-------
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
-------