Prepujbh'catton issue for EPA libraries
and State Solid Waste Management Agencies
SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL
OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE
Environmental Assessment
This report (SW-167c) by R. J. Lofy, H-T Phung, R. P. Stearns, and J. J. Walsh
describes work performed for the Office of Solid Waste under contract no. 68-01-4166.
The report is reproduced as received from the contractor,
and the findings should be attributed to the contractor
and not to the Office of Solid Waste.
Copies will be available from the
. National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, Virginia 22161
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1978
-------
This report was prepared by SCS Engineers, Long Beach, California,
under contract no. 68-01-4166.
Publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of commercial products constitute endorsement by the
U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-167c) in the solid
waste management series.
-------
FOREWORD
A major concern in any solid waste management system is
the disposal of wastewater treatment sludge. The quantities
of sludge to be disposed of are increasing and will continue
to increase with the implementation of more stringent Federal
water quality standards and best practicable treatment
technology requirements. Currently 5.5 million dry tons of
wastewater sludge are generated annually, and this quantity
is expected to more than double by 1983.
Approximately 50 percent of the land disposal sites
accepting residential and commercial wastes in this country
also accept wastewater treatment plant sludge. An additional,
but unknown, number of land disposal sites are specifically
designed for wastewater treatment sludge only.
In order to assess the environmental effect of these sludge
landfilling practices, especially on groundwater quality, the
Office of Solid Waste awarded a contract to SCS Engineers. The
study was conducted in two phases: Phase I was designed to
detect the presence or absence of leachate-contaminated groundwater
in the immediate vicinity of the disposal sites. The results of
the Phase I study were published in an interim report (SW-547)
September 1977.
During the Phase II study a more intensive monitoring
program was initiated in order to substantiate the observed
trends in Phase I, evaluate changes in groundwater quality as
influenced by disposal operations, predict possible future
damage to the aquifer in the area, and to assess attenuation
mechanism(s) in the soil near the landfill. The results of the
Phase II study are presented in this report.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Contents iv
Figures vi
Tables xiii
Summary and Findings xvi
1. Introduction 1
Description of the Problem 1
Project Description 1
Report Organization 4
2. Site Selection Procedures 6
Site Selection Criteria 6
Approach to Site Selection 7
Results of Site Investigations 9
3. Description of Case Study Sites 11
Location 11
Climate 11
Ownership and Operation 14
Sludge Description 14
Groundwater Depth 14
Surface and Subsurface Soils 22
4. Field Instrumentation and Monitoring Program . . . .25
Introduction - 25
Geological Survey 25
Well Installations 26
Field Sampling 45
Chemical Analysis 45
Analytical Quality Control 47
5. Special Control Volume Analyses 49
Approach 49
Modeling 51
Calculations 61
6. Data Evaluation 66
Introduction 66
Site 1 67
Site 2 137
Site 3 150
Site 4 225
Site 5 237
Site 6 247
Site 7 259
Site 8 275
IV
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
References 290
Appendi ces
A. Gas probe and monitoring well placement procedures .291
B. Groundwater readings from monitoring wells .... .296
C. Field sampling instruction manual 298
D. Methods for sample preparation and analysis 315
E. Analytical results for Phase II 319
F. National primary drinking water standards 358
v
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Locations of monitoring wells at site 1 30
2 Locations of monitoring wells at site 2 31
3 Locations of monitoring wells at site 3 32
4 Locations of monitoring wells at site 4 33
5 Locations of monitoring wells at site 5 34
6 Locations of monitoring wells at site 6 35
7 Locations of monitoring wells at site 7 36
8 Locations of monitoring wells at site 8 37
9 Typical background well construction 38
10 Typical in-refuse well construction 40
11 Typical downstream well construction 41
12 Off-site well layout for Sites 1 and 3 42
13 Typical plume well construction with pneumatic
ejector samplers 44
14 Illustration of field well layout 50
15 Control volume for sites 1 and 3 52
16 Refraction of streamlines across a boundary of
different permeabilities 55
17 Direction of flow vectors and plan view of
reoriented control volume 59
18 Changes in concentration (a) and hydraulic
gradient (b) for OS well no. i, level j ... 62
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
19 Concentration isopleth diagram (a) and
partitioning of control volume face into
subareas (b) 63
20 Cl levels in groundwater from six off-site wells
(site 1) . . . . • 76
21 $04 levels in groundwater from six off-site
wells (site 1) 78
22 TOC levels in groundwater from six off-site
wells (site 1) 80
23 Fe levels in groundwater from six off-site
wells (site 1) 82
24 Pb levels in groundwater from six off-site
wells (site 1) 84
25 Zn levels in groundwater from six off-site
wells (site 1) 86
26 Hg levels in groundwater from six off-site
wells (site 1) 38
27 Cl , $04, and TOC levels in groundwater and
leachate (site 1) 92
28 Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater and
leachate (site 1). . y. 93
29 Hg levels in groundwater and leachate (site 1)... . 94
30 Directions of groundwater flow in aquifer
layer of site 1 98
31 Inlet section of site 1 (perpendicular to
x-direction) 100
32 Outlet section of site 1 (perpendicular to
x-direction) 101
33a Site 1 iron concentration isopleths for line 1 . 109
33b Site 1 iron concentration isopleths for line 2 . 110
34a Site 1 lead concentration isopleths for line 1 111
vii...
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
Paqe
34b Site 1 lead concentration isopleths for line 2. . .112
35a Site 1 mercury concentration isopleths for
line 1 113
35b Site 1 mercury concentration isopleths for
line 2 114
36a Site 1 cadmium concentration isopleths for
line 1 115
36b Site 1 cadmium concentration isopleths for
line 2 • 116
37a Site 1 chromium concentration isopleths for
line 1. . ; 117
37b Site 1 chromium concentration isopleths for
line 2 118
38a Site 1 copper concentration isopleths for
line 1 119
38b Site 1 copper concentration isopleths for
line 2 120
39a Site 1 nickel concentration isopleths for
line 1 ; 121
39b Site 1 nickel concentration isopleths for
line 2 122
40a Site 1 zinc concentration isopleths for
line 1 123
40b Site 1 zinc concentration isopleths for
line 2 124
41a Site 1 chloride concentration isopleths for
line 1 125
41b Site 1 chloride concentration isopleths for
line 2 126
42a Site 1 sulfate concentration isopleths for
line 1 127
Vlll
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
42b Site 1 sulfate concentration isopleths for
line 2 128
43a Site 1 TOC concentration isopleths for
line 1 129
43b Site 1 TOC concentration isopleths for
line 2 130
44a Site 1 specific conductance isopleths for
line 1 131
44b Site 1 specific conductance isopleths for
line 2 132
45 Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater (Site 2)^ _ _ 146
46 Cl , S04, and TOC levels in groundwater (Site 2)_ _ 147
47 Configuration of water table, groundwater flow
direction, and new special control volume
of site 3 159
48 Cl levels in groundwater from six off-site
wells (site 3) 160
49 SO/, levels in groundwater from six off-site
4 wells (site 3). * 162
50 TOC levels in groundwater from six off-site
wells (site 3). 164
51 Fe levels in groundwater from six off-site
wells (site 3). 166
52 Pb levels in groundwater from six off-site
wells (site 3\ 168
53 Zn levels in groundwater from six off-site
wells (site 3) 170
54 Hg levels in groundwater from six off-site
wells (site 3) 172
55 Cl , S04, and TOC levels in groundwater and
leachate (site 3) 175
IX
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
56
57
58
59
60
61
62a
62b
63a
63b
64a
64b
65a
65b
66a
66b
67a
67b
68a
Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater and
leachate (site 3)
Hg levels in groundwater and leachate (site 3). .
Vertical inlet section of site 3.
Vertical section E-E1 of site 3 (see Figure 47).
Horizontal inlet section of site 3.
Horizontal outlet section of site 3.
Site 3 iron concentration isopleths for line 1. .
Site 3 iron concentration isopleths for line 2. m
Site 3 lead concentration isopleths for line 1. .
Site 3 lead concentration isopleths for line 2. .
Site 3 mercury concentration isopleths for
line 1
Site 3 mercury concentration isopleths for
line 2
Site 3 cadmium concentration isopleths for
line 1
Site 3 cadmium concentration isopleths for
line 2
Site 3 chromium concentration isopleths for
line 1
Site 3 chromium concentration isopleths for
line 2
Site 3 copper concentration isopleths for
line 1
Site 3 copper concentration isopleths for
line 2
Site 3 nickel concentration isopleths for
1 ine 1
176
.177
180
.183
191
192
.196
.197
.198
.199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
-------
FIGURES
Number
68b
69a
69b
70a
70b
71a
71b
72a
72b
73a
73b
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
(continued)
Site 3 nickel concentration isopleths for
1 i n e 2
Site 3 zinc concentration isopleths for
1 ine 1
Site 3 zinc concentration isopleths for
1 i ne 2
Site 3 chloride concentration isopleths for
line!
Site 3 chloride concentration isopleths for
line 2
Site 3 sulfate concentration isopleths for
Site 3 sulfate concentration isopleths for
1 i n e 2 .
Site 3 TOC concentration isopleths for line 1. .
Site 3 TOC concentration isopleths for line 2. .
Site 3 specific conductance isopleths for
line!.
Site 3 specific conductance isopleths for
1 ine 2. .
Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater (Site 4). .
Cl , S04, and TOC levels in groundwater (Site 4).
Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater (Site 5). .
Cl , 504, and TOC levels in groundwater (Site 5).
Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater (Site 6). .
Cl, $04, and TOC levels in groundwater (Site 6).
Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater (Site 7). .
Cl, S04, and TOC levels in groundwater (Site 7).
Pajje
209
210
211
212
• 21 3
.214
• 215
.216
.217
.218
.219
.232
.233
.243
.244
.254
.255
.269
.270
XI
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
82 Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater (Site 8). . . 284
83 Cl, $04, and TOC levels in groundwater (Site 8). . 285
Xil
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Comparative Weather Data 12
2 Selected Descriptive Information on Case Study
Sites I5
3 Variation in Waste Composition 19
4 Depths to Groundwater 21
5 Soils and Geology 23
6 Soil Texture and Permeability Coefficients for
Cover Soils at Study Sites 24
7 Well Construction Details for All Sites 27
8 Requisite Analytical Sensitivities for the
Selected Constituents in Groundwater 48
9 Analytical Results for Site 1, Phase I 68
10 Chemical Analysis of Leachates from In-Refuse
Well (Site 1) 72
11 Gas Composition at Site 1 In-Refuse Well 73
12 Site 1 Control Areas, Hydraulic Gradients, and
Flow Velocities in X-Direction 95
13 Site 1 Hydraulic Gradients and Flow Velocities
in Y-Direction 96
14 The Magnitude and Direction of Horizontal
Groundwater Flow of Site 1 99
15 Contaminant Flux and Mass through Inlet Face of
Site 1 102
16 Contaminant Flux and Mass through Outlet Face of
Site 1 104
Xlll
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number ^*.
17 Number of Times Sampled Constituent Concentrations
Exceeded EPA Drinking Water Standards (Site !)• • • •«
18 Analytical Results for Site 2, Phase 1 ....... 138
19 Chemical Analysis of Leachates from In-Refuse
Well (Site 2) .................... 141
20 Gas Composition at Site 2 In-Refuse Well ...... 144
21 Number of Times Sampled Constituent Concentrations
Exceeded EPA Drinking Water Standards (Site 2) . . .148
22 Analytical Results for Disposal Site 3, Phase I. . .151
23 Chemical Analysis of Leachate from In-Refuse
Well (Site 3) .................... 155
24 Gas Composition at Site 3 In-Refuse Well ...... 157
25 Contaminant Flux and Mass through Vertical Inlet
Section of Site 3 (Lower Clay Layer) ........ 181
26 Contaminant Flux and Mass through Horizontal
Inlet Section of Site 3 (Sand Layer) ........ ltt4
29
27 Contaminant Flux and Mass through Horizontal
Outlet Section of Site 3 (Sand Layer) ....... I
28 Number of Times Sampled Constituent Concentrations
Exceeded EPA Drinking Water Standards (Site 3). • • ^
Analytical Results for Site 4, Phase 1 ....... 226
30 Chemical Analysis of Leachates from In-Refuse
Well (Site 4) ................... 229
31 Number of Times Sampled Constituent Concentrations
Exceeded EPA Drinking Water Standards (Site 4) • • •i^
32 Analytical Results for Site 5, Phase I ....... 238
33 Gas Composition at Site 5 In-Refuse Well ...... 242
34 Number of Times Sampled Constituent Concentrations
Exceeded EPA Drinking Water Standards (Site 5). .
xiv
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
35 Analytical Results for Site 6, Phase I 248
36 Gas Composition at Site 6 In-Refuse Well 253
37 Number of Times Sampled Constituent Concentrations
Exceeded EPA Drinking Water Standards (Site 6). . . 257
38 Analytical Results for Site 7, Phase I 260
39 Chemical Analysis of Leachates from In-Refuse
Well (Site 7) 265
40 Changes in Gas Composition in In-Refuse Well at
Two Depths from Site 7 268
41 Bacteriologic Examination of Groundwater from
Off-Site Wells (Site 7) 272
42 Number of Times Sampled Constituent Concentrations
Exceeded EPA Drinking Water Standards (Site 7) . . .273
43 Analytical Results for Site 8, Phase I 276
44 Chemical Analysis of Leachates from In-Refuse
Well (Site 8) 281
45 Bacteriologic Examination of Groundwater from
Off-Site Wells (Site 8). . . . ' 287
46 Number of Times Sampled Constituent Concentrations
Exceeded EPA Drinking Water Standards (Site 8) . . 288
xv
-------
SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
An investigation of groundwater quality, disposal operations
costs and aesthetics was conducted at eight landfills receiving
various quantities of sewage sludge. Three sites were located
in Nebraska, two in New York, and one each in New Jersey,
Arkansas, and Virginia.
Four samplings of leachate, groundwater and landfill gas
three times over a 4- to 6- mo period in 1975 and once in
June 1976, were made in Phase I (December 1974 to January 1976).
Sewage sludge samples and soil samples obtained at various
depths beneath the landfill were obtained and chemically charac-
terized. Preliminary results indicated that groundwaters in the
vicinity of the landfills were contaminated with heavy metals,
including iron, lead and mercury. Nitrate was present at
very low to trace amounts in the leachate and groundwater.
Methane and carbon dioxide were the predominant gas species
found in the landfills.
Phase II monitoring (August 1976 to January 1978} was
initiated to provide additional data on leachate and ground-
water quality at the landfills. Leachate and groundwater samples
were collected bimonthly over a 1-yr period. Analyses included
total organic carbon, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate,
and eight heavy metals.
A major effort in Phase II involved installation of six
additional off-site wells with pneumatic ejector-type sample
collectors at two sites. The wells were located to establish
the three-dimensional extent of the leachate plume emanating
from the landfill. Two parallel lines, each containing three
off-site wells and four sampling elevations within each well,
were located perpendicular to the presumed central axis of the
leachate plume downgradient from the disposal area. The
two vertical planes passing through the leachate-contaminated
groundwater enclave, coupled with the distinguishable direction
of groundwater movement, defined a hypothetical leachate control
volume. Total mass emissions through the control volume, dilu-
tion, and soil attenuation were estimated based on monitoring
results .
xvi
-------
Significant findings based on the Phase II monitoring
effort are summarized below:
• The intensive sampling at Sites 1 and 3 provided
clear evidence of leachate presence, and the movement
and variation in contaminant concentrations with
sampling time, depth, and well location. The data
did not verify the conventional concepts of uniform
leachate emission from the entire landfill area and
dispersion in a fan-shaped plume downstream of the land-
fill site and along the soi1-groundwater interface.
It appeared that the 2-mo sampling intervals were too
infrequent to adequately assess groundwater quality
impacts of subsurface burial of sewage sludge.
• Although distinct seasonal peaks in leachate contaminant
concentrations were evident in the data, no consistent
pattern emerged for the specific contaminants at a
given site. Mass balance calculations for the control
volumes at Sites 1 and 3 showed that TOC and chloride
were attenuated, while soluble zinc and lead were
eluted. Soluble iron and sulfate could be attenuated or
eluted, while there was little or no change in mercury.
t No apparent correlations existed between the concentra-
tions, of selected constituents in the sludge and those
found either in the leachate or groundwater. Concen-
trations of these constituents were significantly higher
in the leachate than in the groundwater. Soil between the
bottom of the landfill and groundwater greatly attenuated
or decreased the potency of the.1eachate .
• The Phase II data confirmed the preliminary results
obtained under Phase I in that iron, lead, and TOC
were the contaminants in downstream groundwaters that
most often exceeded EPA Drinking Water Standards.
Generally, the contaminant concentrations measured in
Phase II were lower than those found in Phase I.
Mercury, a contaminant of concern from Phase I was not
found to be of concern based on the Phase II monitoring
results.
t Elevated groundwater contaminant levels during initial
samplings were presumably due to disturbances from
well drilling. The increases in contaminant concen-
trations observed to occur during the summer were
believed due to larger quantities of leachate escaping
from the fill sites.
XV XI
-------
t Iron in excess of EPA Drinking Water Standards appeared
in several background wells and in nearly all down-
stream groundwater monitoring wells at the study sites.
However, since its solubility is dependent on redox
potential, clay content, and other ligands, iron does
not appear to be suitable as an indicator of leachate
metal migration. Lead was found to be a good indicator
of leachate-borne heavy metals in groundwater. Down-
stream wells at Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 appeared to be con-
taminated with lead.
• There was little discernible difference in downstream
groundwater quality between sites receiving sewage
sludge only and those sites accepting mixed sewage
sludge and refuse, although somewhat higher lead
concentrations were observed at the sludge-only sites.
Using EPA Drinking Water Standards as a reference
point, there was no evidence that the groundwater
was contaminated by cadmium, chromium, mercury, nickel,
copper, and zinc at the eight sites monitored. The
high chloride and sulfate concentrations observed at
two sites were the result of saltwater intrusion or
the oxidation of pyrite.
Overall, the monitoring data identify the extreme difficulty
in selecting monitoring well locations and sampling depths, and
establishing a sampling frequency necessary to obtain valid
information on landfill impacts on groundwater. Contaminant
concentration isopleths illustrated in the report demonstrate
multiple leachate plumes, horizontal and vertical stratification,
and seasonal variations in contaminants, all within a monitoring
grid measuring 160 m wide by 15 in deep. A successful effort
to measure impacts on groundwater will be costly, time-consuming,
and will require the participation of highly trained specialists
in the initial planning and survey.
Aside from site monitoring, the aesthetics, operations,
and costs were also assessed during site visits. Disposal
of municipal sewage sludge in clay trenches can result in aes-
thetic and operational difficulties. The major aesthetic
problems reported at the study sites were odors and unattrac-
tive piles of exposed sludge. From a visual and aesthetic
viewpoint, certain disposal practices appeared more acceptable
than others. However, the analytical results did not show
that these operational practices mitigated impacts on local
groundwaters. Nevertheless, none of the eight case study sites
reported any discernible increase in accidents, injuries, or
other health problems by site employees, site users, or the
community as a result of the sludge disposal operations.
XVlll
-------
Operational problems arose primarily from the difficulty
experienced by equipment operators in handling sludge piles.
The high moisture content of the sludge caused wheels and
tracks on equipment to spin and caused sludge to accumulate
on equipment components. Soft spots occurred in the land-
fill where large quantities of sludge had been buried, re-
sulting in depressions that trapped drainage or mired the
equi pment.
The proper handling and land disposal of septic tank
pumpings was cited as a difficult problem by many site opera-
tors. The number and degree of problems encountered appear
to increase with the proportion of septic tank pumpings
received, primarily because the material is liquid, obnoxious,
and often unstable.
The indicated cost of sludge disposal ranged from
$10.03 to $48.95/dry metric ton at the sludge-only disposal
facilities, and $5.06 to $69.17/dry metric ton at the mixed
refuse and sludge burial facilities. These costs reflect an
actual or calculated "gate fee" at each disposal site and
do not necessarily indicate the actual cost incurred for sludge
di sposal .
A confusing picture of state and local regulatory agency
requirements governing handling and disposal of wastewater
treatment sludge exists in the United States. Completely
dichotomous disposal philosophies and regulations are apparent
from state to state. This seemingly inconsistent regulation
of wastewater treatment sludge disposal has spawned a patchwork
of conflicting practices. In some instances, it has fostered
environmentally unacceptable overt and covert sludge disposal
practices .
xix
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM
As effluent standards become increasingly stringent, the
quantity of sewage sludge produced by municipal treatment plants
in meeting these standards also increases. This, in turn,
creates a burgeoning sludge disposal problem. Communities
throughout the country are experimenting with various methods
for the disposal of sewage sludge in an attempt to evolve a
method best suited to their requirements.
Past and present methods for municipal sewage sludge
disposal include:
Direct discharge to rivers, lakes, and oceans
Incineration
Various land burial procedures
Agricultural utilization
Land and/or forest application.
Environmental and economic constraints are currently forcing
the reappraisal of virtually every disposal option. Ocean dis-
posal is being phased out because of environmental and potential
health considerations. Energy costs have raised incinerator
operating expenses to near prohibitive levels for many communi-
ties. As a result, some communities are taking the most con-
venient and expeditious alternative, often with little thought
to protecting the environment. Communities such as these are in
need of advice and guidance as to the best alternative procedures
to replace present costly or prohibited sludge disposal prac-
tices.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is part of an organized program developed by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste, to assess the costs and environmental impacts of
different methods of sludge utilization and/or disposal. The
ultimate goal of this program is to develop guidelines to aid
communities in selecting a cost-effective and environmentally
acceptable sludge disposal method.
-------
The broad objective of this project was to conduct an
environmental assessment of subsurface placement of sewage treat-
ment solids. Leaching of contaminants from municipal solid waste
landfills is recognized as a problem at fills not designed and
operated according to EPA suggested operating practices. How-
ever, it has been the belief that sanitary landfills operated
under these guidelines would sufficiently mitigate or reduce the
leaching potential so that there would be no adverse impacts on
groundwater outside of the landfill disposal area or property
boundaries. Similarly, it was theorized that there would be no
adverse impacts from sludge burial in municipal landfills. To
test this hypothesis, EPA funded this study to ascertain whether
the leachates emanating from sites accepting municipal sewage
sludge were significantly different from those accepting only
municipal refuse, and whether this leachate produced an adverse
impact on groundwater.
Appropriate regulatory agencies overseeing wastewater
treatment and solid waste disposal in 48 states were contacted
for information concerning sewage sludge disposal facilities
in their respective states. Leads and recommendations from
these agencies, as well as other sources, led to a preliminary
investigation of over 300 such facilities in the United States.
Information provided by the regulatory agencies as well as
in-depth interviews and site visitations revealed a confusing
picture of state and local regulatory agency requirements
governing the handling and disposal of sewage sludge. Completely
dichotomous disposal philosophies and regulations were apparent
as the interviewer moved from one state to another. The contra-
dictory and seemingly arbitrary regulation of sewage sludge
disposal has spawned a patchwork of conflicting practices. In
some instances, it has helped foster environmentally unacceptable
overt and covert practices.
Follow-up telephone interviews with over 100 municipal
officials revealed a general lack of knowledge on the method
and location of sludge disposal in their respective communities.
Oftentimes, municipal officials had little knowledge or under-
standing of the attendant problems. The impression that
remained was that while water and wastewater was adequately
regulated, sewage sludge disposal came under some ambiguous
wastewater regulation. In addition, many state solid waste
regulations arbitrarily exclude municipal sewage sludge or were
very vague concerning handling and disposal. Only a few states
evidenced a comprehensive knowledge of their sewage sludge
disposal practices or had realistic and practical regulations
governing the disposal of such material.
The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase
(EPA Contract No. 68-01-3108, December 1974 to January 1976)
involved an initial assessment of the environmental impact of
-------
wastewater treatment sludge burial practices. Tasks developed
and performed to accomplish this overall objective included:
• Identification and selection of nine case study sites
encompassing a representative range of sizes, soil
characteristics, climatological conditions, operating
techniques, sludge quantities and characteristics, and
environmental impacts (actual and potential) for
detailed field study
• Conduct of field studies at each location to obtain site
data; historical operating and cost information;
aesthetic and environmental problems encountered and
approaches to problem solution; sludge quantities and
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics; and
disposal site operating techniques
• Location and installation of monitoring wells at each
site to assess the physical and chemical characteristics
of leachate and groundwaters and the composition of
decomposition gases generated within the landfill.
The data obtained under the first phase determined only the
presence or absence of groundwater contamination. No effort was
made to provide information on the level and area! extent of
groundwater contamination at these sites. Another deficiency
included the lack of truly representative background groundwater
samples with which to compare down-gradient groundwater and to
identify contamination. Further, this initial effort encom-
passed less than four data points, and further analyses were
required to provide statistical confidence in the results
obtained.
The second phase of the study (EPA Contract No. 68-01-4166,
August 1976 to January 1978) was intended to provide additional
data on leachate and groundwater quality at eight of the case
study sites of the initial project. Tasks under the second
project included:
• Monitoring leachate and groundwater quality at eight
case study sites for a specified list of contaminants
at 2-mo intervals over a 12-mo period
• Measurement and evaluation of changes in groundwater
quality down-gradient from two disposal sites as a
function of distance and hydrogeological parameters
• Prediction of possible future damage to the groundwater
aquifer in the area of all sites based on field informa-
tion obtained
-------
• Preparation of detailed case study reports for each of
the eight sites
• Correlation of observed differences in concentrations
and areal extent of pollutant contamination among the
eight sites with the following parameters:
- Types and quantities of wastes buried
Climate
Geology
- Hydrology
• Assessment, where possible, of the mechanism(s) of
concentration or attenuation as the leachate passes
from the waste/soil interface to groundwaters.
A major objective of the study was to determine the areal
extent and degree of contamination from landfills accepting
municipal sewage sludge/refuse admixtures. Two sites were
selected from eight previously monitored sites for a more
extensive monitoring program. These two sites were carefully
chosen to allow a comparison of two different soil conditions,
and sewage sludge only versus combined sludge/municipal refuse
disposal. Six pneumatic sampling wells were installed down-
gradient from each disposal site to intercept and sample the
leachate plume as it moved from the landfill in the direction
of the regional groundwater movement. These six wells were
arranged in two parallel lines perpendicular to the direction
of groundwater flow. In addition, each well was designed to
allow sampling of the groundwater at four depths. This arrange-
ment created a test box with 12 sample points on each face
intersecting the flow. Any difference between concentrations of
constituents at each face could be attributed to dilution,
attenuation, or elution, depending on the type and magnitude of
the change and any inputs to the box other than the leachate
plume.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report includes the results of both phases of the
project and is organized into two volumes. Volume 1 discusses
project execution, interpretive findings, and recommendations
based on the field and analytical results and has been organized
into the following topic areas:
• A brief description of the individual case study sites
highlighting climatological, geological, and topograph-
ical features; operating practices; descriptions of
refuse and/or sewage sludge quantities and characteris-
tics and contributing sources of sludge; and any other
notable events that may affect the environment
-------
• A description of the design.and installation of the
field monitoring devices
• Sampling and analytical program and quality control
procedures
• Analytical results and data evaluation for each site
and a discussion of trends and relationships observed.
Volume 2, Case Study Site Reports, contains a detailed descrip-
tion of each site, with brief site-specific interpretations and
evaluations of the findings.
-------
SECTION 2
SITE SELECTION PROCEDURES
SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
Criteria used in the initial screening and selection of
candidate case study sites were prepared at the project's onset.
Several mandatory criteria were stipulated in the contract while
other desirable criteria were identified to aid in ensuring a
successful project. Following are the mandatory criteria:
Subsurface placement of sewage treatment solids at the
site must have been or was practiced for at least 1 yr,
and the site must not have been closed for more than 3 yr
prior to the start of the survey.
One-third of the sites selected were to dispose of
sewage sludge only while the remainder were to dispose
of sewage sludge together with municipal refuse.
For those sites disposing of both municipal refuse and
sewage sludge, the sewage sludge must have comprised at
least 10 percent of the combined total quantity by
weight.
The disposal method used was to be either by sanitary
landfill or pit and trench methods (liquid sewage -siudge
injection methods were specifically excluded).
The sludges could have been municipal wastewater treat-
ment sludges and/or septic tank pumpings or any
combination of these wastes with municipal refuse
(industrial sludges were exluded).
As a group, the sites selected were to cover a represen-
tative range of sizes, soil characteristics, climatolog-
ical conditions, operating techniques, sludge quantities
and characteristics, and actual or potential environ-
mental impacts.
The entity responsible for the site had to agree to
cooperate during the monitoring program (such coopera-
tion was essential if the contractor's personnel were
to obtain samples from the site and additional
-------
information on site operations, handling procedures, and
other pertinent information necessary to the goals of
the project).
The desirable criteria included the following:
• The existence of good operational records for the
disposal site (especially helpful in this regard would
be historical records of quantities and types of waste
received, chemical and physical characteristics of the
waste, the sources of sludge material, and the areas in
the landfill where sludge was placed)
• Data on area groundwater quality prior to start-up of
the operation as well as the existence of climatological
data from a nearby weather station
• A site previously researched by university groups and
state or local regulatory agencies that would yield
useful background data for comparative purposes
• Sites where existing groundwater/leachate monitoring
and/or gas sampling systems are installed (such sites
could provide a long-term historical data record to
supplement and complement the information obtained
during this study's short-term monitoring program)
• Sites maintaining current topographic maps of the area
since the initiation of filling operations, as well as
geological and/or engineering reports pertaining to the
site and its developments, would be beneficial
• The selection of exemplary sites was not considered
essential as the selection of average or probably below
average operations would perhaps provide a better indi-
cation of the possible severity of environmental
contamination resulting from sewage sludge disposal.
APPROACH TO SITE SELECTION
Several approaches, capsulated below, were employed to
locate candidate sites for possible inclusion in the study:
t A search of the literature for references to locations
where various aspects of sludge disposal to landfill
had been or were being investigated
§ A review of U.S. Public Health Service Bulletin No.
1866, "1968 National Survey of Community Solid Waste
Practices"
-------
• Contacting State Solid Waste Management and Wastewater
Quality Control Agencies to enlist assistance in
locating candidate sites meeting the mandatory criteria
stipulated above (similar inquiries were made to all
EPA Regional Offices)
• Contacting sewage treatment plants and/or public works
departments in the largest 150 cities in the United
States by telephone to ascertain how sewage sludge was
being disposed of in the respective communities.
The PHS Bulletin reports on field investigations of more
than 6,000 land disposal sites in the United States. Basic
data pertaining to each site are tabulated, including the volume
of sewage treatment sludge disposed of with other municipal
solid wastes. A review of Volumes 1 and 2 (volumes for the
Central and Western parts of the United States have not been
published) was made to provide a quick initial screening of
potential candidate sites along the East Coast. Unfortunately,
the document proved of less value than originally anticipated
due to closure of many sites and changes in disposal practices
over the interim 7-yr period. Most of the data was found to be
obsolete and no longer useful for the purposes of the project.
State agency and Regional EPA contacts, coupled with the
information obtained from the literature, provided an initial
list of some 200 candidate sites that were then contacted by
telephone. The sewage treatment plant was initially contacted
to obtain pertinent information on treatment plant operations
and types and quantities of sewage sludge. The party respons-
ible for landfill disposal operations was contacted with regard
to quantities of sewage sludge received, total quantity of
refuse handled, how long the site had been receiving this
material, whether or not industrial wastes were being received,
and other pertinent information. Telephone contact with more
than one individual was useful in that it provided a cross-
check on the validity of the information obtained.
Unfortunately, upon further investigation, only a very few
sites actually met all of the mandatory selection criteria.
The major causes for site rejection in descending order of
occurrence and importance were as follows:
• The relative weight or percentage of sewage sludge
solids commonly landfilled was less than 1 or 2 percent
of the total .instead of the desired 10 percent or more.
• The disposal of sewage sludge solids at the site:
Had been conducted for less than 1 yr, thus present-
ing little probability of any measurable environ-
mental impacts
8
-------
Had been discontinued after a short time because of
unspecified operating difficulties
Had been sporadic in occurrence, and thus was
deposited in unidentifiable locations in the landfill
Had stopped more than 3 yr ago
Had been used with soil cover and not buried.
• Inadequate records had been kept on the quantities of
material deposited and other data considered useful in .
assessing and correlating the monitoring results.
t Many of the sites that accepted large quantities of
sewage sludge also accepted industrial wastes, including
industrial sludges.
RESULTS OF SITE INVESTIGATIONS
Following a careful review of site data and the selection
criteria, the list of candidate sites totaled some 40 sites.
Subsequently, a total of 31 sites were actually field-visited
in an attempt to identify sites meeting the mandatory and
desired criteria to the maximum possible degree.
The field visit encompassed a full man-day effort to
assemble pertinent information with regard to the site. This
covered two or three distinct areas as summarized below:
Sewage Treatment Plant
•*
At the treatment plant, the following information was
solicited:
• Year plant started
0 Treatment or stabilization method for sewage and sludge
• Sewage sludge disposal practices since the plant
became operational
• Availability of sludge quantity records for the years
of operation
t Chemical, physical, and biological characterization
data on sludge
• Methods and frequency of transporting sludge.
-------
Disposal Site
The disposal site was visited and the site owner or oper-
ator queried as to the following information:
• Year site first operated
• Year that sludge was first received
• Site plan and delineation of where sludge has been
buried
t Operational methods of handling and burial of refuse
and/or sludge
• Operational problems related to sludge handling
• Current and past environmental monitoring programs, if
any
• Availability of hydrogeologic information
• Regulatory agency requirements with regard to landfill
operations and/or sludge burial.
Other Information Sources
If a local or state regulatory agency had been active in
establishing operating requirements or monitoring at the land-
fill site, the following information was solicited:
• Monitoring results with regard to environmental and
health implications of the sludge-burial operation
0 Water quality data as well as geologic profiles for the
area of the landfill
0 Surface soil data from the Soil Conservation Service of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Information obtained from the site visit was evaluated and com-
pared with telephone-derived data, and recommendations for site
inclusion or exclusion derived. Nine case study sites were
ultimately selected, monitoring work completed, and detailed
descriptive and comparative information compiled.*
*Monitoring wells at one location were inadvertently destroyed
Thus, only eight locations are discussed in the report.
10
-------
SECTION 3
DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDY SITES
Selected comparative information is presented in this
section to characterize and identify the range of conditions
found at the case study site locations.
LOCATION
The eight case study sites were located in the Midwest and
Eastern sectors of the country. Three sites were located in
Nebraska, two in New York, and one each in New Jersey, Arkansas,
and Virginia.
CLIMATE
Selected climatic characteristics of the eight sites are
presented in Table 1 and were representative of the Midwestern
and Eastern seaboard areas.
Normal annual precipitation of the four Midwestern loca-
tions ranged from 59.4 to 108 cm (23.4 to 42.4 in). Annual
precipitation at the four Eastern locations ranged from 82.6
to 115 cm (32.5 to 45.4 in). Site 1 in- the Midwest received
the least annual precipitation, 59.4 cm (23.4 in), of the eight
sites, while Site 6 on the Eastern seaboard with 115 cm (45.4
in) had the highest average annual precipitation. All locations
were subject to snow and ice in the winter months.
Maximum average daily 'temperatures of the four Midwestern
sites ranged from 16.7 to 21.1°C (62 to 70°F). Minimum average
daily temperatures ranged from 3.4 to 8.3°C (38 to 47°F).
Corresponding average daily maximum and minimum temperatures for
the four sites located in the East ranged from 12.3 to 19.3°C
(54 to 67°F) and 1.4 to 8.8°C (35 to 48°F), respectively.
Site 4 in the southern Midwest had consistently higher
average daily maximum and minimum temperatures, while Site 8
in the Northeast experienced the lowest average daily maximum
and minimum temperatures.
11
-------
TABLE 1. COMPARATIVE WEATHER DATA*
Precipitati
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Hater
Equivale
Normal Maximum
(Annual) (Monthly)
59.4
67.8
76.7
107.7
98.8
115.3
84.8
82.6
35.6
19.0
34.8
36.1
36.3
33.3
22.9
29.2
nt
Maximum
.(24 hr)
13.7
6.8
16.5
24.4
18.2
16.5
11.4
9.1
on (cm)
Snow,
Ice Pell
Maximum
(Monthly)
66.0
50.3
69.1
34.3
54.1
89.4
146.0
144.0
Mean
ets of
Maximum (
(24 hr)
30.5
26.4
46.5
36.6
36.6
55.6
41 .9
i Number
Days
i tat ion
0.025 cm
or more)
88
96
99
111
112
135
153
12
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
CO
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Da i 1 y
Maximum
16.7
16.8
17.1
21 .1
19.3
17. €
14.5
12.3
Temperature ,
Normal
Daily
Minimum
3.4
4.3
4.6
8.3
8.8
6.6
2.8
1 .4
°c*
Monthly
10.0
10.6
10.8
14.7
14.0
12'.0
8.7
6.9
Max
32°C and
Above
40
37
34
48
37
16
8
5
Mean Number
imum
of Days
Minimum
0°C and 0°C and -17
Below Below
45
40
40
7
9
15
47
75
149
141
137
91
75
111
155
163
.8°C and
Bel ow
16
18
12
1
0
1
17
28
*Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.
tMultiply tabulated values by 0.397 to obtain inches.
#F = OC x 1.8 -32. For example, -17.80C = 0°F.
-------
OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION
A comparison of site ownership and operating information
is presented in Table 2. Two locations, Sites 5 and 7, had
formerly operated as open dumps with intermittent burning. Each
has since been converted to sanitary landfill procedures. Only
one site was owned by a private firm. Of the remaining seven
locations, all were municipally owned and operated except Site 1
where a private contractor operated the municipally owned site.
Three of the eight sites accepted only sludge while the
remaining five sites accepted both sludge and mixed refuse.
The respective costs for sludge burial were calculated on the
basis of gate fees, lump sum payments to contractors, or annual
operating budgets. Cost per t* of dry sludge solids ranged
from $5.06 at Site 2 to $69.17 at Site 6.
Personnel employed at the sites generally ranged from one
to three, with the largest site operated by a staff of 35.
Wastes were delivered by open-top truck to all of the
sites. Haul distances ranged up to 19.3 km one way.
SLUDGE DESCRIPTION
Comparative information on sludge type, sludge solids
content, and estimated quantities of sludge and other wastes
(if any) delivered to the case study sites is given in Table 3.
Sludge received at six of the sites was described as
dewatered raw primary and waste-activated sludge. Site 6
received anaerobically digested sludge and large quantities of
septic tank pumpings. Site 5 received a mixture of raw and
digested primary and waste-activated sludge along with minor
quantities of incinerated sludge residue.
Solids content of the sludge as received for disposal
ranged from about 3 percent at Site 6 to 40 percent at Sites 3
and 7. Site 3 receives relatively dry paunch manure while
Site 7 receives Zimpro-processed sludge.
The relative proportion of sludge to all wastes received
ranged from a low of 5.2 percent (volume basis) at Site 6 to
23.5 percent (weight basis) at Site 7.
GROUNDWATER DEPTH
The depths to groundwater at the monitoring well locations
for each case study site are shown on Table 4. Calculated
*t = metric ton.
14
-------
TABLE 2. SELECTED DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION ON CASE STUDY SITES
Criteria
Ownership
Operation
Year opened
First received sludge
Remaining life
(estimated years)
Open to publ ic
Scales
Gate fee
Operating personnel
Equipment (number
?
Municipal
Private
1969
1969
4
Yes
No
Yes
3
John Deere 646 corn-
Case
2
Municipal
Municipal
1956
1967
2
Yes
No
No
3
3 Caterpillar D-8
Study Site
3
Municipal
Municipal
1939
1939
Closed
No
No
No
1
I-H 175 loader with
4
Municipal
Municipal
1968
1968
2
No
No
No
2
Backhoe
and type)
One-way haul
distance in km
(treatment plant
to site)
pactor Caterpillar
977 with 1.9 m3
bucket
8
track dozers each
with 0.76 m3 drag-
line
6.4
1.9 m3 bucket
J. Deere with .57 nr
dragline
Two plants, one Plant adjacent to
adjacent to disposal disposal site
site, one 16 km from
site
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Criteria
Ownership
Operation
Year opened
First received sludge
Remaining life
(estimated years)
Open to public
Scales
Gate fee
Operating personnel
Equipment (number
and type)
5
Municipal
Municipal
Dump 1925
Landfill 1972
1973
3
No
Yes
Yes
47
3 compactors
5 dozers
3 scrapers
2 track loader
1 grader
5 miscellaneous
6
Municipal
Municipal
1955
1962
16
No
No
No
3
1 dozer
1 loader
Case Study Site
7
Municipal
Municipal
Dump 1947
Landfill 1960
1972
12-17
Yes
No
No
2
1 front-end bucket 1
loader (2.3 m3)
1 caterpillar D-5
dozer 1-2
1 compactor
8
Private
Municipal
1973
1973
4
No
No
No
1-6
Michigan 754
loader with
1 .9 m3 bucket
Caterpillar D-6
dozers
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Criteria
Case Study Site
3
Haul
vehicle
Open
(4.6
dump
m3)
truck
Open dump
(6m3)
truck
Open
(4.6
dump
m3)
truck
2 Open dump
(7.6 - 9 m3
trucks
Waste types received Sludge cake
(annual quanti- (13,230 m3)
ties), wet basis
Disposal method
Disposal costs
($/dry t )
Paunch manure
(330 m3)
Industrial and
commercial wastes
(16,800 m3)
Residential
(59,700 m3)
Sludge spread with
refuse, compacted
and covered with
soil
$7.67''
Construction and
demolition, muni-
cipal refuse,
pretreated indus-
trial plating
sludges, paunch
manure (200,000 t)
Wastewater treat-
ment sludge (25,8801)
Trench, covered
with refuse and
soil
$5.06
Dewatered grit
and screenings,
wastewater treat-
ment sludge and
paunch manure
(varies)
Pit, covered with
soil
$10.03
*/
Sludge (7,200 t
yr - 5 yr average)
Trench, covered
with soil
$48.95
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
00
Criteria
One-way haul
distance in km
(treatment plant
to site)
5
13-32
(5 plants)
Case Study Site
6 7
8-16 9.6
(2 plants)
8
19.3
Haul vehicle
Waste types
received (annual
quantities), wet
basis
Disposal method
Disposal cost,
($/dry t)
Trailers (13,6 t)
Dump trucks (6-9 t)
Tandem axle trucks,
roll-off containers
(4.5 t)
Sludge (53,190 t)
Refuse (471,700 t).
Sludge spread
with refuse,
compacted and
covered with soil
$23.29
Vacuum tank truck
(23 m3)
Household and com-
mercial refuse
(37,700 m3)
Septic tank pump-
ings (7,200 m3)
Municipal waste-
water treatment-
sludge (3,590 mj)
Sludge dumped on
refuse, covered
with soil
$69.17
(operating cost)
Open dump trucks
(3.8 - 4.6 m3)
Municipal refuse
(17,360 t)
Sludge (5,322 t)
Trailers (20
21.5 m3)
Sludge, screenings
and grit (53,500 m3)
Sludge dried in
piles, then spread
with refuse, covered
with soil
$11.44
Sludge is lagooned,
allowed to dry, and
covered with soil
$21.82
0 - iiiC bill
-------
TABLE 3. VARIATION IN WASTE COMPOSITION
Criteria
1
Case Study Site
3
Sludge type
Solids content
of sludge (as
delivered to
site)
Annual sludge
quantity (wet
basis)
Total annual
quantity of
waste delivered
to site
Proportion of
sludge to total
waste (wet
basis)t
Raw primary
and waste acti-
vated sludge,
gravity thick-
ened, and vacuum
filtered (poly-
mers)
25 - 30%
13,556 mj
(5-yr average)
90,090 m3
15.1%
Raw primary
and waste acti-
vated sludge,
gravity and/or
air flotation
thickening, and
vacuum filtered
(polymers)
20 - 25%
25,880 t
225,654 t
11.5%
Raw primary
and waste acti-
vated sludge,
vacuum filtered,and
paunch manure
25 -
Raw primary and
waste activated
sludge, gravity
thickened, vacuum &
filtered (lime and
ferric chloride)
18 - 25%
Varies radically
due to incinera-
tor breakdown
Varies
NA
7,210 t
(5-yr average)
7,210 t
100%
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Criteria 5
Case Study Site
6 7
8
Sludge type
Solids content
of sludge (as
delivered to
site)
Annual sludge
quantity (wet
basis)
Total annual
quantity of
waste delivered
to site
Proportion of
sludge to total
waste (wet
basis)t
Anaerobically
digested and
dewatered sludge,
lime and ferric
chloride treated
raw sludge incin-
erator residues
20 - 95%
(average 22%)
53,190 t
497,720 t
10.6
Anaerobically
digested sludge,
septic tank
pumpings
3-5%
3,586 m3
68,904 m
5.2
Raw primary
and waste acti-
vated, Zimpro
processed, vacuum
filtered
37%
5,322 t
22,681 t
23.5
Raw primary and
waste activated
sludge gravity
thickened,
centrifuged
12*5%
53,522 nf
53,522 m"
100%
*t = metric ton.
tProportion based on either wet weight or wet volume basis depending on quantity data.
-------
TABLE 4 . DEPTHS TO GROUNDWATER
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Depth from Surface (m)
Depth from Bottom
Refuse Well Off-Site Wells of Landfill (m)
10.7
8.2
9.0
Dril 1 ing
portable
depth.
9.75
7.6
11 .9
3.0
5.5
2.3 to 4.1
6.7
stopped upon reaching bedrock
water obtained from the 45.7
2.9
1 .8
4.3 to 6.1
1.1
3.4
-0.9
2.6
Nearby
to 61 m
2.4
1 .8
4.6
0.6
-------
depths to groundwater below the bottom of the landfill are also
presented.
Only Site 2 had sludge deposited within the first 0.9 m
(3 ft) of the seasonally fluctuating groundwater table. The
other locations ranged from 0.6 m (2 ft) above the groundwater
table at Site 8 to an estimated 4.6 m (15 ft) above the ground-
water at Site 7.
SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOILS
A general categorization of soil types found at each of the
sites to bedrock or parent material is described in Table 5.
Soil conditions varied considerably at each site. Only the pre-
vailing soil characteristics are shown.
Soil textures and permeability coefficients for the land-
fill cover soils found in the vicinity of the in-refuse
monitoring wells are given in Table 6. Two or more samples
were tested at each site. Permeabilities are expressed as a
vertical and horizontal factor for each soil.
22
-------
TABLE 5. SOILS AND GEOLOGY
Site 1
Silty clay and silt
Fine sand
Clay
Sand-gravel
Site 3
Silty clay
Silty fine sand
Sand
Limestone
Site 5
Unconsolidated sediments
(fine sands, silts,
clays, and gravel)
Metamorphic and igneous rocks
Granites
Glacial and
Site 7
alluvial
Shale
deposits
Site 2
Silty clay
Silt
Sand and sands-gravels
Sandstone
Site 4
Sandy loams
Limestone
Sand and calcareous sandstone
Limestone
Site 6
Alluvial beach sand and gravel
Gray clay and fine gravel
Sand
Site 8
Sand and gravel
Glacial deposits
23
-------
TABLE 6. SOIL TEXTURE AND PERMEABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR
COVER SOILS AT STUDY SITES
Site Soil Texture*
1 Clayey sand
2 Silty clay
3 Silty clay
4 Silty clay
5 Clayey sand
6 Sand
7 Sand
8 Sand
Pe
rmeabi
1
1ty Coefficient
Horizontal
1
1
1
4
3
4
4
7
1
6
4
.8
.4
.2
.8
.4
.1
.5
.5
.2
.1
,5
x 1
x 1
x 1
x 1
x 1
2 x
x 1
x 1
x 1
x 1
x 1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
-6
_7
•• /
-Q
~ y
-9
-8
\J
O"6
-4
** n
-4
_3
J
-6
-5
1
1
1
9
7
3
1
5
2
2
3
(cm/s
Verti
.6 x
.1 x
.2 x
.4 x
.4 x
.19 x
.7 x
.4 x
.0 x
.7 x
.3 x
ec)
ca
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
-6
_7
*
-Q
3
-9
-9
j
o'6
_ "5
J
-3
-4
™
-6
-5
* Visual classification (Unified soil classification)
-------
SECTION 4
FIELD INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
Site geological surveys, well placement, sampling, and
chemical analysis form an integral part of the groundwater moni-
toring at each of the disposal sites in this study.
During Phase I, the monitoring objective was limited to
determining the presence or absence of groundwater contamination.
A more intensive monitoring program was initiated in Phase II,
including a geological survey; installation of exploratory,
background, and additional off-site wells downstream from the
disposal sites; and more frequent sampling. The objectives were
to:
t Substantiate the observed trends in Phase I
0 Evaluate changes in groundwater quality as influenced
by disposal operation
0 Predict possible future damage to the aquifer in the
area
0 Assess attenuation mechanism(s) in soil beneath the
landfill. v-
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Prior to well placement in Phase I, available information
on site geology, hydrogeology, soils, topography, and other
historical data was assembled and reviewed. In Phase II, a
local geology consultant assisted the project team in conducting
a geological survey and in identifying locations for three
exploratory wells to groundwater. A soil boring log was then
prepared for each of the exploratory wells drilled. Information
generated included the following:
0 Visual field classification of soils
0 Estimations of soil permeabilities and porosity
0 Groundwater depth and direction of flow
25
-------
• Direction and approximate width, length, and depth of
the downstream leachate plume.
Based on this information, a background monitoring well upstream
and, depending on the site, one to six off-site wells were
located downstream from the landfill.
WELL INSTALLATIONS
Two sets of monitoring wells were installed at each of the
study sites:
• The initial installations in 1975 (Phase I), which
included an in-refuse well and one or two off-site wells
9 A complementary set of wells in 1976 (Phase II), which
included a background well and from one to six off-site
wells (Sites 1 and 3 only).
The types of monitoring wells installed, depth, well size,
and sample intake elevation are given in Table 7. Typical
monitoring well placement procedures are summarized in Appen-
dix A. Well locations at each site are shown in Figures 1
through 8. Periodic groundwater elevation readings are given
in Appendix B.
Background Well
Due to the preliminary nature of Phase I, no background
well was installed at any of the study sites. Instead, well
water from nearby residential or commercial installations was
used as the background water reference.. In Phase II, after the
direction of groundwater flow was established from the piezo-
metric groundwater levels measured in the exploratory wells and
geologic data, a background well was installed upstream of the
disposal site in a location unaffected by landfill leachate.
This background well presumably intercepted the same aquifer as
the downgradient off-site wells.
The background well consisted of either a 3.8-cm or 10.2-cm
PVC pipe placed to a depth of at least 2.4 m below the ground-
water surface. A schematic of the background well is
illustrated in Figure 9.
At Sites 1 and 3, four discrete pneumatic ejection devices
for sample collection were installed at different depths in the
background groundwater monitoring well. Details of this pneu-
matic ejector-type sample collector will be presented later
under "Off-Site Well."
26
-------
TABLE 7 . WELL CONSTRUCTION'DETAILS FOR ALL SITES
Well Type
Site 1
Initial Wells
In-Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-X)
Observation Wells (EX-1)
(EX-2)
(EX-3)
Gas Ejection Type Wells
Background, Level 1 (BG-1)
Level 2 (BG-2)
Level 3 (BG-3)
Level 4 (BG-4)
Off site No. 1, Level 1 (OS-11)
Level 2 (OS-12)
Level 3 (OS-13)
Level 4 (OS-14)
Off site No. 2, Level 1 (OS-21)
Level 2 (OS-22)
Level 3 (OS-23)
Level 4 (OS-24)
Offsite No. 3, Level 1 (OS-31)
Level 2 (OS-32)
Level 3 (OS-33)
Level 4 (OS- 34)
Offsite No. 4, Level 1 (-OS-41)
Level 2 (OS-42)
Level 3 (OS-43)
Level 4 (OS-44)
Offsite No. 5, Level 1 (OS- 51)
Level 2 (OS-52)
Level 3 (OS-53)
Level 4 (OS-54)
Offsite No. 6, Level 1 (OS-61)
Level 2 (OS-62)
Level 3 (OS-63)
Level 4 (OS-64)
Site 2
In-Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-1)
Downstream Deep (OS-2)
Drill Depth
(m)
11.3
5.8
19.8
16.8
13.7
18.3
22.3
22.6
24.4
20.1
21.3
24.4
11.0
3.7
15.2
Sample Intake
Elevation (m)
563.0 ,
558.4 AT
558.4
556.3
557.2
4.
557.2 CT
554.1 A
551.1 A
548.0 A
554.1 A
550.8 A
547.7 A
545.9 A
555.7 C
552.6 A
549.6 A
547.1 A
559.9 C
556.9 C
553.8 A
550.8 A,
554.1 ST
551.4 S
548.3 C
545.0 A
557.8 C
554.7 A
552.0 A
549.2 A
559.3 C
557.2 C
553.2 A
550.4 A
340.5
341.7
334.4
Well Size
(cm)*
7.6
7.6
3.8
ii
n
M
6.4#
n
n
n
M.
6.4#
H
n
n
ji
6.4#
n
n
n
ji
6.4#
n
n
n
4
6.4*
n
ii
n
O.f
n
n
n
M.
6.4#
n
n
n
10.2
10.2
10.2
27
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
Well Type
Observation Wells (EX-1
(EX-2)
Background Wells (BG)
Site 3
Initial Wells
In- Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-X)
Observation Wells (EX-1
(EX-2)
EX-3
EX-4
EX-5
Gas Ejection Type Wells
Background, Level 1 (BG-1)
Level 2 (BG-2)
Level 3 (BG-3)
Level 4 (BG-4)
Offsite No. 1, Level 1 (OS-11)
Level 2 (OS-12)
Level 3 (OS-13)
Level 4 (OS-14)
Offsite No. 2, Level 1 (OS-21)
Level 2 (OS-22)
Level 3 (OS-23)
Level 4 (OS-24)
Offsite No. 3, Level 1 (OS-31)
Level 2 (OS-32)
Level 3 (OS-33)
Level 4 (OS-34)
Offsite No. 4, Level 1 (OS-41)
Level 2 (OS-42)
Level 3 (OS-43)
Level 4 (OS-44)
Offsite No. 5, Level 1 (OS-51)
Level 2 (OS-52)
Level 3 (OS-53)
Level 4 (OS-54)
Offsite -No. 6, Level 1 (OS-61 )
Level 2 (OS- 62)
Level 3 (OS-63)
Level 4 (OS-64)
Drill Depth
(m)
= 16.8
=15.2
6.7
10.7
7.3
13.7
15.2
9.1
9.1
15.2
18.3
19.8
19.8
19.2
19.2
19.2
17.7
Sample Intake
Elevation (m)
=336.2
=335.6
340.8
304.3
300.5
=296.6
=295.4
=299.0
302.0 C1"
299.0 C
296.0 ST
292.9 S
299.6 C
295.7 S
292.6 S
290.5 S
303.0 C
300.0 C
296.6 S
294.4 S
299.6 C
296.6 S
293.2 S
290.8 S
298.4 C
295.4 S
292.3 S
289.9 S
298.4 C
296.0 S
292.3 S
289.0 S
301.4 C
297.2 S
293.5 S
291.1 S
Well Size
(cm)*
3.8
II
10.2
7.6
7.6
3.8
II
II
II
6.4*
II
II
II
f -#
6.4
II
II
II
r J
6.4
II
II
II
C „#
6.4
II
II
cB,*
6.4
II
II
" *
6.4
II
II
e\*
6.4
II
II
II
28
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
Well Type
Site 4
In-Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-X)
Observation (EX-1)
(EX-2)
Background (BG)
Site 5
In-Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-1)
Background (BG)
Site 6
In-Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-1)
Downstream Deep (OS- 2)
Off site, Phase II (OS-31)
(OS-32)
(OS-33)
Background (BG)
Site 7
In-Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-1)
Downstream Deep (OS-2)
Observation (EX-1)
(EX-2)
(EX-3)
Off site, Phase II (OS-3)
Background (BG)
Site 8
In-Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-1)
Downstream Deep (OS-2)
Observation (EX-1)
Off site, Phase II (OS-3)
Background (BG)
* Well types of PVC material.
t A, C. and S are for aquifer
? Pneumatic sampler.
Drill Depth
(m)
7.6
5.6
7.6
3.5
13.1
11.3
3.3
19.8
8.2
4.6
8.5
17.4
12.8
10.7
6.7
12.4
11.3
13.7
7.0
15.2
22.9
3.0
2.0
5.9
11.6
22.9
9.8
Sample Intake
Elevation (m)
419.2
416.5
416.8
416.3
417.6
28.0
12.7
53.6
20.2
14.7
11.3
17.0
11.5
3.0
14.3
265.7
258.7
252.9
264.1
268.4
265.8
250.7
261.1
198.3
195.9
192.3
199.2
180.2
204.8
Well Size
(cm)*
10.2
10.2
3.8
II
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
6.4
II
10.2
10.2
10.2
1 rt f\
10.2
5T
.1
II
II
c /.#
6.4
If* r\
0.2
5.1
5.1
5^
.1
5^
.1
10.2
10.2
, clay, and sand strata, respectively.
29
-------
EAST-WEST SECTION LINE ROAD
-- :-
o 200'
SCALE
Figure 1 . Locations of monitoring wells at site 1
30
-------
£ FILLED AREA
1970 ;: (YEAR FILLED)
Figure 2. Locations of monitoring wells at site 2
31
-------
EX-2 0
AUTO
JUNKYARD
i W£ \
\ A ^7 or
3-
- *
•I ;*;":«• •!-;"<^ • ; "•".•i'-*-'-'-*";
;!;.;.;.;. >"•> ; - •'.•'.•>-:':•;-:
iiii"""s LUDGE" "|
ill! DISPOSAL;!!
AREA |||
•j
:::;:.i::.::.'::
BG'
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
PLANT
Figure 2. Locations of monitoring wells at site 3.
-------
MID 1973 TC
JAN 1973
A SCS PPCJECT WELLS
•5ASLISS SITE WELLS
Figure 4. Locations of monitoring wells at site 4
33
-------
SITE WELL
CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES
SURFACE WATER COURSES
ACCESS ROAO
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
— LIMITS Or LANOFILLING
ACTIVE FILL AREAS
\tfOODEO AREAS
CROSS-SECTION 8-3
• SITE MONITORING WEL
SITE SURFACE WATER
MONITORING STATIONS
PROJECT MONITORING WELLS
Figure 5. Locations "of monitoring wells at site
34
-------
CJ
cn -
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
CJTJT^L ACCESS ROAD
FILL AREA BOUNDARY
•— •— •-- LIMIT OF EXCAVATION
WOODS
TOWNSHIP MONITORING WELL
PROJECT MONITORING WELL
\ I CROSS SECTION
COMPLETED
FILli ANEA
OW-2/OS-l-««OS-2
Figure 6. Locations of monitoring wells at site 6
-------
OJ
o>
FV^
UUui
LEGEND
WOODS
ROADS
COMPLETED FILL
PROJECT
MONITORING
WELLS
CITY WATER
WELL
h
TRUE
CITY WATER
WELL
SLUDGE DRYING AND
SPREADING AREA
os-;
os-i
Figure l. Locations of monitoring wells at site 7.
-------
to
-4
WOODED AREA
ROADV.'AY
EACHATE POND
SILTATION POND
LAGOOM NO.
SO'L STOCKPILE
SURFACE WATER MONITORING STATIONi;;^-,
r.y -.J.);}. 'V> ''
LAGOON NO. 2
SAMPLE POINT
(UPSTREAM)
. \ J •* •' • •* j^—_*-——
SAMPLE POINT 2
(DOWNSTREAM AT EITHER
THIS LOCATION OR 2500 FT
(760M) FURTIER DOWN BROOK.)
Figure 8. Locations of monitoring wells at site 8.
-------
PVC Cap
Groundwater V
2.2 ft (0.67 m)
1 — Soil Surface
n Crete Plug
.Backfilled Soil
4 in. (10 cm) Diameter PYC
Pi pe
^—Clay Plug
Gravel
•Well Screen Section - Hacksaw
Guts, 3 in. (7 cm) On. Center
ft
(0.61 m) reservoir section
PVC Cap
(Glued in Place)
Caved Soil
Fiaure B . Typical background well construction
38
-------
In-Refuse Well
An in-refuse well was installed within the landfill area in
Phase I to monitor leachate and decomposition gases generated
within proximity of the well. The well was drilled to ground-
water, and a concrete plug placed between the groundwater table
and bottom of the landfill. A 10.2-cm PVC pipe was then placed
to approximately 0.5 m below the bottom of the landfill. Gas
probes were placed at two depths, one approximately at 0.9 to
1.5 m below the surface (upper), and the other above the bottom
(lower) of the landfill, on the outside of the well casing. A
schematic of the in-refuse well is illustrated in Figure 10.
Off-Site Well
In Phase I, two downstream wells were installed approxi-
mately 31 to 92 m outside the limit of the disposal area in the
presumed direction of groundwater flow. These wells were to
intercept the groundwater passing the landfill. The shallow
well would intercept the groundwater in the first meter or so
of the aquifer. The deep well would penetrate a deeper stratum
and intercept groundwater at a depth of about 6.1 m (site
conditions permitting). The purpose was to detect differences
in groundwater quality with depth.
The wells consisted of 10.2-cm PVC pipe extending to the
desired depth. Because of bedrock, caving sand, or other
impediments, deep wells were not dug at Sites 1, 3, 4, and 5.
A schematic of the off-site wells is illustrated in Figure 11.
In Phase II, one additional deep well was installed at
each of Sites 6, 7, and 8. They were 8.9, 2.8, and 17.0 m,
respectively, deeper than the original deep wells at Sites 6,
7, and 8.
One major expansion in Phase II monitoring involved
installation of six additional off-site wells with pneumatic,
ejector-type sample collectors at Sites 1 and 3. The rationale
behind the installation of these wells downstream of the
disposal area was to establish the three-dimensional extent of
the leachate plume emanating from the landfill (Figure 12). Two
parallel lines, each containing three off-site wells with four
sampling elevations within each well, were drawn perpendicular
to the presumed central axis of the leachate plume at different
distances from the disposal area. The two vertical planes
passing through the leachate-contaminated groundwater enclave,
coupled with the distinguishable direction of groundwater move-
ment, defined a hypothetical leachate control volume (see
Section 5).
As can be seen later, the orientation of the control volume
was not truly perpendicular to the traverse central axis of the
39
-------
GAS "i
SAMPLE
stT>
^PWP SOIL i
COVER T
SHALLOW
GAS PRC8E
.APPROX. 3-5 FT
(0.9 TO 1 . 5M ) BELOW
6 IN (15 CM )
NOMINAL /
OIA. BORE HOLE
DEEP GAS PRO3E i
APPROX. 3-5 FT ^
(0.9 TO 1 . 5M )
BOTTOM OF REFUSE —
— v^^TeHTTcT"
2 FT
(0. 6M)
MINIMUM OF 2 FT
r\e fowrriFT" -. »-
BACKFILL WITH
SOIL OR CONCRETE
NOT TO SCALE
•&'
1
u
84
0>.»»-
• o°
,*•* . .
r
i ^1 a .^- w -j »
. 0-<- y « i-ii
g^rVii
•
A
SOIL
CKFILL
A
3 . />-*••"•.
l^k>5
-4
— «r —
GRAVEL
«•—
:
j
i
c,=
LEACHATE SAMPLE
X SURFACE OF LANDFILL
2_
*—
BACKFILL
SS^^&fATB?1
flSi»>«?i.f-^-A
i?ia*Hp
.-NJ .,:..-.-. -^ >,<},,^
yW$\
y/vY/*
^__^ \?!^^
"^^"CONCRETE SEAL
' 4 IN (10 CM)
PVC PIPE TO EXTEND
MINIMUM OF 2 FT (0.6M)
ABOVE SURFACE
C1 \NDFILLED REFUSE )
AND/OR SLUDGE — ^
\— CLAY OR
CONCRETE
PLUG
<^^UANOF~i
i
WELL
SCREEN
SECTION
j
LEGEND
• SOIL CORE SAMPLE
A REFUSE/SLUDGE
MOISTURE SAMPLE
• SOIL COVER
PERMEABILITY SAMPLE
V
GROUNOWATER
Figure 10. Typical in-refuse well construction.
40
-------
r
20
(6.
FT
1M )
7
*
2 FT
( 0 . 6M )
r t
•
1
1
1
c-T^ GROUND SURFACE ^?Z
SEAL ""^
4 IN ( 1 0 CM )
PVC PIPE, TO EXTEND
MINIMUM OF 2 FT ( 0 . 6M )
SO.,}
GROUNDWATER _£_
2 FT
( 0 . 6M )
=
ii
ll
1
~~~~
WELL
SCREEN
SECTION
SHALLOW WELL
NOT TO SCALE
WELL
SCREEN
SECTION
DEEP WELL
Figure 11. Typical downstream well construction
-------
PRESUMED
CENTER TRAVERSE
OF PLU^E
Figure 12 . Offsite well layout for Sites and 3
-------
leachate plume. Adjustments were required for the shape and
orientation of the control volume using the approximate direc-
tion of groundwater flow. As a result, the control volume was
changed from a rectangular to a trapezoidal shape. Based on
this shape, it is reasonably safe to assume that the plume for
the designated cross section of groundwater flow passing
through the first monitoring line was intercepted by the second
line. However, due to various geologic formations, considerable
variability in individual contaminant plume size, configuration,
concentration strengths, and general location occurred with
respect to the monitoring grid.
The control volume concept can be used to estimate total
mass emission and the degree of attenuation or elution if all
of the degrees of freedom in the independent equations are
satisfied. The control volume represents a black box system
for which a variety of independent and dependent equations may
be written. One major factor to be considered is that suffi-
cient monitoring time must be provided so that one can monitor
a successive number of volumes of water or contaminants passing
through the control volume. Without this, certain contaminants
will have gotten an opportunity to enter the control volume but
will not necessarily have had sufficient time to completely
pass through it.
A schematic of the pneumatic, ejection type off-site well
is illustrated in Figure 13. The well was constructed with
four sampling levels separated by bentonite clay. A pneumatic
sampler was installed at each sampling depth or level. This
sampler consisted of a tube with a flap valve in the bottom and
two tubes leaving the top that extended to the ground surface.
Compressed nitrogen was introduced into one tube, which forces
water from the sampler out the other tube to the surface where
it was collected.
V.
It is possible that the use of multiple depth sample
probes in a single well may result in contamination of adjoining
probes. The use of nested or multiple well bore holes with
individual probes was preferable but not adopted because of
cost and time considerations. Intuitively, if the probes were
hydraulically connected in a common well hole, the leachate or
contaminant concentrations at the four levels would appear to
be of similar concentrations. However, examination of all of
the Site 1 and Site 3 concentration isopleths revealed that
this had not occurred.
-------
CLAY
Figure 13.
Typical plume well construction with
pneumatic ajactor samplers.
44
-------
FIELD SAMPLING
Sampling of Waste, Soil, and Mater
Phase I —
Grab sludge samples were obtained from the sewage treatment
plant at each site at the beginning and toward the end of
Phase I monitoring. At Site 2, the first sludge sample was
taken from material excavated during placement of the in-refuse
we! 1 .
Cover soil and core samples of soil were taken at the
landfill bottom halfway between the landfill bottom and the
groundwater table, and at the soi1-groundwater interface. The
core sample was sliced off from the sides and ends, and the
center part was taken for chemical analysis. Due to the
proximity of landfill bottom to groundwater table at Sites 1, 2,
3, 6, and 7, no sample was taken at the halfway mark from these
sites.
At each site, groundwater samples from a nearby private
well (background) and the off-site monitoring well(s) and
leachate from the in-refuse well were sampled three times over
a 4- to 6-mo period in 1975 and once more in June 1976. Gas
samples were taken from each of the two gas probes placed in
the in-refuse wel1.
Phase II--
During Phase II monitoring, following well installation,
groundwater and leachate samples were taken bimonthly over a
1-yr period. Sludge and gas samples were not taken in Phase II.
Soil samples obtained during drilling of the off-site wells were
contaminated with soil material above the sampling depth; thus,
no attempt was made to analyze these samples.
Detailed procedures for field sampling and preservation
and shipping of samples are described in Appendix C.
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Soil, leachate, and groundwater samples collected in
Phase I were analyzed for the same constituents. These consti-
tuents were:
PH
Total solids
Ammonium-ni trogen
Nitrate-nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Chloride
Sulfate
Total organic carbon
45
-------
Chemical oxygen demand
Calcium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Lead
Zinc*
Methylene blue-active substances (MBAS)*
Gas samples taken from the in-refuse wells during Phase I
were analyzed for methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CC^), oxygen
(02), and nitrogen (N2) contents.
In Phase II monitoring, the interest was primarily in heavy
metals. Due to the large number of samples to be analyzed and
costs involved, only the following constituents in leachate and
groundwater samples were analyzed:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Chloride
Sulfate
TOC
Specific conductance.
In addition, water samples taken from the off-site wells
at Sites 4, 7, and 8 during the fifth sampling period (Phase II)
were examined for fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus. Prior
to sample collection, the wells were disinfected by chlorination
(free chlorine, >100 ppm) for 24 hr, followed by continuous
pumping until no residual chlorine was detected. All sampling
equipment was also disinfected by chlorination, whereas sample
containers were disinfected by autoclaving in the laboratory.
While pumping in the field, the sampling equipment was dechlor-
inated by flushing with well water until free of chlorine.
Detailed descriptions of sample preparation and analytical
procedures employed are given in Appendix D.
*Determined in the June 1976 samples only.
46
-------
ANALYTICAL QUALITY CONTROL
Detection Limits
Since state-of-the-art analytical detection limits for
certain contaminants are close to the latest drinking water
standards, acceptable detection limits and requisite accuracies
for these threshold concentration ranges were needed. For this
study, the requisite analytical sensitivities for the various
contaminants in groundwater are given in Table 8. The minimum
detection limits were established after comparing project
requirements with drinking water standards approved and
published in the December 24, 1975, Federal Register. The low
and high end concentration accuracy requirements were based on
equipment capabilities and typical state-of-the-art analytical
procedures. These limits provided for the best possible
laboratory work commercially available.
Quality Control
To ensure that the project laboratory was providing con-
sistently reliable and accurate analytical results, two check
samples* secured from EPA were submitted to the laboratory with
each bimonthly batch of field samples. One check sample con-
tained a high concentration and the other sample a low concen-
tration of the constituents or elements to be analyzed simultan-
eously with the field samples. If the laboratory results
exceeded the tolerable levels specified in Table 8 for any
constituent(s), a rerun of an additional check sample submitted
by EPA was required, as well as all field samples of that batch
for the particular constituent(s) that failed. In the course
of this project, very few samples needed to be rerun; overall,
the quality of the laboratory work was quite satisfactory.
*Prior to each sample period, a new high and low concentration
check sample was prepared by diluting, in different propor-
tions, heavy metal standard solutions provided by EPA. Occa-
sionally, split check samples were analyzed by another
laboratory to verify the dilution values. The check samples
were disguised as regular groundwater samples when submitted
to the project laboratory. Analytical results for these
disguised check samples were then compared against known con-
centration values to see if they met the strict quality control
tolerances.
47
-------
TABLE 8 . REQUISITE ANALYTICAL SENSITIVITIES
FOR THE SELECTED CONSTITUENTS
IN GROUNDWATER
TOC
Chloride
Sulfate
Cadmium
Extraction
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Mercury (gas
cell)
Nickel
Lead
Extraction
Zinc
Minimum
Detection
Limit
(mq/1 )
1.0
2.0
2.0
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.0002
J.01
0.005
.01
Low Level
Concentration
(mq/D
1 -
2 -
2 -
.01 -
.001 -
.01 -
.02 -
.01 -
.0002 -
.01 -
.005 -
.01 -
20
20
50
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.005
0.1
0.1
0.1
High Level
Concentration Anticipated Accuracy
(mq/1 ) in ppnt and %
>20
>20
>50
0.1 - 0.5
0.1 - 0.5
0.1 - 0.5
0.1 - 0.5
0.1 - 0.5
>.005
0.1 - 0.5
*
0.1 - 0.5
0.1 - 0.5
*+2 ppm or +
*±2 ppm or +_
*^_5 ppm or +
*+_.02 ppm or
*±_. 02 ppm or
5%
ios
10%
+ 10%
+. 10%
+_ 102
*i-025 ppm or +_ 15S
*+_.03 ppm or
+ 15%
•+.0004 ppm or +_ 151
*^.02 ppm or
*^.02 ppm or
*+.02 ppm or
+. 102
+. 20S
+_ 10S
* Accuracy of test procesures will be based on the higher of the given values.
48
-------
SECTION 5
SPECIAL CONTROL VOLUME ANALYSES
APPROACH
All groundwater flow is three dimensional to some extent.
If it were possible to measure the velocity of a water particle
percolating through the soil and to represent velocity by a
vector with a length proportional to velocity and parallel to
the direction of flow, the vectors at any number of points
along the flow path would not be coplanar. The degree of diffi-
culty in solving groundwater problems depends on the extent to
which flow is three dimensional. A three-dimensional ground-
water flow problem can be dramatically simplified when symmetry
features make it possible to assume a two-dimensional form.
In this study, special control volume analyses were used
to solve the complex groundwater flow and groundwater quality
problems. The special control volume consists of a three-
dimensional monitored section perpendicular to the longitudinal
axis of the presumed downstream leachate plume (Figure 14). Two
vertical planes containing three monitoring wells each, and
having four sampling elevations within each well, were placed
perpendicular to the central axis of the leachate plume at
varying distances from the disposal area. The two vertical
planes passing through the leachate contaminated groundwater
enclave, coupled with the distinguishable faces formed by the
flow direction, form a hypothetical leachate control volume.
In this special control volume approach, the groundwater flow
was simplified to a two-dimensional flow: horizontal flow and
vertical flow.
Any realistic modeling effort for solving complex ground-
water flow, as well as groundwater quality problems, requires
some sort of simplifying assumptions to bridge the gap between
reality, our current understanding of the actual system, and
practicability. Following are several general assumptions used
for this study:
• The soil medium is homogeneous within any stratum
studied.
a The liquid flow and porous material form a continuous
system.
49
-------
^EXISTING ON-SITE WELL
LANDFILL SITE
OFF-SITE WEI_L
-------
• The flow is saturated in the pore space of the control
volume.
• The flow regime is laminar.
• The transport of constituents through a porous medium
causes no significant changes in the porous material.
Two types of models will be used in this special control
volume analyses:
• Flow models
• Contaminant transport models.
The sequence of events that occurs in modeling the system is
illustrated in the following diagram:
Models
Field Data
Results
Flow models
Permeability
Effective porosity
Geometric description of
medium
Hydraulic gradient
Location and shape of
special control volume
I
Flow flux
Flow path
Travel time
Contaminant transport models
Contaminant location with time
Contaminant concentration with
time
Reaction constants, e.g.,
dispersion, sorption, complexa-
tion, solubilization, etc.
Contaminant flux
Attenuation or elution results
MODELING
Flow Models
In this control volume analysis, input or output flows
through different soil layers of the control volume are
separated into two components: a horizontal flow component
perpendicular to the upstream face of the control volume
(Figure 15) and a vertical flow component, usually downward,
and perpendicular to the horizontal. The flow velocity and
flow rate can be solved by applying Darcy's law:
= KS
H
51
-------
053 SAMPLING
LEVEL 1
PRESUMED
CENTER TRAVERSE
OF PLUME
"""PLANE 1 (HORIZONTAL
INLET SECTION OF THE
CONTROL VOLUME, AH)
Figure 15. Control volume for sites 1 and 3
52
-------
Vv = KSV (2)
QH - A, ' VH (3)
n = A • v" (4)
^V V V
VH - vH/n (5)
Vy = Vv/n (6)
Where V"H = horizontal specific discharge perpendicular to
inlet section AH
V"., = vertical specific discharge perpendicular to
V inlet section Ay (/ _ / OS1 -OS2-OS3-OS4)
K = permeability (hydraulic conductivity)
Su = hydraulic gradient (horizontal)
n
Sv = hydraulic gradient (vertical)
n = porosity
QH = horizontal flow rate
Qv = vertical flow rate
VH = true horizontal flow velocity perpendicular to
inlet section AH
Vv = true vertical flow velocity perpendicular to
inlet section Ay .
Therefore, the flow direction and magnitude also can be
solved by using
tan Y - ^ (7)
VH
V = V/ -H VHZ . (8)
Where y = the angle between the velocity vector and the
horizontal plane.
Darcy's law is only applicable for the laminar flow range
where resistive forces govern. As velocity increases, inertia!
forces and ultimately turbulent flows cause deviations from the
linear relation. The flow rates in this study were low enough
53
-------
so that Darcy's law could be applied. True Darcian flow may
also not occir in fine textured ^tenals because of interfer-
ences by clay particles and their absorptive fields that attract
water, casing it to be more static and not as ^« for movement.
However, approximate flow velocities were calculated using this
law.
Soil borings revealed numerous stratified layers within the
control volume. This phenomenon is believed to greatly affect
the direction and magnitude of the groundwater flow due to
differences in soil layer permeability and hydraulic gradient.
Under saturated flow conditions (Figure 16), a refraction of
streamlines occurs when streamlines from a medium of permea-
bility (K-,) cross the boundary of a medium with different
permeability (K2). Consider a stream tube composed of stream-
lines passing through A and B (Figure 16). By continuity, all
the fluid flowing between those streamlines in Layer I also
crosses into Layer II and remains between the refracted stream-
lines In other words, the normal components of the average
velocities on both sides of the boundary must be the same:
V = V (9)
Vl,n V2,n
This can be expressed as
(Ah ).R (Ah2^AB Mn\
and
C,B = a.sin e] <•'*'
AC2 = a.sin 92 (13'
Substituting Equations 11, 12, and 13 into Equation 10, the
result is
tan 61 - Kl (14)
tan &2 K2
This relationship shows that the change in flow path from one
layer to another is related to the ratio of permeabilities
between these two layers. If there are n horizontal layers of
soil with thickness e1$ e2> ... e , and the corresponding head
54
-------
LAYER
I I
Figure 16.
Refraction of streamlines across a boundary
of different permeabilities.
55
-------
loss is Ah-|, Ah2, ... Ahn, then the Vertical flow rate may be
expressed as
Ah, Ah9
"V • AV • 57 • Kl • AV • 57 K2 ' ••' (
4h
' '
The total head loss across the multilayered stratum will be
n
E Ah = Ah, + Ah, + . . . + Ah
, n I c. n
Assume the overall permeability is KV . Then
\ 4hn
n
where H = e-j + e2 . • • + en = I
n
I en
Therefore, Ky = \-^~
1 IT
1 Kn
The vertical sp.ecific discharge crossing many layers of soil can
then be solved as follows:
n
I Ah
- 1 n
\i _ y •
VV " KV n
I e
n
n e
K
n
n.
56
-------
The specific discharge in nonhori zontal or nonvertical parallel
layers can be solved using the relationships in Equations 14 and
19 and the inclined angle of these parallel layers:
n
£ Ah
*n ' ?T^ <2°)
Z —
1 Kn
Vv = Vp sin Y (21)
\TH = V"n cos Y (22)
where Y is the inclined angle to the horizontal plane.
The true velocity can be derived by dividing the specific
discharge by the porosity as shown before:
Vv = V"v/n (23)
VH = VH/n (24)
The overall travel time, t, crossing the boundaries of the
control volume can be calculated by dividing the travel path,
L, by the velocity:
t = - != - - (25)
/v 2 + V 2
V VV VH
In the above discussion, it was assumed that the flow
direction was perpendicular to the inlet and outlet faces of the
box-shaped control volume. (This assumption enables the flow to
be partitioned into simple x and y coordinates.) Unfortunately,
it was found during the 1-yr monitoring period that the direc-
tion of flow was not always perpendicular to the inlet face of
the control volume. Therefore, a modification of the shape and
dimensions of the control volume was necessary to solve the flow
and contaminant transport problems. As shown in Figure 17, the
following was assumed:
0 The x-axis parallels the original leachate plume longi-
tudinal axis (the perpendicular to the vertical inlet
face of the original control volume).
t The y-axis is at right angles to the x-axis in the
horizontal plane.
57
-------
• The z-direction (downward) is normal to the x-y
horizontal plane.
The piezometric elevations of the water table were measured at
the exploratory wells to determine the changing hydraulic
gradients referenced to the x, y, and z coordinate system.
These measurements were then used to calculate the velocity
components:
K • S
Vx = ^-A (26)
K • S
%- —n-* (27)
K ' S
Vz ' -rH- (28)
Therefore,
/V2 + V2
V = /Vx + Vy + V2 (29)
y
Q = tan"1 r£' (30)
y
y
a = tan"1 r (31 )
VH = dh> (32)
^r (33)
where Vy and Vy are velocity components in x-y and_ y-z planes,
respectively, and e and a are the angles between VH and the
x-axis and Vy and the y-axis, respectively.
The shape of the control volume was reoriented from
/ 7 ABEF to / _ / ABCD, as shown in Figure 17, as dictated by
the velocity vector VH. This modification enables us to collect
the same groundwater crossing both inlet and outlet boundaries
and avoids reestimation of travel time, such as in_ABCE where
the horizontal travel time may range from zero to BC/VH. Similar
modification of the vertical shape of the control volume was
achieved by the same methods as shown above usina the velocity
vector.
58
-------
V
DIRECTIONS OF THE
FLOW COMPONENTS
OS-3 ( B)
INLET
BOUNDARY
OS -6 ( E )
TOP VIEW OF
THE CONTROL
VOLUME
OS-5
OUTLET BOUNDARY
OS -4 (F)
NEW CONTROL VOLUME
(£7 ABCD)
Figure 17.
Direction of flow vectors and plan view
of reoriented control volume.
59
-------
Contamination Flux and Attenuation of Contaminant
In the above discussion, it was assumed that the transport
of constituents did not affect the fluid flow. However, many
factors may cause differences in the movement of a groundwater
fluid and the associated constituents. Examples of phenomena
likely to cause such differences are ion exchange, sorption
reaction, redox reaction, complexation, solubi1ization (dissolu-
tion and precipitation), bio-oxidation, and hydrodynamic dis-
persion. Since these soil-related physical, chemical, or
biological mechanisms are usually highly complicated and
quantitative information is usually unavailable, evaluation of
the contaminant flux must be based on the mass balance over a
certain fixed time period (molecular diffusion is assumed
negligi ble).
The total mass flow rate (contaminant flux), Jf, of a
contaminant through a small isoconcentration area, dAt, and
influent concentration, C*, inlet section of the control volume
at time t can be expressed as
= /
dA,
(34)
where A is the total inlet area of the control volume.
Vt is the flow velocity through the same isoconcentration
area. The total input mass of a contaminant during time period
T can be calculated from the above relation as follows:
Total Input Mass into Area A during Period T =
dA
dt
(35)
The total mass input of a constituent into the inlet
sections of the control volume corrected by the flow directions
of VH and Vy becomes:
Min = Min,H +Min,V (36)
and the total mass output from the control volume becomes
Mout = Mout,H +Mout,V (37)
The attenuation or elution of a constituent through this
special control volume can then be calculated from the combined
mass balance Equations 36 and 37 as shown below:
M = M.n - Mout (38)
60
-------
The amount M indicates the total mass of a constituent changed
by the soil(s) in the special control volume. The sign of M
can be used for judging the transport direction of the consti-
tuent - a positive sign indicates that the constituent was
attenuated by the soil media, while a negative sign indicates
elution has occurred.
CALCULATIONS
The real situation observed during the course of this
research was that the hydraulic gradients and subsequently the
flow velocities and flow directions were constantly changing.
It was also found that C^ and At were fluctuating widely with
time (see concentration isopleths, Section 6). This phenomenon
causes either the flow or contaminant transport models to be
indeterminate due to insufficient information, e.g., sampling
occurred six times for the entire experimental period of 318
days. Some rational assumptions were needed to be made so as to
allow the calculations to proceed, such as:
• Changes of concentration vs time are linear between
adjacent sample data points (Figure 18a)
• The hydraulic gradient is maintained constant for
approximately a 2-mo period (approximately 1 mo before
and after the actual sampling time)(Figure 18b).
Employing the above assumptions, Equation 35 can be simplified
to summation form, as follows:
M = j^ Cn ' Qn ' Tn - (39)
and Equation 39 rearranged to:
M . I (Cn ' Tn) Qn. (40)
n = l
where z C • Tn is the area under the concentration-time curve,
as shown in Figure 18a. To exercise Equation 40, Qn, the
product of specific discharge and cross sectional area, must be
modified to account for the variable flow rates through the
different soil strata encountered in the control volume. As
is seen in the concentration isopleths (Section 6), the cross
sectional area should be divided into many sub-areas conforming
to areas of equal concentration (Figure 19a) to obtain accurate
results. The changes in both specific discharge and control
area make the calculation of Q extremely complicated, possibly
necessitating the use of a computer. An alternative approach
(Figure 19b) which is simple, easy to calculate, and a
61
-------
( a)
LINEAR BETWEEN TWO ADJACENT POINTS
CURVE FOR C S '/ELL NC . 1 , LEVEL j
C.
AREA = I C -T
n =1 n n
:
N D
( b)
z
_
C
-
o ~
i:
J
•J
--
7
-
DATA POINTS
'a
- D
1
4 p
.
1
'a
Tb
W1
•
Tb
I * 1
M _ A
1 3
-s—
M — J
rf ' V
5
i i
|_
J T A
4 5 >
TS
1
11 ME
( t )
Figure 18.
Changes in concentration (a) and hydraulic
gradient (b) for CS well no. i, level j.
52
-------
(b)
SPECIAL CONTROL VOLUME
SAMPLING POINTS
131
OS -1
OS -2
OS-3
Figure 19. Concentration isopleth diagram (a) and partitioning
of control volume face into subareas (b).
63
-------
relatively close approximation to the former method, is to
assume that the constituent concentration at any sampling point
can be held constant halfway to the next sampling point in the
same well or adjacent off-site well in the control volume. The
small sub-areas, A-Hfc, where i is the off-site well number, j
the sampling point level, and k the type of soil, can be calcu-
lated as shown in Figure 19b.
Q can be solved by the following equation:
Vijk = AH,ijk ' Vk <41>
Vijk = Yijk • Vk (42)
where Q,, ... = horizontal flow rate through control face area
n > i J K »
H.ijk
Qv iii, = vertical flow rate through control face area
* » ' J * n
V,ijk
VM . = horizontal specific discharge in soil layer k
Vy . = vertical specific discharge in soil layer k.
The contaminant flux of a constituent through control area
A.-k becomes:
JH,ijk = CH,ijk " Vijk (43)
JV,ijk = CV,ijk " Yijk <44>
Use of Equations 39 through 44 allow a materials balance
type analysis to be made around the monitored control volume.
However, in order to make sure the comparison is made on the
same flow mass for the inflow and outflow, the time lag between
passage from the inlet face to the outlet face should be taken
into account.
(1) Calculate the travel time, T, between the inlet and
outlet faces of the control volume both horizontally
and vertically from:
LH LV
T - / = r- (45)
H V
where L^ and Ly are, respectively, the horizontal and
vertical distances between the two faces.
64
-------
(2) Chose the desired leach in'g period, T p.
(3) Calculate the total inflow volume V for Tp.
(4) Choose starting values of C.jjk from concentration-time
curves (Figure 18) for the outlet section after time
period T.
(5) Calculate the time period, T ', required for the
outlet section to pass flow Volume V.
Values of TD and T ' are generally quite close, except when
the shapes of th§ contrHl area and the types of soil between the
inlet and outlet boundaries vary. As will be shown in the next
section for actual data, the deviation between Tp and Tp' for
the Site 1 control volume was only 0.28 day.
The flow and contaminant transport models used in the
analysis and interpretation of the Sites 1 and 3 control volume
results are of necessity rough approximations to what actually
occurred. The accuracy of the model and calculation results
will be dependent on the accuracy of the assumptions (e.g.,
homogeneity of soil, fluctuation of flow and concentration of
constituents, etc.). In the absence of additional off-site
wells, more sampling points, greater frequency of sampling over
a longer period of time, and more detailed information on the
hydrogeology, some uncertainty is unavoidable. Nevertheless,
trends and general impacts can be perceived from the data
presented.
65
-------
SECTION 6
DATA EVALUATION
INTRODUCTION
The monitoring program at each site included chemical
analysis of soil, sludge, and decomposition gases during Phase I,
and analysis of in-refuse well leachate and groundwater from
background and downstream off-site wells in both phases of
the study.
Soil samples taken during placement of in-refuse monitoring
wells and sewage samples obtained from the sewage treatment plant
were sequentially extracted with water and concentrated nitric
acid for various selected constituents and contaminants. The
portion extracted by water indicates possible solubility-control-
ling solids, the complexation species (salt effect), as well as
some exchangeable ions. Presumably this water-soluble fraction
is readily subjected to vertical and horizontal movement away
from the landfill. The acid extraction is less defined. The
results, however, may indicate concentrations of heavy metals
in the noncrystal1ine form, which are immobile in the soil
or siudge.
Cover soils taken at the eight disposal sites were measured
for texture and horizontal and vertical' permeabi1ity coefficients
Two or more cover soil samples were tested for permeability at
several sites. These results were presented earlier in Section 3
Gas samples taken from the in-refuse wells were analyzed for
percentage by volume of methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and
nitrogen.
Leachate from the in-refuse well and groundwater from back-
ground and various downstream wells was collected and analyzed
for selected contaminants. During Phase I of this study, no
background well was installed; thus, one or two grab samples
were taken from an upstream domestic source, e.g., private well.
Of four sampling dates, three covered a period of from 3 to 5 mo
in 1975, while one was in June 19,76. Based on these results
and recommendations, a more extensive monitoring program was
conducted that included installation of background and explora-
tory wells at all sites and additional downstream wells at
Sites 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8. This Phase II sampling encompassed a
period of 12 mo with six sampling dates. Tabulations of results
are given in Tables 1 through 8 of Appendix E.
66
-------
Results of groundwater analyses were compared with EPA
drinking water standards to determine the extent of groundwater
contami nati on.
The discussion of results for each site covers soil, sludge,
leachate, decomposition gases, and groundwater, as well as
environmental impact assessments. Sites 1 and 3 also include
the control volume analysis for groundwater. In assessing the
environmental impacts of landfilling sewage sludge, primary
emphasis is placed on the evaluation of possible degradation of
groundwater quality downstream from the disposal area.
SITE 1
Soil Analyses
Soil samples were taken from the refuse-soil interface
(at 7.3 to 7.6 m) and the soi1-groundwater interface (at 11.0
to 11.3 m) during drilling of the in-refuse well. These
samples were extracted sequentially with water and nitric
acid; the results are presented in Table 9.
The soil at the refuse-soil interface contained
considerably higher concentrations of TOC, COD, chloride,_and
sulfate than the soil near the groundwater table, indicating
both the impact of leachate and the strong attenuative
capacity of the soil immediately below the fill. Nitrogen
was primarily in the ammonium form in the soil near the fill;
no nitrate was detected at either depth. A large proportion
of the calcium present was in the water-soluble form. Heavy
metals were found primarily in the acid extracts, except
for iron; only traces of the water-soluble forms were detected.
This would suggest that,despite slightly'to moderately acidic
soils (pH 5.8 and 6.7), migration of heavy metals in the soil
was limited because of low water solubility. The heavy metal
concentrations in the acid extracts were generally less
than the concentrations commonly reported in soils (1, 2).
The concentration of lead (18.2 and 13.2 ppm) was slightly
greater than that commonly reported (10 ppm). This lead is
probably background, although its origin cannot be determined
from the data.
Sludge Analyses
The grab sludge samples obtained from the sewage treat-
ment plant were extracted sequentially with water and con-
centrated nitric acid (Table 9). The July 1975 sample _
showed relatively high concentrations of COD, TKN, ammonium,
and water-soluble calcium, chromium, copper, iron, and lead.
The constituent concentrations were within the ranges, as
reported by Sommers (9). Copper and iron concentrations
in the June 1976 sample were greater than the median concen-
trations reported (9). Other heavy metals in water suggested
a great potential for migration away from the disposal site.
67
-------
TABLE 9. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 1, PHASE I*
en
oo
Soil Samples Taken Below Landfill During Drilling of In-Refuse Well
Refuse-Soil Interface Soi1-Groundwater Interface
(7.3 to 7.6 m) (11 to 11 .3 m)
Constituent"''
pH
TOC
COD
TKN
NH4-N
NOa-N
Cl
S04
Ca^
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Water
6/26/75
5.8
3440
7789
132
111
<0.4
270
220
1375
<0.03
<0.30
<0.20
0.86
0.005
<0.20
Add
1900
0.17
3.21
5.37
1692
0.010
18.2
Water
6/26/75
6.7
88
202
108
7.4
<0.4
120
90
75
<0.03
<0.30
<0.20
1.71
0.005
<0.2
Acid
1625
0.32
5.79
12.17
7438
0.004
13.2
-------
TABLE 9 (continued)
cr>
10
Sludge*
Consti tuent^
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
NOa-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Water Acid
7/8/75
50000
173056
7145
687
1.1
110
<10
1740
0.77
10.17
108
187
0.087
21.0
Water Acid
6/4/76
45360
<0.1
12
88
1.5
53
200
2000
<0.003
2.9
72
212
Background Groundwater
10/14/75
7.6
598.1
14
17
0.2
0.2
0.65
24
152
46
<0.001
<0.01
0.008
0.10
0.0008
0.020
6/4/76
2.0
<0.01
27
240
.001
<.01
.01
.23
<.0002
<.01
.007
.49
-------
TABLE
(continued)
Constituent"1"
PH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
N1
Pb
Zn
Offsi
7/8/75
OJ
Q.
10
I/)
•M
C
Ol
•r—
U
tl
H—
«f-
13
«/»
c
i — *
te Well (
9/18/75
7.9
609
10
30
1.1
0.14
<0.02
25
238
70
0.008
<0.01
0.008
0.33
<0.0002
0.056
Shallow)
10/14/75
52
83
2.7
1.3
0.25
47
430
87
0.003
0.03
0.016
0.85
0.0004
0.035
6/4/76
12
0.04
36
315
0.001
0.07
0.02
4.6
<0.0002
0.02
0.02
0.09
* Soil and sludge were extracted with water and concentrated nitric add. Sampling
dates are also indicated.
"1* Concentrations are expressed as mg/kg of dry soil, mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
groundwater or leachate
# Moisture content for the 6/4/76 sample was 85 percent.
-------
Leachate Analyses
The results of the leachate analyses are presented in
Table 10; only one leachate sample was obtained in Phase I
because of the dry well.
The leachates were characterized by the high levels of
iron, zinc, TOC, and specific conductance and low to nondetec-
table levels of cadmium, chromium, copper, and mercury. Peak
concentrations of most constituents generally occurred in the
summer, probably as a result of high precipitation. Except for
cadmium and chromium, the heavy metal concentrations in the
leachate appeared to be correlated with TOC concentrations.
The data suggested that the heavy metals in the leachate were
moving in the form of metal-organic complexes.
Decomposition Gases in In-Refuse Well
Gas samples collected at two depths from the in-refuse well
were analyzed for methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen
(Table 11). Generally, approximately 50 and 40 percent of the
volume of the gas were methane and carbon dioxide, respectively,
while oxygen and nitrogen were present in trace amounts. The
volume composition of methane and carbon dioxide remained
relatively constant regardless of sampling depth and date,
indicating stability of the landfill.
Groundwater Analyses
During Phases I and II, groundwater samples were taken both
upstream and downstream from the landfill. Phase I background
groundwater samples were taken from a home near the landfill.
This home well water received no additional treatment after
being withdrawn from the ground. The Phase II background ground-
water samples were from the project background well southwest
of the landfill
During Phase II, groundwater samples were taken from
new pneumatic type off-site wells and from the Phase I sh
off-site well (OS-X at 5.8 m). Analytical data for Phase
II are presented in Table 9 and in Table 1 of Appendix E,
six
illow
^ C WCII I W J — A U I* .J • v_» my* niiwijruiv*VAi %uw\*v* i v> i r fl O O C O 1 Q 11 '
.. ~,^ presented in Table 9 and in Table 1 of Appendix
respectively.
Background Groundwater--
Evaluation of Phase I background groundwater results shows
that concentrations of total solids, TOC, COD, chloride, sulfate,
and calcium, were in the ppm range, while other heavy metals and
nitrogen compounds were in the sub-ppm range. These data were
all well within the concentration ranges of most terrestrial
waters (4).
71
-------
TABLE 10. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF LEACHATES FROM IN-REFUSE WELL (SITE 1)
ro
Constituent
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Cl
SO
TOC
Sp. Cond.
Phase' I
6/4/76
0.003
0.01
<0.01
190
<0.0002
0'.04
0.10
11
8
985
Phase IIf
10/31/76
0.050
0.25
0.13
800
0.0002
0.48
0.060
1 .2
' _.#
--
1/21/77
0.050
0.12
0.11
1100
<0.0002
0.37
0.700
32.0
230
85
14470
18000
5/19/77
0.005
0.04
0.02
235
0.24
0.140
3.2
18
--
2600
7/19/77
0.045
0.11
0.13
930
<0.0002
0.48
1 .280
95.0
92
150
10100
17500
9/14/77
0.040
0.11
0.09
6.0
<0.0002
0.30
0.680
66.0
153
17
3780
6900
*Specific conductance in ymhos/cm, all other constituent concentrations in ppm.
fDue to dry well, no samples were taken on 7/8/75, 9/18/75, 10/14/75 (Phase I) and
3/10/77 (Phase II).
^Insufficient sample.
-------
TABLE 11. GAS COMPOSITION AT SITE 1 IN-REFUSE WELL
7/8/7
Gas Species Upper
5
Lower
9/8/75
Upper Lower
10/1
Upper
4/75
Lower
-------
The Phase II analytical results were also within the concen-
tration ranges for natural waters. Except for iron, nickel, zinc,
and possibly lead, the contaminant concentrations were quite
close in both phases. Soluble iron and zinc in the background
samples were as high as 2.3 and 3.8 ppm, respectively. Back-
ground nickel and lead concentrations were higher in Phase II
than in Phase I, probably because of variations in sampling
location and season.
The Phase II background groundwater contaminant concentra-
tions varied seasonally, higher in the summer than in the winter.
U.S. Weather Bureau statistics (5) indicate that Site 1 generally
receives more rain in summer than in the winter, and the control
volume analyses, to be presented later, show higher rates of
groundwater flow in the summer. The higher contaminant levels
in the summer may result, since the higher flow rates can trans-
port fine particulates in the groundwater. The fine particulates
probably comprise part of the concentration levels determined
by analysis in this study. The data show that dilution effects
may not be significant during the summer.
Phase II results indicated that samples from deeper locations
in the background well usually had higher contaminant concen-
trations, the highest concentrations usually occurring in the
sand-gravel (aquifer) layer. The sand-gravel stratum appeared
to allow larger contaminant transport than comparable sandy
clay soil. This phenomenon can be explained by the following:
• Clay has a higher surface sorption capability than
sand, so that attenuation of contaminants by clay
is more significant than by sand.
• Clay is generally less permeable than sand, so the •
flux rate is less and provides more time for various
reactions to occur. v"
Off-Site Well Groundwater--
Data from the off-site shallow well (OS-X) showed that the
concentrations of contaminants again varied with time. Concen-
trations of TOC varied between 8 and 52 ppm; however, there
did not seem to be any significant correlation between concen-
tration and season for the TOC changes. Nitrogen compound
results were available for only two sampling times for the OS-X
well. The concentrations for TKN and ammonium-nitrogen were
about 1 to 3 ppm and 0.15 to 1.3 ppm, respectively. Nitrate was
in relatively low levels ranging from a trace to 0.25 ppm.
Chloride and sulfate concentrations ranged from 25 to 70 ppm and
238 to 430 ppm, respectively. No seemingly significant relations
in the concentration trends were found among the contaminants;
with the exception of iron and zinc, all the concentrations of
trace heavy metals in the OS-X well samples analyzed had less
than 0.1 ppm, the majority less than 0.01 ppm. The concentration
74
-------
of iron increased from 0.33 to 8.3 ppm, zinc from about 0.01 to
3 ppm.
The analytical data fo wells OS-1 to OS-6 in the Phase II
monitoring are given in Table 1 of Appendix E. In general, the
concentrations of contaminants in samples from wells OS-1 to
OS-6 were within the ranges of the concentrations of the OS-X
samples. Concentration trends of various selected contaminants
in relation to sampling time and depth are discussed below.
Chloride—Chloride concentrations in the groundwater from
wells OS-1 and OS-6 ranged from <2 to 65 ppm. Concentration
versus time curves showed that, in general, chloride gradually
decreased during the Phase II monitoring (Figure 20). Since
chloride is relatively non-reactive and anion exchange capacity
of soils is generally low, it appears that the concentration
change observed was mainly caused by a decrease in the upstream
source.
When chloride concentrations from different sampling levels
of the same well were compared, groundwater samples from lower
depths usually contained higher chloride concentrations. This
was probably due to the migration of chloride into the deep
groundwater.
Sulfate--Concentrations of sulfate in the OS well ground-
water decreased or fluctuated during the Phase II monitoring
(Figure 21). The fluctuations may be due to the reduction and
oxidation of the sulfide solids (see Special Control Volume
Analyses). In addition, the sulfate data also showed higher
concentrations and transport flux in the sand formation than
in the clay formation.
TOC--A large decrease in TOC was observed during the year-long
monitoring (Figure 22). However, unlike chloride or sulfate,
TOC concentrations generally decreased with sampling depth.
Since March 1977, TOC concentrations in the downstream ground-
water appeared relatively constant, with values hovering around
5 ppm. This could be due to disappearance of drilling muds.
As will be discussed in the Special Control Volume Analyses,
TOC could be strongly attenuated by soil which could account for
the observed decrease in TOC concentrations.
Trace Metals--Concentrations of cadmium, chromium, copper,
and nickel were near or below the equipment detection limits
in this study. Therefore, it was difficult to identify the
migration trends of these elements in the groundwater. Iron,
lead, zinc, and mercury concentrations were higher than detection
limits; changes in concentration with sampling time for these
four metals are shown in Figures 23 to 26.
75
-------
80
60
4-0
20
80
60
QS-1
I I till I I
20
80
60
20
OS-2
I I I
I I I I I I I
OS-3
I I I • I II
NOJFMAMJ J A S 0
1976 - 1 -137 7
Ll
L2
L3
Figure 20. Cl levels in groundwater from
six off-site wells (site 1).
76
-------
80
60
40
20
OS-4
I I I
I I I L I L
QS-5
a.
a.
60
a.
a.
20
QS-6
J (
t I I—I 1 J 1 1
N QJFMA M J JAS 0
1976- I "1977
Ll
L2
L3
L4
Figure 20 (Continued)
77
-------
E
Q.
300—
225>-
150
e
a.
a.
a
to
400..
200 ^
200 -
a.
2GC
ICC -
' ' » 1 1 1 1 1
NOJFMAMJJASQ
ICC -
iOOr-
3CO -
Li
L2
Figure 21. SO^, levels in croundwater fro-
six off-site wells (sits 1).
78
-------
400 r
300
s
e_
c.
. 200
100
as-4
\ ' ^ !l
\i V
J 1
400 r
Ll
L2
L3
Figure 21 (Continued)
79
-------
S
IS
40
OS-1
\ \
- \\
\\
I I 1
10
QS-2
LI
L2
L3
t 1 t I I
10
OS-3
NQJFMAMJJASQ
1275 H» 37 7
Ficure 22. 70C levels in croundwatsr from
six off-site wells (site 1) .
80
-------
20Qr
1501-
100
a
i—
s
c.
400 r
300
200 -
100 _
40 r
u
<=
30
20
10
\
as-6
\
»
Ll
Figure 22(Continued)
81
-------
-------
2oor
ISO _
100 —
as-4
» 1 1 ! ' '
20 r-
10 -
.IDJFMAMJJASfl
t375 1—»S7 7
Ll
L2
L3
L4
Figure 23 (Continued)
83
-------
s
c.
a.
.a
CL
— J3S-2
/; \\ \
-/
J.
0.53
LI
L2
L3
L4
as-s
/\
v /
/ y
NOJFMAMJJASO
Figure 24 . Pb levels in grounciwater from
six. off-site wells (site 1).
-------
.20
. 15
.10
.05
20
. 15
10
.05
.4
.3
.2
. 1
OS-4
OS-5
A
•I
I
\
\
x-\ \
OS-6
MDJ. FMAMJJASQ
1376—H—1977
LI
1-2
L3
Figure 24 (Continued)
35
-------
CS-l
01
2.0
\
1.5
E
C.
c
rvt
OS-2
.5
Ll
Figure 25. Zn levels in aroundwater from
six off-site wells (site 1).
86
-------
.60r
.45 -
.30 -
. 15
.4r
.3 _
.2
. 1
os-2
\
A\
\
- \
\
\\
\
, ,
\~ *'
. A^-
1.6
Ul
l_2
L3
1.4
MQJFMAMJJAS
Figure 25 (Continued)
87
-------
s
s.
c.
.002_
.001S
.001
.0005
0.0095
O.0035
i I i r i i r i i i I
.009
.006
004
002
OS-2
\
n ___
.002-
.0015 -
.001 -
.0005
0.0033
1976 •• I- 137 7
Figure 26. Kg levels in groundwater from
six off-site w^ells (site 1).
-------
0 j F M A M J J A S 0
Figure 25 (Continued)
89
-------
Iron concentrations in the downstream groundwater ranged
from <0.01 to 152 ppm. The highest concentrations of iron
occurred in the OS wells during the summer. Reducing conditions
or iron-organic complex formation are generally the main reasons
for the increase of soluble iron in natural water (7, 8). How-
ever, because of the high precipitation (infiltration) and
groundwater flow rate, the redox condition of the downstream
groundwater should be higher in the summer. The relatively
higher redox condition and higher dilution ratio, coupled with
the lower TOC levels in the summer, could remove more soluble
iron from the liquid phase. Therefore, the increase in iron
concentration in the summer season at this site is likely due
to the high flow rate that leached more fine particles into
the groundwater.
Time variations of mercury in the off-site groundwater were
irregular (Figure 26). However, in many cases, mercury concen-
trations were below the detection limit, and no higher concentra-
tion than 10 ppb was observed. In the downstream wells, only 7
out of 124 sampled concentrations exceeded 2 ppb for the entire
monitoring period.
Unlike chloride or sulfate, trace metals showed no apparent
correlation between concentration and sampling level. As
suggested by Lu (7), in regulating the migration of trace metals
in the environment, the conditions of the solution phase are
usually far more important than those of the solid phase. This
is probably why the migration of trace metals was not apparently
affected by the characteristics of the geologic formation in
the aquifer.
Comparisons Among In-Refuse Well Background and
Downstream Groundwaters--
In the Phase I study, all contaminants studied showed either
the same or lower concentrations in the background groundwater
than in the downstream groundwater; only one data point for zinc
showed a higher level in the background than in the downstream
groundwater.
In the Phase I study, TOC and iron levels were substantially
higher in the in-refuse well leachate than in the downstream
groundwater, while sulfate was the only contaminant with substan-
tially lower levels in the in-refuse well leachate. Levels of
other trace metals in the leachates did not differ significantly
from those in the downstream groundwater.
Since different sampling levels were involved in the Phase
II study, it was very difficult in some cases to evaluate the
relative concentrations because of time and depth variations.
Average values will be used in the comparison. Average concen-
trations of contaminants in the in-refuse, background, and
90
-------
off-site well (downstream) groundwaters are given in Figures 27
to 29. These concentrations were much higher in the in-refuse
leachates than those in background or downstream groundwater,
except for sulfate and mercury. The low levels of mercury were
probably caused by the low solubility of the mercury sulfide solid
and the high affinity of mercury to the sludge particles. The
low levels of sulfate were probably caused by the high reducing
environment and the concomitant high organic content of the
sludge. These phenomena are consistent with the results of the
Phase I study.
Concentrations of sulfate, TOC, and zijic were significantly
higher in downstream groundwater than in background groundwater,
while other contaminants showed no definite trends. This implies
that the quality of the original groundwater, the types of soil,
and the characteristics of landfill material play important
roles in determining the migration of contaminants.
Special Control Volume Analyses
Flow Calculations--
As previously discussed (Section 5), the direction and
magnitude of groundwater flow can be calculated from permeability
(KK)» hydraulic gradients (Sx, Sy, and Sz), and porosity (n|<).
From the numerous boring tests, it was determined that the
special control volume of Site 1 included three types of soil
layers: silty fine sand, sandy clay, and sand-gravel. The
permeabilities of these soil layers were 4.73 x 1Q-3, 3.53 x 10~4,
and 7.06 x 10~2 cm/sec, respectively (5). The porosity of the
silty fine sand layer was 0.3, that of the sandy clay and sand-
gravel (aquifer) layers, 0.5. The hydraulic gradient changed
from time to time as shown by the piezometric groundwater ele-
vations of EX wells (Appendix B). As explained in Section 5,
values of Sx, Sy, and Sz at different time periods can be
calculated by using the EX wells' piezometric groundwater eleva-
tion data. Since groundwater elevation data for well EX-3 are
incomplete, the data of October 31, 1976, was substituted for the
other dates when calculating Sx and Sy and the related Vx and Vy
values (Tables 12 and 13) .
The geological consultant indicated that in a normal
situation the vertical flow, Vz, might not exist below the
regional groundwater table, especially in the sand-gravel
(aquifer) layer. Vz would become important only when local
pumping of the groundwater or precipitation occurred, and it
existed only beneath the landfill site. However, due to the
relatively large horizontal regional water flow, even during the
precipitation or pumping, Vz probably occurred chiefly in the
shallow zone below the groundwater table. Since Vz could not
be accurately calculated, it was assumed to be zero for the
purposes of these calculations. Although this assumption may
introduce some error into the flow and transport model results,
91
-------
iscr
120-
4-0
flit
1 1 iiit
23Cf-
2IC
a.
14.0
70
.0920
0015
-.301
.0009
1S7S - h— 157 7
A 2 U
LBSENG
AVG EG
AVG CS
1R
Fiaure 27. Cl, SOi, and TOC levels In croundwater and
leachata (sits 1).
92
-------
NflJFMAMJJASO
Figure 28. Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater and
leachate (site 1).
93
-------
.0020
.0015
.0010
.0005
LHENC
A M J
Ficure 29. Kg levels in groundwatar and Isachata (site 1).
94
-------
TABLE 12. SITE 1 CONTROL AREAS, HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS,
AND FLOW VELOCITIES IN X-DIRECTION
Inlet
Section
. Area
Area y
Symbol* (m )
A431
A441
A511
A521
A621
A442
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
*A1jk
K =
70.0
23.2
116.0
70.0
93.0
256.0
151.0
209.0
151.0
5.8
128.0
122.0
Outlet Section
Area
Symbol
Alll
A211
A321
-
-
A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
Area TvPe
7 of
* (if) Soil
68.
168.
136.
-
-
80.
106.
84.
210.
168.
170.
204.
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
, where 1 = off site well number
soil layer; 1 = sandy clay; and
sandy layer and A = aquifer.
t K
(cm/sec)
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
; j =
2 =
47 x
47 x
47 x
47 x
47 x
06 x
06 x
06 x
06 x
06 x
06 x
06 x
10'*
io-4
ID'4
ID'4
io-4
_2
io-2
io-2
io-2
io-2
io-2
io-2
n
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
sv *
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
Vx
(cm/ day)
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
81.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
level of sampling point;
sand gravel (aquifer layer).
#Assume S is kept constant for the entire experimental period.
-------
TABLE 13. SITE 1 HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS
AND FLOW VELOCITIES IN Y-DIRECTION
Type
of *
Soil Period
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
10/31/76 - 12/11/76
(41 days)
12/11/76 -»• 1/21/77 -> 2/14/77
(65 days)
2/14/77 - 3/10/77 - 4/14/77
(59 days)
4/14/77 + 5/19/77 + 6/19/77
(66 days)
6/19/77 - 7/19/77 + 8/17/77
(59 days)
8/17/77 ^ 9/14/77
(28 days)
K
(cm/ sec)
3.
7.
3.
7.
3.
7.
3.
7.
3.
7.
3.
7.
47
06
47
06
47
06
47
06
47
06
47
06
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
io-4
io-2
io-4
1C'2
ID'4
ID'2
ID'4
io-2
ID'4
io-2
ID'4
io-2
n
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
sy+
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
001
001
0006
0006
0
0.
0.
-0.
-0.
0.
0.
0008
0008
0008
0008
0046
0046
Vyf
(cm/day)
0.
20.
0.
12.
0
0
0.
16.
-0.
-16.
0.
93.
06
4
037
2
049
2
049
2
28
6
* C = sandy layer and A = sand-gravel (aquifer).
t Positive value means the flow direction was from
OS-4 toward OS-6 (see Figure 30).
96
-------
they may not be significant for the-control volume in the
aquifer layer.
Flow directions and magnitudes were calculated from the
results of Vx and Vy (Figure 30 and Table 14). These results
showed that the directions of flow in the aquifer layer deviated
from the presumed longitudinal axis of the downstream leachate
plume by an angle of 0° to 49°. The horizontal velocities
ranged from 62 to 124 cm/day in this layer. The directions of
flow in the sandy clay layer above the aquifer also deviated
in the same range, but flow velocities were as low as 0.24
to 0.37 cm/day in this layer.
Control Area A-JJ^ and Flow Rate--
The control volume was reoriented and new boundaries defined
following the methods suggested in Section 5. The plane
orientation (top view) of this revised control volume is shown
in Figure 30. The inlet plane is unchanged (OS-4 to OS-6
constant), while the outlet plane is changed according to angle
9. The surface area of partitioned subareas A-n^ on the inlet
and outlet planes was calculated between the 548.6 to 557.8 m
elevations (Figures 31 and 32), and the results given in Tables
15 and 16. The amount of flow crossing each subarea, A-jjk, was
calculated as the product of Aijk times the appropriate velocity,
VH.K- These results are also listed in Tables 15 and 16.
Mass Balance--
Input and output contaminant fluxes, J (kg/day), through
the inlet and outlet boundaries can be solved by Equation 43,
which, by converting the units, is equal to
Q "3
J (kg/day) = C (ppm x 9 (mj/day) x 10" (46)
Results of J are given in Tables 15 and 16. These results can
be converted to unit flux by dividing average J values by the
input or outlet areas. The unit input and output fluxes and
their differences are given below:
Contaminant Unit Input Flux Unit Output Flux Difference
CT 25.9 14.7 11.20
so 2- 133 ui -8.00
TQC 39.6 3.66 35.9
Fe 15.2 12-6 2.6
Hg 0.00046 0.00046 0
Pb 0.024 0.134 -0.11
Zn 0.093 0.27 -0.18
(Units are in g/d/m2)
97
-------
•n
ID
S Y M BOL
I
I I
I II
IV
V
VI
PERIOD
.0/31/76-*
2/11/76
12/11/76-*-
2/14/77
2/14/77*
4/14/77
4/14/7**
6/1 9/77
6/19/7^
8/17/77
8/17/77->
9/14/77
AVERAGE
0
0
14.1
8.5°
0
0
0
11.2
-11.2°
0
49
11.9°
V^dn/d)
0.84
0.82
0.81
0.83
0.83
1 .24
0.62
OS
CONTROL VOLUME
(SHAPE CHANGED BT ANGLE 6)
Figure 30. Directions of groundwater flow in aquifer layer of site 1
-------
TABLE 14. THE MAGNITUDE AND DIRECTION OF HORIZONTAL
GROUNDWATER FLOW OF SITE 1.
Period
10/31/76 -> 12/11/76
(41 days)
12/11/76 -* 1/21/77 + 2/14/77
(65 days)
2/14/77 -»• 3/10/77 -»• 4/14/77
(59 days)
4/14/77 + 5/19/77 + 6/19/77
(66 days)
6/19/77 + 7/19/77 -> 8/17/77
(59 days)
8/17/77 + 9/14/77
(28 days)
Type
of *
Soil
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
Vx
(cm/ day)
0.24
81.0
0.24
81.0
0.24
81.0
0.24
81.0
0.24
81.0
0.24
81.0
V
(cm/ day)
0.06
20.4
0.037
12.2
0
0
0.049
16.2
-0.049
-16.2
0.28
93.6
•e*
14.1°
14.1°
8.5°
8.5°
0°
0°
11.2°
11.2°
-11.2°
-11.2°
49°
49°
V f
VH
(cm/ day)
0.25
84.0
0.25
82.0
0.20
81.0
0.25
83.0
-0.25
-83.0
0.37
124.0
*C = sandy clay and A = aquifer (sand-gravel).
fFor the meaning of the negative sign, please refer to Figure 30.
99
-------
ELEVA
m
564-
562-
560'
558.
556-
554
552-
550
TION
ft
— L850
— L84C
-L83C
— 1,82<
— 1,81
—3*80
OS -4
,, 76.2
> u <->
CONTROL VOLUME sj
u — — —
L2'
^ L
f
$$$&
±A :
— 441-
442
38 IT
. '.•
\>
=T
^s,
V,
-
1
!
OS -5 OS -6
^ 76.2 m J i.
1
i
/
^\ '
A
A521
A522^
:: :::: : J :•-.'•
* "
'.•'•'•-}:':'-:-:'-:.-:
A
r/j
\ ^ 38
CONTROL AREA
k =1 = SANDY CLAY
k =2 = SAND-GRAVEL (AQUIFER
LAYER)
m '
/ ^ Sj
Is1 38
\
s
B
'////,'-
v///k
////; ~
)(
m
^^§
Illl
IA —
**•/
(fl
UJ
z
u.
1-
J
^H
in
•
0
i I °
2 Z
<
Ul
~A622 ^
II ,._^ L
r
Ul
> -GRAVEL
5
I L
4
' 38 m
(AQUIFER LAYER)
Aijk
1 = OFF-SITE *ELL NO.
j = LEVEL OF SANPLING
POINT
k = SOIL LAYER
Figure 31.
Inlet section of site 1 (perpendicular
to x-direction).
100
-------
ELE^
m
560-
558
556
554
552
550-
548
546
/ATION
ft
- 1,840
- 1,330
— 1,8 2C
— 1,8 1C
~ L80C
- 1,7 3.
>
_
§
J
C
>
3
--
-
E
j
OS
\
L2 '
f
.
L3«
-'
-1 OS -
S A ^
^111^
1 I 1 1 I i 1
A112
>
-2
152 m
OS -3
1
Ll
«
•
A
••
21 1 K
"-* 1
%%%zx
Hi!®
'••.' M o •» •*'£.
&:•••'•:•&$•&•:•
./:
1
A^
x\
A
^
21;
32
1
^s
2$
|
[
1
1
i Sx^ x^i>v^NSNNNN^ —
:A ^. 232
- 1224s^S^sN<;
b^sss
^sssss>
,
'
V ^
27.7 m
4
s s
27.7 m
OsXXSXSNN^
\\N^\X\\\^
» L4
68.9 m s
X ^
41 m
EA3
— 1
42-
t
1
?
1
=™
Z
t— «
"• >
-.
-*
1
^
* 55.8 m
^
--
in
i
\
/...
.J
V
/
<
0
io
Iz
to
^
ce
UJ
u_
5
o
_J
UJ
-------
TABLE 15. CONTAMINANT FLUX AND MASS THROUGH INLET FACE OF SITE 1
(Aquifer layer of control volume)
o
ro
Period
10/31/76
12/11/76
(41d)
12/11/76
1/21/77
2/14/77
(65d)
2/14/77
3/10/77
3/2B/77
(41. 5d)
3/211/77
4/14/77
(17. 5d)
Sum - 165d
Area
symbol*
A442
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A442
AS22
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A442
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A442
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A
Area
(«2)
256
151
209
151
5.81
128
122
256
151
209
151
5.81
128
122
256
151
209
151
5.81
128
122
256
151
209
151
5.81
128
122
1,020.0
Q
(«3/d)
2,120
1,250
1,730
1,250
48.2
1,060
1,010
2,080
1.230
1,700
1,230
47.3
1,040
992
2,056
1.220
1,700
1,220
46.7
1,030
981
2,056
1,220
1,700
1,220
46.7
1,030
981
—
C (ppm)f
57
30
29
57
31
31
35
65
38
14
56
37
24
34
2
3
5
24
6
20
33
22.5
7.5 .
14
28
5
17
30
. —
Cl"
J (kg/d)'
12.2
3. BO
5.08
7.21
0.150
3.32
3.58
13.67
4.72
2.41
6.96
0.18
2.52
3.41
0.420
0.370
0.850
2.95
0.030
2.08
3.27
4.68
0.920
2.38
3.44
0.020
1.77
2.98
26. 4t
-—
M (kg)"
501
156
208
296
6.2
136
147
888
307
157
452
11.5
164
222
17.3
15.3
35.3
122
1.2
86.3
136
81.9
16.1
41.7
60.2
0.400
30.9
52.1
4.350
C (ppm)
260
220
220
200
310
270
230
100
35
125
110
90
255
240
55
40
70
190
85
250
250
150
50
120
200
60
190
245
SOJ
J (kg/d)
55.7
27.8
38.6
25.3
1.51
28.9
23.5
21.0
4.35
21.5
13.7
0.430
26.8
24.1
11.4
4.92
11.9
23.4
0.400
26.0
24.8
31.2
6.14
20.4
24.6
0.280
19.8
24.3
136*
.
M (kg)
2,280
1,140
1,580
1,040
62.0
1,190
964
1.370
283
1,400
888
28.0
1,740
1,570
475
204
494
969
17.0
1,080
1,030
546
108
357
430
5.0
346
425
22,500
— — — —
C (ppm)
73
381
144
81
11
25
7
8
77
60
21
4
12
4
9
72
16
4
1
5
3
7
40
10
3
3
4
4
—
TOC
J (kg/d)
15.6
48.2
25.2
10.3
0.05
2.68
0.72
1.68
9.57
10.3
2.61
0.020
1.26
0.40
1.87
8.85
2.72
0.49
0.005
0.52
0.30
1.46
4.92
1.70
0.37
0.01
0.42
0.40
40.4*
M (kg)
641
19.8
1,040
420
2.00
110
29.0
109
622
671
170
1,00
82.0
26.0
78.0
367
113
20.0
0.200
22.0
12.0
25.0
86.0
30.0
6.00
0.300
7.00
7.00
6,570
-------
TABLE 15.(continued)
o
Period
10/31/76
12/11/76
(41d)
12/11/76
1/21/77
2/14/77
(65d)
2/M/77
3/10/77
3/28/77
(41. 5d)
3/28/77
4/14/77
(17. 5d)
Sum - 165d
'Area symbol
1f k • 1 •
Area
symbol*
A442
A522
AS32
A542
A622
A632
A642
A442
A522
AS32
A542
A622
A632
A642
A442
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A442
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A1n
A|
-------
TABLE 16. CONTAMINANT FLUX AND MASS THROUGH OUTLET FACE OF SITE 1
(Aquifer layer of control volume)
Cl"
TOC
o
Period
1/1/77
1/12/77
(9d)
1/12/77
1/21/77
2/14/77
(33d)
2/14/77
3/10/77
4/14/77
(59d)
4/14/77
5/19/77
6/3/77
(49.64d)
6/3/77
6/17/77
(14.bid)
Sum 165.28d
Area
symbol'
A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
Aout
Area
(ra2)
80.3
106
84
210
168
170
204
80.3
106
84
210
168
70
204
80.3
106
84
210
168
170
204
80.3
106
84
210
168
170
204
80.3
106
84
210
168
170
204
q
655
860
683
1.710
1.370
1,380
4.660
665
860
683
1,710
1,370
1,380
1,660
646
850
676
1,690
1,350
1,370
1,640
658
866
688
1,720
1,380
1.390
1,670
658
866
688
1,720
1,380
1,390
1,670
C (ppm)'
16
25
29
21
32
32
15
13
24
28
17
31
27
15
6
16
17
21
21 •
17
15
11
15
5
10
24
8
28
8.5
15
5
10
25
8
27
J (kg/d)1
1.06
2.14
2.00
3.63
4.42
4.48
2.52
O.B60
2.06
1.94
2.94
4.29
3.78
2.52
0.390
1.38
1.16
3.59
2.87
2.35
2.49
0.730
1.31
0.350
1.74
3.34
1.13
4.74
0.570
1.31
0.350
1.74
3.48
1.13
4.57
M (kg)"
9.50
19.3
18.0
32.7
39.8
40.3
22.7
28.4
68.1
63.9
97.0
141
125
83.1
23.1
81.2
68.6
212
169
. 139
147.0
36.4
65.2
17.3
86.4
166
56.0
235
8.30
19.2
5.10
25.5
Bl.O
16.5
66.9
C (ppm)
67.5
135
290
230
350
150
250
40
100
280
210
350
130
250
6
15
90
130
300
180
250
35
115
35
100
265
80
275
19
64
60
113
280
130
260
J (kg/d)
4.46
11.7
20.1
39.8
48.4
21.0
42.0
2.64
8.70
19.4
36.3
48.4
18.2
42.0
0.390
1.29
6.15
22.2
41.0
24.9
41.5
2.33
10.1
2.44
17.4
36.9
11.3
46.5
1.27
5.61
4.18
19.7
39.0
18.3
44.0
H (kg)
40.0
106
180
358
436
189
378-
87.0
287
640
1,200
1,600
601
1,400
23.0
76.0
363
1.310
2,420
1,420
2,450
116
501
121
864
1,830
560
2,310
19.0
82.0
61.0
288
571
268
644
C (ppm)
9
15
16
4
7
11
16
5
6
7
4
4
5
13
4
5
2
3
5
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
3
6
3
4.5
1.5
2.5
4
3
4.5
J (kg/d)
0.590
1.30
1.11
0.690
0.970
1.54
2.69
0.330
0.520
0.480
0.690
0.550
0.700
2.11)
0.260
0.430
0.140
0.510
0.680
0.420
0.500
0.200
0.350
0.140
0.350
0.420
0.420
1.01
0.200
0.390
0.100
0.440
0.560
0.420
0.760
1,020
15.
2,480
144^
23,800
3.731
M (kg)
5
12
10
6
9
14
24
11
17
16
23
18
23
72
15
25
8
30
40
24
29
10
17
7
17
21
21
50
3
6
2
6
8
6
11
616
-------
TABLE 1.6'. (continued)
O
Ol
Soluble Fe
Period
1/3/77
1/12/77
(9d)
1/12/77
1/21/77
2/14/77
(33d)
2/14/77
3/10/77
4/14/77
(59d)
4/14/77
5/19/77
6/3/77
(49.64d)
6/3/7.7
6/17/77
(14.64d)
Sum 165.28d
* Area
Area
symbol*
All 2
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
A112
A122
A21 2
A222
A232
A332
A342
A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
Aout
symbol A,.:
Concentrations of
' Conta
mlnant flux i
C (ppn.)
0.40
0.40
5.00
1.00
12.0
1.20
1.20
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.01
16.0
0.24
0.90
3.30
4.60
23.0
6.10
23.0
5.80
0.01
6.80
39.0
27.0
36.0
47.0
24.0 .
25.0
3.80
21.3
34.0
24.0
52.0
21.6
14.2
J (kg/d)
0.030
0.035
0.300
0.200
1.66
0.170
0.200
0.0007
0.0009
0.007
0.002
2.21
0.030
0.150
0.210
0.400
1.57
1.04
3.14
0.800
0.002
0.450
3.42
1.88
6.27
6.55
3.38
4.23
0.250
1.B7
2.37
4.18
7.24
3.05
2.40
M (kg)
0.270
0.315
2.70
1.80
15.0
1.53
1.80
0.023
0.030
0.230
0.066
72.9
1.00
4.95
12,4
23,6
92.6
61.4
185
47.2
0.120
223
170
93.3
311
325
168
210
0.017
27.4
34.7
61.2
106
44.6
35.1
12.9? 2130
where 1 •
offslte well
constituents on 1/3/77
Ml • r. (on
n) x n (m'/dl
number; j
and 6/17/77
x in-3 fun
Soluble Hg
C (ppm) J (kg/d) H (kg)
0.0016 0.00010 0.00090
0.00044 0.00004 0.00036
0.00026 0.00002 0.00018
0.00020 0.00003 0.00027
0.00020 0.00003 0.00027
0.0003 0.00004 o: 00036
0.0004 0.00007 0.00064
0.0020 0.00013 0.0043
0.0005 0.00004 0.0013
0.0003 0.00002 0.0007
0.0002 0.00003 0.0010
0.0002 0.00003 0.0010
0.0002 0.00003 0.0010
0.0002 0.00003 0.0010
0.0009 0.00006 0.004
0.0004 0.00003 0.002
0.0002 0.00014 0.008
0.0006 0.00010 0.006
0.0008 0.00011 0.007
0.00)0 0.00014 0.008
0.0006 0.00010 0.006
0.0002 0.00001 0.0005
0.0002 0.00002 0.0010
0.0017 0.00012 0.0060
0.0002 0.00004 0.0020
0.0002 0.00003 0.0015
0.0004 0.00006 0.0030
0.0006 0.00010 0.0050
0.0002 0.00001 0.0002
0.0002 0.00002 0.0003
0.0009 0.00006 0.0009
0.0002 0.00004 0.0006
0.0002 0.00003 0.0004
0.0003 0.00004 0.0006
0.0004 0.00007 0.0010
0.00047? 0.0773
Soluble Pb
C (PP»)
0.065
0.075
0.010
0.015
0.330
0.025
0.015
0.005
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.380
0.005
0.010
0.360
0.080
0.170
0.050
0.360
0.030
0.005
0.730
0.100
0.280
0.320
0.330
0.245
0.105
0.400
0.080
0.170
0.185
0.310
0.165
0.060
—
• level of sampling point in well; and k
are from concentration versus
II - ko/rfl.
J (kg/d) M (kg)
0.0043
0.0065
0.0007
0.003
0.045
0.0035
0.0025
0.0003
0.0005
0.0003
0.0009
0.053
0.0007
0.0017
0.024
0.007
0.012
0.0085
0.049
0.004
0.0008
0.050
0.009
0.020
0.056
0.046
0.035
0.018
0.027
0.007
0.012
0.032
0.043
0.023
0.010
0.137?
0.039
0.069
0.006
0.027
0.400
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.016
0.010
0.030
1.75
0.023
0.056
1.42
0.410
0.710
0.500
2.89
0.240
0.050
2.48
0.45
1.00
2.78
2.26
1.74
0.89
0.400
0.100
0.180
0.470
0.630
0.340
0.150
22.6
• soil layer If k • 1
time diagram (see
Figures 20 to
Soluble Zn
C (ppm)
0.03
0.06
0.85
0.15
0.66
0.10
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.58
0.01
0.87
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.95
0.18
0.72
0.14
0.02
0.10
0.46
0.45
0.40
0.65
1.00
0.25
0.11
0.25
0.80
0.25
0.60
0.18
0.12
--
* sandy
26 )•
J (kg/d)
0.002
0.005
0.060
0.030
0.090
0.014
0.010
0.0007
0.0009
0.040
0.002
0.120
0.0005
0.008
0.004
0.005
0.070
0.031
0.100
0.020
0.003
0.007
0.040
0.031
0.070
0.090
0.140
0.040
0.007
0.022
0.060
0.044
0.084
0.025
0.020
0.280?
clay and k
M (kg)
0.018
0.045
0.540
0.270
0.810
0.130
0.090
0.023
0.030
1.32
0.07
3.96
0.016
0.26
0.240
0.300
4.13
1.B3
5.90
1.18
0.180
0.350
2.00
1.54
3.48
4.50
7.00
2.00
0.100
0.320
0.880
0.640
1.23
0.37 '
0.30
46.1
« 2 * sand-gravel .
** Output mass (M) through outlet section =• J x Period (unit - kg).
t Average value.
-------
To ascertain the amount of contaminant attenuation or
elution in the special control volume, travel time (time lag)
between the inlet and outlet boundaries must be determined.
From the control volume selected, there are two soil strata:
sandy clay and sand-gravel aquifer. Using Equation 45, the
travel time necessary for crossing the two boundaries of the
aquifer layer was determined to be about 64 days; however, for
the sandy clay layer, it was as long as 58 years. Since the
experimental period was only 318 days, it was not possible to
perform mass balance calculations on the sandy clay layer.
Therefore, only the sand-gravel aquifer layer has been evaluated
for attenuation or elution of contaminants.
The input time period (Tp) used was 165 days. For output
time period, Tpl was calculated for the aquifer layer to be
165.28 days. The time lag (travel time, T) between the two
boundaries of this soil layer was about 64 days, again using
Equation 45. Using this information, the total input and output
mass of the control volume for the designated time period was
obtained by solving Equations 39 or 40. Results are listed in
Tables 15 and 16. The difference between the input and output
mass indicated attenuation or elution of contaminants (Equation
38). Seven contaminants were evaluated and the results are
summarized below:
Percent
Change
Item
Cl"
SO.2"
TOC
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Unit Input
Mass
498
2,595
763
293
0.008
0.459
1.80
Unit Output
Mass
285
2,719
71
244
0.008
2.58
5.37
Attenuation (+)
or Elution (-)
+213
-194
+692
+ 49
0
- 2.
- 3.
12
57
+ 43
- 8
+ 91
+ 17
0
-460
-196
Units are in mg/d/m3 of soil in aquifer layer,
assuming a 53,000 m3 control volume.
It can be seen that soluble chloride, TOC, and iron were attenu-
ated by the aquifer layer at the rate of 213, 692, and 49
mg/day/m3, respectively. This corresponds to 43, 91, and 17
percent removal efficiency, respectively. However, soluble
sulfate, lead, and zinc were found to be eluted at 8, 460, and
196 percent, respectively, from this stratum.
As suggested by Lu (7), in an oxidizing environment, soluble
iron may be removed from solution while soluble lead and zinc
may be released into solution due to solid transformation,
106
-------
sol ubi 1 ization , and compl exation . The reducing species from the
landfill or those formed by the reducing leachate (with high
sulfide content) changed upon contact with an aerobic regional
groundwater. Generally, solid transformation is usually accom-
panied by a release of sulfate ions due to the oxidation of the
reducing sulfide solids, as shown by the following examples:
MS(s) + 2 02 + C02 + H20 = 2 CaC03 - >
2 Ca2+ + S042" + 2 HCO~ + MC03(s) (47)
4FeS + 9 02 + 10 H20 + 8 CaC03 - > e3s
+4 S042" + 8 Ca2+ + 8 HCO^ (48)
MS(s), metallic sulfide, has a higher solubility than MC03(s),
metallic carbonate.
The attenuation or elution of each contaminant studied
may be explained as follows:
Chloride—The reasons for the attenuation of chloride are
not known, although dilution and anion exchange may account
in part for the decrease of chloride concentration in the control
volume. However, theoretically, it is not valid to consider
dilution as a factor in the Site 1 control volume analysis
since the dilute water volume was fixed.
Sul fate--As discussed above, the transformation of sulfide
solid species to relatively oxidized so.lid species might be an
important factor in increasing the sulfate levels in groundwater.
Oxidation of the soluble sulfide species from the leachate may
also result in increased sulfate levels.
TOC--The TOC levels in the groundwater of the control
volume were greatly decreased following the first sampling. The
attenuation of TOC by soil may be due partly to the microbial
metabolism and in part to the surface sorption and chelation
with clay minerals or solid organic species, in the soil.
Soluble iron — Soluble iron in the control volume was atten-
uated, probably as a result of oxidation that converted the
divalent iron species (either solid or soluble) to the relatively
less soluble trivalent species.
Soluble mercury— Soluble mercury was unchanged in the
control volume. As suggested by Lu (7), mercury in the solid
phase is one of the most stable metallic solids. Its original
stable form can be retained through sulfide competition,
extremely low solubility, and strong adsorption and complexation
capabi 1 i ties.
107
-------
Soluble lead—Soluble lead was eluted from the control
volume soil. As shown in Equation 47, solid transformation of
lead could lead to more soluble lead solid(s), which may be one
of the primary factors in releasing lead from soil into ground-
water. The formation of soluble carbonate complexes may also
contribute to some lead elution. However, information on
important ligands of lead in the control volume is lacking, so
a detailed evaluation is impossible.
Soluble zinc--It is speculated that the mechanisms respon-
sible for the transformation and complexation are believed to
be the most important factors for this elution.
Observations on Concentration Isopleths and Related Factors
As illustrated in Figure 1, six new off-site plume wells
were placed in two parallel lines approximately 46 m apart and
perpendicular to the direction of groundwater flow. The wells
in each line were spaced about 76 m apart on center. Wells
4, 5, and 6 were in Line 1, and Wells 1, 2, and 3 in Line 2.
There were four sampling depths in each monitoring well.
A selected number of concentration isopleths depicting the
changes in concentrations of specific contaminants monitored
were used to describe certain trends observed during the Phase II
monitoring (Figures 33 to 44). The columns on the right-hand
side show the fine sand, clay, and sand-gravel strata for Line 1
and clay and sand-gravel strata for Line 2. These concentra-
tion isopleths were also used to assess the required frequency
of monitoring, as well as the planned locations and depths at
which monitoring wells should be placed.
Considerable similarities existed between the concentra-
tion isopleths for lead, iron, cadmium, zinc, copper, chromium,
and nickel. No discernible correlation was observed between
mercury and the above heavy metals.
The lead concentration isopleths indicated that the leachate
occurred in one or more distinct, strong, concentrated plumes
as identified by concentric regions of increasing or decreasing
concentration (Figure 34). The July 1977 results of iron also
indicated three separate, strong leachate plumes occurring in
different sectors of the monitoring grid corresponding to
different soil strata (Figure 33).
There were wide fluctuations in lead concentrations. While
at one sampling, the concentrations were among the highest
observed throughout the year-long period, in the next sampling
they were less than the detection limit. The high concentration
may be associated with the large volume of leachate generated and
the low concentration may have resulted from a dilution effect or
complex redux conditions under which lead was tied up in the
108
-------
564 ,
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6
•
.
OS-4
•
OS-5
OS-6
OS-4
OS-5
I >'.
3/10/77
OS-4 OS-5
11
OS-6
3=
s
i
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 33a. Site 1 iron concentration isopleths for line 1.
-------
OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
546
qs-3
OS-1
OS-2
pS-3
OS-1
1/21/77
OS-2 gS-3
OS-1
OS-2
B&
wm
• irt iflt'Zt - i
mm
os-i
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Fiqure 33bi Site 1 iron concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
564 i
OS-4
OS-5
MS i,
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6
^0.005
•
OS-6
OS-5
-£.0.005
.007 .DOS
OS-4
3/10/77
OS-5
OS-6
0.0 05
J-ssS;*5:i
igig-r.x-.cif
•i *^£V*<
II
>
< >
( i
l
i
<
1;
I I
,,l
.'I
i
m
II
( i
1
I
•
I
I
'
111
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 34a. Site 1 lead concentration isopleths for line 1
-------
I
OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
OS-1
558 '
556
554
11
I- 552 •
I
d 55°
548 '
546
qs-3
OS-1
OS-2
pS-3
OS-1
1/21/77
OS-2
9S-3
OS-1
OS-2
qs-
ill
iii
P
•ft
OS-1
3/10/77
OS-2
OS-3
iii
Mrf
Hi
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 34b. Site 1 lead concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6
10/31/76
OS-5 OS-6
5/19/77
OS-4
•
OS-5
OS-6
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6
OS-6
<•
*
7/19/77
~f.-i-:'^si\
mm
.-. J.tTTV-.
$tf
lilt
rO'.'.'yrv'vtZ
n
£/)
9/14/77
Figure 35a. Site 1 mercury concentration isopleths for li
ne 1 .
-------
pS-3
o
10/31/76
OS-1 OS-2
qs-3
SSH
n
* •
i
•i
1/21/77
OS-1 OS-2
546
I
• '
^^OOOi
•
•
•
•
t
•
OS-1
OS-2
OS-1
,
Wi?E««.':
ili
ife'sS^
*iMti
8S1
r$£8f$
-m$&
!'
I;
r_
6
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 35b. Site 1 mercury concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
05-4
OS-6
n
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6
OS-4
10/31/76
OS-5 OS-<
564
OS-4
OS-5
.
toooi •
. •
•
lit
Hi
ftp
•^T'^fvT
ip
SiSiSffi
OS-4
3/10/77
OS-5
to.oot
»
II
(I)
';
D
in
OS-6
n
;
D
O
>
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 36a. Site 1 cadmium concentration isopleths for line 1.
-------
F1gure 36b. Site 1 cadmium concentration isopleths for line
-------
OS-4
564 , .
562
560
OS-5
OS-<
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6
0
tr,
QJ
558 .
556 -I
554 .
552
550
564
562
-4
10/31/76
OS-5 OS-6
^0*01
o
OS-4
1/21/77
OS-5
OS-6
OS-5
os-
•
OS-4
»
£0.01
3/10/77
OS-5
6
•P
'.
,.•(..•
u
D
c i
OS-6
m/M^.
s&
i
n
(M
'
o
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 37a. Site 1 chromium concentration isopleths for line 1.
-------
Picture 37b. Site 1 chromium concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
OS-5
OS-6
•
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6
OS-4
562 •
560 -
558 --•
H 556 -•
d 554 ••
552 -•
550
OS-6
OS-4
OS-6
P*si
/rpv^g
Stt
n
.
-
n
in
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 38a. Site 1 copper concentration isopleths for line 1.
-------
OS-1
I .
. '
558
556 -
^*»
E
~ 554
§
H 552
I
d 550H
540
546
OS-2
OS-3
: .06
o/
546
qs-3
os-i
OS-2
JDS-3
OS-1
ii', ;•
OS-1
'..''• •' •
;••'.
:,'i'£J.':i
$jjm
3/10/77
OS-2
OS-3
£0.01
V [JAS i V
' i.
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 38b. Site 1 copper concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
564 n
562
560
OS-4
OS-5
B 558 .
O
" 556 -
In
,il
554 -
552 .
550
OS-6
OS-6
OS-4
•
OS-4
•
OS-5
OS-6
1/21/77
OS-5
552 -
550
/ ^>
I ^^
• 01
• '/<#.-Vvv
^£is&v
?;s2?.vr
9/14/77
n
>
<
P
OS-4
OS-6 OS-4
OS-5
OS-
LO.Ot
3/10/77
OS-5
&gs*S
fffS
-r\
OS-6
•.•:
i
lrO;V*J ' ' C"
* '
n
Figure 39a. Site 1 nickel concentration isopleths for line 1.
-------
i i
i >
10/31/76
OS-2 QS-3
Figure 39b. Site 1 nickel concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
564 -,
OS-4
OS-5
QS-6
' 1
I 0
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6
562 •
560 •
E
~ 558
O
P 556
I
d 554
552
550
OS-6
.5
\
OS-4
OS-5
OS-
OS-r6
W
r >
<
m
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 40a. Site 1 zinc concentration isopleths for line 1
-------
OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
i >
OS-1
5
558 '
556
554
552 •
550 •
548 '
546
QS-3
OS-1
05-2
£5-3
OS-1
1/21/77
OS-2
0,5-3
OS-1
OS-2
OS-1
Si
n
p
I-
<
I;
I I
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 40tx Site 1 zinc concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6
• •
• ii
n
u
a
564
10/31/76
OS-5 OS-6
QS-4
•
OS-5
OS-6
ssX/W > •
OS-6
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 41a. Site 1 chloride concentration isopleths for line 1.
-------
OS-1
OS-2
i i
OS-3 OS-1
OS-2
pS-3
OS-1
OS-2
qs
3/10/77
OS-1 OS-2
' 10
•32.
lit!
ff|?*'*ii
mm.
5-3
•'
V-'-'-V :!.•;«?
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 41h. Site 1 chloride concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
i I
I
564 i
562
OS-
OS-5
OS-6
550
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 42a. Site 1 sulfate concentration isopleths for line 1.
-------
I •
00
OS-1
558 -
556
#••%
554
E
M
I- 552 '
548
546
OS-2
OS-3
. &>\^s /'
\ /
558
556
554
H 552
a
G) 550
548 '
546
10/31/76
OS-1 OS-2 QS-3
5/19/77
OS-1
OS-2
pS-3
7/19/77
OS-1
9S-3
OS-1
3/10/77
OS-2 OS-3
iii
9/14/77
/jre 42b. Site 1 sulfate concentration isopleths for line ?.
-------
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6
•
'•••
OS-4
•
OS-5
OS-6
OS-4
OS-5
550
OS-6
1/21/77
OS-A OS-5 OS-6
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 43a. Site 1 TOC concentration isopleths for line 1.
-------
OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
! •>
I >
~ 554
u
> i i
,,l
558 '
556
E
554
O
P 552
d 55°
548 "
546
OS-1
OS-2
pS-3
OS-1
1/21/77
os-2 gs-3
OS-1
OS-2
OS-1
3/10/77
OS-2
%$$m
WWQ
i i
i-
<
i-
I;
O
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 43b. Site 1 TOC concentration isopleths for line
-------
564 .,
562
560
558 .
os-4
OS-5
OS-6
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6
OS-4
OS-5
D
P 556 -
3
554 -
552 .
550
INSUFFICIENT "
SAMPLE
564
562
560 -
OS-4
•
; i
d
558 ---
556
552 -•
550
10/31/76
OS-5
OS-6
INSUFFICIENT
SAMPLE
•
1/21/77
OS-4 OS-5 OS-6
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Figure 44a. Site 1 specific conductance isopleths for line 1.
-------
SMI -
554
552
d
548
546
OS-1
OS-2
OS-3 ll'-. I
INSUFFICIENT
SAMPLE
•
,,,
• >
550 •
556 •
E
554 -
O
H 552
d 550
548 '
546
OS-1
10/31/76
OS-2
INSUFFICIENT
SAMPLE
qs-3
OS-2
pS-3
gS-3
OS-1
OS-2
OS-1
3/10/77
OS-2
»
OS-3
•H!
, O
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
c i t
ite specific conductance isopleths for line ?
-------
absorbed or precipitated form of low water solubility. Similar
fluctuations were noted for iron (Figure 33), indicating shifting
in the areas of maximum leachate concentration and the continual
dynamic nature of leachate. The presence of more than one
concentrated leachate plume was also evidenced by the second,
third, and possibly fifth samplings, particularly for cadmium
(Figure 36).
Another interesting phenomenon that was demonstrated by
more than one of the contaminant concentration isopleths involved
the ability of the leachate plume to shift relative positions
within the monitored grid. This was best shown by following the
progression of the areas of maximum-concentrati on from one
monitoring period to another. In the first sampling, the maxi-
mum area of concentration was in the upper center of the grid;
in the second sampling it was in the lower center of the grid;
in the third, it had bifurcated and was of similar concentrations
in both upper and lower leachate plumes; in the fourth sampling,
it was in a widely distributed lower area of the grid and then
reconsolidated itself into a strong, specific, localized concen-
tration plume observed in the fifth sampling. By the sixth
sampling, the leachate plume was in the extreme upper right of
the grid.
No similarities were observed between the concentration
isopleths for either chlorides or TOC and the heavy metals.
However, on some occasions, the concentration isopleths for
sulfates did have some resemblance to those for certain metals,
while on other occasions there were no discernible correlations.
The concentration isopleths for TOC showed that for the
first sampling its concentrations were quite high, reaching
levels greater than 50 ppm at various Vocations on the monitoring
grid (Figure 43). In the first sampling, it was in a very tight,
concentrated, bullseye formation, whereas in the second sampling,
it was in the upper horizons of the water table and had shifted
slightly by the third sampling. However, in the fourth, fifth,
and sixth samplings, the concentrations had been greatly diluted
to insignificant levels while maintaining their relative
positions. This illustrates the difficulty in determining when
and how frequently a landfill must be monitored to obtain use-
ful information for management and/or regulation of the site.
Furthermore, as indicated for iron and lead, certain wells
exhibited significant concentrations of these contaminants, while
other wells did not. Sampling only from the latter wells would
have given site operators and regulatory agencies no reason for
concern over the quality of groundwater at this site, while
the opposite conclusion may actually be more accurate.
The various configurations and locations of the leachate
plumes for individual contaminants varied across the face of the
monitoring grid at each sampling period. The reason for this may
133
-------
have been the seasonal use of irrigation wells to the south of
the landfill, causing seasonal shifts in the direction of ground-
water migration. During sample well placement, the groundwater
movement was almost due east, with a slight inclination to the
southeast. The well placement was designed to catch the presumed
mass centroid of leachate emissions. However, the lines of wells
should have been wider along the downstream edge of the landfill.
There should also have been one or two more wells in each line,
and one or two deeper probes placed in the groundwater table.
These were indicated by the occurrence of many leachate plumes
at the sides and bottom of the monitoring grid.
Environmental Impact Assessment
Leachate was generated and variable amounts escaped over the
course of the monitoring year. Less permeable silty sand and
clay strata (12.2 to 15.2 m below the groundwater surface)
confined the majority of the leachate to the upper level of the
groundwater. Monitoring of downstream residential wells located
at depths of 32 to 40 m revealed no contamination or adverse
impacts on water quality.
Because of the large groundwater recharge due to exfiltra-
tion from the river, copious amounts of water were available for
dilution and dispersion of leachate-borne contaminants. Never-
theless, during the summer months certain contaminants such as
iron, lead, and, on occasion, sulfate and TOC exceeded the
drinking water standards in localized places at distances of 61
to 91 m from the downstream edge of the disposal area (Table 17).
While certain contaminant concentrations surpassed the drinking
standards in the landfill's proximity, it was felt that they
would be suitably diluted and dispersed hundreds of meters down-
stream, assuming there were no significant changes in sludge
contaminant levels or in the disposal operation.
It was thought that the silty to sandy clay stratum at
about the 12.2-m depth was responsible for controlling the rate
of leachate migration into the underlying coarser sand and gravel
zone through which much of the river's inland exfi1 Ration
occurred. This was the primary line of detT^™?nan? flux"
ating and controlling the rate of heavy metal contaminant flux
to this major groundwater aquifer that was used extensively
within the surrounding area for residential and agricultural
purposes.
Attenuation occurred at this site as evidenced by the
heavy metals calculations performed on the control volume
The major concern was for the high iron level that leached in
massive amounts from both the landfill and the surrounding
so" Iron concentrations were as high as four orders of
magnitude above the EPA drinking water standard. Lead leached
in9localfzed "hot spots" from the landfill in the summer.
134
-------
TABLE 17. NUMBER OF TIMES SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEEDED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (SITE 1 )
Constituent
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Background
Phase I
0-2*
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
1-2
Wells
Phase II
0-22
0-22
21-22
2-22
8-21
0-22
0-22
5-22
6-22
Downstream
Phase I
0-3
0-3
3-3
0-3
1-3
0-1
2-3
0-3
2-3
Wells
Phase II
2-117
0-125
101-125
7-124
31-117
3-125
1-121
22-120
30-120
* The first number indicates number of times standard was exceeded; the
second number is sample population.
135
-------
It was believed to originate predominantly from the landfill
rather than from the surrounding soils. Lead concentrations
were up to two orders of magnitude above the EPA drinking water
standard. Although concentrations of mercury and cadmium in
the downstream wells were occasionally above the drinking water
standards, there was no indication that the groundwater down-
stream was contaminated to any degree with these two metals to
be of concern. Concentrations of TOC were high initially, but
decreased to less than 5 ppm later in the monitoring period.
A much more detailed and thorough evaluation of metal
migration might be obtained through thermodynamic calculations
based on metal speciation using selected parameters as indicators.
The parameters are:
Dissolved oxygen
Sulfides
Chlorides
Sulfates
Carbonates
Soluble organic species (e.g.,
fulvic and humic acids)
PH
Eh
Ammonia.
The above parameters would allow us to predict the maximum upper
concentrations of a particular species, the metal species, and
to calculate attenuation and elution. Based on these calcula-
tions, it is possible to predict the distance the contaminants
would migrate in characterized porous media.
In summation, while leachate contamination of the upper
groundwater zone occurred in measurable amounts, it was expected
that dilution and attenuation would mitigate these results within
hundreds of meters from the landfill. The groundwater quality
at lower depths did not appear to be adversely affected due to
controlled rate of flux through the silty clay layer and
subsequent dilution.
136
-------
SITE 2
Soil Analyses
During the drilling of the in-refuse well, soil samples
were taken at the refuse-soil interface (9.1 to 9.4 m) and soil
groundwater interface (10.7 m). Results of the sequential
extraction with water and concentrated nitric acid are presented
in Table 18.
The soils in the disposal area were fine-textured, saline
(containing high levels of soluble salts), -and strongly alkaline
(pH 8.2). Concentrations of the selected chemical constituents
in the water, as well as acid extracts, were generally low and
showed little variation with soil depth. The concentrations of
heavy metals were less than those commonly found in soils (1, 2).
The relatively high concentrations of water-soluble iron at the
two soil depths suggested a reducing regime.
Sludge Analyses
Two grab sludge samples, one obtained from material excavated
during placement of the in-refuse well (June 1975) and the other
from the sewage treatment plant (June 1976), were sequentially
extracted, first with water and then with concentrated nitric
acid (Table 15). Since the moisture content was not determined
for the 1975 sample, no comparison could be made of the differ-
ences in sewage sludge composition between 1971 (burial date)
and 1976.
Results of the sludge obtained from the fill materials
showed high concentrations of sulfate and soluble calcium; some
of the soluble salts in this sludge may have been leached out.
The metal concentrations were within the range but less than the
median concentrations reported by Sommers (9). Due to the
alkalinity of the soil in and around the fill, the movement of
heavy metals away from the fill should be minimal. On the other
hand, the high soluble salt content (as indicated by chloride
and sulfate concentrations in the soil and leachate) might reduce
the capacity of the soil to retain these-metal contaminants.
Leachate Analyses
The leachates collected from the in-refuse well during
r
attne,
Jene™ ly deceased In subsequent samplings, a probable resut
?f?"nfallth" diluted the leachate. Among the heavy metals
137
-------
TABLE 18. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 2, PHASE I
CO
00
Soil Samples Taken Below Landfill During Drilling of In-Refuse Well
Refuse-Soil Interface Soi1-Groundwater Interface
(9.1 to 9.4 m) (10.7 m)
Constituent1" Water
pH 8.2
TOC 315
COD 723
TKN 124
NH4-N 11.1
N03-N <0.4
Cl 72
S04 170
Ca 6
Acid Water
6/17/75 6/17/75
8.1
275
712
103
7.7
0.5
89
191
1142 51
Cd <0.03 0.09 <0.03
Cr <0.30 2.39 <0.30
Cu <0.20 3.00 <0.20
Fe 4.20 3250 9.90
Hg 0.005 0.010 ^0.001
Pb 0.4
Moisture, %
Refuse percent moisture
8.1 0.6
23.4 24.1
2.4 m) 22.1
2.7 m) 29.0
5.2 m) 36.0
(6.1 m) \\ .0
Aci
1307
0
2
12
3513
0
6
d
.51
.57
.30
.007
.5
-------
TABLE 18. (continued)
UJ
10
Sludge*
Constituent!
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Water
8250
31416
608
122
2.
256
5450
19625
<0 .
-------
TABLE 18. (continued)
Constituent*
PH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
ci3
SO*
Ca4
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Offsite
7/8/75
7.6
22548
700
2746
36
4.5
0.10
234
135
25
0.015
0.65
0.330
540
0.003
0.740
Well (
in
•^. -r-
o •—
IO
IT)
c r**»
.^^"
O r-
•1"™ ^*^
«f- O
3
CO T3
C C
>—i IO
Shallow)
6/4/76
14
<0.01
132
60
0.002
• < 0.01
0.01
2.3
< 0.0002
< 0.01
0.02
0.03
7/8/75
7.7
29299
350
1581
14.2
2.5
0.05
687
210
30
0.030
0.98
0.540
1090
0.006
1 .890
Offsite Well
9/18/75
7.9
6887
32
54
2.1
0.6
0.32
273
238
53
0.009
0.02
0.008
0.42
0.0003
0.056
(Deep)
10/14/75
7.6
2006
68
83
1.3
1.1
0.30
360
108
23
0.004
0.02
0.009
0.23
0.0002
0.070
6/4/76
9.2
<0.01
580
170
0.003
0.02
<0.01
0.44
0.0002
<0.01
0.58
0.08
* Soil and sludge were extracted with water and concentrated nitric acid. Sampling
dates are also indicated.
t Concentrations are expressed as mg/kg of dry soil, mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
groundwater or leachate.
# Moisture content for the 6/4/76 sample was 86 percent.
-------
TABLE 19. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF LEACHATES FROM IN-REFUSE WELL (SITE 2)
Constituent*
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
NOo-N
ci3
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
7/8/75
6.9
12465
2750
5637
161
130
<0.02
29
1600
510
0.009
0.14 .
0.100
64
0.007
0.310
Phase
9/18/75
7.8
5940
1067
2687
103.7
70
0.02
350
76
161
0.025
0.01
0.02
2.76
0.033
0.200
I
10/14/75
7.9
5433
1350
2000
80
57
0.02
492
1
77
0.011
0.47
0.015
0.75
0.0005
0.263
6/4/76
452
<0.01
70
540
0.003
0.01
<0.01
1.5
<0.0002
0.08
0.10
0.01
-------
TABLE 19. (Continued)
IS)
Constituent*
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
N1
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Sp. Cond.
11/1/76
0.005
0.03
0.03
5.50
<0.0002
0.16
1 .400
0.32
61
950
520
__#
1/21/77
0.010
0.04
0.03
1 .90
<0.0002
0.150
1 .40
70
1250
451
850
Phase IIf
5/18/77
0.005
0.04
<0.01
1 .20
<0.0002
0.20
0.240
0.18
4
1290
346
7/18/77
<0.005
0.02
<0.01
1 .50
0.0002
0.12
0.440
0.06
576
1400
318
7500
9/13/77
0.020
0.03
0.03
1 .70
0.0003
0.09
0.370
0.20
4
723
148
4400
*Specific conductance in ymhos/cm, all other constituents concentrations in ppm.
No sample taken on 3/10/77 due to dry well.
u
Insufficient sample.
-------
lead was present at relatively high levels (average of 0.22 ppm).
Fluctuations in constituent concentrations are probably related
to the volume of leachate from periods of dry and wet weather.
In Phase II, concentrations of TOC, chloride, and mercury
decreased considerably, while sulfate, zinc, and lead increased.
Concentrations of sulfate (average of 1,123 ppm) and lead
(average of 0.52 ppm) reflected the highly contaminated nature
of the fill leachate. Because the lower portion of much of the
landfill lay below the water table, this leachate will mingle
with groundwater.
Gas Composition in the In-Refuse Well
Gas samples collected at two different depths from the
in-refuse well were analyzed for methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen,
and nitrogen (Table 20). The oxygen and nitrogen contents
in the September samples approached atmospheric values of these
two gases, indicating contamination during sampling. The October
sample showed methane and carbon dioxide to be the major gases
at both depths. The sample at the lower depth showed an increase
in methane and a significant decrease in oxygen and nitrogen,
thereby bearing out the general observation that the more active
methane generation occurs at lower depths in a landfill.
Groundwater Analyses
Two grab samples of background water from a private well and
four groundwater samples from the shallow (OS-1 at 3.0 m) and
deep (OS-2 at 10.4 m) off-site wells were obtained during
Phase I. Bimonthly samples were taken from the two off-site
wells and also from the background well (B6 at 5.8 m) in the
Phase II monitoring. Results of Phases-I and II are presented
in Table 18 and in Table 2 of Appendix E, respectively.
Background Groundwatei—
The first grab sample of background groundwater was strongly
alkaline (pH 8.2) and contained relatively high concentrations
of total solids, TOC, and COD, and exceedingly high levels of
chloride (1,201 ppm) and sulfate (375 ppm) (Table 18). The
sulfate and chloride levels were confirmed by the second grab
sample taken 9 mo later. Among the heavy metals, iron, lead,
and zinc concentrations were slightly elevated. Overall, the
data indicated that the quality of this background groundwater
was poor.
The groundwater collected from the project background well
during Phase II monitoring showed considerably lower levels
of sulfate chloride, and zinc when compared to the background
roundwlllr daia from Phase I. It is believed that the wells
upstream from the landfill were contaminated with sulfate and
chlorine from the connate brines originating from the Dakota
143
-------
TABLE 20. GAS COMPOSITION AT SITE 2 IN-REFUSE WELL-
Ha + «
Gas Species 7/8/75 9/8/75
Upper Lower Upper
CH4 --* --* 4.3
co2 -- -- 1.1
02 — -- 20.0
N2 -- -- 77.6
Lower
2.8
1.7
20.4
75.1
10/1
Upper
39.5
37.1
5.2
23.0
4/75
Lower
49.9
37.3
2.3
10.5
*
Buret broken in transit.
144
-------
sandstone. In the background well installed in Phase II, iron,
lead, and zinc concentrations were again slightly elevated. The
sources of these metals were not known, but probably originated
from the background soil and connate brines rather than the land-
fill, since their levels and those of sulfate, chloride, and TOC
(Phase II) in the background groundwqter generally were lower
than the corresponding levels in the downstream groundwater
(Figures 45 and 46).
Downstream Groundwater--
Data from the first Phase I sampling suggest possible
contamination by suspended colloidal particles (organics, silt,
and clay) in the water samples, as evidenced by the extraordinary
high levels of total solids, TOC, COD, and iron. It appeared
from the July 1975 samples that the deep off-site well intercepted
groundwater containing higher concentrations of sulfate, chloride,
and heavy metals than did the shallow off-site well. However,
the opposite trend was observed in the June 1976 samples.
Fluctuations in contaminant concentrations over the sampling
dates were noted in Phase I (Table 18). In the deep off-site
well, chloride, sulfate, and lead were present at consistently
high levels, while iron was surprisingly present in relatively
low concentrations (0.23 to 0.44 ppm) excluding the June 1975
sample. The data presented clearly indicated the contamination
of the groundwater by chloride, sulfate, and lead in the deep
off-site well.
The shallow off-site well was dry during the Phase II
monitoring, so no sample was obtained. Phase II data showed
an increase in the concentrations of iron, mercury, lead,
and zinc and a decrease in chloride in the off-site deep ground-
water Fluctuations in contaminant concentrations were also
observed (Figures 45 and 46). The increases in heavy metal
concentrations can partially be attributed to the concentrating
effect by dry weather. Although inconclusive, data suggested
that the poor quality of the off-site deep groundwater was the
result of landfilling.
Environmental Impact Assessment
Groundwater quality in the area is dependent on the proxi-
mith to Dakota sandstone bedrock. In many areas the groundwater
from this aquifer is highly mineralized. Over-pumping of some
local wells has caused intrusion of salt water into the alluvium
in some areas.
Local residents have complained about the poor quality of
the groundwater supply. To determine the P°sslbl%d^r^^l°"
of groundwater quality at this site, concentrations of selected
contaminants we?e compared with EPA drinking water standards
(Table 21).
145
-------
5.Qr
4.5*
ai
u_
15
\
«
L \
\
I I I _! L
I ! t
Mr
LEGEND
BG .
QS-2
NOJFMAMJJASQ
1978 • 1 * 1377
Figure 45. Fe, Pb, and In levels in grcundwater,
(Site 2)
146
-------
so
60
40
20
2SOr
210
•
0.
a.
\
* 140
o
t/J
70
i i
100
\
LEGEND
EG
OS-2
A M J J ASQ
Fiqur» 46. Cl , SO,, and TOC levels in croundwater .
* (Site 2)
147
-------
TABLE 21. NUMBER OF TIMES SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEEDED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (SITE 2)
Constituent
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Background
Phase I
1-2*
0-2
2-2
0-2
0-2
0-0
2-2
2-2
2-2
Wells
Phase II
0-5
0-5
5-5
0-5
1-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
2-5
Downstream
Phase I
1-6
0-6
5-6
1-6
5-6
0-2
4-6
0-6
5-6
Wells
Phase II T
0-5
0-5
5-5
3-5
5-5
1-5
0-5
1-5
5-5
* The first number indicates number of times standard was exceeded; the
second number is sample population.
t Off-site shallow well was dry during Phase II monitoring.
148
-------
Background Groundwatei—
The background groundwater was found to contain cadmium,
iron, lead, chloride, sulfate, and TOC at levels that exceeded
the drinking water standards on one or more occasions.
The concentrations of cadmium and lead exceeded the stan-
dards one out of seven occasions. The contamination by these
metals was not confirmed, since their concentrations on the other
six occasions were either nondetectable (particularly cadmium)
or did not approach the standards. Concentrations of chloride
and sulfate exceeded the standards only in Phase I. Apparently,
the background well in Phase II was located sufficiently outside
the influence of the salt water. Concentrations of iron and TOC
exceeded the standards seven and four times, respectively, out
of seven occasions. Iron concentrations, however, were not
exceedingly high in the Phase II background well (0.42 to
1.20 ppm).
Downstream Groundwater--
The downstream wells showed cadmium, iron, mercury, lead,
zinc, chloride, sulfate, and TOC as exceeding drinking water
standards at least once during the study period (Table 21).
Cadmium and zinc each exceeded the standard one out of 11
occasions. However, the data showed that their concentrations
in the other 10 samples were similar to those in the background
levels and no contamination by these metals was indicated in the
downstream groundwater. Chloride exceeded the standard four out
of 11 samples that occurred in Phase I. Although sulfate
exceeded the standard only once, its concentrations were consis-
tently high in the downstream groundwater. Based on the high
background levels of chloride and sulfate, particularly in
Phase I, concentrations of these two contaminants in the down-
stream wells was probably due to saltwater intrusion. The
groundwater intercepted by the downstream well was possibly a
mixture of water from the nearby lakes and leachate leaving
the landfill.
Since iron, lead, and TOC exceeded the drinking water
standards on 10 of 11 occasions, indications were that ground-
water from the downstream wells was contaminated with these
constituents. The concentrations of lead were two to three
times higher than the standard (0.05 ppm) and posed serious
problems to the quality of this groundwater. On the other hand,
TOC evels in soSe instances were comparable to.background
levels; thus, no serious contamination by organic species
was indicated.
Preliminary results obtained indicated that groundwater
in the vliilltj of the landfill was affected by the salt water
to varying degrees. The quality of background groundwater was
149
-------
poor, as shown by relatively elevated levels of iron, chloride,
sulfate, and TOC. Since the lower portion of much of the land-
fill lies below the water table, the leachate and contaminants
from the landfill can migrate readily into the groundwater.
Indications were that the groundwater downstream from the land-
fill was contaminated to a certain extent with lead, iron,
sulfate, chloride, and organic constituents.
Overall, except for lead, the impact of the landfill is
probably of little consequence. While leachate is being gene-
rated, the relative impacts of sludge disposal are difficult
to separate out from the highly variable ambient concentrations
existing around the landfill.
SITE 3
Soil Analyses
During drilling of the in-refuse well, soil samples were
taken from the refuse-soil interface and soil-groundwater inter-
face at 7.3 to 7.6 m and 11.0 to 11.3 m, respectively. Results
of the sequential extraction with water and concentrated nitric
acid are shown in Table 22.
The soil at the lower depth contained significantly higher
levels of TOC and COD than soil at the upper layer, which would
indicate a significant migration and/or accumulation of both
organic and reduced chemical species in the soi1-groundwater
interface. The groundwater table hovered within 1 m of the
bottom of the fill; the data, therefore, suggest that leachate
emanating from the landfill has migrated into the underlying
soil groundwater.
A large portion of calcium at the refuse-soil interface was
soluble in water, while the heavy metals were primarily found
in the acid-extractable form. Concentrations of lead were
slightly higher than those commonly found in soils, while
concentrations of other heavy metals, particularly mercury, were
lower (1, 2). No differences were found in heavy metal concen-
trations between the two sampling depths.
Nitrogen was present primarily in the organic foi
nitrate levels and high moisture contents suggest
imp in •*• h P cnil
form. The
low nitrate levels and high moisture contents suggest a reducing
regime in the soil
Sludge Analyses
Grab sludge sample results showed considerable variation
in constituent concentrations depending upon the sampling date
(Table 22). More than 50 percent of the TKN was ammonium,
which exceeded the median concentration reported by Sommers (9)
150
-------
TABLE 22. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DISPOSAL SITE 3, PHASE I*
Soil Samples Taken Below Landfill
Refuse-Soil Interface
(7.3 to 7.6 m)
During Drilling of In-Refuse Well
Soi1-Groundwater Interface
(11 to 11.3 m).
Constituent
PH
TOC
COD
TKN
NH4-N
NOa-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Moisture, %
Water
7.
240
319
250
34
2.
250
60
1000
<0.
-------
TABLE 22. (continued)
in
ro
""""""""" ""' • ••• ' "~~L"'"~
Constituent^
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N(h-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Moisture, %
1 Sludge*
Water Add
10/14/75
5.4
7333
11925
616
375
1 .9
51
10
300 100.0
<0.04 0.60
1.25 33.50
0.24 6.00
29 650
0.0003 0.002
0.5 31.0
90
Background Groundwater
Water Acid
6/3/76
65714
1.0
120
38
1.2
63
44
2125
<0.004
5.9
75
238
78
9/19/75
7.8
991
11
34
1 .3
1 .0
91
i
38
185
230
0.009
0.02
0.018
1 .24
0.0004
0.036
-------
TABLE 22. (continued)
in
CO
Offsite Well (Shal
Constituent "*"
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
7/8/75
6.
2379
550
861
0.
<0.
0.
3
35
196
0.
0.
0.
87.
0.
0.
7
3
1
10
007
17
100
4
005
16
9/19/
7.
3403
33
50
6.
4.
<0 .
50
30
170
0,
<0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
75
4
6
6
02
008
01
150
33
0002
09
low)
10/15/75
6
2040
17
32
0
0
0
60
40
290
0
0
0
2
0
0
.7
.9
.5
.28
.004
.03
.020
.58
.0004
.10
6/3/76
40
<0 .
56
30
0.
0.
0.
30
<0.
0.
0.
0.
01
007
02
08
0002
11
09
32
* Soil and sludge were extracted with water and concentrated nitric acid. Sampling
dates are also indicated.
t Concentrations are expressed as mg/kg of dry soil, mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
groundwater or leachate, and most probable number/100 ml (100 g) for fecal
bacteria count.
n
v Moisture contents were 89.9 and 78 percent for the 10/1^/75 and 6/3/76 samples,
respect ively.
-------
All of the heavy metals were within the ranges but less than the
median concentrations found in over 250 sewage sludges reported (9)
Leachate Analyses
The leachates collected in Phases I and II were analyzed for
several contaminants, particularly heavy metals (Table 23).
Phase I leachates showed the characteristically high levels
of TOC, COD, and ammonium usually observed in landfill leachates.
Nitrate was not detected, indicating the anaerobic nature of the
leachate, while calcium, iron, and lead showed relatively .
high concentrations that fluctuated widely with time.
Concentrations of most contaminants measured in Phase II
were lower than those of Phase I. Chromium, copper, cadmium,
chloride, and sulfate levels in the leachates were low, while
mercury was not detected. The data showed no trend or correla-
tion among the various contaminant concentrations.
Gas Composition in In-Refuse Well
Gas samples collected from the in-refuse well between July
and October 1975 were analyzed for methane, carbon dioxide,
oxygen, and nitrogen (Table 24).
The July and October upper samples and the September lower
sample were contaminated with air during sampling or shipping,
as shown by the atmospheric values of oxygen and nitrogen.
Concentrations of the four gases in the July and October samples
were similar, with methane and carbon dioxide averaging 59.5 and
37.0 percent, respectively. These methane levels are similar to
those found in many landfills.
Groundwater Analyses
Both background and off-site well groundwaters were monitored.
Phase I background groundwater samples w.ere taken from a privately
owned well located southeasterly of the landfill site; Phase II
background samples were obtained from the project well north-
easterly of the site. There were four pneumatic ejector-type
sampling probes inside the project background well at depths of
6.1, 9.1, 12.2, and 15.9 m.
The Phase I off-site well (OS-X), a shallow well, was
westerly of the landfill site with one sampling level (at 7.3 m).
Six new off-site wells (OS-1 to OS-6) with pneumatic ejector-
type sample probes were installed in Phase II. These six wells
formed a control volume below the groundwater table extending
from the west to southwest boundaries of the site. Analytical
data for Phases I and II are presented in Table 22 and in Table 3
of Appendix E, respectively.
154
-------
TABLE 23. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE FROM IN-REFUSE WELL (SITE 3)
Ol
Phase I
Consti tuent
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
•J
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
7/8/75
6.7
13290
7200
19552
759
605
<0.02
28
430
2070
0.007
0.15
0.050
20.6
0.005
0.37
9/19/75
7.6
8111
11333
23283
3236
2468
<0.02
112
2
437
0.021
0.10
0.020
11.1
0.012
0.73
10/15/75
7.5
5805
14267
20302
3545
3407
<0.02
31
1
111
0.008
0.17
0.054
10.4
0.001
0.18
6/3/76
1030
1160
8
0.002
0.04
<0.1
1 .7
0.15
0.03
0.08
-------
TABLE 23. (Continued)
Constituent*
i
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Sp. Cond.
11/1/76
0.005
0.12
0.01
6.5
<0.0002
0.02
0.150
0.16
12
20
2240
t
1/20/77
0.005
0.46
0.02
9.1
<0.0002
0.30
0.065
1 .80
26
4
2028
25000
Phase
3/8/77
0.003
0.07
0.03
15.0
0.0010
0.28
0.470
0.41
30
12
1790
24000
II
5/10/77
0.005
0.06
0.01
17.0-
0.0003
0.08
0.240
0.65
<2
30
8
7/18/77
<0.005
0.01
<0.01
24.8
0.0002
0.05
0.140
<0.01
19
70
70
7500
9/12/77
0.010
0.01
0.01
16.0
0.0002
0.04
0.090
0.10
11
33
76
8000
t
'Specific conductance in ymhos/cm, all other constituents concentrations in ppm.
Insufficient sample.
-------
TABLE 24. GAS COMPOSITION AT SITE 3 IN-REFUSE WELL
7/8/
Gas Species Upper
CH4
co2 o.i
02 21.2
N2 78.7
75
Lower
56.3
39.6
0.9
3.2
9/19/75
Upper Lower
53.7
33.6
2.8 21.2
9.8 78.8
10/1
Upper
5.8
1.4
16.4
76.4
5/75
Lower
62.6
34.3
0.6
2.5
Below detection limit
157
-------
Background Groundwater--
Judging from the groundwater flow patterns (Figure 47),
the Phase I background well might have been contaminated by
leachate from the landfill. The consulting geologist indicated
that other land uses in the area might have caused changes of
such magnitude in the original groundwater quality that sampling
from no single background well could be reliable. However,
because the Phase II project background well was located upstream
and in the opposite direction of groundwater flow, it may still
be useful for comparing groundwater quality changes due to the
landfilling operations.
Concentrations of the selected contaminants in the project
background well were well within the concentration ranges of
most terrestrial waters (4). Concentrations of selected contami-
nants in the background groundwater varied with both time and
depth in the Phase II monitoring. Chloride, sulfate, and TOC
concentrations showed a decreasing trend since the winter of 1976.
However, since no data is available after the autumn of 1977,
it is not clear if there is a relationship between season and
concentration. Monitoring for a minimum of two consecutive
years is probably necessary in order to observe this relationship.
Most trace metal concentrations showed higher levels in the
summer. Although it is not clear if seasonal changes also affect
the migration of these metals, it is quite possible that the
higher concentration was due to the higher flow rate in the
summer season, as was suggested in Site 1.
Contaminant concentrations were generally higher in the
upper sampling levels than those in the lower levels. This was
probably due to the high vertical flow (6) that leached more
contaminants from the soil above to the sand layer where the
sampling points were located.
Downstream Groundwater-- v.
In comparison with Phase I, concentrations of lead, zinc,
and probably iron in the OS-X well increased, while those of
chloride decreased in the Phase II monitoring. There were also
appreciable decreases in TOC concentrations following the first
sampling in Phase II.
Phase II downstream well data showed that the concentrations
of contaminants varied with depth, although no general trend
was observed (Figures 48 to 54). It is not certain if there was
any concentrated localized leaching into the underlying or down-
stream soil layers. However, this is quite possible, since the
soils are somewhat inhomogeneous and an unsaturated flow might
result in some locations, as will be discussed in more detail in
the Environmental Impact Assessment. Another cause may be from
the channels or cracks created in the clay layer by the operator
during digging of pits. Among the contaminants studied, only
TOC showed consistently higher concentrations in the groundwater
of the upper soil layers.
158
-------
WATER TABLE
CONTOUR
0 24 48 96
NEW SPECIAL CONTROL
VOLUME ^7 A BCD
Figure 47.
Configuration of water table, groundwater
flow direction, and new special control
volume of site 3.
1 59
-------
100
75
E
0.
°" 50
o
25
100
£ 75
Q.
G 50
25
160
a- 120
•
o 80
40
"- :^\
j « *
X 1A
- M
\\
V
• \
\
*
\
\12° A1510 OS-2
•\ A
S 1 \ LI
. V > L2
/\ \ L3
' / \\\ L4
t
f 3,600
/\.
\^ OS-3
><^'
\ "^
' \ I
\ I
*% I
\ I
^ *
\|
tl 0 \ f M * M J 1 A * V
1976- 1 "1977
Figure 48. Cl levels in groundwater from
six off-site wells (site 3).
160
-------
120
90
S
c.
^ 60
«
30
100
S 7S
c.
c.
^T 50
o
- /-A
^ \ QS-4
£-—-\
\x \
X\ \
V V \
* I
1 I 1 1s* — 1 1 > t 1 *— 1
f/ \ as-s
^"-.A \
• VNX .
1_1
L2
L3
L4
25r
\
\
t i t
OS-6
100 •
o 50 -
25
n a j f, M A M
1975 ' [ -1577
••^^^••••MMHMMBBBIMMMM^^^IBK
Figure 48. (Continued)
161
-------
MDJ. FMAMJJASO
Figure 49. SO^ levels in groundwater from
six off-site wells (site 3).
162
-------
o
t/1
200
150
100
50
200
150
100
50
200
150
100
50
dS-4
i i r t i i i i
i I
QS-5
\
\
\
i i i i \ I i i ^"T i t
OS-6
i 1 1 1 1 1
UQJFMAMJJASQ
197S 1 • 1377
Ll
L2
L3
Figure 49. (Continued)
163
-------
120
90
*_
E.
c.
60
o
J—
30
200
150
f^
2
C.
C.
. 100
0
o
^™"
50
200
150
s
^^
c.
100
*
o
H-
50
IB
\ OS-1
\
- \
\
\
\ \
- \ V
\ \
«••
OS-2
\
V^ LI
\
\\
- \
\
"v V L4
r A
/\
/ \
' \
/ \
\
\
™™» \
. ~~~N \
"^~- \ V ^** ~ "~-~.
""^-\ N- - S*^ — -"«
t i i *">— •7""^T ~i T~-i r — i
MOJ. FMAMJJ A 5 U
1378— H — 1977
Figure 50. TOC levels in groundwater from
six off-site wells (site 3).
164
-------
zocr
o
J—
15CJ
IOC
50
\
\
\
<_)
a
o
o
MQJFMAMJJASO
1S7S —H 1377
Ll
L2
l_3
L4
Figure 50.(Continued)
165
-------
200
150
EL
°- 100
m
-------
N i f i i ^-t 1^ I
300 _
-H-.J-- -
H^-
-------
20
.15
&
a.
°- .10
*
_Q
Q_
.05
.04
a. .03
'a.
S .02
.01
.08
CS
CL .06
a.
«
£ .04
.02
OS-1 ,
/ \
\
*»
\ / \
/ \
> /
\ '
\- / \
-^" \ \ / \
^ \V /\ \
\
\ / \_ \
r 0.054
/ \ OS -2
' 7 \
/ N LI
- / \
/ \
/ XV L3
7 X' \
/ \\
y X ^--- — ^-^% \\
t i i i I i ' t r ' i
OS -3 X \
/ \
-J ^\. *
•^7 -*~ \
' /' / \\
/ / XV
\ x / A
N ^ ' / »
-X / /
/ \x^ /
» I i 1 1 t r • f » '
HOJFMAMJJAS 0
4 «^^ i 4rt^^
Figure 52. Pb levels in groundwater from six
off-site wells (site 3).
168
-------
a.
a.
J3
c_
.20:
15'
10
,05
a.
a.
J3
C_
\ /
y \/
\
\
/\ /
V
\
V
xx \
\ v\
» \'
» ) lift
CS-5
\
\
Ax
X
\
1_1
L2
L3
L4
UOJ. FMAMJJ A SO
Figure 52.(Continued)
169
-------
2.0
. 1.5
S.
c.
=• 1
c
.5
2.0
1.5
S
a.
o.
1
*
c
.5
1.6
1.2
S
Q.
.8
c
.4
OS-1 ;
» \ 1
\ A /
- \ / N /
A /A\ '
- A \ // \\ /
/ \ '/^ N\ /
/ V V %\
/ | I ~ i* ' • "^^ » ! t ' ^T— -*»!•• 1
_ ,
QS-2 /
A /
'/\\
// \\ / L2
/ /^*>»
/ /7 \ \ /
/ // N\^ /
L^r^ ^^sL^^
r "" T X
as-3/ \
/ \
/ 7\ \ l
^ /' /f\ \
NOJFMAMJJASO
1975 ^H — 1977
Fiaure 53. Zn levels in groundwater from
six off-site wells (site 3).
170
-------
pa
e
a.
CL
2. or
i.sh
as-4
NOJ. FMAMJJ
1S7S • 1377
A 30
L2
l_3
L4
Figure 53.(Continued)
171
-------
.oosor
.0020 -
0.0030
.0015-
Ol
.0010 _
f \ as-i
- /' A\
/ « Y>
/ k V\
~ / } \
J 1 \
i t i t i i
*&.
.0030
.. 0020
CT
. 0010
. 0005
.004
.003
. .002
Cl
.001
OS-2
I I
i I 1 1 i i< L J
OS-3
.\
N 0 J F H
1976—i 1977
A M J J A S 0
, _
L3
Figure 54-. Hg levels in grouncwater from
six off-sit.s wells (site 3).
172
-------
C5
.004
.003
.002
.001
t t 1 I t 111
C.
C.
CT
I
,0020
,0015
,0010
,0005;
.0020
___ _____ J
- .0015
5.
a.
.0010
.0005
as-s
l I 1 J I L
as-6
N D J. F M A M J J
1976—H 1377
A S 0
Ll
L2
L3
Figure 54. (Continued)
173
-------
Concentrations of contaminants fluctuated over sampling
time (Figures 48 to 54). While chloride was detected at relatively
higher levels during the winter, most of its concentrations were
close to 2 ppm in subsequent monitoring periods. It is not known
if chloride concentrations would rise again next winter. A longer
study time is needed to confirm such seasonal variation. The data
for TOC and, to some extent, sulfate exhibited similar seasonal
trends.
Among the trace metals in groundwater samples taken from the
off-site wells, iron and most of the zinc levels were in the ppm
range, others in the ppb range. Most of the results showed higher
concentrations in the 'summer than any other season. Among the
trace metals, mercury showed a slightly different pattern, peaking
around March and April and having a higher peak in the inlet than
in the outlet face of the control volume.
Comparisons of Contaminant Concentrations
from Different Sources--
Comparisons between the migration trends and levels of
contaminants in the in-refuse well leachates, background, and
off-site well groundwaters are given in Figures 55 to 57. Both
TOC and lead levels were higher in the in-refuse well leachates
than in the background or downstream groundwater; the opposite
trends were noted for those of iron and sulfate. Concentrations
of other contaminants in the background or off-site well ground-
waters varied. The relatively low sulfate levels could be due
to the reducing characteristics of the in-refuse leachate. How-
ever, the relatively low iron levels could be associated with the
low iron content of the sludge.
While concentrations of chloride, s.ulfate, mercury, iron,
lead, and zinc were higher in the off-site well groundwaters
than in the background groundwater, TOC showed only a minimal
variation. The increase in sulfate in the downstream groundwater
was probably due chiefly to oxidation of sulfide species from the
landfill. This is usually accompanied by an increase in most
trace metal concentrations, except iron, and can be attributed to
the formation of other metallic solids (e.g., carbonates) with
higher solubility.
Special Control Volume Analyses
Flow Calculation--
The geologic formation that controls the groundwater hydro-
logy at this site can be divided into four strata: upper clay,
middle clay, lower clay, and sand. The approximate permeability
of these soil layers were calculated by the geological consultant
and are as follows:
174
-------
120
90
o
co
30
2000
1500
soo
NDJFMAMJJASO
1975 - : * 1577
LH5END
AYG OS
IR
Figure 55. Cl, $04, and TOC levels in groundwater and
leachats (site 3).
175
-------
20O-
15C
a. IOC
sc_
/\
' \
'. \
\ N
V \
1.3
i.c
2.0.
1.3-
i.G-
LEGEND
AVG BG....
AVG QS
IR
NUJFMAMJJASC
1375 r—137 7
Figure 56. Fe,- ?b, and Zn levels in ground*atar and
leachata (sits u).
176
-------
.ooacr
» .0015 ~
o
= .00-10
.0005 2. '
I I t 1 11 1—I—1—I—i
0—J FM AM 3 J A S 0
"1975 H^1377
LEGEND
AVG BG • - •«
| AVG OS
IR
Figure 57.
He levels in groundwatsr and leachata (site 3}
177
-------
Permeability (K)
Geologic Layer ft/day cm/sec
Upper clay 5 1.76 x TO"3
Middle clay 0.0069 2.44 x 10"6
Lower clay 0<367 1 . 29 x 10"4
Sand 200 7.06 x 10"2
The configuration of the surface or upper water table is
shown in Figure 47 (p. 159 ). Confined by the clay layer, ground
water is mounded in the landfill area, while the regional water
table generally slopes toward the creek channel. Groundwater
flow in the sand and cl-ay formations is probably at right angles
to the water table contours. Therefore, the flow is generally
toward the creek and down valley.
Flow velocities could vary with changes in piezometric
groundwater elevations. However, because of the complex water
mounding in the vicinity of the landfill, available data on
groundwater elevations were generally inadequate to perform the
necessary detailed calculations. It was assumed that flow velo-
city variations were negligible. Data on the direction and
magnitude of the horizontal and vertical components of ground-
water flow in the different strata in the control volume have
been provided by the consultant geologist (6):
Formation Flow Component ft/day cm/day
Lower clay Vertical 1 * 30.5
Horizontal 0.012 0.37
Sand Horizontal 25 762
Although the vertical flow in the sand formation could be
slowed down by the relatively large regional groundwater flow,
at this site the vertical flow in the lower clay (30.5 cm/day)
was significant enough to affect the flow pattern in the sand
1ayer.
Control Area and Flow Rate--
As shown in Figure 47, the horizontal flow direction was not
parallel to the presumed longitudinal axis. Thus, the flow
passing the" inlet face (formed by OS-1, OS-2, and OS-3) was not
completely the same as the one passing out the outlet face
(formed by OS-4, OS-5, and OS-6). Therefore, a new horizontal
control shape had to be constructed according to the hori-
zontal flow vectors, as shown in Figures 47 and 58 (shape ABCD).
Using the rule suggested in Section 5, a subarea A-jjk can be
formed, assuming that the contaminant concentration at any
sampling well can be applied halfway to the next sampling well.
Thus, the subareas of the vertical inlet face can be formed
178
-------
(Figure 58), as suggested by Thiessen (3). The calculated
areas for each individual A-jjic are listed in Table 25.
The top and bottom boundaries of the control volume should
also be formed by the vertical flow direction. In order to
obtain this new shape, it is assumed that the original vertical
boundaries range in elevation from 289.6 to 298.8 m, with a
lower clay layer 1.07 m thick and a sand layer 8.08 m thick.
Since the horizontal flow in the lower clay layer (Figure 59)
was very small compared to the vertical flow, the shape would
not be changed significantly. However, because of the continuous
input of water through the lower clay and sand boundaries, the
horizontal outlet section in the sand layer will be increased by
a small quantity of Vv. The value of Vv can be determined
as follows:
Vertical inlet flow rate = 1850 m /day
3
Horizontal inlet flow rate = 10220 m /day
(Table 25)
3
10220 m /d
(Table 26)
Total inflow = 1850 m3/day + 10220 m3/day
12070 m3/day (
Assuming that the horizontal flow velocity in the sand
layer is kept constant (762 cm/day), the area of the
outlet plane becomes
'* 158° m' (tablS 27) (
This outlet area is located chiefly on the sand layer,
because the lower clay layer had extremely low horizontal flow
velocity. Therefore, the depth increase on the outlet plane
becomes
AH.out - V in _ , 158Q m2 - 1340 m2 (53)
width of the outlet plane 166m
= 1.45 m
This depth increase results in the following angle for
the groundwater down flow:
1.45 m = 1 .45 m = 0.038
travel distance 38 m (54)
9 = tan"1 0.038 = 2.2°
179
-------
OS-1
12 36
METERS
OL AREA Aijk
k = 1 = LOWER CLAY 1 = OFr-SITE WELL NO.
k =2 = SAND j = LEVEL OF SAMPLING
POINT
(BY THIESSEN METHOD) k = S °IL LAYER
Figure 58. Vertical inlet section of site 3
180
-------
TABLE 25. CONTAMINANT FLUX AND MASS THROUGH VERTICAL
INLET SECTION OF SITE 3 (LOWER CLAY LAYER)
ca
Period
11/1/76
12/10/76
(40. 5d)
12/10/76
1/20/77
2/15/77
(67(1)
2/15/77
3/B/77
4/17/77
(61d)
4/17/77
5/16/77
6/22/77
(66d)
6/22/77
7/18/77
8/17/77
(56d)
8/17/77
9/9/77
(22d)
Sum 312.5d
Area
symbol*
All!
A221
A321
A411
A511
A621
Alll
A221
A321
A411
A511
A621
Alll
A221
A321
A411
A511
A621
Alll
A221
A321
A411
A511
A521
Alll
A221
A321
A411
A511
A621
Alll
A221
A321
A411
A511
A621
Av. in
Area
On2)
121
1,790
1.290
1,400
1,090
390
121
1.790
1,290
1,400
1,090
390
121
1,790
1,290
1,400
1,090
390
121
1,790
1,290
1,400
1,090
390
121
1,790
1,290
1,400
1,090
390
121
1,790
1,290
1,400
1,090
390
6,080
•$
(m3/d)
36.9
545
393
427
332
119
36.9
545
393
427
332
119
36.9
545
393
427
332
119
36.9
545
. 393
427
332
119
36.9
545
393
427
332
119
36.9
545
393
427
332
119
1,850
C (ppm)+
100
2
100
100
97
63
100
2
140
27
82
52
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
I .
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
4
14
2
—
Cl~
J (kg/d)*
3.68
1.09
39.4
42.8
32.1
7.49
3.68
1.09
55.1
11.5
27.2
6.18
0.0368
1.09
0.787
1.28
0.662
0.238
0.074
1.09
0.787
0.855
0.663
0.240
0.074
1.09
0.787
0.855
0.663
0.240
0.074
1.09
0.787
1.71
4.64
0.238
41.61
M (kg)**
149
44.1
1,600
1,700
1,300
303
247
73.0
3,690
770
1,820
414
2.25
66.5
48.0
78.1
40.4
14.5
4.88
71.9
51.9
56.4
43.8
15.8
4.14
61.0
44.1
47.9
37.1
13.4
1.63
24.0
17.3
37.6
102
5.24
13,000
C (ppm)
175
25
200
140
130
80
175
83
180
50
115
85
150
1
150
40
50
85
110
1
90
45
55
85
90
1
65
40
60
35
65
1
65
32
35
28
--
S04
J (kg/d)
6.44
13.7
78.7
59.9
43.1
9.52
6.44
45.4
70.9
21.4
38.1
10.1
5.52
O.b47
59.1
17.1
16.6
10.1
4.05
0.547
35.4
19.2
18.2
10.1
3.13
0.547
25.6
17.1
19.9
4.16
2.39
0.547
25.6
13.7
11.6
3.33
1251
M (kg)
261
555
3,190
2,430
1,750
386
432
3,040
4,750
1,430
2,550
677
337
33.4
3,610
1,040
1,010
616
267
36.1
2,340
1,270
1,200
667
175
30.6
1,430
958
1,110
233
52.6
12.0
563
301
255
73.3
39,100
C (ppm)
38
158
70
35
14
32
38
34
61
6
1
6
5
14
24
5
8
3
11
26
19
7
10
13
9
24
26
4
6
4
4
23
21
3
3
4
--
TOC
J (kg/d)
1.40
86.4
27.6
15.0
4.64
3.81
1.40
18.6
24.0
2.57
0.330
0.710
0.180
7.65
9.45
2.14
2.65
0.357
0.405
14.2
7.48
3.00
3.31
1.55
0.331
13.1
10.2
1.71
2.00
0.476
0.147
12.6
8.27
1.28
1.00
0.476
45.41
M (kg)
56.7
3,500
1,120
608
188
154
93.8
1,250
1,608
172
22.1
47.6
11.0
467
576
130
162
21.8
' 26.7
937
494
198
219
102
18.5
734
571
95.7
112
26.7
3.23
277
182
28.2
22
10.5
14,200
-------
TABLE 25. (Continued)
00
Soluble Fe
Period
11/1/76
12/10/76
(40. 5d)
12/10/76
1/20/77
2/15/77
(67d)
2/15/77
3/0/77
4/17/77
(61d)
4/17/77
5/16/77
6/22/77
(66d)
6/22/77
7/18/77
8/17/77
(56d)
8/17/77
9/9/77
(22d)
Sum 312. 5d
Area
symbol*
All)
A221
A32I
A41I
A5II
A62I
All!
A22I
A32I
A4II
ASH
A62I
All)
A?2I
A32I
A41I
ASH
A62I
A11I
A«?*?l
A321
A411
ASH
A621
All!
A22I
A32I
A41I
ASH
A621
All!
A221
A321
A41I
A5I1
A62I
Via
C
-------
ELEVATION
m ft
304-
302,
300-
298.
296-
294-
292-
290-
9 O &
fm Q 9
i— 1,000 v
/
^^ -^ — -^
_ 990
E1 E
1 ! I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
— 980
«—
— 970
*—
^*™ ^™~
^
^
— 960
<=
— 950 ^
sL' ^^ *J^ \^ \^ \i/ **A^ si/ ^A/ si* ^k *1/
VH =0.37 cm/d
Vw = 30.5 cm/a
i it 1 I I i i
^^ *> ^^ ^^ ^
V = 762 cm/d
H
Vw = 2 . 93 cm/d
V
1 38 m
\
/
N
e- x
^
i^-^—
* —
^
/
x _JI_L
.^ ^
^
^ —
• ^
L- 940 \
o:
UJ >.
Q. <
Q. _i
rs u
^
UJ
-1 V
Q <
Q _l
2
f
^ >
O _J
/ —1
-------
00
TABLE 26. CONTAMINANT FLUX AND MASS THROUGH
HORIZONTAL INLET SECTION OF SITE 3 (SAND LAYER)
Ptrlix)
11/1/76
12/10/76
(40.5d)
12/10/76
1/20/77
2/15/77
<6M|
2/15/77
1/8/77
4/17/77
(Sid)
4/17/77
5/16/77
6/22/77
(664)
6/22/77
7/18/77
8/17/77
(56d)
8/17/77
9/7/77
ATM
tyitol*
AI22
AI12
AI42
A232
A242
A122
A112
AM2
A122
A112
AI42
A212
A242
A122
A112
A142
AI22
AI32
AI42
A212
A242
A122
A112
A142
AI22
AI12
AI42
A212
A242
A32!
A332
AM2
AI22
AI12
AI42
A232
A242
A122
A112
A342
AI22
A112
AI42
A232
A242
A322
A312
A 342
w
94
69
68.5
169
490
IM
165
139
94
69
585
169
490
158
165
139
94
69
58.5
169
490
158
165
139
94
69
58.5
169
490
158 '
165
119
94
69
58.5
169
490
158
165
119
94
69
58.5
169
490
158
165
139
Q
I.1/')
716
525
445
1,287
1,711
1,201
1,257
1,059
716
525
445
1.287
1,711
1,201
1,257
1,059
716
525
445
1.287
1.711
1,201
1,257
1,059
716
525
445
1,2(17
1,713
1,201
1,257
1.059
716
525
445
1,287
J.7J3
1,203
1,257
1.059
716
525
445
1.287
3,713
1,203
1,257
1,059
CU-I
99
74
lit
120
. 57
100
110
1,601
96
98
98
IB
58
140
94
142
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
cr
j (k,/d>'
71.0
IB. 9
51.1
155
211
120
119
1,800
68.9
51.6
41.7
4B.9
216
168
119
150
0.72
1.05
0.89
2.58
7.46
2.40
1.26
2.11
1.41
1.05
0.890
2.58
7.46
2.40
1.26
2.11
1.43
1.05
0.89
2.58
7.46
2.40
1.26
2.11
1.41
1.05
0.89
2.58
7.46
2.40
1.26
2.11
H (k,)"
2.900
1,600
2,080
,280
,610
,860
,630
15 ,000
.620
:,460
,930
: ,280
14.500
11,100
7.970
10.100
44
64.1
54.1
157
455
146
76.9
129-
94.4
69.1
58.7
170
492
158
81.2
119
80.1
58.8
49.8
145
418
134
70.6
118
29.3
21.5
18.2
52.9
153
49.2
25.8
43.1
C (W-)
240
160
160
25
10
200
210
200
225
160
160
50
45
180
160
100
170
125
125
30
15
150
90
90
100
85
85
110
160
90
65
B5
125
10
10
45
45
65
65
65
102
58
58
108
45
65
71
II
SO,"
1 (',/«)
172
84.2
71.4
12. 1
112
240
265
155
161
84.2
71.4
64.4
168
216
202
106
122
65.7
55.8
18.6
131
180
113
95.0
71.7
44.7
37.9
142
597
108
107
89.7
89.6
16.8
11.2
57.9
168
78.1
82.0
68.6
71.1
30.5
28.9
139
168
78.1
89.5
74.9
«
6.970
1,410
1,890
1,100
4.540
9.720
I0.7DO
6,280
10,800
5.640
4,780
4.110
11,100
14,500
11,500
7,100
7.440
4,010
1,400
2.160
7.990
11.000
6,890
5,800
4,730
2,950
2,500
9,170
19,400
7,110
7,060
5.920
5.020
2.060
2.060
1,240
9,410
4,370
4,600
1,840
1.500
625
592
2,650
1,440
1.600
1.640
1.540
C <«->
114
55
56
15
68
70
46
46
42
9
9
10
11
61
26
10
1
6
6
16
a
24
a
B
9
a
a
7
a
19
12
12
a
l
i
6
5
26
7
7
4
4
4
4
5
21
5.5
5.5
toe
J (k9/d)
81.8
28.9
24.5
45.1
254
84.1
Sfl.O
48.6
M.I
4.71
4.01
12.9
41.0
73.1
12.8
11.7
2.15
1.16
2.68
20.6
29. B
28. B
10.1
8.44
6.45
4.21
1.57
9.01
29.8
22.8
15.1
12.7
5.73
1.58
1.14
7.71
18.6
11.2
8.81
7.19
2.87
2.10
1.78
5.15
18.6
25.2
6.93
5.81
N (kg)
3.310
1.170
992
1.830
10,100
1,410
2,150
1,970
2,020
317
269
864
2,750
4,910
2,210
2,120
111
191
161
1,260
1,820
1,760
616
515
426
270
236
595
1,970
1,000
838
321
88.5
75.0
433
1,750
495
414
58.8
36.5
288
517
142
120
5l» - 31 Id
»H. In 1.340
10,220
— 797*
248,000.
— 1,170'
364,000.
196'
61,000
-------
TABLE 26 (Continued)
oo
en
Period
11/1/76
12/10/76
(40. 5d)
12/10/76
U20/77
2/15/77
(67d)
2/15/77
3 fan'
4/17/77
(61d)
4/17/77
5/16/77
6/2Z/77
(66d)
6/22/77
7/18/77
8/17/77
<56<1)
8/17/77
9/7/77
(70. bell
Sun - 31 Id
Area
symbol*
A1Z2
AI32
AI42
A232
A242
A322
A332
A342
A122
A132
A142
A732
A242
A3Z2
A332
A34?
A122
A132
AI42
A232
AJ42
AJZ2
A332
A342
M22
AI32
AI42
A232
A242
A322
A332
A342
AI22
A132
A142
AJ33
A242
A322
A332
A342
A122
AI32
AM2
A232
A242
A322
A33?
A342
V In
C (ppn)
2.90
140
44.0
0.03
0.10
5.90
0.50
0.50
120
27.0
27.0
3.70
5.50
38.0
270
160
16.0
6.40
6.40
100
9.20
61.0
220
220
176
152
152
88.0
35.0
284
291
291 •
7.60
32.0
32.0
15.0
4.70
17.0
231
231
7.00
10.0
10.0
5.00
2.00
37.2
49.0
49.0
-
Soluble Fe
J (kg/d)
2.08
73.6
19.6
0.04
0.37
7.10
0.63
0.53
66.1
14.2
12.0
4.76
20.5
42.7
340
169
11.5
3.37
2.85
232
34.3
71. J
277
232
126
80.0
67.8
113
123
341
367
307
5.45
16.8
14.3
6.70
17. S
20.4
291
244
5.02
5.26
4.46
6.44
7.46
44.7
61.8
51.7
78)'
H (kg)
84.2
2,980
794
1.62
15.0
287
25.5
21.5
5,770
951
804
319
1,370
2,860
22,800
11,300
701
206
174
14,200
2,090
4,470
16,900
14,200
O.J20
5,280
4,480
7,460
8,120
22,500
24,200
20,300
305
941
800
375
980
1,140
16,300
13,700
103
108
91.4
132
153
916
1,270
1,080
243,000.
C (ppn)
0.0002
0.0002
0.0005
0.0004
0.0002
. 0.0027
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0020
0.0020
0.0009
0.0003
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0020
0.0030
0.0030
0.0030
0.0030
0.0010
0.0030
0.0030
0.0005
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.000!
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
o.oooz
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0024
0.0018
0.0002
0.0002
—
Soluble Kg
J (kg/d)
0.00014
0.0001
0.0002
0.0005
0.0007
0.0032
0.0002
0.0002
0.0001
0.0010
0.0009
0.0012
0.0011
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0014
0.0016
0,0013
0.0039
0.0112
0.004
0.0038
0.0032
0.0036
0.00016
0.00013
0.00026
0.00075
0.00024
0.00025
0.00021
0.0001
0.0001
0.00009
0.00026
0.00075
0.0002
0.00025
0.00021
O.OUOI
0.0001
0.00009
0.00026
0.009
0.0022
0.00025
0.00021
0.0093*
H (kg)
0.0057
0.0041
0.0081
0.020
0.028
0.130
0.008
0.008
0.0067
0.057
0.060
0.080
0.074
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.085
0.098
0.080
0.240
0.680
0.244
0.232
0.195
0.024
0.011
0.009
0.017
0.0495
0.016
0.016
0.014
0.0056
0.0056
0.005
O.OIS
0.042
0.011
0.014
0.012
0.002
0.002
0.0018
0.0053
0.185
0.045
0.005
0.004
2.90
C (PP»)
0.005
0.14
0.17
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.074
0.054
0.054
0.005
0.005
0.043
0.005
0.005
0.040
0.007
0.007
0.014
0.007
0.060
0.020
0.020
0.172
0.061
0.061
0.025
0.010
0.071
0.082
0.082
0.068
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.005
0.005
0.200
0.200
0.015
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.030
0.040
0.040
-
Soluble Pb
J (kg/d)
0.0036
0.0737
0.0758
0.0064
0.0187
0.0120
0.0063
0.0053
0.0530
0.0280
0.0240
0.0064
0.0187
0.0520
0.0060
0.0053
0.0287
0.0037
0.0031
0.0180
0.0260
0.0720
0.0250
0.0210
0.123
0.0320
0.0270
0.0320
0.0370
0.0050
0.103
0.0870
0.0490
0.0037
0.0031
0.0090
0.0190
0.0060
0.252
0.211
0.0110
0.0020
0.0018
0.0064
0.0187
0.0360
0.0500
0.0420
0.328*
H (kg)
0.150
3.00
3.10
0.260
0.760
0.490
0.260
0.210
3.55
1.88
1.61
0.43
1.25
3.50
0.410
0.360
1.75
0.230
0.190
.10
.60
.4
.53
.30
8.10
2.10
1.80
2.10
2.40
5.60
6.80
5.70
2.70
0.210
0.170
0.500
1.06
0.340
14.1
11.8
0.210
0.040
0.040
0.110
0.380
0.740
1.03
0.870
102
C (PP.)
0.01
1.70
0.54
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.85
0.12
0.12
0.03
0.01
0.11
0.77
0.43
0.15
0.04
0.04
0.92
0.10
0.37
0.38
0.38
1.40
0.73
0.73
0.62
O.J6
1.20
1.60
1.60
0.03
0.17
0.17
0.08
0.01
0.03
1.00
1.00
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.15
0.24
0.24
-
Soluble Zn
J (kg/d)
0.007
0.894
0.241
0.013
0.037
0.096
0.063
0.053
0.610
0.063
0.054
0.039
0.037
0.132
0.971
0.454
0.110
0.021
0.018
1.18
0.373
0.444
0.479
0.401
1.00
0.384
0.326
0.798
0.970
1.44
2.02
1.69
0.022
0.089
0.076
0.103
0.037
0.036
1.26
1.06
0.057
0.026
0.022
0.039
0.149
0.180
0.303
0.253
3.67* 1
H (kg)
O.JSO
36. Z
9.76
0.53
1.50
3.90
2.55
2.15
41.0
4.22
3.62
2.61
2.48
8.05
65.1
30.4
6.70
1.28
1.10
72.0
22.7
27.1
29.2
24.5
66.0
25.3
21.5
52.7
64.0
95.0
133
III
1.23
4.98
4.26
S.80
2.10
2.02
70.6
59.4
1.17
0.533
0.451
0.800
3.05
3.70
6.21
5.19
,140
Area symbol A|J)(: where I • offslte well number; J • level of sampling point In well; and k - soil layer If k • 1 • lower clay «nd k - 2 • sand.
t Concentrations of constituents on 9/7/77 are from concentration versus time diagram (see Figures 48 to 54 ).
I Contaminant flux (J) « C (ppra) « Q (»3/d) » 10"J (unit • kg/d).
•* Input mass (M) through vertical Inlet section of the control volume - J x Period (unit - kg).
-------
TABLE 27 CONTAMINANT FLUX AND MASS THROUGH HORIZONTAL
OUTLET SECTION OF SITE 3 (SAND LAYER)
00
Period
11/6/76
12/10/87
(35d)
12/10/76
2/15/77
2/15/77
(67d)
2/15/77
3/8/77
4/17/77
(61d)
4/17/77
5/16/77
6/22/77
(66d)
ATM
symbol*
A4I2
A422
A432
M42
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
AS32
A542
A622
A632
A642
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
ATM
<»?)
40
181
163
183
30.9
221
254
185
81.6
105
141
40
181
163
183
30.9
221
254
185
81.6
105
141
40
181
163
183
30.9
221
254
185
81.6
105
141
40
181
163
183
30.9
221
254
1S5
81.6
105
141
(«3/d)
304
1,378
1,241
1,393
234
1,683
1,934
1,409
621
800
1,073
304
1,378
1,241
1.393
234
1,683
1,934
1,409
621
800
1,073
304
1,378
1,241
1,393
234
1,683
1,934
1,409
64
800
1,073
304
1,378
1.241
1,393
234
1,683
1,934
1.409
621
800
1,073
C (PP-)'
93
56
96
87
92
92
98
33
60
89
83
27
33
119
94
82
86
126
24
62
83
79
3
4
3
3
2
69
66
2
2
a
4
2
2
2
2
2
51
20
2
2
2
2
Cl"
J (kg/d)1
28.3
77. J
119
121
217
155
190
46.6
37.3
71.0
89.3
8.2
45.6
148
131
19.3
145
244
33.9
32.3
66.1
85.0
0.910
5.52
3.73
4.18
0.470
116
128
2.82
1.24
6.37
4.30
0.610
2.76
2.49
2.79
0.47
85.8
38.7
2.82
1.24
1.60
2.15
M (kg)"
991
2,710
4,160
4,240
7,600
5,430
6,650
1,630
1,310
2,490
3,126
549
3,060
9,912
8,780
1,290
9,720
16,300
2,270
2,160
4,430
5,700
55.5
337
228
255
28.7
7,080
7,810
172
75.6
389
262
40.3
182
164
184
31.0
5.660
2,550
186
81.8
106
142
C (ppn)
135
105
138
130
129
129
128
BO
80
151
129
50
60
115
165
115
125
110
75
85
160
125
40
SO
75
75
50
137
115
50
es
140
85
45
45
50
50
55
ISO
65
40
85
105
100
50;
J (kg/d)
38.0
145
172
181
30.4
217
248
113
«*•'
120
139
15.2
82.8
143
230
27.1
210
212
105
52.8
127
134
12.1
69.0
93.1
104
11.7
230
222
70.6
52.8
111
91.4
13.6
62.1
62.1
69.7
12.9
252
125
56.4
52.8
83.6
107
M(kg)
1,330
5,080
6,020
6,340
1,060
7,600
8,680
3,960
1,740
4,200
4,860
1.018
5,550
9,580
15,400
1,820
14,100
14,200
7,040
3.540
8.610
8.980
738
4,210
5,680
6,340
714
14,000
13,500
4,310
3.220
6,770
5,580
898
4.100
4,100
4,600
851
16,600
8.250
3,720
3,400
3,540
7,060
C (PP»)
32
29
155
13
13
13
131
170
30
96
9
6
8
3
4
1
5
2
2
6
6
7
5
6
8
8
8
6
4
4
3
2
5
7 .
1
9
13
9
12
— ...
TOC
J (kg/d)
9.71
40.0
192
18.1
3.06
21.8
253
240
18.6
76.4
9.67
1.82
11.0
3.72
5.57
.235
8.40
3.86
2.82
3.72
4.77
7.52
1.51
8.28
9.94
11.1
1.88
10.0
7.73
5.64
1.86
1.59
5.37
2.12
8.28
8.69
9.76
2.36
11.7
13.5
12.7
8.08
7.16
12.9
M (kg)
340
1,400
6,720
634
107.1
763
8,1)60
8,400
651
2,670
339
122
7,440
249
373
15.7
563
269
189
249
320
504
92
505
606
677
1)5
610
472
344
113
97.0
320
140
547
574
644
155
772
891
838
533
473
851
-------
00
TABLE 27 (Cc
Area
Period symbol
11/6/76
12/10/76
(35d)
12/10/76
1/20/77
2/15/77
(67d)
2/15/77
3/8/77
1/17/77
(61d)
4/17/77
5/16/77
6/22/77
(66d)
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
ft412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
»nt1 nued)
Soluble Fe
C (ppm)
118
119
141
1.50
82.0
229
80.0
104
416
13.0
25.0
3.30
66.0
160
0.01
0.03
82.0
40.0
60.0
6.60
16.0
1.40
69.0
5.30
23.0
23.0
28.0
158
0.02
110
44.0
85.0
2.50
125
109
203
203
186
275
144
81.0
246
106
186
J (kg/d)
35.8
164
175
2.09
19.3
385
154
146
258
10.3
26.8
1.00
91.1
198
.013
.007
137
77.3
84.7
4.10
12.7
1.50
20.9
7.31
28.5
32.0
6.60
265
.038
155
27.3
67.7
2.68
37.9
150
252
283
43.8
462
278
114
152
84.4
200
M (kg)
1,250
5,740
6,130
73.2
676
13,500
5,390
5,110
9.03CT
36f
938
67.0
6,100
13,300
0.870
0.470
9,180
5,180
5,670
275
851
101
1,280
446
1,740
1,950
403
16,170
2.32
9,460
1,670
4,130
163
2,500
9,900
16,600
18,700
2,890
3,050
18,300
7,520
10,000
5,570
13,200
C (ppm)
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0005
0.0002
0.0002
0.0010
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0010
0.0002
0.0007
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
. 0.0010
'0.0005
0.0010
0.0002
0.0002
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
0.0006
0.0004
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
Soluble Hg
J (kg/d)
0.000061
0.00028
0.00025
0.00028
0.000012
0.00034
0.00039
0.0014
0.00012
0.00016
0.00022
0.000061
0.00028
0.00025
0.00028
0.000047
0.00034
0.00039
0.00028
0.00062
0.00016
0.00075
0.00030
0.0014
0.0012
0.0014
0.00024
0.00067
0.00039
0.00028
0.00061
0.0004
0.0011
0.000061
0.00028
0.00037
0.00042
0.00047
0.001
0.00077
0.00042
0.00019
0.00024
0.00022
M (kg)
0.0021
0.0098
0.0088
0.0098
0.00042
0.012
0.014
0.049
0.0042
0.0056
0.0077
0.0041
0.019
0.017
0.019
0.003
0.023
0.026
0.019
0.042
0.011
0.050
0.0183
0.085
0.073
0.085
0.015
0.041
0.024
0.017
0.037
0.024
0.671
0.004
0.018
0.024
0.028
0.031
0.066
0.051
0.028
0.013
0.016
0.015
C (ppm)
0.210
0.190
0.010
0.005
0.200
0.400
0.100
0.210
0.100
0.040
0.059
0.009
0.080
0.014
0.005
0.005
0.160
0.160
0.190
0.012
0.039
0.005
0.200
0.008
0.050
0.050
0.100
0.300
0.005
0.400
0.070
0.070
0.005
0.102
0.135
0.227
0.227
0.207
0.590
0.100
0.001
0.083
0.100
0.100
Soluble Pb
J (kg/U)
0.064
0.262
0.0124
0.007
0.047
0.672
0.193
0.296
0.062
0.032
0.063
0.0027
0.110
0.017
0.007
0.0011
0.269
0.309
0.268
0.0074
0.031
0.0054
0.061
0.011
0.062
0.070
0.023
0.504
0.0097
0.564
0.044
0.056
0.054
0.031
0.186
0.282
0.316
0.049
0.992
0.193
0.0014
0.052
0.080
0.107
Soluble Zn
M (kg)
2.24
9.17
0.434
0.245
1.65
23.5
6.76
10.4
2.17
1.12
2.21
0.181
7.37
1.14
0.47
0.74
18.0
20.7
18.0
0.500
2.08
0.360
3.72
0.670
3.78
4.27
1.40
30.7
0.592
34.4
2.68
3.42
3.29
2.05
12.3
18.6
20.9
3.23
65.5
12.7
0.092
" 3.43
5.23
7.06
C (ppm)
1.00
0.780
0.900
0.010
0.980
1.08
0.870
0.950
1.18
0.140
0.220
0.050
0.220
0.570
0.010
0.010
0.700
0.280
0.710
0.190
0.170
0.020
0.620
0.070
0.170
0.170
0.210
1.00
0.020
1.10
0.21
0.63
0.04
0.560
0.550
1.10
1.10
0.900
2.10
0.910
0.310
0.870
1.30
0.910
J (kg/d)
0.303
1.07
1.11
0.014
0.231
1.82
1.68
1.34
0.733
0.111
0.236
0.015
0.303
0.708
0.014
0.0025
1.17
0.541
1.00
0.118
0.135
0.022
0.188
0.100
0.211
0.237
0.050
1.68
0.040
1.55
0.130
0.501
.043
0.170
0.759
1.36
1.53
0.212
3.53
1.75
0.437
0.540
1.03
0.978
M (kg)
10.6
37.5
38.9
0.490
8.09
63.7
58.8
46.9
25.7
3.89
8.26
1.01
20.3
47.4
0.940
0.170
78.4
36.2
67.0
7.90
9.05
1.47
11.5
6.10
12.9
14.6
3.10
102
2.44
94.6
7.93
30.6
2.62
11.2
50.1
89.8
101
14.0
233
116
28.8
35.6
68.0
64.5
-------
TABLE 27. (Continued)
Q cr so°
. Area
Area
Period symbol (m2) (m3/d) C (ppni) J (kg/d) H (kg) C (ppm) J (kg/d) H (kg) C (ppm)
-——- — —~4- ^—^ ^ 12 2 683 ^j 1.21 67.8
6/22/77 A422 181 1.378 2 2.76 155 35 48.3 2.700 3 414 232
A432 163 1 241 2 2.49 139 50 62.1 3.480 6 7.46 418
7/18/77 A442 183 1393 2 2.79 156 50 69.7 3.900 6 8.37 469
A512 30.9 234 2 0.470 26.3 60 14.1 790 6 1.41 79.0
A522 221 1,683 39 65.6 3.670 100 168.0 9.410 5 8.41 471
8/17/77 A532 254 1.934 7 13.5 756 40 77.3 4.330 4 7.13 433
A542 185 1.409 2 2.82 158 4 5.65 316 5 7.06 JW>
A622 81.6 621 2 1.24 69.4 35 21.7 1220 4 2.9 39
A632 105 800 2 1.60 89.6 85 67.7 3,790 4 3.19 179
(56d) A642 141 1.073 3.1 3.33 187 85 91.4 5.120 6 6.45 361
8/17/77 A412 40 304 4 1.21 31.7 30 9.11 239 3 0.911 23.9
' ' A422 181 1.378 4 5.52 145 30 41.4 1,086 2 2.76 72.4
A432 63 241 2 2.49 65.3 35 43.5 1.140 2 2.49 65.3
q/17/77 A44? H3 393 2 279 73.2 35 48.8 1,280 2 2.79 73.2
ml 309 234 15 354 929 33 7.78 204 3 0.707 18.5
A522 221 1.683 27 45.4 1.190 55 92.5 2.430 3 5.04 132
A 32 |U }'™ 12 23<2 610 34 65.7 1,720 3 5.80 52
A542 185 1 409 5 7.06 186 17 24.0 630 4 5.65 148
A622 816 621 2 1.24 32.5 40 25.0 656 4 2.50 65.6
. -„ ,05 QOO 2 1 60 42.0 61 48.6 1.270 3 2.39 62.7
09 (26.23d) M42 141 1,073 2 2.15 56.4 66 71.0 1.860 5 5.38 141
Sum -311.23d Ah> Qut 1.580 12.070 - 447* 139,000 - 999* 311,000 - 17«rf 55.700
-------
TABLE 27 (Continued)
00
Soluble Fe
Period
6/22/77
7/18/77
8/17/77
(56d)
8/17/77
9/12/77
(26.23d)
311.23d
* Area
Area
Symbol*
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
Y out
symbol A...:
J. ' J f>
Concentrations of
* Tnnti
C (ppm)
4.50
36.0
96.0
96.0
59.0
347
56.0
258
30.0
80.0
210
2.20
3.90
5.60
5.60
11.0
279
78.0
114
264
90.0
111
--
where 1
J (kg/d) M (kg)
1.37 76.7
49.7 2.780
119 6,660
134 7,500
13.9 778
583 32,600
108 6,050
364 20,400
18.6 1,040
63.7 3,570
226 12,700
0.670 17.6
5.38 141
6.96 183
7.81 205
2.59 68.0
469 12,300
151 3,960
161 4,220
164 4,300
71.7 1,880
•119 3,120
1,2601 39,1000
= off site well number;
constituents on 11/6/76 are from
f.M = r. d
innil * n Im3/ri\ x IIT3 1
Soluble Hg
C (ppm)
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0007
0.0005
0.0004
0.0004
0.0005
0.0005
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0018
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0022
--
j - level
J (kg/d)
0.000061
0.00028
0.00025
0.00028
0.00005
0.0012
0.0010
0.0006
0.0002
0.0004
0.0005
0.000061
0.00028
0.00025
0.00028
0.00005
0.003
0.0004
0.0003
0.0001
0.00016
0.0024
0.00631
of sampling
concentration versus
IA\.
M (kg)
0.003
0.016
0.014
0.016
0.003
0.067
0.056
0.034
0.011
0.022
0.028
0.0016
0.0073
0.0066
0.0073
0.0013
0.079
0.011
0.008
0.003
0.004
0.063
1.96
point
Soluble Pb
C (ppm)
0.005
0.082
0.230
0.230
0.200
0.720
0.200
0.140
0.028
0.420
0.200
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.031
0.850
0.450
0.460
0.510
0.260
0.290
--
J (kg/d) M (kg)
0.0015 0.084
0.113 6.33
0.286 16.0
0.321 18.0
0.047 2.63
1.21 67.8
0.387 21.7
0.200 11.2
0.017 0.950
0.335 18.8
0.215 12.0
0.0015 0.040
0.007 0.180
0.006 0.160
0.007 0.180
0.236 6.19
1.43 37.5
0.870 22.8
0.650 17.0
0.320 8.40
0.210 5.50
0.310 8.31
2.221 690
1n well; and k = soil layer If k
time diagram (see
Figures 48 to 54 ).
Soluble In
C (ppm)
0.07
0.20
0.53
0.53
0.49
2.40
0.64
1.20
0.15
1.70
1.00
0.10
0.14
0.09
0.09
0.08
1.60
0.95
0.85
0.86
3.20
0.44
—
= 1 = lower
J (kg/d)
0.021
0.280
0.660
0.740
0.120
4.04
1.24
1.69
0.090
1.35
1.07
0.030
0.190
0.110
0.126
0.190
2.69
2.88
1.20
0.53
2.55
0.47
9.641
clay and
M (kg)
1.18
15.7
37.0
41.4
6.72
226
69.4
94.6
5.04
75.6
60.0
0.780
4.98
2.88
3.30
4.98
70.6
75.5
31.5
13.9
66.9
12.3
3000
k = Z = sai
** Input mass (M) through vertical output section of the control volume = J x Period (unit = kg).
I Average value.
-------
The vertical flow in the sand formation of the control
volume is derived from the following equation:
Vv = VH tan 9 (55)
= 762 cm/day x 0.038 = 29 cm/day (Figure 59)
The revised shapes and subareas of the horizontal inlet and
outlet planes were formed based on these calculations, and the
flow rate passing through each subarea was then calculated.
Results are given in Tables 26 and 27 and Figures 60 and 61.
Mass Balance-- •
The fluxes of the specific contaminants, J (kg/day), through
the partitioned faces of the control volume were calculated
using Equations 43 or 46. The input fluxes through the vertical
lower clay layer and horizontal sand layer for each constituent
were calculated; the results were given earlier in Tables 25 and
26, respectively. The horizontal output fluxes through the sand
layer are given in Table 27.
Travel time for the vertical flow through the sand layer
was about five days (38 * 7.62 m/day «= 5 days); through the
lower clay layer was about 3.5 days. This latter flow joined
with the flow in the sand layer, and the total flow required
3.5 to 8.5 days to pass through the control volume. Based on
the above information and the flow pattern, Tp and Tp' (inflow
and outflow time periods, as defined in Section 5) values are
as follows:
T for the inflow in sand layer = 311 days
p
T for the inflow in lower clay layer = 312.5 days
P 3
Total input volume = 311 d x 10,220 m /day
+ 312.5 d x 1 ,850 m3/day
= 3,756,545 m3
en -T = 3,756,545 m3 = 311-23 days.
' P1 12,070 m3/day
From the TD and TD' values, the total input and output mass of
the control volume was solved; the results are given in Tables
22 to 24 The amount of contaminant flux and attenuation or
elution of a certain contaminant was calculated using Equations
38 to 40 and 43 and 44. The results are tabulated below:
190
-------
14
300 _
298 -
290
9 90 os — i
OS -3
980
2 96 - - 970
294 -
-960
292 -
950
288r
- 940
m ft
ELEVATION
in
CONTROL AREA'A- ...
, ' J R
K= 1 = LOWER CLAY 1 = OFF-SITE WELL NO.
k=2 = SAND j = LEVEL OF SAMPLING
PO-INT
k = SOIL LAYER
Figure 60. Horizontal inlet section of site 3.
-------
\a
' >
288 '
fc 940
m ft
ELEVATION
28.2 m 28.2 m '^-6.
i m
CONTROL AREA
k = 1 = LOWER CLAY
k =2 = SAND
1 = OFF-SITE WELL NO.
j = LEVEL OF SAMPLING
POINT
K = SOIL LAYER
Figure 61. Horizontal outlet section of site 3.
-------
Unit Input Flux
Sand Layer Lower Clay Layer
g/day/m2
Unit Output Flux
Sand Layer
Cl~
SO?"
4
TOC
Hg
Pb
Zn
Fe
595
873
146
0.
0.
2.
583
0069
245
74
7
21
7
0.0004
0.018
0.11
17
283
632
113
0.0040
41
10
1
6
797
Pi fference
319
262
40
0.0033
-1.15
-3.25
-197
It is apparent that the sand layer transported more contami
nants than the lower clay layer. Ratios of contaminant flux
between sand and lower clay layers are listed below:
Contaminant
Ratio of Contaminant Flux (-|
sand
ower
Cl
SO
2-
'4
TOC
Hg
Pb
Zn
Fe
85
42
21
17
14
25
34
High groundwater flow is probably responsible in part for the
high contaminant fluxes in the sand layer. However, the ratio
of flow velocity between the sand and lower clay layers was
about 25. Only the contaminant flux ratios of zinc and TOC were
close to this velocity ratio, the others varied. Chloride,_
sulfate, and iron were higher, mercury and lead, lower. This
could come from factors such as the difference of adsorption
capacity or groundwater quality between the sand and the lower
clay.
The quantity of contaminants attenuated or eluted can also
be calculated; results are given below:
193
-------
Attenuation Elution Percent
Contaminant mg/day/m3 mg/day/m3 Change
Cl" 6,240 47
SO*" 4,690 23
TOC 990 26
Hg .0894 47
Pb 28.5 412
Zn 84.6 122
Fe 6,000 43
(Results are based on a 62,800-m3 control volume.)
The data presented show that, with the exception of sulfate,
iron, and mercury, the migration trends were similar to those for
the Site 1 control volume. Chloride, sulfate, TOC, and soluble
mercury were attenuated while soluble lead, zinc, and iron were
eluted. The chloride attenuation seems much higher than theo-
retically possible. A probable source of this chloride was the
salt used for road deicing. This salt entered the control volume
as slugs of high concentrations during the winter, but had not
yet passed out of the discharge end. These high chloride values
distorted the mass balance calculations.
As previously suggested, the attenuation of mercury was
probably due to the low solubilities and strong adsorption and
complexation abilities of mercuric solids. The elution of iron
from the soil could mean that the original groundwater and land-
fill leachate mixture was relatively reduced compared to the
groundwater quality or that soluble iron complexes were formed
during migration. The relatively high flow velocity at this
site, about eight times higher than that at Site 1, also could
account for the leaching or actual physical transport of some
loosely adsorbed iron or iron colloids into the groundwater.
The latter could also occur to lead and zinc. Because of the
incomplete information on groundwater conditions, dissolved
oxygen, sulfides, and other ligands, a detailed evaluation of
the migration of iron, sulfate, lead, and zinc cannot be
accurately assessed.
Site 3 had much higher contaminant fluxes than Site 1. The
following is suggested:
• The higher unit groundwater flow rate at Site 3
could physically transport more constituents through
the soil pore space.
194
-------
t Site 3 is older and has been more heavily loaded.
Although the sludge was placed within the clay
strata at Site 3, the Site 3 soil seems to be
completely saturated and the relatively higher
amounts and concentrations of contaminants being
leached into the groundwater reflect this slow
but steady passage of contaminants.
• Since Site 3 has higher precipitation, rain, and
snow than Site 1, more contaminants could be
leached from the sludge at Site 3, assuming a
direct correlation between contaminant transport
and leachate generation.
Observations on Concentration Isopleths and Related Factors
As illustrated in Figure 3, the six new off-site plume
wells were placed in two parallel lines, 73 m apart, south and
southwest of the disposal area and across the path of the leachate
plume and groundwater flows. Wells 1, 2, and 3 were in Line 1
and Wells 4, 5, and 6 were in Line 2. Due to a planned burial
of additional sludge and inert debris, well placement was
constrained to a narrow 46- to 75-m-wide zone between the disposal
area and the two creeks to the south and west.
Concentration isopleths were prepared for the contaminants
over the 1-yr sampling period (Figures 62 to 73). The geologic
formations consisted of an upper unsaturated clay, middle
saturated gumbo clay, and sand strata (6). Based on these iso-
pleths, changes in concentration of a specific contaminant could
be considered with regard to sampling location, depths, geo-
hydrologic conditions, and season.
Site 3 is located in a temperate zone of the continental
United States and is subjected to. rather sharp demarcations in
season and climate. These climatic changes strongly influenced
the observed concentration trends for various contaminants. The
soil surface was frozen and covered with snow in the severe winter
of 1976-1977. The amount of infiltration or groundwater flow was
minimal, as shown by specific conductance isopleths (Figure 73).
The extreme stratification ranging from the top 10,000 to 2,500
mhos/cm in about 3 m is quite interesting. Under these conditions,
the leachate plumes observed for the various contaminants were
distinct entities and usually were associated with one parti-
cular soil stratum. Thus, the leachate plumes were moving at a
predictab e rate within that particular soil stratum and emerging
across the monitoring boundaries. The winter months would, there-
fore appear So be an ideal time to determine the actua concen-
tmion garments of certain contaminants within a particular
soil stratum Overall, the leachate plumes varied significantly
with samol^q time it was present at one particular point in the
Uonitoring g'riS during one sampling and was almost completely
195
-------
OS-1 OS-2
II', 1
•0
OS-1
os-2 os-:
OS-1
290
OS-2 OS-J
M
CLAY
LWER,
CLAY
1 ,AI II >
5/16/77
7/18/77
CLAY
CLAY
Al II >
9/12/77
re 62$. Site 3 iron concentration isopleths for line 1
-------
OS-4 OS-5
in
d
'
<
i
n,
OS-6
OS-6 OS-4 OS-5 OS-
1/20/77
OS-4 OS-5
5/16/77
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
OS-6 OS-4
3/8/77
OS-5 OS-6
7/10/77
CLAY
iito= CLAY
SAND
9/12/77
Figure 62b. Site 3 iron concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
11)
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
5/16/77
7/10/77
9/12/77
i-iyure bta. Site 3 lead concentration isopleths for line
-------
OS-4
•
n
\
OS-6
•
i
'
m
a
300
298
296
294
292
290
OS-6
.if
o. oos
OS-4
OS-5 OS-6
LOWER.
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
CLAY
E CLAY
5/16/77
7/18/77
£.005 __-——
SAND
9/12/77
Figure 63b. Site 3 lead concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
OS-1 OS-2
OS-3
i >
• i
o
05: '.
OS-2
{..0001
DS-l
1/20/77
OS-2
OS-3
5/16/77
7/18/77
n § CLAY
CLAY
• .Al II )
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
9/12/77
. Site 3 mercury concentration isopleths for line 1
-------
'.
300
298
296
294
292
290
os-4
os-5
OS-
(&)
V^ -oboi
OOOi
11/1/76
304 OS-4 OS-5
5/16/77
S-4
OS-5
OS-
OS-5 OS-<
OS-6 OS-4
1/20/77
OS-5 OS-6
7/18/77
CLAY
SAND
CLAY
JMB CLAY
SAND
9/12/77
Figure 64b. Site 3 mercury concentration isopleths for line 2.
*
-------
I >
' »
I >
OS-1 OS-2 OS-
OS- 1 OS-2 OS-
0. 001
M
LOVJEH
• I A r
CLAY
SAND
5/16/77
7/18/77
< I AY
CLAY
SAND
9/12/77
Figure 65a. Site 3 cadmium concentration isopleths for line 1
-------
OS-4
II
t I
•I
d
t .
•
290
11/1/76
304-PS-4 OS-5
DS-6
OS-6 OS-4 OS-5 OS-
7/18/77
CLAY
SAND
CLAY
* CLAY
SAND
9/12/77
Figure 65b. Site 3 cadmium concentration isopleths for line 2
-------
i >
<.)
i-
302
300
€. 290
O
296
292
290
OS-1 OS-2 OS-3
5/16/77
OS-1 OS-2 OS-;
OS-1
1/20/77
OS-2
OS-3
it
7/18/77
os-i os-2 OS-;
GJWEBI
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
3/8/77
OS-1 OS-2 OS-3
9 CLAY
CLAY
SAND
9/12/77
t-iyureood. ->He 3 chromium concentration isopleths
-------
-1
I,-,
d
3O41
302
300
298
296
292
29O
OS~4 OS-5 OS-£ OS-4 OS-5 OS-fi OS-4 OS-5 - OS-6
fi
d
11/1/76
304 OS-4 OS-5
302-
300
298
296
294
292
290
1/20/77
OS-6 OS-4 OS-5 OS-6
-------
I >
' >
' ll
304 <
10.'
OS-3
D5-1
OS-2 DS-
1/20/77
OS-1 OS-2
. o/
JOS-1
OS-2 (TS-
OS-3
5/16/77
7/18/77
CLAY
CLAY
• ,AI II >
jm
LOWER,
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
9/12/77
Site 3 copper concentration isopleths for line 1.
-------
OS-4 - OS-5 OS-f> OS-4
Z
Q
hi
d
>
290
11/1/76
304J3S-4 OS-5
302-
300
298
296
294
292
290
OS-6
5/16/77
OS-4 OS-5 OS-6
7/18/77
1 CLAY
CLAY
SAND
i||C=^ CLAY
m£ CLAY
SAND
9/12/77
Figure 67b. Site 3 copper concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
I )
• '
oo
OS-1 OS-2 OS-3
OS-1
OS-2 OS-,
1/20/77
OS-1 OS-2 OS-3
5/16/77
7/18/77
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
9/12/77
Mgure bba- Site 3 nickel concentration isopleths for line 1
-------
304
302
300
298
Z
^ 296
•
n
,!
i
294
292
290
OS-4 OS-5 OS-fi
A \ \
\
OS-5 OS-6
\
OS-6
i
<
in
a
1/20/77
OS-4 OS-5 OS-6
OS-4 OS-5 OS-6
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
CLAY
5/16/77
7/18/77
SAND
9/12/77
Figure 68b. Site 3 nickel concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
304
OS-1 OS-2 OS-3
i i
< •
290
304
11/1/76
OS-1 OS-2
OS-3
302
OS-1 OS-2 OS-
1/20/77
OS-1 OS-2 OS-3
5/16/77
7/18/77
OS-1 OS-2
5-J
\
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
9/12/77
rigure 69a. Site 3 zinc concentration isopleths for line 1.
-------
OS-4 OS-5 OS-£
•(
•
it
,!
-'
a
OS-4 OS-5 OS-
1/20/77
OS-5 OS-6
t> i CLAY
CLAY
5/16/77
7/18/77
SAND
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
9/12/77
Figure 69b. Site 3 zinc concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
i >
i •
i •
304 * OS-1 OS-2 OS-3 ^OS-1 OS-2
iOi'
300
€. 290
O
296
|0
i i
292
290
304
302
300
298
296 |
Ul
GJ 294 .
292
290
OS-1
11/1/76
OS-2
2 O
,, ....
OS-3
5/16/77
7/18/77
OS-1 OS-2 OS-J
OS- 1
< Z.O
3/8/77
OS-2
D
U
OJWEK
. i AY-
CLAY
SAND
OS-3
9/12/77
LOWEK
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
Figure 70a.
chloride concentration isopleths for line 1
-------
/
i
i
•
3041
302
300
298
296
294
292
- <
:
LU
d
290
os-4
OS-5
OS-J5
11/1/76
304 OS-4 OS-5
1
302
300
298
296
294
292
290
DS-4
OS-5
OS-
OS-6 OS-4
1/20/77
OS-5 OS-6
OS-4
OS-5 OS-<
OS-4
\
LOWER,
( I AY
CLAY
SAND
OS-6
5/16/77
7/18/77
9/12/77
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
Figure 70b. Site 3 chloride concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
304
OS-2
OS-3
i >
i •
i.
1/20/77
OS-1 OS-2 OS-3
OS-2
05:=,
OS-1
3/8/77
OS-2
L
LOWER,
CLAY
CLAY
• ,AI II -
OS-3
5/16/77
7/10/77
9/12/77
M
LOWE.K,
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
Site 3 sulfate concentration isopleths for line 1.
-------
-OS-4
O
•i
.,',
d
<
•
OS-5 OS-6
QS-5 OS-6
• F
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
=?f\== CLAY
J4«fe5g CLAY
5/16/77
7/10/77
SAND
9/12/77
Figure 7ib. Site 3 sulfate concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
304 *OS-1 OS-2 OS-3 OS-1 OS-2 OS-3 OS-1 OS-2 OS-
30O
E 290
O
296
I ••
I '
III
92
290
304 t
302
OS-3
5/16/77
7/10/77
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
n ; CLAY
CLAY
SAND
9/12/77
Site 3 TOC concentration isopleths for line 1.
-------
'
i
»
i
•
n
3
OS-5 OS-fi
290
11/1/76
•
I
,
-
OS-6 OS-4
1/20/77
OS-5 OS-6
290
GS-5 OS-i
3/8/77
OS-4 QS-5
D
•
LOWER.
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
OS-6
5/16/77
7/18/77
9/12/77
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
Figure 725. Site 3 TOC concentration isopleths for line 2.
-------
304 #OS-1 OS-2 OS-j .05-1 OS-2 OS-:
o'
302
ion
290 \
O
296
292
290
30'i
302
300
NO DATA
REPORTED
I i
<
•
Ml
296
CJ 294
292
290
11/1/76
OS-1 OS-2
OS-3
NO DATA
REPORTED
OS-1
OS-2 OS-:
5/16/77
7/18/77
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
Yn CLAY
CLAY
SAND
9/12/77
Site 3 specific conductance isopleths for lin
-------
i
i
•
304f
302
300
298
296
294
292
290
OS-4
OS-5
OS-
NO DATA
REPORTED
i:;
UJ
302-
300
298
296
294
292
290
11/1/76
OS-5
NO DATA
REPORTED
5/16/77
OS-5
OS-6
OS-6
7/18/77
•
»
OS-4
OS-5 OS-6
— --r-~~J!*S7
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
3/8/77
OS-4 OS-5 QS-6
CLAY
CLAY
SAND
9/12/77
Figure 73b. Site 3 specific conductance isopleths for line 2
-------
absent in the next. The breakup for the specific conductance
stratification, for example, suggests leachate movement through
the supposedly highly impermeable middle and low clay layers
at a much higher rate than was calculated. This coincides with
indications by geologists of the existence of channels or cracks
in the alluvial clay deposited during the geologic formation (6).
Each stratum was possibly leaching at its own controlled
rate, depending on the hydraulic gradient and mounding condi-
tions evident at the site. As a result, the leachates may have
moved as highly variable and discontinuous pulses.
Predominant metal species escaping from the landfill in
descending order of magnitude were iron, lead, cadmium, and
mercury. Similarities existed between the concentration isopleths
for iron, lead, cadmium, zinc, and nickel, with lesser similari-
ties existing for chromium and copper (Figures 62 to 69).
For most of the contaminants, the late spring and summer
months represented the periods of greatest contaminant migration.
This was presumably due to the relatively high infiltration rate,
allowing spring precipitation and runoff to move through the
landfill. A rise in ground temperature also would increase the
biological activity and chemical reaction rate, resulting in
transformations and interactions in the fill and soil. These
reactions and interactions, coupled with the large leachate
volume generated, probably enhanced the flux of contaminants
through the different soil layers and into the groundwater. As
shown by the concentration isopleths for iron (Figure 62), a
change in the location and orientation of the concentration
gradients occurred during these periods. Instead of distinct
leachate plumes separated by low ambient background quality wate?~,
the contaminants usually completely saturated the monitoring grid
with relatively concentrated leachates.
The concentration isopleths for chloride indicated strati-
fication of this contaminant during the winter months and dilution
and elutriation in spring, summer, and early fall, resulting in a
decrease in concentration to low levels or below detection limits
(Figure 70). Similar trends were observed for sulfate, although
the seasonal changes in concentration were less dramatic
(Figure 71). No consistent correlations existed between specifi:
conductance, chloride, TOC, and sulfate concentrations with thosa
of the heavy metals monitored in the study. At times, the concei-
tration trend of sulfate showed some correlation with the metals.
Overall, the concentration isopleths for the contaminants
showed the same general pattern of two distinct major direction?
of heachate migration out of the landfill. These were at both
ends of the monitoring grid. Careful observation of the plan
220
-------
location of the monitoring wells in relation to the landfill
indicated that the major directions and points of escaping
leachate were from the northern portion of the landfill where the
majority of the trench operations occurred and from the southern-
most portion through Wells 3 and 6. This was perhaps due to the
influence of the new sludge burial operation or another component
of the trench operation which was conducted farther to the east.
This particular component was escaping more to the south than
westward. There are indications that concentrated leachate was
escaping from the middle and lower clay levels; this trend was
highly dependent on the season. Various isopleths also showed
that the leachate escaping from the clay strata was moving into
the sand layer where it was picked up by the prevailing ground-
water flow. The contaminants were not dispersed until they had
traveled farther downstream. Again, the problem of proper well
location and sampling depth and frequency is indicated.
Environmental Impact Assessment
This 40-yr-old disposal site, which has been used for the
burial of municipal sewage sludge incinerator ash, dewatered
raw municipal sewage sludge, and paunch manure, has leached
considerable amounts of contaminants, particularly iron, lead,
and TOC (Table 28).
Most of the leachate emanation observed during this monitor-
ing program occurred in the lower sand stratum immediately below
that of the clay containing the buried sewage sludge and incine-
rator ash. The upper section was composed of organic si1ty clay
perforated with root holes in various locations, the middle of a
highly plastic clay, and the lower silty clay with low to medium
plasticity overlying the alluvial sand.
The quality of the three overlying clay strata (upper,
middle, and lower) was a major factor in the observed conoantra-
tions and flux of leachate from the disposal area as the leachate
apparently passed through the clay formation. This was evidenced
by the high contaminant concentrations immediately below the
clay stratum in the alluvial sand layer. It was assumed that the
lower clay layer was fractured by shrinkage cracks after it was
deposited and before the upper zone covered it. It is also
possible that this clay is well-structured and leachate was
migrating through as if it were sand. The existence and extent
of cracking was unproved, but was tentatively identified through
permeability testing and examination of soil boring samples taken
in the field. The actual permeability of this zone could there-
fore be much higher than the test values indicated.
221
-------
TABLE 28. NUMBER OF TIMES SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEEDED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (SITE 3)
Constituent
*
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Background
Phase I
0-1*
0-1
1-1
0-1
0-1
0-0
0-1
0-1
1-1
Wells
Phase II
4-23
0-23
21-23
3-23
5-23
0-23
0-22
0-23
7-22
Downstream
Phase I
0-4
0-4
4-4
1-4
4-4
0-1
0-4
0-4
4-4
Wells
Phase II
22-124
0-133
126-133
11-131
55-124
0-133
2-133
0-132
54-131
* The first number indicates number of times standard was exceeded; the
second number is sample population.
222
-------
physical (e.g., swelling) and adsorptive properties of various
clays. It is possible that the exchange sites were oversaturated
with soluble salts, resulting in significant reduction in the
adsorption for heavy metals. The data suggest that not all clay
strata can be expected to provide the high degree of attenuation
for contaminants under natural conditions.
Conditions for the movement of leachate were different
within each stratum. High groundwater mounding apparently
existed over the clay. This provided the necessary hydraulic
gradient to force contaminants slowly, perhaps in a pulselike
manner, laterally westward through the clay for a distance of
46 or more meters until it seeped into the adjoining creek.
There was also vertical percolation through the underlying clay
strata. While it may have taken 40 yr to move through the
middle and lower clay strata, leachate derived from the high
contaminant loading existing in this landfill has moved through
these strata and is now leaching into the underlying alluvial
sand stratum.
Groundwater movement in this alluvial sand stratum was
determined by regional groundwater flow patterns traveling south-
southwest. The flow rate in this layer is an order of magnitude
greater than that in the clay, thus providing considerable
dilution water for escaping leachate. However, because of the
extremely high contaminant concentrations escaping from the above
clay layers, high concentration leachate plumes still occurred.
A highly variable background groundwater quality also
affected the results. Highly variable fluctuations were observed
in background groundwater quality for iron, nickel, cadmium
(primarily in the upper sampling depths), and mercury. However,
significant increases over background concentration values
occurred for almost all contaminants. Leachate in this alluvial
sand layer couTd possibly intersect the adjacent creek, but the
majority of it was expected to go much farther south until inter-
secting a major river system.
Though the'landfill was located in clay, it appeared to
leach a considerable amount of contaminants after a 40-yr
retention period. Those contaminants originally contained in
the disposal area have migrated slowly into the surrounding down-
stream soil strata, contaminating them as well and providing
a reservoir for additional migration to subsequent downstream
concentric soil zones. Had it not been for the presence of the
creeks to the southwest and south of the site, this contaminant
migration might have continued for many miles downstream of
the disposal area.
The two adjacent creeks served as an interceptor of the
leachate migrating laterally from the clay strata, effectively
223
-------
mixing the concentrated leachate with storm water runoff flowing
through the creeks. However, it was suggested that the leachate
flow through the alluvial sand layer was migrating considerable
distances and contaminating a significant area downstream of
the landfill. Although the exact extent of this contamination
is not known, based on concentrations as well as on the leachate
plume profiles observed, it was thought to be extensive. Based
on the contaminant concentrations in the sludge deposited in the
landfill as well as the high concentrations emanating from the
site after a 40-yr existence, it was hypothesized that leaching
of various contaminants from the landfill would occur for a
considerable period of time into the future.
224
-------
SITE 4
Soil Analyses
During the drilling of the in-refuse well, soil samples were
taken from the refuse-soil interface (3.5 to 4.0 m), midway
between soil and groundwater (4.6 to 4.9 m), and the soil-ground-
water interface (5.8 m). These samples were sequentially
extracted, first with water and'then concentrated nitric acid
Results are presented in Table 29. Soils at the three depths'
were neutral and had similar levels of TOC, nitrate-nitrogen,
chloride, and acid-extractable cadmium and mercury. Since the
TOC levels were relatively low throughout (presumably background
levels), and COD, TKN, and ammonium were present in laraest
concentrations at the refuse-soil interface, the leachate
appeared to be strongly attenuated by the soil.
Large concentrations of calcium were present in water-
soluble form. The element is believed to have originated from
the calcareous shale and limestone deposits at lower soil depths.
Very low to undetectable cadmium and mercury were found in the
soil. Levels of acid-extractable copper at the refuse-soil
interface and lead from the three soil depths were higher than
those typically found in soils (1, 2). The lead's source cannot
be determined without knowing its background level at this site.
However, since the sludge did not contain a high lead content,
that detected in soil was probably from the indigenous geologic
materials, rather than due to the disposal cf sewage sludge.
Sludge Analyses
Two grab sludge samples taken one year apart from the sewage
treatment plant were sequentially extracted, first with water and
then with concentrated nitric acid. Results show significantly
higher concentrations of TOC, chloride, and sulfate in the 1976
sample than those from 1975 (Table 29). None of the heavy metals,
including lead and copper, was present at elevated concentrations
when compared to published data (9). These metals were principally
in the acid-extractable form. The 1976- sample contained higher
levels of cadmium, chromium, and copper, and lower levels of lead,
mercury, and iron when compared to the heavy metal contents in
the 1975 sample. Since the sludge was strongly alkaline (pH 12.3),
a low solubility of these sludge-borne heavy metals in water was
expected, resulting in their limited movement away from the
landfill.
Leachate Analyses
Leachates collected from the in-refuse well during Phases I
and II were analyzed for selected constituents (Table 30).
Concentrations of the various constituents were generally greater
225
-------
TABLE 29
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 4, PHASE I*
t\>
Soil Samples Taken Below Landfill During Drilling of In-Refuse Well
Consti tuent
Refuse-Soil Interface
[3.7 to 4..0 m)
Water Acid
6/26/75
Midway Between
Soil & Groundwater
.. . (4.6 to 4.9,.ni) .
Water Acid
6/16/75
Soi 1 -Groundwater
Interface
„ 4. A -.,
Water Acid
6/16/75
pH
TOC
COD
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Moisture, %
7
960
1610
227
193
10
132
<40
118
<0
0
1
12
0
0
.1
.01
.30
.4
.6
.008
.5
90
0
62
44
26458
0
22
24.1
.68
.30
.009
7
800
920
17
9
110
187
98
0
<0
<0
1
0
0
.0
.01
.30
.1
.5
.009
.5
27. 3
136
0.68
39
13
18416
<0.006
32
7
1020
1035
42
6
14
105
50
178
<0
<0
1
4
<0
0
.2
.01
.30
.2
.0
.001
.9
27.4
96
0
31
11
17437
<0
18
.56
.50
.010
-------
TABLE 29. (continued)
Const ituen'
t+ Water
pll 12.
Tot. Solids
TOC 3600
COD 4412
MBAS
TKN 534
NH4-N 137
N03-N 0.
Cl 1187
S04 230
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
5889.
0.
0.
8.
3.
<0.
1 .
6/17/
3
7
03
30
8
3
001
2
S
Acid
'75
14000
1 .
13.
85
5960
0.
28
1 udge
Water
30465
3250
625
5
17
010
Background G
Aci
6/5/76
'
2
34
108
3750
<0
8
16
88
d
.8
.003
.6
10/1
7
201
39
41
0
<0
0
2
11
12
0
0
0
1
0
0
0/75
.6
.7
.1
.36
.00
.01
.00
.32
.00
.01
2
7
1
0
roundwater
6/5/76
13
13
870
0.
0.
<0 .
1 .
-------
TABLE 29. (continued)
ro
r\>
oo
Constituent
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
7/8/75
7.2
2087
8
19
2.1
0.4
0.10
50
900
350
0.006
0.05
0.074
0.13
0.005
0.120
Offslte We"
10/8/75
7.9
1941
28
30
1 .3
0.3
0.45
65
912
160
0.004
0.01
0.015
0.20
0.0002
0.062
11 (Shallow)
11/3/75
7.6
2066
15
20
0.7
<0.1
0.85
87
825
275
0.004
0.02
<0.006
0.17
<0.0002
0.070
6/5/76
1 .5
<0.01
81
1050
0.003
<0.01
<0.01
0.18
<0.0002
0.02
0.02
0.02
* Soil and sludge were extracted with water and cone, nitric acid. Sampling
dates are also indicated.
"f Concentrations are expressed as mg/kg of dry soil, mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
groundwater or leachate.
# Moisture couuerits we're 82.9 and 85% for the 6/17/75 and 6/5/76 r- o.np1 PS >
respectively.
-------
TABLE 30. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF LEACHATES FROM IN-REFUSE WELL (SITE 4)
ro
Constituent 7 / 8 /
pH 7
Tot. Solids 5411
TOC 4960
COD 8570
MBAS
TKN 1459
NH/i-N 1432
NOvN <°
CT 508
S04 60
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
317
0
9
4
124
0
0
75
.1
.02
.060
.50
.70
.005
.760
Phase
TO/10/75
7
6948
4320
5443
1082
986
<0
624
1
0
3
2
42
. 0
0
.4
.02
.025
.30
.12
.0005
.345
I
n/13/
8
23760
4160
10998
1058
596
2248
0
51
36
350
0
3
75
.3
.21
.64
.34
.00
6/5/76
6
3
.530
227
0
680
16
0
0
<0
12
<0
0
0
0
.51
.003
.08
.01
.000
.08
.02
.01
2
-------
TABLE 30. (Continued)
r\>
CO
O
*
Consti tuent
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Sp. Cond.
11/23/76
0.010
0.06
0.07
13.00
<0.0002
0.12
• 0.200
0.13
4
1
146
1/19
<0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
5
485
2650
777
.005
.85
.08
.50
.0005
.09
.090
.23
Phase
3/7/77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
128
520
.005
.11
.05
.80
.0002
.09
.470
.29
II
5/21/77
0.005
0.14
0.05
0.21
<0.0002
0.18
0.080
0.12
2
1
105
7/21
<0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
4
-------
in 1975 than they were in 1976, or in Phase II. Variation-- in
constituent concentrations were noted with sampling dates.
Nitrogen existed primarily in the ammonium form. Levels
of total solids, TOC, COD, chloride, chromium, copper, iron,
and lead in the 1975 samples were relatively high. Chromium
and lead levels in the November 1975 sample" increased to 51.6
and 3.5 ppm, respectively. This is somewhat surprising since
the strong alkalinity (pH 8.3) of the leachate would have precipi-
tated these metals out of the solution phase. The dramatic
decreases in concentration of the constituents measured in the
leachates during Phase II were probably due, in part, to disper-
sion and dilution resulting from large quantities of leachate
generated following rainfall.
Groundwater Analyses
Chemical analyses of groundwater are presented in Table 29
and in Table 4 of Appendix E for Phases I and II, respectively.
Background Groundwater--
The background groundwater from a private well in Phase I
monitoring showed similar concentrations of heavy metals between
the two sampling dates (Table 29). While the TOC concentration
decreased, concentrations of chloride, and particularly sulfate,
increased in the 1976 sample. In Phase II, a new background
well was installed in an upstream location south of the landfill.
Concentrations of various contaminants detected in the ground-
water from this well were in the same order of magnitude as
concentrations in the background groundwater in Phase I. Cadmium,
chromium, copper, mercury, and nickel levels were generally near
or below detection levels in the background groundwater of
Phase II. The September 1977 sample, however, showed slightly
elevated concentrations of mercury, nickel, lead, zinc, and
chloride, as well as specjfic conductance. The changes in contami
nant concentrations with time illustrate the dynamic environment
of groundwater and the significance of sampling frequency in
providing a true picture of groundwater quality.
Overall, the levels of TOC, iron, -and chloride in the back-
ground well were generally close to those in the downstream well,
(Figures 74 and 75). Other background contaminant levels were
lower than the corresponding levels found in the downstream well.
Groundwater from Off-site Well--
Only one shallow off-site well was installed (at 4.9 mj at
this site due to the presence of limestone bedrock that prevented
deeper drilling. It was intended only to intercept any surface
or near subsurface water than might tend to migrate along the
soil/bedrock piane.
231
-------
1.5
.8
_! I
.1-
\
\
V
c
r-l
•3
.6-
.4'
.2
I f ! 1
NQJFMAMJJASQ
1375 • : * 1377
SG
Ficurs 74 Fe, ?b, 2nd In levels in
(Site 4)
232
-------
2DOr
150,-
l
I
j
lOQr
50
\
\
\
J i
o
OT
16QOr
I2DO
800
4CQ
.•^ -100
-50
•125
LEGEND
OS-1 -----
1 < i 1
20-
N 0 J F M A
Ficure 75.
7CC levels in crcundv/atei
-------
Groundwater from the off-site well was characterized by
exceedingly high levels of total solids (2,031 ppm), calcium
(262 ppm), and sulfate (922 and 1,312 ppm}. There were indica-
tions that these high contaminant levels were due to existing
geologic materials (e.g., limestone and black shale layers), and
intrusion of the river water.
Except for lead, the heavy metals were detected at very
low levels, particularly during Phase II monitoring. The increas
in lead concentration in downstream groundwater was related to
its relatively high content in the soil. As indicated earlier,
its source might be indigenous rather than sludge-borne. However
it was necessary to determine the lead content in soil taken at
the same depth outside the zone of landfill influence to establis
its source in the disposal area.
Iron concentrations in the downstream groundwater were
generally lower than the concentrations found in other case
study sites. These were at background ground water levels showir, c
the profound effect of soil attenuation (by limestone, sulfide,
and clay), since the soil and the sludge buried at this site
had relatively large quantities of total iron.
Environmental Impact Assessment
Since this landfill receives only sewage sludge, there has
been concern about the possible contamination of ground and
surface waters by chemical constituents and bacterial pathogens
resulting from the disposal operation. To determine groundwater
quality, concentrations of various contaminants in the ground-
water were compared with EPA drinking water standards (Table 31).
In addition, bacteriologic examination of one off-site ground-
water sample was also included in the evaluation.
Background Groundwater--
The parameters in the background groundwater that exceeded
drinking water standards were iron, mercury, lead, sulfate,
and TOC.
Iron levels in the background groundwater were not exceed-
ingly high, although the standard was exceeded on four of eight
occasions. In Phase II monitoring, except for the first samplin,
round, iron concentrations in groundwater at the background
well were relatively low when compared to the data obtained for
other case study sites. Nevertheless, the data indicated an
elevated level of iron in the background groundwater.
The level of mercury exceeded the standard twice in the
background groundwater of Phase II. This finding was not
substantiated by the downstream groundwater, soil, sludge, and
leachate data since mercury concentrations in these sources
varied from low to nondetectable. Lead also exceeded the standa
234
-------
TABLE 31. NUMBER OF TIMES SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEEDED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (SITE 4)
Constituent
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Background
Phase I
0-2*
0-2
2-2
0-2
0-2
0-0
0-2
1-2
2-2
Wells
Phase II
0-6
0-6
2-6
2-6
2-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
3-6
Downstream
Phase I
0-4
0-4
0-4
1-4
3-4
0-1
0-4
4-4
2-4
Wells
Phase II
0-6
0-6
3-6
0-6
6-6
0-6
0-6
6-6.
1-6
* The first number indicates number of times standard was exceeded; the
second number is sample population.
235
-------
twice in the background groundwater of Phase II. The source
of the lead has not been determined.
Sulfate data indicate a high background concentration of
this contaminant. This level appeared to be the result of the
oxidation of pyrite present in the soil. Total organic carbon
showed the largest concentration at the first sampling and
declined significantly thereafter. However, since TOC exceeded
the standard five out of eight times, a slight contamination, by
organic species is suggested.
Downstream Groundwater--
The parameters that exceeded drinking water standards were
the same as those found in the background groundwater, i.e.,
iron, mercury, lead, sulfate, and TOC. The degree of concentra-
tion levels, however, was elevated.
Although 50 percent of the samples exceeded the iron stan-
dard in Phase II, the concentrations were similar to those of
background levels. The data suggest that iron leaching out of
the fill was strongly attenuated by the soil matrix.
Mercury was present in trace amounts in the downstream
groundwater. Based on the concentration trends observed in
Phases I and II, it can be concluded that it did not contaminate
the water in the downstream well.
Lead was present at elevated concentrations and exceeded
the standard on nine out of ten occasions. Although the concen-
trations were not exceedingly high (a range from 0.02 to 1.8 ppm
with an average of 0.28 ppm), observed trends clearly indicated
contamination of the downstream groundwater. Whether the lead
was indigenous or leached from the sludge during rainfall periods
is not known.
The downstream groundwater was highly contaminated with
sulfate. Concentrations ranged from 825 to 1,650 ppm with an
average of 1,156 ppm. Since the sulfate levels in the leachates
were low, these high sulfate concentrations were presumably due
to the oxidation of pyrite (black shale) and intrusion of river
water moving as subsurface water above the limestone hardpan.
Although TOC exceeded the standard three out of ten occasion;,
its levels in the downstream well were not greatly elevated (an
average of 10.2 ppm). However, the data suggest that the clay
soil did not completely prevent leachate migration from the site.
As a result, a slight contamination of organics probably had
occurred. This finding is also supported by the identification
of fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus (10 and 30 colonies/
100 ml) in the 7-22-77 sample.
236
-------
In practicing trenching of sewage sludge at this site, the
sludge was placed in trenches dug at depths of 3 to 4 m in a
clay ayer (5.5 to 6.0 m thick) overlying limestone bedrock. It
took leachate less than 8 yr to pass through the clay layer and
migrate over 30 m downstream along the clay-limestone interface.
rhis_was indicated by the contamination of sulfate, lead, and
possibly iron, TOC, and fecal bacteria in the groundwater down-
stream. Oxidation of pyrite in the disposal area may result in
lowering of the solution pH, thereby increasing the mobility of
most heavy metals. However, some degree of soil attenuation of
leachate and heavy metals was noted, although the extent of this
attenuation was not determined. It was predicted that future
monitoring would reveal similar or higher levels of contamination
in the groundwater at this site.
SITE 5
Soil Analyses
During drilling of the in-refuse well, soil samples were
taken from the refuse-soil interface (7.3 to 7.6 m), midway
between soil and groundwater (9.1 m), and the soi1-groundwater
interface (11 to 11.3 m). These samples were extracted sequen-
tially with water and concentrated nitric acid. The results are
given in Table 32.
The largest concentrations of TOC, COD, and TKN were found
at the soi1-groundwater interface. The data suggest a signi-
ficant downward movement of leachate into the groundwater
supplies, as indicated by the TOC, COD, chloride, and sulfate
trends. The concentrations of ammonium and nitrate were very
low at all three soil depths.
Large portions of calcium and chromium at the refuse-soil
interface (7.3 to 7.6 m) were soluble in water, whereas £* lower
depths they were present primarily in the acid extractable form.
Except for iron, the other metals analyzed were only sparingly
soluble in water. Significant movements of copper and iron
to lower depths were suggested by the acid-extractable concen-
trations of these two metals. Concentrations of acid-extractabl e
lead at the first two depths were quite high, and were greater
than the lead levels (10 ppm) generally found in soils (1, 2).
However, no significant migration of the element toward the
groundwater was indicated by the soil analysis.
Sludge Analyses
Two grab sludge samples obtained from the sewage treatment
plant during Phase I were sequentially extracted, first with
water and then concentrated nitric acid. The results showed
considerable variations in the concentrations of various consti-
tuents in the sludge between sampling dates (Table 32).
237
-------
TABLE 32. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 5, PHASE I*
no
to
oo
Soil Samples Taken Below Landfill During Drilling of In-Refuse Well
Midway Between SoiI-Groundwater
Refuse-Soil Interface Soil * Groundwater Interface
(7.3 to 7.6 m) (9.1 m) (11 to 11.3 m)
Constituent'
TOC
COD
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Wate
420
1198
12
3
<0
47
183
96
<0
1
0
30
0
0
r
5/16/75
.1
.01
.80
.50 •
.002
.2
Aci
25
0
<0
3
44416
0
24
d
.11
.13
.25
.110
.0
Wate
120
160
16
4
<0
<10
75
8
<0
0
1
67
<0
<0
r
5/16/75
.1
.01
.20
.00
.001
.2
Aci
166
0
3
29
8190
0
15
d
.12
.90
.25
.139
.5
Water
5/1
720
2994
29
3
0.3
32
123
16
<0.01
<0.20
<0.15
8
0.003
<0.2
Aci
6/75
115
0
2
12
18844
0
8
d
.05
.88
.80
.056
.1
-------
TABLE 32. (continued)
Sludge
Constituent^
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Moisture, %
Water
9/10/75
7.7
687
2410
560
429
584
33
159
0.03
0.20
0.10
17
<0.001
0.8
70.4
Acid
1955
2.83
46.40
92.20
92.60
0.011
151
Water Acid
6/7/76
25575
0.49
450
150
1.5
96
75
13750
0.011
5.1
38
175
85
Background
Groundwater
9/10/
6
258
2
6
0
0
8
5
2
<0
0
<0
0
0
0
75
.8
.5
.3
.001
.02
.01
.09
.001
.060
-------
TABLE 32. (continued)
ro
£k
Q
Existing
Offsite Well
Constituent"1"
PH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
NO-j-N
Cl3
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
9/10/75
1.3
0.6;
0.51
37
32
24
0.004
0.01
<0.006
0.31
<0.0002
0.028
6/7/76
12
<0.01
21
33
0.010
<0.01
<0.01
23
<0.0002
<0.01
0.009
0.06
OffsJte Well (Shallow)
5/28/75
6.7
462
300
603
13.7
1.2
<0.02
23
11
0.001
0.02
<0.006
1.98
0.002
<0.020
9/10/75 10/29/75
6.8
355
8
22
1.9
i.o
1-68 -5.
10 e
3 "
2 •£
0.003 *>
0.02 'G
0.008 £
0.39 =>
<0.0002 c
0.054
6/7/76
16
<0.01
24
30
0.002
<0.01
0.01
32
<0.0002
<0.01
0.009
0.20
Soil and sludge were extracted with water and cone, nitric acid. Sampling
dates are also indicated.
t Concentrations are expressed as mg/kg of dry soil, mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
groundwater or leachate.
-------
Generally, when the data were compared to those reported
by Sommers (9) for 250 sludge samples from 150 sewage treatment
plants, the concentrations of the selected constituents (with
the exception of iron) were within the ranges, but slightly
less than the median concentrations reported.
The methylene blue-activated substances (MBAS) were present
in insignificant quantities in the sludge. The data for fecal
bacterial counts were inconclusive and, therefore, not reported.
Decomposition Gases In-Refuse Well
Gas samples taken at 0.9 m below the cover surface, and 1.5 m
above the landfill, bottom were analyzed for four major gas species
(Table 33). Carbon dioxide and methane were the major gases found,
followed by nitrogen and oxygen. Presence of nitrogen and oxygen
were indications of sample buret leakage during shipment. There
was no apparent trend in gas composition with sampling depths and
dates.
Groundwater from Background and Off-Site Wells
Results from groundwater monitoring during Phases I and II
are given in Table 32 and in Table 5 of Appendix E, respectively.
Concentrations of the contaminants measured in the groundwater
were generally lower in the background well than in the down-
stream off-site wells. This indicated proper placement of the
background we! 1 .
There were seasonal variations in the groundwater contami-
nant levels (see Figures 76 and 77 for selected contaminants).
Peak concentrations of contaminants occurred at different sampling
dates. For example, during Phase II monitoring, TOC concentra-
tions decreased steadily and iron concentrations fluctuated while
decreasing over the 1-yr sampling period. The iron level in the
downstream groundwater was 50 times greater than that in the
background groundwater; iron from both sources greatly exceeded
the EPA drinking water standard. Trends in changes in concen-
trations of TOC, sulfate, and chloride were similar in background
and downstream groundwater (Figure 77).
When results from Phase I were compared with those of
Phase II, the concentrations of various contaminants in the back-
ground qroundwater from the two phases were similar, except for
chloride, sulfate, iron, and TOC. However, cadmium, chromium,
copp-er, iron, nickel, chloride, sulfate, and TOC concentrations
in the downstream groundwater were higher in Phase II than in
Phase I Possibly! leachate emanating from the landfill continued
to reach the groundwater.
241
-------
TABLE 33. GAS COMPOSITION AT SITE 5 IN-REFUSE WELL
Samp!ing Date
5/28/75 9/10/75
Gas Species Upper Lower Upper Lower
CH4 36.0 29.8 28.5 43.0
C02 49.2 37.5 67.2 50.4
02 3.3 7.3 0.7 1.1
N2 11.5 25.4 3.6 5.4
242
-------
I 1 I t I I I
-------
aor
SQ-
20-
t i i i
i i i
2QOr
150
100
I I
40
NDJFMAPvlJJAS
LEGEMD
BG
Ficure 77. C1 , SO,, and TOC levels in crcundwater
* (Site 5)
244
-------
Environmental Impact Assessment
This disposal site receives large quantities of sewage
sludge. With relatively high annual precipitation and numerous
springheads within the disposal area, it is anticipated that the
impact from sludge burial would be high. To place the possible
degradation of groundwater quality in perspective, concentrations
of various contaminants in the water are compared with EPA
drinking water standards (Table 34).
Background Groundwater--
In the background groundwater, iron, mercury, lead, and TOC
exceeded the drinking water standards one or more times. Although
the standard for iron was exceeded six out of seven occasions, it
was indicative of the high iron content that occurs naturally
in the soil and/or water in this area.
Concentrations of mercury and lead exceeded the drinking
water standards once and twice, respectively, on seven occasions.
However, these elevated concentrations were not in line with
other readings, which were near or below detection levels;
contamination of background groundwater by these metals was not
conf i rmed.
Total organic carbon was detected at high levels on the first
two sampling dates in Phase II; however, these levels decreased
significantly thereafter. There was no i ndi cati on _ that the back-
ground groundwater was contaminated with leachate in the form of
organic species. Some organic pollution is apparently present
in the natural groundwater of this area.
Downstream Groundwater--
Concentrations of iron, lead, and TOC in the groundwater
from downstream wells were found to exceed the drinking water
standards 2 to 11 times during the project.
The iron concentrations were exceedingly high in the down-
stream groundwater. Despite the fact that the groundwater in the
background well had a naturally high iron content, the disposal
operation contributed significant additional amounts of iron to
the groundwater.
Lead exceeded the drinking water standard in 3 out of 11
samples. In Phase II, these concentrations either exceeded
(twice) or approached the drinking water standard. As a result,
contamination of the groundwater with lead by the disposal
operation was highly suspect.
-
did not contribute significant organic pollution.
245
-------
TABLE 34. NUMBER OF TIMES SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEEDED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (SITE 5)
Constituent
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
S04
TOC
Background
Phase I
0-1*
0-1
0-1
0-1
1-1
0-0
0-1
0-1
0-1
Wells
Phase II
0-6
0-6
6-6
1-6
1-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
3-6
Downstream
Phase I
0-5
0-5
5-5
0-5
1-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
3-4
Wells
Phase II
0-6
0-6
6-6
0-6
2-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
2-6
The first number indicates number of times standard was exceeded; the
second number is simple population.
246
-------
u A l*\ I ^ 5 results presented indicated that the landfill
had not leached detectable amounts of cadmium, copper, mercury
or organic substances (as indicated by TOC). Leaching of sub-'
stantial amounts of iron was occurring, however. This iron
was probably from the buried sludge or clay material in the vici-
nity of the fill. The proximity of the downstream well to the
edge of the disposal area (less than 30 m) could have resulted
in the detection of higher levels of contaminants than would be
detected at locations farther away from the site.
The impact on groundwater quality from landfilling of
sewage sludge was less pronounced at this site as compared to
other sites investigated. This site had been carefully selected
following extensive geological surveys and detailed study. The
operation and management at this site is claimed to be one of
the best in the country. The majority of the leachate generated
presumably moves through the soil strata and along the soil-shale
interface, escaping as surface leachate emanations along the
creek. Little of the leachate generated is expected to percolate
deeper into the groundwater in the area.
SITE 6
Soil Analyses
Soil samples from the refuse-soil interface (6.1 to 6.7 m)
and soi1-groundwater interface (7.6 to 8.2 m) were sequentially
extracted, first with water and then concentrated nitric acid.
Results are given in Table 35.
Concentrations of TOC and COD were high at both depths,
suggesting downward movement of organic substances and reduced
chemical species from leachate. Except for sulfate and iron,
the levels of water-soluble constituents measured in the upper
depth were either similar or higher than those of the lower depth.
Water-soluble mercury concentrations (0.140 and 0.038 ppm) were
relatively high with respect to those in the acid-extractable
form. Other heavy metals generally were only sparingly soluble
in water. With the possible exception of lead (15 ppm), none of
the chemical constituents analyzed were present in elevated
levels in the acid extract. This suggests that concentrations of
these constituents in the soil were not profoundly affected by
the disposal operation.
jludge Analysis
Two grab sludge samples obtained 1 yr apart from the sewage
treatment plant were sequentially extracted with water and
concentrated nitric acid (Table 35). Constituent concentrations
in the two sludge samples differed considerably. The constituents
analyzed fall within the concentration ranges found in data
presented by Sommers (9). Except for iron and inorganic nitrogen,
247
-------
TABLE 35. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 6, PHASE I* •
ro
-P.
oo
Constituent^
TOC
COD
TKN
NH4-N
NOa-N
C1
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Soil Samples
Refuse-Sol
(6.1 to
Water
5/28/
3000
4792
78
62
1
96
120
103
<0.01
<0.20
0.20
2
0.140
<0.2
Taken Below Landfill During Drilling of In-Refuse Well
1 Interface
6.7 m)
Acid
75
176
0.36
<0.20
27.0
2625
0.640
15.0
Soi 1-Groundwater
(7.6 to 8.2
Water
5/28/75
2800
3057
20
17
1
16
250
73
0.01
<0.20
<0. 10
7
0.038
<0.2
Interface
m)
Acid
162
0.08
<0.20
4.8
1187
0.426
9.3
-------
TABLE 35. (continued)
ro
Sludge
Background Groundwater
Constituent'*'
Water Acid
6/4/75
Water Acid
6/8/76
10/29/75
6/8/76
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
i c
Hg
N i
1 * 1
Pb
Zn
Moisture, %
5.
587
937
448
398
7
123
10
32-
0
1
0
4
0
0
5
13500
14
1450
150
.04
.88
.20
*
.0004
.5
98.5
60
0
3
11
181
0
2
.12
.75
.2
.002
.6
0.
225
36
1188
<0.
0.
6.
74
95
12
001
12
2
6
203
4
9
1
0
2
4
<0
-------
TABLE 35. (continued)
Constituent^
Offsite Well (Shallow)
ro
in
O
5/28/75
PH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
7
148
26
10
5
<0
-------
TABLE 35. (continued)
Constituent^
pH
Tot . Sol i ds
TOC
COD
NBAS
TKN
N H 4 - N
N03-N
C«
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
5/28/75
7.5
200
7
53
9
0.002
<0.01
0.090
3.85
0.043
0.050
Offsite Wei
9/11/75
5.0
359
11
21
4.3
31
1 .94
6
4
3
0.002
0.01
<0.006
0.41
0.0002
0.015
1 (Deep)
10/29/75
6.5
66
2
4
0.5
0.4
4.15
5
5
2
<0.001
<0.01
0.010
0.05
<0.0002
0.016
6/8/76
9.4
0.10
11
2.9
<0.001
<0.01
<0.01
0.12
<0.0002
<0.01
<0.005
0.07
Soil and sludge were extracted with water and cone, nitric acid. Sampling
dates a re also indicated.
Concentrations are expressed as mg/kg of dry soil, mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
groundwater or leachate.
-------
they were generally less than the median concentrations reported.
None of the heavy metals were present in elevated concentrations
in the sludges.
Decomposition Gases in In-Refuse Well
Gas samples taken at depths of from 0.9 m below the cover
surface and 1.5 m above the landfill bottom were analyzed for
four major gases (Table 36). Generally, 50 percent or more of
the total volume was methane, and from 30 to 40 percent consisted
of carbon dioxide. Nitrogen and oxygen were present, indicating
sample buret leakage during shipment. The percentages of methane
and carbon dioxide remained relatively constant during the three
sampling dates.
Groundwater from Background and Off-Site Wells
Results from groundwater monitoring during Phases I and II
are given in Table 35 and in Table 6 of Appendix E, respectively.
It was speculated that the Phase I shallow well (OS-1 at 4.6 m)
and deep well (OS-2 at 7.9 m) may not have intercepted leachate
flow emanating from the fill. Thus, in Phase II an additional
offsite well (OS-3) with three sampling depths (3, 8.5, and 17.1 m)
was installed north of the landfill.
Background Groundwater--
The background groundwater, as measured in Phase I, contained
higher concentrations of total solids and iron than the downstream
groundwater sampled on October 29, 1975. There were also higher
levels in the background groundwater of iron, copper, and zinc
than in the downstream groundwater sampled on June 8, 1976. It
was suspected that these contaminants may have come from the water
pipes. Nevertheless, none of the contaminants in the background
groundwater taken in June 1976 showed elevated concentrations,
as most of the heavy metals were below detection limits.
Among the contaminants measured in Phase II, concentrations
of iron and lead were lower in the project background .ground-
water than in the downstream groundwater (Figures 7-8 and 79).
Other contaminant levels were largely similar in the background
and downstream groundwaters. This would indicate proper locatior
of the project background well.
The quality of the Phase I background groundwater was
comparable to the groundwater taken from the project background
well in Phase II. Except for the presence of iron, the quality
of the groundwater from these two background wells appeared
acceptable.
Downstream Groundwater--
During Phase I, there were considerable variations in
contaminant levels in the downstream wells in the monitoring
252
-------
TABLE 36. GAS COMPOSITION AT SITE 6 IN-REFUSE WELL
6/8/7
Gas Species Upper
CH4 57.9
C02 30.5
02 0.7
N2 10.9
5
Lower
52.6
30.8
3.5
13. 2
— o a ill p I in
9/1
Upper
01
49. 0
37.1
13.0
10.8
Ua t c
0/75
Lower
29.3
47.1
3.5
20.1
10/30/75
Upper Lower
--* 58.7
40.6
0.2
0.5
Buret broken in transit
253
-------
f i i ( f r t r f
r«-» ^^•*«-»
—- IT.
NQJFMAMJJ. ASO
BG —
QS3*.
QS2-2.
QS2-3.
Fiaurs 78. Fa, Pb, and Zn levels in croi
(Sits 5)
254
-------
30
50-
40
20
r- \ 145
i i_* -"Tj™""i""" i i^'^y- tiit
E
C.
HI
e
a.
*
IS -
10
A
1 J F M A M J
A S 0
1S7S
L£GS?,'D
5G
OS3.2
Figure 79. Cl, SC., a,d ICC levels in grcurdwater
" f S i t a 5 ;
255
-------
period (Table 35). The lowest levels of these contaminants
(primarily heavy metals) were found in the June 1976 samples.
In the first and/or second samplings (May and September 1975),
total solids, TOC, iron, mercury, and lead were present at
slightly elevated concentrations in the downstream wells. Among
the heavy metals in the downstream groundwater, there were
consistently higher levels of lead from the deep well than from
the shallow well. Differences in contaminant levels between the
shallow and deep downstream wells generally decreased in the
third and fourth samplings.
Concentrations of various contaminants in the downstream
groundwater were not correlated with their levels in either
the soils taken from the in-refuse well or the sludge from the
treatment plant. This is expected considering soil attenuation
and low contaminant concentrations in the soils or sludge.
During Phase II, TOC, sulfate, chloride, and iron levels
in the groundwater were highest in the first samplings, possibly
the result of water contamination with leachate and fill
materials during drilling. There were considerable fluctuations
of contaminant levels in the groundwater over the 1-yr sampling
period (Figures 78 and 79). Peak concentrations of contaminants
occurred at different sampling levels, depending on the contami-
nant measured. However, concentrations of lead, zinc, chloride,
and TOC appeared to peak at the second sampling level in the
OS-3 well. Overall, no discernible differences existed in
concentrations of various contaminants in groundwater at the
three levels.
Contaminant concentrations in the groundwater taken from
the OS-1 and OS-2 wells in Phase II were similar to or lower
than the concentrations found in Phase I. When contaminant
levels in these two wells were compared with those in OS-3, it
was noted that only iron and probably lead levels were consis-
tently higher in the OS-3 well than either in OS-1 or OS-2.
Other contaminant levels were about the same in the three off-
site wells. This would suggest that the groundwater intercepted
at these wells was of similar quality. Since the contaminant
levels were low, it is possible that the off-site wells may have
missed the leachate plumes.
Environmental Impact Assessment
In evaluating the groundwater quality, the concentrations
of selected parameters were compared with EPA drinking water
standards. Results suggested contamination by i™"*0.1^
groundwater from background and downstream wells. Probable con-
tamination of the downstream wells with mercury, lead, and
organic substances (TOC) was also indicated (Table 37).
256
-------
TABLE 37. NUMBER OF TIMES SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEEDED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (SITE 6)
Constituent
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Background
Phase I
0-2*
0-2
2-2
0-2
0-2
0-1
0-2
0-2
0-2
Wells
Phase II
0-6
0-6
6-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
1-6
Downstream
Phase I
0-8
0-8
4-8
2-7
1-8
0-2
0-8
0-8
2-6
Wells
Phase II
0-21
0-21
14-21
1-21
0-21
0-21
0-19
0-19
1-18
* The first number indicates number of times standard was exceeded; the
second number is sample population.
-------
The standard for iron was exceeded in all eight background
groundwater samples, indicating that groundwater in the vicinity
of the landfill had a naturally high concentration of the metal.
The standard for iron was also exceeded in 18 out of 25 samples
taken from the downstream wells. It appeared that iron levels
were greater in the groundwater north of the fill area (OS-3)
than they were south of it (OS-1 and OS-2). These differences
were attributed to soil inhomogeneity existing at the dis-
posal site.
Generally, mercury was not present in background ground-
water as readings were below the minimum detection limit on all
occasions. Concentrations of mercury exceeded the standard in
three of 28 samples from the downstream wells, two occurring
in groundwater south of the fill (Phase I) and one in groundwater
north of the fill (Phase II). Since the three readings were
inconsistent with most other downstream well readings, which
were usually below detection limit, the landfill did not appear
to be leaching mercury into the groundwater north or south of
the fill area.
Lead in the background groundwater did not exceed the
standard on any occasion in eight samples. It was generally
not present in the natural groundwater as readings were at or
below the detection limit on all but one occasion. The standard
for lead was exceeded once in 28 samples of downstream ground-
water when a high reading was recorded in the shallow well ground-
water south of the fill area. However, readings generally showed
consistent and well-defined increases in downstream groundwater
north of the fill when compared to the lead levels in background
groundwater. Thus, lead contamination in the groundwater inter-
cepted by the north off-site well (OS-3) may have occurred.
Total organic carbon (TOC) exceeded the standard once in
six samples of the background groundwater and three times in
24 samples of downstream groundwater. Due to the consistently
low TOC levels in the background and downstream wells, there was
no clear indication that these wells were contaminated by organic
compounds migrating from the landfill.
Using the EPA drinking water standards, there were no clear
indications that the groundwater has been contaminated with
soluble salts, organic substances, or heavy metals. Data
evaluation was impaired by the land of landfill leachate data
and inconclusive fecal bacterial counts obtained in Phase I
(data not shown). No apparent increase was detected for the
selected contaminants when comparing background groundwater
readings to those for downstream groundwater readings. Increases
in iron concentration were observed in the downstream groundwater
to the north of the site, and this was probably due to soil
characteristics rather than the result of the disposal operation.
258
-------
Lead did not usually exceed the standard, but small, well-defined
increases in its levels were observed in the downstream groundwater.
Copious quantities of septic tank pumpings from resorts, which
previously were discharged to the ocean, have been buried since
1972-73 in township landfills along the coast. However, state-
mandated monitoring wells outside the disposal area or along the
property boundary line have repeatedly failed to show any evidence
of leachate contamination at many landfill sites. It is apparent
that wells in such areas are incapable of detecting leachate.
It is speculated that the leachate at this site is sinking deep
into the groundwater and moving along as concentrated leachate
plumes. Because of the locations of the project off-site wells
and inadequate sampling frequency, these plumes have been relatively
undetected throughout the course of the investigation. As evi-
denced by study results at Sites 1 and 3, leachate plumes may not
be traveling laterally along the soi 1 -groundwater interface. It
is suggested that one way to detect this leachate would be to
establish multiple depth groundwater monitoring wells immediately
underneath the disposal area.
Soil attenuation of contaminants cannot be adequately
assessed due to the lack of leachate data. However, some degree
of attenuation usually occurs in soils. Because of the coarse-
textured soils in the disposal area, significant migration of
contaminants to lower depths could be expected. This is impounded
by the tremendous quantities of septic tank pumpings and sewage
sludge going into the landfill. Thus, although the monitoring
results are inconclusive, it is speculated that considerable
contamination of the groundwater at the landfill area has occurred.
SITE 7
Soil Analyses
Soil samples taken at the refuse-soil interface (at 7.6 m)
and soil-groundwater interface (at 10.7 m) were sequentially
extracted, first with water and then concentrated nitric acid
(Table 38) The results showed that TQC , COD, TKN, ammonium,
chloride, sulfate, and water-soluble chromium and lead were
higher at the shallower depth. Vertical movement of these
constituents has apparently been limited by soil attenuation.
The concentrations of ws ter-sol ubl e chromi um .copper , iron ,
and lead were very high in the sc^l.at the 7.6-m depth -These
metals may be associated with the high TUC and COD in the soi 1
-------
TABLE 38. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 7, PHASE I*
ho
CTi
o
Soil Samples Taken Below Landfill During Drilling of In-Refuse Wei
Constituent^
TOC
COD
TKN
NH4-N
NOo-N
Cl
so4
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Ref use-Soi 1
(7.6
Water
7/31/
1300
3631
175
160
<1
406
55
118
0.04
1.19
5.00
76
0.002
4.2
Interface
m)
Acid
75
12
0.25
4.52
3.82
2889
0.005
9.1
Soi 1 -Groundwater
(10.7
Water
7/31/75
675
1996
38
5
33
62
<20
2056
0.04
0.63
7.86
180
0.003
0.5
Interface
m)
Acid
27750
0.26 -
4.32
4.36
3156
0.002
3.7
-------
TABLE 38. (continued)
t
Constituent
PH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
!i>\<: --H
KO.'i-N
;' "•
j U f.
!-*
Ca
Cd
C r
Cu
Fp
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Sludge#
Water Acid Water
7/31/75
5000 116740
32096
15
1490
8'M
4
;UO 1900
90 2375
3778 30600
0.81 15.07
628 8975
11.50 37.50
145 1511
0.011 0.003
25.0 284
Acid
6/8/76
1.1
18750
49
3000
<0.01
5 . 4
338
106
Background
Groundwater
7/31/75
7
6
0.1
0.1
8.7
5
3
79
<0.001
<0.01
0.360
0.42
<0.0002
0.030
-------
TABLE 38. (continued)
CTl
Constituent
pH .
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
9/18/75
7.6
4263
82
127
51.4
38.8
0.02
4
12
83
0.001
0.01
0.010
1.31
<0.0002
0.018
Offslte Well
10/2/75
89
195
38.0
33.0
0.59
133
18
59
0.002
. 0.25
0.030
6.25
0.0002
0.020
(Shallow)
11/4/75
8.0
3511
30
37
47.6
47.6
1.10
143
13
88
<0.001
0.04
0.020
5.28
0.0002
<0.010
6/8/76
17
0.26
127
16
0.002
0.01
<0.01
4.9
<0.0002
0.01
<0.005
0.20
-------
TABLE 38. (continued)
Constituent
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH/i-N
NO-j-N
C 1 '
SO/j
Ca"J>
Cd
f -^
\s \
Cu
f" -.
HQ
Ni
Pb
Zn
9/18/75
7.9
427
67
135
18.1
17.9
<0.02
61
21
67
0.002
<0.01
0.016
0.17
<0.0002
0.052
Offsite Well
10/2/75
8.1
1630
60
141
16.7
15.1
0.78
75
24
52
0.003
<0.01
0.016
0.15
0.0002
<0.010
(Deep)
11/14/75
8.2
396
88
no
16.0
14.4
1 .0
68
22
63
0.002
0.02
0.020
2.09
<0.0002
0.010
6/8/76
26
<0.01
52
9.1
0.007
0.01
0.01
0.88
<0.0002
0.24
0.012
0.70
* Soil and sludge were extracted with water and cone, nitric acid. Sampling
dates are also indicated.
t Concentrations are expressed as mg/kg of dry soil, mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
groundwater or leachate.
# Moisture content was 49% for the 6/8/76 sample.
-------
under the fill would have precipitated these metals out as
sulfides, rendering them sparingly soluble in the soil solution.
Sludge Analyses
Results of the sequential extraction of the grab sludge
samples obtained from the sewage treatment plant are presented
in Table 38. It is difficult to compare the sludge data, since
no moisture percentage was reported for the sample obtained in
1975. Presumably, the sample with 49 percent moisture had a
lower moisture content than did the 1975 sample. There were
considerable variations between the two samples in constituent
concentrations (wet weight basis).
Concentrations of copper, iron, lead, and particularly
chromium in the 1975 sludge were very high in the water-soluble
fraction. This is consistent with the observations made of
these metals in the soil at the refuse soil interface. Except
for chromium and lead, the constituents measured in the sludge
in both years were generally within the ranges, but less than
the median concentrations reported by Sommers (9). Chromium
contents greatly exceeded the median concentration (890 ppm),
while those of lead were only slightly higher than the median
(500 ppm). The high levels of these two metals, especially
those of chromium, probably were due to the discharge of waste-
water from the leather tanning and finishing industries.
Leachate Analyses
The leachates collected during Phases I and II were analyzed
for the same constituents as were those in the groundwater samples
Results are shown in Table 39. The pH, total solids, TKN,
ammonium chloride, and lead showed relatively small changes in
concentrations over the three sampling dates in 1975. Concen-
trations of the selected constituents in the June 1976 sample
were generally either close to or lower than the corresponding
1975 levels. None of the heavy metals in the Phase I leachate
were found at elevated concentrations.
The leachate analyses for Phase II showed constituent
concentrations that were close to and/or below the concentrations
found in Phase I. Constituents showing significant decreases
were chromium, iron, lead, chloride, and TOC. Reasons for the
decline in levels of these constituents in the leachates are
unknown; it may be due to failure to intercept the concentration
centroids of the leachate plumes or actual dilution of the
generated leachate volumes.
264
-------
TABLE 39. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF LEACHATES FROM IN-REFUSE WELL (SITE 7)
Constituent*
PH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
T K N
NH^-N
C 1 "
SO/,
f r, "
Co
f r
Cu
f Q
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
9/18/75
7.5
4413
1083
2736
544
521
0.03
1090
164
0.011
0.14
0.040
96
0.0007
0.364
Phase
10/2/75
7.7
3770
1333
4505
555
517
0.11
1283
0.011
2.93
0.063
126
0.0002
0.264
I
11/4/75
7.6
3736
733
1345
510
482
0.12
1123
115
0.006
1.91
0.130
104
0.0002
0.340
6/8/76
118
<0.01
1000
<0.001
0.05
0.02
1 .1
<0.0002
0.04
0.03
0.06
-------
TABLE 39. (Continued)
rvi
en
Phase II
Consti tuent
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Sp. Cond.
11/12/76
<0.001
0.03
<0.01
1.60
<0.0002
0.01
0.005
0.19
36
1
184
4115
1/11/77
0.010
0.12
0.03
9.40
<0.0002
0.06
0.060
0.26
5
1
78
__ t
3/31/77
<0.005
0.08
0.03
4.70
0.002
0.05
0.050
0.14
3
6
395
5/18/77
0.010
<0.01
0.04
6.00
0.0011
0.11
0.020
0.06
3
10
69
4400
7/26/77
<0.005
0.08
0.01
2.70
0.0002
0.12
0.250
0.08
26
15
59
9/19/77
0.005
0.15
0.05
7.80
0.0008
0.15
0.040
0.15
423
1
94
10000
t
'Specific conductance in jjmhos/cm, all other constituents concentration's in ppm.
Insufficient sample.
-------
Decomposition Gases in In-Refuse Wei 1
Gas samples collected from two different depths during
Phase II were analyzed for four decomposition gases (Table 40).
Although the data were incomplete, averages of the second and
third sampling results indicated that the volumes of methane,
carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen were 50.8, 26.2, 17.7, and
5.4, respectively. Changes in concentrations of the four gases
with sampling depth and date were not confirmed due to
missing data.
Groundwater Analyses
Background water samples were obtained from a private well
(Phase I) and a project background well (Phase II). Downstream
groundwater samples were taken from two off-site wells (OS-1 and
OS-2 at depths of 6.7 and 9.8 m, respectively) during Phase I
and Phase II, and also from a deeper off-site well (OS-3 at
13.7 m) installed in Phase II. Groundwater monitoring results
obtained during Phases I and II are given in Table 38 and in
Table 7 of Appendix E, respectively.
With the exception of copper, lead, and nitrate, contami-
nant concentrations during 1975 were generally lower in the back-
ground groundwater in comparison to those in the groundwater
from downstream wells. While nitrate was slightly elevated,
copper and lead concentrations in the background groundwater
were within the ranges of most terrestrial waters (4).
There were wide fluctuations in contaminant concentrations
by sampling date and level (Figures 80 and 8l). During Phase I,
the contaminants analyzed from the June 1975 sample showed over-
all lower levels than those in the 1975 samples (Table 38). In
addition, concentrations of total solids, TOC, MBAS, TKN,
ammonium, chloride, cadmium, and iron were, for the most part,
higher in the shallow well than in the deep we 1 . This differen-
tial impact on the groundwater was also found later in Phase u.
Although chromium and lead were present at elevated concentra-
tions in the sludge and in a water-soluble form in the soil at
the refuse-soil interface, the concentrations of these metals
in the downstream groundwater were low, sometimes below
detection limits.
Groundwater collected from tn, project
co « p
nickel and lead were generally below detection limits. When
c Spared to the downstream groundwater .contaminant levels in
the background groundwater were general y lower than those
in the groundwater from the three on-s-f.a wells liable
Appendix E and Figures 80 ana 81;.
267
-------
TABLE 40. CHANGES IN GAS COMPOSITION IN IN-REFUSE WELL
AT TWO DEPTHS FROM SITE 7
9/18/75
Gas Species Upper Lower
CH4 5.5
C02 18.8
02 6.2
N2 69.5
— — O a m p 1 lily U a L, t: —
10/2/75
Upper Lower
~f 53.6
32.4
3.3
10.7
1 1/14/75
Upper Lower
48.0
20.0
7.4
24.6
*Air contaminated sample
~Buret broken in transit
268
-------
JQr
.15
.10
.05
-r^V
XN S
LEGEND
BG
OS-1
OS-2
QS-3
.4
Figure 80. re, ? b ,
"! n around watar
269
-------
1975 r^1377
EG
CM
OS-2
CS-3
F1s.r, 81. a, SO. and Tac levels in ground*,-
\ i I bS
270
70 C
7)
-------
While chloride and sulfate concentrations remained
relatively constant in the downstream groundwater regardless
of sampling depth, concentrations of iron, nickel, lead, zinc,
and TOC appeared to be consistently higher in the groundwater
from the shallow well (OS-1) than from the deeper wells (OS-2
and OS-3). Except for iron and possibly TOC, contaminant
levels in the downstream groundwater were generally low. Again,
the high chromium and lead levels in the sludge seemingly had no
adverse effects on groundwater quality beneath the landfill.
However, there were indications of leachate movement in the form
of organic substances into the shallow groundwater, as shown by
the TOC levels in OS-1.
Results of bacteriologic examination indicated the presence
of pollution in the form of both fecal coliform and fecal
streptococcus at OS-1 and OS-2 wells (Table 41). Fecal coliform
counts of fecal streptococcus showed possible contamination of
both wells. This partially substantiates the TOC findings, i.e.,
the passage of some organic pollution through the shallow ground-
water was indicated.
Environmental Impact Assessment
The residents in the vicinity of the disposal area were
primarily concerned with the possible degradation of the well-
water supply. To determine the water quality, concentrations
of various parameters in the groundwater were compared with the
EPA drinking water standards (Table 42). In addition, evalua-
tions of fecal bacterial counts were also included.
Background Groundwater--
Except for iron, which greatly exceeded the standards seven
out of seven times, the quality of the background groundwater
in Phases I and II appeared to be good. Although the acid-
extractable iron concentrations in the soil at the disposal site
were not high, there were considerable amounts present in the
water-soluble form that contributed to high levels of iron in
the background groundwater.
Downstream Groundwater--
The contaminants in the downstream groundwater with concen-
trations exceeding drinking water standards were iron, TOC,
mercury, and lead (Table 42).
Iron levels exceeded the standard 22 out of 26 times in
downstream wells, which is not surprising since its levels in
the background well were exceedingly high. This indicated that
most of this metal detected in the downstream wells was probably
background level rather than due to the disposal operation.
Concentrations of iron detected in the deeper downstream wells
271
-------
TABLE 41 BACTERIOLOGIC EXAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER
FROM OFF-SITE WELLS (SITE 7)*
Well Fecal Collform
ml nm
OS-1 4
< 3
< 3
OS-2 < 3
3
3
Fecal Streptococcus
00 ml —
23
23
4
23
7
15
*7-29-77 sample
272
-------
TABLE 42. NUMBER OF TIMES SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEEDED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (SITE 7)
Constituent
Cd
Cu'
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Background
Phase I
0-1*
0-1
1-1
0-1
0-1
0-0
0-1
0-1
0-1
Wells
Phase II
0-6
0-6
6-6
0-6
0-6
0-5
0-6
0-6
1-6
Downstream
Phase I
0-8
0-8
6-8
0-8
1-8
0-2
0-8
0-8
8-8
Wells
Phase II
0-18
0-18
18-18
1-18
1-18
0-18
0-18
0-18.
8-18
* The first number indicates number of times standard was exceeded; the
second number is sample population.
273
-------
i n
(OS-2 and OS-3) averaged "approximately the same as those
the background well simples. However, leaching of "-on from
the fill was noted, since iron levels in the shallow well (OS-1)
were s ghtly, yet consistently, above those in the background
well. This indicated that the shallow groundwater intercepted
iron leaching from the fill.
Mercury levels generally showed small but perceptible
increases when comparing groundwater in the downstream wells to
background groundwater. However, mercury contamination is not
suspected since high mercury contents were not noted in the
sludge or soil and the standard for this element was only exceedei
one out of 26 times in the downstream wells.
Lead was present in relatively high concentrations in the
sludge. This was also reflected in the leachate and the shallow
groundwater- downstream from the landfill. Although the shallow
groundwater only exceeded the standard for lead on one occasion,
the levels in this well were consistently higher than those in
the background groundwater. This lead, however, had not moved
to deeper layers in the groundwater.
Chloride concentrations in downstream groundwater did not
exceed the standard in 26 samples. However, these concentra-
tions showed significant increases on all occasions when compared
to background groundwater, and the standard was approached on
numerous occasions.
The standard for TOC concentrations was exceeded 16 out of
26 times in the downstream wells, primarily at the OS-1 and
OS-2 wells. Therefore, contamination of the downstream ground-
water in the form of organic compounds had occurred. These
compounds migrated through the shallower groundwater, and
apparently had not reached the groundwater intercepted by the
deep well (OS-3). Fecal streptococcus was detected in the OS-1
and OS-2 wells, but the concentrations had not reached the point
that the water was considered unsafe to drink. More work is
needed to substantiate this finding.
Overall, the data indicate some degree of groundwater
contamination by the disposal operation has occurred, as shown
by the increased concentrations of chloride, TOC, iron, and lead
in the downstream groundwater. Although some of these contami-
nants did not exceed the standards on all occasions, significant
increases in their respective levels were noted on all occasions
when compared to background groundwater.
The high contents of chromium in the sludge did not result
in corresponding high levels in soil or groundwater. Concen-
trations of other heavy metals (cadmium, copper, nickel, zinc,
and mercury) in the groundwater were not elevated as a result
of the sludge disposal operation.
274
-------
Although the soils at this site are relatively coarse-
textured and large concentrations of heavy metals present
immediately below the fill were in the water-soluble form, no
significant migration of these metals was noted. Based on the
locations of the downstream wells, fecal bacteria had traveled
horizontally a distance of more than 20 m in the groundwater.
The practice of subsurface disposal of sludge at this
site has had a minimal impact on the groundwater quality. Further
analysis of groundwater for fecal bacteria is needed to substan-
tiate the data obtained in this study.
SITE 8
Soil Analyses
While drilling the in-refuse well, soil samples were taken
from the refuse-soil interface (2.4 to 2.7 m), midway between
the fill and groundwater (3 m), and from the soi 1 -groundwater
interface (3.4 to 3.7 m). These samples were sequentially
extracted, first with water and then concentrated nitric acid.
The results are presented in Table 43.
The soils at this site are coarse textured, moderately
acidic (pH 5.3 to 6.0), and have a shallow water table (which
fluctuated, but generally was at a depth of less than 3.7 m).
The analytical results show that leachate from the landfill has
migrated to a depth of 3 m, as indicated by the TOC , COD, and
TKN levels. The nitrogen was present primarily in the organic
form, since ammonium made up only 3.1 to 19 percent of TKN
concentrations .
Chloride and especially water-soluble calcium and iron,
decreased rapidly with increasing soil depth. Large amounts
of calcium were present in the water-soluble form which may be
related, in part, to the acidic nature of the soil. Concentra-
tions of chloVide, sulfate, and heavy metals were low when
rnmnared to those typically found in soils (1, 2). Although
the "oil is well-drained and acidic, no significant migrations
of heavy metals were noted.
amounts of lead at the soi 1 -groundwater interface
contributeS to the high lead levels found in the downstream wells,
Sludge Analyses
275
-------
TABLE 43. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 8, PHASE I*
INJ
^
cn
Soil Samples Taken Below Landfill During Drilling of In-Refuse Well
Refuse-Soil Interface
(2.4 to 2.7 m)
Midway Between
Soil & Groundwater
(3 m)
Sol1-Groundwater
Interface
(3.4 to 3.7 m)
Constituent'1"
PH
TOC
COD
TKN
NH4-N
NOo-N
ci3
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Moisture, %
Water
6/30/75
5.5
1350
6103
288
9
2.6
48
<10
230
0.03
0.20
0.40
138
0.019
0.4
12.3
Acid Water Acid Water Acid
6/30/75 6/30/75
1
40
0.07
1.60
3.06
1440
0.232
2.6
6.0
3800
13545
602
115
2.8
42
<10
102
0.01
0.07
0.40
19
0.020
0.1
23.3
5.3
1360
4909
199
25
1.9
24
<10
111
0.08
2.08
4.90
1140
0.264
2.5
89
0.01
<0.07
0.14
1
0.027
2.9
15.0
95
0.07
1 .63
3.00
1324
0.022
2.4
-------
TABLE 43. (continued)
no
•-4
Background
Sludge Groundwater
Constituent Water Acid Water Acid
6/30/75 6/8/76 9/17/75
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
NOa-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Moisture, %
7.1
4200
9135
408
76
0.4
48
17
133
0.01
0.12
0.40
10
0.024
. 0.2
86.7
33300
5.6
13
63
127
0.12
1.73
31.00
116
0.229
3.6
0.12
1050
44
538
<0.003
3.0
24
75
83.0
31
95
0.6
2
25
46
0.002
<0.01
0.090
0.50
0.0004
0.080
-------
TABLE 43. (continued)
IS)
«vl
oo
Offsite Well (Sha
Constituent* 7/30/75
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca*
Cd
Cr .
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
7.5
156
320
2698
89
7.3
1.10
12
7
907
0.040
0.92
3.000
114
<0.0002
1.150
9/17/75
7.8
197
38
91
6.3
5.5
<0.02
15
17
77
0.002
<0.01
0.029
0.70
0.0006
0.090
llow)
10/3/75
8.2
108
50
66
8.0
7.7
0.62
17
10
77
0.001
0.19
0.016
8.38
0.001
0.024
6/9/76
29
<0.01
0.001
<0.01
<0.01
27
<0.0002
0.02
.0.5
0.48
-------
TABLE
43
ro
Constituent
PH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
SC-4
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
7/30/75
7.0
55534
49
83
1.4
0.8
0.20
4
15
14
<0.002
<0.01
0.430
0.46
<0.0002
0.050
Offsite Well
9/17/75
7.8
32890
64
135
6.2
0.7
<0.02
9
14
15
0.003
<0.01
0.009
0.38
0.0008
0.231
1 (Deep)
10/3/75
7.8
2170
36
104
1.3
0.3
0.67
10
6
16
<0.001
<0.01
0.018
0.30
0.001
0.024
6/9/76
28
0.02
In
0
1—j
. 7
0.001
XV f\ 1
<0.01
<0.01
1-7
. 7
<0.0002
<0.01
0.02
0.15
* Soil and sludge were extracted with water and cone, nitric acid. Sampling
dates are also indicated.
1" Concentrations are expressed as mg/kg of dry soil, mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
groundwater or leachate.
-------
in the 1975 sample, were generally lower than those found in
1976 (Table 43). Concentrations of the chemical constituents
in the two sludge samples were within the ranges, but less than
the median concentrations reported by Sommers (9). The chromium
concentration in the 1976 sample was exceedingly high (6,176 ppm
on a dry weight basis). The source of this element is unknown.
Based on preliminary results of the sludge analysis, local
industries discharging wastewater to the sewer have not adversely
affected the quality of the sludge generated at the treatment
plant.
Leachate Analyses
The leachates collected from the in-refuse well during
Phases I and II were analyzed for selected chemical constituents
(Table 44). There were considerable variations in constituent
levels in the leachates over the sampling dates. Except for
zinc, concentrations of most constituents decreased in Phase II
when compared to Phase I. The greatest decreases were noted
for TOC and iron. These may have resulted from the dilution of
the generated leachate volumes and may, in part, explain the
lower concentration of contaminants found in the downstream
groundwater during Phase II monitoring.
Chloride and sulfate concentrations were relatively low, a
finding consistent with the low concentrations for these
constituents found in the soil and sludge at this site.
Groundwater Analyses
During Phase I, four groundwater samples were taken from
the shallow (OS-1 at 1.8 m) and deep (OS-2 at 5.6 m) wells.
Samples were taken bimonthly from these two wells and also
from the background well (BG at 7.9 m) and from the new, deep
off-site well (OS-3 at 16.9 m) in the 12-mo Phase II monitoring.
These samples were analyzed for selected chemical contaminants
(or parameters). The results of Phases I and II are presented
in Table 43 and Table 8 of Appendix E, respectively.
Background Groundwater--
The background sample in Phase I generally contained very
low levels of contaminants (Table 43). The high lead content
(0.08 ppm) in this sample could not be confirmed by subsequent
analysis of the groundwater samples from the Phase II background
well. The most noticeable deviation in contaminant levels in
the background groundwater involved the substantial increase in
sulfate in Phase II. This may be indicative of a high sulfate
background level at this depth or disturbances during well drill i ig
Except for sulfate, contaminant levels in the background
groundwater ranged from low to nondetectable during Phase II
monitoring and were generally less than the corresponding
280
-------
TABLE 44. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF LEACHATES FROM IN-REFUSE WELL (SITE 8)
ro
oo
Constituent*
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
TKN
NM4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
lln
' i*
Ni
Pb
Zn
7/30/75
6
4965
3000
8265
254
198
0
3
12
617
0
0
1
227
<0
0
.2
.28
.019
.09
.67
.0002
.680
Phase
9/17/75
7.2
19808
890
1194
43
0.016
0.19
0.31
63
0.770
I
10/3/75
1160
5721
47
0.033
5.62
1 .90
237
0.700
6/19/
2970
0.
0.
0.
320
<0.
0.
0.
0.
76
002
30
59
0002
02
08
26
-------
TABLE 44. (Continued)
IM
00
ro
*
Constl tuent
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
N1
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Sp. Cond.
11/11/76
0.050
0.07
4.50
390
1.10
2.0
17.0
11
12
17
475
Phase
3/30/77
<0.005
0.25
0.11
21
0.0006
0.03
0.07
0.59
<2
3
21
__#
IIf
5/18/77
0.005
0.17
0.83
85
0.0005
0.31
0.32
4.60
..#
__#
1
10000
9/18/77
0.005
0.13
0.45
39
0.0010
0.10
0.21
2.40
11
14
71
340
Specific conductance in ymhos/cm, all other constituents concentrations in ppm
fNo sample taken on 1/12/77 due to dry well.
"Insufficient sample.
-------
concentrations in the three off-site wells (Figures 82 and 83
and Table 8 of Appendix E).
Downstream Groundwater--
Considerable variations were noted in contaminant levels
in the groundwater over time and with sampling depths (Table 43).
In Phase I, samples from the shallow off-site well (OS-1) showed
higher levels of TKN, ammonium, calcium, chromium, iron, lead,
and zinc when compared to the deep off-site well (OS-2).
Conversely, the total solid levels in the OS-2 well were several
times greater than those in the OS-1 well. Among the heavy
metals in the shallow off-site groundwater, iron increased with
subsequent samplings (from 0.70 to 27 ppm) and lead contents
were as high as 1.15 ppm. These latter levels were consistent
with the water-soluble lead concentration found in soils at the
soi1-groundwater interface. The data also suggests that lead
had been leached, to some extent, to the groundwater existing
at lower depths.
Since the TOC levels were high in samples from both the
shallow and deep off-site wells, vertical migration of leachate
in the form of organic substances was indicated. The overall
data suggest that attenuation of contaminants by the soil at
this site was relatively poor. The groundwater from off-site
wells ranged from neutral to moderately alkaline (pH 7.0 to
8.2, depending on sampling date and depth). Although the soil
was moderately acidic, the pH of the groundwater indicated
that it was probably disturbed by well drilling. However, it
gradually was shifted to the above pH range due to the buffering
by the bicarbonates that are prevalent in most groundwater
resources. These disturbances were also suggested by the
relatively high TOC, COD, TKN, and calcium levels in the June
1975 sample in the shallow off-site well when compared to subse-
quent samples taken from the same well.
When the groundwater data from the OS-1 and OS-2 wells
of Phase I were compared to that of Phase II, the large TOC
concentrations in the two off-site wells and elevated concentra-
tions in the OS-1 well of Phase I were not noted in Phase II.
Meanwhile, exceedingly high concentrations of iron were detected
at all three off-site wells during Phase II monitoring. During
the same period, other metals - cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel,
mercury, and lead - were also found at low to nondetectable levels
in these downstream wells.
Lead zinc, and chloride in the groundwater from the OS-2
(medium depth) well appeared to be higher than the corresponding
concentrations from either the OS-1 (shallow) or OS-3 (deep
wplls (Fiaures 82 and 83). These contaminants had apparently
nil been feached to the depth (16.9 m) where the OS-3 well was
placed TOC concentrations in the groundwater from the OS-3
wen! however, were consistently high and an order of magnitude
283
-------
.120
90
1 GO
a
u.
30
.08
.08
E.
°- .04
.a
c.
.02
.3
.6
a.
*T -4
c
.2
/r
/ \
»
v A / \
\ / \ / \./
" V \ / A
_ A y, _._._.,/ \
/ ^ *x /* i
/x \ \/ .--' x (
.09 . .... ,
\ LEGEND
\
" \ A .
\ / '• X'
* ' \ •
\ / \ X
- '/ \ / OK !
A * *
- / \ \ / °S*1 |
/ \ •• •
1 ._ \ / ^ 1
t i i i i i i i i i i
A
/ \
" / \
//"^\ / \
- // ^^-'^^s***\\
/^'~*"^^ -X^_ \s^^
1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 """lit <
NOJFMAMJJ. ASO
1S75 J— 1277
Figure 82. Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in aroundwater,
(Site 8)
284
-------
O
c
N 0 J F
1275 1—1=77
Ficur- 83. Cl , SO*, and TOC levels in grcundwater
J ' (sits a)
285
-------
greater than those in the shallower wells. If leachate from the
landfill has migrated into the groundwater to considerable
depths, more tests will be required to identify the organic
species and possible contamination of the groundwater supply wit;
fecal bacteria. Results of bacteriological analyses found no
fecal coliform in all three wells, while fecal streptococcus was
detected at only very small or insignificant concentrations
(Table 45).
Environmental Impact Assessment
In determining the possible degradation of groundwater
quality as a result of the landfilling operation at this site,
concentrations of the selected contaminants were compared with
the EPA drinking water standards (Table 46).
The background water showed concentrations of iron, lead,
and TOC that exceeded the drinking water standards. Iron
concentrations exceeded the standards five out of seven times.
These concentrations (0.17 to 1.50 ppm) were not greatly elevated
In fact, the standard was only barely exceeded on most occasions.
Lead in the background groundwater exceeded the standard
only one out of seven times. This occurred in the 1975 grab
sample and was not confirmed by Phase II monitoring data. Also,
lead was not detected in most of the Phase II samples.
The standard for TOC was exceeded two out of seven times,
each one occurring in Phases I and II. Again, the high TOC
(31 ppm) in the 1975 grab background sample did not appear in
the Phase II samples. It was therefore unlikely that background
groundwater was contaminated with organic pollutants.
The groundwater from downstream wells showed cadmium, copper
iron, lead, sulfate, and TOC exceeding the drinking water stan-
dards from 1 to 24 times.
Elevated levels of cadmium and copper were detected in down
stream wells on one occasion each. Since these were from sample
populations of 25 and 26 for cadmium and copper, respectively,
gross contamination of the groundwater with these two metals
appeared unlikely.
Iron levels exceeded the standard 24 out of 25 times in
downstream groundwater. These levels increased considerably in
the second phase of this study, with concentrations reaching as
high as 204 ppm. Thus, it is evident that the downstream
groundwater was heavily contaminated with iron as a result of
the landfill operation.
Lead exceeded the standard eight out of 25 times. The high
levels found in Phase I cannot be confirmed by the Phase II data
286
-------
TABLE 45. BACTERIOLOGIC EXAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER FROM
OFF-SITE WELLS (SITE 8)
Date Well Fecal Coliform Fecal Streptococcus
colonies/100 ml
7-28-77 OS-1 < 3 3
< 3 4
< 3 3
7-28-77 OS-3 < 3 23
< 3 < 3
< 3 21
9-18-77 OS-2 < 3 < 3
< 3 < 3
< 3 9
287
-------
TABLE 46. NUMBER OF TIMES SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEEDED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (SITE 8)
Constituent
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Background
Phase I
0-1*
0-1
1-1
0-1
1-1
0-0
0-1
0-1
1-1
Wells
Phase II
0-6
0-6
4-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
1-6
Downstream
Phase I
1-8
1-8
6-7
0-8
5-8
0-1
0-7
0-7
8-8
Wells
Phase II
0-17
0-18
18-18
0-18
3-17
0-18
0-18
1-18
16-18
* The first number indicates number of times standard was exceeded; the
second number is sample population.
288
-------
The lead levels in Phase II were generally very low or non-
detectable, except for the three occasions on which the standard
was exceeded (0.056, 0.064, and 0.090 ppm). Based on the lead
concentrations and number of times the standard was exceeded, it
is suspected that groundwater intercepted by the OS-1 and OS-2
wells was contaminated with lead.
Total organic carbon (TOC) was found at significant levels
in downstream wells. The standard was exceeded 24 out of 26
times. Excessively large TOC levels were detected in the deep
(OS-3) well, indicating passage of organic pollution into the
deep groundwater. Bacterial tests indicated that, although fecal
streptococcus was detected in some samples from the downstream
wells, the levels were so low or nondetectable there appeared to
be no concern for health hazard.
The sandy, moderately acidic soils, a shallow water table,
and the disposal practice (sludge-only, lagooning, etc.) at
this site has resulted in adverse effects on the groundwater
supplies. Although the heavy metals showed limited migration
through soils into the groundwater, contamination of iron and
organic compounds (TOC) in the three off-site wells strongly
suggested the poor quality of the downstream groundwater. The
data also suggest continual monitoring and detailed examinations
of organic species and fecal bacteria in the groundwater.
289
-------
REFERENCES
Allaway, W. H. Agronomic Controls over Environmental
Cycling of Trace Elements. Advan. Agron., 20:235-274, 1968.
Bowen, H. J. M. Trace'Elements in Biochemistry. Academic
Press, New York, 1966.
Chow, V. T. (ed.-in-chief)• Handbook of Applied Hydrology.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964.
Davies, S. N. and R. C. M. DeWiest. Hydrogeology. Wiley,
New York, 1966.
Hoskins-Western-Sonderegger. Groundwater Pollution Study -
Site 1 Landfill. Unpublished report prepared for SCS
Engineers, 1977.
Hoskins-Western-Sonderegger. Groundwater Pollution Study -
Site 3 Landfill. Unpublished report prepared for SCS
Engineers, 1977.
Lu, J. C. S. Studies on the Long-Term Migration and Trans-
formation of Trace Metals in the Polluted Marine Sediment-
Seawater System. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern
California, 1976.
Mang, J. L., J. C. S. Lu, R. J. Lofy and R. P. Stearns.
A Study of Leachate from Dredged Material in Upland Areas
and/or in Productive Uses. Contract Report No. DACW39-76-
C-0069, U. S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Miss., 1978
Sommers, L. E. Chemical Composition of Sewage Sludges and
Analyses of Their Potential Uses as Fertilizers. J. Environ
Qua!. , 6:225-232, 1977.
290
-------
APPENDIX A
GAS PROBE AND MONITORING WELL PLACEMENT PROCEDURES
IN-REFUSE WELL
The monitoring well in the landfills was drilled to the
groundwater table. A core auger or bucket rig was used for
drilling holes in refuse. An air rotary drill may be used
but is subject to fouling in refuse. Figure 1 shows a
typical installation.
Experience indicated that for our typical 4-in diameter
monitoring well, the optimum well bore diameter was a mini-
mum of 6 in, and preferably 8 in or greater. During the
drilling, refuse was pulled loose and protruded into the
hole. This led to difficulties during the placement of the
gas probes attached to the outside of the well casing and in
backfill ing.
Soil boring logs of the material brought to the surface
during the well drilling operation were carefully recorded.
After the location of the well was determined on the site
and before the well driller arrived, a core sample of the
cover soil material was taken for determination of permea-
bility. The Field Sampling Instruction Manual gives detailed
instructions on obtaining the sample.
Two refuse samples were taken for determination of
moisture content from each hole at the one-third and two-
thirds overall landfill depth, respectively. Approximately
one- shovel ful of refuse and/or sludge material was placed
in a plastic bag and sealed. The bag containing the sample
was placed in a second plastic bag and again sealed. This
double bagging was to minimize moisture loss.
Upon reaching the bottom of the landfill (when the auger
brings up mostly soil), a soil or core sample (approximately
a shovelful) was taken and placed in a sterile piasticspeci-
men bag. Two additional samples were taken following the same
procedure, one halfway between the landfill bottom and
the groundwater, and the other at groundwater level.
291
-------
GAS
SAMPLE
'' ^ SOIL '
/- r-> i ' — "
• — ~ f
SHALL I ,•-
GAS PROBE
- " - T X . 3-5 FT
(0.9 TO 1 . 5M ) DELCW
SURFACE
6 IN (15 CM)
J
NOMINAL /
DIA. BORE HOLE'
9 ' ~ ,
i r-
J
u
BA
DEE» GAS PROBE V
APPROX. 3-5 FT
(0.9 TO 1 . 5M)
BOTTOM OF REFUSE —
2 FT
( 0. 6M)
1
DF 2 FT
OF CONCKt I t. —
BACKFILL WITH
SOIL OR CONCRETE —
•
^—
^ LEACHATE SAMPLE
-„ i 3_r7;.
rs^f>-"ii
* -— -
3
A
SOIL
CKFILt
A
^'.•^"i'J'o'
, i_a ". *>_>.
1
A '
GRAVEL
BACKF I L
JK SURFACE CF LANDFILL
t —
_
-
^_
^ f~r~>k-j'^Q^T~ ^^A'
IN vlU C 1*1 J
PVC PIPE TO EXTEND
MINIMUM OF 2 FT (0.6M)
ABOVE SURFACE
^\
C' '.NDFILLED REFUSE )
AND/OR SLUDGE
4.^— CLAY OR
O^
*** -^ *^ At *"y i**i '^ d
*^ ,^^% A * & &• ' A* *\ * fc*'J
* o «^^^^J J ** .^
^jv.^.-p »•:<->*'?
//////'/
//////
/v/vx//
CONCRETE
PLUG
T~~^
«v^^ LAND^ I^-L
1
WELL
SCREEN
SECTION
T
LEGEND
• SOIL CORE SAMPLE
A REFUSE/SLUDGE
MOISTURE SAMPLE
• SOIL COVER
PERMEABILITY SAMPLE
NOT - : SCALE
GROUNDWATER
Figure 1. Typical in-refuse well details
292
-------
Since the exact distance to groundwater was not always known,
several samples around the presumed mid-depth were obtained
and retained until the midpoint location was established.
Two gas probes were placed in the in-refuse well, one at
approximately 3 to 5 ft below the surface and the other
3 to 5 ft above the landfill bottom. These gas probes were
located outside of the well casing.
The materials used and placement depths in backfilling
of the in-refuse well are shown in Figure 1. In brief, the
well was first backfilled with concrete, and the well casing
and deep gas probe inserted. The well was again backfilled
with gravel, then with concrete, and finally native material.
A concrete cap was placed at the top to secure the well .
PLUME AND GROUNDWATER WELLS
Two wells were placed in the presumed groundwater down
gradient direction from the in-refuse well described above.
These wells did not penetrate any refuse, and were approxi-
mately 30 m (100 ft) from the in-refuse well.
One well penetrated the groundwater table elevation to a
depth of 0.61 m(2 ft). This well was termed the shallow well.
The second 'well penetrated the groundwater table elevation to
a depth of about 6.09 m (20 ft) (site conditions permitting).
This well was termed the deep well. Figure 2 illustrates
typical construction details for each well.
At Sites 1 and 3, six wells were placed in two parallel
lines normal to the direction of groundwater flow. The lines
were 45 to 75 m (150 to 250 ft) apart and the wells in each
line were spaced 75 to 90 m (250 to 300 ft) apart on centers.
Each contained four sampling levels separated by bentonite
clay plugs. Sand and gravel were backfilled in between the
clay plugs. Figure 3 illustrates typical construction details
for each well. All of the sampling points for each well
penetrated the groundwater table and were generally placed
about 3 m (10 ft) apart.
Background groundwater wells utilizing the same well
construction as in Figure 3 were placed several hundred feet
above the disposal area at Sites 1 and 3. At other sites,
a background well was constructed at one depth using the
same well construction as shown in Figure 2.
293
-------
-
20
(6.
FT
1M)
1
2 FT
( 0. 6M )
t
^
__
—CAP- "'
j Jj
. GROUND SURFACE
SEAL -"""'
fi T M fin r M 1
PVC PIPE, TO EXTEND
MINIMUM OF 2 FT (0.6M)
.-SOIL'
M A T P(7 T A 1 PAr"^rTI 1
GROUNDWATER y
2 FT
C0.6M)
t
^rs
-
T^T--
*^
' . ,-. •
*'ELL
SCREEN
SECTION
SHALLOW WELL
NOT TC SCALE
WELL
SCREEN
SECTION
3EEP WELL
Figure 2. Typical background and downstream well
detai1s.
294
-------
ROAD SAND
AND GRAVEL
PNEUMATIC
SAMPLER
k- 6. 4 cm
Figure 3 .
Typical off-site plume well details showing
four pneumatic samplers and close-up of
sample collector.
295
-------
APPENDIX B. GROUNDWATER READINGS FROM MONITORING WELLS
ro
vo
CD
Well
Site 1
IR
OS-X
EX-1
EX-2
EX-3
Site 2
IR
OS-1
OS-2
BG
EX-1
EX-2
Site 3
IR
OS-X
EX-1
EX-2
EX-3
EX-4
EX-5
Top of Pipe
Elevation (m)
571.92
564.29
578.18
573.04
570.88
351.95
345.87
346.18
347.54
351.78
349.74
311.97
308.46
309.76
308.64
308.44
311.39
308.09
Groundwater Elevation (m)
10/31/76
563.08
560.02
559.33
559.55
561.03
11/1/76
344.63
342.37
341.81
343.47
338.07
338.14
11/1/76
306.38
303.07
303.64
303.81
303.49
304.07
303.46
1/21/77
563.14
560.33
559.82
559.98
1/21/77
344.58
342.44
341.94
343.42
338.04
338.11
1/20/77
306.60
300.99
303.51
303.74
303.92
303.46
3/10/77
563.06
560.33
559.87
559.88
3/9/77
344.63
342.55
342.14
343.12
338.07
338.11
3/8/77
306.36
303.05
303.51
303.68
303.79
303.40
5/19/77
563.11
559.84
559.98
5/18/77
344.46
342.73
342.62
343.55
337.99
338.11
5/16/77
307.99
303.33
304.73
304.22
303.87
304.53
303.36
7/19/77
563.06
559.57
559.42
7/18/77
344.58
342.37
343.52
338.07
338.01
7/18/77
308.19
303.20
303.39
303.89
303.01
304.91
303.51
9/14/77
563.54
558.63
559.68
9/13/77
345.12
343.41
343.49
344.24
9/12/77
306.73
303.99
304.39
305.57
304.95
304.37
-------
APPENDIX R. (continued)
ro
10
Well
Site 4
IR
OS-X
BG
EX-1
EX-2
ilUJL
OS-1
BG
Sitej6
OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
BG
Site 7
OS-1
OS-2
BG
Site 8
OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
EX-1
BG
Top of Pipe
Elevation (in)
423.04
422.02
430.14
423.84
423.77
16.46
70.83
19.95
19.94
20.93
27.15
265.48
265.48
283.46
198.12
198.12
197.82
207.57
213.36
*
Groundwater Elevation (m)
11/24/76
420.68
419.05
424.55
420.36
420.47
11/15/76
14.00
57.11
11/10/76
17.66
14.74
17.82
11/12/76
259.78
259.71
265.61
11/11/76
197.51
197.52
193.62
206.27
211.59
1/19/77
420.83
419.14
424.19
419.31
420.60
1/19/77
14.36
57.24
1/10/77
14.85
17.52
1/11/77
259.44
259.33
265.25
1/12/77
197.13
196.94
189.44
206.01
211.01
3/6/77
421.35
419.36
425.13
419.98
421.28
4/1/77
14.36
56.98
3/30/77
17.41
14.81
17.41
3/31/77
259.92
259.80
265.67
3/30/77
195.45
197.88
189.90
206.74
212.29
5/21/77
421.23
419.20
424.73
419.98
421.11
5/9/77
14.26
56.93
5/17/77
17.22
14.81
17.42
5/18/77
260.25
260.17
266.19
5/18/77
195.79
197.11
190.32
206.33
211.18
7/21/77
421.13
419.18
424.73
419.98
420.93
8/1/77
14.26
57.03
7/26/77
16.95
14.58
17.39
7/26/77
259.81
259.79
256.81
7/27/77
196.82
195.78
190.00
205.61
210.87
9/16/77
420.52
419.03
424.40
419.67
420.06
9/21/77
14.28
56.55
9/16/77
18.32
14.71
17.55
9/19/77
259.41
259.49
265.35
9/18/77
197.11
197.18
189.96
206.12
210.92
* Elevations above mean sea level.
-------
APPENDIX C
FIELD SAMPLING INSTRUCTION MANUAL
The objective of field sampling is to obtain representative
leachate, groundwater, gas, sludge, and mixed refuse-sludge
samples from each of the case study sites. The accuracy and care
taken during sampling cannot be overemphasized. An accurate
analysis is directly dependent upon the care taken by field
personnel in drawing and shipping the requisite samples.
This manual is intended to provide field personnel with a
guide to the precise procedures to be employed as well as alter-
native procedures, where applicable, for coping with unantici-
pated problems.
SAMPLING CODE CONVENTION
In labeling, the following information should appear on each
sample container (Figures 1 and 2).
• Date: Month and day only, use number for months.
• Sample sequence number: Each sample will be given a
sequence number starting with 1 for the first sample.
Consecutive numbers will be assigned for additional sam-
ples taken from each site. For example, the second
leachate sample taken will be assigned the number "2."
• Project code: This five-digit code uniquely identifies
this specific oroject, i.e., SCS-34.
• Location code: Sample site location codes are taken
from the commercial airport nearest to the case study
site i.e., FYV.
• Sample hole designation (for groundwater sampling):
well designation (A, B, or 1-6), and sample depth
designation (1-4).
• Gas probe depth:
A = shallow probe
B = deep probe .
298
-------
SAMPLE
DATE
SAMPLE
SEQUENCE
NUMBER
PROJEC
CODE
LOCATION
CODE
OFF-SITE WELL
DESIGNATION
Figure 1. Leachate sampling container labeling
299
-------
C A MO
DATF
C 4 MOt r"
SEQUENCE
NUMBER
PROJECT
CODE
LOCATION
;
i
^C3I
•
1
//L!-p\
™™» ^— _
-*' =3
Sr i
f&\
~
!i§-
i
1 1
,
HOLE
DEPTH
— 1 1OLE
LOCATION
'
Figure 2. Sampling container labeling for gas sample bottles
300
-------
For leachate and groundwater samples, both sides of the
sample bottles should be labeled with a waterproof marking pen.
Mark each container in LARGE NEAT BLOCK LETTERS as in Figure 1.
Use dashes (not slashes) to separate items. On groundwater sample
containers for offsite wells, be sure to designate which well is
being sampled.
For gas samples.two strips of masking tape should be placed on
the containers as shown in Figure 2. Label the tape as per the
above-mentioned procedure. Do not use waterproof pens directly
on glass because the markings are almost impossible to remove.
LEACHATE AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Nonpneumatic Well Sampling
A leachate sample will be obtained from the in-refuse well.
Groundwater samples will be taken from the background and shallow
and deep off-site wells. The materials required are:
• One copy Field Sampling Instruction Manual
• Styrofoam-1ined corrugated shipping cartons
*
• Adequate supply of 1- and 2-1 plastic bottles
• Sampling unit with two sample bottles (Figure 3)
• One thermometer with a range of 0 to 150°C
• Corning Model 3 pH meter (portable)
• One plastic funnel
• Black waterproof marking pens
• Four packs minimum of "blue ice" for shipping (the "blue
ice" should be frozen prior to obtaining the leachate
samples; use motel ice machine or restaurant freezer)
• Several rolls of fiber packing tape or duck tape
• Notebook for field notes
*These containers are prepared for field use as follows: the poly-
ethvlene containers are first washed with hot tap water and cooled
aVrinsed with AA grade 1:1 nitric and hydrochlor1c acld.
to the field.
301
-------
SAMPLE DISCHARGE LINE£,
PRESSURE FITTINGS
GLUE-ON PVC CAP
3.8-Cm DIAMETER
HARD RUBBER BALL
GLUE-ON PVC END PIECED
^•NITROGEN INLET LINE
6.5 Cm ID PVC
LUED-ON POLYVINYL
WINDOW SCREEN
Figure 3. Pneumatic ejection groundwater sampler
design.
302
-------
t Master list of sample sequence numbers and sampling dates
by site
• One styrofoam ice chest.
Prior to taking a sample, the well should be flushed several
times. A premarked plastic sample bottle is placed inside the
device and the weighted section attached. The entire sampling
device is then lowered into the well (Figure 3). The sample
device is pulled up after the flow of air bubbles subsides. The
sample bottle is removed and securely capped.
In Phase I, only one 2-1 sample was taken from each well.
The samples were not acidified prior to shipment. In Phase II,
two 1-1 samples were obtained; in the field one sample
was treated with concentrated hydrochloric acid to pH <2 and the
other was untreated. Upon completion of sampling at a site, check:
• Sample Record Form to see that all samples and measure-
ments have been taken
t That all sample bottles have been properly marked and
accounted for
• That all observations, remarks or comments have been duly
recorded on the reverse side of the Sample Record Form.
Pneumatic Well Sampling
Groundwater samples will be obtained from each of the four
levels of the pneumatic wells. The materials required are:
• Sample bottles
• Gas regulator
t Compressor-vacuum pump
• Greater than 2.5-cm (1-in) crescent wrench to fasten
2-stage regulator to gas cylinder and crack, open pipe caps
• Shipping cartons for samples
• Individual site Sample Record Forms to record depth
measurements, checking off samples taken, and recording
comments: a map of the site showing general site layout
and locations of all wells is attached
• 30 5-m (100-ft) milar coated Stanley measuring tape with
several heavy washers attached to the end ring
• Clipboard
203
-------
• Acetone-base black marking pen
• Glass fiber tape
• Pocket knife
• One pair disposable rubber gloves
• Plastic bags (1- or 2-gal size)
• Shipping labels
t Special weighted PVC sampling tube
• Nitrogen gas cylinder.
As a general rule, the size of a gascylinder has been esti-
mated based on presumed needs and a size specified which should
be slightly in excess of that required for a complete round of
sampling while still being portable in the field. A "Q" size gas
cylinder is to be picked up at the beginning of a sampling round
and then returned to the supplier upon finishing that round of
sampling.
Field Sampling--
Sites using pneumatic ejection-type samplers all have column
posts with premarked tubing emerging from the column post side wal
Construction has been standardized such that the air and water
lines for each sampling device are arranged in descending order of
depth as indicated in Figure 4. Tubing for the uppermost probe,
level 1, is at the top and the deepest, level 4, at the bottom of
the column post. The air tubes by arbitrary convention are
located on the right side and sample discharge tubes on the left.
In case of damage to the exposed post and tubing, reconstruc-
tion of the unit and identification of tubes is possible by
carefully removing damaged pieces and observing the location of
tubes coming through a plastic plate set into the base of the
concrete slab. This plastic plate has four holes through which
a specific set of air and discharge tubes have been pulled through
The base plate is numbered from 1 to 4 to identify ground-
water levels. Extra tubing where available was placed in a simple
coil in the inside of the column post. This can be pulled up and
out in case of external damage to exposed tubing. Other sites
have merely used marked air and water lines taped together.
Markings are down near ground level inside the column posts.
The gas regulator should be carefully threaded onto the
nitrogen gas cylinder by hand to start the threading correctly.
304
-------
RD
•WELL
WEIGHTED
BOTTLE
SAMPLE
BOTTLE
USE NEW SAMPLE BOTTLE
AT EACH WELL
Figure 4. Sampling unit for liquid samples
305
-------
After having threaded on the gas regulator as much as possible by
hand, tighten with the wrench. To open the gas cylinder, first:
• Check to see that black needle valve is closed
a Open main gas cylinder valve
• Adjust pressure regulator valve to working pressure of
50 psig.
For those sites which do not have very deep wells, the
pressure regulator can be set to a lower pressure setting. This
can be estimated on the basis of approximately 0.7 cm (2.3 ft) of
water lift per unit psig. The tubing has a maximum design pressure
of approximately 60 psig. Exercise caution when using greater
pressures since excessive pressure may damage the sampling device
and render it useless for further sampling. The best gauge of
correct pressure setting is to base it on the rate at which sample
is discharged into sample bottle. Subsequent field procedure to
be used is:
• Connect the gas cylinder to the influent air hose.
• Crack the needle valve on the gas regulator to allow air
to pressurize the sample probe.
• Adjust pressure regulator discharge pressure-
• Flush well several times.
• Place discharge hose line into sample-collection container
After a full sample bottle has been collected, quickly
change bottles. Two 1-1 sample bottles will be taken of
each sample. One 1-1 sample bottle is acidified with
concentrated hydrochloric acid to pH <2%^and the other
bottle unacidified.
• Completely empty contents of each sample probe.
• Preferably before or immediately after filling, label each
bottle using black marking pen with the appropriate
identification described (with illustrations) on the
particular site. Sample Record Form: write out the
sample identification exactly as indicated on the Sample
Record Form. Do not use your own nomenclature-
• Repeat the procedure for remaining sample probes.
The following is presented as a troubleshooter's guide when
it is not possible to get a liquid sample using the conventional
procedure. The following conditions or symptoms may occur,in
306
-------
which case the followi
problem should be empl
a. Symptom:
Cause No . 1 :
Procedure:
Cause No. 2
Procedure:
b. Symptom:
Cause No. 1
Procedure:
Cause No. 2;
Procedure:
Cause No. 3
Procedure :
ng methods of rectifying or solving the
oyed:
Blows only air through water discharge line.
Bottom inlet plugged
Connect air hose line to vacuum connection
on compressor-vacuum 12-V pump. Tightly
clamp off water hose line. Draw vacuum
for 10 to 15 min. Repeat conventional
procedure. If some water blows up the line,
seal at bottom where inlet has broken.
Repeat procedure until full flow occurs.
If no change, pour water down the air line
to fill probe, pump out and repeat pro-
cedure .
Groundwater level below probe inlet
Nothing can be done.
Blows air after small quantity of water has
been air-lifted to surface.
Air-water house lines are mixed.
Change gas cylinder or compressor pump to
the water hose line.
If an approximately 1-gal quantity of
water is subsequently pumped to the surface,
fairly valid confirmation that the air and
water hose lines have been inadvertently
mixed. (However, all such p?obabilities
should have been corrected by this time.)
If it still blows air with no change,
see 1 .
Groundwater level just up to or slightly
into probe
Repeat pumping steps until complete sample
obtai ned.
Inlet partially blocked or very slow per-
colation into probe
See step 1 .
307
-------
c. Symptom: No water or air ejected from water line
Cause: Either the probe is sil ted-in.or the water
hose line is plugged
Procedure: Blow air down water hose line to suspend
silt in available water solution. Quickly
change to conventional procedure. If
partially successful, repeat to completely
evacuate silt load from probe until dis-
charge runs clear.
If still no flow, add water to probe and
pump out. Repeat procedure.
BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Sampling of water for bacteriological examination requires
that the sampling equipment and containers be disinfected prior
to collecting water. The materials required are:
• Sterile sample bottles (supplied by laboratory) - suffi-
cient quantity for 3 samples/well
• Disinfectant - pool chlorine, Clorox, or equivalent
t EPA Manual on Waterwell Construction (includes disinfec-
tion procedures)
• 3-5 empty 5-gal containers or equivalent
t Swimming pool chlorine check kit
• Gasoline pump w/<2 in I.D. hose
t Large plastic bags to encase pump and hose after disin-
fection
• Shipping boxes, styrofoam liners, labels
• Blue ice
• Disposable gloves
• Disposable paper cups for obtaining water samples for
chlorine testing
t Whirl-pak or small new plastic bags for placing sterilized
bottle cap inside while sampling.
308
-------
Field Sampling
The following procedures should be taken step-by-step:
• Obtain normal samples.
t Disinfect wel 1:
- Calculate and prepare in large containers sufficient
quantity (approximately 2x volume) of disinfectant
solution, taking into consideration concentration of
available disinfecting agent. Desired final concen-
tration to be 100 ppm or greater.
Pour some excess down internal sides of well casing
to disinfect inside casing walls. Make sure all
internal surfaces of casing have been wetted.
- Add inlet hose to container arid shove outlet hose
as far below water surface as possible.
Pump disinfectant into well.
- Repeat for remaining containers, taking special caution
not to let hose touch anything while transferring from
one container to another. If possible, recirculate
water in wel 1 , al 1 owi ng disinfecting solution to run
down external area of hose in well.
Note- Hose and pump are now disinfected. Carefully
— — place hose (inlet and outlet) into large
clastic bags while wearing disposable gloves.
These will be used the following day to remove
water from well and must not become recontam-
i nated.
• Let disinfectant stand for 24 hr.
24 hr previously.
. Start motor and pump well to obtain sample of water.
Restart pu.p and c.ll.ct thr.e s.jpl., fro. "Jh ..U
^e^uc* "•»"" "" ""«"
309
-------
of the cap nor the bottle. Place cottle under stream of
water and fill about 7/8 full. Screw on cap tightly. If
sample is to be used for withdrawing samples, make sure
it has been disinfected by soaking in chlorine solution
(100 ppm) overnight. Take necessary precautions to see
that sample does not become contaminated by using new
plastic gloves for handling. Store samples, rope, etc.,
in new plastic bag.
• Chill samples in ice water until shipment time.
• Pack bottles securely with sufficient blue ice to maintain
temperature at approximately 4 C and ship air freight to
laboratory.
• Record and report any difficulties in sampling while still
in field. It will do no good to anlyze these samples
unless all are maintained in a sterile condition.
GAS PROBE SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Gas samples will be obtained from probes placed in the in-
refuse well hole. Each probe is situated at a different depth
within the hole. The materials required are:
• 1/4 in I.D. rubber hose (surgical tubing is adequate),
2 to 6 in lengths
§ Sample bottle(s) - 250 ml (Corning No. 9500)
• Masking tape
• Rubber suction bulb, aspirator type
• One copy SCS Field Sampling Instructions
• Styrofoam-lined corrugated shipping cartons
• Several rolls of fiber-packing tape or duck tape
• Notebook for field notes
*Gas burettes are to be immersed in a solution of detergent and
water to remove residue soils or other foreign material. In-
solubles will be removed by immersing burette in acetone. Resi-
dues that might have remained will be removed by soaking burettes
in aqua regia. The burettes are then rinsed in distilled H70
and dried in the oven at 103 C for 30 minutes. The burettes are
removed and placed in the desiccators for 30 minutes. Upon
cooling, the stopcocks are greased with Apiezon N grease to
insure a tight seal. The burettes are then evacuated with a
vacuum pump just prior to shipment to the field.
310
-------
• Master list of sample sequence numbers and sampling dates
by si te .
Gas Sampli ng
Refer to Figure 5 while reading instructions. The procedure
i s as fol1ows :
• Mark sample bottles as shown in Figure 2-
• Remove rubber stopper from the exposed end of one gas
probe •
• Slip the end of one of the 6 in pieces of rubber hose
over the probe end-
• Slip the other end of the same rubber hose over one end
of the sample bottle
• Slip one end of the second piece of rubber hose over the
other end of the sample bottle.
• Slip the other end of the rubber hose onto the rubber
bulb .
t Open the sample bottle stopcock nearest the gas probe.
Note: The sample bottle has been evacuated to remove
any contaminants from the bottle. Thus, when the stop-
cock is opened, a brief hissing noise will be heard. This
is the sound of the vacuum being filled. If the hissing
sound is not heard, one of the stopcocks may have been
opened during transport or at some other time prior to
sample taking. Make a note of this fact and continue the
prescribed sampling procedure.
• Open the second stopcock-
• Beqin aspirating the rubber bulb to draw in gases within
the probe's area of influence. The number of squeezes
necessary varies with the probe depth. A rule of thumb:
one squeeze is required for each two ft of probe depth-
• When the appropriate number of squeezes have been taken,
close the stopcock nearest the rubber bulb-
§ Close the other stopcock-
311
-------
RUBBER HOSE
PLASTIC TUBE
SAMPLE
BOTTLE
BACKFILL
RUBBER HCSE
RUBBER BULB
Figure 5. Gas sampling schematic
312
-------
• Remove the sampling apparatus from the gas probe and
replace the rubber stopper (cap) on the gas probe end.
• Follow steps numbers 1-11 until a sample is obtained
from each of the gas probes.
SOIL AND REFUSE SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Soil and refuse samples will be obtained from well locations
during drilling and placement of the in-refuse well. The
materials required are:
• One copy Field Sampling Instruction Manual
t Styrofoam-1ined corrugated shipping cartons
• Adequate supply of commercially available polyethylene
bags
• Several black waterproof marking pens
• Sufficient "blue ice" for shipping
• Several roles of fiber-packing or duck tape
• Notebook
• Master list of sample sequence numbers and sampling dates
by site
• One 4 Ib hammer
• One shovel
• Core sampling device
• One tarp 8 ft x 8 ft.
Soil Permeability Sampling
Locate an area of the site where soil cover has been placed
over refuse for some time. With a shovel excavate the first inch
or so of soil to remove grass, weeds, and organic material _unti 1
the soil appears uniform in texture. Drive the sample device
(with hammer) to a depth of about 12 in Carefully excavate
around the sampler and remove it, seal both ends and place in a
doTble plas??cPbag. Seal bag and label with site designation.
Refuse Sampling from In-Refuse
^
313
-------
Place approximately one shovelful of refuse and/or sludge material
in a double plastic bag, seal and label properly.
Soil Sampling from In-Refuse Well
Three soil core samples will be taken from each site. The
first sample will be obtained from the bottom of the bore hole
at the refuse/soil interface. The second and third samples
will be taken half the distance to groundwater and at the soil/
groundwater interface, respectively. A split-tube or Shelby
tube sampler will be used depending on local well driller equip-
ment capabilities. Place about 1/3 Ib of soil sample in a double
plastic bag, sealed and labeled properly.
After the core samples are taken, the Sides and ends will
be sliced off and the center portion secured and placed in a
double plastic bag, sealed and labeled properly.
PRESERVATION AND SHIPMENT OF FIELD SAMPLES
Liquid, soil, and refuse or sludge samples will be preserved
by chilling in an ice chest packed with blue ice. Preparatory
to placing sample bottles into the chest or shipping carton,
check to insure that all sample bottles are properly labeled and
that caps are tightened down. Carefully pack the bottles
upright in the shipping container. Mark in large block print
THIS SIDE UP on all four sides.
It is particularly important that the gas sample bottles
must be wrapped with multilayers of paper or in packing sleeves
to prevent breakage and shipped in styrofoam-1ined corrugated
containers. It is preferable that the samples be sent to the
laboratory by air freight. The collective samples for each site
will be insured for $1,000.
314
-------
APPENDIX D
METHODS FOR SAMPLE PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS.
The following procedures were standardized for the prepara-
tion and analysis of sewage sludge, soil, leachate, and ground-
water samples received from the case study sites.
SAMPLE PREPARATION
Soils and Sludges
A sequential extraction, first with deionized water and then
with concentrated nitric acid, was used for soils and sludges.
The extraction procedure is described below:
t A representative sample of 75 g of soil or sludge as
received was placed in a previously sterilized mason
glass jar.
t 750 ml of sterilized deionized water were added.
• The contents were stirred for 30 min in a chrome-plated
mixer with sterilized blades.
• The slurry was allowed to settle.
• An aliquot of the supernatant was pipetted into prepared
microbiological tubes for determination of fecal coliform
and fecal streptococcus.
• A portion of the supernatant was preserved with several
ml of concentrated hydrochloric acid (pH <2) prior to
analysis for total organic carbon.
• Aliquots of the supernatant were pipetted separately for
the determinations of chemical oxygen demand, total
Kieldahl nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate, chloride, sulfate,
and water-soluble mercury. For colorimetric and turbidi-
metric methods, where turbidity interferes with the
determination, a portion of the supernatant was decanted
through a fluted filter equivalent to Whatman filter
paper No. 42.
315
-------
• An aliquot of the supernatant was concentrated and
analyzed for water-soluble metals.
• An aliquot of the residue was pipetted into a BOD bottle,
and analyzed for mercury.
• An equal volume of nitric acid was added to the soil or
sludge residue volume remaining in the jar (following
water extraction).
• A Teflon-coated stirring bar was placed in an agitating
mixer on a hot plate and stirred for approximately
90 min (without boiling).
• Sufficient deionized water was added to the contents to
make up to 750 ml.
• Appropriate blanks were prepared for each group of
determinations.
Leachate and Groundwater
Leachate and groundwater samples usually were brought back
to the laboratory within one to two days after they were collec-
ted. Analyses were commenced either immediately or within a
few days after sample preparation.
Phase I —
In Phase I the samples were not preserved when collected
nor filtered in the laboratory. Sample preparation included:
• A portion of the sample was pipetted and preserved with
hydrochloric acid (pH <2) for the analysis of total
organic carbon.
• The remaining portion was allowed to settle.
• An aliquot of the supernatant was pipetted into prepared
microbiological tubes for determination of fecal coliform
and fecal streptococcus.
i The sample was then shaken thoroughly and aliquots were
drawn for determination of pH, total solids, total
Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate, chloride, and
sulfate.
• An aliquot was pipetted into a BOD bottle and analyzed
for mercury.
• A large aliquot was taken and digested in concentrated
nitric acid by gently refluxing. This process was
repeated several times until a light-colored liquid
316
-------
residue formed. The residue was evaporated gently to
dryness, dissolved in 1:1 hydrochloric acid, and diluted
• with deionized water. The mixture was then filtered, and
the filtrate was analyzed for metals.
Phase II--
Two samples were collected from each sample point. One
sample was preserved with hydrochloric acid (pH <2) and the
other unacidified. Laboratory sample preparation included:
• All samples were filtered through 0.45y glass-fiber
filters before analysis.
• Sample preparation for contaminants other than metals
was the same as in Phase I, using unacidified samples.
• For metal analysis, the acidified samples were digested
with concentrated nitric and hydrochloric acids and
autoclaved at 121°C.
• Aliquots of the acidified samples were pipetted into BOD
bottles and analyzed for mercury.
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
All pH measurements were performed using an Orion Model 701
pH meter with glass electrode in combination with a saturated
calomel reference electrode. The pH meter was standardized
periodically under conditions of temperature and pH which were
as close as possible to those of the sample, using various
standard pH buffer solutions (pH 4, 7, and 10).
Total Sol i ds
The procedure used to determine percent solids was evapora-
tion at 180 C in an air convection oven. Standard Methods
(13th Edition, Section 148A, p. 288-289).
Total Organic Carbon
Total organic carbon was determined by the combustion-infra-
red method. Standard Methods (13th Edition. Section 138A, p. 257)
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical oxygen demand was determined using the dichromate
reflux method. Standard Methods (13th Edition, Section 220,
p. 495).
317
-------
Ammonia
Ammonia was analyzed by distillation procedure. Standard
Methods (13th Edition, Section 132, p. 222).
Nitrate
Nitrate was determined by the brucine sulfate procedure.
Standard Methods (13th Edition, Section 213C, p. 461).
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen was determined by the classic
Kjeldahl digestion procedure. Standard Methods (13th Edition,
Section 216, p. 469).
Chloride
Chloride was determined via the mercuric nitrate procedure.
Standard Methods (13th Edition, Section 112B, p. 97).
Metals (Calcium, Copper, Chromium, Lead, Iron, Cadmium. Zinc)
Metals were determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry
(AA) according to the techniques in the U.S. EPA Manual of Methods
for Chemical Analysis of Mater and Wastes, 1974, p. 78. In
Phase II, the PDCA extraction procedure was followed for lead
determination.
Mercury
Sample digestion and mercury analysis by flameless AA were
performed according to the EPA Manual of Methods, p. 118.
318
-------
APPENDIX E. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHASE II
TABLE 1A. ANALYTIC RESULTS FOR SITE 1 IN-REFUSE
AND ORIGINAL OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)
Sample
Date
In-Refuse
10/31/76
1/21/77
3/10/77
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Off-Site
10/31/76
1/21/77
3/10/77
Constituents*
Cd
Well
0.050
0.050
T
0.005
0.045
0.040
Well (OS-X)
__
Cr
0.25
0.12
—
0.04
0.11
0.11
#
--
0.010 <0.01
0.01
Cu
0.13
0.11
__
0.02
0.13
0.09
--
0.01
0.01
Fe
800.0
1100.0
--
235.0
930.0
6.0
—
7.1
8.3
Hg
0.0002
<0.0002
--
—
<0.0002
<0.0002
—
0.0020
0.0010
Ni
0.48
0.37
—
0.24
0.48
0.30
__
0.02
<0.01
Pb
0.060
0.700
--
0.140
1.280
0.680
__
0.090
Zn
1.2
32.0
—
3.2
95.0
66.0
— -
6.4
3.0
Cl
._
230
__
18
92
153
— _
70
52
so4
__
85
__
__
150
17
_ _
250
340
TOC
14470
— —
2600
10100
3780
14
8
Sp. Cond.
18000
__
17500,
6900
_ „ ,
1340
1080
*Specific conductance in ymhos/cm, all other constituent concentrations in ppm.
t-- Insufficient sample.
#Well was accidentally removed between the third and fourth samplings.
-------
TABLE IB. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 1 BACKGROUND WELL (PHASE
Constituents*
10/31/76
Chlorides
level 1 15
level 2 35
level 3 31
level 4 —i"
Sul fates
level 1 80
level 2 260
level 3 270
level 4
Total Organic Carbon
level 1 26
level 2 16
level 3 25
level 4
Specific Conductance
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Cadmium
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Chromium
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Copper
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Iron
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
0.001
0.003
0.006
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
--
0.01
0.02
0.03
— —
2.7
4.4
7.3
—
Sample
1/21/77
12
32
83
17
75
165
7
8
5
35
1300
1380
<0.001
<0.001
0.008
0.01
<0.01
0.01
—
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
—
61.0
1.5
44.0
—
Dates
3/10/77
6
13
23
128
17
40
260
260
4
3
5
12
34
41
94
98
0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
4.9
34.0
11.0
0.1
5/19/77
6
6
12
33
25
40
140
310
6
11
5
14
0.004
0.003
0.005
0.004
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
<0.01
0.03
0.08
<0.01
62.0
71.0
68.0
253.0
7/19/77
7
7
13
30
17
20
105
240
2
2
3
3
220
220
460
880
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
0.007
<0.01
<0.01
0.10
o.n
<0.01
<0.01
0.28
0.22
15.0
1.0
131 .0
251-0
II)
9/14/77
10
9
11
28
22
19
50
200
2
4
2
5
230
190
325
810
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
3.9
1.8
0 8
3.5
320
-------
:ABLE IB (continued)
Constituents*
Mercury
level
level
level
level
Nickel
1 eve!
level
1 eve!
level
1 pad
level
level
level
level
Zinc
level
level
level
level
1
2
3 '
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
10/31/76
0.
0.
< 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0002
0005
0002
t
02
06
12
020
040
060
0.14
0.25
0.36
Sample
1/21/77
0.0020
0.0020
0.0010
Dates
3/10/77 5/19/77
0.
0010
0.0008
0.0010
0.0010
0.07
0.01
0.18
—
0.070
<0.005
0.130
0.15
0.04
0.47
0.
0,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 0
.05
.03
.02
.08
.020
.070
.020
.005
.04
.18
.05
.01
0.0022
0.0026
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.09
0.08
0.13
0.14
0.020
0.190
0.210
0.110
0.28
0.43
0.56
3.70
7/19/77
<0,
<0,
<0 ,
<0,
<0
<0
0
0
0
<0
0
0
0
1
3
.0002
.0002
.0002
.0002
.01
.01
.06
.10
.005
.005
.098
.08
.06
.30
.80
9/14/77
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
0
<0
<0
0
0
0
0
.01
.01
.01
.01
.005
.010
.005
.005
.07
.08
.01
.07
Constituent concentrations in ppm.
T— Insufficient sample.
321
-------
TABLE 1C. CHLORIDE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates
10/31/76
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
25
29 .
__ t
34
32
40
35
30
27
29
54
30
34
29
57
31
30
29
57
34
31
31
35
1/21/77
131
24
—
--
28
17
31
29
—
--
27
—
—
12
65
52
38
—
56
—
37
—
3/10/77
6
16
—
28
329
21
21
27
--
26
17
15
2
< 2
24
< 2
13
3
5
24
13
6
20
33
5/19/77
11
15
43
5
10
24
26
—
--
8
28
42
43
30
44
<2
12
23
33
--
4
13
27
7/T9/77
6
15
28
5
10
26
24
5
21
7
27
36
24
26
27
<2
12
11
26
_.
6
-_
27
9/14/77
7
16
—
30
8
9
27
28
—
13
6
29
22
29
28
26
< 2
< 2
6
29
—
5
6
29
* Concentrations in ppm.
t— Insufficient sample.
322
-------
TABLE ID. SULFATE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR
FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Location
Sample Dates
10/31/76 1/21/77 3/10/77 5/19/77 7/19/77 9/14/77
Offsite Well No. 1
level 1 200
level 2 220.
level 3
level 4 224
40
100
6
15
20
35
115
290
30
100
250
24
66
195
Offsite Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
320
320
270
280
210
350
130
270
230
250
210
250
230
260
270
220
220
200
370
310
270
230
130
1
100
110
35
110
90
90
130
300
250
260
180
250
4
6
210
55
20
40
70
190
175
85
250
250
35
100
265
250
80
275
325
275
275
250
50
60
175
215
35
140
250
25
115
250
230
30
190
60
270
190
200
215
215
15
40
200
225
35
__
265
41
67
170
185
120
42
230
60
65
120
105
18
26
50
75
30
50
240
* Concentrations in ppm.
t — insufficient sample.
323
-------
TABLE IE. TQTAL ORGANIC CARBON ANALYTICAL
RESULTS FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
10/31/76
25
48
t
44
46
4
18
19
20
32
37
30
88
107
82
73
171
381
144
81
—
11
25
7
1/21/77
5
6
—
«. ••
7
4
4
3
—
—
5
•**
—
—
154
8
264
77
—
21
—
4
—
Sample
3/10/77
4
5
—
4
2
3
5
5
—
4
3
3
91
260
7
9
50
72
16
4
5
1
5
3
Dates
5/19/77
3
4
--
3
2
2
3
6
—
—
3
6
5
6
6
6
8
2
5
3
—
6
3
5
7/19/77
4
3
-—
4
4
3
2
3
3
3
2
4
5
4
4
3
—
5
—
4
9/14/77
i
i
X 1
^ 1
2
C
9
L.
0
o
1
5
3
2
4
3
4
8
3
.
— -»
3
3
3
* Concentrations in ppm.
+— Insufficient sample.
324
-------
TABLE IF . CADMIUM ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Off site Well No. I
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
10/31/76
<0.001
-------
TABLE 1G . CHROMIUM ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
10/31/76
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
-------
TABLE 1H. COPPER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
10/31/76
<0.01
<0.01
4-
<0.01
0.08
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
-------
TABLE 11 . IRON ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR
FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
10/31/76
1.50
<0.01
__ +
2.20
23.00
5.50
<0.01
0.09
0.04
-------
TABLE 1J. MERCURY ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
bamole Dates
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
10/31/76
0.0002
<0.0002X
1/21/77
0.0020
0.0005
3/10/77
0.0009
0.0004
5/19/77
<0.0002
<0.0002
7/19/77
<0.0002
<0.0002
9/14/77
<0.0002
0.0035
level 3
level 4
<0.0002
0.0005 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0095
Offsite Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
* Concentrations in ppm.
+ -- Insufficient sample.
0.0003
0.0002
<0.0002
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
0.0005
<0.0002
<0.0020
<0.0002
0.0002
<0.0002
0.0003
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0003
0.0003
<0.0002
<0.0002
. . —
0.0003
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0009
0.0007
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0002
— .
<0.0002
0.0006
0.0008
0.0006
0.0010
0.0010
0.0006
0.0006
0.0020
0.0020
0.0010
0.0004
0.0007
0.0005
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0004
0.0017
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0007
0.0004
0.0006
0.0005
0.0005
0.0010
0.0004
0.0002
0.0005
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
O.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
O.0002
O.0002
O.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0008
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0002
0.0047
0.0024
0.0072
0.0065
0.0033
O.0002
0.0014
O.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0018
0.0017
O.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
329
-------
TABLE IK. NICKEL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
OffsiteStell No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
10/31/76
<0.01
-------
TABLE 1L . LEAD ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
10/31/76
0.030
0.030
— t
0.040
0.020
0.050
0.010
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.050
0.020
<0.005
0.020
0.060
0.010
<0.005
<0-005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.210
0.210
1/21/77
<0.005
0.006
—
"
<0.005
<0.005
0.380
0.070
--
--
<0.005
— —
--
--
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
--
<0.005
<0.005
3/10/77
—
--
--
0.010
0.170
0.050
0.360
<0.005
—
0.020
0.030
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.009
<0.005
-------
TABLE 1M . "ZINC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Off site Well No.
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No.
level 1
level 2
level 3 .
level 4
Off site Well No.
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No.
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No.
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No.
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
10/31/76
1
0.08
0.23
— t
0.14
2
1.80
0.63
0.03
0.01
3
<0.01
0.11
0,35
0.13
4
0.03
0.06
0.11
0.17
5
0.05
0.16
0.05
0.01
6
0.04
<0.01
0.71
0.48
1/21/77
0.01
0.01
—
— ~
0.58
<0.01
0.87
0.04
--
_.
0..01
—
—
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
—
0.01
—
<0.01
..
~ ~
Sample
3/10/77
0.06
0.06
—
0.03
0.95
0.18
0.72
-------
TABLE IN. SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Off-Site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off -Site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off-Site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off-Site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off-Site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off -Site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
10/31/76 1/21/77
__t 44
55
— —
--
75
62
73
60
_ — — —
_ _ — —
58
--
_ .. — —
_ _ — —
_ _ — —
76
1120
54
70
1580
Sample
3/10/77
33
50
_ _
66
87
54
79
67
__
63
51
68
81
106
66
68
51
44
71
64
57
31
66
66
Dates
5/19/77 7/19/77
380
570
__ — —
920
300
480
1020
880
350
620
380
990
900
970
870
870
880
530
940
920
" 290
II 920
9/14/77
380
560
—
810
380
360
840
820
--
510
360
850
680
880
790
800
1060
660
810
840
280
320
820
* Specific conductance in ymhos/cm.
t— Insufficient sample.
333
-------
TABLE 2. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 2, PHASE II
GO
CO
•£»
Sample Date
Background
11/1/76
1/21/77
3/10/77
5/18/77
7/18/77
9/13/77
In-Refuse
11/1/76
1/21/77
3/10/77
5/18/77
7/18/77
9/13/77
Constituents*
Cd
Well
0.001
0.003
—
<0.001
<0.001
<0.002
Well
0.005
0.010
—
0.005
O.005
0.020
Deep Off-Site Well
11/1/76
1/21/77
3/10/77
5/18/77
7/18/77
9/13/77
0.007
<0.001
__
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
Cr
<0.01
<0.01
—
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.04
--
0.04
0.02
0.03
(OS-2)
0.01
<0.01
__
<0.01
0.01
0.01
Cu
<0.01
<0.01
--
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.03
—
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
—
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
Fe
0.42
0.94
__
0.59
1.20
0.76
5.50
1.90
--
1.20
1.50
1.70
4.40
2.10
__
1.96
1.10
1.10
Hg
<0.0002
0.0020
--
<0.0002
<0.0004
0.0004
<0.0002
<0.0002
—
<0.0002
0.0002
0.00025
0.0130
0.0040
__
0.0003
0.0005
0.0027
N1
<0.01
<0.01
--
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.16
—
--
0.20
0.12
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
_-
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Pb
0.130
0.019
—
0.019
0.014
0.037
1.400
0.150
—
0.240
0.440
0.370
1.500
0.075
_-
0.121
0.150
0.126
Zn
0.11
1.20
—
0.13
0.09
0.08
0.32
1.40
—
0.18
0.06
0.20
0.08
7.90
__
0.14
0.22
0.15
Cl
180
191
—
26
25
75
61 #
70
—
4
576
4
68
47
_-
9
43
15
S04
90
35
--
50
70
97
950
1250
--
1290
1400
723
160
160
__
270
230
76
TOC
89
10
--
3
2
12
520
451
—
346
318
148
99
52
__
13
16
19
Sp. Cond.
— t
190
--
--
1360
610
--
850
700
7500
4400
_ —
3000
250
--
2900
1160
*Spec1fic conductance In pmhos/cm, all other constituents concentrations in ppm.
''"-- Insufficient sample.
# Possible interference.
-------
oo
f*>
en
TABLE 3A. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 3
IN-REFUSE AND ORIGINAL OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)
Sample Date
In-Refuse
11/1/76
1/20/77
3/8/77
5/16/77
7/18/77
9/12/77
Off-Site
11/1/76
1/20/77
3/8/77
5/16/77
7/18/77
9/12/77
Constituents*
Cd
Well
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.005
<0.005
0.010
Well (OS-X)
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.007
0.015
0.002
Cr
0.12
0.46
0.07
0.06
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
<0.01
Cu
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.05
0.10
<0.12
0.28
<0.01
Fe
6.5
9.1
15.0
17.0
24.8
16.0
14.0
40.0
23.0
28.5
86.0
2.2
Hg
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0010
0.0003
0.0002
0.0002
0.0005
0.0002
0.0040
0.0005
0.0003
O.0002
Ni
0.02
0.30
0.28
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.10
0.15
0.13
0.10
0.21
0.02
Pb
0.150
0.065
0.470
0.240
0.140
0.090
0.090
0.120
0.270
1.900
0.310
0.037
Zn
0.16
1.80
0.41
0.65
<0.01
0.10
0.44
1.90
0.48
0.60
1.10
.09
Cl
12
26
30
<2
19
11
1
<2
1
<2
<2
<2
so4
20 #
4
12
30
70
33
50
20
30
30
30
25
TOC
2240
2028
1790
8
70
76
166
4
3
18
7
5
Sp. Cond.
__t
25000
24000
--
7500
8000
--
180
130
—
1500
1130
*Specific conductance in ymhos/cm, all other constituents concentrations in ppm.
•(•--Insufficient sample.
# Possible interference.
-------
TABLE 3B. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 3 BACKGROUND WELL (PHASE II)
Sample Dates
Constituents*
11/1/76
Chlorides
level 1 24
level 2 21
level 3 70
level 4 16
Sul fates
level 1 60
level 2 50
level 3 87
level 4 50
Total Organic Carbon
level 1 110
level 2 99
level 3
level 4 126
Specific Conductance
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Cadmium
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Chromium
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Copper
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Iron
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
111.0
<0.0
0.0
42.0
1/20/77
146
19
14
4
40
25
40
4
6
5
8
4
110
97
85
72
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
10.0
6.3
85.0
9.2
3/8/77
<2
<2
<2
25
20
17
16
15
9
87
88
2400
0.015
<0.001
0.003
—
0.06
<0.01
0.03
—
0.01
<0.01
0.04
—
280.0
6.1
60.0
—
5/16/77
<2
-------
TABLE 3B
(continued)
Constituent*
Mercury
level
level
level
level
Nickel
level
level
level
level
Lead
level
level
level
level
Zinc
level
level
level
level
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
11/1/76
0.0003
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.040
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.41
Sampl
1/20/77
<0.0002
0.0005
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.01
<0.01
0.12
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
0.047
<0.005
0.02
<0.01
0.29
0.01
e Dates
3/8/77 5/16/77
0.
0.
<0.
0.
0.
0.
—
0.
0.
0.
--
1.
<0.
0.
0030
0080
0002
f
61
01
48
250
010
080
40
01
33
0.
0.
<0.
<0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0003
0004
0002
0002
57
15
02
08
063
093
008
033
93
40
57
38
7/18/77
<0
<0
<0
<0
0
<0
0
<0
0
<0
0
<0
0
0
0
0
.0002
.0002
.0002
.0002
.22
.01
.02
.01
.180
.005
.015
.005
.78
.01
.05
.01
9/12/77
0
<0
-------
TABLE 3C . CHLORIDE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
11/1/76
—t
99
74
115
2
2
120
57
99
100
110
3600
100
58
95
88
97
—
96
36
110
63
90
84
1/20/77
100
96
98
•w
1510
< 2
38
58
< 2
140
94
142
27
33
119
94
82
86
126
24
88
52
83
79
Sample
3/8/77
1
1
< 2
"
< 2
< 2
< 2
< 2
< 2
< 2
< 2
3
4
3
v.
2
—
66
< 2
< 2
< 2
8
4
Dates
5/16/77
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
51
20
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
7/18/77
<2
<2
<2
• _>
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
"
<2
<2
<2
2
—
7
<2
<2
<2
2
3
9/12/77
<2
<2
<2
™ ™
<2
<2
<2
2
<2
<2
<2
"
4
4
2
15
27
12
5
<2
<2
<2
2
Concentrations in ppm.
t— Insufficient sample.
338
-------
TABLE 3D. SULFATE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
11/1/76
__t
240
160
» ~
25
25
25
30
200
200
210
200
140
110
140
125
130
130
80
125
80
150
130
1/20/77
175
225
160
__
1
83
50
45
8
180
160
100
50
60
115
165
115
125
110
75
45
85
160
125
3/8/77
150
170
125
•" ~
3
1
30
35
3
150
90
"
40
50
75
™ ~
50
115
50
55
85
140
85
5/16/77
110
100
85
" ~
3
1
110
160
45
90
85
"
45
45
50
""
55
150
65
40
30
85
105
100
7/18/77
90
125
70
— ™
2
1
45
45
15
65
65
40
35
50
"
60
40
4
30
35
85
85
9/12/77
61
100
58
~ —
3
1
113
45
33
65
72
30
30
35
33
cc
bo
34
i 7
1 /
28
40
61
66
* Concentrations in ppm.
t— Insufficient sample.
339
-------
TABLE 3E. TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
11/1/76
__t
114
55
176
158
35
68
94
70
46
** ™
35
30
167
14
14
135
181
18
32
106
9
1/20/77
38
42
9
35
34
10
11
185
61
26
30
6
8
3
4
1
5
2
2
19
6
6
7
Sample
3/8/77
5
3
6
27
14
16
8
97
24
8
5
6
8
8
4
4
4
3
2
5
Dates
5/16/77
11
9
8
24
26
7
8
19
19
12
7
6
7
10
7
9
15
13
9
12
7/18/77
9
8
3
17
24
6
5
39
26
7
6
6
4
5
4
4
6
9/12/77
3
3
4
22
23
3
5
31
20
•3
2
3
3
4
2
A
•3
O
* Concentrations in ppm.
i"-- Insufficient sample.
340
-------
TABLE 3F . CADMIUM ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates
11/1/76
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
-------
TABLE 3G . CHROMIUM ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
1 eve! 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
11/1/76
__t
<0.01
0.05
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
~~
0.04
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.24
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
1/20/77
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
"
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
-------
TABLE 3H . COPPER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
11/1/76
__ t
<0.01
0.33
0.16
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
— —
0.33
0.21
0.08
<0.01
0.26
0.37
0.22
0.16
0.28
<0.01
0.02
0.04
1/20/77
<0.01
0.10
<0.01
--
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
0.24
0.11
0.06
0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
Sample
3/8/77
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
--
<0.01
<0.01
0.14
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
<0.01
™" —
0.12
<0.01
0.03
"
0.04
<0.01
0.22
<0.01
0.03
0.16
<0.01
Dates
5/16/77
<0.01
0.10
0.12
--
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
-------
TABLE 31 . IRON ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
11/1/76
— t
2.9
140.0
44.0
5.3
1.4
0.03
0.1
84.0
5.9
0.5
...»
120.0
120.0
140.0
1.5
83.0
230.0
81.0
105.0
83.0
420.0
13.0
26.0
1/20/77
0.3
120.0
27.0
-—
8.2
0.5
3.7
5.5
3.5
38.0
270.0
160.0
3.3
66.0
160.0
<0.01
0.3
82.0
40.0
60.0
9.7
6.6
16.0
1.4
3/8/77
4.6
16.0
6.4
— ~
31.0
13.0
180.0
9.2
57.0
61.0
220.0
— —
69.0
5.3
23.0
—
28.0
—
0.02
110.0
0.3
44.0
85.0
2.5
5/16/77
8.2
176.0
152.0
— —
31.0
29.0
88.0
35.0
409.0
284.0
291.0
125.0
109.0
203.0
186.0
144.0
81.0
66.0
246.0
106.0
186.0
7/18/77
8.9
7.6
32
__
31.0
28.0
15.0
4.7
49.0
17.0
231.0
—
4.5
36-0
96-0
59.0
347.0
56.0
258.0
7.8
30.0
80.0
210.0
9/12/77
6.9
6.9
7.1
— —
49.0
32.0
3.7
1.9
91.0
41 .0
32.0
2.2
3.9
5.6
—
n.o
279.0
78.0
114.0
5.4
264.0
90.0
m.o
Concentration in ppm.
t~ Insufficient sample.
344
-------
TABLE 3J . MERCURY ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
11/1/76
__ t
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0005
1/20/77
<0.0002
<0.0002
0. 0020
3/8/77
0.0020
0.0020
0.0030
Dates
5/16/77
o'
0.
0002
0005
,0003
7/18/77
0.0008
<0.0002
<0.0002
9/12/77
<0.
-------
TABLE 3K . NICKEL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
11/1/76
__ t
<0.01
0.20
0.15
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.24
0.16
0.24
<0.01
0.22
0.49
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.47
0.03
0.05
1/20/77
-------
TABLE 3L. LEAD ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
:
Sample Dates
n/i/76
Off site
level
level
level
level
Off site
level
level
level
level
Off site
level
level
level
level
Off site
level
level
level
level
Off site
level
level
level
level
Off site
level
level
level
level
Well No. I
1
2
3
4
Well No. 2
1
2
3
4
Well No. 3
1
2
3
4
Well No. 4
1
2
3
4
Well No. 5
1
2
3
4
Well No. 6
1
2
3
4
-------
TABLE 3M . ZINC ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR
FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Offsite Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
11/1/76
_.t
<0.01
1.70
0.54
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.96
0.08
0.05
—_
1.10
0.79
0.91
0.01
1.00
1.10
0.88
0.95
0.80
1.20
0.14
0.23
1/20/77
0.07
0.85
0.12
~
0.01
0.01
0.03 •
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.77
0.43
0.05
0.22
0.57
0.01
0.01
0.70
0.28
0.71
0.06
0.19
0.17
0.02
Sample
3/8/77
0.03
0.15
0.04
—
0.10
0.03
0.92
0.10
0.09
0.37
0.98
—
0.62
0.07
0.17
—
0.21
-_
0.02
1.10
0.01
0.21
0.63
0.04
Dates
5/16/77
0.73
1.40
0.73
~—
1.50
1.40
0.62
0.26
1.00
1.20
1.60
—
0.56
0.55
1.10
—
0.90
__
0.91
0.31
0.50
0.87
1.30
0.91
7/18/77
0.07
0.03
0.17
_ .
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.01
0.03
0.03
1.00
__
0.07
0.20
0.53
—
0.49
2.40
0.64
1.20
0.12
0.15
1.70
1.00
9/12/77
0.03
0.10
0.02
~"~
1.90
0.04
0.01
0.05
0.21
0.17
0.17
— —
0.10
0.14
0.09
—
0.08
1.60
0.95
0.85
0.04
0.86
3.20
0.44
* Concentrations in ppm.
i" — Insufficient sample.
348
-------
TABLE 3N. SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Off-Site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off-Site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off-Site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off -Site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off-Site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off-Site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
11/1/76 1/20/77
— t 1420
1120
1240
--
10000
1400
83
90
2000
1260
1200
1540
62
68
1000
83
85
78
470
64
1120
82
1100
1200
-
Sample Dates
3/8/77 5/16/77
1040
1000
97
__ — —
1700
1500
84
80
2000
1340
1060
"
54
55
81
™" """
75
73
60
95
95
1020
88
7/18/77
950
950
980
""
1320
2150
930
900
1800
1450
1200
600
600
600
780
670
600
1120
1080
1100
980
9/12/77
880
920
950
1310
2150
830
890
1320
1230
1040
500
385
610
470
670
540
360
1040
1020
1030
900
=
*Specific conductance in ymhos/cm.
t--Insufficient sample.
349
-------
TABLE 4. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 4, PHASE II
co
en
o
Constituents*
Sample Date
Cd
Background Well
11/23/76 <0.001
1/19/77 0.001
3/7/77 0.001
5/21/77 <0.001
7/21/77 <0.001
9/16/77 <0.001
In-Refuse Well
11/23/76 0.010
1/19/77 <0.005
3/7/77 0.005
5/21/77 0.005
7/21/77 <0.005
9/16/77 <0.005
Shallow Off-Site Wei
11/23/76 0.001
1/19/77 0.002
3/7/77 0.003
5/21/77 0.002
7/21/77 0.001-
9/16/77 0.003
Cr
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
0.85
0.11
0.14
0.14
0.11
i (os-i;
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
Cu
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.03
)
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Fe
3.20
0.26
<0.01
0.04
0.07
0.90
13.00
1.50
0.80
0.21
20.00
13.00
1.60
3.30
0.27
0.07
0.06
0.45
Hg
O.0002
0.0007
0.0003
<0.0002
0.0030
0.0190
<0.0002
0.0005
0.0002
<0.0002
0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0020
<0.0002
0.0010
0.0004
0.0007
Ni
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
-------
TABLE 5. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 5, PHASE II
co
en
Sample Date
Background
11/15/76
1/21/77
4/1/77
5/19/77
8/1/77
9/21/77
Constituents*
Cd
Well
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Cr
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Cu
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
Fe
4.40
0.82
2.60
0.97
0.37
0.53
Hg
<0.0002
0.0010
0.0005
<0.0002
0.0002
0.0041
Ni
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Pb
0.260
0.010
0.010
<0.005
<0.005
0.005
Zn
0.09
<0.01
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.41
Cl
37
10
9
11
13
21
S04
9
145
1
1
2
1
TOC
30
24
11
8
4
1
Sp. Cond.
130
__
86
120
Off-Site Well (OS-1)
11/15/76
1/21/77
4/1/77
5/19/77
8/1/77
9/21/77
0.005
0.009
0.010
0.004
0.008
0.001
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.06
<0.01
0.19
0.55
0.41
0.27
0.37
0.04
65.00
230.00
130.00
80.00
110.00
28.00
<0.0002
0.0010
0.0003
< 0.0002
0.0004
0.0005
0.04
0.08
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.01
0.040
0.100
0.040
0.031
0.074
0.005
0.07
0.13
0.18
0.14
0.21
0.11
61
32
33
27
41
33
14
130
23
32
50
35
23
21
9
5
7
5
500
— —
-._
560
— _
660
Specific conductance in ^mhos/cm, all other constituents concentrations in ppm.
"-- Insufficient sample.
-------
TABLE 6. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 6, PHASE II
CO
en
ro
Sample Da
te
Cd Cr
Constituents*
Cu
Fe
Hg
N1
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Sp. Cond.
Background Well
11/10/76
1/10/77
3/30/77
5/17/77
7/26/77
9/16/77
Off -Site
11/10/76
1/10/77
3/30/77
5/17/77
7/26/77
9/16/77
Off -Site
11/10/76
1/10/77
3/30/77
5/17/77
7/26/77
9/16/77
Off -Site
11/10/76
1/10/77
3/30/77
5/17/77
7/26/77
9/16/77
<0.001 <0.01
<0.001 <0.01
<0.001 <0.01
<0.001 <0.01
< 0.001 <0.01
0.001 <0.01
Well No. 3 Level
<0.001 <0.01
—
—
-------
TABLE 6. (continued)
co
Sample Dat
Off-Site
11/10/76
1/10/77
3/30/77
5/17/77
7/26/77
9/16/77
Off-Site
11/10/76
1/10/77
3/30/77
5/17/77
7/26/77
9/16/77
,u
Cd
Well No. 1
<0.001
<0.001
__
__
0.004
--
Well No. 2
__
--
<0.001
—
<0.001
0.002
Constituents
Cr
(OS-1)
<0.01
<0.01
--
—
0.01
--
(OS-2)
—
--
<0.01
--
<0.01
<0.01
Cu
<0.01
<0.01
--
--
0.01
--
__
—
<0.01
--
<0.01
<0.01
Fe
1.50
0.12
--
--
0.03
--
__
—
0.09
--
0.11
0.21
Hg
0.0003
<0.0002
--
--
0.0005
—
__
—
0.0002
—
0.0004
<0.0002
Nl
0.02
<0.01
--
__
0.01
—
__
<0.01
-.
<0.01
<0.01
Pb
0.030
0.026
--
--
0.020
--
_ „
__
<0.005
__
<0.005
<0.005
Zn
0.01
0.12
--
--
0.02
--
,
__
0.07
__
0.02
0.08
Cl
27
5
__
__
__
—
_ _
— -
3
__
6
4
so4
4
2
__
_-
_-
--
_ _
_ _
3
__
4
3
TOC Sp. Cond.
3 55
1
—
—
-._ __
—
— i — — —
— — — -
1 41
—
1 44
2
*Specific conductance in umhos/cm, all other constituents concentrations in ppm.
— Insufficient sample.
-------
CO
en
TABLE 7. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 7, PHASE II
Sample 'Date
Background
11/12/76
1/11/77
3/31/77
5/18/77
7/26/77
9/19/77
In-Refuse
11/12/76
1/11/77
3/31/77
5/18/77
**/ i +* f • •
7/26/77
9/19/77
Constituents*
Cd
Well
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Well
<0.001
0.010
<0.005
0.010
<0.005
0.005
Cr
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.12
0.08
<0.01
<0.08
0.15
Cu
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.05
Fe
6.20
1.10
5.30
0.69
3.30
4.70
1.60
9.40
4.70
6.00
2.70
7.80
Hg
<0.0002
0.0006
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0002
0.0011
0.0002
0. 0008
Ni
0.02
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.05
0.11
0.12
0.15
Pb
0.020
<0.005
0.007
<0.005
<0.005
0.008
0.005
0.060
0.050
0.020
0.250
0.040
Zn
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.19
0.26
0.14
0.06
0.08
0.15
Cl
14
8
3
4
5
4
36
5
3
3
26
423
S04
9
10
8
8
10
8
1
1
6
10
15
1
TOC
225
8
2
4
2
1
184
78
395
69
59
94
Sp. Cond.
57+
__t
__
250
--
240
4115
--
_ _
4400
--
10000
Garage Water Well
11/12/76 <0.001
<0.01 <0.01
0.25 <0.0002 <0.01 0.005 2.30
28
10
*Specific conductance in pmhos/cm, all other constituents concentrations in ppm.
'''-- Insufficient sample.
-------
TABLE 7. (continued)
OJ
en
en
Sample Da
Off-Site
11/12/76
1/11/77
3/31/77
5/18/77
7/26/77
9/19/77
Off-Site
11/12/76
1/11/77
3/31/77
> 5/18/77
} 7/26/77
9/19/77
Off-Site
11/12/76
1/11/77
3/31/77
5/18/77
7/26/77
9/19/77
i It;
Cd
Well No. 1
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
Well No. 2
0.001
O.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.002
0.001
Well No. 3
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
Constituents
Cr
(OS-1)
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
(OS-2)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
(OS-3)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
Cu
0.01
0.03
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
0.10
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.01
<0.01
0.16
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Fe
12.0
14.0
9.6
5.0
14.0
26.0
1.7
3.4
3.0
1.6
3.6
16.0
6.3
6.8
1.2
2.1
3.9
3.1
Hg
0.0003
0.0007
0.0040
<0.0002
<0.0011
• 0.0008
<0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0007
0.0004
0.0007
0.0004
<0.0002
0.0014
0.0003
Ni
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.01
<0.01
<0.02
0.02
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.03
Pb
0.050
0.064
0.040
<0.005
<0.047
0.033
0.010
<0.005
0.008
<0.005
<0.005
0.021
0.005
0.009
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
*
Zn
0.08
0.29
0.18
0.01
0.05
0.13
0.23
0.12
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.14
0.02
0.14
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.09
Cl
171
42
78
209
26
13
108
52
58
79
193
26
124
66
52
60
117
140
S04
9
10
9
7
1
2
6
8
4
1
1
1
6
10
8
9
10
8
TOC
44
16
8
26
16
10
19
17
9
17
7
8
39
5
3
5
6
3
Sp. Cond
635
--t
--
1200
—
1500
555
--
—
680
—
2400
740
--
--
730
--
1000
*Specific conductance in ymhos/cm, all other constituents concentrations in ppm.
-t~-- Insufficient sample.
-------
TABLE 8. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 8, PHASE II
OJ
in
Sample Date
Constituents*
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni Pb
Zn
Cl
S04
TOC
Sp. Cond.
Background Well
11/11/76
1/12/77
3/30/77
5/18/77
7/26/77
9/19/77
In-Refuse
11/11/76
1/12/77
' 3/30/77
5/18/77
9/18/77
Original
11/11/76
1/12/77
3/30/77
5/18/77
7/27/77
9/18/77
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
-------
TABLE 8. (continued)
Sample Date
Cd
Constituents
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
*
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Sp. Cond.
Shallow Off-Site Well (OS-1)
11/11/76 0.003
1/12/77 <0.001
3/30/77 <0.001
5/18/77 <0.001
7/27/77 <0.001
9/18/77 <0.001
Deep Off-Site Well
11/11/76 0.001
1/12/77 <0.001
3/30/77 <0.001
5/18/77 <0.001
7/27/77 <0.001
9/18/77 <0.001
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
(OS-3)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.04
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
94.00
1.20
1.80
0.82
18.00
0.52
1.10
24.00
0.35
30.00
23.00
65.00
<0.0002
0.0006
0.0013
0.0002
<0.0002
0.0018
0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0019
0.07
<0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.16
0.04
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.090
O.005
0.005
O.005
<0.005
<0.005
O.005
0.009
0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.06
0.39
0.17
0.14
0.19
0.07
0.04
0.13
O.05
0.07
0.04
0.03
32
11
11
8
17
17
41
12
<2
<2
4
<2
5
3
<1
<1
3
1
260
50
37
24
13
1
27
18
9
14
13
9
688
225
268
191
184
31
1060
-t
--
1400
--
340
1165
__
--
1000
--
1000
Specific conductance in ymhos/cm, all other constituents conentrations in ppm.
'"-- Insufficient sample.
-------
APPENDIX F
NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Maximum Contaml nan-t Levels for Inorganic Chemicals
Contaminant Level (mg/1) Contaminant Level (mg/1)
Arsenic 0.05 Lead 0.05
Barium 1. Mercury 0.002
Cadmium 0.010 Nitrate-N 10
Chromium 0.05 Selenium 0.01
Silver 0.05
Fluorides - When the annual average of the maximum daily air
temperatures for the location in which the public water system
is situated is the following, the corresponding concentration
of fluoride shall not be exceeded:
Temperature (in
degrees F) (degrees C) Level (mg/1)
50.0-53.7 10.0-12.0 2.4
53.8-58.3 12.1-14.6 2.2
58.4-63.8 14.7-17.6 2.0
63.9-70.6 17.7-21.4 1.8
70.7-79.2 21.5-26.2 1.6
79.3-90.5 26.3-32.5 1.4
Maximum Contaminant Levels for Organic Chemicals
The maximum contaminant level for the total concentration of
organic chemicals is 0.7 mg/1.
Maximum Contaminant Levels for Pesticides
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Level (mg/1)
Endrin 0.0002
Lindane 0.004
Methoxychlor 0.1
Toxaphene 0.005
358
-------
Chlorophenoxys Level (mg/1)
2,4-0 0.1
2,4,5-TP Silvex 0.01
Maximum Microbiological Contaminant Levels
Two methods may be used:
(1) When membrane filter technique is used, coliform densities
shall not exceed one per 100 milliliters as arithmetic mean
of all samples examined per month and either
• Four per 100 milliliters in more than one standard
sample when less than 20 are examined per month; or
• Four per 100 milliliters in more than five percent
of the standard samples when 20 or more are examined
per month.
(2)(a) When fermentation tube method is used and 10 milliliter
standard portions, coliforms shall not be present in more than
10 percent of the portions in any month; and either
o Three or more portions in one sample when less than
20 samples are examined per month; or
o Three or more portions in more than five percent of
the samples if 20 or more samples are examined per
month.
(b) When fermentation tube method i.s used and 100 ml Hi liter
standard portions, coliforms shall not be present in more than
60 percent of the portions in any month; and either
o Five or more portions in more than one sample when
less than five samples are examined; or
o Five or more portions in more than 20 percent of
samples when five samples or more are examined.
Maximum Contaminant Level of Turbidity
359
-------
turbidity units may be allowed if supplier can demonstrate
to State that higher turbidity does not:
o Interfere with disinfection;
« Prevent maintenance of an effective disinfectant
agent through the distribution system; and
« Interfere with microbiological determinations.
*Secondary drinking water standards for chloride and sulfate
are 250 mg/1, and for copper and zinc are 1 and 5 mg/1,
respectively. The 1962 USPHS drinking water standard for
iron is 0.3 mg/1.
360
------- |