-------
1200
1000
800
a
a 600
Q
O
U
400
200
0-
C
<
a
v
CO
u
o
> u
O 0)
z a
e
a
0)
Cu
a
em
3m
Figure 7.6 Graph of C.O.D. vs time for site 3
soil moisture samples
76
-------
O Bkg
& A-2
O A-5
500(
400( .
300(
- 200C
100C
Figure 7.7 Graph of Cl vs tine for site 3
soil moisture samples
77
-------
Oil Content
Table 7.23 shows oil content values for some soil
pore water samples from each of the three sites. There
does not appear to be much correlation between the oil
content and the TOC/COD values for the soil pore water.
The sample from area 3 at site 2 had an oil content of
0.8 mg/1 and a TOC of 2433 mg/1, while the sample from
area 6 at site 1, had an oil content of 133.2 mg/1 and a
TOC of 488.7 mg/1.
The values show that oil can be leached from the top
layers of the soil for some time after application of
residues has ceased at a site.
TABLE 7.23 OIL CONTENT OF SOIL PORE WATER
Site No.
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
Location
Area
Area
Area
Bkg
Area
Area
Bkg
Area
1
6
6
3
6 U*
2
Date Oil Content (mg/1)
12/1/82
12/1/82
1/13/83
7/8/82
2/16/83
2/16/83
3/8/83
3/8/83
60
73
133
<0
0
71
<0
13
.7
.0
.2
.1
.8
.4
.1
.2
* U - untilled.
DEEP CORE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Deep cores refer to samples taken below 51 cm depth.
These samples were analyzed for oil content, metals and
priority pollutants as a part of the unsaturated zone
monitoring program.
Oil Content
The oil content of the deep cores taken at the sites
with the exception of 2 samples at site 2 and at site 1,
were all less than 0.1%, indicating that no oil had mi-
78
-------
grated below 51 cm. At site 2, two samples from area 6
had oil content values of 0.21 and 0.24%. Site 2 was the
most permeable of the 3 sites, and area 6 was the area at
site 2 with the highest oil content. Thus, it is pos-
sible that oil might have reached the 124 cm (49 inches)
depth. The high value at site 1 was in area 1, which had
the lowest oil content at the site. It appears that this
value was an outlier, since all other concentrations were
very low, and the permeability of the site soil was very
low. The oil content data is presented in Table 7.24.
Priority Pollutants
A number of organic priority pollutants were identi-
fied in the core samples at the unsaturated zone at the
three sites. Table 7.25 lists the compounds identified
at the sites. No compounds were found at all three
sites, only 5 were found at 2 sites, and all other com-
pounds at only one site. Anthracene, 1,2-Diphenylhyra-
zine, Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, Butylbenzylphthalate
and 2,4-Dichlorophenol were the compounds found at 2
sites.
Priority pollutants were also found in the back-
ground cores at the sites. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine was
found at site 1 and phenol at site 3. Site 2 background
cores contained 5 compounds. The area from which back-
ground cores were taken at site 2, was contaminated with
oil after the project started. This may be the reason
for some of the anomalous results obtained with back-
ground samples taken from this area.
Concentrations of the compounds identified in the
analysis of the deep cores are given in Tables B-5
through B-8, Appendix B. These concentrations are not
absolute, but represent rough guides, since no study on
recoveries of organics from soil matrices was performed.
79
-------
TABLE 7.24 OIL CONTENT DATA FOR DEEP CORES
Date Location/Depth(cm) Oil Content{%)
Site 1
12/30/81 2(114-127) .02
3(81-122) .01
6(81-104) .03
6/30/82 Bkg(102-112) .05
Bkg(152-168) .11
1(127-141) .74
6(107-117) .06
6(152-163) .05
Site 2
12/21/81 3(66-76) .03
3(76-91) .02
3(91-102) .02
5(66-91) .00
5(124-152) .00
6(66-81) .21
6(81-124) .24
6(124-147) .04
7/8/82 2(84-94) .04
4(86-102) .03
4(127-137) .02
6(127-147) .02
Bkg(76-107) .07
Bkg(142-157) .04
Site 3
12/28/81 2(76-91) .03
3(81-91) .01
5(69-76) .02
6/29/82 Bkg(76-89) .03
Bkg(117-130) .05
2(114-122) .02
6(132-142) .03
80
-------
TABLE 7.25 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS PRESENT IN UNSATURATED
ZONE CORES
Compound Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
Acenaphthene x
1.2-Disphenylhydrazine x x
2,4 Dinitrotoluene x
Anthracene x x
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate x x
Isophorone x
Acenaphthylene x
Fluorene x
Diethylphthalate x
Butylbenzylphthalate x x
2-Nitrophenol x
4-Nitrophenol x
2.4-Dichlorophenol x x
Phenol x
Phenanthrene x
Pyrene x
Chrysene x •
Benzo(a)anthracene x
Benzo(b)fluoranthene x
Benzo(k)fluoranthene x
Benzo(a)pyrene x
2,6-Dinitrotoluene x
Di-n-butylphthalate x
81
-------
Metals
The metal concentrations in the deep cores were not
significantly above background concentrations, except for
the nickel concentrations in both the first set of cores
from the (127-152) cm depth at site 1, and the first set
of cores from the (114-142) cm depth at site 3. However,
the concentrations were quite low, 33 and 49 mg/kg at
site 1 and 3, respectively. Thus, it appears that no
buildup of metals occurred in the unsaturated zone. The
raw metal data is given in Table C-6, and the mean con-
centrations in Table C-7, in Appendix C.
Discussion of Results
Monitoring of the unsaturated zone at these three
sites revealed some interesting facts. The water passing
through the unsaturated zone contained high amounts of
chloride, and appreciable amounts of Freon extractable
compounds (oil and grease). Some metals are apparently
solubilized under the conditions which exist at these
sites. Even though the pH of the soil pore water and the
pH of the soil in the top 51 cm (20 inches) were both
above 6.5 (usually above 7.0), barium, zinc, iron and
manganese were found at fairly high concentrations,
especially iron and manganese, in the soil pore water.
Further monitoring of soil pore water at land treatment
sites is necessary to verify these results.
No evidence of migration of oil into the soil of the
unsaturated zone (below 50 cm) was found. However the
results suggest that there is some movement of organic
priority pollutants into the unsaturated zone. It must
be stressed that the quantitative values presented for
these priority polluants are intended as guides only,
since no work on recovery of organics from soil matrices
was performed. The deep soil cores contained more
compounds than the soil pore water. Whether this may due
82
-------
to better recoveries from the soil matrices as opposed to
the aqueous phase, or to the absence of these compounds
in the aqueous phase has not been determined.
The soil pore water also showed levels of TOC and
COD much above background at all sites. However, it
appears that the oxidizable material present may have a
large inorganic component, since the TOC/COD values at
site 2 are in the same range as those at site 3, where
the soil organic content is very much higher. If the
oxidizable material were primarily organic, one would
expect site 3 to have much higher TOC/COD values than
site 2.
At site 2, where the soil moisture samplers were
located under tilled and untilled sections of area 6, the
TOC, COD and Cl concentrations, as presented in Figures
7.3-7.5, are higher under the untilled area than under
the tilled area.
This suggests that tilling the soil does have the
effect of reducing the concentration of substances in the
soil pore water. This is probably because the permea-
bility of the tilled area is increased, resulting in less
leaching of the till zone by infiltrating water. This
results in lower contaminant concentration in the soil
pore water, since most of the contaminants are in the
till zone.
83
-------
SECTION 8
EMISSIONS STUDY
During the course of the closure study, it was ob-
served that after tilling the soil at the landfarm sites,
a strong smell of hydrocarbons was present in the tilled
areas. It was decided to attempt to determine whether
significant levels of hydrocarbons were being emitted
from the site as a result of the tilling operation. A
hydrocarbon monitor called a Bacharach TLV-Sniffer was
used. This is not a standard procedure, but has been
used by Radian Corporation to assess emissions from the
land treatment of oily sludges. The TLV Sniffer has a
sensitivity range from 1 to 10,000 ppm of gas. The
Sniffer functions by catalytically oxidizing the gas in
the air sample. The catalyst is coated on an element
whose resistance charges with the amount of oxidized gas,
and this change in resistance is compared to an identical
element not subject to oxidized gas. An electrical sig-
nal is generated, which depends on the difference in re-
sistance between the two elements, which in turn depends
on the amount of hydrocarbon present originally. Table
8.1 presents data obtained by using the Sniffer at sites
1 and 3 on background soil, and site soil before and af-
ter tilling. It should be noted that the soil at site 1
was fairly wet when these readings were taken, while at
site 3 the site was dry. At site 1, the soil was too wet
to till, and so readings were taken from a section of the
site which had been tilled before, and a section which
34
-------
TABLE 8.1 CONC. OF HYDROCARBONS EMITTED AT SITES 1 AND 3
Location
Hydrocarbons Emitted
(mg/hr/M2)
Site 1, Control Area
Site 1, Untilled Area
Site 1, Tilled Area
Site 3, Background
Site 3, Before Tilling
Site 3, After Tilling
1.2
1.2
1.7
1.2
10.2
25.2
Site 1 - Site soil was wet
Site 2 - Site soil was dry
85
-------
had never been tilled. At site 3 the same area was test-
ed before and after tilling.
The results obtained from site 3, which had not had
any residues applied for 18 months when these readings
were taken, suggest that hydrocarbons are emitted from a
land treatment site for a long time after application of
residues, and that tilling increases the rate of these
emissions. The data from site 1 suggests no appreciable
increase in emissions occurs. However, the soil at site
1 was wet and could not be tilled just prior to taking
the readings. This could have affected the quantity of
hydrocarbons emitted from the tilled area.
86
-------
SECTION 9
RUNOFF STUDY
The objective of this study was to determine whether
runoff from closed land treatment sites contained any
selected hazardous constituents. To carry out this
study, a wooden frame was installed at each site. This
frame consisted of four (4) 2 x 12 pieces of. board 3.7
meters (12 feet) , connected together to form a square
with one end open. The open end was attached to a metal
flume 5 cm. (2 inches) wide, 15 cm. (6 inches) deep and 1
meter (38 inches) long. The frame was installed at each
site so that the corner with the flume was down slope, so
that any rain which fell inside the flume would run off
towards the open end to which the flume was attached.
Water was then applied inside the frame in the form
of a spray, to simulate the 25 year, 24 hour storm for
the particular area in Oklahoma. Site one received the
equivalent of 15 cm. (6 inches) , and sites 2 and 3 re-
ceived 18 cm. (7 inches) , since these were the amounts
that would be the equivalent of the 25 year, 24 hour
storm as obtained from Technical Paper No. 40, published
by the Weather Bureau (Hersfield, 1981). The water was
applied over a period of about two hours, and the runoff
collected at fixed intervals until the runoff stopped,
and composited. Samples from the composite were then
analyzed for
(1) priority pollutants (2) metals
(3) oil content
87
-------
(4) COD/TOC
Table 9.1 shows the COD/TOC values, Table 9.2 oil
and grease and Table 9.3 metals shown to be present in
the runoff from the three sites.
TABLE 9.1 COD/TOC CONC. OF RUNOFF
Site No.
, 1
2
3
COD
(mg/1 as 0.)
120
5
540
TOC
(mg/1 as
18
<5
495
C)
The runoff area at site 1 was untilled with no
grass, site 2 was grass covered, site 3 was tilled with
no grass cover. Runoff started at sites 1 and 2, which
were untilled, quite soon after application of the spray
water. However, at site 3, which was tilled, it took
much longer for runoff to start, and the color of the
runoff was much darker than at either of the other two
sites.
TABLE 9.2 OIL AND GREASE CONCENTRATION OF RUNOFF
Location
Site
Site
Site
1
2
3
Results and
, Runoff
, Runoff
, Runoff
Discussion
Oil and Grease mg/1
8.4
10.8
35.8
The color of the runoff from site 3 was brownish,
with suspended particulate material. The runoff from
88
-------
'TABLE 9.3 METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN RUNOFF WATER
oo
Site 1
Applied water
Runoff 1
Runoff 2
Site 2
Applied water
Runoff 1
Runoff 2
Site 3
Applied water
Runoff 1
Runoff 2
Ag
0.015
.019
.025
.006
.013
.017
.019
.004
.005
Al
.04
1.63
1.19
.09
0.07
.28
.19
.86
.34
Cd Cr
<.01 .04
<.01 .09
<.01 <.003
< .01 < .003
<.01 .04
<.01 <.003
<.01 .02
<.01 .01
<.01 <.003
Cu
.05
.09
.10
.01
.01
.01
.01
<.002
.01
Fe
.150
1.863
0.830
< .005
.323
.294
.050
.490
.373
Mn
<.003
.008
.011
< .008
.033
2.72
.020
1.51
.021
Ni
.010
.046
<.008
< .02
<.008
<.008
.045
<.008
<.008
Pb
<.02
<.02
.02
< .02
<.02
<.02
0.17
<.02
<-. 02
Zn
<.001
<.001
.050
.34
.060
.220
<.001
<.001
<.001
-------
site 2 was almost colorless with little suspended materi-
al. The runoff from site 3 was a pale brown color, with
suspended particulate material.
The COD and oil and grease data indicate that the
runoff from tilled areas without grass cover contains
more organic material than runoff from untilled areas
without grass cover. Even though the oil content of the
areas under study at site 1 (s8%) and site 3 (s!4%) was
appreciably different, the reason for the difference in
the concentrations of oil and grease and COD of the run--
off from these sites, appears to be the longer time that
it takes to get runoff at site 3. Here the soil was
tilled, and the water first had to saturate the soil, be-
fore runoff could begin, resulting in a darker colored
runoff with higher organic concentrations. At site 1
where no tilling had occurred, the soil was compacted,
resulting in low infiltration rates and immediate runoff.
Site 2 was grass covered, and had a low oil content
(s3%) . These factors combined to produce a runoff which
was low in organic content.
Duplicate determinations of metal ion concentrations
were carried out on samples of the runoff from each site.
The concentration of metals in the water applied to the
sites was also determined. Table 9.3 lists the results
of these analyses. There were differences in the metal
ion concentrations between duplicates for some metals.
This variation between samples is probably due to the
fact that the runoff contained particulate material, and
the determinations were made for total metal concentra-
tions. Thus, it is possible that the different samples
contained varying amounts of particulate material, des-
pite the fact that the sample containers were thoroughly
mixed prior to sampling.
Two metals appeared in the runoff from all three
90
-------
sites at appreciable higher concentrations than in the ap-
plied water. These metals are aluminum and iron. The
runoff from the sites did not contain any of the organic
priority pollutants evaluated (Table 7.1) above detection
limits (0.1 ppb). Only base neutrals and phenolics were
evaluated. In this particular study, only two of the 11
metals determined showed up at increased concentration
levels in the runoff. These metals were aluminum and
iron.
91
-------
SECTION 10
REVEGETATION STUDY
The purpose of the revegetation study was to develop
an insight into the process of site closure by studying
the effect of oil refinery residues on selected plant
species. At the time this study was conducted very
little knowledge was available for the closure of sites
and no formal guidelines concerning the revegetation of
sites existed. Although grasses were the obvious primary
choice for revegetation, the OU/EPA cooperative team also
agreed that trees should be included in the study in
order to determine whether certain species of trees could
successfully be grown in the closure and early post clo-
sure periods. Trees are useful in minimizing wind ero-
sion and have aesthetic value. Because most trees grow
slowly in relation to grass it was felt that an attempt
should be made to investigate the feasibility of planting
trees as soon as conditions in the closure site per-
mitted.
Species Descriptions
Several species of trees and grasses were selected
for field study. The plants which were selected had a
number of attributes which made them suitable for revege-
tation purposes. The most important attribute, common to
all species, was their known hardiness.
In addition, trees were selected which have shallow
roots in order to reduce the possibility of the roots
acting as channels for the contamination of ground water.
92
-------
Five tree species and four grass species were chosen from
a survey of vegetation growing in the state of Oklahoma.
Colonial bentgrass, however, was an exception. The
selected species are listed below. A brief charac-
terization of each also follows.
Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.)
The black locust is a member of the Legume fam-
ily. The natural range of this species is the cen-
tral Appalachian and Ozark mountains but it has been
cultivated widely -and now reproduces on its own
throughout Eastern North America and parts of the
West (Elias 1980). The black locust has been plant-
ed extensively in the state of Oklahoma. It can be
found in moist woodlands, farm lots, along fences
and roads, and in urban environments (Phillips
1959) .
Reclamation studies have shown the black locust
to be widely adapted to all classes of mine spoils.
The black locust has the ability to fix nitrogen and
grows rapidly giving quick cover. This species is
valuable as a nurse crop for forest planting because
it improves soils by adding nitrogen and organic
matter. Black locusts can be attacked by the locust
borer beetle which results in multiple stem shoots
sprouting after the main stem deteriorates (Thames
1977).
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis L.)
The hackberry tree is a member of the elm fami-
ly. It is widely distributed in the Eastern United
States. The hackberry is adapted to a variety of
soils. In Oklahoma it may be found on slopes, rocky
hills and bottom lands.
The hackberry frequently grows in limestone
soils and on limestone outcrops. In good soils this
93
-------
tree is fast growing and may live up to 200 years.
Because of its drought resistance this species is
often planted in the Midwest (Elias 1980). The
hackberry has good adaptation to disturbed areas
(Thames 1977).
Osage Orange (Madura pomifera (Raf.) Schneid)
The osage orange, "Bodark", is a member of the
mulberry family. The native range of this species
is uncertain, but it is found from Southwest
Arkansas to East Oklahoma and Texas. This tree is
widely planted in the Eastern and Northwestern
states (Little 1980) .
The osage orange is basically a lowland tree
that grows best in deep rich bottom lands, but it
will tolerate a wide range of soils. In Oklahoma
this stout tree is considered to be quite hardy and
has been planted as a windbreak and hedgerow species
(Phillips 1959) .
Red Cedar (Juniperus Virginiana L.)
The eastern red cedar is the most widespread
conifer of eastern North America. This species is
also the most drought resi-stant conifer found in the
east. The tree is rather slow growing and lives to
a moderate age of 200-350 years (Elias 1980) .
The red cedar is found scattered throughout the
state of Oklahoma in all classes and.conditions of
soils - from low, wet, swampy areas to dry, rocky
ridges containing thin soils. This tree is said to
"seemingly thrive on barren soils where few other
trees are found" (Phillips 1959). Reclamation
studies in the state have shown the red cedar to be
especially well adapted to high clay mined land
(Thames 1977) .
94
-------
Russian Olive (Elaeagnus anqustifolia L.)
The russian olive is a member of the oleaster
family. This tree is native to Southern Europe and
Central Asia. It was introduced into the United
States during colonial times. This tree has been
planted and naturalized from New England west to
California (Little 1980) .
The russian olive is tolerant of soils from
salty to alkaline. Because of its dense branches,
extreme hardiness and resistance to drought, it has
been planted extensively as a windbreak in the prai-
rie states (Elias 1980) . The russian olive has good
adaptation to disturbed areas and maintains a fairly
fast growth rate (Thames 1977) .
Bermudagrass (Cynadon dactylon Pers.)
Bermudagrass is a warm season, sod forming, pe-
rennial turfgrass which propagates and spreads by
stolons as well as by underground rootsta'lks. Seed-
ing of bermudagrass is dependable only where winters
are not extremely cold and there are no prolonged
drought periods. For vigorous growth and root de-
velopment, sodding or sprig planting is the desired
method of propagation (Archer and Bunch, 1953) .
Introduced from India, bermudagrass grows from
Massachusetts to Missouri and Oklahoma. It is cul-
tivated for grazing or lawn use. It is a weed of
ditches, vacant lots, roadways, and is well adapted
to clayey bottomlands which are occasionally subject
to flooding (Gould 1978) .
Bermudagrass sod is used extensively for ero-
sion control on streambanks, earthfills and slopes.
This species does best on moderately well drained
soil and has a wide pH range tolerance. One of the
primary uses of bermudagrass in Oklahoma is for re-
95
-------
vegetation of strip mines. Bermudagrass requires
high amounts of nitrogen for superior yields and may
become sod bound if not cultivated after four to
seven years (Thames 1977).
Colonial Bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis Sibth.)
Colonial bentgrass is a cool season perennial
species. It is loosely tufted with short rootstalks
and abundant fibrous roots. Mat forming charac-
teristics make this a favorable species for lawns
and golf courses. Colonial bentgrass is one of the
many bentgrasses common to Great Britain (Vasey
1893) .
Colonial bentgrass is able to thrive on lime
poor soils in New England and many parts of the
northern and middle Atlantic states. This hardy
species is most known for its tolerance for heavy
metals. Populations of colonial bentgrass have been
used for the reclamation of metalliferous mine
wastes in England. Bentgrass has been used to re-
claim acid and calcareous wastes containing lead,
zinc and copper (Smith and Bradshaw, 1979) .
Crabgrass (Digitaria Sanguinalis (L.) Scop.)
Large crabgrass is a warm season, shallow-
rooted annual species. It reproduces by seed and
its tufts increase in size by rooting where the
nodes touch the soil. Crabgrass can be found grow-
ing in a wide variety of soils throughout the United
States, especially in the East and South (Phillips
Petroleum 1963).
Crabgrass volunteers well on disturbed soils.
It is a common invader on abused native ranges and
has been found to be palatable to livestock. Crab-
grass prefers well drained conditions and will not
survive on water logged soil. This grass is very
96
-------
drought resistant and responds rapidly to precipita-
tion and nitrogen addition (Dalrymple).
Bermudagrass is easily confused with crabgrass.
Crabgrass is larger than bermudagrass and tends to
sprawl on top of the ground rather than forming
dense mats. Crabgrass is the most unpopular lawn
and garden weed. It does, however, possess nutri-
tive qualities which make it useful as a forage
crop. Watts et al. (1981) found that this species
did well on their land treatment site.
Weeping Lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula)
Weeping lovegrass is a stout, warm season, pe-
rennial bunchgrass with narrow, weeping blades and
extensive fibrous roots. This grass was first in-
troduced from South Africa and was planted exten-
sively in the Southwest and Southcentral parts of
the United States during 1936 to 1945 where it is
well adapted (Archer 1953).
Weeping lovegrass is easily established by seed
and spreads by tillering. Young seedlings are vig-
orous and quickly form a ground cover. This grass
is often planted for erosion control and grazing.
Weeping lovegrass does well on any type of well
drained soil but prefers sandy loam. Good stands
can be obtained on soils with undesirable charac-
teristics (Dalrymple 1976) .
Weeping lovegrass is one of the best grasses
for marginal low potential soils. It does well on
low fertility soil but does best on fertile soil.
Soil pH has little influence on the adaptation of
lovegrass. Weeping lovegrass will grow on acid mine
spoils and on soils which are highly basic. This
grass is heat and drought resistant but has a higher
water requirement when grown on clay soils as
97
-------
opposed to sandy ones. The hardiness of this grass
increases with precipitation (Dalrymple 1976) .
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Site Characterization
The field studies were conducted on an 11,700 ft
section of site 3. The land treatment area of site 3
totaled 7.04 acres. No residues had been placed on the
study site for ten months before revegetation tests were
conducted. The southern part of the study site contained
a higher oil concentration than the northern one and was
designated area B. The northern section which had less
oil content was designated area A. Thus, a comparison
could be made between a lighter and heavier oil content
with subsequent effects on revegetation. Lime and
fertilizer were applied to the treatment area to satisfy
the needs of the plants and soil microorganisms. The
fertilizer applications were made as needed at a rate of
300 Ib/acre of 10:20:10 or 40-0-0.
The soil in the study area is classified as a clay
soil and contains 20% sand, 32% silt and 48% clay. The
cation exchange capacity is 14 ce/lOOcm. All of the soil
used for laboratory investigations was taken from the
land treatment and control sites.
Trees
Field site 3 was prepared and trees were planted on
March 26, 1982. The control site was prepared by first
clearing away brush and weeds with a bulldozer and then
tilling the soil to a 46 centimeter depth. Care was
taken during the cleaning operation to remove as little
topsoil as possible. The land treatment area was also
tilled to the same depth.
The selected tree species were donated for study by
the Oklahoma State Forestry Division. Trees were all in
98
-------
the first year seedling stage. The seedlings were placed
in holes which were 46 centimeters deep by 20 centimeters
wide. All of the holes were filled upon planting with a
mixture of soil from the control area and peat moss, then
thoroughly watered.
Trees were spaced at 1.2 meter intervals in rows
which ran from north to south for each species. The
trees were planted in the following order from west to
east: black locust, osage orange, hackberry, russian
olive, and red cedar. Herein, the northern part of the
land treatment site has been designated area A, the
southern part area B, and the control site area C.
Forty-five trees, nine of each species, were planted in
area A. Fifty trees, ten of each species, were planted
in area B and in area C. Individual trees were numbered
from north to south, 1-10, for each species.
A thin layer (9,346 cubic centimeters) of an organic
mulch (tradename Permagreen) was spread around the base
of each tree to counteract some of the ill effects of
summer heat. The mulch was applied July 14, 1982 to all
trees and was mainly composed of composted cotton plants.
A weedeater and lawnmower were employed to control weeds
in area C. Photographs were taken periodically to record
the development of individual trees.
Measurements of growth were made for each tree
through the month of November 1982. November marked a
time of natural leaf abscission, at this stage, it was
difficult to distinguish a dormant tree from a dead one.
The measurements that were taken were for height and
basal width were made using a standard tape measure and a
vernier caliper. Trees were hand watered to supplement
rainfall.
Grasses
Grasses were planted after a long period of heavy
99
-------
spring rains on June 29, 1982. All areas were tilled to
a depth of 10 centimeters. In each of the three areas A,
B and C, four 1.83 meter by 1.83 meter plots, were marked
off and a 1.22 meter space left between each plot. These
plots were located adjacent to the tree study areas.
The crabgrass seed that was used was a hardy experi-
mental variety, selection RR-174. Crabgrass seed was
donated by the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Ardmore.
Weeping lovegrass and colonial bentgrass seeds were pur-
chased from local dealers. The bermudagrass sod was tak-
en from fairly pure stands growing within one mile of the
study site.
A 1.9 centimeter layer of commercially processed cow
manure was spread on each of the tilled plots. The
manure contained 1% total nitrogen, 1% available
phosphorous acid and 1% available potassium. Grass seed
for all species was broadcast at a rate of 3.4
kg/hectare. A final 0.6 centimeter covering of the
manure was spread over the seeds. The bermuda sod was
cut with a sod stripper and placed on the prepared manure
bed by the solid sodding method. All plots were watered.
Due to unforeseen weather related delays, a second
attempt was made to establish the grass plots on July 27,
1982. The techniques employed were basically the same as
before with only two exceptions. First, the soil was
tilled only to a depth of 1.5 centimeters for all plots
prior to seeding. Second, bales of wheat straw were
mulched and a thin layer placed over the prepared seed
beds.
Visual observations were made to determine if seeds
were germinating and maturing. Photographs were taken to
assist in monitoring the progress of the study plots
during the remainder of the growing season. Samples were
analyzed for depth of root penetration by digging up
100
-------
plants with a shovel and measuring the length of the
roots.
Environmental Chamber Studies
Environmental chambers were used to provide a con-
trolled environment in which plant responses to soil from
areas A, B and C could be studied under optimum condi-
tions. Crabgrass seed and bermudagrass sod were selected
because of their ability to survive at the land treatment
site.
Soil was collected from each of the three study ar-
eas at the field site and placed in 114 liter plastic
containers. Dow Fume MC-2 was used to kill extraneous
weed seeds in the control soil. This penetrating fumi-
gant contains 98% methylbromide and 2% chloropicrin. The
soil was tested for nutrients and oil content as shown in
Table 10.6.
Plastic pans which had small drainage holes in the
bottom of them served to contain the soil .and grass.
Crabgrass seed, at a rate of O.lg/pan, was placed in each
of nine pans which were 23x23x7 centimeters. Bermuda sod
was placed in the nine deep pans which were 23x23x13
centimeters. Triplicate pans were set up for soils from
each of the three areas.
Soil that was placed in the plastic pans was first
forced through a 0.95 centimeter sieve. The small pans
were filled with soil to within 1.3 centimeter of the
top. The deep pans were filled with soil to within 5.1
centimeters of the top.
Based on the results of nutrient analysis, nitrate
nitrogen was added to the soils to the equivalent rate of
277 kg/hectare. Nitrogen was added to the soil in each
pan- by first weighing out the appropriate amount of
nitrate nitrogen and diluting it with water and then,
spraying the solution onto the soil surface.
101
-------
The pH of the control soil was slightly lower than
the test sites (6.4). Limestone was added to the control
soil, in field area prior to planting, as calcium
carbonate to bring the pH up to 6.9. The soil in each
pan was mixed with water to ensure optimum moisture
conditions.
A 1.3 centimeter layer of composted cow manure was
spread on top of each pan of soil The crabgrass seed was
spread across the top of the manure and a final 0.6
centimeter layer of manure was spread over the seed and
watered. The bermudagrass sod was cut from an area
adjacent to the field control site. The sod was cut into
15 centimeter by 15 centimeter squares and laid into the
deep pans of soil. The sod was pressed down firmly and
soil was packed in around the edges of the pans. Final-
ly, sod was thoroughly watered.
Pans with soil from area C were placed in an en-
vironmental chamber which was separate from the one that
the soil from areas A and B were placed in. Both cham-
bers had an approximate relative humidity of 60% and had
temperatures of 28°C for 16 hours of daylight and 22°C
for 8 hours of darkness. Incandescent and fluorescent
lights were used to provide daylight conditions. The
pans were watered as needed throughout the study.
The plants were allowed to grow for two months.
During this time period they were measured for height.
The above ground biomass was calculated on a dry weight
basis via standard procedure.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Field Studies
Trees
Soil samples were collected for oil content analysis
at the time when trees and grasses were planted. These
102
-------
samples were collected and composited for each of the ar-
eas containing trees and grass. Table 10.1 contains the
percent oil content for these locations. The concentra-
tions of oil present at the land treatment site far ex-
ceeds the values commonly used in other studies which
were reviewed in the literature (Brown 1979, Carr 1919,
Giddens 1976, Schwedinger 1968).
TABLE 10.1 OIL CONTENT ANALYSIS
Date
3/26/82
3/26/82
6/29/82
Sample
Location
Trees
Trees
Grass
0-25 cm.
25-51 cm.
0-25 cm.
% Oil Content
Area A
5.3-5
0.0-0
4.1-5
.6
.2
.0
Area B
9.6-12
0.2-10
14.4-15
Area C
.8 <0 . 1
.7 <0 . 1
.4 <0 . 1
Table 10.2 summarizes the growth measurements for
the five tree species planted at the research site. Field
measurements for the growth of individual trees appears
in Appendix D. When the trees were initially planted
there was no significant difference between the size of
the trees planted in the land treatment area and those
planted in the control area.
During the months of April and May the trees in all
three areas appeared to be developing normally. There
was one noticeable difference however with the red cedar
trees. The cedar trees in area B were pale in color com-
pared to the ones in area C. This distinction became
more pronounced as the months passed until finally in Au-
gust all of the needles were red and dry. In area A the
color difference was not noticed until June. The red ce-
dars in area A remained pale green throughout the summer.
By September, the branches on most of the cedar trees
were a mottled red and green. The cedar trees in area A
103
-------
TABLE 10.2 MEAN VALUES FOR TREE HEIGHT AND WIDTH
Date
Area
No.
HEIGHT (cm)
Trees Mean Std. Dev.
WIDTH
(cm)
Mean Std. Dev
BLACK LOCUST
April 7, 1982
July 27, 1982
Sept. 8, 1982
•
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
9
10
10
9
8
10
4
0
10
24.122
21.490*
27.480
41.267*
21.138*
193.550
49.225
—
218.850
2.422
6.214
4.739
16.384
3.889
40.957
23.216
—
48.194
0.532
0.336*
0.653
1.048*
0.878*
1.824
1.118
—
2.325
0.209
0.091
0.202
0.295
0.154
0.325
0.180
—
0.591
HACKBERRY
April 7, 1982
July 27, 1982
Sept. 8, 1982
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
9
10
10
9
10
8
1
1
9
26.887
23.370
28.690
20.356*
21.260*
34.250
29.500
24.500
26.233
6.885
5.939
7.974
7.572
6.734
10.866
—
—
11.831
0.302
0.256
0.350
0.313
0.233*
0.380
0.410
0.380
0.372
0.096
0.083
0.100
0.093
0.053
0.066
—
—
0.060
OSAGE ORANGE
April 7, 1982
July 27, 1982
Sept. 8, 1982
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
9
10
10
9
8
10
6
2
10
21.767
18.160
21.010
20.467*
19.162*
62.550
16.600*
7.150*
78.900
5.278
3.338
5.904
6.915
4.579
20.818
6.856
4.596
30.540
0.988
1.031
1.190
0.495*
0.238*
0.748
0.550*
0.210*
0.869
0.271
0.186
0.155
0.144
0.063
0.134
0.101
0.283
0.152
(continued)
104
-------
TABLE 10.2 (continued)
Date
Area
No.
Trees
HEIGHT (cm)
Mean
Std. Dev.
WIDTH (cm)
Mean
Std. Dev
RED CEDAR
April 7, 1982
July 27, 1982
Sept 8, 1982
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
9
10
10
9
10
10
9
10
10
31.811
33.200
34.240
33.922
33.770
36.150
30.833*
27.480*
46.000
2.970
3.752
3.555
3.376
3.137
13.090
2.919
3.635
16.598
0.690
0.764
0.763
0.913
0.583
0.828
0.788
0.572*
0.894
0.222
0.323
0.244
0.488
0.215
0.292
0.224
0.192
0.318
RUSSIAN OLIVE
April 7, 1982
July 27, 1982
Sept. 8, 1982
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
9
10
10
8
9
8
2
0
8
20.233
22.300
22.860
23.700*
19.200*
42.438
21.250
—
43.312
7.443
6.909
4.344
7.191
4.514
16.790
10.960
—
19.806
0.726
0.654
0.544
0.677
0.643
0.651
1.055
—
0.676
0.346
0.228
0.154
0.432
0.196
0.143
0.629
—
0.182
statistically significant at 0.05 level when compared
to control area C
105
-------
regained a healthy green color after the winter months
passed. All of the red cedar trees in area C remained a
deep green throughout the study.
The color differences noted for the cedar trees in
the three areas were due to the effects of heat and the
amount of oil in the soil. In area B where the oil was
heaviest, the plants appeared to be severely dehydrated.
The presence of oil in the soil has a negative effect
upon the wetting ability of the soil.
The spring months were unseasonably harsh. Heavy
wind gusts damaged the tops of some seedlings by removing
the leaves, buds, and growing tips. Rain caused minor
damage by washing soil up around the base of the trees.
Some trees had as much as 13 centimeters of soil piled up
around them. Most of the trees adjusted to the change in
soil level by putting out adventitious roots. Excess
soil was removed with a shovel from around the trees
without disturbing the roots. Soil was washed around
trees in area C as well as areas A and B; however, the
damage was not as extensive. Rainfall data for the study
period appears in Appendix E.
Weeds were a problem in area C during the rainy
period because they grew to twice the size of the tree
seedlings and were in • competition with them for nutri-
ents . A weedeater and lawnmower were used to cut back
these weeds. One hackberry seedling was accidently cut
and killed along with the weeds and one red cedar was
shortened.
There were marked changes in the appearance of the
trees during the summer months. The data in Table 10.2
indicate that while the number of trees in the control
area stayed nearly constant, those in areas A and B
decreased for all species. All of the trees were dead in
area B at the conclusion of the study with the excep-
106
-------
tion of one red cedar. The trees in area C rapidly in-
creased in size throughout the summer. All of the trees
on the land treatment site grew slowly and were severely
stunted.
The temperature on the dark colored land treatment
site was higher than that for the control site. Some of
the trees in areas A and B showed signs of heat stress.
Composted cotton mulch seed and hull was spread around
the base of each tree in all three areas to lessen the
effects of reflected heat. In addition to the high tem-
peratures which the plants had to cope with during the
summer, there was an increase in the volatility of the
oily waste. On hot days the oily waste was especially
odorous and vapors could be seen rising above the soil
surface. Daily air temperature data appears in Appendix
E.
Leaves which grew 14 centimeters or more above the
soil in areas A and B were lost early in the summer.
This leaf loss was noted for all of the species with the
exception of red cedar. The trees developed new buds and
then new leaves within two to five weeks after initial
loss. Trees in area B grew back their leaves only once
before they succumbed. The trees in area A lost and grew
back their leaves anywhere from one to three times. This
cycle of leaf loss and regrowth ended in early September.
The trees which survived in area A had new basal branches
and leaves which were close to the ground. Osage orange
and russian olive trees had the most cycles of loss and
regrowth of leaves and the largest amount of new growth
from the rootstalk.
The cycles of leaf loss and regrowth could have been
due to water stress brought about by the presence of the
oily waste in the soil. Volatile compounds and heat may
also have had an affect on the leaves.
107
-------
Soil samples were collected to determine if oil was
migrating horizontally to the tree roots. Samples were
collected from 8 centimeters out around the base of dead
trees in areas A and B. The samples were taken to a
depth of 25 centimeters from the soil surface. The
averaged values for percent oil content are listed below
in Table
TABLE 10.3 % OIL CONTENT 8 CENTIMETERS FROM TREE BASE
Date
3/26/82
6/29/82
11/25/82
Area A
0.00
0.51
0.89
% Oil Content
Area B
0.00
3.65
4.33
It is apparent from data in Table 10.3 that there
was some migration of oil. Casual observation of the
roots of dead trees reveals that there were few branch
roots present. The values for percent oil content in
Table 10.1 indicate that the top 25 centimeters of soil
contained more oil than did the 25-51 centimeter depth.
The concentration of oil may have affected the root
development.
In the control area all of the species grew well
with the exception of the hackberry tree. The hackberry
seedlings were very small in size from the start of this
study and remained small throughout. The seedlings' size
could explain the poor growth of this species.
Two russian olive trees faired exceptionally well in
area A. The final height and width of these two trees
were not significantly different from the russian olive
trees in the control area. These two russian olive trees
were unique in that they were the only species not
108
-------
significantly different from the controls.
Four black locust trees survived in area A, but they
were severely stunted compared to the control trees.
Five of the nine red cedar trees planted in area A were
also alive. In addition to stunted growth, they were
pale in color and many of the needles had turned red and
dry. Five osage orange trees showed signs of life in
area A. Most of the osage orange trees were so severely
stunted that their height and width could not be measur-
ed. The parts of the osage orange trees which were alive
and green were young shoots and leaves which grew from
the root stalks.
The trees growing in area A were unusual in that
they were green and had most of their leaves as late as
November 25, 1982. The trees in the control had already
undergone leaf abscission and were dormant by the first
of November, These effects were probably a result of the
high soil and air temperatures in the area due to the
dark colored soil absorbing heat.
Grasses
The long duration of rain in the spring forced the
planting of grass to be delayed until late June. Three
weeks after the grass was planted none of the seed had
germinated. The seedbed for the grass dried out quickly
between waterings. The plots were reseeded in late July.
The straw mulch used for the second attempt to es-
tablish grass on the plots helped to hold moisture in the
seedbed. The soil was not tilled as deeply for the sec-
ond seeding as it had been for the first. Shallow til-
ling depth prior to tilling allowed for more seeds to be
kept on the soil surface.
After one month only crabgrass and bermudagrass were
growing successfully on the land treatment site. A cou-
ple of small isolated lovegrass seedlings were located.
109
-------
A third unexpected grass was found to be doing well on
the plots in areas A and B. This third grass species was
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crusgalli). Barnyardgrass
seed had apparently been mixed in with the wheat straw
used as mulch. Barnyardgrass is a weed commonly found
near the study location.
Barnyardgrass and other weeds were responsible for
taking over area C. The presence of additional water
stimulated weed growth and most of the seeds planted in
the study plots were outcompeted. Crabgrass and bermuda-
grass, however, fared well in area C.
Poor germination results for many of the seeds under
study was attributed to a number of factors. One of
these factors was the delay in planting time. The spring
months would have been the best time for seeding pur-
poses. Another factor was the thickness of the straw
mulch placed over the seedbeds. Wind action piled much
of the straw up making germination impossible in some
sections of the study plots. A factor which accounted
for seed loss was damage caused by a flock of guineas.
Since guineas can fly they were able to fly over our
control fences and fences over the top of the plots were
beyond the scope of this project.
Soil was tested to ensure that there were no nutri-
ent deficiencies which might affect the health of the
plants. Fertilizer had been applied in the early spring
•
prior to planting of the trees and grass. Table 10.4
provides the results of the nutrient analysis. Since
nitrogen was found to be low in all three study areas,
ammonium nitrate fertilizer was applied at a rate of 227
kg/hectare in early September.
The bermudagrass sod which was growing in areas A
and B was not as lush and thick, nor as green as compared
to area C. Bermudagrass sod on the land treatment site
110
-------
showed a definite edge effect in that all of the edges of
the sod which were in contact with the oily sod which
TABLE 10.4 NUTRIENT ANALYSIS FOR FIELD SITES
Kilograms per Hectare
Area
A
B
C
pH
6.9
6.9
6.6
Available
(P2o5)
180
75
83
Available
(K20)
395
395
163
Magnesium
1055
907
1361
Calcium
6010
4990
2944
NO N
19
16
12
were in contact with the oily soil surface were yellow
and curling. The center of the sod plots was green and
healthy. The sod growing in area B was not as green as
the sod in area A. The bermudagrass sod in area C did
not have an edge effect and many runners were spread out
from the sodded plot. No runners were observed on the
plots in the land treatment areas.
A few sprigs of bermudagrass were growing in the un-
contaminated soil around the base of the trees in areas A
and B. These sprigs sent out one to two foot runners.
These runners were abnormal because they were not at-
tached to the soil surface. Normally the runners would
have roots at each node to secure the plant. Instead,
the runners spanning across the soil in areas A and B had
only the shriveled up remains of roots at the nodes.
The depth of root penetration was measured on Octo-
ber 19, 1982 for crabgrass, bermudagrass and barnyard-
grass to see if root growth was inhibited by the oily
waste. Compared with the roots of plants growing in area
C there was no difference in the length of roots for any
111
-------
of the species growing in areas A and B. Crabgrass and
bermudagrass had roots which penetrated 18 to 20 centi-
meters into the soil. The barnyardgrass had roots which
were between 20 and 26 centimeters long.
Where the grasses were growing, the top 6.1 centi-
meters of soil, in areas A and B was fairly dry. Below
this top dry layer the soil was very wet and soggy.
Table 10.5 lists the percent oil content for soil samples
which were taken to a depth of • 15 centimeters. These
samples were collected in October from the grass plots.
TABLE 10.5 OIL CONTENT OF GRASS PLOTS
Grass Type
Seeded Grasses
(Composite of plots)
Bermudagrass Sod
Area A
4.50%
6.24%
Area B
12.25%
13.22%
In addition to the grasses growing on the plots,
three new plant species were discovered on an untilled
section of the land treatment site. The first plant was
growing in soil which had an oil content of 3.67%. This
plant was identified as either Aster exilius Ell. or
Aster subulatus Michx. var. ligulatus Shinners. The
plant stood about 100 centimeters tall and had roots
which penetrated 30 centimeters into the soil. The
flowers were unusually small for this species.
The other plants which were growing in the land
treatment area were grasses. One of these grasses was
Setaria glauca (=§_• lutescens). The roots of Setaria
glauca penetrated down to 18 centimeters in soil which
had an oil content of 4.6%. The second grass was unable
to -be identified and was most likely an introduced spe-
cies. The roots of this grass were 13 centimeters long
and the oil content of the soil in which it was growing
112
-------
was 1.75%.
Measurements were not taken for the above ground
height of the grasses in this study because in late
September they were eaten. A large steer had escaped
from a nearby ranch and jumped over our 5 foot control
fence and was observed eating the grass.
Environmental Chamber Studies
The soil used for study in the environmental cham-
bers was taken from areas A, B and C. An evaluation of
the available nutrients, pH, and oi-1 content of this soil
appears in Table 10.6.
Water was added to the soil prior to planting to
provide adequate moisture for the seeds and sod. The
water could not be sprayed directly on the soil surface
because it tended to run off and drain through without
wetting the soil. The soil was wet by mixing water in
TABLE 10.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CHAMBER SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Kilograms per Hectare
Area
A
B
C
Oil
Content
8.7%
13.5%
0.0%
pH
6.8
6.8
4.6*
Available (P 0 )
Phosphorous
75
37
37
Available (KO)
Potassium
299
381
245
Mn
740
646
1701
Ca
4649
4763
3515
NO N
**
86
22
66
* pH adjusted to 6.9
** Values increased to 227 kg/hectare with NO.N addition
with a spoon and stirring vigorously. Once the soil con-
taining the oily waste was wet, it retained moisture for
a long period of time.
The germination of crabgrass seed planted in soil
from areas A and B was delayed by 7-10 days as compared
113
-------
to seed planted in soil from area C. The crabgrass seed-
lings growing in the oily soil appeared to be normal the
first 10 days after germination. Thirty days after the
seed was planted, crabgrass plants in the soil from areas
A and B were discolored and severely stunted. The leaves
were curled and pale. Some of the crabgrass plants were
starting to yellow and the tips of leaves were red.
Plants grown in the soil from area C were all green and
healthy.
The crabgrass grown in soil from areas A and B had
renewed growth 50 days after planting. After most of the
leaves appeared to undergo senescence the leaf color
improved and new tillers were produced. Table 10.7 lists
the mean height values for the plants 40 days and 70 days
after they were planted.
In general the crabgrass grown in the environmental
chamber, in soil from areas A and B, did not look as
vigorous as that which grew at the field site. The
difference in appearance could have been the result of
exposure to volatile compounds. Wind activity in the
field would decrease the amount of exposure that plants
would have to volatiles.
TABLE 10.7 MEAN HEIGHT VALUES FOR GRASS
Height (cm) after Planting
Area of Soil Origin
Crabgrass
A
B
C
Bermudagrass runners
A
B
C
Bermudagrass sod
" A
B
C
40 days
3.6
1.5
18.0
59.8
48.4
95.2
20.7
15.9
46.7
70 days
•
3.7
2.6
26.9
80.0
70.6
116.9
23.0
21.0
38.0
114
-------
Bermudagrass sod was clipped the day it was planted
such that the height of the sod was 7 centimeters and
equal for all pans. The runners which grew over the top
of the pans were measured along with the thick growth in
the center of the sod. Height measurements are located
in Table 10.8.
Throughout the study the bermudagrass which grew in
the pans containing soil from areas A and B were pale in
color and grew slowly as compared to the sod growing in
the soil from area C. The above ground biomass was cal-
culated on a dry weight basis for all of the grass seven-
ty days after planting. Total biomass was not calculated
because oil adhering to the roots would introduce a large
error. The biomass values are listed in Table 10.8.
TABLE 10.8 ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS OF GRASS
Area of Soil Origin Dry wt (g) % of Control
Crabgrass
A 0.46 2.55
B 0.43 2.39
C 18.01 100.00
Bermudagrass
A 56.47 • 21.76
B 32.31 38.03
C 148.49 100.00
DISCUSSION
The revegetation of a land treatment site containing
large amounts of oil, although possible, is not desirable
until much of the oil has been degraded. Soil containing
high concentrations of oily waste is more toxic to plants
than is soil with low concentrations. Highly oiled soils
should be cultivated by tilling, fertilizing, and liming
as needed to degrade waste products. The biodegradation
115
-------
of oily waste may actually be slowed with a plant cover
present because the soil could not be cultivated. Fre-
quent fertilizer additions necessary to degrade a highly
oiled soil may cause injury to plants.
Once the oil has been sufficiently degraded on a
land treatment site, revegetation efforts should begin.
Vegetation on a land treatment site would serve to pro-
tect the soil by intercepting and dampening the effects
of rainfall and wind activity. The main purpose for
growing vegetation on these sites would be to protect
against erosion and off-site transport of soil and or
waste material. Plants can also be used to dry out wet
areas and help improve aeration. A vegetative cover crop
could also be used to help monitor the toxicity of a
closed land treatment site.
The selection of suitable plant species to be used
on a land treatment site is difficult. There is little
data available on the revegetation of these sites. In-
formation on the uptake of hazardous materials by plants
is limited at this time to the uptake of metals and to
the effects of selected pesticides. Generally speaking,
it is important to plant species, subspecies or ecotypes
in an environment similar to those on which they occur
natively.
Plants which are selected for revegetation purposes
should be adapted to the soil and climatic conditions in
the area in which they will be used. Any first hand
knowledge gained about plants growing in specific geo-
graphic areas is helpful. A knowledge of the attributes
of plants is helpful to select the most suitable ones for
revegetation purposes. Consequently, the experience of
others furnishes a good beginning.
All of the plants used in this study were subject to
adverse environmental conditions which represent some of
116
-------
the unavoidable risks that occur when conducting field
studies of this type. Based upon the results of this
study, hardy species which are fairly drought resistant
should be used for site revegetation. Despite the fact
that adequate water was provided for the plants, many of
the trees exhibited signs of dehydration. The red cedar
tree which is very drought resistant fared the best.
Drought resistant species were better suited to the soil
at the study site because of the high temperatures and
altered soil-water relations associated with the presence
of oil in soil.
Care must be taken when watering vegetation on a
land treatment site because once wet, the soil will hold
moisture and increase the chances of the soil becoming
anaerobic. Soil moisture must be adequate to not only
meet the needs of plants, but also to support optimum
conditions for the microorganisms degrading the oily
waste.
It is critical to monitor the soil nutrients. These
nutrients supply the microorganisms as well as plants.
In a competition for nutrients between plants and micro-
organisms , Meyers and Huddleston (1979) concluded that
lower nitrogen content in wheat was the result of
assimilation by microorganisms degrading the waste oil.
The use of nitrogen fixing plants for revegetation pur-
poses may help to alleviate this competition for nitrogen
which is often a limiting factor to oil degradation and
plant growth.
Grasses are the best choice for initial revegetation
of a land treatment site. Grasses provide a quick cover
and have root systems which can hold the top layer of
soil in place. If grass is to be planted as seed prepa-
rations are needed to assure good germination and healthy
growth. A layer of composted materials such as manure or
117
-------
possibly treated sewage sludge, should be tilled in with
the surface soil and used as a seed bed. This would
buffer the vulnerable seeds from the hot soil surface,
help retain moisture and cause less injury to seeds from
volatile compounds and dissolved constituents during
germination and early growth. Our study indicated that
approximately a 2.5 cm layer of composted material was
beneficial.
Viable seed from native species are often difficult
to obtain; therefore, good commercial seed should be used
for the revegetation of closed land treatment sites.
Grasses may also be planted on a site as sod. If sod is
used it should be thick and healthy. Large sod blocks
are desirable to limit the edge effects associated with
growing sod on this type of soil surface.
The survivability of trees on land treatment sites
depends on a number of factors. The most important fac-
tors are the concentration of the oil and the depth of
penetration of that oil in the soil. Tree growth and de-
velopment is affected by the amount of available water,
nutrients, and toxic constituents in the oily waste.
Until a tree has recovered from the initial shock
that planting causes its root system, it should not be
exposed to the oil contaminated soil. In order to buffer
the roots from the treated soil a large hole about twice
the size normally used to plant the tree should be used
and filled in with uncontaminated soil. This will give
the tree time to establish itself before the roots come
in contact with the oily soil.
The grasses which yielded the best growth and
appeared to be the most resistant to the presence of oily
residues in this study were crabgrass and bermudagrass.
The red cedar had the highest survival rate in the test
plots followed by russian olive, black locust and osage
118
-------
orange. The grasses and trees selected in general proved
to be good choices for the field conditions which were
present.
The revegetation of land should be an important part
of the site closure procedures for land treatment sites
which contain oil refinery waste. A revegetated site is
functionally and aesthetically appealing but, until suit-
able plants which can adapt to the unique environment
created by a land treatment system are identified, the
revegetation of closed sites remains as much an art as a
science.
119
-------
SECTION 11
DISCUSSION
The current regulations governing land treatment of
hazardous wastes were published on Monday, July 26, 1982
in Vol. 47, No. 143 of the Federal Register. A number of
the regulations listed were evaluated on the basis of the
results of this project.
The treatment zone is defined as the region from the
soil surface down to a depth of 1.5 meters (5 feet), with
the proviso that the bottom of the zone must be at least
1 meter (3 feet) above the seasonal high water table.
The results of this experimental work suggest that this
minimum depth above the water table may be too shallow to
prevent salts and solubilized metals from reaching the
ground water. The lysimeters were installed at a depth
of 4 feet and elevated levels of chloride, barium, zinc,
iron, manganese, and TOC were found in the soil pore
water. In addition, the metal concentrations in the soil
below 50 cm at the sites were not statistically higher
than background levels. This means that once metals are
solubilized, and migrate below the top 50 cm of soil,
they remain in solution and migrate with the pore water.
Furthermore, it appears that oil which migrates below the
aerobic zone (top 20-25 cm) , while immobilized, is not
degraded and may act as a source of contaminated leach-
ate.
Unpublished work by the authors on land treatment of
oily sludges, shows that migration of oil below the till
120
-------
zone is possible even at low (3-5%) loading rates. The
exact mechanism by which this migration occurs has not
been determined, but the movement of infiltrated water
caused by heavy rain may be the driving force. Movement
of oil below the till zone is difficult to control even
at well managed sites with low loading rates.
Closure requirements include:
(1) The continuation of all operations required to maxi-
mize the degradation/ transformation or immobiliza-
tion of hazardous constituents within the treatment
zone.
(2) Control of run-off and run-on.
(3) Continuation of unsaturated zone monitoring, except
for soil pore liquid monitoring which may be termin-
ated 90 days after the last application of waste to
the treatment zone.
(4) The establishment of a vegetative cover, when the
cover will not interfere with the continued treat-
ment of the waste.
The results of this research project, support the
need for all of the requirements listed. However, it ap-
pears that at sites with high loading rates, fulfilling
requirement number 1 may take a considerable period of
time. In addition, the results suggest that both organic
and inorganic pollutants can move through the unsaturated
zone in pore water for longer than 90 days after the
wastes have been applied. The presence of organics at
site 2, six years after closure, even though only in
trace amounts, supports the need for extended monitoring
of pollutants in the unsaturated zone in pore water as
well as soil cores. However, it must be noted that the
rate at which oil is applied to the site, and the rate at
which it is degraded will determine the length of time
for which monitoring the soil pore water must be main-
121
-------
tained.
The results of this study suggest that grasses are
the best choice for initial revegetation of a land treat-
ment site. Results also indicated that oil concentra-
tions of 4-5% were sufficiently low to allow successful
revegetation with grass. However, the growth of grasses
was inhibited, and establishing a grass cover undesirable
because the rate of further oil degradation would be
inhibited, since tilling of the site would have to cease.
The authors therefore recommend that revegetation of land
treatment sites not be implemented until the degradation
rate has decreased to some low constant value.
122
-------
REFERENCES
Anon, "Landfarming Fills an API Need", Hydrocarbon
Processing, Vol. 60, No. 6, June 1980, p. 97.
Archer, S.G. and Bunch, C.E., The American Grass Book,
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1953.
Baker, J.M., "The Effects of Oils on Plants",
Environmental Pollution, 1970, pp. 27-44.
Black, C.A. et al., Methods of Soil Analyses - Parts 1
and 2, American Society of Agronomy, 1965.
Briggs, L. J. and McCall, A. G., "An Artificial Roof for
Inducing Capillary Movement of Soil Moisture",
Science, Vol. 30, 1904, pp. 566-569.
Brown, K.W., Brawand, H., Evans, G. and Thomas, J.C.,
"The Impact of API Separator Sludges on the
Emergence and Yield of Ryegrass", R805474010,
December, 1979, E.P.A., Texas A & M University.
Carr, R.H., "Vegetative Growth in Soils Containing Crude
Petroleum", Soil Science, Vol. 8, 1919, pp. 67-68.
Cresswell, L.W., "Fate of Petroleum in a Soil
Environment", EPA/API/UCSG Joint Oil Spill
Conference Proceedings, Washington, 1977, pp.
479-482.
Dalrymple, R.L., "Crabgrass as a Forage", No. CG75,
Noble Foundation Publication, Ardmore, OK.
Dalrymple, R.L., "Weeping Lovegrass Management", 1976,
Noble foundation Bulletin, Ardmore, OK.
Dibble, J.T. and Bartha, R., "Rehabilitation of Oil
• Inundated Agricultural Land: A Case History", Soil
Science, Vol. 128, No. 1, July 1979, pp. 56-60.
123
-------
Dibble, J.T. and Bartha, R., "Leaching Aspects of Oil
Sludge Biodegradation in Soil", Soil Science, Vol.
127, No. 6, June 1979a, p. 365.
Elias, Thomas S., The Complete Trees of North America;
Field Guide and Natural History, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, 1980.
England, C. B., "Comments on a Technique Using Porous
Cups for Water Sampling at Any Depth in the
Unsaturated Zone by Warren W. Wood", Water Resources
Research, Vol. 10, 1974, p. 1049.
EPA, "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes",
EPA-600/4-79-020, March 1979, Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
EPA, "Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Refining
Point Source Category", EPA 440/1-79/014-6, December
1979, Effluent Guidelines Division, Environmental
Protection Agency.
EPA, "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste", SW-846
2nd Edition, July 1982, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460
Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 233, Monday, December 3,
1979.
Federal Register, Vol. 47, No. 143, Monday, July 26,
1982.
Francsen, C.F., "Landfarming Disposes of Organic Wastes",
Pollution Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 2, Feb. 1980,
pp. 55-57.
Fuller, W.H., "Movement of Selected Metals, Asbestos and
Cyanide in Soil: Applications to Waste Disposal
Problems", EPA 660/2-77-020, 1977, Environmental
Protection Agency, NTIS PB 266-905.
Giddens, J., "Spent Motor Oil Effects on Soil and Crops",
Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 5, No. 2,
1976, pp. 179-181.
Gould, Frank W., Common Texas Grasses, Texas A & M Univ.
Press, College Station, 1978.
124
-------
Grove, G.W., "Use Landfarming for Oily Waste Disposal",
Hydrocarbon Process, Vol. 57, No. 5, May 1978, pp.
138-140.
Grover, B.L. and Lamborn, R.E., "Preparation of Porous
Ceramic Cups to be used for Extraction of Soil Water
having low Solute Concentrations", Soil Science
Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 34, 1970, pp.
706-708.
Gudin, C. and Syratt, W.J., "Biological Aspects of Land
Rehabilitation Following Hydrocarbon Contaimina-
tion", Environmental Pollution, 1975, pp. 107-112.
Hahne, H.C.H. and Kroontje, W., "The Simultaneous Effects
of pH and Chloride Concentrations upon Mercury as a
Pollutant", Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings, Vol. 37, 1973, pp. 838-843.
Hansen, E. and Harris, A., "Validity of Soil-Water
Samples Collected with Porous Ceramic Cups", Soil
Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 39,
1975, pp.528-536.
Hershfield, D.M., "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United
States for Durations from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and
Return Periods from I to 100 Years", Technical
Report No. 40, May 1961, Weather Bureau, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
Huddleston, R.L. and Meyres, J.D., "Treatment of Refinery
Oily Wastes by Landfarming", AICHE Symposium Series,
Vol. 75, No. 190 Water, 1978.
Huddleston, R.L., "Solid-Waste Disposal: Landfarming",
Chemical Engineering, Feb. 26, 1979, pp. 119-124.
Huddleston, R.L. et al., "Evaluation of Subsurface Ef-
fects of Lone-Term Landfarming", Land Disposal of
Hazardous Waste: Procedings of the 8th Annual
Research Symposium, held at Ft. Mitchell, Kentucky
on March 8-10, 1982, Report No. EPA 600/982-002,
Mar. 1982, Municipal Environmental Research Lab.,
Cincinnati, OH.
Hunt, P.G. et.al., "Terrestrial Oil Spills in Alaska:
Environmental Effects and Recovery", API/EPA/USCG
- Conference, Washington, 1973, pp. 733-740.
125
-------
Johnson, T.M. and Cartwright, K., "Monitoring of Leachate
Migration in the Unsaturated Zone in the Vicinity of
Sanitary Landfills", Illinois State Geological
Survey Bulletin, 1980.
Knowlton, H.E. and Rucker, J.E., "Landfarming Shows", Oil
and Gas Journal, Vol. 77, No. 20, May 14, 1979, pp.
108-110, 115-116.
Leeper, G.W., Managing the Heavy Metals on the Land,
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1978.
Levin, M.J. and Jackson, D.R., "A Comparison of in situ
Extractors for Sampling Soil Water", Soil Science
Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 41, 1977, pp.
535-536.
Linkins, A.E., et.al., "Impact of Crude Oil on Root
Respiration and Levels of Soluable Soil Cellulose in
Coastal Arctic Tundra", U.S. Department of Energy
Symposium Series, XXXll+911p, April 28-May 1, 1976, pp,
590-604.
Little, Elbert L., The Audubon Society Field Guide to
North American _T_re_es; Western Region, Alfred A.
Knopf. Inc., New York, 1980..
Loehr, R.C., Tewell, W.J., Novak, J.D., Clarkson, W.W.
and Freidman, G.S., Land Application of Wastes, Vol.
1, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1979.
McGill, W.B., "An Introduction for Field Personnel to the
Effects of Oil Spills on Soil and Some General
Restoration and Cleanup Procedures", Alberta
Institute of Pedology, A.I.P. Pub. No. G-76-1, July,
1976.
McGill, W.B., and Rowell, M.J., "Determination of Oil
Evaluation of Solid Wastes, Volume 1", Final Report,
Jan. 1981, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington,
D.C.
Meyers, J.D. and Huddleston, R.L., "Treatment of Oily Re-
ef inery Wastes by Landfarming", Report Presentation
for 34th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference,
May 8-10, 1979.
126
-------
Overcash, M.R. and Pal, D., "Plant-Soil Assimilative
Capacity for Oils", The American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, Vol. 75, No. 190, 1979, pp.
357-361.
Parizek, R. and Lane, B., "Soil Water Sampling Using Pan
and Deep Pressure Vacuum Lysimeters", Journal of
Hydrology, Vol. IX, No. 1, 1970, pp. 1-21.
Phillips, G.R., Gibbs, F.J. and Mattoon, W.R., Forest
Trees of Oklahoma, 9th ed., Oklahoma State Board of
Agriculture, Forestry Division, OK., 1959.
Phillips Petroleum, Pasture and Range Plants, Phillips
Petroleum Co., Bartlesville, OK., 1963.
Plice, M.J., "Some Effects of Crude Petroleum on Soil
Fertility", Soil Science of America Proceedings,
Vol. 13, 1948, pp. 413-416.
Raymond, R.L., Hudson, J.O., and Jamison, V.W., "Oil De-
gradation in Soil", Applied and Environmental Micro-
biology, Vol. 31, No. 4, April 1976, pp. 522-535.
Reeve, R.C. and Doering, E.J., "Sampling the Soil Solu-
tion for Salinity Appraisal", Soil Science, Vol. 39,
1965, pp. 339-344.
Ross, D.E. and Phung, H., "Land Cultivation of Industrial
Wastes", SCS Engineers of Long Beach, California,
1977, pp. 366-376.
Schilesky, D.M., "Land Cultivation of Industrial Sludges:
Site Selection and Design Criteria", Sludge, Vol. 2,
No. 3, May-June 1979, p. 26.
Schwedinger, R.B., "Reclamation of Soil Contaminated by
Oil", Journal of the Institute of Petroleum, Vol.
54, No. 535, 1968, pp. 182-197.
Smith, R.A.H. and Bradshaw, A.D., "The Use of Metal
Tolerant Plant Populations for the Reclamation of
Metalliferous Wastes", Journal of Applied Ecology,
Vol. 16, 1979, pp. 595-612.
Thames, J.E. ed., Reclamation and Use of Distrubed Land
in the Southwest, Univ. Arizona Press, Arizona,
• 1977.
127
-------
Van der Ploeg, R. and Beese, F., "Model Calculations for
the Extraction of Soil Water by Ceramic Cups and
Plates", Soil Science Society of America Journal,
Vol. 41, 1977, pp. 466-472.
Vasey, George, Illustrations of North American Grasses,
Vol. II, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
1893.
Wagner, G.H., "Use of Porous Ceramic Cups to Sample Soil
Water Within the Profile", Soil Science, Vol. 94,
1962, pp. 379-386.
Watts, J.R. and Corey, J.C., "Land Application Studies of
Industrial Waste Oils and Solvents, D.E.-AC09-
SR00001, U.S. Department of Energy, 1981.
Wood, W.W., "A Technique Using Porous Cups for Water
Sampling at any Depth in the Unsaturated Zone",
Water Resources Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1973, pp.
486-488.
Zimmerman, C.F., Price, M.T. and Montgomery, J.R., "A
Comparison of Ceramic and Teflon in situ Samplers
for Nutrient Pore Water Determinations", Estuarine
and Coastal Marine Science, Vol. 7, 1978, pp. 93-97.
128
-------
APPENDIX A
ANALYTICAL METHODS
Oil Content
Two procedures were used for oil content determina-
tions. The oil content of the sludges and soil sludge
mixtures was determined by extraction with dichlorometh-
ane, using the procedure of McGill and Rowell (1980) . In
this procedure, 10 grams of the sample were extracted for
4 hours using a Soxhlet extraction apparatus. Prior to
extraction, the soil was ground so that it could pass
through a 40 mesh sieve, and then quartered to obtain the
desired sample size. The extract was then evaporated
down to a volume of 15 to 20 ml on a steam bath, trans-
ferred to a preweighed aluminum dish, and allowed to air
dry in a fume hood overnight. The sample was then purged
with nitrogen gas, by directing a steam at the gas onto
the surface of the residue in the aluminum dish. The
purging was necessary to drive off any remaining dich-
loromethane. The residue and aluminum dish were then
weighed, and the weight of oil determined. The thimbles
plus soil were oven dried at 103°C, and the weight of dry
soil obtained. The oil content was then expressed as a
dry weight.
The oil content of the aqueous samples was deter-
mined gravimetrically, using method 413.1 from test
"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes" pub-
lished by the Environmental Protection Agency (March
1979) .
Fractionation Analysis of Oil
Fractionation analysis on the oil extracts from the
site soils was carried out using ASTM Method D-2007-73.
Ini-tial analyses were performed on standard oils obtained
from the Agronomy Department at Texas A & M University,
to verify the method.
129
-------
Metal Analysis
Heavy metal analyses were carried out on sludges,
site soil, and soil pore water. The sludges and site
soil samples were analyzed using a digestion procedure
obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL)
in Ada, Oklahoma. In this procedure, between 0.2 and 1
gram of sample was accurately weighed in an acid-washed
beaker, 10 mis of concentrated nitric acid added to the
beaker, and the mixture just evaporated to dryness. 10
more mis of acid were then added to the beaker, and the
beaker was covered a'nd allowed to reflux gently for a
minimum of 2 hours. When ashing of the sample was com-
plete, indicated by the absence of vigorous reaction, the
beaker was cooled, 1 ml of 30% H_02 added and the diges-
tion was continued. Additional 1 ml portions of ^2°2
were added up to a maximum of 10 mis, until ashing was
complete. This stage was denoted by no further changes
in the color of the sample. The cover was then removed
from the beaker, and the sample evaporated until just
dry. 3 mis of nitric acid were then added, the beaker
heated to solubilize the residue, and then 25 mis of
water were added. The beaker was then covered, and the
contents allowed to digest for 1 hour. The sample was
then transferred to a 100 ml volumetric flask, diluted to
volume, and analyzed by AA.
The aqueous samples were prepared for analysis using
methods 3010 or 3020 from "Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste-Physical/Chemical Methods" published by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
All samples were analyzed on a IL Model 551 Atomic
Absorption Spectrophotometer, equipped with a Model 655
furnace.
130
-------
Chloride Analysis
The method used for chloride analysis of soils was
taken from "Methods of Soil Analysis" published by the
American Agronomy Society (Black et al., 1979). Both 1:5
and 1:1 ratios of soil to water were used. The chloride
ion concentration in the soil spore water samples was de-
termined using method 325.3 - titritmetric determination
with mercuric nitrate - taken from the EPA manual Methods
for Chemical Analysis of water and wastes.
pH Determination
The pH determination for soils was done according to
the procedure outlined in Methods of Soil Analysis (Black
et al., 1979).
The soil sample was diluted 1:1 with water and mixed
for 30 minutes. The mixture was allowed to stand for one
hour to settle, and then the pH was determined using an
Orion Model 401 pH meter.
Nitrate
i
Soil nitrate determinations were carried out using
the phenoldisulfonic acid method described in part 2 of
Methods of Soil Analysis published by the American
Agronomy Society (Black et al., 1965). This procedure
involves the development of a yellow color with phenold-
isulfonic acid by the nitrate ion in an aqueous extract
of the soil.
Available Phosphorus - Bray's Method
The method used, determined the phosphorus in the
soil soluble in NH F/HC1 solution. The procedure used
was taken from Methods of Soil Analysis, edited by Black
et al.
Total Organic Carbon
The total organic carbon content of aqueous samples
was determined using a Beckmann Model 915 Total Organic
131
-------
Carbon Analyzer with an infra red detector. The total
organic carbon content of the soil samples was determined
in two ways. The first set of determinations were car-
ried out using the Walkley-Black Method with external
heat as described in Methods of Soil Analysis edited by
Black et al. In this method, the carbon is oxidized with
potassium dichromate at a temperature of 150°C. Later
determinations were performed on a Leco Total Organic
Carbon Analyzer.
Priority Pollutant Analysis
The soil samples were extracted for priority pollu-
tant analysis by using a combination of Methods 3540 and
3530 in the EPA Manual Test Methods for evaluating solid
waste. In the first part of the procedure, the solid
sample was subjected to Soxhlet extraction using dich-
loromethane, as described in Method 3540. The extract
from this procedure was concentrated to about 2.5 mis,
and 0.5 mis removed for analysis for volatiles. The re-
mainder was then extracted by Method 3530, yielding a
base/neutral and phenolics fraction. The three fractions
were then analyzed by GC/MS. The instrument used was a
Hewlett-Packard Model 5985B GC/MS. The GC was fitted
with a DB-5 30 meter, fused silica, capillary column.
Cation Exchange Capacity
The cation exchange capacity of the soil at each
site was determined using the ammonium saturation method.
This procedure was taken from "Methods of Soil Analysis"
edited by Black et al. The procedure entailed saturation
of the air-dried soil with neutral IN NH.OAC, followed by
removal of the absorbed NH, by passing air through a
suspension of the NH. saturated soil in Na-CO, solution.
The displaced NH. ions were then passed into a container
with H_SO.. By determining how much acid reacted with
132
V
-------
the NH.+ ion, the concentration of NH. ion could be de-
termined, and hence the cation exchange capacity of the
soil.
133
-------
APPENDIX B
SITE SOIL DATA
TABLE B-l. TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
Site 1
Location
Bkg T
Bkg B
IT
IB
2T
2B
3T
5T
6T
TOC %
11/10/81
2.0
1.3"
10.0
0.9
10.2
2.1
13.4
13.6
4.9
Site 2
Location
Bkg T
Bkg B
IT
IB
2T
2B
3T
3B
4T
4B
5T
5B
6T
6B
7/21/81
1.1
0.5
4.2
3.9
4.1
1.3
4.1
1.8
6.7
7.2
1.7
1.0
0.7
0.6
TOC. %
11/12/81
0.8
0.3
4.8
0.1
4.0
0.2
5.3
0.3
5.5
1.3
6.9
1.9
4.6
1.3
(continued)
134
-------
TABLE B-l. (continued)
Site 3
Location TOC. %
11/17/81
Bkg T 1.4
Bkg B 0.3
IT 7.6
IB 1.4
2T 1.7
2B 1.1
3T 14.6
3B 8.8
4T 13.6
4B 11.7
5T 18.4
5B 10.7
135
-------
TABLE B-2. CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATION (mg/kg)
Site 1
Date
6/30/82
Location
Bkg T
Bkg B
IT
IB
2T
2B
3T
3B
4T
4B
5T
5B
6T
6B
Concentration (mg/kg)
(1:5 ratio)*
17.6
15.4
167.0
136.1
161.5
112.1
68.1
70.4
108.8
87.4
106.6
130.5
105.5
83.5
(1:1 ratio)*
5.5
-
-
103.9
-
93.5
-
58.0
-
85.7
-
109.9
-
69.8
* Ratio of soil to water
Site 2
Date
7/8/82
Location
Bkg T
Bkg B
ITU
1BU
2TU
2BU
3TU
3BU
4TU
4BU
5TU
5BU
6TU
6BU
Concentration (mg/kg)
(1:1 ratio)*
13.7
2.9
24.9
28.1
24.9
45.1
19.0
-
28.2
23.9
34.3
35.4
36.9
-
(1:5 ratio)*
47.8
17.6
52.7
-
19.8
-
22.8
-
33.9
-
37.5
-
24.2
-
Ratio of soil to water
136
-------
TABLE B-2. (continued)
Site 3
Date
11/4/82
Location
Bkg T
Bkg B
2T
4T
4B
5T
5B
'6T
Concentration (mg/kg)
(1:5 ratio)*
19.8
7.3
48.5
125.1
150.4
71.7
52.5
44.9
(1:1 ratio)*
15.4
4.1
17.2
99.6
141.7
51.1
49.2
52.1
* Ratio of soil to water
137
-------
TABLE B-3. SOIL pH
Site 1
Location
Bkg T
Bkg B
IT
IB
2T
2B
3T
3B
4T
4B
5T
5B
6T
6B
pH
11/10/81 12/1/82
7.4
7.5
7.2 7.1
' 7.5
7.6 7.0
7.5
7.4 7.2
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.2 7.0
7.5
7.5 7.1
7.2
Site 2
Location
Bkg T
Bkg B
IT
IB
2T
2B
3T
3B
4T
4B
5T
5B
6T
6B
7/21/81
6.8
6.8
6.9
7.9
6.2
5.8
6.2
5.8
6.7
7.3
6.1
6.2
6.4
6.3
PH
11/12/81
7.0
7.0
-
7.1
—
7.3
—
7.3
-
7.2
-
7.4
—
11/19/82
7.2
7.8
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.6
7.3
7.4
7.2
6.8
7.1
7.2
(continued)
138
-------
TABLE B-3. (continued)
Site 3
Location pH
7/16/81 11/17/81 3/26/82
Bkg T 5.8 7.2
IT 7.5 7.4 7.7
IB 7.2
2T 7.4 7.4 7.1
2B 6.6
3T 7.2 - 7.5
3B 6.8
4T 7.6 7.3 7.3
4B 6.0
'5T 7.3 7.4 7.6
5B 7.3
6T - 7.6
6B -
139
-------
TABLE B-4. OIL CONTENT DATA %
•£>•
O
Site 1 Location
9/3/81
BGT 0 . 8
ITU 2 . 3
1BU 3.8
2TU
2BU
3TU 1 . 5
3BU 1.0
4TT 2.5
4BT 0.1
5TT 3.4
5BT
6TT 3 . 1
6BT 0 . 2
BGB
11/10/81
0.1
2.5
0.1
. 1.7
0.1
1.2
0.3
-
-
1.2
-
1.2
0.4
0.0
4/8/82
0.3
4.4
0.7
7.1
0.8
3.4
-
4.0
0.4
6.5
1.1
4.0
0.2
0.1
Date
6/14/82
0.5
6.6
1.9
-
-
2.5
0.1
-
-
8.0
-
4.0
0.1
0.1
6/30/82
_
-
0.7
-
8.0
3.6
0.3
5.5
0.1
-
-
6.2
0.1
"
8/4/82
-
-
-
5.8
1.0
2.3
0.2
-
-
7.1
1.5
-
-
12/1/82
0.5
6.9
1.5
7.7
1.2
2.9
0.6
4.7
0.7
8.3
3.0
3.2
4.1
0.2
1/18/83
1.0
5.9
-
8.2
-
-
-
-
-
7.9
-
5.8
-
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-4. (continued)
Site 2 Location
BGT
BGB
ITT
1BT
ITU
1BU
2TT
2BT
2TU
2BU
3TT
3BT
3TU
3BU
4TT
4BT
4TU
4BU
5TT
5BT
5TU
5BU
6TT
6BT
6TU
6BU
11/12/81
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.3
0.8
0.2
-
-
1.5
0.3
-
0.2
1.4
0.1
0.2
0.0
1.9
0.3
-
-
1.0
0.4
—
-
1.0
0.2
4/6/82
0.3
0.1
2.8
1.4
3.8
-
2.5
0.5
2.5
-
1.6
0.6
3.3
-
1.7
0.4
2.8
0.5
4.2
1.0
2.9
-
3.0
0.8
2.4
0.5
Date
7/8/82
3.7
0.5
2.4
1.1
3.1
1.6
3.0
1.5
4.8
1.0
1.7
0.6
2.9
1.9
1.8
1.0
0.4
1.1
4.0
1.2
3.7
1.2
-
-
0.7
0.2
11/19/82 6/16/82
0.4 3.1
0.4 0.3
3.3
— _
3.1
1.0
2.1
1.3
0.1
0.1
1.8 .5
0.1 0.1
1.1
0.2
1.2
0.3
3.7
2.8
4.7
3.0
3.6
2.1
4.5 0.2
2.6 0.1
4.3 1.3
0.3 0.2
2/16/83
0.6
—
3.0
_
—
—
2.6
-
-
-
1.7
—
—
-
0.7
-
-
-
5.1
—
-
-
4.7
1.7
-
-
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-4. (continued)
K)
Site *3 Location
BGT
BGB
IT
IB
2T
2B
3T
3B
4T
4B
5TT
5BT
6T
6B
11/17/81
0.2
0.1
3.0
-
2.0
0.9
8.6
3.5
4.9
6.1
4.6
2.4
-
—
3/26/82
0.1
0.1
5.3
0.1
5.6
0.2
10.5
0.2
8.4
2.3
9.6
10.7
12.8
-
Date
7/29/82
_
• -
-
-
-
-
—
1 -
13.2
2.4
17.3
6.2
12.5
8.7
10/19/82 11/4/82
0.5
0.1
-
- -
5.2
— —
- -
- _
13.9
17.9
13.1 13.4
5.9
11.9
- -
3/8/83 6/7/83
1.1 2.3
0.1
4.0
0.5
5.7
0.9
11.0 9.3
1.4
15.3 14.1
8.6
20.8 15.6
9.9
12.0 9.4
9.5
-------
TABLE B-5 SOIL METALS DATA
SITE 1
SI TECUOE
10
1(3-6)
I (6-12)
2(0-6)
2(6-9)
3< 0-e)
4(0-dJ
0-l4»
cu
183.00
129.00
274.00
141 .00
246.00
ta. oo
310.00
240.30
P9
15.00
.
.
13.00
24.00
30.00
(continued)
a*
SE
CO
2N
97.00
65.00
1S1 .00
83.00
291 .00
93. wi.
10.00
137.00
95.00
323.00
243.00
514.00
1 7u.OO
554.OO
SSo.OO
5ft. 00
saj.oo
O6O.OO
29300.JO
•
21360.00
3lo50.00
2021J.00
AS
Nl
<1*P"
I.CO
< '.00
O.PD
O.ffl
0 .00
<1.00
1 m 00
22.00
.
.
23. JO
.
22.00
16.1)3
26.00
•
314.00
29.00
42.00
75.00
4J.OO
137.00
79.00
82.00
37.00
c«
126.40
aa.oo
2e3.00
I 07.00
232.30
317.00
7.40
350.00
360.00
F£
Reproduced from
best available copy.
143
-------
TABLE B-5 (continued)
SITE 1
I 070^81S
10
aGoio-oj
BOB
CO
Jtt.OO
11*00
PB
23.00
27.00
Avi
• .00
1.00
BA
CO
o.oo
«.oo
ZN
10.00
20.00
cu
le. 00
7.00
Ai.
20bob.00
AS
Ml
I 17.00
IV.00
CP
J7.00
(continued)
Reproduced from
best available copy.
144
-------
TABLE B-5 (continued)
SITE 1
strecuoc
in
10
ib
IB
IT
2b
26
2T
31
5T
OT
SE
AS
400.00
270*00
440.60
3*0.00
370.00
270.00
340.JO
4OU.OO
270.JO
CO
21.00
100.00
42.00
JJ. 00
143.OC
IS*.00
167.00
So. 00
Inn
* uu
«.. 00
O.OO
• .00
1.00
a. ao
*.oo
1.00
S. 00
7*00
13.00
7.00
10. 40
7.00
1 7.00
7.00
10.00
7.00
23.00
20.00
44.30
27.00
33.00
231.00
57. JO
44 .00
2S.OO
2.H
CR
43.00
43. Ob
137.00
33.00
47.00
93. OU
ioo.au
1*3.00
37.00
4«.00
61. 30
4A9.UO
73.OO
65.00
*7<>.OO
272.00
443. OC
IVb.uO
23160. 00
1 0600. 00
10710. OO
24220.00
2*140.00
18230.00
128di>.uJ
13170.00
iaa*u.oo
270.00
110.00
157.00
no. no
90.30
MN
2.00
J.OJ
17.00
S.OO
S.OO
17.00
lo.OO
|7.uO
(continued)
Reproduced from
besl available copy.
145
-------
TABLE B-5 (continued)
SITE 1
SITECOOfe
1061402S
10
BCT
IT
ia
3T
3B
6T
60
IT
Ctl
PB
A6
3.00
3.00
17.03
• .00
3.00
7.00
3.00
la. oo
BA
«e*00
9«.t>0
41 .00
101*00
174.00
94.00
122*00
to.bu
6JU.OO
CO
13.00
9.00
202.00
76.00
6«. 00
13.00
1*0.00
14.00
215*00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
O .1)0
0.00
0.00
.
o.oo
3d. 00
17.00
112.40
36.00
• 7S.OO
20. 00
79.tiO
10.0(1
120.00
121.00
64.00
»2J*00
307. utf
207.00
tQl.tiO
«31.00
6*.OO
73d. 00
CO
NI
19.00
16.00
2J.OO
»».00
28.00
2*. 00
32.00
17.00
31.00
CA
3a*ao
J3.00
24».00
141.00
70.00
38.00
337.00
45.00
263.00
(continued)
Reproduced from
best available copy.
146
-------
SITE 2
sartcooa
20721615
TABLE B-5 (continued)
10
1(6-12)
t (12 + )
210- B)
2(0*1
3(0-0)
QJ
pa
AC.
7.UO
5.UO
3.00
u.Ub
6.Ob
• »tt 0
*.oo
10 .4,0
7.00
CO
CO
Nl
76.00
17. 7i)
23.30
99.70
33.00
243.00
23.30
Aft. 70
23.70
< 1 . 0 0
ci.no
1*3-)
C1.00
O.SO
<1.00
0.00
23.70
*4.JO
60.00
30.00
46.00
S6.00
0*.UO
44.00
A*. JO
57.00
•6.00
CR
113. UO
50.00
2J.OO
9J.OO
3.1.00
• 7.00
27. UC
197.00
133.00
2oa.oo
65.00
19.00
89.00
67.00
7*. 00
•4.00
37T.OO
I6U.OO
2J1«U.OO
20700.00
U6ab. 00
3*370.00
•W.J30.00
*&27b.OO
2V«bU.OO
3UOOO. OO
20390.00
27U.OO
127 .dU
73.00
1*U.OO
137.00
77.00
87 .JO
46O.MO
223.00
•N
(continued)
Reproduced from
best available copy.
147
-------
TABLE B-5 (continued)
SITE 2
SITECLOE
2072161S
13
610-8)
616+)
B67
22.30
11.70
IS. 00
la* 70
18. JO
Ptt
20.00
10. OU
23. 00
*O.OG
17.00
AC
5.00
4.00
1 cOO
b.OW
*.OU
CO
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.03
o.oo
73.nn
22.00
o. 13
9.00
'9.09
12.00
CO
29.70
29.30
21.40
22.30
14.00
17.410
25210.00
3097U.00
1*000.00
1*710.00
13760.00
13VBO.OO
104.00
29.00
41.00
3S.OO
ftO.OO
CR
73.00
70.00
S3.00
73.00
27.00
43.00
MN
(continued)
Reproduced from
best available copy.
148
-------
TABLE B-5 (continued)
SITE 2
S1TECODE
21112819
10
10T
JTT
ittu
ITW
IBT
2TU
3BU
3TU
CU
10.00
24.00
14. 00
36.00
11 .00
22.00
9.00
6.00
35.00
Po
8A
CO
o.oo
<1.00
<1.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
ZN
CO
10.00
o.oo
7.00
10.00
7.00
3.00
10. 00
10.00
7.00
AS
33.00
-------
TABLE B-5 (continued)
SITE 2
SlTEwOOe
21112815
10
*ar
*TT
4T7
4-ru
9TU
d6B
BUT
AS
<0.01
-------
TABLE B-5 (continued)
SITE 2
SJTCCOOt
2U12dlS
BST
odJ
6TO
cu
21.00
9.00
I*. 00
33*00
13.00
23.00
3U.Oi>
113.00
AA
8A
CO
<1.00
<1.00
1.00
<1.03
2M
60.00
»l .00
Sfr.OO
162.JO
SE
CO
7.OO
7.00
7.00
A. 00
8610.00
19460.00
17060.00
AS
-------
TABLE B-5 (continued)
SITE 2
SITE (.JOE
2001 obi*:»
10
b&T
BuB
37
3b
6TU
6BU
6TT
WT
3T
cu
7.00
•.00
9.00
O. 00
30.00
10.00
13. t)u
13.00
10. 00
9.00
3.50
8.00
0.00
10.00
8.00
18.50
13. SO
9.00
CO
<1.00
<1.00
-------
TABLE B-5 (continued)
SITE 3
S1TECOOE
31117BIS
IU
IB
U
28
2T
3d
3T
40
4T
CU
IS. 00
18.00
28.40
11.00
8.00
32.00
S3. 00
58.00
44.00
PB
4 .00
4.03
4.JO
2 .00
3.0w
o.OO
7.wO
a.oo
O .Ol>
(continued)
bA
CO
CO
AS
331.nn
2ft7.00
<8.01
133,00
ifi7.no
-------
TABLE B-5 (continued)
SITE 3
S1TCC09E
31117*14
10
S3
5T
aer
cu
(continued)
BA
SE
CO
CO
4S
<0.91
1*7.00
<0.01
-------
TABLE B-5 (continued)
SITE 3
siitcooe
10
IT
IB
«T
•a
2T
26
.»!
3B
4T
OJ
ib.oo
10.00
• 3. 00
IS. 00
lo. 00
6*00
JO. 00
12.00
43.00
Ptt
bA
59.00
6T.OO
133.00
So.OC
89.00
121.00
213.00
42.00
214.UO
CO
0.00
O.OO
0.90
o.oo
<1.00
0
20.00
CA
36.00
44.00
67.00
71.00
46.00
33.00
bd.OO
37.00
00.00
fS.
O.OO
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
(continued)
Reproduced (rom
best available copy.
155
-------
TABLE B-6 DEEP CORES METALS DATA
SITE 1
S1IECOOE
112J031S
ID
2(45-30)
2 ( 50-60 J
3(J2-*d>
6(45-SOJ
b£^( 30-42J
B00(3o-o2 )
123.00
sa.oo
CJ
14*00
6*00
3.00
8. JO
9.00
24.^0
O.OU
14.00
CO
<1.00
o.on
o.oo
<1.00
3.00
3.00
cu
MI
38.00
27.00
27.00
3o.OO
44.00
4O.OO
22 .00
13.00
£0.00
13.00
23.06
20.Ou
17.06
18.00
17.00
ZN
40 .00
43. UO
40. CO
J7.00
33.00
Sw.OO
44. OC
• 6.00
CR
31170.00
3*000.00
27670.00
27560.00
26.00
29.00
(continued)
ff.
S.uO
1.00
2.CO
I .00
4.00
7.00
3.00
4.00
Reproduced from
best available copy.
156
-------
TABLE B-6 (continued)
.SITE 1
S1TCUOE
I 063042S
10
d«D(3J-«2)
0»D( 56-62)
1 134-36 I
1(50-55)
ot 30-35)
•A
I2J.30
sa.oo
t( 44-36)
54.00
63.00
44.00
165.00
cu
8.00
14.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
CO
O. 00
o. no
-------
TABLE B-6 (continued)
SITE 2
SITECOOE
2122101
ID
4(26-30)
3C30-36J
M 36*40 )
9( 36-491
S(*W-oOI
0(26-32 i
6(32-49)
6 ( 49-50 j
cu
16.00
6.00
5.00
14.00
IS. 00
21.CO
1C. 00
14.00
21.00
CO
1.00
<3.00
1.00
<3.00
3.00
<1.00
:1.SO
;:. 90
<3.00
SE
AS
CO
hi
2*.00
25.00
9.00
61.00
14.00
7tt.UO
17.04
39.00
35.00
CD
20.00
17.03
17.00
20.00
10.00
«0. 00
<2. c:
13.00
3.00
33.00
1 .00
1 7.00
43.00
33.00
00.00
67.00
20.00
33.00
13330.00
0670.00
70JU.OO
10500.00
17670.00
1IOOO.OO
6676.00
21000.00
MN
2.00
1.03
1.00
1.00
1 .00
2.00
3.00
<1.00
5.00
(continued)
Reproduced from
best available copy.
158
-------
TABLE B-6 (continued)
SITE 2
*
10
6iO(.*0—»i>)
4(33-37)
4( 34-40)
4 (50-54).
2(33-37)
CJ
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.wO
. 00
.00
.00
PL
16.30
7.00
13.00
9. OC.
7.00
6.00
b. Ob
7.00
6.00
SA
104.00
7S.OO
16*00
37.00
112.00
14*04
le .00
30.00
S3.00
CO
c.co
u.oo
O. JO
< ;•. 30
ZN
33.00
lu.GO
2J.OO
26.00
25.00
IS.00
IV.00
4.00
19.00
SE
AS
Ct
Ml
22.00
8.30
14.00
0.00
7.00
4.00
15.00
2.00
7.00
CR
18.00
10.00
U.JO
84.00
19*00
9.00
I to. 90
4.UO
10.00
<3.03
<3.00
O.OO
<3.00
0.00
(3.00
O.03
<3.00
<3.00
(continued)
Reproduced from
best available copy.
159
-------
TABLE B-6 (continued)
SITE 2
SITECOOE
21221UI
10
B6O( 30-35)
dCO(S6-o2>
CJ
16.00
b.OO
3.60
PB
10.00
18.00
7.00
BA
102.00
75.00
CO
<3.00
0.00
f..OO
37.00
33.00
1ft. 00
se
>*00u.00
39.00
22.00
a. oo
Cfi
ta.oo
10. JO
2.00
i.OO
3.00
(continued)
Reproduced from
best available copy.
160
-------
TABLE B-6 (continued)
SITE 3
SI TECJOE
3122881
10
1 (30- JO)
1 ( A«-*8>
l(Ad-S2>
1 I »2 -Sol
21 32-36)
3(27-30)
3(39-J»l
3(A5-A8J
cu
2.00
20.00
60.00
17.00
37.00
29. UO
62.00
5o.OO
90.00
pa
UA
cu
0.00
<3. 00
<3. 00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
O.OO
O.OO
ZN
30.00
AO .00
o7 .00
9J.OO
OA .00
120.0O
A7.00
bO .00
SE
CO
Nl
34.30
22.00
38.00
«9.0U
141.00
55.0O
AS .00
•2.00
3«.00
16170.00
1*070.00
20830.00
2JOJO. I>O
29l7g.<»0
2«670.OO
20000.00
21670.00
FE
2.00
O.OO
J.OC
6.00
1 .00
*.00
1 .00
1 .00
1.00
(continued)
Reproduced From
best available copy.
161
-------
TABLE B-6 (continued)
S.ITE 3
snecuoe
10
cu
9*. 00
a. uo
11*00
A6
3.00
bA
107.00
frt.OO
CO
O.OO
<1.00
2N
•O.OO
33.00
CC
AS
9.00
10*90
It. 00
19.00
(continued)
Reproduced from
best available copy.
162
-------
TABLE B-6 (continued)
SITE 3
SITECJOE
3002*625
ID
•63IJO-3SJ
e(S2-»e>
4*7
cu
9«.00
a.oo
6.0U
17.00
20.00
13.00
a. Ob
P6
27.00
11.00
33.00
J6.00
7.00
30.00
23.00
bA
107.00
»*.uo
JW.OO
M.OO
61 .00
CO
<1. 00
o.oo
-------
APPENDIX C
CONCENTRATIONS OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOUND IN SITE SOIL
Table C-l Compounds Present in Backgound Samples
Compound Concentration in Background Sample (mg/kg)
Top (0-25 cm) Bottom (25-51 cm)
Site 1
Chrysene <.001
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.538 0.520
.077
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.721
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.220 0.721
Benzo(a)anthracene <.001
Phenol <.001
Site 2
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine <.001 <.001
Butylbenzylphthalate <.001
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <.001
Chrysene .008
Benzo(a)anthracene .008
2-Nitrophenol 0.102
4-Nitrophenol .006
Site 3
Ethylbenzene .003
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <.001 0.801
16.57
Naphthalene .002
Isophorone <.001
Pyrene .001
Chrysene <.001
Benzo(a)anthracene <.001
Toluene 4.92
164
-------
Table C-2 Organic Compounds in Soil at Site 1
Compound
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
11/10/81
Top Bottom
<.001
<.001
78.80 <.001
1.976 <.001
26.60
17.08 x 103
874.00
.006 <.001
.003
.001 <.001
.012 <.001
<.091
.012 <.001
.193
14.700
.002
Concentration mg/kg
6/14/82
Top Bottom
t
.036
.003 <.001
.003
<.001 <.001
<.001
<.001 <.001
.001
12/1/82
Top Bottom
.010 .036
62.400
.010 .036
68.400
3.686 12.810
(continued)
-------
Table C-2(continued)
Compound
Concentration mg/kg
11/10/81 6/14/82 12/1/82
Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo (a)pyrene
Dibenzo (a,L) anthracene
Benzo (g, h, i) perylene
Anthracene
Naphthalene
.009 <.001 <.001 <.001
<.001 <.001 <.001
.104
.002
<.001
4482.00 .026
.332 7.24
<.001 .019
135.90
.002 0.200
229.10
.006 <.001 <.001 <.001
.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
.002
.009
<.001
.053 <.001 <.001
<.001
(continued)
-------
Table C-2(continued)
Compound
Concentration mg/kg
11/10/81 6/14/82 12/1/82
Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom
Benzene
Pyrene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Chyrsene
Bis (2-ethyhexyl)phthalate
Isophorone
.021
<.001
<.001
<.001
3.142 <.001 <.001 .001
.358 <.001 <.001
9.594
14.924
<.001
.002
.011
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
<.001 .003
.073 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
.006 <.001
<.001
(continued)
-------
Table C-2 .(-continued)
CTi
00
Compound
Phenol
Pentachlorophenol
11/10/81
Top Bottom
<.001 <.001
.031
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
Concentration mg/kg
6/14/82
Top Bottom
.0234 .1170
1.863
.0141
12/
Top
8.957
5.770
42.980
30.700
1/82
Bottom
.1073
129.0
-------
Table C-3 Organic Compounds in Soil at Site 3
VO
Compound
Chrysene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Isophorone
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Concentration mg/kg
11/17/81
Top Bottom
.196
.167
.806 1.586
4.53 .005
.038 .023
.052
6/29/82 10/19/82
Top Bottom Top Bottom
<.001
<.001
<.001 .002 .002
.0002 1.421
<.001 .012
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
<.001
<.001
.005
.016
.095
<.001
(continued)
-------
Table C-3 (continued)
Compound
Concentration mg/kg
11/17/81
Top Bottom
6/29/82
Top Bottom
10/19/82
Top Bottom
Fluoranthene
Phenol
Benzene
Bromoform
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
.091
.024
.034
<.001
<.001
.005
<.001
1.079
5.790
<.001
.006
2.059
<.001
<.001
<.001
.653
.003
.001
0.220
0.058
.288
-------
Table C-4 Organic Compounds in Soil at Site 2
Compound
Concentration mg/kg
9//81 or 11/12/81 6/16/82 11/19/82
Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom
Anthracene
Benzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
1 , 2-Diphenylhydrazine
Isophorone
.3.18 <.001 0.018
6.520
<.001
.578
11.772
<.001 <.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
.264 3.378
9.480 <.001
.425
.318 <.001
6.520 13.630
0.578
11.772
<.001
.011 .001
0.448
.090 .040
.222
(continued)
-------
Table C-4 (continued)
Compound
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Phenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Concentration mg/kg
9//81 or 11/12/81 6/16/82
Top Bottom Top Bottom
<.001 <.001
.062 .131
.072
<.001 <.001
<.001 .001 .027
<.001 <.001
<.001
<.001
.260 <.001
<.001
11/19/82
Top Bottom
4.068
*
.0013
.2814
2-Nitrophenol
.849
-------
Table C-5 Organics Present in the Unsaturated Zone.
at Site 1
Deep Soil Cores
Compound Concentration (mg/kg)
Top Bottom
1,2-Diphenyl-
hydrazine .001 <.001
Acenaphthene <.001
2,4-Dinitrotoluene <.001 <.001
Soil Pore Water
Compound Concentration (mg/1)
Phenol .122
.067
.052
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) -
phthalate 120.80
55.64
# of +ve
Observations
3
1
2
# of +ve
Observations
3
2
Di-n-butylphthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Chrysene
.031
.036
.631
1
1
1
173
-------
Table C-6 Organics Present in the Unsaturated Zone
at Site 2
Deep Soil Cores
Compound
1 , 2-Diphenylhydrazine
Anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate
Isophorone
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Diethylphthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Soil Pore Water
Compound
Concentration (mg/kg)
Top Bottom
.010 .010
.056
<.001
<.001
.008
<.001
<.001
<.001 <.001
<.001
<.001
0.676
0.384
0.010
0.089 0.138
Concentration (mg/1)
# of +ve
Observations
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
No. of +ve
Observations
Phenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
<.001
<.001
<.001
1
1
1
174
-------
Table C-7 Organics Present in the Unsaturated Zone
at Site 3
Deep Soil Cores
Compound
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Chrysene
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(b) fluoranthene
Benzo(k) fluoranthene
Benzo(a) pyrene
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Soil Pore Water
Concentration (mg/kg)
Top Bottom
1.28
1.32 16.90
1.17 13.16
.352
4.76
12.02 80.80
650.90
0.284 3.49
6.19 8.87
140.5
0.396 3.76
.056
.044
0.394
0.069
0.515
# of +ve
Observations
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
Phenol < .001
175
-------
Table c-8 Organic Compounds Found in the Background
Samples of the Unsaturated Zone
Compound Concentrations (mg/kg)
Top Bottom
Site 1
I,2-Diphenylhydrazine 0.040
Site 2
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine - .001
Anthracene <.001
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate . <.001
2-Nitrophenol 1.166
4-Nitrophenol 0.662 .097
Site 3
Phenol - 0.273
176
-------
Quality Control/Quality Assurance
A QC/QA program was implemented at the beginning of
the project. This program had two main parts. Part 1
involved sample collection, transportation and storage/
and Part 2 involved the determination of blanks, repli-
cates and spikes.
Each sample collected was assigned an identifying
code, which contained information on the site, date and
type of sample collected. Samples were placed in a cool-
er immediately upon collection, to keep them cool until
they could be refrigerated. The samples were stored in a
refrigerator dedicated to project samples, until they
were analyzed. Soil samples were collected in ziploc
plastic bags and aqueous samples in borosilicate glass
bottles with teflon-faced screw caps. A log book of all
site visits and samples collected was maintained. Aque-
ous samples to be analyzed for metals were adjusted to pH
<2 with nitric acid as soon as they arrived at the lab-
oratory. pH and COD analyses were performed on the
samples within 24 hours of collection. Soil samples were
refrigerated at 4°C until they were analyzed. All sam-
ples for priority pollutant analysis were extracted with-
in one week of collection, and analyzed within one month
of extraction in most cases.
Glassware used for priority pollutant analysis was
solvent washed, detergent washed, rinsed with tap water,
177
-------
distilled water and oven-dried. The K-D flasks and con-
centrators were also soaked in chromic acid prior to each
set of extractions. After each batch of samples from one
site was run, the glassware was also fired in a furnace
of 400°C after the cleaning sequence described above.
Glassware for metals analysis was washed with deter-
gent, and then acid-rinsed with nitric and hydrochloric
acids. After a final rinse with distilled water/ the
glassware was oven-dried. Glassware used for other
analyses were cleaned using standard laboratory proce-
dures.
The quality control procedures used in the determin-
ation of organics centered mainly on the determination of
blanks and the use of duplicate determinations. Some
spikes were also determined, particularly on the aqueous
samples. No studies were done on recoveries from the
different soil matrices, because of time and money re-
strictions.
Duplicates, spikes and blanks were also run on the
samples analyzed for metals. The duplicate determina-
tions are included in the raw data for metals in Appendix
B.
Procedural blanks were run with every set of Extrac-
tion Procedure Toxicity determinations. Ultrex nitric
acid from J.T. Baker Chemical Co., was used in the diges-
tion of the extract for metal analysis. These blanks
178
-------
served as controls for the level of metal contamination
introduced by the extraction and filtration steps, as
well as the digestion step.
In all cases, the concentrations of the blanks were
subtracted before the final metal concentrations were
calculated. Table C-9 lists blanks for soil pore water,
E.P. Toxicity and soil core samples.
179
-------
TABLE C-9 BLANK CONCENTRATIONS mg/1
Soil Pore Water
Blank #1
Blank #2
E.P. Toxicity
Blank #1 <
Blank #2
oo Blank #3
o
Blank #4
Soil Samples
Blank ftl <
Blank #2
Cu
.02 .
.03
.002
.02
.01
.01
.002
.01
Ni
<.008
<.008
<.008
.130
.015
.010
<.008
.010
Zn
.46
.04
.31
.10
.19
.16
.01
.03
Ba Cr
.26 <.01
<.02 .05
.29 <.01
.20 .01
.28 .02
.08
.11 <.01
.15 .08
Al Pb
.20 .15
.10 <.02
.22 <.02
.35 .10
.29 <.02
.20 .03
<.02
.03
As Cd Fe Mn Ag
.108 <.01 .049 .007 .006
.090 .010 .014
- .02 - - .03
- .01 - - <.002
<.01 - - .011
<.01 - - .010
<.01 - - .013
<.01 - - .010
-------
APPENDIX D
Field Data for Trees
SPECIES
TREE AREA DATE
HEIGHT UIDTu DEATH
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
bt - ~l. 1 ,.. _.u
XC4WI\ X
-------
Field Data for Trees
SPECIES
TREE AREA DATE
HEIGHT WID'iM LEATIJ
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
" A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A'
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
APR07C2
JUL2782
SEPOR82
APR0782
JUL27S2
SEPOGC2
APR0732
JUL2782
SEP0832
APR0782
JUL27S2
SEP0832
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEPCC82
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP03S2
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0832
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEPC882
APR0782
JUL2702
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
29.80
51.00
52.00
22.90
21.50
21^60
43.00
24'.10
27.20
19.68
10.30
34.30
30.20
29.50
17.80
13.90
16.30
32!40
21.00
0.95
1.25
1.13
0.64
1.06
0.32
0.71
0*.32
1.54
24.10
73.60
80.00
22.90
45.60
25.40
32.00
22.20
25.80
25.40
24.10
46.70
39.50
0.64
1.30
1.23
0.64
0.90
0.48
•
o!48
0.72
1.25
0.32
0.91
0.86
0.32
0.20
0.32
0.44
0.41
0.16
0.20
0.20
0.38
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
182
-------
Field Data for Trees
SPECIES
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
osage orange
osage orange
osage cran~e
osage orange
ocage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
red cedar
TREE AREA DATE
HEIGHT 17 ID?!! DEATH
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
1
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
SEP0802
APR0782
JUL2782
SEPOC82
APP.0782
JUL27G2
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JrJL27S2
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP08G2
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEPOR82
APR0732
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2702
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0802
APR0782
JUL2702
SEP0882
APR0782
.
26.00
18.40
9
38.10
34.30
.
27.90
20.40
fc
22.90
18.40
^
m
9
.
15*.50
29.10
27.90
15.20
17.30
15.00
26.70
34.00
9
16.50
17.60
14.80
24.10
15.10
.
25.40
15.80
14.20
17.10
15.30
7.50
27.70
23.80
20.20
26.70
16.20
9
m
9
m
33.60
t
0.32
0.30
9
0.32
0.36
m
0.48
0.34
*
0.32
0.40
t
<
.
l.'ll
0.64
9
1.27
0.5C
0.67
0.64
9
m
1.27
0.36
0.58
1.27
0.52
9
1.11
0.74
0.52
0.79
0.41
9
0.64
0.49
0.43
0.79
0.30
.
.
t
t
0.32
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
R
R
Y
Y
R
Y
Y
Y
R
Y
R
Y
183
-------
Field Data for Trees
SPECIES
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
reel cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
russian ol
TREE AREA DATE
HEIGHT WIDTH DEATH
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
G
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
JUL2782
SEPOC82
APP.0782
JUL27B2
SEPOG82
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0802
APP.0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APP.0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0832
APR0732
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2732
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL27S2
SEP0882
31.00
20.20
30.50
32.20
26.50
27.90
33.90
29.00
35.20
- 42.10
36.00
34.90
34.90
32.50
29.20
3 2 . 2.0
30.00
34.30
35.00
33.80
30.50
32.40
31.00
29.20
31.60
30.50
•
*
•
15.20
16.90
•
22.80
20.50
•
20.30
26.90
•
14.60
•
•
22.90
26.50
•
38.10
36.00
29.00
0.51
1.05
0.64
0.67
0.68
0.95
1.90
1.09
0.95
1.49
1.02
0.95
1.10
0.65
0.64
0.76
0.78
0.64
0.65
0.67
Cf *
. \) «i
0.66
0.60
0.48
0.48
0.46
•
*
•
0.79
0.79
•
0.64
•
•
1.27
0.31
*
0.32
•
•
0.64
0.57
•
1.27
1.60
1.50
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
184
-------
SPECIES
Field Data for Trees
TREE AREA DATE HEIGHT
16.50
26.60
15*.20
12.40
16.50
23.80
13.50
20.30
28.00
22*90
17.00
30.00
19.30
19*10
21.00
14*.00
16.00
21.60
33.00
22.50
17*. 10
22.90
21.00
14*.00
24.30
26.70
28.00
31.10
29.50
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
1
1
1
2
2
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
5
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
APR0782
JUL2702
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL27G2
SSP0882
APR07G2
JDL2782
SEPC382
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP03G2
APR0702
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2702
SEP0882
APR0732
•JUL2732
SEFGS82
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP08S2
APR0782
JUL27 82
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR07B2
JUL2782
SEP0082
APR0782
JUL2782
SEPOC82
APR0782
JUL7.782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2702
SEPOG82
APR0702
JUL2782
WIDTH DEATH
0.32
0.43
0.64
0.50
0.64
0.54
0.61
0.32
1.01
0*.32
0.99
0*.32
0.97
o!l6
1.02
0*.32
0.94
0*32
0.32
0.71
0*.48
0.48
0.64
0*.32
0.74
0.32
0.20
0*32
0.29
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
185
-------
SPECIES
hackbcrry
hackbcrry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hacUbcrry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
Field Data for Trees
TREE AREA DATE HEIGHT
UIDTII DEATH
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
D
D
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
n
B
B
B
B
SEP0082
APR0732
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL27C2
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEPOC82
APR0782
JUL27 82
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
TT1T IT DO
U WiJ^. / Oi.
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0832
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0832
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0832
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
24.50
17.10
14.50
•
29.20
26.60
•
26.70
24.00
•
19.10
18.00
•
27.90
26.00
•
22.90
10.00
•
12.70
14.00
•
20.30
22.00
•
25.40
19.50
•
15.20
20.50
*
17.80
25.00
3.90
19.10
18.30
10.40
15.20
13.00
•
16.50
19.00
•
14.00
»
•
20.30
0.38
0.32
0.19
»
0.32
0.26
•
0.16
0.28
•
0.16
0.20
•
0.32
0.18
•
0.32
0.28
•
0.16
0.14
o
0.16
0.23
•
0.95
0.25
•
1.11
0.18
«
1.11
0.30
0.19
1.27
0.25
0.23
1.11
0.17
•
1.27
0.21
.
0.95
•
•
0.95
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
186
-------
SPECIES
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
red cedar
red "cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
Field Data for Trees
TREE AREA DATS HEIGHT
6
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
B
B
B
B
B
B
E
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP08B2
A?R07 32
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0082
APR0782
JDL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2732
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
•
•
17.80
25.00
•
20.30
13.00
•
28.60
28.70
21.80
29.80
34.00
29.50
34.90
37.00
33.00
34.30
35.00
29.80
34.90
36.00
23.10
36.80
38.00
31.00
39.40
35.00
28.50
34.90
29.00
25.90
28.60
33.00
23.20
29.80
32.00
24.00
38.10
19.50
•
22.90
20.00
•
19.70
23.00
•
•
•
0.64
0.35
•
0.95
0.19
•
0.64
0.44
0.57
0.64
0.79
0.62
0.95
O.S2
0.91
1.11
0.36
0.75
1.43
0.58
0.55
0.48
0.45
0.48
0.79
0.65
0.74
0.64
0.49
0.48
0.64
0.34
0.34
0.32
0.31
0.28
1.11
0.77
•
0.64
0.70
•
0.64
0.74
•
WIDTH DEATH
Y
Y
187
-------
Field Data for Trees
SPECIES
rusEian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
russian olive
rucsiars olivs
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
TREE AREA DATE
HEIGHT !7IDTH DEATH
Y
Y
Y
Y
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
B
B
B
B
n
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B-
n
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C .
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0082
AFR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUI.,2782
SEP0882
APR0702
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR07 82
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0832
APR0782
JUL2782
SEPOES2
APR07 82
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR07 82
JUL2782
SEPOS82
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR07 82
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2732
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2702
19.10
23.00
•
20.30
23.00
•
30.50
22.50
•
15.20
10.00
t
21.60
16.80
•
17.80
•
•
17.80
15.00
•
22.20
201
270
19.70
213
250
29.20
232
257
34.90
230.5
260
25.40
173
215
27.90
237.5
228
30.50
200.5
202
33.00
101.5
112
24.10
181
0.95
0.89
•
0.64
0.71
•
0.64
0.72
•
0.64
0.61
•
0.43
0.37
•
0.48
*
•
0.32
0.28
•
0.43
1.59
2.41
0.32
1.91
2.36
0.64
2.41
3.05
0.79
1.88
3.01
0.64
1.81
2. 1C
0.64
2.09
2.22
0.95
1.64
1.91
0.95
1.17
1.15
0.64
1.92
Y
Y
188
-------
SPECIES
Field Data for Trees
TREE AREA DATE HEIGHT
WIDTH DEATH
black locust
black locust
black locust
black locust
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
hackberry
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
9
10
10
10
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4 .
4-
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
SEPOC82
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
AFR0732
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL27 82
SEPC082
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL27 82
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP08-82
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0382
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEPOG32
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR07R2
185.5
27.90
165.5
199
24.10
40.00
40.00
15.20
52.50
8.50
33.00
40.00
41.00
21.60
36.00
34.50
33.00
36.00
32.00
27.90
27.50
25.50
43.20
.
11.50
33.00
17.50
17.50
22.90
.
.
33.00
24.50
24.60
14.00
66.50
98.50
17.80
75.50
95.50
16.50
77.00
102
19.10
87.00
125
27.90
1.99
0.48
1.82
2.99
0.32
0.35
0.46
0.16
0.37
0.38
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.32
0.48
0.37
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.30
0.30
0.48
.
0.38
0.32
0.38
0.31
0.32
.
.
0.48
0,38
0.36
0.95
0.85
1.01
1.11
0.93
1.06
1.43
0.73
1.06
0.95
0.83
0.95
1.27
Y
Y
189
-------
SPECIES
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
osage orange
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
red cedar
.- Field Data for Trees
TREE AREA DATE HEIGHT
T7IDTII DEATI-1
rea
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
ceciar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
cedar
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
G
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
JUL2732
SEP0832
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0832
APR0782
JUL2782
SEPOB82
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2702
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL27G2
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
. JUL2782
SEP0882
74.00
92.50
20.30
70.50
70.50
25.40
43.00
70.00
19.00
19.00
13.00
33.00
13.00
48.50
17.10
70.00
68.50
33.70
37.50
39.50
38.10
25.50
68.50
39.40
8.00
14.50
35.60
43.50
52.50
33.00
46.50
54.50
27.90
27.00
24.00
31.80
33.00
40.50
36.80
43.00
53.00
30.50
46.00
52.00
35.60
51.50
61.00
0.87
0.91
1.27
0.70
0.82
1.27
0.72
0.78
1.11
0.51
0.69
1.27
0.56
0.63
1.27
0.78
0.78
0.64
0.73
0.73
1.11
1.32
1.44
0.64
0.65
0.60
0.79
1.32
1.07
0.79
0.05
0.92
0.32
0.36
0.44
0.64
0.79
0.69
0.95
0.72
0.78
0.64
0.81
0.92
1.11
0.73
1.35
190
-------
Field Data for Trees
SPECIES
TREE
DAT?
HEIGHT WIDTH DEATH
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
russian
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
olive
ol
ol
ive
ive
olive
ol
ol
ive
ive
olive
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ol
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
ive
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
f*
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
APR0782
JUL2782
SEPOG32
APR0782
JUL2782
SEPOS82
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0732
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0082
APR0782
JUL2782
SEP0882
APR07G2
JUL2782
SEP0882
21
53
67
24
27
44
44
21
20
17
19
36
36
20
17
27
31
32
30
24
20
56
56
22
67
70
.60
.00
.00
.10
9
.
.90
.50
.50
.60
.00
.00
.70
.00
.00
.30
.
,
.80
.00
.00
.40
.50
.00
.30
.50
.50
.90
.00
.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
1
.32
.72
.81
.32
m
.
.64
.59
.59
.64
.62
.55
.64
.53
.50
.32
.
*
. C "
'.52
.55
.64
.55
.53
.64
.66
.75
.64
.97
.05
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
191
-------
APPENDIX E
CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
1
Table El Daily Rainfall Record
DAY MARCH
1
2
3
4
5 .07
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 .80
14 .02
15
16 T
17 T
18
19
20 T
21
22
23
24
25
26 .40
27 .18
28
29 .06
30
31
Total 1.53
80 yr. 2.73
Avg.
APRIL
.30
.02
.32
T
.07
.18
T
.06
.02
.82
.07
.30
.22
2.38
4.13
MAY
.02
.20
2.45
.09
.04
3.55
.03
1.35
.03
.02
.28
.01
.18
.02
.80
1.50
.01
.42
1.50
.86
13.36
5.18
JUNE JULY AUGUST
.05
.22
.04
2.70
.10 .10
T
.46 .01
.26
T
.24 .03 T
.02
.12
.56
.04
.58
.82
T
.15 .04 .14
T
2.00
1.15
3.52 6.07 0.24
3.71 2.80 2.79
SEPT OCT NOV
.10
.50
.02
.30
.09 .22
.24
1.05
.09
T
T .01
.01
.03 T
.18 .03
T
.12
1.05
1.20
.08
1.25
.01
1.41 2.05 3.12
3.47 3.65 2.38
Measurements in inches, T = trace amount, data from
Noble Foundation headquarters farm.
192
-------
Table E-2 Daily Temperature Record (°F)
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
March
High
66
68
68
53
35
48
58
71
65
71
71
76
70
65
76
80
82
78
83
77
68
66
70
72
59
54
45
62
60
74
76
Low
33
45
48
35
32
28
30
40
43
43
56
53
49
48
49
48
50
64
64
52
48
42
38
46
47
36
37
40
42
58
51
April
High
78
82
76
70
64
60
50
62
58
60
68
82
88
82
80
89
73
58
82
64
64
71
71
59
75
79
77
67
78
64
August
High Low
91
92
92
94
97
101
90
71
71
72
72
71
71
72
Low
46
65
41
50
54
36
42
52
44
37
37
52
54
52
63
64
49
48
52
54
48
40
42
46
51
48
48
53
46
52
May
High
76
75
80
83
75
59
76
77
78
80
74
66
74
79
83
81
80
77
84 •
82
90
83
85
80
82
84
87
85
90
88
72
Sept
High
99
98
92
90
91
95
95
Low
74
71
69
58
61
56
59
Low
54
54
58
60
64
48
43
48
54
58
60
57
58
58
55
63
54
56
60
65
63
61
61
60
63
62
63
63
68
70
58
June
High
80
78
87
77
84
86
88
87
89
86
83
85
85
87
76
80
86
82
86
88
83
90
87
86
88
87
89
91
95
92
July
Low High
50
56
62
62
57
65
69
69
70
64
62
62
57
62
70
60
58
64
65
62
61
62
65
62
62
64
65
64
68
71
Oct
High
88
92
89
93
91
91
89
Low
61
64
63
64
64
67
62
90
91
92
93
91
88
87
92
94
93
91
92
94
92
92
93
93
94
96
96
99
101
99
97
95
97
97
95
92
87
79
Nov
LOW
70
72
72
74
76
67
66
65
70
71
66
69
68
66
67
72
74
75
72
70
72
71
72
70
68
70
69
72
74
72
68
High Low
81 64
70 55
58 46
64 36
64 33
69 42
70 54
(continued)
193
-------
Table E-2 (continued)
Day
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
August
High Low
92
94
94
94
96
98
99
100
100
91
90
94
96
97
99
99
98
96
98
102
92
96
100
98
70
68
70
71
71
73
73
71
70
71
70
66
65
66
68
71
74
70
71
74
68
70
70
72
Sept
High Low
92
93
94
94
97
89
95
79
88
95
85
73
77
74
80
88
84
81
76
86
88
87
87
62
60
65
66
68
70
70
64
64
64
64
61
60
50
46
56
60
54
48
61
66
66
68
Oct
High Low
86
76
73
75
68
79
79
80
85
77
86
82
63
49
72
74
74
77
68
76
75
81
70
53
51
47
51
52
45
48
48
53
56
63
41
43
49
41
60
38
54
42
52
66
Nov
High Low
66
73
70
70
54
54
52
55
59
50
60
77
78
77
79
53
42
39
40
39
59
67
74
51
55
58
60
45
28
36
26
40
44
47
57
55
40
56
32
29
32
36
38
32
34
42
194
-------
APPENDIX F
X-RAY DIFFRACTION SPECTRA
en
CT70
f» ID
" TJ
a.
s.S
KENT = BT1340682S
CC!J:IT TIHE= 1.0 SEC.
RAHGE= 2.&9 -> 69.00 IHCR= 0.02
ESTIMhTED TIME OF COUPLET I OH IS 2?= 1
INTENSITY US.. TWO-THETft
FULL SCALE =
1500. COUNTS/S
EC.
33.68
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX F (continued)
ID
ICEI-'T : 2T1040682S
co:ji!7 TII:E= i o «
SEC.
I'lTEMSlTV US. TWO-THETA
RAHGE= 2.00 -> ee.eo IUCF= o.a?
ESTIMATED TIME OF COHPLET10M IS 24=12
FULL SCALE =
1500. COUMTS/SEC.
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX F (continued)
TI"£= 10 SEC.
RANGE= 2.00 -> 60.00 IHCP= 6.82
ESTIMATED TIME OF COUPLET IOH IS 1 22
I TENSITY I'S. TWO-THETA
FULL SCALE =
1509. COUHTS/SEC.
10
24.60
39.60
36 8C 36 60
(continued)
42
48.00
54.80
-------
APPENDIX F (continued)
10
GO
crxi
60.ee IliCR= 8.02
ESTIMATED TIME OF COHPLETIOH IS 2=34
0.80
. TNO-THETA
FULL SCALE = 1508. COUHTS/SEC
c-J 00
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX F (continued)
\o
vo
ICEJiT 2T3I01982S
C-CUMT TIME= 1.0 SEC.
2.09 -> 60.00 IMCR= 0.82
EiTIHATED TIME OF COKFLETIOU IS 3=44
U'TEi^ITY US. TUO-THETA
FULL SCftLE = 1500. COUHTS/SEC.
0.00
6.
3D.&0 36.
(continued)
12.00
12. 00
A^^WW^A-i^^
18.00
24.60
43.
-------
APPENDIX F (continued)
I CENT = 5T3U0482S
C-C-OfiT TIKE = 1 .8 SEC.
RANGE= 2.63 -> 68.09 IHCR= 8.*2
ESTIMATED TIME OF COMPLETION !S •» 54
IU7EM5ITY U5. TWO-THETA
FULL SCALE =
1508. COUNTS/SEC.
to
o
o
CT70
0) n
a ^
"I
o =
13
8.68
33.C8 36 08
(continued)
42.
48.
54.00
60. CO
-------
APPENDIX F (continued)
to
o
CT30
-
IDr»!T = BT2061682S
CO:JliT TIME= 1.0 SEC
PAHGE= 2.00 -> 60.08 IHCP= 9.02
ESTIMflTED TIME OF COMPLETION IS 18=14
INTENSITY US. TUO-THETA
FULL SCALE = 1560. COUMTS/SEC.
-------
APPENDIX F (continued)
to
o
CTXJ
a
ICEUT : 3TT297882S
.c-r-iuiT TK;E= i.e SEC
INTENSITY US. TWO-THETA
RAHCE= 2.69 -> 60.99 INCR= 9.92
ESTIHflTED TIME OF COMPLETION IS 19=26
FULL SCttLE =
1568. COUNTS/SEC.
33.68
36
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX F (continued)
O
u>
£8.
a -
o
o3
IC'EHT = 4TT2070882S
C.ELHT TIME- 1.0 SEC.
RANCE= 2 00 -> 60.06 IHCR= 6.02
ESTIMHTED TIME OF COMPLETION IS 20'38
If.'TEMSITY VS. TMO-THETA
FULL SCALE =
1506. COUHTS/SEC.
30, £'0 36.de
(continued)
48.de
54.00
36.00
SO. 00
-------
APPENDIX F (continued)
to
o
ID rc
TJ
1.
!rE!!T : 5TT2D70882S
CC:."-:T TIME= i.o SEC
IIITENSITY us. TWO-THETA
PftNGE= 2 00 -> 60.90 INCP= 8.D2
l&TfHftTED tlHE OF COMPLETION IS 2i=59
FULL SCALE = 1500. COUNTS/SEC.
-------