428.78
3.04
5.12
1.46
0.20
6.64
8.01
0.02
23.77
7.60
1.52
35.83
13486.
445.18
3.41
5.54
1.80
0.22
8.48
9.13
0.03
26.90
7.97
0.94
48.00
8692.
113.75
0.89
3.68
1.26
0.25
8.00
9.04
0.03
21.86
6.95
1.44
35.91
4062.
2784.25
BDL
73.73
1.20
0.21
15.00
23.25
BDL
32.12
39.54
BDL
42.23

-------
TABLE 29.  ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM EXPERIMENTAL BORINGS AT SITE C

Boring
and sample
Elev (m)
Depth below
row/soil
interface (m)
Ht. above water
table (m)
Cone, (mg/kg
dry wt)
Fe
Mn
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
1C1
131.41
0.00
4.40

25871.0
869.23
0.52
226.31
1.36
2.08
19.29
40.22
0.03
28.29
21.71
0.57
60.07
1C 2
130.48
0.93
3.47

24824.
585.91
0.72
230.89
1.36
2.22
21.82
34.17
0.05
29.10
21.35
0.50
66.07
1C 3
128.34
3.07
1.33

23065.
431.75
0.48
217.17
1.89
2.12
16.79
45.87
0.02
36.13
18.71
0.39
78.78
2C1
127.46
0.00
0.20

22119.
386.14
0.52
209.19
2.03
2.24
15.42
55.36
0.03
33.94
23.51
0.37
96.69
2C2
126.55
0.91
-0.71

28710.
642.77
0.72
235.07
1.47
1.93
10.65
42.36
0.03
32.93
22.83
0.39
91.21
2C3
124.41
3.05
-2.85

24573.
339.37
0.52
207.82
1.27
1.77
9.59
41.56
0.05
34.03
17.08
0.16
85.41
3C1
125.50
0.00
2.48

27563.
710.84
0.76
232.60
0.90
2.00
9.38
11.12
0.04
10.40
18.09
0.16
31.38
3C2
124.57
0.93
1.55

24723.
409.30
0.77
210.14
0.79
1.74
16.13
31.11
0.04
15.60
17.86
0.37
35.30
3C3
123.20
2.30
0.18

36287.
84.28
0.73
292.87
1.94
2.92
11.36
17.71
0.03
14.79
18.79
0.31
55.79

-------
TABLE 30.  ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM CONTROL BORING AT SITE C
Boring
and sample
Elev (m)
Ht . above
water
table (m)
Position in
groundwater
gradient
Cone, (rag/kg
dry wt)
Fe
Mn
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
St
Zn
6C1
132.46


5.42


Updip


17938.
46.21
1.12
180.68
0.54
1.89
14.10
11.50
0.03
6.63
11.37
0.24
21.25
6C2
131.54


4.50


Updip


22378.
13.90
0.97
337.89
0.66
3.10
19.28
17.67
0.06
7.64
15.12
0.19
24.53
6C3
129.41


2.37


Updip


12745.
20.85
0.49
141.55
1.05
1.60
7.87
24.14
0.05
14.70
11.98
0.23
30.01
6C4
127.88


0.84


Updip


30634.0
160.59
0.75
298.24
2.26
2.96
9.99
46.33
0.02
32.30
22.67
0.21
81.42
6C5
126.06


-0.98


Updip


12124.7
194.73
0.54
102.35
0.84
2.08
10.60
15.22
0.02
19.11
14.07
0.30
49.13
7C4
121.80


0.09


Updip


18140.
121.83
0.81
137.00
0.95
2.12
15.54
21.93
0.01
25.50
12.56
0.15
89.89
8C3
130.14


-0.36


Updip


15277.
231.70
0.53
116.13
1.97
1.90
7.72
15.28
0.01
13.25
13.30
0.16
47.52
9C1
143.47


11.47


Updip


21340.
118.74
1.14
180.03
0.69
2.10
14.01
18.99
0.02
9.47
20.79
0.11
17.56
9C2
142.57


10.57


Updip


20419.
71.71
0.89
182.31
1.05
2.28
10.63
49.95
0.02
14.28
23.82
0.17
17.74
9C3
140.44


8.44


Updip


23658.
110.27
0.41
205 . 84
0.89
2.55
14.63
51.26
0.02
7.42
24.39
0.25
16.77
9C4
136.17


4.17


Updip


22352.
210.50
0.57
211.94
1.10
2.42
8.39
29.37
0.01
7.01
18.24
0.25
13.09
9C5
131.91


-0.09


Updip


15584.
76.39
0.79
122.23
0.92
2.14
5.02
16.58
0.01
5.00
7.94
0.30
11.31
4C6
124.74


-0.66


Downdip


23137.
655.94
0.72
182.29
1.39
2.30
13.79
37.63
0.07
31.78
26.64
0.16
85.69
5C4
126.92


-0.12


Downdip


12719.
149.64
1.49
107.47
1.12
1.50
14.2
63.12
0.02
21.42
11.09
0.29
67.34

-------
   TABLE 31.  RESULTS OF RANDOMIZATION TEST ON NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL
              SAMPLES DIRECTLY UNDER THE LANDFILLS AND AT COMPARABLE DEPTHS
              OUTSIDE THE LANDFILLS
Parameter
Fe
Mn
As
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
Site A
ND
NS
S
S
s
NS
NS
NS
N
S
NS
S
NS
Site B
S
S
S
NS
NS
NS
NS
S
NS
NS
S
NS
S
Site C
S
S
S
S
S
NS
NS
NS
S
S
NS
NS
S
 S = Significant at 80% level.

NS = Not significant at 80% level.

ND = Not determined.

 N = Not detected in any sample.
                                      76

-------
lowered possibly by leaching effects due to the organic acids and chemically
reducing conditions produced by the landfill.

     At site B, significant differences in concentrations in acid digests
were found for iron, manganese, arsenic, copper, lead and zinc.   All of these
metals showed increased levels in soil beneath the landfill as would be ex-
pected from consideration of the model  (Figure 1).

     At site C, significant differences were found in the concentration of
iron, manganese, arsenic, boron, beryllium, mercury, nickel and zinc.  Only
arsenic showed a decrease in concentration beneath the landfill.  Arsenic is
behaving at site C as it did at site A and is being depleted in the soil
immediately below the landfill.

     If the number of metals that are found in significantly higher quantities
under a landfill is used as a rough index of attenuation, the sand and gravel
at site A is definitely poorer in attenuation than is the loess clay at site
B or the deep, residual soil at site C.  The material at site A would have
both poorer filtering qualities because of its larger grain size and lower
adsorption properties because of the lack of clay minerals.

     None of the metals determined was shown to have a significant increase in
the sub-landfill samples at all three sites.  Iron, manganese, boron, beryllium
and zinc all showed significant accumulation below the landfills at two of the
three sites.  These differences in metal levels probably reflect the differing
composition of leachates at the three sites.

Vertical Variation of Constituents in Nitric Acid Digests of Soil Samples;

     For those elements that did show a significant difference  in means be-
tween sub-landfill samples and samples  from comparable depths outside  the
landfill, a test was made for a significant relationship between the concen-
tration of a particular cation and the  sample elevation in  the  borings.  The
model of leachate movement requires that those materials derived from  the
refuse show a positive correlation with elevation in the borings through the
landfill.  Outside  the landfill the concentration of these  materials in  a
nitric acid digest would depend on the  prevailing weathering processes.  There
could be a positive or negative correlation or no correlation at all between
sample elevation and the concentration  of metals.   In  the model situation  soil
constituents  that  are being dissolved by the  landfill  leachate  should  show a
negative correlation with sample elevation  for  samples from under the  landfill.
Outside the landfill, these elements may or may not  show any  correlation with
sample elevation depending on  their response  to local weathering processes.

     The Spearman  rank correlation  coefficient was  used  to  judge the
strength of association because this  technique  could be  used with small  numbers
of  samples where the sample distribution is not known.   The results  of the
Spearman rank correlation are  given in  Tables  32-34.   Graphs  of concentrations
versus  sample elevation  for all cations that  showed statistically  significant
correlations  in experimental borings  are given  in Figures  22-34.   Significant
correlations  in control  holes  are  shown for contrast.
                                       77

-------
 TABLE 32.  CORRELATION OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL
            SAMPLES WITH SAMPLE ELEVATION AT SITE A
Boring No.
Mn
As
B
Be
Ni
Se

1
NS
NS
SP
NS
NS
NS
Experimental
2
NS
NS
SP
NS
NS
NS
Control
3
NS
NS
NS
SP
NS
NS
6
NS
NS
SP
NS
NS
NS
7
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
SP = Significant positive correlation at 95% level.

SN = Significant negative correlation at 95% level.

NS = Not significant.
                                      78

-------
  TABLE 33.   CORRELATION OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES  OF NITRIC  ACID DIGESTS  OF SOIL
             SAMPLES WITH SAMPLE ELEVATION AT  SITE  B

Boring No.
Fe
Mn
As
Cu
Pb
Zn
Experimental
1* 2**
NS
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
Control
3
NS
SP
SP
NS
SP
SP
5
NS
SP
SP
SP
NS
SP
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS

SP = Significant positive correlation at 95% level.

SN = Significant negative correlation at 95% level.

NS = Not significant.

 * = No critical confidence level available for this size sample.

** = Due to small sample sizes all tests of significance are at 80% confidence
     level.
                                      79

-------
 TABLE 34.  CORRELATION OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL
            SAMPLES WITH SAMPLE DEPTH AT SITE C
Boring No.
Fe
Mn
As
B
Be
Hg
Ni
Zn

1
SP
SP
NS
NS
NS
NS
SN
SN
Experimental
2
NS
NS
NS
SP
SP
NS
NS
SN
Control
3
NS
SP
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
SN
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
SN
SN
9
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
SP
SP
SP
SP * Significant positive correlation at 95% level.

SN = Significant negative correlation at 95% level.

NS = Not significant.
                                      80

-------
     0.0
  254
            B   CONCENTRATION,  mg/kg  DRY  WEIGHT

                 1.0         2.0        3.0        4.0         5.0
  250 -
  246
z
o
H  242

ui

UJ


   236
  234
  230
                                                LEGEND
                        o	1	
Figure 22.  Variation of boron concentration in nitric acid  digests of
           soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings  1, 2, and 6
           at site A.  Inverted triangle  symbols indicate water table
           in each boring.
                                81

-------
     0.00
   254
   250
   246
Z
o
  242
UJ
_l
UJ
  238
  234
  230
 Be  CONCENTRATION, mg/kg  DRY  WEIGHT

0.02      0.04      0.06      0.08      0.10      0.12
  1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
                 LEGEND

                   a 3A
Figure 23.   Variation of beryllium concentration  in nitric acid digests
            of  soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 3 at
            site A.  Inverted triangle symbol indicates water table.
                                 82

-------
           Se  CONCENTRATION,  mg/kg   DRY  WEIGHT
   0.0        O.I
254
                            0.2
                           0.3
0.4
0.5
   250
   246
6
 %
z
o
   242
_J
Ul
   238
   234
      LEGEND

         A  3A

         •  6A
                               V    /    V
                            = = ":==:*  l±+=±:-:J=
   230


 Figure 24.
Variation of selenium concentration in nitric  acid digests

of soil/sediment samples  with elevation in borings 3 and 6

at site  A.  Inverted triangle symbols indicate water table

in each  boring.

-------
 0.0
57
AS
1.0
1
CONCENTRATION,  mg/kg  DRY
     2.0        3.0       4.0
WEIGHT
   5.0
                                               LEGEND
                                                 o 2B
                                                 a 3B
                                                 o 5B
        Variation of arsenic concentration in nitric acid digests
        of soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 2,  3,
        and 5 at  site B.  Inverted triangle symbol indicates water
        table.
                            84

-------
      0.0
    57
    56
   . 55
  z
  o
  I
  u
  d 54
    53
 Cu   CONCENTRATION, mg/Kg  DRY  WEIGHT
 2.0       4.0       6.0       8.0       10.0
12.0
LEGEND
  o 2B
  o 5B
Figure 26.   Variation of copper concentration in nitric acid  digests of
            soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings  2 and 5 at
            site B.  Inverted triangle symbol indicates water table.
                                  85

-------
     57
    56
    55
  z
  o
  I
  UJ
  _l
  LJ
54
    53
                Mn   CONCENTRATION, mg/kg   DRY WEIGHT
                100      200      300      400      500
                                                            600
           LEGEND
             o 2B
             A 3B
             o 5B
    52 L
Figure  27.  Variation in manganese concentration in nitric acid digests of
           soil/sediment  samples with elevation in borings 2, 3 and 5 at
           site B.  Inverted triangle symbol indicates water  table.
                                  86

-------
  57
     0
           Pb  CONCENTRATION,  mg/kg  DRY  WEIGHT


           10        20        30        40        50
                                                                60
  56
   55
Z
g


1
u
_i
Ul
54
   53
                                               LEGEND


                                                  o2B

                                                  A3B
   52 L
 Figure 28.  Variation of lead concentration  in nitric acid digests of

             soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 2 and 3 at

             site B.
                                 «7

-------
    57
                Zn  CONCENTRATION,  mg/kg  DRY WEIGHT
                10        20        30        40        50
    56
 Z
 O

 I
 u
    53
    52L
                                                   60
LEGEND
  o 2B
  A 3B
  o 5B
Figure 29.   Variation of zinc concentration in  nitric acid digests of
            soil/sediment samples with elevation  in borings 2, 3, and 5
            at  site B.  Inverted triangle symbol  indicates water table.
                                  88

-------
     146
              Be   CONCENTRATION , mg/kg  DRY  WEIGHT

       0.0         0.5         I.O          1.5        2.0         2.5
     142
     138
  z
  g


  I
  LL)
  _J
  LJ
134
     130
     126
     122
                      LEGEND

                        o  2C
Figure 30.  Variation of beryllium concentration in nitric acid digests

            of soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 2 at site C.

            Inverted triangle symbol indicates water table.
                                   89

-------
   146
         Fe CONCENTRATION, mg/kg  DRY  WEIGHT


0         	10000             20000              3000O

	1	1	1	1	1	1
   142

                    LEGEND
  136


e

z"
o
UJ
  130
  126
                      o 1C
  122 L
 Figure 31,  Variation of iron concentration in nitric acid digests of

            soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 1 at  site C.
                                90

-------
   146
          MO   CONCENTRATION,  mg/kg  DRY  WEIGHT

     0         200        400        600       800        1000
   142
  138
z
o
£134

LJ
LJ
   130
   126
   122 L
LEGEND

  o  1C

  a 3C
 Figure 32.  Variation in manganese concentration in nitric acid dige

            of soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 1 and

            at site C.

-------
     146
              Ni  CONCENTRATION,  mg/kg  DRY  WEIGHT
        0          10        20         30         40         50
     142
     138
E
z"
o
I
kl
Ul
     134
     130
     126
                                                LEGEND
                                                 D  1C
                                                 •  6C
                                                 A  9C
     122 L

Figure  33.
         Variation of nickel concentration in nitric acid digests of
         soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 1,  6 and 9 at
         site  C.  Inverted triangle symbols indicate water table in
         each  boring.
                                 92

-------
     I4S
              Zn   CONCENTRATION, mg/kg  DRY WEIGHT
                   20         40         60         80
                                                          100
     142
     138
                                             LEGEND
                                              o   1C
                                              o  2C
                                              A   3C
                                              •   6C
                                              A   9C
  •z.
  o
  I
  u
  LJ
134
     130
     126
     122 L

Figure 34.
       Variation of zinc concentration  in nitric acid digests  of soil/
       sediment samples with elevation  in borings 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9 at
       site C.  Inverted triangle symbols indicate water table in each
       boring.
                                  93

-------
      At site A,  boron and beryllium showed  significant  positive  correlations
 with elevation.   This correlation,  together with  their  increased abundance
 under the fill suggests  they are being added to the  soil by  landfill leachate.
 Selenium shows a positive correlation  with  elevation, but  is not as abundant
 under the fill as outside the fill.  This suggests selenium  does leach down
 from the landfill but is being moved out and is not  being  held by the soil.

      At site B,  manganese,  arsenic,  copper,  lead  and zinc  all showed signifi-
 cant positive correlations  with sample elevation.  The  positive  correlations
 together with the increased levels  occurring under the  landfill  suggest that
 these constituents are being added  to  the soil under the landfill and are
 being retained.

      At site C,  iron,  manganese,  and beryllium showed significant positive
 correlations with sample elevation  in  borings below  the landfill.  The increased
 concentration of these metals  under  the landfill  and the increasing concentra-
 tions upward suggest  these  metals are  being  leached  from the landfill and held
 by the sub-landfill soil.   Nickel and  zinc  showed a  significantly larger concen-
 tration of metal under the  landfill; but an  increasing  concentration downward
 suggests  they are  leaching  from sub-refuse  soil.

      The  ability of landfills  to generate metal-rich leachates and the capa-
 city  of  soils  to retain  these metals varies  greatly  from site to site.   For
 the  three sites  studied,  iron,  manganese, arsenic, boron, beryllium, copp'er,
 lead,  selenium and zinc  all  showed evidence  of being derived from the land-
 fills.   Selenium, while  it  did  appear  to be most  available immediately below
 the  landfill  at  site A, was  present  in the samples in concentrations below
 that  seen in  surrounding  soils  of comparable depths  indicating it was being
 leached  from  the landfill;  but  not being held by  soil effectively.   At site C,
 there  is an  indication that  zinc and nickel were present in larger quantities
 under  the landfill than  in  the  area  outside the landfill; but both metals
 showed  increasing concentration with increasing depth suggesting they are
 being moved down into  the soil.

 Horizontal Variation in Nitric Acid Digests of Sediment/Soil Samples
 Near  the Water Table

     The model developed-for leachate movement indicates that the major hori-
 zontal movement  of contaminants from leachate takes place below the water
 table.  If a contaminant  is being added to the local soil or sediment by the
 landfill the highest concentrations should be in  the soil below the landfill.
 Lower concentrations should be  found in soil below the water table down the
 groundwater gradient from the landfill.  This decrease in concentration is
 related to the filtration, absorption or precipitation occurring in the soil
 or sediment as the groundwater  flow moves the leachate away from the landfill.
 Samples of geologic materials  (sediments or soils) were digested to determine
 if any pattern of contaminant concentration could be related to the direction
of movement of groundwater.

     At site A,  the samples collected near the water table in borings 6 and 7
 (downgradient) are from a sandstone unit below the glacial valley-fill
material thus some influence of the changing nature of the sediment may be

                                       94

-------
  expected in these acid digests.   At  site  C,  one  sample  taken  upgradient  (boring
  4)  and one sample taken downgradient (boring 7)  were  taken  from  the  surface
  of  the underlying schist.   Digests  from this less-weathered metamorphic  rock
  would  be expected to differ considerable  from that  of the soil produced  by
  the  weathering of the rock.  At  these  two sites  some  reservations must be
  taken  with regard to interpreting the  variation  in  chemistry  as  due  solely to
  the  influence of the landfill.

      The small number of samples precluded use of statistical comparison tech-
 niques.   Graphs showing the concentration of various  metals versus the relative
 positions of the borings with respect  to  the landfill are given  in Figures 35-37.

      At  site A, maximum concentrations of manganese,  boron, cadmium,  chromium,
 copper,  nickel, lead, selenium and  zinc occurred in samples taken under  the
 landfill-   Samples taken at or near  the water table downdip showed decreasing
 amounts  of these constituents.   Arsenic is the only contaminant  that  showed a
 maximum  concentration in a downdip  boring.

      At  site B, iron, arsenic,  beryllium, cadmium,  mercury, selenium  and zinc
 all reached maximum concentrations  in  samples collected under the landfill.
 M neanese,  boron, chromium, copper,  nickel and lead all reach maximum concen-
 trations in borings downdip from the landfill.

      At  site C, iron, boron, cadmium,  nickel, selenium, and zinc all  reached
  Aximum  concentrations in samples collected under the landfill.  Manganese,
    enic,  copper, mercury and lead all  reached maximum concentrations  in
   "nles  collected downdip from the  landfill.  Beryllium and chromium  were
 f   nd in their greatest concentrations in samples taken updip from the landfill.

      A pattern can be observed in the  location of concentration  maxima.  At
   1  three sites the maximum concentration of arsenic  is displayed downdip.
    two sites (B and C) maximum concentrations for manganese,  copper and  lead
were found in downdip borings.


DISCUSSION

      Physical testing showed no. consistent attribute  in the soil/sediment
     1    collected at the landfill sites  that could  be related to the  presence
        landfilled refuse.  There was no  detectable  change  in  density, permea-
          grain size distribution or water  content that could be shewn  to  be
    esponse to the movement of leachate.   Griffin and  others (15) showed  that
  Vi neeS  in permeability could be observed in experimental columns filled with
  1  v and then subjected to  landfill  leachate. Permeability changes  that
      red probably involved a relatively  small volume  of the soil at  the  very
     of  the soil column.  However, in this investigation,  field conditions did
 *-°" aivays permit recovery of the sample  which included only  the interface
          the refuse and soi 1 /sod intent .
      Extending the model, the flicMiiic.il  behavior of  contaminants  in  soil  under
  ,  i  conditions can be broken into three basic typos  of  interact ions:   flow
  ^ oo«h  attenu.-it ion and mob i 1 i /a t i on .   Flow through  is essentially (hat

-------
300
200
IOO
  0
                                                                  600
                                                                  400
                                                                  2.00
                                                                    0
g.

-------
                                                              3
                                                              u
                                                                  NW
                                                                 35
                                                                  15
                                                                                                       SE
z
o
L>
      7J
      50
      25
      0
z
o
                                                                 o.io
                                                                 005
                                                                  o
    32
    ae
    24
    20
                                                                  60
                                                                  40
                                                             Z 0-
     080 f
     060 (-
     040
     oao
      o
                                                WELL BORING NUMBERS
                                                                  60
                                                                  50
                                                                  40
                                                                  30
                                                                        UP
                                                                        DIP
                         UNDER
                        LANDf ILL
DOWN
 DIP
Figure 36.  Horizontal variation in chemical  composition of nitric acid digests  at  site B.  BDL
             indicates below  detection limits.

-------
40O ,

300 j-

200 (-

IOO '•—
200 ;

 150 r

 100 •

050 ;—
400 [

3OO i
   l-
20O >

 100 t-
         7 8
         7 8
        7 8
                     6   3
                     6   3
                                    5    4
                                    5   4
                                                              E   Z
                                                             u
                                                             Z
                                                             o
                                                                   30

                                                                   20

                                                                   10

                                                                   0
                                                                           7 8
                                                                           7 8
                                                                          7 8
                                                                          7 8
                                                                                        6   3
                                                                                      6   3
                                                                                                      5   4
                                                                                                     5   4
                    6   3
                                    5   4
 15
 10

 5 •
        7 8
           UP DIP
                    6  3
                       UNDER
                      LANDFILL
                                  5   4

                                  DOWN
                                   DIP
WELL BORING NUMBERS
                                           UNDER
                                          LANDFILL
DOWN
 DIP
Figure 37.   Horizontal variation in  chemical composition  of nitric acid  digests  at site C.

-------
where negligible chemical interaction takes place.   The porous matrix (soil)
is inert and does not effectively filter, absorb or precipitate the contami-
nants.  Therefore, no changes can be detected in the composition of the soil.
Cases in which the difference in concentration of contaminants in the nitric
acid digests of the soil samples varied less than 25% between samples inside
the landfill and outside were judged to be examples of "flow through".
The instances of "flow through" are indicated in Table 35 (samples marked "X"
in nitric acid digest column).  At all three sites cadmium and chromium had
essentially the same concentrations in the nitric acid digests of soil inside
and outside the landfill.  Similarly, nickel (sites A and B), boron (sites B
and C), selenium  (sites A and B), beryllium (site B), copper (site A), manganese
(site A) and mercury (site A) were found in equal concentrations.  In most
of these cases, the metals are also found in higher concentrations in ground-
water collected under the refuse as would be expected.  Earlier investigations
(15) have indicated that attenuation should be effective in removing toxic
metals, the analyses of soil digests given here do not demonstrate a trapping
mechanism for most contaminants.

     A second type of interaction takes place when the soil removes contaminants
by filtration, absorption and/or precipitation.  The ability of soil to atten-
uate contaminants in this manner is limited by the capacity of the soil to con-
tain pollutants.  Up to the  time when  the capacity is reached, the amount of
contaminant in the soil increases while the amount passing through to the
groundwater is lessened  (Table 35).  Therefore, the nitric acid digest analyses
should show higher levels of  contaminants under the refuse and the concentra-
tions  in groundwater under and outside the landfill should be nearly equal.
After  the capacity of the soil for attenuating the contaminant has been reached,
concentrations of these contaminants in the groundwater should increase.

     Examples of  attenuation where soil  capacity has not been reached and
groundwater concentrations have not  increased are beryllium  (sites A and C),
arsenic  (site A), copper  (site B) and  mercury  (site C).  Examples of cases
where  the capacity of the soil to attenuate the contaminant has been reached
or exceeded  (concentrations  in the groundwater have increased under the
refuse)  are zinc  (all three  sites),  iron  and manganese  (sites B and C), lead
 (sites A and  C),  arsenic  (site B), boron  (site A) and nickel  (site C).

      The third possible  interaction  is the mobilization of  soil constituents
by  the acids  typically occurring  in  the  leachate  from  the  refuse.  This action
brings materials  into solution  that  would normally  remain  fixed  in the  soil
and  brings  about  a  lower  concentration of the material  in  the nitric  acid
digests  of  the  soil  samples  from  under the  landfill when compared with  those
outside  the  landfill (Table  35).   Only arsenic  at  site  C showed  a  distribution
pattern  in  the  nitric acid  digest  and  the groundwater  that  would  indicate
mobilization  is  occurring.

      In  some  of  the  samples  where  attenuation  was  indicated,  this  trend was
 further  substantiated by the decreased extractabiIity  (into distilled water)
 observed in samples  collected underneath the  landfill.   While this decreased
 extractability  was  not  observed  in all cases,  it  might  be  a useful  indicator
 of  the formation of  highly  insoluble phases  during attenuation.

-------
                            TABLE  35.
O
o
            Chemical
          constituents

                          Groundwater
   Site A
  distilled*
water extract
   Site B
  distilled
water extract
HNO,
   Site C
  distilled
water extract
              >125% of average control sample.

          X - 75% to 125% of average control sample.

          - - <75% of average control sample.

        BDL - More than one  half  samples  below detection limits.
                                      ND = Not determined.

                                     * Note that soil samples used in averages  were  those at the
                                                                                                                                             HNO,

-------
     If the number of metals found in greater abundance in the nitric acid
digest from samples taken directly under the landfill is used as an index of
overall attenuation; site C shows the most active attenuation.  Site B and
site A rank second and third respectively, although they are nearly identical.

     The character of the soil/sediment in the area of attenuation and the
chemical activity within the refuse leachate appear to be of prime importance
in the attenuation process.  In the present study, the poorest attenuation
was associated with an older site having coarse sandy material under the land-
fill.  The most effective attenuation appears in a landfill that is relatively
young and underlain by fine-grained material.  The high rate of microbial
activity associated with this younger landfill should produce a large quantity
of hydrogen sulfide in the leachate and precipitate the chalcophile elements
(i.e., those having an affinity for sulfur) such as iron, nickel, copper, zinc,
mercury and lead.
                                      101

-------
                                  REFERENCES
 1.   Schneider,  W.  J.   Hydrologic Implications  of Solid-Waste  Disposal.   Circ.
     601-F,  U.  S.  Geol.  Surv.,  Washington D.  C.,  1970.   10  pp.

 2.   Garland, G. A.  and D.  C. Mosher.  Leachate  Effects  of Improper  Land  Dis-
     posal.  Waste Age,  March 1975.  pp.  42-48.

 3.   Exler,  H. J.   Defining the Spread of Groundwater Contamination Below a
     Waste Tip.  In:  Ground Water Pollution  in Europe,  J.  A.  Cole,  ed.
     Water Information  Center,  Port Washington, New York, 1974.  pp.  215-241.

 4.   Hughes, G. M.,  R.  A. Landon, and  R.  N. Farvolden.   Hydrogeology  of  Solid
     Wastes  Disposal Sites  in Northeastern Illinois.  Solid Waste Report
     SW-12d, U. S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington, D.  C., 1971.
     154 pp.

 5.   Qasim,  S. R. and J. C.  Burchinal.  Leaching  from Simulated Landfills.
     J. Water Pollution  Control Fed. 42 (3, pt. 1):  371-379,  1970.

 6.   U. S. Army Engineer, Waterways Experiment  Station.  The Unified  Soil
     Classification  System.  Tech. Memorandum No. 3-257, Vol.  1, USAE Water-
    ways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,  Mississippi, 1960.   30 pp.

 7.   Levinson, A. A.  Introduction to  Exploration Geochemistry.  Applied
    Publ. Co. Ltd.  Calgory, Canada,  1974.  612 pp.

8.  Ward, F. N., H. M. Nakagawa, T. F. Harms, and G. H. VanSickle.  Atomic
    Absorption Methods of Analysis Useful in Geochemical Exploration.  Bull.
     1289, U. S. Geol. Surv., Washington,  D. C., 1969.   45  pp.

9.  Foster,  J.  R.   The Reduction of Matrix Effects in Atomic Absorption
    Analysis and the Efficiency of Selected Extractions on Rock Forming
    Minerals.  In:  Geochemical Exploration, The Canadian  Institute of Mining
    and Metallurgy.  Special Vol. 11,  Ottawa, Canada, 1971.  pp.  554-560.

10.  U. S. Dept. of the Army.  Laboratory Soils Testing   Engineering Manual
    EM 1110-2-1906, U. S.  Dept. of the Army, Washington, D. C., 1970.  No
    pagination.

11.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Manual of Methods of  Chemical
    Analyses of Water and  Wastes.  EPA 625/6-74-003,  U. S.  Environmental
    Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  Ohio,  1971.   298 pp.
                                     102

-------
12. Siegel, Sidney.   Nonparameteric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.
    McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1956.   312 pp.

13. Siddiqui, and R. R. Parizek.   Application of Nonparametric Statistical
    Tests in Hydrogeology.  Groundwater, 10(2):26-31, 1972.

14. Palmquist, R. and L. V. A. Sendlein.  The Configuration of Contaminated
    Enclaves from Refuse Disposal Sites on Floodplains.  Groundwater, 13(2):
    167-181, 1975.

15. Griffin, R. A. and others.  Attenuation of Pollutants  in Landfill Leachate
    by Clay Minerals.  Environmental Geology Notes No. 78, Illinois Geological
    Survey, Urbana, Illinois, 1976.  34 pp.
                                       103

-------
            APPENDIX A




SUB-SURFACE INFORMATION FOR SITE A
               104

-------
            LEGEND

           WELL LOCATION
Figure A-l.
Water table map of site A  (contour  lines are elevation of water  table  in feet above mean
sea level).  0.305 m = 1 ft.

-------
                     TABLE A-l.  LOG OF BORING 1 AT SITE A
Elevation above MSL*
(m)
257.96 - 257.29
257.29 - 250.76
250.76 - 247.08
247.08 - 235.58
235.58 - 232.53
232.53 - 229.88
Depth (m) Description
0.0 - 0.67 Cover material (sand with some large
gravel)
0.67 - 7.20 Fill
7.20 - 10.88 Sand (SP) medium, light
traces of small gravel
10.88 - 22.38 Sand (SP) medium, light

brown with
brown
22.38 - 25.43 Sand (SP) medium to coarse tan with.
scattered gravel
25.43 - 28.08 Sand (SP) fine, tan with
streaks
orange
* MSL = mean sea level




Water table elevation above MSL = 232.53 m
                                    106

-------
                    TABLE A-2.  LOG OF BORING 2 AT SITE A
Elevation above MSL*
        (m)               Depth (m)                   Description


  257.00 - 255.78        0.0  -  1.22    Cover material (sand (SP)) medium to
                                           coarse, some gravel

  255.78 - 251.24        1.22 -  5.76    Waste

  251.24 - 250.32        5.76 -  6.68    Sand (SP) medium, light brown

  250.32 - 247.58        6.68 -  9.42    Sand (SP) medium to coarse, light
                                           brown with gravel

  247.58 - 230.5         9.42 - 26.50    Sand (SP) medium to coarse light
                                           brown with gravel


Water  table  elevation  above MSL =  231.01 m
                                       107

-------
                    TABLE A-3.  LOG OF BORING 3 AT SITE A
Elevation above MSL
         (m)              Depth  (m)                   Description


  258.57 - 255.52       0.0  -  3.05    Cover material  (sand  (SP)) medium to
                                          coarse brown

  255.52 - 250.71       3.05 -  7.86    Fill

  250.71 - 236.31       7.86 -  22.26    Sand (SP), medium to  coarse, brown
                                          with gravel

  236.31 - 229.97      22.26 -  28.60    Gravely sand (SP) medium to coarse,
                                          brown
Water table elevation above MSL * 231.22 m
                                      108

-------
                     TABLE A-4.  LOG OF BORING 4 AT SITE A
Elevation  above MSL
         (m)              Depth  (m)                   Description


  253.60 - 249.49        0.0   -   4.11    Sand  (SP) medium to coarse, light
                                          brown

  249.49 - 247.35        4.11  -   6.25    Sand  (SP) medium, brown with some
                                            gravel

  247.35 - 242.78        6.25  -  10.82    Sand  (SP) fine  to medium,  light brown

  242.78 - 241.80       10.82  -  11.80    Sandy gravel  (GP), light brown

  241.80 - 236.99       11.80  -  16.61    Sand  (SP) medium  to  coarse, light
                                          brown with  some gravel

  236.99 - 236.38       16.61  -  17.22    Sandy gravel  (GP), light brown

  236.38 - 230.12       17.22  -  23.48    Gravelly  sand (SP),  medium to coarse

-^—	
Water table elevation above MSL - 230.91  m
                                       109

-------
                     TABLE A-5.   LOG OF  BORING  5  AT  SITE  A
 Elevation  above MSL
         (m)               Depth (m)                   Description


   255.02 - 241.91        0.0   - 13.11     Sand  (SP), medium  to  coarse,  light
                                          brown with gravel

   241.91 - 237.18       13.11  - 17.84     Sand  (SP) , medium  to  coarse,  light
                                          brown

   237.18 - 236.57       17.84  - 18.45     Gravelly  sand  (SP), brown

   236.57 - 236.06       18.45  - 18.96     Sand  (SP), medium  to  coarse,  light
                                          brown

   236.06 - 231.24       18.96  -  23.78     Sand  (SP), medium  to  coarse,  light
                                          brown with gravel

   231.24 - 230.23       23.78  -  24.79     Sand  (SP), medium  to  coarse,  brown
Water table elevation above MSL * 231.10 m
                                       110

-------
                     TABLE A-6.  LOG OF BORING 6 AT SITE A
Elevation above MSL
        (m)              Depth (m)                   Description


  256.01 - 255.77       0.0  -  0.24    Sand (SP) fine-medium, dark brown

  255.77 - 254.33       0.24 -  1.68    Sand (SP), fine-medium, brown

  254.33 - 242.23       1.68 - 13.78    Sand (SP) medium-coarse, brown with
                                          gravel

  242.23 - 232.08      13.78 - 23.93    Sand (SP), medium-coarse, light brown
                                          scattered small gravel

  232.08 - 231.47      23.43 - 24.54    Gravelly sand  (SP), brown

  231.47 - 231.16      24.54 - 24.85    Sand (SP) , medium-coarse, light brown,
                                          with gravel

  231.16 - 231.10      24.85 - 24.91    Sandstone, tan

  231.10 - 229.95      24.91 - 26.06    Sand (SP), medium, brown
Water table elevation above MSL =•= 231.10 m
                                        I I

-------
                     TABLE A-7.  LOG OF BORING 7 AT SITE A
Elevation above MSL
(m)
255.
254.
252.
64 -
73 -
60 -
254.
252.
250.
73
60
82
Depth
0.
0.
3.
0 -
91 -
04 -
(m)
0.
3.
4.
Description
91
04
82
Sand
Sand
Sand
(SP)
(SP)
(SP)
, fine-medium,
, fine-medium,
, coarse, light
dark brown
brown
brown with
gravel
250.
250.
82 -
30 -
250.
247.
30
16
4.
5.
82 -
34 -
5.
8.
34
48
Sand
(SP)
Gravelly
, medium-coarse
, light brown
sand (SP) , medium-coarse,
                                          brown

  247.16 - 240.40    -   8.48 - 15.24    Sand (SP), medium-coarse,  brown with
                                          gravel
240
238
237
235
.40 -
.87 -
.20 -
.52 -
238
237
235
233
.87
.20
.52
.08
15
16
18
20
.24 -
.77 -
.44 -
.12 -
16.
18.
20.
22.
77
44
12
56
Sandy gravel (GP) ,
brown
Sand (SP) , medium-coarse, light
with gravel
Sandstone, tan
Sand, fine-medium,

light brown

brown


Water table elevation above MSL = 235.52 m
                                      112

-------
                    TABLE A-8.  LOG OF BORING 8 AT SITE A
Elevation above MSL
        (m)              Depth (m)                   Description


  265.04 - 264.28       0.0  -  0.76    Sand (SP) , fine, dark brown

  264.28 - 264.13       0.76 -  0.91    Sand (SP) , medium, brown with gravel

  264.13 - 258.94       0.91 -  6.10    Sand (SP) , coarse, brown with gravel

  258.94 - 249.10       6.10 - 15.94    Sand (SP), medium-coarse, brown, trace
                                          of gravel

  249.10 - 242.18      15.94 - 22.86    Sand (SP) , medium-coarse, brown, with
                                          gravel

  242.18 - 241.72      22.86 - 23.32    Sandy gravel (GP), brown

  241.72 - 231.35      23.32 - 33.69    Sand (SP), medium-coarse, brown with
                                          gravel

  231.35 - 230.34      33.69 - 34.7     Sand (SP) , medium-coarse, light brown


Water table elevation above MSL » 235.52 m
                                      113

-------
A-9.  LIST OF  SAMPLES EXAMINED FROM  SITE  A
•-•--—•• - - — •- 	 — 	 _ 	 _ 	
Elevation
of Elevation Thickness Thickness Elevation
top of of Total of of MW/soil Sampled depth
hole water table depth cover refuse interface interval (m)
Boring (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) From To
1 257.96 232.53 28.26 0.67 6.52 250.77 7.20
7.37
8.19
10.38
10.94
15.88
22.65
23.15
27.13
27.13
2 257.01 231.01 29.52 1.22 4.85 250.94 6.03
6.25
6.87
6.92
8.81
9.02
13.87
14.01
19.51
19.90
24.39
24.93
3 258.57 231.22 31.80 3.05 4.82 250.70 7.86
8.04
9.04
7.70



11,64

22.84




6.68

7.44
9.42

14.39

19.87

24.94

8.32


Elevation of
sampled
intervals (m) Type of
From To sample
250.76
250.59
249.77
247.58
247.02
242.08
235.31
234.81
230.83
230.83
250.98
250.76
250.14
250.09
248.20
247.99
243.14
243.00
237.50
237.11
232.62
232.08
250.71
250.53
249.53
250.26 physical
chemical
chemical
chemical
246.32 physical
chemical
235.12 physical
chemical
chemical
chemical
chemical
250.33 physical
chemical
249.57 physical
249.59 physical
chemical
242.62 physical
chemical
237.14 physical
chemical
232.07 physical
chemical
250.25 physical
chemical
chemical
Sample
number
1C1
1C2
1C3
1C4
1P1
1C5
1P2
1C6
1C7
1C8
2C1
2P1
2C2
2P2
2P3
2C3
2P4
2C4
2P5
2C5
2P6
2C6
3P1
3C1
3C2
                                         (continued)

-------
TABLE A-9.   (continued)
Elevation
of Elevation Thickness Thickness Elevation
t0p Of of Total of of MW/soil Sampled depth
hole water table depth cover refuse interface interval(m)
Boring (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) From To
10.
17.
18.
22.
22.
27.
4 253.60 230.91 23.48 NA NA NA 3.
6.
5 257.15 231.10 24.79 NA NA NA 4.
18.
6 256.01 231.10 26.06 NA NA NA 4.
4.
5.
7.
7.
13.
19.
19.
25.
7 255.64 235.52 22.56 NA NA NA 4.
5.
7.
7.
13.
82
97
30
25
85
84
20
25
57
62
44
72
92
81
77
93
96
00
15
17
42
15
49
65
77
26
11.


22.


3.
6.
5.
8.
18.
5.

8.


19.


4.


8.
13.
25


53


90
62
29
20
83
33

42


48


76


26
75
Elevation of
sampled
intervals (m)
From To
247
240
240
236
235
230
250
247
252
249
238
251
251
250
248
248
242
237
236
230
251
250
250
247
247
242
.75
.60
.27
.32
.72
.73
.4
.35
.58
.53
.71
.29
.09
.20
.24
.08
.05
.01
.86
.84
.22
.44
.15
.99
.87
.38
247.


236.


249.
246.
251.
248.
238.
250.

247.


236.


250.


247.
241.
32


04


7
98
86
95
32
69

59


53


88


38
89
Type of
sample
physical
chemical
chemical
physical
chemical
chemical
physical
physical
physical
physical
physical
physica
chemical
chemical
physical
chemical
chemical
physical
chemical
chemical
physical
chemical
chemical
chemical
physical
physical
Sample
number
3P2
3C3
3C4
3P3
3C5
3C6
4P1
4P2
5P1
5P2
5P3
6P1
6C1
6C2
6P2
6C3
6C4
6P3
6C5
6C6
7P1
7C1
7C2
7C3
7P2
7P3
                                        (continued)

-------
                                         TABLE A-9.   (concluded)
Elevation
of
top of
hole
Boring (m)



8 265.04



Elevation Thickness Thickness Elevation
of Total of of MW/soil
water table depth cover refuse interface
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m)



231.37 34.70 NA NA NA




Sampled depth
interval (m)
From To
13.41
19.27
22.32
14.32 15.03
17.38 17.96
28.65 28.99

Elevation of
sampled
intervals (m)
From To
242.23
236.37
233.32
250.72 250.01
247.66 247.08
236.39 236.05


Type of
sample
chemical
chemical
chemical
physical
physical
physical


Sample
number
7C4
7C5
7C6
8P1
8P2
8P3
NA * not applicable

-------
            APPENDIX B




SUB-SURFACE INFORMATION FOR SITE B
                117

-------
00
     Figure B-l.  Water table map  of  site  B  (contour  lines  are  elevation of water table in feet above mean
                  sea level).   0.305  m = 1 ft.

-------
                     TABLE B-l.  LOG OF BORING 1 AT SITE B
Elevation above
    MSL(m)
 Depth (m)
     Description
 60.15 - 54.27

 54.27 - 51.74

 51.74 - 51.03
0.0  - 5.88

5.88 - 8.41

8.41 - 9.12
Refuse

Clayey silt (ML), gray

Silty clay (CL), gray
Water table elevation above MSL * 54.34 m

-------
                    TABLE B-2.  LOG OF BORING 2 AT SITE B
Elevation above
MSL(m)
57.20 - 57.9
57.90 - 54.46
54.46 - 51.41
51.41 - 48.05
Depth (m) Description
0.0 - 0.30 Backfill
0.30 - 2.74 Refuse
2.74 - 5.79 Clayey silt (ML),
5.79 - 9.15 Clayey silt (ML),



gray
tan
Water table elevation above MSL * 50.94 m
                                     120

-------
                     TABLE B-3.  LOG OF BORING 3 AT SITE B
Elevation above
    MSL (m)                     Depth (m)                      Description

 58.96 - 58.66                 0.0  - 0.30                 Topsoil

 58.66 - 56.74                 0.30 - 2.22                 Refuse

 56.74 - 56.22                 2.22 - 2.74                 Silt  (ML), gray

 56.22 - 52.86                 2.74 - 6.10                 Silt  (ML), tan, wet


Water table elevation above MSL - 53.23 m
                                      121

-------
                     TABLE B-4.  LOG OF BORING 4 AT SITE B
 Elevation above
     MSL (m)
 Depth  (m)
       Description
 59.51 - 55.24

 55.24 - 51.89
0.0  - 4.27

4.27 - 7.62
Silt (ML), tan

Silt (ML), tan and grayish
  tan,  wet
Water table elevation above MSL - 53.84 m
                                      122

-------
                     TABLE B-5.   LOG OF BORING 5 AT SITE B
Elevation above
    MSL (m)
 Depth (m)
       Description
 62.20 - 57.63

 57.63 - 54.58

 54.58 - 52.44
0.0  - 4.57

4.57 - 7.62

7.62 - 9.76
Water table elevation above MSL * 53.35 m
Silt (ML),  tan

Silt (ML),  tan, wet

Silt (ML),  tan with gray
  specks, wet
                                       i in

-------
                    TABLE B-6.  LOG OF BORING 6 AT SITE B
Elevation above
    MSL (m)
 Depth (m)
       Description
 60.52 - 54.42

 54.42 - 51.37

 51.37 - 49.54
0.0  -  6.10

6.10 -  9.15

9.15 - 10.98
Water table elevation above MSL * 50.15 m
Silt (ML), tan

Silt (ML), tan and gray

Silt (ML), tan with shells
                                      124

-------
                    TABLE B-7.  LOG OF BORING 7 AT SITE B
Elevation above
    MSL (m)                     Depth (m)                     Description


 49.42 - 48.81                 0.0  - 0.61                Refuse

 48.81 - 45.91                 0.61 - 3.51                Silt  (ML), gray

 45.91-41.80                 3.51-7.62                Silt  (ML) tan, moist


Water table elevation above MSL =* 42.10 m
                                       125

-------
                     TABLE B-8.   LOG OF BORING 8 AT SITE B

Elevation above
MSL (m)
50.91 - 46.34
46.34 - 43.29
43.29 - 43.08
43.08 - 42.65
Depth (m) Description
0.0 - 4.57 Silt (ML)
4.57 - 7.62 Silt (ML), gray, wet
7.62 - 7.83 Silt (ML), tan
7.83 - 8.26 Silt (ML), light gray with shells

Water table elevation above MSL ~ 45.61 m
                                      126

-------
                       TABLE B-9.   LIST OF  SAMPLES EXAMINED FROM  SITE B

Elevation
of Elevation Thickness Thickness Elevation
t°F1of of Total °f of MW*/soil Sampled depth
. h°1f water table depth cover refuse interface interval(m)
Borin8 (m> <»> (») (») (m) {») From To
1 60.15 54.36 9.14 0.0 4.88 55.27 4.22
6.09
6.25 6.37
8.41 8.87
2 57.20 50.94 9.14 0.3 2.44 54.46 0.43
1.35
3.48
3.66 4.15
5.79 6.52
3 58.96 53.23 6.10 0.3 1.92 56.74 2.22
3.22
5.46
4 59.51 53.84 7.62 NA NA NA**
5 62.20 53.35 9.76 NA NA NA 0.20
0.92
3.05
6 60.52 50.15 10.98 NA NA NA 5.9
6.10 6.77
7.17
9.15 9.85
9.30
7 49.42 42.10 7.62 0.0 0.61 0.61 4.57 5.27
7.42
'" 50'91 45-61 8.26 NA NA NA 6.10 6.68
* ~ur.ici>al waste
'-' r.-_t *:,:,! icable


Elevation of
sampled
intervals (m)
From To
55.93
54.06
53.90 53.78
51.74 51.28
56.77
55.85
53.72
53.54 53.05
51.41 50.68
56.74
55.74
53.50
—
55.28
54.38
52.44
54.26
54.42 53.75
53.35
51.37 50.67
51.22
44.85 44.15
42.00
44.81 44.23




Type of
Ramp IP
chemical
chemical
physical
physical
chemical
chemical
chemical
physical
physical
chemical
chemical
chemical
__.
chemical
chemical
chemical
chemical
physical
chemical
physical
chemical
physical
chemical
physical




Sample
number
1C1
1C2
1P1
1P2
2C1
2C2
2C3
2P1
2P2
3C1
3C2
3C3
__
5C1
5C2
5C3
6C1
6P1
6C2
6P2
6C3
7P1
7C1
8P1


--  r,; ii.~.:,le selected

-------
                            APPENDIX C

                SUB-SURFACE INFORMATION FOR SITE C
                            WELL LOCATION
                            \  V  \ \   \  \
Figure C-l.  Water table map of site C (contour lines are elevation of
             water table in feet above mean sea level).  0.305 m = 1 ft,
                                 128

-------
                    TABLE C-l.   LOG OF BORING 1 AT SITE C

Elevation above MSL*
(m)
157.40-156.49
156.49-131.79
131.79-131.33
131.33-128.38
128.38-124.78
124.78
Depth (m)
0.0 - 0.91
0.91-25.61
25.61-26.07
26.07-29.02
29.02-32.62
32.62
Description
Clay (cover material)
Refuse
Silt (ML), tan
Silt (ML), red
Silty sand (SM) , brown
Schist
* MSL = mean sea level




Water table elevation above MSL = 127.01 m
                                     129

-------
                    TABLE C-2.  LOG OF BORING 2 AT SITE C

Elevation above MSL
(m)
145.85-144.63
144.63-139.75
139.75-137.31
137.31-128.17
128.17-126.64
126.64-123.26
Depth (m)
0.0 - 1.22
1.22- 6.10
6.10- 8.54
8.54-17.68
17.68-19.21
19.21-22.59
Description
Clay (cover material)
Refuse
Saturated fill
Refuse very wet
Silty sand (SM)
Sandy silt (ML)

Water table elevation above MSL - 127.26
                                      130

-------
                    TABLE C-3.   LOG OF BORING  3 AT SITE C
Elevation above MSL
        (m)               Depth (m)                   Description


   145.58-145.28          0.0 -  0.30       Cover material

   145.28-125.61          0.30-19.97        Refuse

   125.61-124.70         19.97-20.88        Clayey sandy silt (ML), light
                                              green

   124.70-123.32         20,88-22.26        Sandy silt (ML), brown with gravel

   123.32-122.72         22.26-22.86        Sandy silt (ML), brown


Water table elevation above MSL =  123.02
                                         m
                                      in

-------
                    TABLE C-4.  LOG OF BORING 4 AT SITE C
Elevation above MSL
        Cm)
 Depth (m)
     Description
   136.43-135.39

   135.39-130.33

   130.33-125.36

   125.36-124.91
 0.0 - 1.04

 1.04- 6.10

 6.10-11.07

11.07-11.52
Backfill

Clayey sandy silt (ML),  brown

Sandy silt (ML),  brown

Highly weathered schist
Water table elevation above MSL = 125.40 m
                                      132

-------
                    TABLE C-5.   LOG OF BORING 5 AT SITE C

Elevation above MSL
(m)
131.61-131.00
131 .-00-130. 09
130.09-127.95
127.95-127.04
127.04-126.31
Depth (m) Description
0.0 -0.61 Backfill
0.61-1.52 Silty clay
1.52-3.66 Silty clay
3.66-4.57 Sandy silt
4.57-5.30 Sandy silt
tan, wet

(CL) , dark gray
(CL) , tan
(ML), red, tan
(ML), red and
Water table elevation above MSL = 127.04 m
                                      133

-------
                    TABLE C-6.  LOG OF BORING 6 AT SITE C

Elevation above MSL
(m)
133.81-132.90
132.90-130.76
130.76-126.71
Depth (m)
0.0 -0.91
0.91-3.05
3.05-7.01
Description
Silty clay (CL) , brown
Clayey sandy silt (ML) , tan
Sandy silt (ML), brown

Water table elevation above MSL = 6.77 m
                                     134

-------
                    TABLE C-7.  LOG OF BORING 7 AT SITE C

Elevation above MSL
(m)
125.27-122.83
122.83-121.92
121.92-121.64
Depth (m) Description
0.0 -2.44 Sandy silt
brown
2.44-3.35 Sandy silt
3.35-3.63 Silty sand
(ML), reddish
(ML) brown, damp
(SM) fine, green
Water table elevation above MSL = 121.71 m
                                      n r>

-------
                    TABLE C-8.   LOG OF BORING 8  AT SITE  C

Elevation above MSL
(m)
132.38-131.47
131.47-130.25
130,25-129.18
Depth (m)
0.0 -0.91
0.91-2.13
2.13-3.20
Description
Clayey silt (ML), tan with
Clayey silt (ML), brown
Sandy silt (ML) , brown

gravel


Water table elevation above MSL = 130.55 m
                                     136

-------
                    TABLE C-9.   LOG OF BORING 9 AT SITE C

Elevation above MSL
(m)
145.55-142.70
142.70-133.90
133.90-131.53
Depth (m) Description
0.0 - 3.35 Sandy silt
brown
3.35-11.65 Sandy silt
11.65-14.02 Silty sand
(ML), reddish
(ML) , brown
(SM), brown

Water table elevation above MSL = 131.95 m
                                       137

-------
oc
5




6
                                       TABLE  C-10.  LIST OF  SAMPLES  EXAMINED FROM  SITE C
               145.58
136.46








131.62




133.81
                145.85     127.26
125.40









127.04




127.04
                                      22.59
                                                                   128.17
                                      22.36    0.30
                                                         19.66
                                                                  125.62
                                        52
                                       -.JZ
                                        18
                                       . 1O
                                      7.0!
                                              NA
NA









NA




NA
                                                                    NA
                                                                   NA
• •
25.91
28.96
18.29
18.39
19.30
21.44
22.26
19.97
20.08
21.01
22.28
22.47
1.70
8.49
11.72
* -•-** *_ w-i
	 . 	
26.36 131.50
130.48
29.40 128.45
128.34
18.96 127.56
127.46
124.' 41
22.59 123.59
20.46 125.61
125.50
124.57
123.20
22.92 123.11
2.03 134.76
8.76 127.97
124.74
	 	 	 	 	
131.05 physical
chemical
chemical
128.01 physical
chemical
126.89 physical
chemical
chemical
chemical
122.92 physical
125.12 physical
chemical
chemical
chemical
122.66 physical
134.43 physical
127.70 physical
chemical
Sample
number
— 	 .
1P1
1C1
1C2
1P2
1C3
2P1
2C1
2C2
2C3
2P2
3P1
3C1
3C2
3C3
3P2
4P1
4P2
4C1
                                                                            i.7
                                                                                         126.92
                                                                                                         chemical   5C1
0.91
1.35
2.27
4,40
1.46 132.90
132.46
131.54
129.41
132.35 physical
chemical
chemical
chemical
6P1
6C1
6C2
6C3
                                                                                             (continued)

-------
 Boring
                                              TABLE C-10.   (continued)
Elevation
   of
 top of
  hole
   (m)
          125.27


          132.38

          145.55
 Elevation
    of
water table
    (m)
       Thickness  Thickness  Elevation
.  .,      of         of       MW/soil   Sampled depth
depth    cover     refuse    interface   interval(m)
                     (m)        (m)      From     To
                         Elevation of
                           sampled
                         intervals (m)
                         From     To
                                                                                                        Type of
                                                                                                        sample
            121.71
                        4.12     NA
            130.50      3.20     NA

            132.0      14.02     NA
                                  NA


                                  NA

                                 NA
NA


NA

NA
                                         4.57
                                         5.93
                                         7.75

                                         0.91
                                         3.47

                                        2.24
                                                                                  5.11
                                                                        1.58
                                                                              129.24
                                                                              127.88
                                                                              126.06
                                                      130.14
'•A -  not applicable

-'ore:   All elevations are given with reference to mean sea level.
                                                                                                        Sample
                                                                                                        number
                                                                                                128.70  physical    6P2
                                                                                                        chemical    6C4
                                                                                                        chemical    6C5
                                                                              124.36  123.69  physical    7P1
                                                                              121-80          chemical    7C1
                                                                      chemical    8C1
2.08
2. 98
5.11
7.32
9.38
13.64
143.47
142.57
140.44
7.88 138.23
136.17
131.91
chemical
chemical
chemical
137.67 physical
chemical
chemical
9C1
9C2
9C3
9P1
9C4
9C5

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 . REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-096
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Chemical and Physical Effects of Municipal I
on Underlying Soils and Groundwater
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESS1OI>NO.
5. REPORT DATE
anHfilK M^ 1 ™ ( I
ssuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGAN IZATION REPORT NO.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Effects Laboratory
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Sta
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180
12, SPONSORING AGENCV NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Robert E. Landreth, Project
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1DC618
Hon 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
IAG-D4-0569
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
—fin. -OH Final, June 1975-December 197R
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
Officer, 684-7871
16. ABSTRACT lhree munjcipai landfill sites in the eastern and central United States were
studied to determine the effects of the disposal facilities on surrounding soils and
groundwater . Borings were made up the groundwater gradient, down the groundwater
gradient and through the landfill. Soil and groundwater samples from the test borings
were examined, Groundwater samples were analyzed chemically. Soil samples were testec
physically and distilled water extracts and nitric acid digests of the soils were anal-
yzed chemically. Groundwater samples from under and downgradient from the landfill
showed elevated levels of sulfate in every case. At some sites increased levels nf
nitrate, total organic carbon and cyanide could be related to the presence of the
landfill. No changes in physical characteristics could be related to the presence of
the landfill at any site. No evidence was found in this study to indicate that <;nK
landfill soils seal themselves. Distilled water extracts prepared from soil ?Lninc
showed consistently low levels for all soluble constituents. Generally there Si 6S
more sulfate, chloride, organic carbon, nitrate and high levels of trarp m^taic ?„
extracts of soils from under the landfill than from soils collected at similar deSrhs
outside the landfill. Nitric acid digests of soil samples showed great variahilitt/ ^«
chemical composition. At two of the three sites; iron, manganese, boron berv ,,m
and zmc were found in higher concentrations in nitric acid digests immediately under
hSt nnfnhlc- Tfe Fsuljs 
-------