Prepujbh'catton issue for EPA libraries
                   and State Solid Waste Management Agencies
                           SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL

              OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE

                          Environmental  Assessment
    This report (SW-167c) by R. J. Lofy, H-T Phung, R. P. Stearns, and J. J. Walsh
describes work performed for the Office of Solid Waste under contract no. 68-01-4166.
             The report is reproduced as received from the contractor,
              and the findings should be attributed to the contractor
                      and not to the Office of Solid Waste.


                       Copies will be available from the
                    . National Technical Information Service
                        U.S. Department of Commerce
                          Springfield, Virginia  22161
                U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                   1978

-------
     This report was prepared by SCS Engineers, Long Beach, California,
under contract no. 68-01-4166.

     Publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of commercial products constitute endorsement by the
U.S. Government.

     An environmental protection publication (SW-167c) in the solid
waste management series.

-------
                              FOREWORD


     A major concern in any solid waste management system is
the disposal of wastewater treatment sludge.  The quantities
of sludge to be disposed of are increasing and will continue
to increase with the implementation of more stringent Federal
water quality standards and best practicable treatment
technology requirements.  Currently 5.5 million dry tons of
wastewater sludge are generated annually, and this quantity
is expected to more than double by 1983.

     Approximately 50 percent of the land disposal sites
accepting residential and commercial wastes in this country
also accept wastewater treatment plant sludge.  An additional,
but unknown, number of land disposal sites are specifically
designed for wastewater treatment sludge only.

     In order to assess the environmental effect of these sludge
landfilling practices, especially on groundwater quality, the
Office of Solid Waste awarded a contract to SCS Engineers.  The
study was conducted in two phases: Phase I was designed to
detect the presence or absence of leachate-contaminated groundwater
in the immediate vicinity of the disposal sites.  The results of
the Phase I study were published in an interim report (SW-547)
September 1977.

     During the Phase II study a more intensive monitoring
program was initiated in order to substantiate the observed
trends in Phase I, evaluate changes in groundwater quality as
influenced by disposal operations, predict possible future
damage to the aquifer in the area, and to assess attenuation
mechanism(s) in the soil near the landfill.  The results of the
Phase II study are presented in this report.
                                111

-------
                           CONTENTS
Foreword	iii
Contents	   iv
Figures	   vi
Tables  	xiii
Summary and Findings	xvi

   1.  Introduction 	  1
            Description of the Problem	1
            Project Description 	  1
            Report Organization 	  4
   2.  Site Selection Procedures	6
            Site Selection Criteria  	  6
            Approach to Site Selection	7
            Results of Site Investigations	9
   3.  Description of Case Study Sites	11
            Location	11
            Climate	11
            Ownership and Operation	14
            Sludge Description	14
            Groundwater Depth	14
            Surface and Subsurface Soils	22
   4.  Field Instrumentation and Monitoring Program .  .  .  .25
            Introduction	-	25
            Geological Survey	25
            Well Installations	26
            Field Sampling	45
            Chemical Analysis	45
            Analytical Quality Control	47
   5.  Special  Control Volume Analyses	49
            Approach	49
            Modeling	51
            Calculations	61
   6.  Data Evaluation	66
            Introduction	66
            Site 1	67
            Site 2	137
            Site 3	150
            Site 4	225
            Site 5	237
            Site 6	247
            Site 7	259
            Site 8	275
                              IV

-------
CONTENTS (Continued)


References	290
Appendi ces

   A.  Gas probe and monitoring well placement procedures  .291
   B.  Groundwater readings from monitoring wells  ....  .296
   C.  Field sampling instruction manual	298
   D.  Methods for sample preparation and analysis	315
   E.  Analytical results for Phase II	319
   F.  National primary drinking water standards	358
                               v

-------
                             FIGURES

Number
   1     Locations of monitoring wells at site 1	30
   2    Locations of monitoring wells at site 2	31
   3    Locations of monitoring wells at site 3	32
   4    Locations of monitoring wells at site 4	33
   5    Locations of monitoring wells at site 5	34
   6    Locations of monitoring wells at site 6	35
   7    Locations of monitoring wells at site 7	36
   8    Locations of monitoring wells at site 8	37
   9    Typical background well construction	38
  10    Typical in-refuse well construction	40
  11    Typical downstream well construction	41
  12    Off-site well  layout  for Sites  1 and  3	42
  13    Typical plume well construction with  pneumatic
             ejector samplers	44
  14    Illustration of field well  layout	50
  15    Control volume for sites 1  and  3	52
  16    Refraction of streamlines across a boundary of
             different permeabilities   	 55
  17    Direction of flow vectors and plan view of
             reoriented control volume  	 59
  18    Changes in concentration (a) and hydraulic
             gradient  (b) for OS well no.  i,  level j  ... 62

-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number                                                    Page

  19    Concentration isopleth diagram (a)  and
             partitioning of control  volume face  into
             subareas (b)	63

  20    Cl levels in groundwater from six off-site  wells
             (site 1) .  .  .  . •	76

  21    $04 levels in groundwater from six  off-site
             wells (site 1)	78

  22    TOC levels in groundwater from six  off-site
             wells (site 1)	80

  23    Fe levels in groundwater from six off-site
             wells (site 1)	82

  24    Pb levels in groundwater from six off-site
             wells (site 1)	84

  25    Zn levels in groundwater from six off-site
             wells (site 1)	86

  26    Hg levels in groundwater from six off-site
             wells (site 1)	38

  27    Cl , $04, and TOC levels in groundwater  and
             leachate (site  1)	92

  28    Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater and
             leachate (site  1).  .  y.	93

  29    Hg levels in groundwater and leachate (site 1)...  . 94

  30    Directions of groundwater flow in aquifer
             layer of site 1	98

  31    Inlet section of site 1 (perpendicular  to
             x-direction)	100

  32    Outlet section of site 1 (perpendicular to
             x-direction) 	  101

  33a   Site 1 iron concentration isopleths for line 1   .  109

  33b   Site 1 iron concentration isopleths for line 2   .  110

  34a   Site 1 lead concentration isopleths for line 1     111

                                vii...

-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
                                                          Paqe
  34b   Site 1 lead concentration isopleths for line 2.  .  .112
  35a   Site 1 mercury concentration isopleths for
             line 1	113
  35b   Site 1 mercury concentration isopleths for
             line 2	114
  36a   Site 1 cadmium concentration isopleths for
             line 1	115
  36b   Site 1 cadmium concentration isopleths for
             line 2	•	116
  37a   Site 1 chromium concentration isopleths for
             line 1.  . ;	117
  37b   Site 1 chromium concentration isopleths for
             line 2	118
  38a   Site 1 copper concentration isopleths for
             line 1	119
  38b   Site 1 copper concentration isopleths for
             line 2	120
  39a   Site 1 nickel concentration isopleths for
             line 1	;	121
  39b   Site 1 nickel concentration isopleths for
             line 2	122
  40a   Site 1 zinc concentration isopleths for
             line 1	123
  40b   Site 1 zinc concentration isopleths for
             line 2	124
  41a   Site 1 chloride concentration isopleths for
             line 1	125
  41b   Site 1 chloride concentration isopleths for
             line 2	126
  42a   Site  1 sulfate concentration  isopleths for
              line  1	127
                                Vlll

-------
FIGURES (continued)


Number                                                    Page

  42b   Site 1  sulfate concentration isopleths  for
             line 2	128

  43a   Site 1  TOC concentration isopleths for
             line 1	129

  43b   Site 1  TOC concentration isopleths for
             line 2	130

  44a   Site 1  specific conductance isopleths for
             line 1	131

  44b   Site 1  specific conductance isopleths for
             line 2	132

  45    Fe, Pb, and  Zn levels in groundwater (Site 2)^ _  _ 146

  46    Cl , S04, and TOC levels in groundwater (Site 2)_  _ 147

  47    Configuration of water table, groundwater flow
             direction, and new special control volume
             of site 3	159

  48    Cl  levels in groundwater from six off-site
             wells  (site 3)	160

  49    SO/, levels  in groundwater from six off-site
           4  wells  (site 3).	*	162

  50    TOC levels  in groundwater from six off-site
             wells  (site 3).	164

  51    Fe  levels in groundwater from six off-site
             wells  (site 3).	166

  52    Pb  levels in groundwater from six off-site
             wells  (site 3\	168

  53    Zn  levels in groundwater from six off-site
             wells  (site 3)	170

  54    Hg  levels in groundwater from six off-site
             wells  (site 3)	172

  55    Cl , S04,  and TOC levels  in  groundwater and
             leachate  (site  3)	 175
                                IX

-------
FIGURES (continued)





Number
56

57
58
59
60
61
62a
62b
63a
63b
64a

64b

65a

65b

66a

66b

67a

67b

68a

Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater and
leachate (site 3) 	
Hg levels in groundwater and leachate (site 3). .
Vertical inlet section of site 3. 	
Vertical section E-E1 of site 3 (see Figure 47).
Horizontal inlet section of site 3. 	
Horizontal outlet section of site 3. 	
Site 3 iron concentration isopleths for line 1. .
Site 3 iron concentration isopleths for line 2. m
Site 3 lead concentration isopleths for line 1. .
Site 3 lead concentration isopleths for line 2. .
Site 3 mercury concentration isopleths for
line 1 	
Site 3 mercury concentration isopleths for
line 2 	
Site 3 cadmium concentration isopleths for
line 1 	
Site 3 cadmium concentration isopleths for
line 2 	
Site 3 chromium concentration isopleths for
line 1 	
Site 3 chromium concentration isopleths for
line 2 	
Site 3 copper concentration isopleths for
line 1 	
Site 3 copper concentration isopleths for
line 2 	
Site 3 nickel concentration isopleths for
1 ine 1 	

176
.177
180
.183
191
192
.196
.197
.198
.199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

-------
FIGURES
Number
68b
69a
69b
70a
70b
71a
71b
72a
72b
73a
73b
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
(continued)

Site 3 nickel concentration isopleths for
1 i n e 2 	
Site 3 zinc concentration isopleths for
1 ine 1 	
Site 3 zinc concentration isopleths for
1 i ne 2 	
Site 3 chloride concentration isopleths for
line! 	
Site 3 chloride concentration isopleths for
line 2
Site 3 sulfate concentration isopleths for
Site 3 sulfate concentration isopleths for
1 i n e 2 . 	
Site 3 TOC concentration isopleths for line 1. .
Site 3 TOC concentration isopleths for line 2. .
Site 3 specific conductance isopleths for
line!. 	
Site 3 specific conductance isopleths for
1 ine 2. . 	
Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater (Site 4). .
Cl , S04, and TOC levels in groundwater (Site 4).
Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater (Site 5). .
Cl , 504, and TOC levels in groundwater (Site 5).
Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater (Site 6). .
Cl, $04, and TOC levels in groundwater (Site 6).
Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater (Site 7). .
Cl, S04, and TOC levels in groundwater (Site 7).

Pajje
209
210
211
212
• 21 3
.214
• 215
.216
.217
.218
.219
.232
.233
.243
.244
.254
.255
.269
.270
XI

-------
FIGURES (continued)

Number                                                    Page
  82    Fe, Pb, and Zn levels in groundwater (Site 8).  .  .  284
  83    Cl, $04, and TOC levels in groundwater (Site 8).  .  285
                                Xil

-------
                              TABLES

Number                                                       Page
   1      Comparative Weather Data	12
   2      Selected Descriptive Information on Case Study
         Sites	I5
   3      Variation in Waste Composition 	  19
   4      Depths to Groundwater	21
   5      Soils and Geology	23
   6      Soil Texture and Permeability Coefficients for
         Cover Soils at Study Sites	24
   7      Well Construction Details for All Sites	27
   8     Requisite Analytical Sensitivities for  the
         Selected Constituents in Groundwater  	  48
   9     Analytical  Results for  Site 1, Phase  I	68
  10     Chemical Analysis of Leachates from In-Refuse
         Well (Site  1)	72
  11      Gas  Composition at Site 1  In-Refuse Well	73
  12     Site 1 Control Areas, Hydraulic  Gradients, and
         Flow Velocities in X-Direction	95
  13     Site 1 Hydraulic Gradients and  Flow Velocities
         in  Y-Direction	96
  14     The  Magnitude  and Direction of  Horizontal
         Groundwater Flow of  Site 1	99
  15     Contaminant Flux and Mass  through  Inlet Face  of
         Site 1	102
  16     Contaminant Flux and Mass  through  Outlet  Face  of
         Site 1	104
                                 Xlll

-------
TABLES (continued)


Number                                                      ^*.

   17      Number  of  Times  Sampled  Constituent  Concentrations
          Exceeded  EPA  Drinking  Water  Standards  (Site  !)•  •  •  •«

   18      Analytical  Results  for Site  2,  Phase 1 .......  138

   19      Chemical  Analysis  of Leachates  from  In-Refuse
          Well  (Site 2) .................... 141

   20      Gas Composition  at  Site 2 In-Refuse  Well  ...... 144

   21      Number  of Times  Sampled Constituent  Concentrations
          Exceeded  EPA  Drinking  Water  Standards  (Site  2) .  .  .148

   22      Analytical Results  for Disposal Site 3, Phase I.  .  .151

   23     Chemical  Analysis  of Leachate from In-Refuse
          Well  (Site 3) .................... 155

   24     Gas Composition at Site 3 In-Refuse  Well  ...... 157

   25     Contaminant Flux and Mass through Vertical  Inlet
          Section of Site 3 (Lower Clay Layer) ........  181

   26     Contaminant Flux and Mass through Horizontal
          Inlet Section of Site 3  (Sand Layer) ........  ltt4
29
    27     Contaminant Flux and Mass through Horizontal
          Outlet Section of Site 3 (Sand Layer) .......  I

    28     Number of Times Sampled Constituent Concentrations
          Exceeded EPA Drinking Water Standards (Site 3).  •  •  ^
          Analytical Results for Site 4,  Phase  1 ....... 226
    30     Chemical Analysis of Leachates  from  In-Refuse
           Well  (Site 4) ...................   229

    31     Number  of Times Sampled  Constituent  Concentrations
           Exceeded EPA  Drinking Water  Standards  (Site  4)  •  •  •i^

    32     Analytical Results  for Site  5,  Phase I ....... 238

    33     Gas  Composition at  Site  5  In-Refuse  Well ...... 242

    34     Number  of Times Sampled  Constituent  Concentrations
           Exceeded EPA  Drinking Water  Standards  (Site  5).  .
                                  xiv

-------
TABLES (continued)


Number                                                      Page

  35     Analytical Results for Site 6, Phase I	248

  36     Gas Composition at Site 6 In-Refuse Well	253

  37     Number of Times Sampled Constituent Concentrations
         Exceeded  EPA Drinking Water Standards (Site 6).  .  . 257

  38     Analytical Results for Site 7, Phase I	260

  39     Chemical  Analysis of Leachates from In-Refuse
         Well  (Site 7)	265

  40     Changes  in Gas Composition in  In-Refuse Well at
         Two Depths from Site 7	268

  41     Bacteriologic  Examination of  Groundwater  from
         Off-Site Wells (Site 7)	272

  42     Number  of Times Sampled  Constituent  Concentrations
         Exceeded EPA  Drinking  Water  Standards  (Site 7)  .  .  .273

  43     Analytical  Results  for Site  8, Phase  I	276

  44     Chemical Analysis of  Leachates from  In-Refuse
         Well  (Site 8)	281

  45     Bacteriologic  Examination  of Groundwater  from
         Off-Site Wells (Site  8).  .  .  . '	287

  46     Number  of Times  Sampled Constituent  Concentrations
         Exceeded EPA  Drinking  Water  Standards  (Site  8)  .  . 288
                                 xv

-------
                      SUMMARY AND FINDINGS

     An investigation of groundwater quality, disposal  operations
costs and aesthetics was conducted at eight landfills  receiving
various quantities of sewage sludge.  Three sites  were  located
in Nebraska, two in New York, and one each in New  Jersey,
Arkansas, and Virginia.

     Four samplings of leachate, groundwater and  landfill  gas
three times over a 4- to 6- mo period in 1975 and  once  in
June 1976, were made in Phase I (December 1974 to  January  1976).
Sewage sludge samples and soil samples obtained at various
depths beneath the landfill were obtained and chemically charac-
terized.  Preliminary results indicated that groundwaters  in  the
vicinity of the landfills were contaminated with  heavy  metals,
including iron, lead and mercury.  Nitrate was present  at
very low to trace amounts in the leachate and groundwater.
Methane and carbon dioxide were the predominant gas species
found in the landfills.

     Phase II monitoring (August 1976 to January  1978}  was
initiated to provide additional  data on leachate  and  ground-
water quality at the landfills.   Leachate and groundwater  samples
were collected bimonthly over a 1-yr period.  Analyses  included
total organic carbon, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate,
and eight  heavy metals.

     A major effort in Phase II  involved installation of six
additional  off-site wells with pneumatic ejector-type sample
collectors at two sites.  The wells  were located  to establish
the three-dimensional extent of the  leachate plume emanating
from the landfill.  Two parallel  lines,  each containing three
off-site wells and four sampling elevations within each well,
were located perpendicular to the presumed central  axis of the
leachate plume downgradient from the disposal  area.   The
two vertical  planes passing through  the  leachate-contaminated
groundwater enclave,  coupled with the distinguishable direction
of groundwater movement, defined a  hypothetical leachate control
volume.   Total  mass emissions through the control  volume,  dilu-
tion, and soil  attenuation were  estimated based on monitoring
results .
                               xvi

-------
     Significant findings  based on the  Phase  II  monitoring
effort are summarized below:

     •  The intensive sampling at Sites 1 and 3  provided
        clear evidence of leachate presence,  and the  movement
        and variation in contaminant concentrations  with
        sampling time, depth,  and well  location.  The data
        did not verify the conventional concepts of  uniform
        leachate emission from the entire landfill  area  and
        dispersion in a fan-shaped plume downstream  of the  land-
        fill site and along the soi1-groundwater interface.
        It appeared that the  2-mo sampling intervals  were too
        infrequent to adequately assess groundwater  quality
        impacts of subsurface  burial of sewage sludge.

     •  Although distinct seasonal peaks in leachate  contaminant
        concentrations were evident in  the data, no  consistent
        pattern emerged for the specific contaminants at  a
        given site.  Mass balance calculations for the control
        volumes at Sites 1 and 3 showed that TOC and  chloride
        were attenuated, while soluble zinc and lead  were
        eluted.  Soluble iron  and sulfate could be attenuated  or
        eluted, while there was little or no change  in mercury.

     t  No apparent correlations existed between the  concentra-
        tions, of selected constituents in the sludge and those
        found either  in the leachate or groundwater.   Concen-
        trations of these constituents were significantly higher
        in  the  leachate than  in the groundwater.  Soil between the
        bottom  of the landfill and  groundwater greatly attenuated
        or  decreased  the potency of the.1eachate .

     •  The  Phase II  data confirmed the preliminary  results
        obtained under  Phase  I in  that iron, lead, and TOC
        were the contaminants  in  downstream  groundwaters that
        most often exceeded EPA Drinking Water  Standards.
        Generally, the  contaminant  concentrations measured in
        Phase  II were lower than those found in  Phase I.
        Mercury, a contaminant of  concern from  Phase  I was not
        found  to be of  concern based on the  Phase II monitoring
        results.

     t  Elevated groundwater  contaminant levels  during initial
        samplings were  presumably  due  to disturbances from
        well drilling.  The increases  in contaminant  concen-
        trations observed to  occur  during the summer  were
        believed due  to larger quantities of leachate escaping
        from the fill sites.
                                XV XI

-------
     t   Iron  in  excess  of EPA  Drinking  Water  Standards  appeared
        in  several  background  wells  and in  nearly  all  down-
        stream groundwater monitoring  wells  at  the  study  sites.
        However, since  its solubility  is  dependent  on  redox
        potential,  clay content,  and other  ligands,  iron  does
        not appear  to be suitable as an indicator  of leachate
        metal  migration.  Lead was found  to  be  a  good  indicator
        of leachate-borne heavy metals  in groundwater.  Down-
        stream wells at Sites  1,  2,  3,  and  4  appeared  to  be con-
        taminated with  lead.

     •   There was little discernible difference in  downstream
        groundwater quality between  sites receiving  sewage
        sludge only and those  sites  accepting mixed  sewage
        sludge and  refuse, although  somewhat  higher  lead
        concentrations  were observed at the  sludge-only sites.
        Using EPA Drinking Water  Standards  as a reference
        point, there was no evidence that the groundwater
        was contaminated by cadmium, chromium,  mercury, nickel,
        copper,  and zinc at the eight  sites  monitored.  The
        high chloride and sulfate concentrations  observed at
        two sites were  the result of saltwater  intrusion  or
        the oxidation of pyrite.

     Overall, the monitoring  data identify  the  extreme  difficulty
in selecting monitoring well  locations  and  sampling  depths, and
establishing a sampling frequency necessary  to  obtain  valid
information on landfill impacts on groundwater.  Contaminant
concentration isopleths illustrated  in  the  report  demonstrate
multiple leachate plumes, horizontal and  vertical  stratification,
and seasonal variations in contaminants,  all  within  a  monitoring
grid measuring 160  m wide by  15 in deep.   A  successful  effort
to measure impacts  on groundwater will  be costly,  time-consuming,
and will require the participation of  highly  trained specialists
in the initial planning and survey.

     Aside from site monitoring,  the aesthetics,  operations,
and costs were also assessed  during  site  visits.   Disposal
of municipal sewage sludge in  clay trenches  can result  in aes-
thetic and operational  difficulties.  The major aesthetic
problems reported at the study sites were odors and  unattrac-
tive piles of exposed sludge.   From  a  visual  and  aesthetic
viewpoint, certain  disposal practices  appeared  more  acceptable
than others.  However,  the analytical  results did  not  show
that these operational  practices  mitigated  impacts  on  local
groundwaters.  Nevertheless,  none of the  eight  case  study sites
reported any discernible increase in accidents, injuries, or
other health problems by site  employees,  site users, or the
community as a result of the  sludge  disposal  operations.
                               XVlll

-------
     Operational  problems  arose  primarily  from  the  difficulty
experienced by equipment operators  in  handling  sludge  piles.
The high moisture content  of the sludge  caused  wheels  and
tracks on equipment to spin and  caused sludge to  accumulate
on equipment components.  Soft spots  occurred in  the  land-
fill  where large  quantities of sludge  had  been  buried,  re-
sulting in depressions that trapped drainage  or mired  the
equi pment.

     The proper handling and land disposal  of septic   tank
pumpings was cited as a difficult problem  by  many site  opera-
tors.   The number and degree of  problems encountered  appear
to increase with  the proportion  of septic  tank  pumpings
received, primarily because the  material is liquid, obnoxious,
and often unstable.

     The indicated cost of sludge disposal  ranged from
$10.03 to $48.95/dry metric ton  at the sludge-only  disposal
facilities, and $5.06 to $69.17/dry metric ton  at the  mixed
refuse and sludge burial  facilities.   These costs reflect  an
actual or calculated "gate fee"  at each  disposal  site  and
do not necessarily indicate the  actual cost incurred  for sludge
di sposal .

     A confusing picture of state and local regulatory  agency
requirements governing handling  and disposal  of wastewater
treatment sludge exists in the United States.  Completely
dichotomous disposal philosophies and regulations are  apparent
from state to state.   This seemingly inconsistent regulation
of wastewater treatment sludge disposal  has spawned a  patchwork
of conflicting practices.   In some instances, it  has  fostered
environmentally unacceptable overt and covert sludge  disposal
practices .
                               xix

-------
                            SECTION 1

                          INTRODUCTION
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

     As effluent standards become increasingly stringent, the
quantity of sewage sludge produced by municipal treatment plants
in meeting these standards also increases.  This, in turn,
creates a burgeoning sludge disposal  problem.  Communities
throughout the country are experimenting with various methods
for the disposal of sewage sludge in an attempt to evolve a
method best suited to their requirements.

     Past and present methods for municipal sewage sludge
disposal include:

        Direct discharge to rivers, lakes, and oceans
        Incineration
        Various  land burial procedures
        Agricultural utilization
        Land and/or forest application.

     Environmental and economic constraints  are  currently forcing
the reappraisal  of virtually every disposal  option.  Ocean dis-
posal  is being phased out  because of environmental and potential
health considerations.   Energy costs have  raised  incinerator
operating expenses to near prohibitive  levels  for many communi-
ties.  As a result, some  communities are  taking  the  most  con-
venient and expeditious  alternative, often with  little thought
to protecting the  environment.  Communities  such  as  these are in
need of advice and guidance as to the  best alternative procedures
to replace  present costly  or prohibited  sludge disposal  prac-
tices.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

     This  project  is  part  of an organized  program developed  by
the United  States  Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of
Solid  Waste,  to  assess the costs  and environmental  impacts of
different  methods  of  sludge utilization  and/or disposal.  The
ultimate goal of this program  is  to  develop  guidelines to aid
communities  in  selecting  a cost-effective  and  environmentally
acceptable  sludge  disposal method.

-------
     The broad objective of this project was to conduct an
environmental assessment of subsurface placement of sewage treat-
ment solids.  Leaching of contaminants from municipal  solid waste
landfills is recognized as a problem at fills not designed and
operated according to EPA suggested operating practices.   How-
ever, it has been the belief that sanitary landfills operated
under these guidelines would sufficiently mitigate or reduce the
leaching potential so that there would be no adverse impacts on
groundwater outside of the landfill disposal area or property
boundaries.  Similarly, it was theorized that there would be no
adverse impacts from sludge burial in municipal landfills.  To
test this hypothesis, EPA funded this study to ascertain  whether
the leachates emanating from sites accepting municipal sewage
sludge were significantly different from those accepting  only
municipal refuse, and whether this leachate produced an adverse
impact on groundwater.

     Appropriate regulatory agencies overseeing wastewater
treatment and solid waste disposal in 48 states were contacted
for information concerning sewage sludge disposal facilities
in their respective states.  Leads and recommendations from
these agencies, as well as other sources, led to a preliminary
investigation of over 300 such facilities in the United States.
Information provided by the regulatory agencies as well as
in-depth interviews and site visitations revealed a confusing
picture of  state and local regulatory agency requirements
governing the handling and disposal of sewage sludge.  Completely
dichotomous disposal philosophies and regulations were apparent
as the  interviewer moved from one state to another.  The contra-
dictory and seemingly arbitrary regulation of sewage sludge
disposal has spawned a patchwork of conflicting practices.   In
some instances, it has helped foster environmentally unacceptable
overt and covert practices.

     Follow-up telephone interviews with over 100 municipal
officials revealed a general lack of knowledge on the method
and location of sludge disposal in their respective communities.
Oftentimes, municipal officials had little knowledge or under-
standing of the attendant problems.  The impression that
remained was that while water and wastewater was adequately
regulated,  sewage sludge disposal came under some ambiguous
wastewater  regulation.  In addition, many state solid waste
regulations arbitrarily exclude municipal sewage sludge or were
very vague  concerning handling and disposal.  Only a few states
evidenced a comprehensive knowledge of their sewage sludge
disposal practices or had realistic and practical regulations
governing the disposal of such material.

     The study was conducted in two phases.  The first phase
(EPA Contract No. 68-01-3108, December 1974 to January 1976)
involved an initial assessment of the environmental impact of

-------
wastewater treatment sludge burial  practices.  Tasks developed
and performed to accomplish this overall  objective included:

     •  Identification and selection of nine case study sites
        encompassing a representative range of sizes, soil
        characteristics, climatological conditions, operating
        techniques, sludge quantities and characteristics, and
        environmental impacts (actual and potential) for
        detailed field study

     •  Conduct of field studies at each location to obtain site
        data; historical operating and cost  information;
        aesthetic and environmental problems encountered  and
        approaches to problem solution; sludge quantities and
        physical, chemical, and biological characteristics; and
        disposal site operating techniques

     •  Location and  installation  of monitoring  wells  at  each
        site  to assess the physical  and chemical  characteristics
        of  leachate  and  groundwaters and the composition  of
        decomposition gases generated  within the landfill.

     The  data obtained under  the first phase determined only  the
 presence  or absence  of  groundwater contamination.   No  effort  was
 made to provide  information on  the level and area!  extent of
 groundwater contamination  at  these sites.   Another  deficiency
 included  the  lack  of truly representative  background  groundwater
 samples with  which  to compare down-gradient  groundwater and  to
 identify  contamination.   Further,  this initial  effort  encom-
 passed  less than  four data points, and further  analyses were
 required  to provide statistical  confidence in  the results
 obtained.

      The  second  phase of the  study (EPA  Contract No.  68-01-4166,
 August  1976 to  January  1978)  was  intended  to provide additional
 data  on  leachate and groundwater quality  at eight of the  case
 study  sites of  the initial project.   Tasks under the second
 project  included:

      •   Monitoring leachate and groundwater quality at eight
         case study sites for a specified  list  of contaminants
         at 2-mo intervals over a 12-mo period

      •   Measurement and evaluation of changes  in groundwater
         quality down-gradient from two disposal sites as  a
         function of distance and hydrogeological parameters

      •   Prediction of possible future damage to the groundwater
         aquifer in the area of all sites based  on field  informa-
         tion obtained

-------
     •  Preparation of detailed  case  study reports  for  each  of
        the eight sites

     •  Correlation of observed  differences in  concentrations
        and areal extent of pollutant contamination among  the
        eight sites with the following parameters:

        -  Types and quantities  of wastes  buried
           Climate
           Geology
        -  Hydrology

     •  Assessment, where possible, of the mechanism(s) of
        concentration or attenuation  as the leachate passes
        from the waste/soil interface to groundwaters.

     A major objective of the study was to determine the areal
extent and degree of contamination from landfills  accepting
municipal sewage sludge/refuse admixtures.  Two sites were
selected from eight previously monitored sites  for  a more
extensive monitoring program.  These  two sites  were carefully
chosen to allow a comparison of two different soil  conditions,
and sewage sludge only versus combined sludge/municipal refuse
disposal.  Six pneumatic sampling wells were installed  down-
gradient from each disposal site to intercept and  sample the
leachate plume as it moved from the landfill in the direction
of the regional groundwater movement.  These six wells  were
arranged in two parallel lines perpendicular to the direction
of groundwater flow.  In addition, each well was designed  to
allow sampling of the groundwater at  four  depths.   This arrange-
ment created a test box with 12 sample points on each face
intersecting the flow.  Any difference between  concentrations of
constituents at each face could be attributed to dilution,
attenuation, or elution, depending on the  type  and  magnitude of
the change and any inputs to the box  other than the leachate
plume.

REPORT ORGANIZATION

     This report includes the results of both phases of the
project and is organized into two volumes.  Volume 1 discusses
project execution, interpretive findings,  and recommendations
based on the field and analytical results  and has  been organized
into the following topic areas:

     •  A brief description of the individual case study sites
        highlighting climatological,  geological,  and topograph-
        ical features; operating practices; descriptions of
        refuse and/or sewage sludge quantities  and characteris-
        tics and contributing sources of sludge;  and any other
        notable events that may affect the environment

-------
     •  A description of the  design.and  installation  of  the
        field monitoring devices

     •  Sampling and analytical  program  and quality control
        procedures

     •  Analytical results and data evaluation for each  site
        and a discussion of trends and relationships  observed.

Volume 2, Case Study Site Reports, contains a detailed descrip-
tion of each site, with brief site-specific interpretations  and
evaluations of the findings.

-------
                            SECTION 2

                    SITE SELECTION PROCEDURES
SITE SELECTION CRITERIA

     Criteria used in the initial  screening  and  selection of
candidate case study sites were prepared at  the  project's onset.
Several mandatory criteria were stipulated  in  the  contract while
other desirable criteria were identified to  aid  in ensuring a
successful project.   Following are the mandatory criteria:
        Subsurface placement of sewage treatment  solids  at the
        site must have been or was  practiced  for  at least 1  yr,
        and the site must not have  been closed  for  more  than 3 yr
        prior to the start of the survey.
        One-third of the sites selected were  to  dispose of
        sewage sludge only while the remainder were to dispose
        of sewage sludge together with municipal  refuse.

        For those sites disposing of both municipal refuse and
        sewage sludge, the sewage sludge must have comprised at
        least 10 percent of the combined total quantity by
        weight.

        The disposal method used was to be either by sanitary
        landfill or pit and trench methods (liquid sewage -siudge
        injection methods were specifically excluded).

        The sludges could have been municipal wastewater  treat-
        ment sludges and/or septic tank pumpings  or any
        combination of these wastes with municipal refuse
        (industrial sludges were exluded).

        As a group, the sites selected were to cover a represen-
        tative range of sizes, soil characteristics, climatolog-
        ical conditions, operating techniques, sludge quantities
        and characteristics, and actual or potential environ-
        mental impacts.

        The entity responsible for the site had  to agree  to
        cooperate during the monitoring program  (such coopera-
        tion was essential if the contractor's personnel  were
        to obtain samples from the site and additional

-------
        information on site operations,  handling procedures,  and
        other pertinent information necessary to the goals  of
        the project).

The desirable criteria included the following:

     •  The existence of good operational  records for the
        disposal site (especially helpful  in this regard would
        be historical  records of quantities and types of waste
        received, chemical and physical  characteristics of  the
        waste, the sources of sludge material, and the areas  in
        the landfill where sludge was placed)

     •  Data on area groundwater quality prior to start-up  of
        the operation as well as the existence of climatological
        data from a nearby weather station

     •  A  site previously researched by university groups and
        state or local regulatory agencies that would yield
        useful background data for comparative purposes

     •  Sites where existing  groundwater/leachate monitoring
        and/or gas  sampling  systems  are installed (such  sites
        could provide a  long-term  historical  data record to
        supplement  and complement  the information obtained
        during this study's  short-term monitoring program)

     •  Sites maintaining  current  topographic  maps  of  the area
        since the  initiation  of  filling operations,  as  well  as
        geological  and/or  engineering reports  pertaining to  the
        site  and  its  developments, would  be  beneficial

     •  The  selection  of exemplary  sites  was  not  considered
        essential  as  the selection  of average or  probably  below
        average  operations  would perhaps  provide  a  better  indi-
        cation  of  the  possible  severity of environmental
        contamination  resulting  from sewage  sludge  disposal.

APPROACH  TO  SITE  SELECTION

      Several  approaches, capsulated  below, were  employed to
locate  candidate  sites  for  possible  inclusion in  the study:

      t  A search  of the  literature for  references to locations
        where various  aspects of sludge disposal  to landfill
        had  been  or were being  investigated

      §  A review  of U.S. Public  Health  Service Bulletin No.
        1866, "1968 National  Survey  of  Community Solid Waste
        Practices"

-------
     •  Contacting State Solid Waste Management and Wastewater
        Quality Control Agencies to enlist assistance in
        locating candidate sites meeting the mandatory criteria
        stipulated above (similar inquiries were made to all
        EPA Regional Offices)

     •  Contacting sewage treatment plants and/or public works
        departments in the largest 150 cities in the United
        States by telephone to ascertain how sewage sludge was
        being disposed of in the respective communities.

     The PHS Bulletin reports on field investigations of more
than 6,000 land disposal sites in the United States.  Basic
data pertaining to each site are tabulated, including the volume
of sewage treatment sludge disposed of with other municipal
solid wastes.  A review of Volumes 1  and 2 (volumes for the
Central and Western parts of the United States  have not been
published) was made to provide a quick initial  screening of
potential candidate sites along the East Coast.   Unfortunately,
the document proved of less value than originally anticipated
due to closure of many sites and changes in disposal practices
over the interim 7-yr period.  Most of the data was found to be
obsolete and no longer useful for the purposes  of the project.

     State agency and Regional EPA contacts, coupled with the
information obtained from the literature, provided an initial
list of some 200 candidate sites that were then contacted by
telephone.  The sewage treatment plant was initially contacted
to obtain pertinent information on treatment plant operations
and types and quantities of sewage sludge.  The party respons-
ible for landfill disposal operations was contacted with regard
to quantities of sewage sludge received, total  quantity of
refuse handled, how long the site had been receiving this
material, whether or not industrial  wastes were being received,
and other pertinent information.  Telephone contact with more
than one individual was useful in that it provided a cross-
check on the validity of the information obtained.

     Unfortunately, upon further investigation, only a very few
sites actually met all of the mandatory selection criteria.
The major causes for site rejection in descending order of
occurrence and importance were as follows:

     •  The relative weight or percentage of sewage sludge
        solids commonly landfilled was less than 1 or 2 percent
        of the total .instead of the desired 10  percent or more.

     •  The disposal of sewage sludge solids at the site:

           Had been conducted for less than 1 yr, thus present-
           ing little probability of any measurable environ-
           mental  impacts

                               8

-------
           Had  been  discontinued  after  a  short  time  because  of
           unspecified  operating  difficulties

           Had  been  sporadic  in  occurrence,  and  thus was
           deposited in unidentifiable  locations  in  the  landfill

           Had  stopped  more  than  3  yr  ago

           Had  been  used with soil  cover  and not  buried.

     •  Inadequate records  had been kept  on  the quantities  of
        material  deposited  and other data considered useful  in  .
        assessing and correlating the  monitoring  results.

     t  Many of the  sites that accepted large quantities of
        sewage  sludge also  accepted industrial  wastes,  including
        industrial sludges.

RESULTS OF SITE INVESTIGATIONS

     Following  a careful review of site data and the selection
criteria, the list of candidate sites totaled some 40 sites.
Subsequently, a total of 31  sites were actually field-visited
in an attempt to identify sites meeting the mandatory and
desired criteria to the maximum possible degree.

     The field visit encompassed a full man-day effort to
assemble pertinent  information with regard  to the site.  This
covered two or three distinct areas as summarized below:

Sewage Treatment  Plant
                                       •*
     At the treatment  plant,  the following  information was
solicited:

     •  Year plant  started

     0  Treatment or stabilization method for  sewage and sludge

     •  Sewage sludge  disposal practices  since the  plant
        became operational

     •  Availability of sludge quantity  records  for the years
        of  operation

     t  Chemical, physical,  and  biological  characterization
        data on  sludge

      •  Methods  and  frequency of  transporting  sludge.

-------
Disposal Site

     The disposal site was visited and the site owner or oper-
ator queried as to the following information:

     •  Year site first operated

     •  Year that sludge was first received

     •  Site plan and delineation of where sludge has been
        buried

     t  Operational methods of handling and burial of refuse
        and/or  sludge

     •  Operational problems related to sludge handling

     •  Current  and past environmental monitoring programs,  if
        any

     •  Availability of  hydrogeologic  information

     •  Regulatory  agency  requirements with regard to landfill
        operations  and/or  sludge  burial.

 Other  Information Sources

      If a  local  or  state regulatory  agency had been  active  in
 establishing operating  requirements  or monitoring at  the  land-
 fill  site,  the  following  information was  solicited:

      •  Monitoring  results with  regard to  environmental  and
        health  implications  of  the  sludge-burial  operation

      0  Water  quality  data as well  as  geologic profiles  for  the
        area of the landfill

      0  Surface soil data  from  the  Soil  Conservation  Service of
        the  U.S.  Department of  Agriculture.

 Information  obtained from  the site  visit  was  evaluated  and  com-
 pared  with  telephone-derived data,  and recommendations  for  site
 inclusion  or exclusion  derived.   Nine  case study  sites  were
 ultimately  selected, monitoring  work completed,  and  detailed
 descriptive  and comparative information  compiled.*
 *Monitoring wells at one location were inadvertently destroyed
  Thus, only eight locations  are discussed in the report.

                                10

-------
                            SECTION 3

                 DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDY SITES
     Selected comparative information is presented  in  this
section to characterize and identify the range of conditions
found at the case study site locations.

LOCATION

     The eight case study sites were located in the Midwest and
Eastern sectors of the country.  Three sites were located in
Nebraska, two in New York, and one each  in New Jersey, Arkansas,
and Virginia.

CLIMATE

     Selected climatic characteristics of the eight sites are
presented in Table 1 and were representative of the Midwestern
and Eastern seaboard areas.

     Normal annual precipitation of the four Midwestern loca-
tions ranged from 59.4 to 108 cm (23.4 to 42.4 in).  Annual
precipitation at the four Eastern locations ranged from 82.6
to 115 cm (32.5 to 45.4  in).  Site 1 in- the Midwest received
the least annual precipitation, 59.4 cm (23.4 in), of the eight
sites, while Site 6 on the  Eastern seaboard with 115 cm  (45.4
in) had the highest average annual precipitation.  All locations
were subject to snow and ice in the winter months.

     Maximum average daily 'temperatures of the four Midwestern
sites ranged from 16.7 to 21.1°C (62 to 70°F).  Minimum average
daily temperatures ranged from 3.4 to 8.3°C (38 to 47°F).
Corresponding average daily maximum and minimum temperatures for
the four  sites  located in the  East ranged from 12.3 to 19.3°C
(54 to 67°F) and 1.4 to  8.8°C  (35 to 48°F), respectively.

     Site 4 in  the southern Midwest had consistently higher
average daily maximum and minimum temperatures, while Site 8
in the Northeast experienced the lowest average daily maximum
and minimum temperatures.
                               11

-------
TABLE 1.  COMPARATIVE WEATHER DATA*
Precipitati
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Hater
Equivale
Normal Maximum
(Annual) (Monthly)
59.4
67.8
76.7
107.7
98.8
115.3
84.8
82.6
35.6
19.0
34.8
36.1
36.3
33.3
22.9
29.2
nt
Maximum
.(24 hr)
13.7
6.8
16.5
24.4
18.2
16.5
11.4
9.1
on (cm)
Snow,
Ice Pell
Maximum
(Monthly)
66.0
50.3
69.1
34.3
54.1
89.4
146.0
144.0

Mean
ets of
Maximum (
(24 hr)
30.5
26.4
46.5

36.6
36.6
55.6
41 .9

i Number
Days
i tat ion
0.025 cm
or more)
88
96
99

111
112
135
153
                 12

-------
        TABLE  1  (Continued)
CO
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8


Da i 1 y
Maximum
16.7
16.8
17.1
21 .1
19.3
17. €
14.5
12.3
Temperature ,
Normal
Daily
Minimum
3.4
4.3
4.6
8.3
8.8
6.6
2.8
1 .4
°c*

Monthly
10.0
10.6
10.8
14.7
14.0
12'.0
8.7
6.9

Max
32°C and
Above
40
37
34
48
37
16
8
5
Mean Number
imum
of Days
Minimum
0°C and 0°C and -17
Below Below
45
40
40
7
9
15
47
75
149
141
137
91
75
111
155
163


.8°C and
Bel ow
16
18
12
1
0
1
17
28
        *Source:  U.S. Department of Commerce.
        tMultiply tabulated values by 0.397 to obtain inches.
        #F = OC x 1.8 -32.  For example, -17.80C = 0°F.

-------
OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION

     A comparison of site ownership and operating information
is presented in Table 2.  Two locations, Sites 5 and 7, had
formerly operated as open dumps with intermittent burning.  Each
has since been converted to sanitary landfill procedures.  Only
one site was owned by a private firm.  Of the remaining seven
locations, all were municipally owned and operated except Site 1
where a private contractor operated the municipally owned site.

     Three of the eight sites accepted only sludge while the
remaining five sites accepted both sludge and mixed refuse.
The respective costs for sludge burial were calculated on the
basis of gate fees, lump sum payments to contractors, or annual
operating budgets.  Cost per t* of dry sludge solids ranged
from $5.06 at Site 2 to $69.17 at Site 6.

     Personnel employed at the sites generally ranged from one
to three, with the largest site operated by a staff of 35.

     Wastes were delivered by open-top truck to all of the
sites.  Haul distances  ranged up to 19.3 km one way.

SLUDGE DESCRIPTION

     Comparative information on sludge type, sludge solids
content, and estimated  quantities of sludge and other wastes
(if any) delivered to the case study sites is given in Table 3.

     Sludge received at six of the sites was described as
dewatered raw primary and waste-activated sludge.  Site 6
received anaerobically  digested sludge and large quantities of
septic tank pumpings.   Site 5 received a mixture of raw and
digested primary and waste-activated sludge along with minor
quantities of incinerated sludge residue.

     Solids content of  the sludge as received for disposal
ranged from about 3 percent at Site 6 to 40 percent at Sites 3
and 7.  Site 3 receives relatively dry paunch manure while
Site 7 receives Zimpro-processed sludge.

     The relative proportion of sludge to all wastes received
ranged from a low of 5.2 percent (volume basis) at Site 6 to
23.5 percent (weight basis) at Site 7.

GROUNDWATER DEPTH

     The depths to groundwater at the monitoring well locations
for each case study site are shown on Table 4.  Calculated
*t = metric ton.


                               14

-------
                   TABLE  2.   SELECTED DESCRIPTIVE  INFORMATION ON CASE STUDY SITES

Criteria
Ownership
Operation
Year opened
First received sludge
Remaining life
(estimated years)
Open to publ ic
Scales
Gate fee
Operating personnel
Equipment (number

?
Municipal
Private
1969
1969
4
Yes
No
Yes
3
John Deere 646 corn-
Case
2
Municipal
Municipal
1956
1967
2
Yes
No
No
3
3 Caterpillar D-8
Study Site
3
Municipal
Municipal
1939
1939
Closed
No
No
No
1
I-H 175 loader with

4
Municipal
Municipal
1968
1968
2
No
No
No
2
Backhoe
  and type)
One-way haul
  distance in km
  (treatment plant
  to site)
pactor Caterpillar
977 with 1.9 m3
bucket

         8
track dozers each
with 0.76 m3 drag-
line

       6.4
1.9 m3 bucket
J. Deere with .57 nr
dragline

Two plants, one       Plant adjacent to
adjacent to disposal  disposal site
site, one 16 km from
site

-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Criteria
Ownership
Operation
Year opened
First received sludge
Remaining life
(estimated years)
Open to public
Scales
Gate fee
Operating personnel
Equipment (number
and type)
5
Municipal
Municipal
Dump 1925
Landfill 1972
1973
3
No
Yes
Yes
47
3 compactors
5 dozers
3 scrapers
2 track loader
1 grader
5 miscellaneous
6
Municipal
Municipal
1955
1962
16
No
No
No
3
1 dozer
1 loader
Case Study Site
7
Municipal
Municipal
Dump 1947
Landfill 1960
1972
12-17
Yes
No
No
2
1 front-end bucket 1
loader (2.3 m3)
1 caterpillar D-5
dozer 1-2
1 compactor
8
Private
Municipal
1973
1973
4
No
No
No
1-6
Michigan 754
loader with
1 .9 m3 bucket
Caterpillar D-6
dozers

-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
      Criteria
                                     Case Study Site

                                                   3
Haul
vehicle
Open
(4.6
dump
m3)
truck
Open dump
(6m3)
truck
Open
(4.6
dump
m3)
truck
2 Open dump
(7.6 - 9 m3
trucks
Waste types received  Sludge cake
  (annual quanti-     (13,230 m3)
  ties), wet basis
Disposal method
Disposal costs
  ($/dry t )
Paunch manure
(330 m3)
Industrial and
commercial wastes
(16,800 m3)
Residential
(59,700 m3)

Sludge spread with
refuse, compacted
and covered with
soil

       $7.67''
Construction and
demolition, muni-
cipal refuse,
pretreated indus-
trial plating
sludges, paunch
manure (200,000 t)
Wastewater treat-
ment sludge (25,8801)

Trench, covered
with refuse and
soil
       $5.06
Dewatered grit
and screenings,
wastewater treat-
ment sludge and
paunch manure
(varies)
Pit, covered with
soil
       $10.03
                                                                              */
                                                               Sludge (7,200 t
                                                               yr - 5 yr average)
Trench, covered
with soil
      $48.95

-------
      TABLE  2 (Continued)
00
Criteria
One-way haul
distance in km
(treatment plant
to site)
5
13-32
(5 plants)
Case Study Site
6 7
8-16 9.6
(2 plants)
8
19.3
     Haul vehicle
     Waste types
       received (annual
       quantities), wet
       basis
     Disposal method
     Disposal cost,
       ($/dry t)
Trailers (13,6 t)
Dump trucks (6-9 t)
Tandem axle trucks,
roll-off containers
(4.5 t)

Sludge (53,190 t)
Refuse (471,700 t).
Sludge spread
with refuse,
compacted and
covered with soil

      $23.29
Vacuum tank truck
(23 m3)
Household and com-
mercial refuse
(37,700 m3)
Septic tank pump-
ings (7,200 m3)
Municipal waste-
water treatment-
sludge (3,590 mj)

Sludge dumped on
refuse, covered
with soil
      $69.17
 (operating cost)
Open dump trucks
(3.8 - 4.6 m3)
Municipal refuse
(17,360 t)
Sludge (5,322 t)
Trailers (20
21.5 m3)
Sludge, screenings
and grit (53,500 m3)
Sludge dried in
piles, then spread
with refuse, covered
with soil

       $11.44
Sludge is lagooned,
allowed to dry,  and
covered with soil
      $21.82
       0 -  iiiC bill

-------
                              TABLE 3.   VARIATION IN WASTE COMPOSITION
      Criteria
       1
             Case Study Site

                           3
Sludge type
Solids content
  of sludge (as
  delivered to
  site)

Annual sludge
  quantity (wet
  basis)

Total annual
  quantity of
  waste delivered
  to site

Proportion of
  sludge to total
  waste (wet
  basis)t
Raw primary
and waste acti-
vated sludge,
gravity thick-
ened, and vacuum
filtered (poly-
mers)
   25 - 30%
   13,556 mj
(5-yr average)
   90,090 m3
     15.1%
Raw primary
and waste acti-
vated sludge,
gravity and/or
air flotation
thickening, and
vacuum filtered
(polymers)

   20 - 25%
   25,880 t
  225,654 t
     11.5%
Raw primary
and waste acti-
vated sludge,
vacuum filtered,and
paunch manure
   25 -
Raw primary and
waste activated
sludge, gravity
thickened, vacuum &
filtered (lime and
ferric chloride)
   18 - 25%
Varies radically
due to incinera-
tor breakdown

Varies
      NA
    7,210 t
(5-yr average)
    7,210 t
     100%

-------
TABLE  3  (Continued)
Criteria 5
Case Study Site
6 7
8
Sludge type
Solids content
  of sludge (as
  delivered to
  site)

Annual sludge
  quantity (wet
  basis)

Total annual
  quantity of
  waste delivered
  to site

Proportion of
  sludge to total
  waste (wet
  basis)t
Anaerobically
digested and
dewatered sludge,
lime and ferric
chloride treated
raw sludge incin-
erator residues
   20 - 95%
 (average 22%)
   53,190 t
  497,720 t
     10.6
Anaerobically
digested sludge,
septic tank
pumpings
     3-5%
   3,586 m3
  68,904 m
       5.2
Raw primary
and waste acti-
vated, Zimpro
processed, vacuum
filtered
       37%
    5,322 t
   22,681 t
      23.5
Raw primary and
waste activated
sludge gravity
thickened,
centrifuged
      12*5%
    53,522 nf
    53,522 m"
      100%
*t = metric ton.
tProportion based on either wet weight or wet volume basis depending on quantity data.

-------
TABLE  4 .   DEPTHS TO GROUNDWATER
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Depth from Surface (m)
Depth from Bottom
Refuse Well Off-Site Wells of Landfill (m)
10.7
8.2
9.0
Dril 1 ing
portable
depth.
9.75
7.6
11 .9
3.0
5.5
2.3 to 4.1
6.7
stopped upon reaching bedrock
water obtained from the 45.7
2.9
1 .8
4.3 to 6.1
1.1
3.4
-0.9
2.6
Nearby
to 61 m
2.4
1 .8
4.6
0.6

-------
depths to groundwater below the bottom of the landfill are also
presented.

     Only Site 2 had sludge deposited within the first 0.9 m
(3 ft) of the seasonally fluctuating groundwater table.  The
other locations ranged from 0.6 m  (2 ft) above the groundwater
table at  Site 8 to an estimated 4.6 m (15 ft) above the ground-
water at  Site 7.

SURFACE AND  SUBSURFACE SOILS

     A general categorization  of soil types found at each of  the
sites to  bedrock or  parent material is described in Table 5.
Soil conditions varied considerably at each site.  Only the pre-
vailing soil  characteristics are shown.

     Soil textures and permeability coefficients for the land-
fill cover  soils found in the  vicinity of the in-refuse
monitoring  wells are given  in  Table 6.   Two or more samples
were tested  at each  site.   Permeabilities are expressed as a
vertical  and horizontal  factor for each  soil.
                                22

-------
                    TABLE  5.   SOILS AND GEOLOGY
           Site 1

     Silty clay and silt
          Fine sand
            Clay
         Sand-gravel

           Site 3

         Silty clay
       Silty fine sand
            Sand
          Limestone

           Site 5

  Unconsolidated sediments
     (fine sands, silts,
     clays, and gravel)
Metamorphic and igneous rocks
          Granites
Glacial and
Site 7

 alluvial
 Shale
deposits
                                       Site 2

                                     Silty clay
                                        Silt
                               Sand  and sands-gravels
                                      Sandstone

                                       Site 4

                                     Sandy loams
                                      Limestone
                           Sand and  calcareous sandstone
                                      Limestone

                                       Site 6

                           Alluvial  beach sand and  gravel
                              Gray clay and fine  gravel
                                        Sand
     Site 8

 Sand and gravel
Glacial deposits
                                 23

-------
          TABLE  6.  SOIL TEXTURE AND PERMEABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR
                          COVER SOILS AT STUDY SITES
Site Soil Texture*
1 Clayey sand


2 Silty clay
3 Silty clay

4 Silty clay
5 Clayey sand

6 Sand

7 Sand
8 Sand
Pe
rmeabi
1
1ty Coefficient
Horizontal
1
1

1
4

3
4

4
7

1
6
4
.8
.4

.2
.8

.4
.1

.5
.5

.2
.1
,5
x 1
x 1

x 1
x 1

x 1
2 x

x 1
x 1

x 1
x 1
x 1
0
0

0
0

0
1

0
0

0
0
0
-6
_7
•• /
-Q
~ y
-9
-8
\J
O"6
-4
** n
-4
_3
J
-6
-5
1
1

1
9

7
3

1
5

2
2
3
(cm/s
Verti
.6 x
.1 x

.2 x
.4 x

.4 x
.19 x

.7 x
.4 x

.0 x
.7 x
.3 x
ec)
ca
1
1

1
1

1


1
1

1
1
1
0
0

0
0

0
1

0
0

0
0
0
1
-6
_7
*
-Q
3
-9
-9
j
o'6
_ "5
J
-3
-4
™
-6
-5
* Visual classification (Unified soil classification)

-------
                            SECTION 4

          FIELD INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION

     Site geological surveys, well placement, sampling, and
chemical analysis form an integral part of the groundwater moni-
toring at each of the disposal sites in this study.

     During Phase I, the monitoring objective was limited to
determining the presence or absence of groundwater contamination.
A more intensive monitoring program was initiated in Phase II,
including a geological survey; installation of exploratory,
background, and additional off-site wells downstream from the
disposal sites; and more frequent sampling.  The objectives were
to:

     t  Substantiate the observed trends in Phase I

     0  Evaluate changes in groundwater quality as influenced
        by disposal operation

     0  Predict possible future damage to the aquifer  in  the
        area

     0  Assess attenuation mechanism(s) in  soil beneath  the
        landfill.              v-

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

     Prior to  well  placement  in Phase  I, available information
on  site geology, hydrogeology, soils,  topography, and  other
historical data  was  assembled and  reviewed.   In  Phase  II,  a
local  geology  consultant  assisted  the  project  team in  conducting
a  geological  survey and  in  identifying locations  for three
exploratory wells  to  groundwater.   A  soil  boring  log was  then
prepared for  each  of  the  exploratory  wells  drilled.  Information
generated  included  the  following:

     0  Visual  field  classification of soils

     0   Estimations of  soil  permeabilities  and  porosity

     0   Groundwater depth  and  direction  of  flow

                                25

-------
     •  Direction and approximate width, length,  and depth of
        the downstream leachate plume.

Based on this information, a background monitoring well  upstream
and, depending on the site, one to six off-site wells were
located downstream from the landfill.

WELL INSTALLATIONS

     Two sets of monitoring wells were installed  at each of the
study sites:

     •  The initial installations in 1975 (Phase  I), which
        included an in-refuse well and one or two off-site wells

     9  A complementary set of wells in 1976 (Phase II), which
        included a background well and from one to six off-site
        wells (Sites 1 and 3 only).

     The types of monitoring wells installed, depth, well size,
and  sample  intake elevation are given in Table 7.  Typical
monitoring  well placement procedures are summarized in Appen-
dix  A.  Well  locations at each site are shown in  Figures 1
through 8.  Periodic groundwater elevation readings are given
in Appendix B.

Background  Well

     Due to the preliminary nature of Phase I, no background
well was installed at any of the study sites.  Instead, well
water from  nearby residential or commercial installations was
used as the background water reference..  In Phase II, after the
direction of  groundwater flow was established from the piezo-
metric groundwater levels measured in the exploratory wells and
geologic data, a background well was installed upstream of the
disposal site in a location unaffected by landfill leachate.
This background well presumably  intercepted the same aquifer as
the  downgradient off-site wells.

     The background well consisted of either a 3.8-cm or 10.2-cm
PVC  pipe placed to a depth of at least 2.4 m below the ground-
water surface.  A schematic of the background well is
illustrated in Figure 9.

     At Sites 1 and 3, four discrete pneumatic ejection devices
for  sample  collection were installed at different depths in the
background  groundwater monitoring well.  Details of  this pneu-
matic ejector-type sample collector will be presented later
under "Off-Site Well."
                               26

-------
TABLE  7 .   WELL CONSTRUCTION'DETAILS FOR ALL SITES
Well Type
Site 1
Initial Wells
In-Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-X)
Observation Wells (EX-1)
(EX-2)
(EX-3)
Gas Ejection Type Wells
Background, Level 1 (BG-1)
Level 2 (BG-2)
Level 3 (BG-3)
Level 4 (BG-4)
Off site No. 1, Level 1 (OS-11)
Level 2 (OS-12)
Level 3 (OS-13)
Level 4 (OS-14)
Off site No. 2, Level 1 (OS-21)
Level 2 (OS-22)
Level 3 (OS-23)
Level 4 (OS-24)
Offsite No. 3, Level 1 (OS-31)
Level 2 (OS-32)
Level 3 (OS-33)
Level 4 (OS- 34)
Offsite No. 4, Level 1 (-OS-41)
Level 2 (OS-42)
Level 3 (OS-43)
Level 4 (OS-44)
Offsite No. 5, Level 1 (OS- 51)
Level 2 (OS-52)
Level 3 (OS-53)
Level 4 (OS-54)
Offsite No. 6, Level 1 (OS-61)
Level 2 (OS-62)
Level 3 (OS-63)
Level 4 (OS-64)
Site 2
In-Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-1)
Downstream Deep (OS-2)
Drill Depth
(m)


11.3
5.8
19.8
16.8
13.7

18.3



22.3



22.6



24.4



20.1



21.3



24.4




11.0
3.7
15.2
Sample Intake
Elevation (m)


563.0 ,
558.4 AT
558.4
556.3
557.2
4.
557.2 CT
554.1 A
551.1 A
548.0 A
554.1 A
550.8 A
547.7 A
545.9 A
555.7 C
552.6 A
549.6 A
547.1 A
559.9 C
556.9 C
553.8 A
550.8 A,
554.1 ST
551.4 S
548.3 C
545.0 A
557.8 C
554.7 A
552.0 A
549.2 A
559.3 C
557.2 C
553.2 A
550.4 A

340.5
341.7
334.4
Well Size
(cm)*


7.6
7.6
3.8
ii
n
M
6.4#
n
n
n
M.
6.4#
H
n
n
ji
6.4#
n
n
n
ji
6.4#
n
n
n
4
6.4*
n
ii
n
O.f
n
n
n
M.
6.4#
n
n
n

10.2
10.2
10.2
                         27

-------
TABLE  7  (continued)
Well Type
Observation Wells (EX-1
(EX-2)
Background Wells (BG)
Site 3
Initial Wells
In- Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-X)
Observation Wells (EX-1
(EX-2)
EX-3
EX-4
EX-5
Gas Ejection Type Wells
Background, Level 1 (BG-1)
Level 2 (BG-2)
Level 3 (BG-3)
Level 4 (BG-4)
Offsite No. 1, Level 1 (OS-11)
Level 2 (OS-12)
Level 3 (OS-13)
Level 4 (OS-14)
Offsite No. 2, Level 1 (OS-21)
Level 2 (OS-22)
Level 3 (OS-23)
Level 4 (OS-24)
Offsite No. 3, Level 1 (OS-31)
Level 2 (OS-32)
Level 3 (OS-33)
Level 4 (OS-34)
Offsite No. 4, Level 1 (OS-41)
Level 2 (OS-42)
Level 3 (OS-43)
Level 4 (OS-44)
Offsite No. 5, Level 1 (OS-51)
Level 2 (OS-52)
Level 3 (OS-53)
Level 4 (OS-54)
Offsite -No. 6, Level 1 (OS-61 )
Level 2 (OS- 62)
Level 3 (OS-63)
Level 4 (OS-64)
Drill Depth
(m)
= 16.8
=15.2
6.7


10.7
7.3
13.7
15.2
9.1
9.1
15.2
18.3


19.8



19.8



19.2



19.2



19.2



17.7



Sample Intake
Elevation (m)
=336.2
=335.6
340.8


304.3
300.5
=296.6
=295.4
=299.0


302.0 C1"
299.0 C
296.0 ST
292.9 S
299.6 C
295.7 S
292.6 S
290.5 S
303.0 C
300.0 C
296.6 S
294.4 S
299.6 C
296.6 S
293.2 S
290.8 S
298.4 C
295.4 S
292.3 S
289.9 S
298.4 C
296.0 S
292.3 S
289.0 S
301.4 C
297.2 S
293.5 S
291.1 S
Well Size
(cm)*
3.8
II

10.2


7.6
7.6
3.8

II
II
II
6.4*
II
II
II
f -#
6.4
II
II
II
r J
6.4
II
II
II
C „#
6.4
II
II
cB,*
6.4
II
II
" *
6.4
II
II
e\*
6.4
II
II
II
                                      28

-------
TABLE  7  (continued)

Well Type
Site 4
In-Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-X)
Observation (EX-1)
(EX-2)
Background (BG)
Site 5
In-Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-1)
Background (BG)
Site 6
In-Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-1)
Downstream Deep (OS- 2)
Off site, Phase II (OS-31)
(OS-32)
(OS-33)
Background (BG)
Site 7
In-Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-1)
Downstream Deep (OS-2)
Observation (EX-1)
(EX-2)
(EX-3)
Off site, Phase II (OS-3)
Background (BG)
Site 8
In-Refuse (IR)
Downstream Shallow (OS-1)
Downstream Deep (OS-2)
Observation (EX-1)
Off site, Phase II (OS-3)
Background (BG)
* Well types of PVC material.
t A, C. and S are for aquifer
? Pneumatic sampler.
Drill Depth
(m)

7.6
5.6
7.6
3.5
13.1

11.3
3.3
19.8

8.2
4.6
8.5
17.4


12.8

10.7
6.7
12.4
11.3
13.7
7.0
15.2
22.9

3.0
2.0
5.9
11.6
22.9
9.8

Sample Intake
Elevation (m)

419.2
416.5
416.8
416.3
417.6

28.0
12.7
53.6

20.2
14.7
11.3
17.0
11.5
3.0
14.3

265.7
258.7
252.9
264.1
268.4
265.8
250.7
261.1

198.3
195.9
192.3
199.2
180.2
204.8

Well Size
(cm)*

10.2
10.2
3.8
II

10.2

10.2
10.2
10.2

10.2
10.2
10.2
6.4
II


10.2

10.2
10.2
1 rt f\
10.2
5T
.1
II
II
c /.#
6.4
If* r\
0.2

5.1
5.1
5^
.1
5^
.1
10.2
10.2

, clay, and sand strata, respectively.



                                       29

-------
                  EAST-WEST SECTION LINE ROAD
-- :-
                                          o      200'



                                            SCALE
 Figure 1 .   Locations of monitoring wells at site 1
                         30

-------
     £  FILLED  AREA
 1970 ;:  (YEAR FILLED)
Figure    2.  Locations of monitoring  wells  at site 2
                        31

-------
                   EX-2 0
                              AUTO
                            JUNKYARD
i W£ \







\ A ^7 or


3-
- *
•I ;*;":«• •!-;"<^ • ; "•".•i'-*-'-'-*";
;!;.;.;.;. >"•> ; - •'.•'.•>-:':•;-:
iiii"""s LUDGE" "|
ill! DISPOSAL;!!
AREA |||
•j

:::;:.i::.::.'::
                                                    BG'
                                     SEWAGE
                                    TREATMENT
                                      PLANT
Figure 2.   Locations of monitoring wells at site 3.

-------
                 MID 1973 TC
                 JAN 1973
                                     A SCS PPCJECT WELLS
                                     •5ASLISS SITE WELLS
Figure    4.   Locations  of monitoring wells at site 4
                             33

-------

                                       SITE WELL
                                     CORRECTIONAL
                                       FACILITIES
                                   	SURFACE WATER COURSES
                                         ACCESS ROAO
                                   	PROPERTY BOUNDARY
                                       — LIMITS Or LANOFILLING
                                         ACTIVE FILL AREAS
                                         \tfOODEO AREAS
                                   	CROSS-SECTION 8-3
                                      •   SITE MONITORING WEL
                                          SITE SURFACE WATER
                                          MONITORING  STATIONS
                                          PROJECT MONITORING WELLS
Figure   5.    Locations "of monitoring  wells at site
                                34

-------
CJ
cn -
                PROPERTY  BOUNDARY
        CJTJT^L ACCESS ROAD
                FILL AREA  BOUNDARY
        •— •— •-- LIMIT OF EXCAVATION
                WOODS
                 TOWNSHIP MONITORING WELL
                 PROJECT MONITORING WELL
         \      I  CROSS  SECTION
                                                                COMPLETED
                                                                FILli  ANEA
                                                            OW-2/OS-l-««OS-2
                             Figure   6.     Locations  of monitoring  wells at site  6

-------
OJ
o>
                    FV^
                    UUui
LEGEND

   WOODS

   ROADS

   COMPLETED FILL
PROJECT
MONITORING
WELLS

CITY WATER
WELL
                                                        h
                                                       TRUE
CITY WATER
   WELL
                        SLUDGE DRYING AND
                        SPREADING AREA

                                                                            os-;
                                                                                 os-i
                         Figure   l.   Locations  of  monitoring  wells  at  site  7.

-------
to
-4
                       WOODED AREA

                       ROADV.'AY

                        EACHATE POND
                       SILTATION POND
                                                                        LAGOOM NO.
                                                                          SO'L  STOCKPILE
SURFACE WATER MONITORING STATIONi;;^-,
                     r.y -.J.);}. 'V> ''
                                       LAGOON  NO. 2
                                                                                               SAMPLE POINT
                                                                                                (UPSTREAM)
          . \ J •* •' • •* j^—_*-——
                                                                SAMPLE POINT 2
                                                                (DOWNSTREAM AT EITHER
                                                                THIS LOCATION OR 2500 FT
                                                                (760M) FURTIER DOWN BROOK.)
                            Figure  8.   Locations of monitoring wells  at site  8.

-------
                      PVC  Cap
Groundwater V
                            2.2  ft  (0.67 m)

                          1	— Soil Surface
                            n Crete  Plug
                          .Backfilled  Soil

                           4  in.  (10  cm)  Diameter PYC
                           Pi pe

                       ^—Clay  Plug
                           Gravel

                          •Well  Screen Section - Hacksaw
                           Guts, 3  in.  (7  cm)  On. Center
                             ft
(0.61  m)  reservoir section
                           PVC Cap
                             (Glued in Place)
                           Caved Soil
     Fiaure  B .   Typical  background well construction
                             38

-------
In-Refuse Well

     An in-refuse well was installed within the landfill  area  in
Phase I to monitor leachate and decomposition gases  generated
within proximity of the well.  The well  was drilled  to ground-
water, and a concrete plug placed between the groundwater table
and bottom of the landfill.  A 10.2-cm PVC pipe was  then  placed
to approximately 0.5 m below the bottom of the landfill.   Gas
probes were placed at two depths, one approximately  at 0.9 to
1.5 m below the surface (upper), and the other above the  bottom
(lower) of the landfill, on the outside of the well  casing.   A
schematic of the in-refuse well is illustrated in Figure  10.

Off-Site Well
     In Phase I, two downstream wells were installed approxi-
mately 31 to 92 m outside the limit of the disposal area in the
presumed direction of groundwater flow.  These wells were to
intercept the groundwater passing the landfill.  The shallow
well would intercept the groundwater in the first meter or so
of the aquifer.  The deep well would penetrate a deeper stratum
and intercept groundwater at a depth of about 6.1 m (site
conditions permitting).  The purpose was to detect differences
in groundwater quality with depth.

     The wells consisted of 10.2-cm PVC pipe extending to the
desired depth.  Because of bedrock, caving sand, or other
impediments, deep wells were not dug at Sites 1, 3, 4, and 5.
A schematic of the off-site wells is illustrated in Figure 11.

     In Phase II, one additional deep well was installed at
each of Sites 6, 7,  and 8.  They were 8.9, 2.8,  and 17.0 m,
respectively, deeper than the original deep wells  at Sites 6,
7, and 8.

     One major expansion in Phase II monitoring  involved
installation of six  additional off-site wells with  pneumatic,
ejector-type sample  collectors at Sites 1  and 3.   The  rationale
behind the installation of these wells downstream  of the
disposal area was to establish the  three-dimensional extent  of
the leachate plume emanating from the  landfill  (Figure  12).   Two
parallel lines, each containing  three  off-site wells with four
sampling elevations  within each  well, were drawn perpendicular
to  the presumed central axis of  the  leachate plume  at  different
distances  from  the disposal area.   The two vertical planes
passing  through the  leachate-contaminated  groundwater  enclave,
coupled  with the distinguishable direction of  groundwater move-
ment,  defined  a hypothetical  leachate  control  volume (see
Section  5).

     As  can  be  seen  later, the orientation of  the  control volume
was not  truly  perpendicular  to the  traverse  central axis of  the

                               39

-------
GAS "i
SAMPLE
stT>
^PWP SOIL i
COVER T
SHALLOW
GAS PRC8E
.APPROX. 3-5 FT
(0.9 TO 1 . 5M ) BELOW
6 IN (15 CM )
NOMINAL /
OIA. BORE HOLE
DEEP GAS PRO3E i
APPROX. 3-5 FT ^
(0.9 TO 1 . 5M )
BOTTOM OF REFUSE —
— v^^TeHTTcT"
2 FT
(0. 6M)
MINIMUM OF 2 FT
r\e fowrriFT" -. »-
BACKFILL WITH
SOIL OR CONCRETE 	
NOT TO SCALE

•&'
1
u
84
0>.»»-
• o°
,*•* . .
r
i ^1 a .^- w -j »
. 0-<- y « i-ii
g^rVii
•
A
SOIL
CKFILL
A
3 . />-*••"•.
l^k>5
-4
— «r —
GRAVEL
«•—
:
j
i
c,=
LEACHATE SAMPLE
X SURFACE OF LANDFILL


2_
*—

BACKFILL
SS^^&fATB?1
flSi»>«?i.f-^-A
i?ia*Hp
.-NJ .,:..-.-. -^ >,<},,^
yW$\
y/vY/*
^__^ \?!^^
"^^"CONCRETE SEAL

' 	 4 IN (10 CM)
PVC PIPE TO EXTEND
MINIMUM OF 2 FT (0.6M)
ABOVE SURFACE
C1 \NDFILLED REFUSE )
AND/OR SLUDGE — ^
\— 	 CLAY OR
CONCRETE
PLUG
<^^UANOF~i
i
WELL
SCREEN
SECTION
j

LEGEND
• SOIL CORE SAMPLE
A REFUSE/SLUDGE
MOISTURE SAMPLE
• SOIL COVER
PERMEABILITY SAMPLE
V
GROUNOWATER
Figure 10.  Typical in-refuse well construction.
                        40

-------
r













20
(6.










FT
1M )

	 7 	
*

2 FT
( 0 . 6M )
r t





































•
1
1
1
c-T^ GROUND SURFACE ^?Z




















SEAL ""^
4 IN ( 1 0 CM )
PVC PIPE, TO EXTEND
MINIMUM OF 2 FT ( 0 . 6M )
SO.,}



GROUNDWATER _£_
2 FT
( 0 . 6M )















=








ii
ll
1
~~~~





















WELL
SCREEN
SECTION

SHALLOW WELL


NOT TO SCALE

WELL
SCREEN
SECTION
DEEP WELL
Figure  11.  Typical downstream well construction

-------
                                      PRESUMED
                                     CENTER TRAVERSE
                                      OF PLU^E
Figure  12 .   Offsite  well  layout  for  Sites   and 3

-------
leachate plume.  Adjustments were required for the shape  and
orientation of the control volume using the approximate direc-
tion of groundwater flow.  As a result, the control  volume was
changed from a rectangular to a trapezoidal shape.  Based on
this shape, it is reasonably safe to assume that the plume for
the designated cross section of groundwater flow passing
through the first monitoring line was intercepted by the  second
line.  However, due to various geologic formations,  considerable
variability in individual contaminant plume size, configuration,
concentration strengths, and general location occurred with
respect to the monitoring grid.

     The control volume  concept can be used to estimate total
mass emission and the degree of attenuation or elution if all
of the degrees of freedom in the independent equations are
satisfied.  The control  volume represents  a black box system
for which a variety of independent  and dependent  equations may
be written.  One major factor to be considered is that suffi-
cient monitoring time must be provided so  that one can monitor
a successive number of volumes of water or contaminants passing
through the control volume.  Without this, certain contaminants
will have gotten an opportunity to  enter  the control volume but
will not necessarily have had sufficient  time to  completely
pass through it.

     A schematic of the  pneumatic,  ejection type  off-site well
is illustrated  in Figure 13.  The well was constructed with
four sampling  levels separated by bentonite clay.  A pneumatic
sampler was installed  at each sampling depth  or  level.  This
sampler consisted of a tube  with a  flap valve in  the bottom and
two  tubes  leaving the  top that extended to the ground  surface.
Compressed  nitrogen was  introduced  into one tube, which  forces
water from  the  sampler out  the other tube to  the  surface  where
it was collected.
                                                  V.
     It is  possible that the use of multiple  depth  sample
probes  in  a single  well  may  result  in  contamination  of adjoining
probes.   The  use  of nested  or multiple well  bore  holes with
individual  probes was  preferable but not  adopted  because  of
cost and  time  considerations.   Intuitively,  if  the  probes  were
hydraulically  connected  in  a common well  hole,  the  leachate  or
contaminant concentrations  at  the  four levels would  appear to
be  of  similar  concentrations.   However,  examination  of all of
the  Site  1  and Site 3  concentration isopleths revealed that
this had  not  occurred.

-------
CLAY
       Figure  13.
Typical plume well construction with
pneumatic ajactor samplers.
                                44

-------
FIELD SAMPLING

Sampling of Waste,  Soil, and Mater

Phase I —
     Grab sludge samples were obtained from the sewage treatment
plant at each site  at the beginning and toward the end of
Phase I  monitoring.   At Site 2, the first sludge sample was
taken from material  excavated during placement of the in-refuse
we! 1 .

     Cover soil  and  core samples of soil were taken at the
landfill bottom halfway between the landfill bottom and the
groundwater table,  and at the soi1-groundwater interface.  The
core  sample was sliced off from the sides and ends, and the
center part was taken for chemical analysis.  Due to the
proximity of landfill bottom to groundwater table at Sites 1, 2,
3, 6, and 7, no sample was taken at the halfway mark from these
sites.

     At each site,  groundwater samples from a nearby private
well  (background) and the off-site monitoring well(s) and
leachate from the in-refuse well were  sampled three times over
a 4-  to 6-mo period in 1975 and once more in June 1976.  Gas
samples were taken from each of the two gas probes placed in
the in-refuse wel1.

Phase II--
     During Phase II monitoring, following well  installation,
groundwater and leachate samples were  taken bimonthly over a
1-yr period.  Sludge and gas samples were not taken in Phase  II.
Soil  samples obtained during drilling  of the off-site wells were
contaminated with soil material above  the sampling depth; thus,
no attempt was made to analyze these samples.

     Detailed procedures for field  sampling and  preservation
and shipping of samples are described  in Appendix C.

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

     Soil,  leachate, and groundwater samples  collected in
Phase I were analyzed for the  same  constituents.  These  consti-
tuents  were:

        PH
        Total solids
        Ammonium-ni trogen
         Nitrate-nitrogen
        Total  Kjeldahl  nitrogen
         Chloride
         Sulfate
        Total organic  carbon

                               45

-------
        Chemical  oxygen demand
        Calcium
        Cadmium
        Chromium
        Copper
        Iron
        Mercury
        Lead
        Zinc*
        Methylene blue-active substances (MBAS)*

     Gas samples taken from the in-refuse wells during  Phase I
were analyzed for methane (CH4), carbon dioxide  (CC^),  oxygen
(02), and nitrogen (N2) contents.

     In Phase II monitoring, the interest was primarily in  heavy
metals.  Due to the large number of samples to be  analyzed  and
costs involved, only the following constituents  in leachate and
groundwater samples were analyzed:

        Cadmium
        Chromium
        Copper
        Iron
        Mercury
        Nickel
        Lead
        Zinc
        Chloride
        Sulfate
        TOC
        Specific conductance.

     In addition, water samples taken from the off-site wells
at Sites 4, 7, and 8 during the fifth sampling period (Phase II)
were examined for fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus.   Prior
to sample collection, the wells were disinfected  by chlorination
(free chlorine, >100 ppm) for 24 hr, followed by  continuous
pumping until no residual chlorine was detected.   All sampling
equipment was also disinfected by chlorination,  whereas sample
containers were disinfected by autoclaving in the  laboratory.
While pumping in the field, the sampling equipment was  dechlor-
inated by flushing with well water until free of  chlorine.

     Detailed descriptions of sample preparation  and analytical
procedures employed are given in Appendix D.
*Determined in the June 1976 samples only.

                                46

-------
ANALYTICAL QUALITY CONTROL

Detection Limits

     Since state-of-the-art analytical detection limits  for
certain contaminants are close to the latest drinking water
standards, acceptable detection limits and requisite accuracies
for these threshold concentration ranges were needed.  For this
study, the requisite analytical sensitivities for the various
contaminants in groundwater are given in Table 8.  The minimum
detection limits were established after comparing project
requirements with drinking water standards approved and
published in the December 24, 1975, Federal Register.  The low
and high end concentration accuracy requirements were based on
equipment capabilities and typical state-of-the-art analytical
procedures.  These limits provided for the best possible
laboratory work commercially available.

Quality Control

     To ensure that the project laboratory was providing con-
sistently reliable and accurate analytical results, two check
samples* secured from EPA were submitted  to the laboratory with
each bimonthly batch of field  samples.  One check sample con-
tained a high concentration and the other  sample a  low concen-
tration of the constituents or elements to be analyzed simultan-
eously with the field samples.  If the  laboratory results
exceeded the tolerable levels  specified in Table 8  for any
constituent(s), a rerun of an  additional  check sample submitted
by EPA was required, as well as all field  samples of that  batch
for the particular constituent(s)  that  failed.   In  the course
of this project, very few  samples  needed  to be rerun; overall,
the quality of the laboratory  work was  quite  satisfactory.
 *Prior  to  each  sample  period,  a  new  high  and  low  concentration
  check  sample was  prepared  by  diluting,  in  different  propor-
  tions,  heavy metal  standard  solutions  provided  by  EPA.   Occa-
  sionally,  split  check samples were  analyzed  by  another
  laboratory  to  verify  the  dilution  values.   The  check samples
  were disguised as regular  groundwater  samples when submitted
  to  the  project laboratory.   Analytical  results  for these
  disguised  check  samples were  then  compared against known  con-
  centration  values to  see  if  they met the strict  quality  control
  tolerances.

                               47

-------
     TABLE 8  .   REQUISITE ANALYTICAL SENSITIVITIES
           FOR THE SELECTED CONSTITUENTS
                      IN  GROUNDWATER

TOC
Chloride
Sulfate
Cadmium
Extraction
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Mercury (gas
cell)
Nickel
Lead
Extraction
Zinc
Minimum
Detection
Limit
(mq/1 )
1.0
2.0
2.0
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.0002
J.01

0.005
.01
Low Level
Concentration
(mq/D
1 -
2 -
2 -
.01 -
.001 -
.01 -
.02 -
.01 -
.0002 -
.01 -

.005 -
.01 -
20
20
50
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.005
0.1

0.1
0.1
High Level
Concentration Anticipated Accuracy
(mq/1 ) in ppnt and %
>20
>20
>50
0.1 - 0.5
0.1 - 0.5
0.1 - 0.5
0.1 - 0.5
0.1 - 0.5
>.005
0.1 - 0.5
*
0.1 - 0.5
0.1 - 0.5
*+2 ppm or +
*±2 ppm or +_
*^_5 ppm or +
*+_.02 ppm or

*±_. 02 ppm or
5%
ios
10%
+ 10%
+. 10%
+_ 102
*i-025 ppm or +_ 15S
*+_.03 ppm or
+ 15%
•+.0004 ppm or +_ 151
*^.02 ppm or

*^.02 ppm or
*+.02 ppm or
+. 102

+. 20S
+_ 10S
* Accuracy of test procesures will  be based on the higher of the given values.
                           48

-------
                            SECTION 5

                 SPECIAL CONTROL VOLUME ANALYSES
APPROACH
     All groundwater flow is three dimensional to some extent.
If it were possible to measure the velocity of a water particle
percolating through the soil and to represent velocity by a
vector with a length proportional to velocity and parallel  to
the direction of flow, the vectors at any number of points
along the flow path would not be coplanar.  The degree of diffi-
culty in solving groundwater problems depends on the extent to
which flow is three dimensional.  A three-dimensional ground-
water flow problem can be dramatically simplified when symmetry
features make it possible to assume a two-dimensional form.

     In this study, special control volume analyses were used
to solve the complex groundwater flow and groundwater quality
problems.  The special control volume consists of a three-
dimensional monitored section perpendicular to the longitudinal
axis of the presumed downstream  leachate  plume (Figure 14).  Two
vertical planes containing  three monitoring wells each, and
having  four sampling elevations  within each well, were placed
perpendicular to the central axis of the  leachate plume at
varying distances  from the  disposal area.  The two vertical
planes  passing through the  leachate contaminated groundwater
enclave, coupled with the  distinguishable faces  formed by  the
flow direction, form  a hypothetical leachate  control  volume.
In this special control  volume  approach,  the  groundwater flow
was  simplified to  a two-dimensional flow:  horizontal flow and
vertical flow.

     Any realistic modeling effort  for solving  complex ground-
water flow,  as well as groundwater  quality problems,  requires
some sort  of  simplifying assumptions  to  bridge  the  gap between
reality, our  current  understanding  of  the actual system, and
practicability.   Following are  several general  assumptions used
for  this  study:

     •   The  soil  medium  is homogeneous within any  stratum
         studied.

      a   The  liquid flow  and porous  material  form a  continuous
         system.

                               49

-------
                         ^EXISTING ON-SITE WELL


                                LANDFILL SITE
OFF-SITE  WEI_L
-------
     •  The flow  is saturated  in  the  pore space of  the  control
        volume.

     •  The flow  regime is laminar.

     •  The transport of constituents through  a porous  medium
        causes  no significant  changes in the porous material.

     Two  types  of models will  be  used in this  special  control
volume analyses:

     •  Flow  models
     •  Contaminant transport  models.

The sequence  of events  that  occurs in modeling the system is
illustrated  in  the following diagram:
Models
Field Data
Results
    Flow models
Permeability
Effective porosity
Geometric description  of
medium
Hydraulic gradient
Location and shape of
special control volume
                     I
     Flow flux
     Flow path

     Travel time
Contaminant transport models
Contaminant location with time
Contaminant concentration with
time
Reaction constants, e.g.,
dispersion, sorption, complexa-
tion,  solubilization, etc.
Contaminant flux
Attenuation or elution results
 MODELING

 Flow Models

      In this  control volume  analysis, input  or  output flows
 through different soil layers  of the control  volume are
 separated  into two components:   a horizontal  flow component
 perpendicular to the upstream  face of the  control volume
 (Figure 15)  and a vertical  flow component, usually downward,
 and perpendicular to the  horizontal.  The  flow  velocity and
 flow rate  can be solved  by  applying Darcy's  law:
          =  KS
              H
                                  51

-------
                 053 SAMPLING
                     LEVEL  1
                                        PRESUMED
                                      CENTER TRAVERSE
                                        OF PLUME
                                        """PLANE  1  (HORIZONTAL
                                         INLET SECTION OF  THE
                                         CONTROL  VOLUME, AH)
Figure  15.     Control  volume  for sites  1  and 3
                            52

-------
    Vv = KSV                                                (2)


    QH - A,  ' VH                                            (3)

    n  = A   • v"                                             (4)
    ^V    V    V

    VH - vH/n                                               (5)

    Vy = Vv/n                                               (6)

    Where V"H = horizontal  specific  discharge  perpendicular  to
               inlet  section  AH

          V"., = vertical  specific  discharge  perpendicular  to
            V   inlet  section  Ay  (/ _ /  OS1 -OS2-OS3-OS4)

            K = permeability (hydraulic conductivity)

          Su = hydraulic gradient (horizontal)
            n
          Sv = hydraulic gradient (vertical)

            n = porosity

          QH = horizontal  flow rate

          Qv = vertical flow  rate
           VH = true horizontal  flow velocity perpendicular to
                inlet section AH

           Vv = true vertical flow velocity perpendicular to
                inlet section Ay .

     Therefore, the flow direction and magnitude also can be
solved by using

     tan Y - ^                                              (7)
             VH
         V =   V/ -H VHZ               .                      (8)

     Where  y = the angle between the velocity vector and the
                horizontal plane.

     Darcy's law is only applicable for the laminar flow range
where resistive forces govern.  As velocity increases, inertia!
forces and ultimately turbulent flows cause deviations from the
linear relation.  The flow rates in this study were low enough

                               53

-------
so that Darcy's law could be applied.  True Darcian flow may
also not occir in fine textured ^tenals because of interfer-
ences by clay particles and their absorptive fields that attract
water, casing it to be more static and not as ^« for movement.
However, approximate flow velocities were calculated using this
law.

     Soil borings revealed numerous stratified layers within the
control volume.  This phenomenon is believed to greatly affect
the direction and magnitude of the groundwater flow due to
differences  in soil layer permeability and hydraulic gradient.
Under saturated flow conditions  (Figure  16), a refraction of
streamlines  occurs when  streamlines from a medium of permea-
bility  (K-,)  cross the boundary of a medium with different
permeability (K2).  Consider a stream  tube composed of stream-
lines passing through A  and B  (Figure  16).  By continuity, all
the  fluid flowing between those  streamlines in Layer I also
crosses  into Layer  II and remains between  the refracted stream-
lines    In  other words,  the normal components of the average
velocities  on  both  sides of the  boundary must be the same:

      V    =  V                                                 (9)
      Vl,n    V2,n

This  can  be  expressed  as

         (Ah  ).R              (Ah2^AB                          Mn\
 and
      C,B = a.sin e]                                         <•'*'

      AC2 = a.sin 92                                         (13'

 Substituting Equations 11, 12, and 13 into Equation 10,  the
 result is

      tan 61  - Kl                                            (14)
      tan &2   K2

 This relationship  shows that the change in flow path from one
 layer to another is related to the ratio of permeabilities
 between these two  layers.  If there are n horizontal layers of
 soil with  thickness e1$ e2> ... e  , and the corresponding head
                                54

-------
LAYER
I I
Figure  16.
Refraction of streamlines across a  boundary
of different permeabilities.
                           55

-------
loss is Ah-|, Ah2,  ... Ahn, then  the  Vertical  flow  rate  may be
expressed as

               Ah,              Ah9
     "V • AV • 57 •  Kl  •  AV  •  57    K2  '  ••'                (

               4h

             '      '
The total  head  loss  across  the  multilayered stratum will  be

     n
     E  Ah   =  Ah,  +  Ah,  +  . . .  +  Ah
     ,   n      I      c.            n
Assume  the  overall  permeability is KV .   Then
               \ 4hn
                              n
 where  H  =  e-j  + e2 . • •  + en = I


                 n
                 I en
 Therefore, Ky = \-^~

                 1 IT
                 1 Kn
 The vertical sp.ecific discharge crossing many layers of  soil  can
 then be solved as follows:
                n
                I Ah
      -         1   n
      \i  _ y  •
      VV " KV   n
                I e
           n
           n   e
               K
n
                n.
                                56

-------
The  specific discharge in nonhori zontal or nonvertical parallel
layers  can be solved using the relationships in Equations 14 and
19 and  the inclined angle of these parallel layers:

          n
          £ Ah

     *n ' ?T^                                             <2°)
          Z —
          1 Kn

     Vv = Vp sin Y                                          (21)


     \TH = V"n cos Y                                          (22)


where Y is the inclined angle to the  horizontal plane.

The true velocity can be  derived by dividing the specific
discharge by the porosity as shown before:

     Vv = V"v/n                                              (23)


     VH = VH/n                                              (24)


The overall travel  time,  t,  crossing  the  boundaries  of the
control volume can  be calculated by dividing the travel  path,
L, by the velocity:


     t = - != - -                                       (25)
         /v 2 + V 2
         V VV    VH

     In the above discussion,  it  was  assumed  that  the  flow
direction was perpendicular  to  the  inlet  and  outlet  faces of  the
box-shaped control volume.   (This  assumption  enables  the  flow to
be partitioned into  simple x  and  y  coordinates.)   Unfortunately,
it was found during  the  1-yr  monitoring  period  that  the direc-
tion of flow was not  always  perpendicular to  the  inlet face  of
the control volume.   Therefore,  a  modification  of  the  shape  and
dimensions of the control  volume  was  necessary  to  solve the  flow
and contaminant transport  problems.   As  shown in  Figure 17,  the
following was assumed:

     0  The x-axis parallels  the  original leachate plume  longi-
        tudinal axis  (the  perpendicular  to the  vertical inlet
        face of the  original  control  volume).

     t  The y-axis is at right  angles to the  x-axis  in the
        horizontal plane.


                                57

-------
     •  The z-direction (downward) is normal to the x-y
        horizontal plane.

The piezometric elevations of the water table were measured at
the exploratory wells to determine the changing hydraulic
gradients referenced to the x, y, and z coordinate system.
These measurements were then used to calculate the velocity
components:

          K •  S

     Vx = ^-A                                            (26)

          K •  S
     %- —n-*                                            (27)

          K '  S

     Vz ' -rH-                                            (28)

Therefore,
/V2 + V2
     V = /Vx  + Vy  + V2                                    (29)

               y
     Q = tan"1 r£'                                          (30)
                y
               y
     a = tan"1 r                                             (31 )
    VH = dh>                                              (32)
             ^r                                              (33)

where Vy and Vy are velocity components in x-y and_ y-z planes,
respectively, and e and a are the angles between VH and the
x-axis and Vy and the y-axis, respectively.

     The shape of the control volume was reoriented from
/  7 ABEF to / _ / ABCD, as shown in Figure 17, as dictated by
the velocity vector VH.  This modification enables us to collect
the same groundwater crossing both inlet and outlet boundaries
and avoids reestimation of travel time, such as in_ABCE where
the horizontal travel time may range from zero to BC/VH.  Similar
modification of the vertical  shape of the control volume was
achieved by the same methods  as shown above usina the velocity
vector.

                               58

-------

  V
                                        DIRECTIONS OF  THE
                                         FLOW COMPONENTS
               OS-3  ( B)
   INLET
   BOUNDARY
                                     OS -6  ( E )
                                            TOP VIEW OF
                                            THE CONTROL
                                            VOLUME
                                     OS-5
                                        OUTLET BOUNDARY
                                     OS -4 (F)

                                        NEW CONTROL VOLUME
                                            (£7 ABCD)
Figure 17.
Direction of  flow  vectors  and plan view
of reoriented  control  volume.
                          59

-------
Contamination Flux and Attenuation of Contaminant

     In the above discussion, it was assumed that the transport
of constituents did not affect the fluid flow.  However, many
factors may cause differences in the movement of a groundwater
fluid and the associated constituents.  Examples of phenomena
likely to cause such differences are ion exchange, sorption
reaction, redox reaction, complexation, solubi1ization (dissolu-
tion and precipitation), bio-oxidation, and hydrodynamic dis-
persion.  Since these soil-related physical, chemical, or
biological mechanisms are usually highly complicated  and
quantitative information is usually unavailable, evaluation of
the contaminant flux must be based on the mass balance over a
certain fixed time period (molecular diffusion is assumed
negligi ble).

     The total mass flow rate  (contaminant flux), Jf, of a
contaminant through a small isoconcentration area, dAt, and
influent concentration, C*, inlet section of the control volume
at time t can be  expressed as
        = /
dA,
                                                            (34)
     where A  is the total inlet area of the control volume.

     Vt  is the flow velocity through the same isoconcentration
area.  The total  input mass of a contaminant during time period
T can be calculated from the above relation as follows:

     Total Input  Mass into Area A during Period T =
    dA
                                 dt
(35)
     The total mass input of a constituent into the inlet
sections of the control volume corrected  by the flow directions
of VH and Vy  becomes:


     Min = Min,H +Min,V                                     (36)

and the total mass output from the  control volume becomes


     Mout = Mout,H +Mout,V                                  (37)

The attenuation or elution of a constituent through this
special control volume can then be  calculated from the combined
mass balance  Equations 36 and 37 as  shown below:

     M = M.n  - Mout                                          (38)
                               60

-------
The amount M indicates the total  mass of a constituent changed
by the soil(s)  in the special  control volume.  The sign of M
can be used for judging the transport direction of the consti-
tuent - a positive sign indicates that the constituent was
attenuated by the soil media,  while a negative sign indicates
elution has occurred.

CALCULATIONS

     The real situation observed during the course of this
research was that the hydraulic gradients and subsequently the
flow velocities and flow directions were constantly changing.
It was also found that C^ and  At were fluctuating widely with
time (see concentration isopleths, Section 6).  This phenomenon
causes either the flow or contaminant transport models to be
indeterminate due to insufficient information, e.g., sampling
occurred six times for the entire experimental period of 318
days.  Some rational assumptions were needed to be made so as  to
allow the calculations to proceed, such as:

     •  Changes of concentration vs time are linear between
        adjacent sample data points  (Figure  18a)

     •  The hydraulic gradient is maintained constant for
        approximately a 2-mo period  (approximately 1 mo before
        and after the actual sampling time)(Figure 18b).

Employing the above assumptions, Equation 35 can  be simplified
to summation form, as follows:


     M = j^  Cn ' Qn  ' Tn             -                     (39)


and Equation 39 rearranged to:


     M .  I  (Cn ' Tn) Qn.                                  (40)
         n = l

where  z C   • Tn is the area under the concentration-time  curve,
as shown in  Figure 18a.   To exercise  Equation  40,  Qn,  the
product of  specific discharge and cross  sectional  area, must be
modified to  account for the variable  flow rates through the
different soil strata  encountered in  the  control  volume.  As
is seen in  the concentration  isopleths  (Section 6), the cross
sectional area should  be  divided  into many  sub-areas  conforming
to areas of  equal concentration  (Figure  19a)  to obtain  accurate
results.  The changes  in  both specific discharge  and  control
area make the calculation  of  Q   extremely complicated,  possibly
necessitating the use  of  a computer.  An  alternative  approach
(Figure 19b) which  is  simple, easy to calculate,  and  a

                               61

-------
      ( a)
                  LINEAR  BETWEEN  TWO ADJACENT  POINTS





                                   CURVE FOR C S '/ELL NC . 1 , LEVEL j




                                       C.
                 AREA  =  I  C -T
                       n =1  n   n
                                                           :
    N    D
      ( b)
z
_

C
-

o ~


i:
J
•J
--

7
-
                              DATA  POINTS

'a
- D
1
4 	 p
.
1

'a


Tb

W1
	 •

Tb
I * 1

M _ A
1 3
-s—




M — J
rf ' V

5
i 	 i
|_
J T A
4 5 >


TS

1


                                                              11 ME

                                                               ( t )
   Figure  18.
Changes in  concentration (a)  and  hydraulic

gradient  (b)  for CS well no.  i,  level  j.
                                52

-------
   (b)
                SPECIAL  CONTROL  VOLUME
                 SAMPLING POINTS
      131
           OS -1
                         OS -2
                                        OS-3
Figure  19.   Concentration  isopleth diagram (a) and partitioning
            of  control  volume face into subareas (b).
                               63

-------
relatively close approximation to the former method, is to
assume that the constituent concentration at any sampling point
can be held constant halfway to the next sampling point in the
same well or adjacent off-site well in the control  volume.  The
small sub-areas, A-Hfc, where i is the off-site well  number, j
the sampling point level, and k the type of soil, can be calcu-
lated as shown in Figure 19b.

     Q  can be solved by the following equation:


     Vijk = AH,ijk ' Vk                                 <41>

     Vijk = Yijk • Vk                                 (42)

where Q,, ...  = horizontal flow rate through control  face area
       n > i J K   »
                H.ijk

      Qv iii, = vertical flow rate through control face area
       * » ' J *   n
                V,ijk

        VM .  = horizontal specific discharge in soil layer k


        Vy .  = vertical specific discharge in soil  layer k.


The contaminant flux of a constituent through control area
A.-k becomes:


     JH,ijk = CH,ijk " Vijk                               (43)


     JV,ijk = CV,ijk " Yijk                               <44>

     Use of Equations 39 through 44 allow a materials balance
type analysis to be made around the monitored control volume.
However, in order to make sure the comparison is made on the
same flow mass for the inflow and outflow, the time  lag between
passage from the inlet face to the outlet face should be taken
into account.

     (1)  Calculate the travel time, T, between the  inlet and
          outlet faces of the control volume both horizontally
          and vertically from:


              LH   LV
          T - / = r-                                       (45)
               H    V

          where L^ and Ly are, respectively, the horizontal and
          vertical distances between the two faces.

                               64

-------
     (2)  Chose  the  desired  leach in'g  period,  T p.

     (3)  Calculate  the  total  inflow  volume  V for  Tp.

     (4)  Choose  starting  values  of C.jjk  from concentration-time
         curves  (Figure 18)  for  the  outlet  section  after  time
         period  T.

     (5)  Calculate  the  time period,  T ', required for  the
         outlet  section to  pass  flow Volume V.

     Values  of  TD and T  '  are generally quite close, except  when
the  shapes  of  th§ contrHl  area and the types of soil between the
inlet and outlet boundaries  vary.   As will be shown  in  the next
section  for  actual  data, the deviation between Tp and Tp'  for
the  Site  1  control  volume was only 0.28 day.

     The  flow  and contaminant transport models used  in  the
analysis  and interpretation  of the Sites  1 and 3 control  volume
results  are  of  necessity rough approximations to what actually
occurred.   The  accuracy  of the model and  calculation results
will be  dependent on the accuracy of the  assumptions (e.g.,
homogeneity  of  soil, fluctuation of flow and concentration of
constituents,  etc.).  In the absence of  additional  off-site
wells, more  sampling points, greater frequency of sampling over
a longer period of time, and more detailed  information on the
hydrogeology,  some uncertainty is unavoidable.  Nevertheless,
trends and  general impacts can be perceived  from  the data
presented.
                                65

-------
                            SECTION  6
                         DATA EVALUATION
INTRODUCTION
     The monitoring program at each site included chemical
analysis of soil, sludge, and decomposition gases during  Phase I,
and analysis of in-refuse well leachate and groundwater from
background and downstream off-site wells in both phases of
the study.

     Soil samples taken during placement of in-refuse monitoring
wells and sewage samples obtained from the sewage treatment plant
were sequentially extracted with water and concentrated nitric
acid for various selected constituents and contaminants.   The
portion extracted by water indicates possible solubility-control-
ling solids, the complexation species  (salt effect), as well as
some exchangeable ions.  Presumably this water-soluble fraction
is readily subjected to vertical and horizontal movement away
from the landfill.  The acid extraction is less defined.   The
results, however, may indicate concentrations of heavy metals
in the  noncrystal1ine form, which are  immobile  in the soil
or siudge.

     Cover soils taken at the eight disposal sites were measured
for texture and  horizontal and vertical' permeabi1ity coefficients
Two or  more cover soil samples were tested for  permeability at
several sites.   These results were presented earlier in Section 3

     Gas  samples taken from the in-refuse wells were analyzed for
percentage by  volume of methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and
nitrogen.

     Leachate  from the in-refuse well  and groundwater from  back-
ground  and various downstream wells was collected and analyzed
for selected contaminants.  During Phase I of this study, no
background well  was installed; thus, one or two grab samples
were taken from  an upstream domestic source, e.g., private  well.
Of four sampling dates,  three covered  a period  of from 3 to 5 mo
in 1975,  while one was in June 19,76.   Based on  these results
and recommendations, a more extensive  monitoring program was
conducted  that included  installation of background and explora-
tory wells at  all  sites  and additional  downstream wells at
Sites  1,  3, 6, 7,  and  8.  This Phase II sampling encompassed  a
period  of  12 mo  with six  sampling  dates.  Tabulations  of results
are given  in Tables 1  through 8 of Appendix E.
                               66

-------
    Results of groundwater  analyses  were  compared  with  EPA
drinking water standards  to  determine the  extent  of groundwater
contami nati on.

    The discussion of  results  for  each  site  covers soil,  sludge,
leachate, decomposition  gases,  and  groundwater,  as  well  as
environmental impact assessments.   Sites  1  and  3  also  include
the control volume analysis  for groundwater.   In  assessing  the
environmental impacts of landfilling  sewage sludge, primary
emphasis is placed on the evaluation  of  possible  degradation  of
groundwater quality downstream  from the  disposal  area.

SITE  1

Soil  Analyses

     Soil  samples  were  taken from  the refuse-soil  interface
(at 7.3  to  7.6  m)  and  the soi1-groundwater interface (at 11.0
to 11.3  m)  during  drilling of  the  in-refuse well.  These
samples  were  extracted  sequentially  with water and nitric
acid;  the  results  are  presented in Table 9.

     The soil  at  the  refuse-soil interface contained
considerably  higher concentrations of TOC, COD,  chloride,_and
sulfate  than  the  soil  near the groundwater table,  indicating
both  the impact of leachate  and the  strong attenuative
capacity of the soil  immediately below the fill.   Nitrogen
was primarily  in  the  ammonium  form in the  soil near the  fill;
no nitrate was  detected  at either  depth.   A  large  proportion
of the calcium  present was in  the  water-soluble  form.   Heavy
metals were found primarily  in the acid extracts,  except
for iron;  only  traces  of  the water-soluble forms were detected.
This  would suggest that,despite slightly'to  moderately  acidic
soils (pH 5.8 and 6.7),  migration  of heavy metals  in the  soil
was limited because of  low water solubility.   The  heavy  metal
concentrations  in the acid extracts  were  generally less
than the concentrations  commonly reported  in  soils (1,  2).
The concentration of lead  (18.2 and  13.2  ppm)  was  slightly
greater than that commonly  reported  (10  ppm).   This  lead  is
probably background, although  its  origin  cannot  be determined
from the data.

Sludge Analyses

     The grab sludge samples obtained from the sewage  treat-
ment plant were extracted sequentially  with  water  and  con-
centrated nitric  acid  (Table 9).   The July 1975  sample   _
showed  relatively high  concentrations of  COD,  TKN, ammonium,
and water-soluble calcium,  chromium, copper, iron, and  lead.
The constituent concentrations were  within the ranges,  as
reported by Sommers (9).  Copper  and iron concentrations
in the  June 1976  sample were greater than the median  concen-
trations reported  (9).   Other  heavy  metals in water suggested
a great potential  for  migration  away from the disposal  site.

                                67

-------
                      TABLE  9.    ANALYTICAL RESULTS  FOR  SITE  1,  PHASE  I*
en
oo
                       Soil  Samples  Taken  Below  Landfill  During  Drilling  of In-Refuse Well
                             Refuse-Soil  Interface             Soi1-Groundwater Interface
                               (7.3 to 7.6  m)                	(11  to  11 .3 m)
Constituent"''
pH
TOC
COD
TKN
NH4-N
NOa-N
Cl
S04
Ca^
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Water
6/26/75
5.8
3440
7789
132
111
<0.4
270
220
1375
<0.03
<0.30
<0.20
0.86
0.005
<0.20
Add








1900
0.17
3.21
5.37
1692
0.010
18.2
Water
6/26/75
6.7
88
202
108
7.4
<0.4
120
90
75
<0.03
<0.30
<0.20
1.71
0.005
<0.2
Acid








1625
0.32
5.79
12.17
7438
0.004
13.2

-------
      TABLE  9     (continued)
cr>
10
Sludge*
Consti tuent^

pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
NOa-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Water Acid
7/8/75


50000
173056

7145
687
1.1
110
<10
1740
0.77
10.17
108
187
0.087

21.0

Water Acid
6/4/76


45360

<0.1



12
88

1.5
53
200
2000
<0.003
2.9
72
212
Background Groundwater

10/14/75
7.6
598.1
14
17

0.2
0.2
0.65
24
152
46
<0.001
<0.01
0.008
0.10
0.0008

0.020


6/4/76


2.0

<0.01



27
240

.001
<.01
.01
.23
<.0002
<.01
.007
.49

-------
TABLE
(continued)
Constituent"1"
PH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
N1
Pb
Zn
Offsi
7/8/75






OJ
Q.
10
I/)
•M
C
Ol
•r—
U
tl
H—
«f-
13
«/»
c
i — *

te Well (
9/18/75
7.9
609
10
30

1.1
0.14
<0.02
25
238
70
0.008
<0.01
0.008
0.33
<0.0002

0.056

Shallow)
10/14/75


52
83

2.7
1.3
0.25
47
430
87
0.003
0.03
0.016
0.85
0.0004

0.035


6/4/76


12

0.04



36
315

0.001
0.07
0.02
4.6
<0.0002
0.02
0.02
0.09
 *  Soil and sludge were extracted with water and concentrated  nitric  add.  Sampling
    dates are also indicated.

 "1*  Concentrations are expressed as mg/kg of dry soil, mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
    groundwater or leachate
 #  Moisture content for the 6/4/76 sample was 85 percent.

-------
Leachate Analyses

     The results of the leachate analyses are presented in
Table 10; only one leachate sample was obtained in Phase I
because of the dry well.

     The leachates were characterized by the high levels of
iron, zinc, TOC, and specific conductance and low to nondetec-
table levels of cadmium, chromium, copper, and mercury.  Peak
concentrations of most constituents generally occurred in the
summer, probably as a result of high precipitation.  Except for
cadmium and chromium, the heavy metal concentrations in the
leachate appeared to be correlated with TOC concentrations.
The data suggested that the heavy metals in the leachate were
moving in the form of metal-organic complexes.

Decomposition Gases in In-Refuse Well

     Gas samples collected at two depths from the in-refuse well
were analyzed for methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen
(Table 11).  Generally, approximately 50 and 40 percent of the
volume of the gas were methane and carbon dioxide, respectively,
while oxygen and nitrogen were present in trace amounts.  The
volume composition of methane and carbon dioxide remained
relatively constant regardless of sampling depth and date,
indicating stability of the landfill.

Groundwater Analyses

     During Phases I and II, groundwater samples were taken both
upstream and downstream from the landfill.  Phase I background
groundwater samples were taken from a home near the landfill.
This home well water received no additional treatment after
being withdrawn from the ground.  The Phase II background ground-
water samples were from the project background well southwest
of the landfill
     During Phase II, groundwater samples were taken from
new pneumatic type off-site wells and from the Phase I sh
off-site well (OS-X at 5.8 m).  Analytical data for Phase
II are presented in Table 9 and in Table  1 of Appendix E,
                                                          six
                                                         illow
      ^ C WCII  I W J — A U I* .J • v_» my*  niiwijruiv*VAi %uw\*v* i v> i  r fl O O C O 1 Q 11 '
..  ~,^ presented in Table 9 and in Table 1 of Appendix
respectively.

Background Groundwater--
     Evaluation  of Phase I background groundwater results shows
that concentrations of total solids, TOC, COD, chloride, sulfate,
and calcium, were in the ppm range, while other heavy metals and
nitrogen compounds were in the sub-ppm range.  These data were
all well within  the concentration ranges of most terrestrial
waters (4).
                               71

-------
             TABLE  10.    CHEMICAL  ANALYSIS  OF  LEACHATES  FROM  IN-REFUSE WELL  (SITE 1)
ro
Constituent
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Cl
SO
TOC
Sp. Cond.
Phase' I
6/4/76
0.003
0.01
<0.01
190
<0.0002
0'.04
0.10
11

8
985

Phase IIf
10/31/76
0.050
0.25
0.13
800
0.0002
0.48
0.060
1 .2
' _.#

--

1/21/77
0.050
0.12
0.11
1100
<0.0002
0.37
0.700
32.0
230
85
14470
18000
5/19/77
0.005
0.04
0.02
235

0.24
0.140
3.2
18
--
2600

7/19/77
0.045
0.11
0.13
930
<0.0002
0.48
1 .280
95.0
92
150
10100
17500
9/14/77
0.040
0.11
0.09
6.0
<0.0002
0.30
0.680
66.0
153
17
3780
6900
      *Specific conductance in ymhos/cm, all other constituent concentrations in ppm.
      fDue to dry well, no samples were taken on 7/8/75, 9/18/75, 10/14/75 (Phase I)  and
         3/10/77 (Phase II).
      ^Insufficient sample.

-------
   TABLE  11.  GAS  COMPOSITION  AT SITE  1  IN-REFUSE WELL

7/8/7
Gas Species Upper

5
Lower

9/8/75
Upper Lower

10/1
Upper

4/75
Lower
	 
-------
     The Phase II analytical results were also within the concen-
tration ranges for natural waters.  Except for iron, nickel, zinc,
and possibly lead, the contaminant concentrations were quite
close in both phases.  Soluble iron and zinc in the background
samples were as high as 2.3 and 3.8 ppm, respectively.  Back-
ground nickel and lead concentrations were higher in Phase II
than in Phase I, probably because of variations in sampling
location and season.

     The Phase II background groundwater contaminant concentra-
tions varied seasonally, higher in the summer than in the winter.
U.S. Weather Bureau statistics (5) indicate that Site 1  generally
receives more rain in summer than in the winter, and the control
volume analyses, to be presented later, show higher rates of
groundwater flow in the summer.  The higher contaminant levels
in the summer may result, since the higher flow rates can trans-
port fine particulates in the groundwater.  The fine particulates
probably comprise part of the concentration levels determined
by analysis in this study.  The data show that dilution effects
may not be significant during the summer.

     Phase II results indicated that samples from deeper locations
in the background well usually had higher contaminant concen-
trations, the highest concentrations usually occurring in the
sand-gravel (aquifer) layer.  The sand-gravel stratum appeared
to allow larger contaminant transport than comparable sandy
clay soil.  This phenomenon can be explained by the following:

     •  Clay has a higher surface sorption capability than
        sand, so that attenuation of contaminants by clay
        is more significant than by sand.

     •  Clay is generally less permeable than sand, so the •
        flux rate is less and provides more time for various
        reactions to occur.     v"

Off-Site Well Groundwater--
     Data from the off-site shallow well (OS-X) showed that the
concentrations of contaminants again varied with time.  Concen-
trations of TOC varied between 8 and 52 ppm; however, there
did not seem to be any significant correlation between concen-
tration and season for the TOC changes.  Nitrogen compound
results were available for only two sampling times for the OS-X
well.  The concentrations for TKN and ammonium-nitrogen were
about 1 to 3 ppm and 0.15 to 1.3 ppm, respectively.  Nitrate was
in relatively low levels ranging from a trace to 0.25 ppm.
Chloride and sulfate concentrations ranged from 25 to 70 ppm and
238 to 430 ppm, respectively.  No seemingly significant relations
in the concentration trends were found among the contaminants;
with the exception of iron and zinc, all the concentrations of
trace heavy metals in the OS-X well samples analyzed had less
than 0.1 ppm, the majority less than 0.01 ppm.  The concentration

                               74

-------
of iron  increased from 0.33 to 8.3 ppm, zinc from about 0.01  to
3 ppm.

     The analytical  data fo wells OS-1 to OS-6 in the Phase II
monitoring  are given in Table 1  of Appendix E.  In general, the
concentrations of contaminants in samples from wells OS-1  to
OS-6 were within the ranges of the concentrations of the OS-X
samples.  Concentration trends of various selected contaminants
in relation to sampling time and depth are discussed below.

     Chloride—Chloride concentrations in the groundwater from
wells OS-1  and OS-6  ranged from <2 to 65 ppm.  Concentration
versus  time curves showed that,  in general, chloride gradually
decreased during the Phase II monitoring (Figure 20).  Since
chloride is relatively non-reactive and anion exchange capacity
of soils is generally low, it appears that the concentration
change  observed was  mainly caused by a decrease in the upstream
source.

     When chloride concentrations from different sampling levels
of the  same well were compared,  groundwater samples from lower
depths  usually contained higher chloride concentrations.  This
was probably due to  the migration of chloride into the deep
groundwater.

     Sulfate--Concentrations of sulfate in the OS well ground-
water decreased or fluctuated during the Phase II monitoring
(Figure  21).  The fluctuations may be due to  the reduction and
oxidation of the sulfide solids (see Special  Control Volume
Analyses).   In addition, the sulfate data also showed higher
concentrations and transport flux in the sand formation than
in the  clay formation.

     TOC--A large decrease in TOC was observed during the year-long
monitoring (Figure 22).  However, unlike chloride or sulfate,
TOC concentrations generally decreased with sampling depth.
Since March 1977, TOC concentrations  in the downstream ground-
water appeared relatively constant, with values hovering around
5 ppm.   This could be due to disappearance of drilling muds.
As will  be discussed in the Special Control Volume Analyses,
TOC could be strongly attenuated by soil which could account for
the observed decrease in TOC concentrations.

     Trace Metals--Concentrations of  cadmium, chromium, copper,
and nickel were near or below the equipment detection limits
in this  study.  Therefore, it was difficult to identify the
migration trends of these elements in the groundwater.  Iron,
lead, zinc, and mercury concentrations were higher than detection
limits;  changes in concentration with sampling time  for these
four metals are shown in  Figures 23 to 26.
                               75

-------
80
60
4-0
20
80
60
                    QS-1
      I	I    till   I	I
20
80
60
20
                    OS-2
      I   I    I
I    I   I    I   I    I    I
                    OS-3
                        I   I    I  • I    II
  NOJFMAMJ   J   A   S    0
   1976 - 1 -137 7
                                              Ll


                                              L2


                                              L3
  Figure 20.  Cl  levels in groundwater  from
              six  off-site wells (site  1).
                        76

-------
        80
        60
        40
        20
                            OS-4
              I    I   I
   I	I   I  	L   I	L
                            QS-5
     a.
     a.
        60
     a.
     a.
        20
                            QS-6
              J	(
t   I     I—I	1	J	1	1
          N   QJFMA   M J   JAS    0

           1976- I "1977                      	
                                Ll


                                L2



                                L3



                                L4
Figure  20 (Continued)
                                   77

-------
E
Q.
   300—
   225>-
   150
e
a.
a.
a
to
   400..
   200 ^
   200 -
a.
   2GC
    ICC -
             '   '    »	1	1	1	1	1
      NOJFMAMJJASQ
   ICC -
   iOOr-
   3CO -
                                                  Li
                                                  L2
         Figure 21.  SO^,  levels in croundwater fro-

                     six  off-site wells  (sits  1).
                               78

-------
     400 r
     300
  s
  e_
  c.

   .  200
     100
                        as-4
              \  ' ^   !l
              \i  V
                                      J	1
     400 r

                                                Ll



                                                L2



                                                L3
Figure 21 (Continued)
                              79

-------
S
    IS
    40
                     OS-1
 \  \
-  \\
     \\
         I	I   1
    10
                     QS-2
                                        LI



                                        L2




                                        L3
         t   1   t   I   I
    10
                     OS-3
      NQJFMAMJJASQ

       1275	H» 37 7
        Ficure  22.  70C levels in croundwatsr from

                   six off-site wells  (site 1) .
                          80

-------
     20Qr
     1501-
     100
  a
  i—
  s
  c.
     400 r
     300
     200 -
     100 _
      40 r
  u
  <=
      30
      20
      10
         \
                        as-6
\
                 »
                                                    Ll
Figure 22(Continued)
                               81

-------
 
-------
      2oor
      ISO _
      100 —
                          as-4
                          »	1	1	!	 '   '
       20 r-
       10 -
         .IDJFMAMJJASfl
          t375	1—»S7 7
                                                    Ll


                                                    L2


                                                    L3


                                                    L4
Figure 23 (Continued)
                               83

-------
s
c.
a.
.a
CL
                 — J3S-2
/;   \\   \
       -/
       J.
                                       0.53
LI



L2




L3



L4
                    as-s
                         /\
                            v  /
                       /    y
      NOJFMAMJJASO
        Figure 24 .   Pb  levels  in grounciwater from

                     six. off-site wells (site 1).

-------
      .20
      . 15
      .10
      .05
      20
      . 15
       10
      .05
       .4
       .3
       .2
       . 1

                        OS-4
                        OS-5
                             A
 •I

I
                                \
                                 \
                            x-\ \
                        OS-6
        MDJ.  FMAMJJASQ
         1376—H—1977                     	
                          LI

                          1-2

                          L3
Figure 24 (Continued)
                              35

-------
                     CS-l
     01
   2.0
      \
   1.5
E
C.
c
rvt
                     OS-2
    .5
                                               Ll


        Figure  25.  Zn levels  in  aroundwater from
                    six  off-site  wells  (site 1).
                             86

-------
    .60r
    .45 -
    .30 -
    . 15
     .4r
     .3 _
     .2
     . 1
                   os-2
  \



A\
 \
- \
          \
 \\
           \

                   ,   ,
                            \~ *'
                           . A^-
    1.6
                                 Ul



                                 l_2



                                 L3



                                 1.4
       MQJFMAMJJAS
Figure  25 (Continued)
                        87

-------
s
s.
c.
.002_
   .001S
    .001
   .0005




                                          0.0095

                                          O.0035
           i   I   i   r    i   i   r    i   i   i    I
    .009
    .006
     004
     002
                       OS-2
                                 \
                                                  n  ___
    .002-
   .0015 -
    .001 -
   .0005
                                            0.0033
        1976 •• I- 137 7
          Figure  26.  Kg  levels  in groundwater  from

                      six off-site w^ells (site  1).

-------
            0  j  F  M  A   M  J  J   A   S  0
Figure  25 (Continued)
                               89

-------
     Iron concentrations in the downstream groundwater ranged
from <0.01  to 152 ppm.   The highest concentrations  of iron
occurred in the OS wells during the summer.   Reducing conditions
or iron-organic complex formation are generally the main reasons
for the increase of soluble iron in natural  water (7, 8).   How-
ever, because of the high precipitation (infiltration) and
groundwater flow rate,  the redox condition of the downstream
groundwater should be higher in the summer.   The relatively
higher redox condition  and higher dilution ratio, coupled with
the lower TOC levels in the summer, could remove more soluble
iron from the liquid phase.  Therefore, the increase in iron
concentration in the summer season at this site is  likely due
to the high flow rate that leached more fine particles into
the groundwater.

     Time variations of mercury in the off-site groundwater were
irregular (Figure 26).   However, in many cases, mercury concen-
trations were below the detection limit, and no higher concentra-
tion than 10 ppb was observed.  In the downstream wells, only 7
out of 124 sampled concentrations exceeded 2 ppb for the entire
monitoring period.

     Unlike chloride or sulfate, trace metals showed no apparent
correlation between concentration and sampling level.  As
suggested by Lu  (7), in regulating the migration of trace metals
in the environment, the conditions of the solution phase are
usually far more important than those of the solid phase.  This
is probably why  the migration of trace metals was  not apparently
affected by the  characteristics of the geologic formation in
the aquifer.

Comparisons Among In-Refuse Well Background and
Downstream Groundwaters--
     In the Phase I study, all  contaminants studied  showed either
the same or lower concentrations in  the background groundwater
than in the downstream  groundwater;  only one data  point for  zinc
showed a higher  level  in  the  background than in  the  downstream
groundwater.

     In the Phase I study, TOC  and iron levels were  substantially
higher  in  the  in-refuse well  leachate  than  in  the  downstream
groundwater, while  sulfate was  the only contaminant  with  substan-
tially  lower levels in  the  in-refuse well leachate.   Levels  of
other  trace metals  in  the  leachates  did not differ significantly
from those  in  the downstream  groundwater.

     Since  different sampling levels were  involved in  the  Phase
II  study,  it was very  difficult in some cases  to evaluate  the
relative  concentrations  because of time and depth  variations.
Average  values  will be  used  in  the comparison.   Average  concen-
trations  of  contaminants  in  the in-refuse,  background,  and

                                90

-------
off-site  well  (downstream) groundwaters are given in Figures  27
to 29.  These  concentrations were much higher in the in-refuse
leachates than those in background or downstream groundwater,
except  for sulfate and mercury.   The low levels of mercury were
probably  caused by the low solubility of the mercury sulfide  solid
and the high affinity of mercury to the sludge particles.   The
low levels of  sulfate were probably caused by the high reducing
environment and the concomitant high organic content of the
sludge.  These phenomena are consistent with the results of the
Phase I study.

     Concentrations of sulfate,  TOC, and zijic were significantly
higher  in downstream groundwater than in background groundwater,
while other contaminants showed no definite trends.  This implies
that the  quality of the original groundwater, the types of soil,
and the characteristics of landfill material play important
roles in  determining the migration of contaminants.

Special Control Volume Analyses

Flow Calculations--
     As previously discussed (Section 5),  the direction and
magnitude of groundwater flow can  be calculated  from permeability
(KK)» hydraulic gradients (Sx,  Sy, and Sz), and  porosity  (n|<).
From the  numerous boring tests, it was determined that the
special control volume of Site  1  included  three  types of  soil
layers:  silty fine sand, sandy clay, and  sand-gravel.  The
permeabilities of these soil layers were 4.73 x  1Q-3, 3.53 x  10~4,
and 7.06  x 10~2 cm/sec, respectively  (5).  The  porosity of the
silty fine sand layer was 0.3,  that of the sandy  clay and sand-
gravel  (aquifer)  layers, 0.5.   The hydraulic gradient changed
from time to time as shown  by the  piezometric groundwater ele-
vations of EX wells  (Appendix B).  As explained  in  Section 5,
values  of Sx, Sy, and Sz at  different time periods  can be
calculated by using the EX  wells'  piezometric groundwater eleva-
tion data.  Since groundwater elevation  data for  well EX-3 are
incomplete, the data of October 31,  1976,  was substituted for the
other  dates when  calculating Sx and  Sy and the  related Vx and Vy
values (Tables 12 and 13) .

     The  geological  consultant  indicated that  in a  normal
situation  the  vertical  flow, Vz,  might  not exist below  the
regional   groundwater  table,  especially  in  the  sand-gravel
(aquifer)  layer.  Vz would  become important  only when  local
pumping  of  the groundwater  or precipitation  occurred,  and it
existed  only  beneath  the  landfill  site.   However,  due  to  the
relatively  large  horizontal  regional  water flow,  even  during  the
precipitation  or  pumping, Vz probably  occurred  chiefly  in  the
shallow  zone  below  the  groundwater table.   Since Vz  could  not
be  accurately  calculated, it was  assumed to  be  zero  for  the
purposes  of these calculations.   Although  this  assumption may
introduce  some error  into the flow and  transport model  results,

                                91

-------
  iscr
   120-
    4-0
         flit
                          1   1   iiit
   23Cf-
   2IC
a.
   14.0
    70
 .0920
  0015
 -.301
 .0009
       1S7S - h— 157 7
                                     A   2   U
  LBSENG


AVG EG	

AVG CS	

 1R	
  Fiaure  27.   Cl,  SOi, and TOC  levels In croundwater and
               leachata (sits  1).
                              92

-------
  NflJFMAMJJASO
Figure 28.   Fe,  Pb,  and Zn  levels  in  groundwater and
            leachate (site  1).
                        93

-------
.0020
.0015
.0010
.0005
                                                   LHENC
                     A  M  J
Ficure  29.  Kg levels in groundwatar and Isachata (site 1).
                           94

-------
TABLE  12. SITE  1  CONTROL AREAS,  HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS,
         AND  FLOW VELOCITIES  IN  X-DIRECTION
Inlet
Section
. Area
Area y
Symbol* (m )
A431
A441
A511
A521
A621
A442
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
*A1jk
K =
70.0
23.2
116.0
70.0
93.0
256.0
151.0
209.0
151.0
5.8
128.0
122.0
Outlet Section
Area
Symbol
Alll
A211
A321
-
-
A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
Area TvPe
7 of
* (if) Soil
68.
168.
136.
-
-
80.
106.
84.
210.
168.
170.
204.
0
0
0


3
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
, where 1 = off site well number
soil layer; 1 = sandy clay; and
sandy layer and A = aquifer.
t K
(cm/sec)
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
; j =
2 =
47 x
47 x
47 x
47 x
47 x
06 x
06 x
06 x
06 x
06 x
06 x
06 x
10'*
io-4
ID'4
ID'4
io-4
_2
io-2
io-2
io-2
io-2
io-2
io-2
n
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
sv *
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
Vx
(cm/ day)
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
81.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
level of sampling point;
sand gravel (aquifer layer).
 #Assume S  is kept constant for the entire experimental period.

-------
               TABLE  13.  SITE  1  HYDRAULIC  GRADIENTS
                AND FLOW VELOCITIES  IN  Y-DIRECTION
Type
of *
Soil Period
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
10/31/76 - 12/11/76
(41 days)
12/11/76 -»• 1/21/77 -> 2/14/77
(65 days)
2/14/77 - 3/10/77 - 4/14/77
(59 days)
4/14/77 + 5/19/77 + 6/19/77
(66 days)
6/19/77 - 7/19/77 + 8/17/77
(59 days)
8/17/77 ^ 9/14/77
(28 days)
K
(cm/ sec)
3.
7.
3.
7.
3.
7.
3.
7.
3.
7.
3.
7.
47
06
47
06
47
06
47
06
47
06
47
06
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
io-4
io-2
io-4
1C'2
ID'4
ID'2
ID'4
io-2
ID'4
io-2
ID'4
io-2
n
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
sy+
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
001
001
0006
0006

0
0.
0.
-0.
-0.
0.
0.
0008
0008
0008
0008
0046
0046
Vyf
(cm/day)
0.
20.
0.
12.
0
0
0.
16.
-0.
-16.
0.
93.
06
4
037
2


049
2
049
2
28
6
* C = sandy layer and A = sand-gravel (aquifer).

t Positive value means the flow direction was from
  OS-4 toward OS-6 (see Figure 30).
                                96

-------
they  may  not  be  significant for the-control  volume in the
aquifer  layer.

     Flow directions  and magnitudes were calculated from the
results  of Vx and  Vy  (Figure 30 and Table 14).   These results
showed  that the  directions of flow in the aquifer layer deviated
from  the  presumed  longitudinal  axis of the downstream leachate
plume by  an angle  of  0° to 49°.  The horizontal velocities
ranged  from 62  to  124 cm/day in this layer.   The directions of
flow  in  the sandy  clay layer above the aquifer also deviated
in the  same range, but flow velocities were as low as 0.24
to 0.37  cm/day  in  this layer.

Control  Area  A-JJ^  and Flow Rate--
     The  control volume was reoriented and new boundaries defined
following the methods suggested in Section 5.   The plane
orientation (top view) of this revised control volume is shown
in Figure 30.  The inlet plane is unchanged (OS-4 to OS-6
constant), while the  outlet plane is changed according to angle
9.  The  surface  area  of partitioned subareas A-n^ on the inlet
and outlet planes  was calculated between the 548.6 to 557.8 m
elevations (Figures 31 and 32), and the  results given in Tables
15 and 16.  The  amount of flow crossing  each subarea, A-jjk, was
calculated as the  product of Aijk times  the appropriate  velocity,
VH.K-  These results  are also  listed in  Tables 15 and 16.

Mass Balance--

     Input and  output contaminant fluxes, J (kg/day), through
the inlet and outlet  boundaries can be solved  by Equation 43,
which,  by converting  the units, is equal to
                               Q           "3
     J  (kg/day)  =  C (ppm x 9 (mj/day) x  10"                   (46)

Results  of J  are given in Tables 15 and  16.  These results  can
be converted to  unit flux by dividing average  J values by the
input or outlet  areas.  The  unit input and output fluxes and
their differences  are given  below:

  Contaminant  Unit Input Flux   Unit Output Flux   Difference

     CT          25.9               14.7            11.20
     so 2-        133                ui               -8.00

     TQC          39.6                3.66            35.9
     Fe           15.2               12-6              2.6

     Hg            0.00046            0.00046           0
     Pb            0.024              0.134           -0.11

     Zn            0.093              0.27            -0.18

 (Units are in g/d/m2)
                                97

-------
•n
ID
S Y M BOL
I
I I
I II
IV
V
VI

PERIOD
.0/31/76-*
2/11/76
12/11/76-*-
2/14/77
2/14/77*
4/14/77
4/14/7**
6/1 9/77
6/19/7^
8/17/77
8/17/77->
9/14/77
AVERAGE
0
0
14.1
8.5°
0
0
0
11.2
-11.2°
0
49
11.9°
V^dn/d)
0.84
0.82
0.81
0.83
0.83
1 .24
0.62
                       OS
              CONTROL VOLUME
            (SHAPE CHANGED BT ANGLE 6)
             Figure   30.     Directions  of  groundwater  flow  in aquifer  layer  of site 1

-------
       TABLE 14.  THE MAGNITUDE  AND  DIRECTION OF HORIZONTAL
                         GROUNDWATER FLOW OF SITE  1.
Period
10/31/76 -> 12/11/76
(41 days)
12/11/76 -* 1/21/77 + 2/14/77
(65 days)
2/14/77 -»• 3/10/77 -»• 4/14/77
(59 days)
4/14/77 + 5/19/77 + 6/19/77
(66 days)
6/19/77 + 7/19/77 -> 8/17/77
(59 days)
8/17/77 + 9/14/77
(28 days)
Type
of *
Soil
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
Vx
(cm/ day)
0.24
81.0
0.24
81.0
0.24
81.0
0.24
81.0
0.24
81.0
0.24
81.0
V
(cm/ day)
0.06
20.4
0.037
12.2
0
0
0.049
16.2
-0.049
-16.2
0.28
93.6
•e*
14.1°
14.1°
8.5°
8.5°
0°
0°
11.2°
11.2°
-11.2°
-11.2°
49°
49°
V f
VH
(cm/ day)
0.25
84.0
0.25
82.0
0.20
81.0
0.25
83.0
-0.25
-83.0
0.37
124.0
*C = sandy clay and A = aquifer (sand-gravel).

fFor the meaning of the negative sign,  please refer to  Figure 30.
                               99

-------
ELEVA
m
564-
562-
560'
558.
556-
554
552-
550
TION
ft
— L850
— L84C
-L83C
— 1,82<
— 1,81
—3*80

OS -4
,, 76.2

> u <->
CONTROL VOLUME sj
u — — —
L2'

^ L
f




$$$&
±A :
— 441-
442

38 IT
. '.• 	
\>
=T
^s,

V,
-





1

!
OS -5 OS -6
^ 76.2 m J i.





1

i
/

^\ '


A
A521
A522^
:: :::: : J :•-.'•
* "
'.•'•'•-}:':'-:-:'-:.-:
A
r/j

\ ^ 38
CONTROL AREA
k =1 = SANDY CLAY
k =2 = SAND-GRAVEL (AQUIFER
LAYER)
m '
/ ^ Sj

Is1 38


\
s
B


'////,'-
v///k


////; ~
)(
m

^^§
Illl
IA —






**•/
(fl
UJ
z
u.
1-
J
^H
in
•
0
i I °
2 Z
<
Ul
~A622 ^
II ,._^ 	 L
r
Ul
> -GRAVEL
5
I L
4




' 38 m


(AQUIFER LAYER)
Aijk
1 = OFF-SITE *ELL NO.
j = LEVEL OF SANPLING
POINT
k = SOIL LAYER

Figure 31.
Inlet section of site 1  (perpendicular
to x-direction).
                          100

-------
ELE^
m
560-
558
556
554
552
550-
548
546
/ATION
ft
- 1,840
- 1,330
— 1,8 2C
— 1,8 1C
~ L80C
- 1,7 3.

>
_
§
J
C
>
3
--
-
E
j
OS


\

L2 '
f
.
L3«
-'
-1 OS -



S A ^
^111^
1 I 1 1 I i 1
A112
>

-2
152 m
OS -3
1

Ll

«

•

	 A

••
	 21 1 	 K

	 "-* 1
%%%zx
Hi!®
	 '••.' M o •» •*'£.
&:•••'•:•&$•&•:•





./:

1
A^
x\
A
^
21;
32
1
^s
2$
|
[
1
1



i 	 Sx^ x^i>v^NSNNNN^ —
:A ^. 232
- 1224s^S^sN<;

b^sss
	 ^sssss>
,
'
V ^
27.7 m
4
s s
27.7 m
OsXXSXSNN^


\\N^\X\\\^
» L4
68.9 m s
X ^
41 m



EA3
— 1




42-
t



1

?
1
=™
Z
t— «
"• >
-.
-*
1




^




* 55.8 m
^


--

in


i






\
/...
.J

V
/
<
0
io
Iz
to
^
ce
UJ
u_
5
o
_J
UJ

-------
                         TABLE  15.  CONTAMINANT  FLUX AND MASS THROUGH INLET FACE OF SITE 1

                                         (Aquifer layer of control volume)
o
ro

Period
10/31/76


12/11/76

(41d)

12/11/76

1/21/77

2/14/77

(65d)
2/14/77

3/10/77

3/2B/77

(41. 5d)
3/211/77


4/14/77


(17. 5d)
Sum - 165d
Area
symbol*
A442
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A442
AS22
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A442
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A442
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A
Area
(«2)
256
151
209
151
5.81
128
122
256
151
209
151
5.81
128
122
256
151
209
151
5.81
128
122
256
151
209
151
5.81
128
122
1,020.0
Q
(«3/d)
2,120
1,250
1,730
1,250
48.2
1,060
1,010
2,080
1.230
1,700
1,230
47.3
1,040
992
2,056
1.220
1,700
1,220
46.7
1,030
981
2,056
1,220
1,700
1,220
46.7
1,030
981
—

C (ppm)f
57
30
29
57
31
31
35
65
38
14
56
37
24
34
2
3
5
24
6
20
33
22.5
7.5 .
14
28
5
17
30
. —
Cl"
J (kg/d)'
12.2
3. BO
5.08
7.21
0.150
3.32
3.58
13.67
4.72
2.41
6.96
0.18
2.52
3.41
0.420
0.370
0.850
2.95
0.030
2.08
3.27
4.68
0.920
2.38
3.44
0.020
1.77
2.98
26. 4t
-— 	
M (kg)"
501
156
208
296
6.2
136
147
888
307
157
452
11.5
164
222
17.3
15.3
35.3
122
1.2
86.3
136
81.9
16.1
41.7
60.2
0.400
30.9
52.1
4.350
	
C (ppm)
260
220
220
200
310
270
230
100
35
125
110
90
255
240
55
40
70
190
85
250
250
150
50
120
200
60
190
245
	
SOJ
J (kg/d)
55.7
27.8
38.6
25.3
1.51
28.9
23.5
21.0
4.35
21.5
13.7
0.430
26.8
24.1
11.4
4.92
11.9
23.4
0.400
26.0
24.8
31.2
6.14
20.4
24.6
0.280
19.8
24.3
136*
	 .
M (kg)
2,280
1,140
1,580
1,040
62.0
1,190
964
1.370
283
1,400
888
28.0
1,740
1,570
475
204
494
969
17.0
1,080
1,030
546
108
357
430
5.0
346
425
22,500
	 — — — —
C (ppm)
73
381
144
81
11
25
7
8
77
60
21
4
12
4
9
72
16
4
1
5
3
7
40
10
3
3
4
4
—
TOC
J (kg/d)
15.6
48.2
25.2
10.3
0.05
2.68
0.72
1.68
9.57
10.3
2.61
0.020
1.26
0.40
1.87
8.85
2.72
0.49
0.005
0.52
0.30
1.46
4.92
1.70
0.37
0.01
0.42
0.40
40.4*

M (kg)
641
19.8
1,040
420
2.00
110
29.0
109
622
671
170
1,00
82.0
26.0
78.0
367
113
20.0
0.200
22.0
12.0
25.0
86.0
30.0
6.00
0.300
7.00
7.00
6,570

-------
                         TABLE  15.(continued)
o


Period
10/31/76


12/11/76


(41d)
12/11/76

1/21/77

2/14/77

(65d)
2/M/77

3/10/77

3/28/77

(41. 5d)
3/28/77


4/14/77


(17. 5d)
Sum - 165d
'Area symbol
1f k • 1 •

Area
symbol*
A442
A522
AS32
A542
A622
A632
A642
A442
A522
AS32
A542
A622
A632
A642
A442
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A442
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A1n
A|
-------
                                 TABLE  16.    CONTAMINANT  FLUX AND  MASS  THROUGH OUTLET  FACE OF SITE 1
                                                        (Aquifer layer  of control  volume)
                                                                    Cl"
                                                                                                                                 TOC
o
    Period

   1/1/77



   1/12/77

   (9d)

   1/12/77

   1/21/77

   2/14/77

   (33d)

   2/14/77

   3/10/77

   4/14/77

   (59d)

   4/14/77

   5/19/77

   6/3/77

   (49.64d)

   6/3/77



   6/17/77

   (14.bid)

Sum 165.28d
                          Area
                         symbol'
A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342

A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342

A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342

A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342

A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342


Aout
Area
(ra2)
80.3
106
84
210
168
170
204
80.3
106
84
210
168
70
204
80.3
106
84
210
168
170
204
80.3
106
84
210
168
170
204
80.3
106
84
210
168
170
204
q

655
860
683
1.710
1.370
1,380
4.660
665
860
683
1,710
1,370
1,380
1,660
646
850
676
1,690
1,350
1,370
1,640
658
866
688
1,720
1,380
1.390
1,670
658
866
688
1,720
1,380
1,390
1,670
C (ppm)'
16
25
29
21
32
32
15
13
24
28
17
31
27
15
6
16
17
21
21 •
17
15
11
15
5
10
24
8
28
8.5
15
5
10
25
8
27
J (kg/d)1
1.06
2.14
2.00
3.63
4.42
4.48
2.52
O.B60
2.06
1.94
2.94
4.29
3.78
2.52
0.390
1.38
1.16
3.59
2.87
2.35
2.49
0.730
1.31
0.350
1.74
3.34
1.13
4.74
0.570
1.31
0.350
1.74
3.48
1.13
4.57
M (kg)"
9.50
19.3
18.0
32.7
39.8
40.3
22.7
28.4
68.1
63.9
97.0
141
125
83.1
23.1
81.2
68.6
212
169
. 139
147.0
36.4
65.2
17.3
86.4
166
56.0
235
8.30
19.2
5.10
25.5
Bl.O
16.5
66.9
C (ppm)
67.5
135
290
230
350
150
250
40
100
280
210
350
130
250
6
15
90
130
300
180
250
35
115
35
100
265
80
275
19
64
60
113
280
130
260
J (kg/d)
4.46
11.7
20.1
39.8
48.4
21.0
42.0
2.64
8.70
19.4
36.3
48.4
18.2
42.0
0.390
1.29
6.15
22.2
41.0
24.9
41.5
2.33
10.1
2.44
17.4
36.9
11.3
46.5
1.27
5.61
4.18
19.7
39.0
18.3
44.0
H (kg)
40.0
106
180
358
436
189
378-
87.0
287
640
1,200
1,600
601
1,400
23.0
76.0
363
1.310
2,420
1,420
2,450
116
501
121
864
1,830
560
2,310
19.0
82.0
61.0
288
571
268
644
C (ppm)
9
15
16
4
7
11
16
5
6
7
4
4
5
13
4
5
2
3
5
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
3
6
3
4.5
1.5
2.5
4
3
4.5
J (kg/d)
0.590
1.30
1.11
0.690
0.970
1.54
2.69
0.330
0.520
0.480
0.690
0.550
0.700
2.11)
0.260
0.430
0.140
0.510
0.680
0.420
0.500
0.200
0.350
0.140
0.350
0.420
0.420
1.01
0.200
0.390
0.100
0.440
0.560
0.420
0.760
                                   1,020
                                                                  15.
                                                                            2,480
                                                                                                    144^
                                                                                                             23,800
3.731
M (kg)

   5
  12
  10
   6
   9
  14
  24

  11
  17
  16
  23
  18
  23
  72

  15
  25
   8
  30
  40
  24
  29

  10
  17
   7
  17
  21
  21
  50

   3
   6
   2
   6
   8
   6
  11

 616

-------
                        TABLE 1.6'. (continued)
O
Ol
Soluble Fe

Period
1/3/77



1/12/77

(9d)
1/12/77

1/21/77

2/14/77

(33d)
2/14/77

3/10/77

4/14/77

(59d)
4/14/77

5/19/77

6/3/77

(49.64d)
6/3/7.7




6/17/77
(14.64d)
Sum 165.28d
* Area
Area
symbol*
All 2
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
A112
A122
A21 2
A222
A232
A332
A342
A112
A122
A212
A222
A232
A332
A342
Aout
symbol A,.:
Concentrations of
' Conta
mlnant flux i

C (ppn.)
0.40
0.40
5.00
1.00
12.0
1.20
1.20
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.01
16.0
0.24
0.90
3.30
4.60
23.0
6.10
23.0
5.80
0.01
6.80
39.0
27.0
36.0
47.0
24.0 .
25.0
3.80
21.3
34.0
24.0
52.0
21.6
14.2

J (kg/d)
0.030
0.035
0.300
0.200
1.66
0.170
0.200
0.0007
0.0009
0.007
0.002
2.21
0.030
0.150
0.210
0.400
1.57
1.04
3.14
0.800
0.002
0.450
3.42
1.88
6.27
6.55
3.38
4.23
0.250
1.B7
2.37
4.18
7.24
3.05
2.40

M (kg)
0.270
0.315
2.70
1.80
15.0
1.53
1.80
0.023
0.030
0.230
0.066
72.9
1.00
4.95
12,4
23,6
92.6
61.4
185
47.2
0.120
223
170
93.3
311
325
168
210
0.017
27.4
34.7
61.2
106
44.6
35.1
12.9? 2130
where 1 •
offslte well
constituents on 1/3/77
Ml • r. (on
n) x n (m'/dl
number; j
and 6/17/77
x in-3 fun
Soluble Hg

C (ppm) J (kg/d) H (kg)
0.0016 0.00010 0.00090
0.00044 0.00004 0.00036
0.00026 0.00002 0.00018
0.00020 0.00003 0.00027
0.00020 0.00003 0.00027
0.0003 0.00004 o: 00036
0.0004 0.00007 0.00064
0.0020 0.00013 0.0043
0.0005 0.00004 0.0013
0.0003 0.00002 0.0007
0.0002 0.00003 0.0010
0.0002 0.00003 0.0010
0.0002 0.00003 0.0010
0.0002 0.00003 0.0010
0.0009 0.00006 0.004
0.0004 0.00003 0.002
0.0002 0.00014 0.008
0.0006 0.00010 0.006
0.0008 0.00011 0.007
0.00)0 0.00014 0.008
0.0006 0.00010 0.006
0.0002 0.00001 0.0005
0.0002 0.00002 0.0010
0.0017 0.00012 0.0060
0.0002 0.00004 0.0020
0.0002 0.00003 0.0015
0.0004 0.00006 0.0030
0.0006 0.00010 0.0050
0.0002 0.00001 0.0002
0.0002 0.00002 0.0003
0.0009 0.00006 0.0009
0.0002 0.00004 0.0006
0.0002 0.00003 0.0004
0.0003 0.00004 0.0006
0.0004 0.00007 0.0010
0.00047? 0.0773
Soluble Pb

C (PP»)
0.065
0.075
0.010
0.015
0.330
0.025
0.015
0.005
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.380
0.005
0.010
0.360
0.080
0.170
0.050
0.360
0.030
0.005
0.730
0.100
0.280
0.320
0.330
0.245
0.105
0.400
0.080
0.170
0.185
0.310
0.165
0.060
—
• level of sampling point in well; and k
are from concentration versus
II - ko/rfl.


J (kg/d) M (kg)
0.0043
0.0065
0.0007
0.003
0.045
0.0035
0.0025
0.0003
0.0005
0.0003
0.0009
0.053
0.0007
0.0017
0.024
0.007
0.012
0.0085
0.049
0.004
0.0008
0.050
0.009
0.020
0.056
0.046
0.035
0.018
0.027
0.007
0.012
0.032
0.043
0.023
0.010
0.137?
0.039
0.069
0.006
0.027
0.400
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.016
0.010
0.030
1.75
0.023
0.056
1.42
0.410
0.710
0.500
2.89
0.240
0.050
2.48
0.45
1.00
2.78
2.26
1.74
0.89
0.400
0.100
0.180
0.470
0.630
0.340
0.150
22.6
• soil layer If k • 1
time diagram (see


Figures 20 to

Soluble Zn

C (ppm)
0.03
0.06
0.85
0.15
0.66
0.10
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.58
0.01
0.87
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.95
0.18
0.72
0.14
0.02
0.10
0.46
0.45
0.40
0.65
1.00
0.25
0.11
0.25
0.80
0.25
0.60
0.18
0.12
--
* sandy
26 )•


J (kg/d)
0.002
0.005
0.060
0.030
0.090
0.014
0.010
0.0007
0.0009
0.040
0.002
0.120
0.0005
0.008
0.004
0.005
0.070
0.031
0.100
0.020
0.003
0.007
0.040
0.031
0.070
0.090
0.140
0.040
0.007
0.022
0.060
0.044
0.084
0.025
0.020
0.280?
clay and k



M (kg)
0.018
0.045
0.540
0.270
0.810
0.130
0.090
0.023
0.030
1.32
0.07
3.96
0.016
0.26
0.240
0.300
4.13
1.B3
5.90
1.18
0.180
0.350
2.00
1.54
3.48
4.50
7.00
2.00
0.100
0.320
0.880
0.640
1.23
0.37 '
0.30
46.1
« 2 * sand-gravel .


                         ** Output mass (M)  through outlet section =• J x Period (unit - kg).
                         t Average value.

-------
     To ascertain the amount of contaminant attenuation or
elution in the special control volume, travel time (time lag)
between the inlet and outlet boundaries must be determined.
From the control volume selected, there are two soil strata:
sandy clay and sand-gravel aquifer.  Using Equation 45, the
travel  time necessary for crossing the two boundaries of the
aquifer layer was determined to be about 64 days; however, for
the sandy clay layer, it was as long as 58 years.  Since the
experimental period was only 318 days, it was not possible to
perform mass balance calculations on the sandy clay layer.
Therefore, only the sand-gravel aquifer layer has been evaluated
for attenuation or elution of contaminants.

     The input time period (Tp) used was 165 days.  For output
time period, Tpl was calculated for the aquifer layer to be
165.28 days.  The time lag (travel time, T) between the two
boundaries of this soil layer was about 64 days, again using
Equation 45.  Using this information, the total input and  output
mass of the control volume for the designated time period  was
obtained by solving Equations 39 or 40.  Results are listed  in
Tables 15 and 16.  The difference between the input and output
mass indicated attenuation or elution of contaminants (Equation
38).  Seven contaminants were evaluated and the results are
summarized below:

                                                        Percent
                                                        Change
Item
Cl"
SO.2"
TOC
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Unit Input
Mass
498
2,595
763
293
0.008
0.459
1.80
Unit Output
Mass
285
2,719
71
244
0.008
2.58
5.37
Attenuation (+)
or Elution (-)
+213
-194
+692
+ 49
0
- 2.
- 3.





12
57
                                                         + 43

                                                         -  8

                                                         + 91

                                                         + 17

                                                            0

                                                         -460

                                                         -196


Units are in mg/d/m3 of soil in aquifer layer,
assuming a 53,000 m3 control volume.

It can be seen  that  soluble  chloride,  TOC,  and  iron  were attenu-
ated by  the  aquifer  layer at the  rate  of  213,  692,  and  49
mg/day/m3, respectively.  This  corresponds  to  43,  91,  and  17
percent  removal efficiency,  respectively.   However,  soluble
sulfate,  lead,  and  zinc  were found  to  be  eluted at  8,  460,  and
196 percent,  respectively, from this  stratum.

     As  suggested by Lu  (7), in an  oxidizing  environment,  soluble
iron may  be  removed  from solution while  soluble lead and zinc
may be released into solution due to  solid  transformation,

                                106

-------
sol ubi 1 ization ,  and compl exation .   The reducing species from the
landfill  or those formed by the reducing leachate (with high
sulfide  content) changed upon contact with an aerobic regional
groundwater.   Generally, solid transformation is usually accom-
panied  by a release of sulfate ions due to the oxidation of the
reducing  sulfide solids, as shown  by the following examples:


      MS(s) + 2  02 + C02 + H20 = 2 CaC03 - >

              2  Ca2+ + S042" + 2 HCO~ + MC03(s)              (47)
      4FeS  + 9 02 + 10 H20 + 8 CaC03 - >    e3s

             +4 S042" + 8 Ca2+ + 8 HCO^                      (48)


MS(s),  metallic sulfide, has a higher solubility than MC03(s),
metallic carbonate.

     The attenuation or elution of each contaminant studied
may be  explained as follows:

     Chloride—The reasons for the attenuation of chloride are
not known,  although dilution and anion exchange may account
in part for the decrease of chloride concentration in the control
volume.  However, theoretically, it is not valid to consider
dilution as a factor in the Site 1 control volume analysis
since the dilute water volume was fixed.

     Sul fate--As discussed above, the transformation of sulfide
solid species to relatively oxidized so.lid species might be an
important factor in increasing the sulfate levels in groundwater.
Oxidation of the soluble sulfide species from the leachate may
also result in increased sulfate levels.

     TOC--The TOC levels in the groundwater of the control
volume  were greatly decreased following the first sampling.  The
attenuation of TOC by soil may be due partly to the microbial
metabolism and in part to the surface sorption and chelation
with clay minerals or solid organic species, in the soil.

     Soluble iron — Soluble iron in the control volume was atten-
uated,  probably as a result of oxidation that converted the
divalent iron species (either solid or soluble) to the relatively
less soluble trivalent species.

     Soluble mercury— Soluble mercury was unchanged in the
control volume.  As suggested by Lu (7), mercury in the solid
phase  is one of the most stable metallic solids.  Its original
stable form can be retained through sulfide competition,
extremely low solubility, and strong adsorption and complexation
capabi  1 i ties.
                               107

-------
     Soluble lead—Soluble lead was eluted from the control
volume soil.  As shown in Equation 47, solid transformation  of
lead could lead to more soluble lead solid(s), which may be  one
of the primary factors in releasing lead from soil  into ground-
water.  The formation of soluble carbonate complexes may also
contribute to some lead elution.  However, information on
important ligands of lead in the control volume is  lacking,  so
a detailed evaluation is impossible.

     Soluble zinc--It is speculated that the mechanisms respon-
sible for the transformation and complexation are believed to
be the most important factors for this elution.

Observations on Concentration Isopleths and Related Factors

     As illustrated in Figure 1, six new off-site plume wells
were placed in two parallel lines approximately 46  m apart and
perpendicular to the direction of groundwater flow.  The wells
in each line were spaced about 76 m apart on center.  Wells
4, 5, and 6 were in Line 1, and Wells 1, 2, and 3 in Line 2.
There were four sampling depths in each monitoring  well.

     A selected number of concentration isopleths depicting  the
changes in concentrations of specific contaminants  monitored
were used to describe certain trends observed during the Phase II
monitoring (Figures 33 to 44).  The columns on the  right-hand
side show the fine sand, clay, and sand-gravel strata for Line 1
and clay and sand-gravel strata for Line 2.  These  concentra-
tion isopleths were also used to assess the required frequency
of monitoring, as well as the planned locations and depths at
which monitoring wells should be placed.

     Considerable similarities existed between the  concentra-
tion isopleths for lead, iron, cadmium, zinc, copper, chromium,
and nickel.  No discernible correlation was observed between
mercury and the above heavy metals.

     The lead concentration isopleths indicated that the leachate
occurred in one or more distinct, strong, concentrated plumes
as identified by concentric regions of increasing or decreasing
concentration (Figure 34).  The July 1977 results of iron also
indicated three separate, strong leachate plumes occurring in
different sectors of the monitoring grid corresponding to
different soil strata (Figure 33).

     There were wide fluctuations in lead concentrations.  While
at one sampling, the concentrations were among the  highest
observed throughout the year-long period, in the next sampling
they were less than the detection limit.  The high  concentration
may be associated with the large volume of leachate generated and
the low concentration may have resulted from a dilution effect or
complex redux conditions under which lead was tied  up in the

                               108

-------
        564 ,
            OS-4
                     OS-5
                               OS-6
 •
.
OS-4

 •
                                                  OS-5
                                                           OS-6
                                                                    OS-4
                                                                              OS-5
                                                                                       I >'.
                                    3/10/77



                            OS-4       OS-5
                                                                                                 11
                                                                                       OS-6

                                                                                          3=
                                                                                          s
                                                                                              i
                    5/19/77
                                                7/19/77
                                    9/14/77
                    Figure  33a.  Site 1  iron  concentration  isopleths  for line  1.

-------
    OS-1
             OS-2
OS-3
546
                       qs-3
                              OS-1
                 OS-2
          pS-3
        OS-1
1/21/77



 OS-2      gS-3
                                                         OS-1
                                                                   OS-2
                                                                              B&
                                                                              wm
                                                                              • irt iflt'Zt - i
                                                                              mm
                                                         os-i
            5/19/77
                                       7/19/77
                                                                  9/14/77
            Fiqure  33bi   Site 1 iron  concentration isopleths  for line 2.

-------
564 i
     OS-4
               OS-5
                         MS i,
                                   OS-4
                                              OS-5
                                                        OS-6
                                           ^0.005
                                               •
                                                        OS-6
                                                                            OS-5
            -£.0.005
                                                                  .007  .DOS
OS-4
                                                                          3/10/77



                                                                            OS-5
                     OS-6
                                                                              0.0 05
                                                                                         J-ssS;*5:i
                                                                                         igig-r.x-.cif
                                                                                         •i *^£V*<
                                                                                                II
                                                                                                >


                                                                                                < >
                                                                                                ( i
                                                                                                l
                                                                                                i
                                                                                                <
                               1;



                               I I


                               ,,l

                               .'I

                               i



                               m
                                                                                                 II
                                                                                                ( i
                                                                                                 1
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                •
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 '

                                                                                                111
              5/19/77
                                             7/19/77
                                                                           9/14/77
              Figure 34a.   Site  1  lead  concentration isopleths  for  line  1

-------
      I
OS-1
               OS-2
OS-3
       OS-1
  558 '





  556





  554
11
I- 552 •

I
d 55°
   548 '





   546
                   qs-3
                                 OS-1
                                   OS-2
          pS-3
                                 OS-1
1/21/77



 OS-2
9S-3
                                                           OS-1
                                                                     OS-2
                          qs-

                                                                                 ill
                                                                                 iii

                                                                                 P

                                                                                 •ft

                                                            OS-1
                                                             3/10/77



                                                               OS-2
                           OS-3
                                                                          iii
                                                                          Mrf

                                                                          Hi


              5/19/77
                                         7/19/77
                                                             9/14/77
              Figure 34b.  Site  1  lead  concentration isopleths  for  line 2.

-------
OS-4
         OS-5
                   OS-6
        10/31/76


         OS-5      OS-6
        5/19/77
OS-4

 •
                                      OS-5
                                                OS-6
                                                        OS-4
                                                                  OS-5
                                                                            OS-6
                    OS-6
                         <•
                         *
                                     7/19/77
                                                                               ~f.-i-:'^si\
                                                                               mm
                                                                               .-. J.tTTV-.	
                                                                              $tf


                                                                              lilt
                                                                              rO'.'.'yrv'vtZ
                                                                                     n
                                                                                    £/)
                                     9/14/77
      Figure 35a.   Site 1 mercury concentration  isopleths  for li
                                        ne 1 .

-------
pS-3
o
               10/31/76


       OS-1     OS-2
qs-3
   SSH
n
* •
i
•i

        1/21/77


OS-1      OS-2
   546
I

• '
^^OOOi
•
•
•
•

t
•

                                                              OS-1
                                              OS-2
        OS-1
                                                           ,
                                                          Wi?E««.':

                                                          ili
                                                          ife'sS^
                                                                                     *iMti
                                                                                     8S1
                                                                                     r$£8f$
                                                                                     -m$&
                                                                                           !'
                                                                                           I;
                                                                                           r_

                                                                                           6
               5/19/77
                 7/19/77
                 9/14/77
              Figure 35b.   Site 1  mercury  concentration  isopleths  for line 2.

-------
            05-4
                               OS-6
n
                                        OS-4
                               OS-5
                                                            OS-6
            OS-4
10/31/76


  OS-5      OS-<
        564
                                                                    OS-4
                                                                               OS-5
.
toooi •
. •
•


lit
Hi
ftp
•^T'^fvT
ip
SiSiSffi
OS-4
3/10/77

  OS-5
                                                                              to.oot
                                                                               »
                                                                                                  II
                                                                                                 (I)
                                                                                                 ';

                                                                                                 D
                                                                                                 in
                                                                                        OS-6

                                                                                                 n


                                                                                                 ;
                                                                                                 D


                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                 >
                    5/19/77
                             7/19/77
        9/14/77
                  Figure 36a.   Site 1  cadmium concentration isopleths for  line 1.

-------
F1gure 36b.   Site 1  cadmium concentration  isopleths for line

-------
       OS-4
  564 , .
  562




  560
                 OS-5
                          OS-<
                                    OS-4
                                              OS-5
                                                        OS-6
0
tr,

QJ
  558 .
  556 -I
   554 .
   552
   550
   564
   562
         -4
               10/31/76



                 OS-5      OS-6
                                            ^0*01
      o
OS-4
1/21/77



  OS-5
OS-6
                                                                           OS-5
                                                                                    os-
                                                                 •
OS-4


 »
                                                                        £0.01
3/10/77



  OS-5
                                                                                       6
                                                                                       •P
                                                                                           '.
                                                                                           ,.•(..•
                                                                                              u
                                                                                             D
                                                                                              c i
OS-6
                                                                                       m/M^.
                                                                                       s&
                                                                                            i
                                                                                              n
                                                                                             (M

                                                                                             '



                                                                                             o
               5/19/77
                                            7/19/77
                                     9/14/77
             Figure 37a.   Site  1  chromium  concentration isopleths for  line 1.

-------
Picture 37b.  Site 1 chromium concentration  isopleths for line 2.

-------
                      OS-5
                                OS-6
•
                                          OS-4
                                                    OS-5
                                                              OS-6
                                                                       OS-4
        562 •
        560 -
        558 --•




     H  556 -•




     d  554 ••



        552 -•




        550
                                OS-6
OS-4
                                                              OS-6
    
P*si
/rpv^g

Stt
                                                           n
                                                           .

                                                           -
                                                           n
                                                          in
                     5/19/77
         7/19/77
                                                                                9/14/77
                    Figure 38a.   Site  1  copper concentration isopleths for line  1.

-------
             OS-1
I .
. '
        558



        556 -

     ^*»
     E
     ~ 554

     §

     H 552

     I

     d 550H


        540



        546
OS-2
OS-3
 :  .06
           o/
        546
           qs-3
os-i
OS-2
                                        JDS-3
OS-1
                                                                                   ii', ;•
                                      OS-1
                                                                                                 '..''• •' •
                                                                             ;••'.
                                                                         :,'i'£J.':i
                                                                         $jjm

                                      3/10/77

                                        OS-2
                                        OS-3
                                                                             £0.01
                                                                                                 V [JAS i V
                                                                                                 ' i.
                     5/19/77
                            7/19/77
                                               9/14/77
                    Figure 38b.   Site 1  copper  concentration  isopleths  for line  2.

-------
564 n



562


560
     OS-4
              OS-5
B  558 .


O
"  556 -
In

,il
554  -
552 .
550
                        OS-6
                        OS-6
                                    OS-4

                                     •
                                    OS-4

                                     •
                                            OS-5
                                                      OS-6
                                           1/21/77


                                            OS-5

552 -

550
/ ^>
I ^^
• 01
• '/<#.-Vvv
^£is&v
?;s2?.vr
9/14/77
n
>
<
P

                                                              OS-4
                                                        OS-6     OS-4
                                                                         OS-5
                                                                                   OS-
                                                                            LO.Ot
3/10/77


  OS-5



                                                                                      &gs*S
                                                                                      fffS
                                                                                              -r\
                                                                                     OS-6
                                                                                       •.•:
                                                                                       i
                                                                                      lrO;V*J ' ' C"
                                                                                        * '
                                                                                            n
            Figure 39a.   Site 1 nickel concentration  isopleths for  line 1.

-------
i i
i >
                   10/31/76

                    OS-2      QS-3
                  Figure 39b.  Site  1  nickel  concentration  isopleths  for line 2.

-------
       564  -,
           OS-4
                     OS-5
                              QS-6
' 1
I 0
                                       OS-4
                                                  OS-5
                                                           OS-6
       562 •


       560 •
E
~ 558

O

P 556


I
d 554



  552



  550
OS-6
               .5
                        \
                                                                   OS-4
                                                                              OS-5
                                                                                       OS-
                                                      OS-r6

                                                            W

                                                                                                r >
                                                                                                <
                                                                                                m
                    5/19/77
                                                7/19/77
                                                                            9/14/77
                   Figure 40a.   Site 1  zinc  concentration isopleths  for line  1

-------
            OS-1
              OS-2
                                OS-3
i >
             OS-1
     5
558 '

556

554

552 •

550 •

548 '

546
                         QS-3
OS-1
 05-2
£5-3
OS-1
1/21/77
 OS-2
0,5-3
                                                                      OS-1
                                                                        OS-2
                                                                      OS-1

                                                                                             Si
                                                                                               n
                                                                                                   p
                                                                                                   I-
                                                                                                   <
                                                                                                   I;
                                                                                                   I I
                     5/19/77
                                                  7/19/77
                                                                       9/14/77
                    Figure 40tx   Site 1  zinc concentration  isopleths  for  line 2.

-------
           OS-4
                   OS-5
                           OS-6
• •
• ii
    n
     u
     a
       564
10/31/76



 OS-5     OS-6
                  QS-4

                   •
                                            OS-5
                                                     OS-6
                                   ssX/W  >  •
OS-6
                  5/19/77
                                           7/19/77
                                                  9/14/77
                Figure 41a.  Site 1  chloride concentration isopleths  for  line 1.

-------
             OS-1
OS-2
i i
OS-3    OS-1
OS-2
pS-3
OS-1
OS-2
qs
                                                        3/10/77


                                                OS-1       OS-2
                                                                                 '  10
                                                                       •32.

                                                                                             lit!
                                                                                             ff|?*'*ii
                                                                                             mm.
                                                                                           5-3
                                                                                             •'
                                                                                            V-'-'-V :!.•;«?

                    5/19/77
                            7/19/77
                                                                              9/14/77
                  Figure 41h.  Site 1 chloride concentration isopleths for  line 2.

-------
i I
 I
       564  i
       562
           OS-
                    OS-5
                             OS-6
        550
                   5/19/77
                                               7/19/77
9/14/77
                   Figure 42a.   Site 1  sulfate concentration isopleths  for line 1.

-------
I •
00
            OS-1
        558 -



        556

     #••%


        554


     E
     M
     I-  552 '
        548



        546
         OS-2
OS-3
 .  &>\^s  /'
    \      /
        558



        556



        554
      H 552

      a
      G) 550
        548 '



        546
       10/31/76


OS-1      OS-2      QS-3
                    5/19/77
OS-1
OS-2
pS-3
                                   7/19/77
                                                                   OS-1
                                                           9S-3
                                   OS-1
                                    3/10/77


                                     OS-2     OS-3

                                                                            iii
                                            9/14/77
                      /jre 42b.  Site  1  sulfate concentration  isopleths for line  ?.

-------
             OS-4
                       OS-5
                                OS-6
 •
'•••
                                         OS-4
                                          •
                                                    OS-5
                                                             OS-6
                                                                     OS-4
                                                                                OS-5
         550
                                                                                         OS-6
         1/21/77

OS-A      OS-5      OS-6
                     5/19/77
        7/19/77
9/14/77
                     Figure 43a.   Site 1 TOC  concentration isopleths  for line  1.

-------
             OS-1
                OS-2
OS-3
! •>


I >
     ~ 554
      u
> i i


,,l
   558  '



   556


E

   554


O

P  552




d  55°




   548  "



   546
                                        OS-1
                                            OS-2
          pS-3
                                   OS-1
1/21/77


 os-2       gs-3
                                                                    OS-1
                                                                         OS-2
                                                               OS-1
                                             3/10/77



                                               OS-2
                                                                                           %$$m
                                                                                           WWQ
                                                                                                 i i

                                                                                                 i-
                                                                                                 <
                                                                                                 

                                                                                                 i-
                                                                                                  I;


                                                                                                  O
                     5/19/77
                                                 7/19/77
                                                                        9/14/77
                       Figure 43b.   Site 1 TOC  concentration  isopleths  for line

-------

  564 .,




  562




  560




  558 .
       os-4
                 OS-5
                          OS-6
                                    OS-4
                                              OS-5
                                                        OS-6
                                                                OS-4
                                                                           OS-5
D
P 556 -
3
554 -



552 .




550
         INSUFFICIENT   "


            SAMPLE
   564



   562



   560  -
       OS-4

        •
 ; i
 d
   558 ---
   556
   552 -•




   550
             10/31/76


              OS-5
OS-6
         INSUFFICIENT

            SAMPLE
               •
                                             1/21/77


                                    OS-4      OS-5      OS-6
               5/19/77
                                             7/19/77
                                                                         9/14/77
              Figure  44a.  Site 1  specific conductance  isopleths  for line 1.

-------
         SMI -
         554
         552
      d
         548

         546
             OS-1
         OS-2
OS-3    ll'-. I
    INSUFFICIENT
       SAMPLE
          •
,,,
• >
   550  •

   556  •
E
   554  -
O
H  552

d  550

   548  '
         546
OS-1
               10/31/76
                 OS-2
                 INSUFFICIENT
                    SAMPLE
qs-3
                                             OS-2
                                                pS-3
gS-3
                                     OS-1
          OS-2
OS-1
                                             3/10/77
                                               OS-2

                                                                                            »
OS-3

                                                                                           •H!
                                                                               , O
                     5/19/77
                                    7/19/77
                                                                        9/14/77
                                c i t
                     ite    specific  conductance isopleths for  line  ?

-------
absorbed or precipitated form of low water solubility.   Similar
fluctuations were noted for iron (Figure 33), indicating shifting
in the areas of maximum leachate concentration and the  continual
dynamic nature of leachate.  The presence of more than  one
concentrated leachate plume was also evidenced by the second,
third, and possibly fifth samplings, particularly for cadmium
(Figure 36).

     Another interesting phenomenon that was demonstrated by
more  than one of the contaminant concentration isopleths involved
the ability of the leachate plume to shift relative positions
within the monitored grid.   This was best shown by following the
progression of the areas of maximum-concentrati on from  one
monitoring period to another.  In the first sampling, the maxi-
mum area of concentration was in the upper center of the grid;
in the second sampling it was in the lower center of the grid;
in the third, it had bifurcated and was of similar concentrations
in both upper and lower leachate plumes; in the fourth  sampling,
it was in a widely distributed lower area of the grid and then
reconsolidated itself into a strong, specific, localized concen-
tration plume observed in the fifth sampling.  By the sixth
sampling, the leachate plume was in the extreme upper right of
the grid.

     No similarities were observed between the concentration
isopleths for either chlorides or TOC and the heavy metals.
However, on some occasions, the concentration isopleths for
sulfates did have some resemblance to those for certain metals,
while on other occasions there were no discernible correlations.

     The concentration isopleths for TOC showed that for the
first sampling its concentrations were quite high, reaching
levels greater than 50 ppm at various Vocations on the  monitoring
grid  (Figure 43).  In the first sampling, it was in a very tight,
concentrated, bullseye formation, whereas in the second sampling,
it was in the upper horizons of the water table and had shifted
slightly by the third sampling.  However, in the fourth, fifth,
and sixth samplings, the concentrations had been greatly diluted
to insignificant levels while maintaining their relative
positions.  This illustrates the difficulty in determining when
and how frequently a landfill must be monitored to obtain use-
ful information for management and/or regulation of the site.
Furthermore, as indicated for iron and lead, certain wells
exhibited significant concentrations of these contaminants, while
other wells did not.  Sampling only from the latter wells would
have given site operators and regulatory agencies no reason for
concern over the quality of groundwater at this site, while
the opposite conclusion may actually be more accurate.

     The various configurations and locations of the leachate
plumes for individual contaminants varied across the face of the
monitoring grid at each sampling period.  The reason for this may

                              133

-------
have been the seasonal  use of irrigation wells to the south of
the landfill, causing seasonal  shifts in the direction of ground-
water migration.  During sample well  placement, the groundwater
movement was almost due east, with a  slight inclination to the
southeast.  The well placement was designed to catch the presumed
mass centroid of leachate emissions.   However, the lines of wells
should have been wider along the downstream edge of the landfill.
There should also have been one or two more wells in each line,
and one or two  deeper probes placed in the groundwater table.
These were indicated by the occurrence of many leachate plumes
at the sides and bottom of the monitoring grid.

Environmental Impact Assessment

     Leachate was generated and variable amounts escaped over the
course of the monitoring year.  Less permeable silty sand and
clay strata  (12.2 to 15.2 m below the groundwater surface)
confined  the majority of the leachate to the  upper level of  the
groundwater.  Monitoring of downstream  residential wells located
at  depths of 32 to  40 m revealed  no  contamination or adverse
impacts  on water quality.

     Because of the  large groundwater recharge due to  exfiltra-
tion from the river, copious amounts of  water were available  for
dilution  and dispersion of  leachate-borne  contaminants.  Never-
theless,  during the  summer  months  certain  contaminants  such  as
iron,  lead,  and, on  occasion,  sulfate and  TOC exceeded  the
drinking  water  standards  in localized places  at  distances  of 61
to  91  m  from the downstream edge  of  the  disposal  area  (Table 17).
While  certain  contaminant  concentrations surpassed  the  drinking
standards in the landfill's proximity,  it  was felt  that  they
would  be  suitably  diluted  and  dispersed hundreds of  meters  down-
stream,  assuming there  were no significant changes  in  sludge
contaminant  levels  or  in  the  disposal operation.

      It  was  thought that  the  silty to sandy clay stratum at
about  the 12.2-m depth  was  responsible  for controlling the rate
of  leachate  migration  into  the underlying  coarser sand and gravel
zone  through which  much of the river's  inland exfi1 Ration
occurred.  This was the primary line of detT^™?nan? flux"
ating  and controlling  the rate of heavy metal contaminant flux
to  this  major  groundwater aquifer that  was used extensively
within the  surrounding  area for residential and agricultural
purposes.

      Attenuation occurred at this site  as evidenced by the
 heavy metals calculations performed on  the control volume
 The major concern  was  for the high iron level that leached in
 massive amounts from both the landfill  and the surrounding
 so"   Iron concentrations were as high as four orders of
 magnitude above the EPA drinking water standard.  Lead leached
 in9localfzed "hot spots" from the landfill in the summer.


                                134

-------
       TABLE  17. NUMBER  OF  TIMES  SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
           EXCEEDED  EPA  DRINKING  WATER STANDARDS  (SITE  1 )
Constituent
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Background
Phase I
0-2*
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
1-2
Wells
Phase II
0-22
0-22
21-22
2-22
8-21
0-22
0-22
5-22
6-22
Downstream
Phase I
0-3
0-3
3-3
0-3
1-3
0-1
2-3
0-3
2-3
Wells
Phase II
2-117
0-125
101-125
7-124
31-117
3-125
1-121
22-120
30-120
* The first number indicates number of times standard was  exceeded; the
  second number is sample population.
                                  135

-------
It was believed to originate predominantly from the landfill
rather than from the surrounding soils.  Lead concentrations
were up to two orders of magnitude above the EPA drinking water
standard.  Although concentrations of mercury and cadmium in
the downstream wells were occasionally above the drinking water
standards, there was no indication that the groundwater down-
stream was contaminated to any degree with these two metals to
be of concern.  Concentrations of TOC were high initially, but
decreased to less than 5 ppm later in the monitoring period.

     A much more detailed and thorough evaluation of metal
migration might be obtained through thermodynamic calculations
based on metal speciation using selected parameters as indicators.
The parameters are:

        Dissolved oxygen
        Sulfides
        Chlorides
        Sulfates
        Carbonates
        Soluble organic species  (e.g.,
        fulvic and humic acids)
        PH
        Eh
        Ammonia.

The above  parameters would  allow  us to  predict  the maximum upper
concentrations of a  particular  species,  the metal  species, and
to calculate  attenuation and elution.   Based on  these  calcula-
tions,  it  is  possible  to predict  the  distance  the  contaminants
would migrate  in  characterized  porous  media.

      In  summation, while leachate  contamination  of  the upper
groundwater  zone  occurred  in measurable  amounts,  it was  expected
that  dilution  and attenuation would mitigate these  results within
hundreds  of  meters  from  the landfill.   The  groundwater quality
at  lower  depths  did  not  appear  to  be  adversely  affected  due  to
controlled rate  of  flux  through the  silty  clay  layer  and
subsequent dilution.
                                136

-------
SITE  2

Soil  Analyses

     During  the  drilling of the in-refuse well,  soil  samples
were  taken  at  the refuse-soil  interface (9.1  to  9.4  m)  and  soil
groundwater  interface (10.7 m).  Results  of the  sequential
extraction  with  water and concentrated nitric acid  are  presented
in Table 18.

     The soils in the disposal  area were  fine-textured,  saline
(containing  high levels of soluble salts), -and strongly  alkaline
(pH 8.2).   Concentrations of the selected chemical  constituents
in the  water,  as well as acid extracts, were generally  low  and
showed  little  variation with soil depth.   The concentrations  of
heavy metals  were less than those commonly found in  soils  (1,  2).
The relatively high concentrations of water-soluble  iron at the
two soil depths  suggested a reducing regime.

Sludge  Analyses

     Two grab sludge samples,  one obtained from material excavated
during  placement of the in-refuse well (June 1975)  and  the  other
from the sewage  treatment plant  (June  1976), were sequentially
extracted,  first with water and  then with concentrated  nitric
acid (Table 15).  Since the moisture content was not determined
for the 1975 sample, no comparison could  be made of the differ-
ences in sewage  sludge composition between 1971 (burial date)
and 1976.

     Results of the  sludge  obtained from  the fill materials
showed high concentrations  of  sulfate  and soluble calcium;  some
of the soluble  salts in this sludge may  have been leached out.
The metal concentrations were  within  the  range  but less than the
median concentrations  reported  by  Sommers  (9).  Due to  the
alkalinity of the soil  in  and  around  the  fill,  the movement of
heavy metals away from  the  fill  should be minimal.   On  the other
hand, the high  soluble  salt content  (as  indicated by chloride
and sulfate concentrations  in  the  soil and  leachate) might reduce
the capacity of  the  soil to retain these-metal  contaminants.

Leachate Analyses

     The leachates  collected from  the  in-refuse well during
     r
        attne,
 Jene™  ly  deceased  In  subsequent samplings,  a  probable  resut
 ?f?"nfallth"  diluted  the  leachate.   Among the  heavy  metals
                               137

-------
                  TABLE 18.   ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 2,  PHASE  I
CO
00
                       Soil Samples Taken Below Landfill  During  Drilling  of  In-Refuse Well

                            Refuse-Soil Interface            Soi1-Groundwater  Interface
                                (9.1 to 9.4 m)                        (10.7 m)
Constituent1" Water

pH 8.2
TOC 315
COD 723
TKN 124
NH4-N 11.1
N03-N <0.4
Cl 72
S04 170
Ca 6
Acid Water
6/17/75 6/17/75
8.1
275
712
103
7.7
0.5
89
191
1142 51
Cd <0.03 0.09 <0.03
Cr <0.30 2.39 <0.30
Cu <0.20 3.00 <0.20
Fe 4.20 3250 9.90
Hg 0.005 0.010 ^0.001
Pb 0.4
Moisture, %
Refuse percent moisture


8.1 0.6
23.4 24.1
2.4 m) 22.1
2.7 m) 29.0
5.2 m) 36.0
(6.1 m) \\ .0
Aci









1307
0
2
12
3513
0
6




d










.51
.57
.30

.007
.5





-------
       TABLE 18.   (continued)
UJ
10
Sludge*
Constituent!
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Water


8250
31416

608
122
2.
256
5450
19625

<0 .

-------
TABLE 18.    (continued)
Constituent*
PH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
ci3
SO*
Ca4
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Offsite
7/8/75
7.6
22548
700
2746

36
4.5
0.10
234
135
25
0.015
0.65
0.330
540
0.003

0.740

Well (
in


•^.  -r-

o •—
IO
 IT)
c r**»
.^^"
O r-
•1"™ ^*^
«f- O
3
CO T3
C C
>—i IO


Shallow)
6/4/76


14

<0.01



132
60

0.002
• < 0.01
0.01
2.3
< 0.0002
< 0.01
0.02
0.03

7/8/75
7.7
29299
350
1581

14.2
2.5
0.05
687
210
30
0.030
0.98
0.540
1090
0.006

1 .890

Offsite Well
9/18/75
7.9
6887
32
54

2.1
0.6
0.32
273
238
53
0.009
0.02
0.008
0.42
0.0003

0.056

(Deep)
10/14/75
7.6
2006
68
83

1.3
1.1
0.30
360
108
23
0.004
0.02
0.009
0.23
0.0002

0.070


6/4/76


9.2

<0.01



580
170

0.003
0.02
<0.01
0.44
0.0002
<0.01
0.58
0.08
 *  Soil and sludge were extracted with water and concentrated nitric acid.  Sampling
    dates are also indicated.

 t  Concentrations are expressed as mg/kg of dry soil, mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
    groundwater or leachate.
 #  Moisture content  for the 6/4/76 sample was 86 percent.

-------
TABLE  19.   CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF LEACHATES FROM IN-REFUSE WELL (SITE 2)
Constituent*
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
NOo-N
ci3
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn

7/8/75
6.9
12465
2750
5637

161
130
<0.02
29
1600
510
0.009
0.14 .
0.100
64
0.007

0.310

Phase
9/18/75
7.8
5940
1067
2687

103.7
70
0.02
350
76
161
0.025
0.01
0.02
2.76
0.033

0.200

I
10/14/75
7.9
5433
1350
2000

80
57
0.02
492
1
77
0.011
0.47
0.015
0.75
0.0005

0.263


6/4/76

452


<0.01


70
540

0.003
0.01
<0.01
1.5
<0.0002
0.08
0.10
0.01

-------
       TABLE  19.   (Continued)
IS)
Constituent*
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
N1
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Sp. Cond.

11/1/76
0.005
0.03
0.03
5.50
<0.0002
0.16
1 .400
0.32
61
950
520
__#

1/21/77
0.010
0.04
0.03
1 .90
<0.0002

0.150
1 .40
70
1250
451
850
Phase IIf
5/18/77
0.005
0.04
<0.01
1 .20
<0.0002
0.20
0.240
0.18
4
1290
346


7/18/77
<0.005
0.02
<0.01
1 .50
0.0002
0.12
0.440
0.06
576
1400
318
7500

9/13/77
0.020
0.03
0.03
1 .70
0.0003
0.09
0.370
0.20
4
723
148
4400
        *Specific  conductance  in  ymhos/cm,  all  other constituents  concentrations in ppm.

         No  sample taken  on  3/10/77  due  to  dry  well.
        u
         Insufficient sample.

-------
lead  was  present at relatively high levels (average of 0.22  ppm).
Fluctuations  in  constituent concentrations are probably related
to the  volume of leachate from periods of dry and wet weather.

     In Phase II, concentrations of TOC, chloride, and mercury
decreased considerably, while sulfate, zinc, and lead increased.
Concentrations of sulfate (average of 1,123 ppm) and lead
(average  of 0.52 ppm) reflected the highly contaminated nature
of the  fill leachate.  Because the lower portion of much of  the
landfill  lay  below the water table, this leachate will mingle
with  groundwater.

Gas Composition  in the In-Refuse Well

     Gas  samples collected at two different depths from the
in-refuse well were analyzed for methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen,
and nitrogen  (Table 20).  The oxygen  and nitrogen contents
in the  September samples approached atmospheric values of these
two gases, indicating contamination during sampling.  The October
sample  showed methane and carbon dioxide to be  the major gases
at both depths.   The sample at the lower depth  showed an increase
in methane and a significant decrease in oxygen and nitrogen,
thereby bearing out the general observation that the more active
methane generation occurs at lower depths in  a  landfill.

Groundwater Analyses

     Two grab samples of background water from  a private well and
four groundwater samples from the  shallow  (OS-1 at  3.0 m) and
deep (OS-2 at 10.4 m) off-site wells  were obtained  during
Phase  I.    Bimonthly  samples were taken  from the two off-site
wells  and  also from  the  background well  (B6 at  5.8  m)  in the
Phase  II monitoring.   Results of Phases-I and II  are  presented
in Table 18  and  in Table 2 of Appendix  E,  respectively.

Background Groundwatei—
     The first grab  sample of  background  groundwater  was strongly
alkaline  (pH  8.2)  and  contained  relatively  high concentrations
of total solids, TOC,  and  COD,  and exceedingly  high  levels  of
chloride  (1,201  ppm)  and sulfate  (375 ppm)  (Table  18).   The
sulfate  and  chloride  levels  were  confirmed  by the  second grab
sample taken  9 mo  later.   Among  the  heavy  metals,  iron,  lead,
and  zinc  concentrations  were  slightly elevated.   Overall, the
data indicated  that  the  quality  of this background groundwater
was  poor.

     The  groundwater collected  from  the project background  well
during Phase II  monitoring  showed  considerably lower  levels
of sulfate  chloride,  and  zinc  when  compared  to the background
  roundwlllr  daia from Phase  I.   It is believed that the  wells
upstream from the  landfill  were  contaminated  with sulfate and
chlorine from the  connate  brines  originating  from the Dakota


                               143

-------
   TABLE 20.  GAS COMPOSITION AT SITE 2 IN-REFUSE WELL-

Ha + «
Gas Species 7/8/75 9/8/75
Upper Lower Upper

CH4 --* --* 4.3
co2 -- -- 1.1
02 — -- 20.0
N2 -- -- 77.6
Lower

2.8
1.7
20.4
75.1

10/1
Upper

39.5
37.1
5.2
23.0

4/75
Lower

49.9
37.3
2.3
10.5
*
 Buret broken in transit.
                           144

-------
sandstone.   In  the background well installed in Phase II,  iron,
lead,  and zinc  concentrations were again slightly elevated.   The
sources  of these metals were not known, but probably originated
from the background soil and connate brines rather than  the  land-
fill,  since their levels and those of sulfate, chloride, and TOC
(Phase II)  in the background groundwqter generally were  lower
than the corresponding levels in the downstream groundwater
(Figures 45 and 46).

Downstream Groundwater--
     Data from  the first Phase I sampling suggest possible
contamination by suspended colloidal particles (organics,  silt,
and clay) in the water samples, as evidenced by the extraordinary
high levels of  total  solids, TOC, COD, and iron.   It appeared
from the July 1975 samples that the deep off-site well intercepted
groundwater containing higher concentrations of sulfate, chloride,
and heavy metals than did the shallow off-site well.  However,
the opposite trend was observed in the June 1976 samples.

     Fluctuations in contaminant  concentrations over the sampling
dates were noted in Phase I  (Table 18).  In the deep off-site
well, chloride, sulfate, and lead were present at consistently
high levels, while iron was  surprisingly present in  relatively
low concentrations (0.23 to  0.44  ppm) excluding the  June 1975
sample.   The data presented  clearly indicated  the contamination
of the groundwater by chloride, sulfate, and  lead in the deep
off-site well.

     The shallow off-site well was dry during  the Phase II
monitoring, so no sample was obtained.   Phase  II data showed
an increase in the concentrations of  iron, mercury,  lead,
and zinc and a decrease  in  chloride  in  the off-site  deep ground-
water    Fluctuations  in  contaminant  concentrations were also
observed (Figures 45  and 46).  The  increases  in  heavy metal
concentrations can partially be attributed to  the concentrating
effect by dry weather.   Although  inconclusive, data  suggested
that the poor quality  of the off-site  deep groundwater  was  the
result of landfilling.

Environmental  Impact  Assessment

     Groundwater  quality  in  the  area  is  dependent on the  proxi-
mith to  Dakota  sandstone  bedrock.   In  many  areas  the groundwater
from this aquifer  is  highly  mineralized.   Over-pumping  of some
local wells  has  caused  intrusion  of  salt water into  the alluvium
in  some  areas.

      Local  residents  have  complained about the poor  quality of
the groundwater  supply.   To determine the  P°sslbl%d^r^^l°"
of  groundwater  quality at  this  site,  concentrations  of  selected
contaminants we?e  compared  with  EPA drinking  water  standards
 (Table  21).

                               145

-------
   5.Qr
   4.5*
ai
u_
    15
       \
         «


     L  \
            \
         I   I    I  _!	L
                          I   !   t
    Mr
                                                    LEGEND



                                                  BG .



                                                  QS-2	
     NOJFMAMJJASQ

      1978 • 1 * 1377
        Figure  45.   Fe, Pb, and  In  levels in grcundwater,

                            (Site 2)
                            146

-------
    so
    60
    40
    20
    2SOr
    210



                                    •

0.
a.
                                      \
 *   140

o
t/J
     70
                        i   i
    100
       \
  LEGEND

EG 	

OS-2	
                       A   M   J   J   ASQ
       Fiqur» 46.   Cl ,  SO,,  and TOC levels in croundwater .
                           *  (Site 2)
                            147

-------
        TABLE  21. NUMBER OF TIMES SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
            EXCEEDED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (SITE 2)
Constituent
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Background
Phase I
1-2*
0-2
2-2
0-2
0-2
0-0
2-2
2-2
2-2
Wells
Phase II
0-5
0-5
5-5
0-5
1-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
2-5
Downstream
Phase I
1-6
0-6
5-6
1-6
5-6
0-2
4-6
0-6
5-6
Wells
Phase II T
0-5
0-5
5-5
3-5
5-5
1-5
0-5
1-5
5-5
*  The first number indicates  number of  times standard was exceeded; the
   second number is sample  population.

t  Off-site shallow well was dry  during  Phase II monitoring.
                                  148

-------
Background  Groundwatei—

     The  background  groundwater was found to contain cadmium,
iron,  lead,  chloride,  sulfate,  and TOC at levels that exceeded
the  drinking water  standards on one or more occasions.

     The  concentrations of cadmium and lead exceeded the stan-
dards  one out of seven occasions.   The contamination by these
metals was  not confirmed, since their concentrations on the other
six  occasions were  either nondetectable (particularly cadmium)
or did not approach  the standards.  Concentrations of chloride
and  sulfate exceeded the standards only in Phase I.  Apparently,
the  background well  in Phase II was located sufficiently outside
the  influence of the salt water.  Concentrations of iron and TOC
exceeded  the standards seven and four times, respectively, out
of seven  occasions.   Iron concentrations, however, were not
exceedingly high in  the Phase II background well (0.42 to
1.20 ppm).

Downstream Groundwater--
     The  downstream wells showed cadmium, iron, mercury, lead,
zinc, chloride, sulfate, and TOC as exceeding drinking water
standards at least  once during  the study period (Table 21).

     Cadmium and zinc each  exceeded the standard one out of 11
occasions.  However, the data showed  that their concentrations
in the other 10 samples were similar  to those in the background
levels and no contamination by  these  metals was indicated  in the
downstream groundwater.  Chloride  exceeded  the  standard four out
of 11 samples that occurred in  Phase  I.  Although  sulfate
exceeded  the standard only  once,  its  concentrations were  consis-
tently high in the downstream groundwater.  Based  on the  high
background  levels of chloride and  sulfate,  particularly in
Phase I,  concentrations  of  these  two  contaminants  in the  down-
stream wells was probably due to  saltwater  intrusion.  The
groundwater  intercepted  by  the  downstream well  was  possibly a
mixture  of  water from  the nearby  lakes  and  leachate  leaving
the landfill.

      Since  iron, lead,  and  TOC  exceeded the drinking water
standards on  10 of  11  occasions,  indications were  that ground-
water from  the  downstream wells was  contaminated  with  these
constituents.   The  concentrations  of  lead  were  two to  three
times higher  than the  standard  (0.05  ppm)  and  posed serious
problems to the quality  of  this groundwater.   On  the  other hand,
TOC   evels  in  soSe  instances  were comparable  to.background
levels;  thus,  no serious contamination  by  organic  species
was  indicated.

      Preliminary results obtained indicated that  groundwater
in  the vliilltj of  the landfill was  affected by the salt  water
to  varying  degrees.   The quality  of  background groundwater was

                                149

-------
poor, as shown by relatively elevated levels of iron, chloride,
sulfate, and TOC.  Since the lower portion of much of the land-
fill lies below the water table, the leachate and contaminants
from the landfill can migrate readily into the groundwater.
Indications were that the groundwater downstream from the land-
fill was contaminated to a certain extent with lead, iron,
sulfate, chloride, and organic constituents.

     Overall, except for lead, the impact of the landfill is
probably of little consequence.   While leachate is being gene-
rated, the relative impacts of sludge disposal are difficult
to separate out from the highly  variable ambient concentrations
existing around the landfill.

SITE 3

Soil Analyses

     During drilling of the in-refuse well, soil samples were
taken from the refuse-soil interface and soil-groundwater inter-
face at 7.3 to 7.6 m and 11.0 to 11.3 m, respectively.  Results
of the sequential extraction with water and concentrated nitric
acid are shown in Table 22.

     The soil at the lower depth contained significantly higher
levels of TOC and COD than soil  at the upper layer, which would
indicate a significant migration and/or accumulation of both
organic and reduced chemical species in the soi1-groundwater
interface.  The groundwater table hovered within 1 m of the
bottom of the fill; the data, therefore, suggest that leachate
emanating from the landfill has  migrated into the underlying
soil groundwater.

     A large portion of calcium  at the refuse-soil interface was
soluble in water, while the heavy metals were primarily found
in the acid-extractable form.  Concentrations of lead were
slightly higher than those commonly found in soils, while
concentrations of other heavy metals, particularly mercury, were
lower (1, 2).  No differences were found in heavy metal concen-
trations between the two sampling depths.
     Nitrogen was present primarily in the organic foi
    nitrate levels and high moisture contents suggest
   imp in •*• h P cnil
                                                   form.   The
low nitrate levels  and high moisture contents suggest a reducing
regime in the soil
Sludge Analyses

     Grab sludge sample results showed considerable variation
in constituent concentrations depending upon the sampling date
(Table 22).  More than 50 percent of the TKN was ammonium,
which exceeded the median concentration reported by Sommers (9)
                               150

-------
TABLE 22.   ANALYTICAL RESULTS  FOR  DISPOSAL  SITE  3,  PHASE  I*
    Soil  Samples Taken Below Landfill
         Refuse-Soil Interface
             (7.3  to 7.6 m)
During Drilling of In-Refuse Well
      Soi1-Groundwater Interface
            (11 to 11.3 m).
Constituent
PH
TOC
COD
TKN
NH4-N
NOa-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Moisture, %
Water
7.
240
319
250
34
2.
250
60
1000
<0.

-------
     TABLE  22.    (continued)
in
ro
""""""""" 	 ""' • ••• ' "~~L"'"~

Constituent^
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N(h-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Moisture, %
1 Sludge*
Water Add
10/14/75
5.4

7333
11925

616
375
1 .9
51
10
300 100.0
<0.04 0.60
1.25 33.50
0.24 6.00
29 650
0.0003 0.002

0.5 31.0

90
Background Groundwater
Water Acid
6/3/76


65714

1.0


120
38
1.2
63
44
2125
<0.004
5.9
75
238
78

9/19/75
7.8
991
11
34

1 .3
1 .0
91
i
38
185
230
0.009
0.02
0.018
1 .24
0.0004

0.036



-------
      TABLE  22.    (continued)
in
CO
Offsite Well (Shal
Constituent "*"
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
7/8/75
6.
2379
550
861

0.
<0.
0.
3
35
196
0.
0.
0.
87.
0.

0.

7




3
1
10



007
17
100
4
005

16

9/19/
7.
3403
33
50

6.
4.
<0 .
50
30
170
0,
<0.
0.
0.
0.

0.

75
4




6
6
02



008
01
150
33
0002

09

low)

10/15/75
6
2040
17
32

0
0
0
60
40
290
0
0
0
2
0

0

.7




.9
.5
.28



.004
.03
.020
.58
.0004

.10



6/3/76


40

<0 .



56
30

0.
0.
0.
30
<0.
0.
0.
0.




01






007
02
08

0002
11
09
32
        *   Soil  and  sludge were extracted with water and concentrated nitric  acid.   Sampling
           dates are also indicated.
        t   Concentrations are expressed as mg/kg of dry soil, mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
           groundwater or leachate,  and most probable  number/100  ml  (100  g) for  fecal
           bacteria  count.
        n
        v   Moisture  contents were 89.9 and 78 percent for the 10/1^/75 and 6/3/76 samples,
           respect ively.

-------
All of the heavy metals were within the ranges but less than the
median concentrations found in over 250 sewage sludges reported (9)

Leachate Analyses

     The leachates collected in Phases I and II were analyzed for
several contaminants, particularly heavy metals (Table 23).

     Phase I leachates showed the characteristically high levels
of TOC, COD, and ammonium usually observed in landfill leachates.
Nitrate was not detected, indicating the anaerobic nature of the
leachate, while calcium, iron, and lead showed relatively  .
high concentrations that fluctuated widely with time.

     Concentrations of most contaminants measured in Phase II
were lower than those of Phase I.  Chromium, copper, cadmium,
chloride, and sulfate levels in the leachates were low, while
mercury was not detected.  The data showed no trend or correla-
tion among the various contaminant concentrations.

Gas Composition in In-Refuse Well

     Gas samples collected from the in-refuse well between July
and October 1975 were analyzed for methane, carbon dioxide,
oxygen, and nitrogen  (Table 24).

     The July and October upper samples and the September lower
sample were contaminated with air during sampling or shipping,
as shown by the atmospheric values of  oxygen and nitrogen.
Concentrations of the four gases in the July and October samples
were similar, with methane and carbon  dioxide averaging 59.5 and
37.0 percent, respectively.  These methane levels are  similar to
those  found in many  landfills.

Groundwater Analyses

     Both background  and off-site well groundwaters were monitored.
Phase  I background groundwater samples w.ere taken from a privately
owned  well located southeasterly of the landfill site; Phase II
background samples were  obtained from  the  project well north-
easterly of the site.  There were  four pneumatic ejector-type
sampling probes inside the project background well at  depths of
6.1, 9.1, 12.2, and  15.9 m.

     The Phase  I off-site well  (OS-X), a shallow well, was
westerly of the landfill site with one sampling  level  (at  7.3 m).
Six new off-site wells  (OS-1 to OS-6)  with pneumatic  ejector-
type sample probes were  installed  in  Phase II.   These  six  wells
formed a control volume  below the  groundwater  table  extending
from the west to southwest boundaries  of the  site.   Analytical
data for Phases I and  II are presented in  Table  22 and in  Table  3
of Appendix E,  respectively.

                               154

-------
             TABLE  23.    CHEMICAL  ANALYSIS  OF  LEACHATE  FROM  IN-REFUSE  WELL  (SITE  3)
Ol
Phase I
Consti tuent
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
•J
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
7/8/75
6.7
13290
7200
19552

759
605
<0.02
28
430
2070
0.007
0.15
0.050
20.6
0.005
0.37

9/19/75
7.6
8111
11333
23283

3236
2468
<0.02
112
2
437
0.021
0.10
0.020
11.1
0.012
0.73

10/15/75
7.5
5805
14267
20302

3545
3407
<0.02
31
1
111
0.008
0.17
0.054
10.4
0.001
0.18

6/3/76


1030





1160
8
0.002
0.04
<0.1
1 .7
0.15
0.03
0.08

-------
TABLE 23.    (Continued)
Constituent*
i
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Sp. Cond.

11/1/76
0.005
0.12
0.01
6.5
<0.0002
0.02
0.150
0.16
12
20
2240
t

1/20/77
0.005
0.46
0.02
9.1
<0.0002
0.30
0.065
1 .80
26
4
2028
25000
Phase
3/8/77
0.003
0.07
0.03
15.0
0.0010
0.28
0.470
0.41
30
12
1790
24000
II
5/10/77
0.005
0.06
0.01
17.0-
0.0003
0.08
0.240
0.65
<2
30
8


7/18/77
<0.005
0.01
<0.01
24.8
0.0002
0.05
0.140
<0.01
19
70
70
7500

9/12/77
0.010
0.01
0.01
16.0
0.0002
0.04
0.090
0.10
11
33
76
8000
 t
'Specific  conductance  in  ymhos/cm, all other constituents concentrations in ppm.
 Insufficient  sample.

-------
  TABLE  24.  GAS  COMPOSITION AT SITE  3  IN-REFUSE WELL


7/8/
Gas Species Upper

CH4
co2 o.i
02 21.2
N2 78.7


75
Lower

56.3
39.6
0.9
3.2


9/19/75
Upper Lower

53.7
33.6
2.8 21.2
9.8 78.8


10/1
Upper

5.8
1.4
16.4
76.4


5/75
Lower

62.6
34.3
0.6
2.5
Below detection limit
                           157

-------
Background Groundwater--
     Judging from the groundwater flow patterns (Figure 47),
the Phase I background well might have been contaminated by
leachate from the landfill.  The consulting geologist indicated
that other land uses in the area might have caused changes of
such magnitude in the original groundwater quality that sampling
from no single background well could be reliable.   However,
because the Phase II project background well was located upstream
and in the opposite direction of groundwater flow, it may still
be useful for comparing groundwater quality changes due to the
landfilling operations.

     Concentrations of  the selected contaminants in the project
background well were well within the concentration ranges of
most terrestrial waters (4).  Concentrations of selected contami-
nants  in  the background groundwater varied with both time and
depth  in  the Phase  II monitoring.  Chloride, sulfate, and TOC
concentrations showed a decreasing trend  since the winter of 1976.
However,  since no data  is  available after  the  autumn of 1977,
it  is  not clear  if  there  is a relationship between season and
concentration.   Monitoring for a minimum  of two consecutive
years  is  probably necessary in order  to observe this relationship.
Most  trace  metal concentrations  showed  higher  levels in the
summer.   Although it  is not clear  if  seasonal  changes also  affect
the  migration  of these  metals, it  is  quite possible that the
higher concentration  was  due  to  the higher  flow rate in the
summer season, as was  suggested  in Site 1.

      Contaminant concentrations  were  generally higher  in the
upper  sampling levels  than those in the lower  levels.   This was
probably  due  to  the high  vertical  flow  (6)  that leached more
contaminants  from the  soil  above to the sand  layer where  the
sampling  points  were  located.

Downstream Groundwater--           v.
      In  comparison  with Phase I, concentrations of lead,  zinc,
and  probably  iron  in  the  OS-X well  increased,  while  those  of
chloride  decreased  in the Phase  II  monitoring. There  were  also
appreciable decreases in  TOC  concentrations  following  the  first
sampling  in Phase  II.

      Phase II  downstream  well data showed that the concentrations
 of contaminants  varied with  depth,  although  no general  trend
was  observed  (Figures 48  to  54).  It  is not certain  if there  was
 any concentrated localized leaching  into  the  underlying or down-
 stream soil layers.  However, this is quite possible,  since the
 soils are somewhat  inhomogeneous and  an unsaturated  flow  might
 result in some locations, as  will  be  discussed in more detail  in
 the Environmental  Impact  Assessment.   Another cause  may be from
 the channels  or  cracks created in the clay layer  by  the operator
 during digging of pits.  Among the contaminants studied,  only
 TOC showed consistently higher concentrations in  the groundwater
 of the upper soil  layers.
                                158

-------
                                                WATER TABLE
                                                 CONTOUR
 0   24  48      96
   NEW SPECIAL  CONTROL

      VOLUME ^7 A BCD
Figure 47.
Configuration of water table, groundwater
flow direction, and new special control
volume of site 3.
                            1 59

-------
100
75

E
0.
°" 50
o
25


100

£ 75
Q.
G 50
25



160

a- 120
•
o 80


40



"- :^\
j « *
X 1A
- M
\\
V
• \
\
*

\


\12° A1510 OS-2
•\ A
S 1 \ LI 	
. V > L2 	
/\ \ L3
' / \\\ L4 	


t
f 3,600
/\.
\^ OS-3
><^'
\ "^
' \ I
\ I
*% I
\ I
^ *
\|
tl 0 \ f M * M J 1 A * V
1976- 1 "1977
Figure 48.   Cl  levels  in groundwater from
            six off-site wells  (site 3).
                   160

-------
120
90
S
c.
^ 60
«
30
100
S 7S
c.
c.
^T 50
o
- /-A
^ \ QS-4
£-—-\
\x \
X\ \
V V \
* I
1 I 1 1s* — 1 	 1 	 > t 	 1 	 *— 1
f/ \ as-s
^"-.A \
• VNX .


1_1 	
L2 	
L3 	
L4




       25r
                      \
\
                t   i   t
                         OS-6
       100 •
   o    50 -
        25
          n   a   j  f, M   A  M
          1975 ' [ -1577
••^^^••••MMHMMBBBIMMMM^^^IBK	


 Figure 48. (Continued)
                               161

-------
MDJ.  FMAMJJASO
  Figure 49.   SO^  levels  in  groundwater  from
              six  off-site wells  (site 3).
                     162

-------
  o
  t/1
      200
      150
      100
       50
      200
      150
      100
       50
      200
      150
      100
       50
                         dS-4


            i   i   r   t   i   i    i   i
                                           i	I
                         QS-5
                                         \
                                          \
                                            \
             i   i   i  i   \   I   i   i  ^"T   i   t
                         OS-6
                       i	1	1	1	1	1
         UQJFMAMJJASQ

          197S   1  • 1377	
Ll



L2



L3
Figure 49. (Continued)
                                163

-------
120


90
*_
E.
c.
60
o
J—
30

200


150
f^
2
C.
C.
. 100
0
o

^™"
50

200
150
s
^^
c.
100
*
o
H-
50



IB
\ OS-1
\
- \
\
\
\ \
- \ V
\ \ 	 	
«••
OS-2
\
V^ LI 	
\
\\
- \
\
"v V L4


r A
/\
/ \
' \
/ \
\
\
™™» \
. ~~~N \
"^~- \ V ^** ~ "~-~.
""^-\ N- - S*^ — -"«
t i i *">— •7""^T ~i T~-i 	 r — i
MOJ. FMAMJJ A 5 U
1378— H — 1977
Figure 50.   TOC  levels  in  groundwater  from
            six  off-site wells  (site 3).
                   164

-------
      zocr
  o
  J—
      15CJ
      IOC
       50
           \
             \
              \
<_)
a
  o
  o
         MQJFMAMJJASO
          1S7S —H	1377
                                                     Ll



                                                     L2



                                                     l_3



                                                     L4
Figure  50.(Continued)
                               165

-------
200
150
EL
°- 100
m

-------
  N  i   f   i   i ^-t	1^  I
     300 _
                              -H-.J-- -
        H^-
-------
20


.15

&
a.
°- .10

*
_Q
Q_

.05





.04

a. .03
'a.
S .02
.01


.08

CS
CL .06
a.
«
£ .04

.02



OS-1 ,
/ \
\
*»
\ / \
/ \
> /
\ '
\- / \
-^" \ \ / \
^ \V /\ \
\
\ / \_ \

r 0.054
/ \ OS -2
' 7 \
/ N LI 	
- / \
/ \
/ XV L3
7 X' \
/ \\
y 	 X ^--- — ^-^% \\
t i i i I i ' t r ' i
OS -3 X \
/ \
-J ^\. *
•^7 -*~ \
' /' / \\
/ / XV
\ x / A
N ^ ' / »
-X / /
/ \x^ 	 	 	 /
» I i 1 1 t r • f » '
HOJFMAMJJAS 0
4 «^^ i 4rt^^

    Figure 52.   Pb  levels  in  groundwater  from  six
                off-site wells  (site  3).
                         168

-------
   a.
   a.
  J3

  c_
      .20:
       15'
10
      ,05
   a.
   a.
   J3

   C_
              \ /
        	y \/
         \
     \
             /\    /

               V
     \
      V
xx  \


\  v\
  »     \'
                 »   )  lift
                      CS-5
             \
                                    \
                        Ax

                     X
                              \
                                       1_1




                                       L2



                                       L3



                                       L4
        UOJ.  FMAMJJ  A  SO
Figure 52.(Continued)
                           169

-------
2.0
. 1.5
S.
c.
=• 1
c
.5
2.0
1.5
S
a.
o.
1
*
c
.5
1.6
1.2
S
Q.
.8
c
.4
OS-1 ;
» \ 1
\ A /
- \ / N /
A /A\ '
- A \ // \\ /
/ \ '/^ N\ /
/ V V %\
/ | I ~ i* ' • "^^ » ! t ' ^T— -*»!•• 1
_ ,
QS-2 /
A /
'/\\
// \\ / L2 	
/ /^*>»
/ /7 \ \ /
/ // N\^ /
L^r^ ^^sL^^
r "" T X
as-3/ \
/ \
/ 7\ \ l
^ /' /f\ \
NOJFMAMJJASO
1975 ^H — 1977
Fiaure 53.   Zn levels  in groundwater from
            six off-site wells  (site 3).
                  170

-------
  pa
  e
  a.
  CL
      2. or
       i.sh
                          as-4
NOJ.  FMAMJJ
1S7S	•	1377
                                       A   30
                                                     L2



                                                     l_3



                                                     L4
Figure  53.(Continued)
                                 171

-------
 .oosor
 .0020 -
                     0.0030
 .0015-
Ol
 .0010 _
f \ as-i
- /' A\
/ « Y>
/ k V\
~ / } \
J 1 \
i t i t i i
*&.
  .0030
 .. 0020
CT
 . 0010
 . 0005
   .004
   .003
 .  .002

Cl
   .001
                      OS-2
          I   I
             i   I    1   1   i   i<   L   J
                      OS-3
       .\


N  0  J   F   H
 1976—i	1977
                      A  M   J   J  A   S  0
                                                 ,  _
                                                 L3
         Figure  54-.  Hg levels  in  grouncwater from
                     six off-sit.s  wells (site 3).
                            172

-------
  C5
     .004
     .003
     .002
     .001

             t   t   1   I   t    111
 C.
 C.
 CT
 I
    ,0020
    ,0015
    ,0010
    ,0005;
    .0020
                     ___ _____ J
 -  .0015
 5.
 a.

    .0010
    .0005
                          as-s
                l    I   1    J    I   L
                          as-6
N  D   J.   F   M  A   M   J   J
 1976—H	1377
                                         A   S   0
                                               Ll


                                               L2


                                               L3
Figure  54. (Continued)
                                  173

-------
     Concentrations  of contaminants  fluctuated  over sampling
time (Figures 48 to  54).   While chloride was  detected  at  relatively
higher levels during the  winter,  most of its  concentrations were
close to 2 ppm in subsequent monitoring periods.   It is  not known
if chloride concentrations would  rise again  next  winter.   A longer
study time is needed to confirm such seasonal  variation.   The  data
for TOC and, to some extent, sulfate exhibited  similar seasonal
trends.

     Among the trace metals in groundwater samples taken  from  the
off-site wells, iron and  most of the zinc levels  were  in  the  ppm
range, others in the ppb  range.  Most of the  results showed higher
concentrations in the 'summer than any other season.  Among the
trace metals, mercury showed a slightly different pattern, peaking
around March and April and having a higher peak in the inlet  than
in the outlet face of the control volume.

Comparisons of Contaminant Concentrations
from Different Sources--
     Comparisons between  the migration trends and levels  of
contaminants in the in-refuse well leachates, background, and
off-site well groundwaters are given in Figures 55 to  57.  Both
TOC and lead levels were  higher  in the in-refuse  well  leachates
than in the background or downstream groundwater; the  opposite
trends were noted for those of iron and sulfate.   Concentrations
of other contaminants in  the background or off-site well  ground-
waters varied.  The relatively low sulfate levels could be due
to the reducing characteristics  of the in-refuse  leachate.  How-
ever,  the  relatively low iron  levels could be associated with  the
low iron content of the sludge.

     While  concentrations of chloride, s.ulfate, mercury, iron,
lead,  and  zinc were higher  in  the off-site well groundwaters
than in the background groundwater, TOC  showed only a minimal
variation.  The  increase  in sulfate in the downstream groundwater
was probably due chiefly  to oxidation  of  sulfide species from the
landfill.   This  is  usually  accompanied by an increase in most
trace  metal concentrations, except  iron,  and can be attributed to
the formation  of other metallic  solids  (e.g., carbonates) with
higher solubility.

Special Control  Volume Analyses

Flow Calculation--
     The  geologic formation  that controls the groundwater hydro-
logy at this  site can  be  divided into  four strata:  upper clay,
middle clay,  lower  clay,  and  sand.  The  approximate permeability
of these  soil  layers  were  calculated  by  the  geological consultant
and  are as follows:
                                174

-------
   120
    90
o
co
    30
  2000
  1500
   soo
      NDJFMAMJJASO
      1975 -  : * 1577
                                                     LH5END
AYG OS

 IR
 Figure 55.   Cl,  $04,  and TOC levels  in  groundwater and
              leachats  (site 3).
                             175

-------
   20O-
   15C
a.  IOC
    sc_
 /\
'    \
'.   \
  \   N
    V  \
   1.3
   i.c
   2.0.
   1.3-
   i.G-
                          LEGEND



                        AVG BG....


                        AVG QS	


                         IR	
     NUJFMAMJJASC
      1375	r—137 7
 Figure 56.  Fe,- ?b, and  Zn  levels  in ground*atar and
             leachata  (sits  u).
                             176

-------
   .ooacr
»  .0015 ~
o
= .00-10
   .0005 2.	'
           I   I    t   1    11	1—I—1—I—i
           0—J   FM    AM   3   J    A   S   0
        "1975	H^1377
                                         LEGEND



                                       AVG BG • - •«


                                     |  AVG OS	


                                        IR	
  Figure  57.
He levels  in  groundwatsr and  leachata (site 3}
                                177

-------
                                          Permeability  (K)
     Geologic Layer                    ft/day         cm/sec

  Upper clay                          5             1.76 x TO"3
  Middle  clay                         0.0069        2.44 x 10"6
  Lower clay                          0<367         1 . 29 x 10"4

  Sand                             200             7.06 x 10"2

     The  configuration of the surface  or  upper water table is
shown in  Figure 47 (p. 159 ).  Confined by the clay  layer, ground
water is  mounded in the landfill area, while the regional water
table generally slopes toward the creek channel.   Groundwater
flow in the sand and cl-ay formations  is probably at  right angles
to the water table contours.  Therefore,  the flow  is generally
toward the creek and down valley.

     Flow velocities could vary with  changes in piezometric
groundwater elevations.  However, because of the complex water
mounding  in the vicinity of the landfill, available  data on
groundwater elevations were generally  inadequate to  perform the
necessary detailed calculations.  It  was  assumed that flow velo-
city variations were negligible.  Data on the direction and
magnitude of the horizontal and vertical  components  of ground-
water flow in the different strata in  the control  volume have
been provided by the consultant geologist (6):
 Formation     Flow Component        ft/day         cm/day

Lower clay      Vertical             1 *             30.5
                Horizontal           0.012            0.37
Sand            Horizontal          25              762

     Although the vertical flow in the sand formation could be
slowed down by the relatively large regional groundwater flow,
at this site the vertical flow in the lower clay (30.5 cm/day)
was significant enough to affect the flow pattern in the sand
1ayer.

Control Area and Flow Rate--
     As shown in Figure 47, the horizontal flow direction was not
parallel  to the presumed longitudinal  axis.   Thus,  the flow
passing the" inlet face (formed by OS-1, OS-2, and OS-3) was not
completely the same as the one passing out the outlet face
(formed by OS-4, OS-5, and OS-6).   Therefore, a new horizontal
control shape had to be constructed according to the hori-
zontal flow vectors, as shown in Figures 47 and 58  (shape ABCD).
Using the rule suggested in Section 5, a subarea A-jjk can be
formed, assuming that the contaminant concentration at any
sampling well can be applied halfway to the next sampling well.
Thus, the subareas of the vertical  inlet face can be formed

                               178

-------
(Figure  58),  as  suggested  by  Thiessen  (3).   The  calculated
areas  for each  individual  A-jjic  are  listed  in Table  25.

    The top  and  bottom  boundaries  of  the  control  volume  should
also be  formed  by  the  vertical  flow direction.   In  order  to
obtain this new  shape,  it  is  assumed that  the original  vertical
boundaries range  in  elevation from  289.6  to  298.8  m,  with  a
lower  clay layer  1.07  m  thick and  a sand  layer  8.08 m thick.
Since  the horizontal  flow  in  the  lower clay  layer  (Figure  59)
was very small  compared  to the  vertical  flow, the  shape would
not be changed  significantly.   However,  because  of the  continuous
input  of water  through  the lower  clay  and  sand  boundaries,  the
horizontal outlet  section  in  the  sand  layer  will  be increased  by
a small  quantity  of  Vv.  The  value  of  Vv  can be  determined
as follows:


    Vertical  inlet  flow rate   =    1850  m /day
                                      3
Horizontal  inlet flow rate =   10220 m /day
                                    (Table 25)
                                           3
                                    10220 m /d

                                    (Table 26)
     Total  inflow               =   1850 m3/day + 10220 m3/day
                                    12070 m3/day             (

     Assuming that the horizontal flow velocity in the sand
     layer  is kept constant (762 cm/day), the area of the
     outlet plane becomes


                           '* 158° m' (tablS 27)             (
     This outlet area is located chiefly on the sand layer,
 because the lower clay layer had extremely low horizontal flow
 velocity.  Therefore, the depth increase on the outlet plane
 becomes

     AH.out - V in _ , 158Q m2 - 1340 m2           (53)
     width of the outlet plane          166m
                               = 1.45 m

     This depth increase results in the following angle  for
     the groundwater down flow:

          1.45 m     = 1 .45 m =  0.038
     travel distance     38 m                                (54)

     9 = tan"1 0.038 = 2.2°
                               179

-------
 OS-1
   12      36
     METERS
                   OL AREA  Aijk
 k = 1  = LOWER CLAY       1  = OFr-SITE WELL NO.
 k =2  = SAND             j  = LEVEL OF SAMPLING
                             POINT
 (BY THIESSEN METHOD)    k  = S °IL LAYER
Figure 58.      Vertical  inlet section of site  3
                      180

-------
                     TABLE 25.  CONTAMINANT FLUX AND MASS THROUGH VERTICAL
                           INLET SECTION OF SITE 3 (LOWER CLAY LAYER)
ca
Period
11/1/76


12/10/76

(40. 5d)
12/10/76

1/20/77

2/15/77
(67(1)
2/15/77

3/B/77

4/17/77
(61d)
4/17/77

5/16/77

6/22/77
(66d)
6/22/77

7/18/77

8/17/77
(56d)
8/17/77


9/9/77

(22d)
Sum 312.5d
Area
symbol*
All!
A221
A321
A411
A511
A621
Alll
A221
A321
A411
A511
A621
Alll
A221
A321
A411
A511
A621
Alll
A221
A321
A411
A511
A521
Alll
A221
A321
A411
A511
A621
Alll
A221
A321
A411
A511
A621
Av. in
Area
On2)
121
1,790
1.290
1,400
1,090
390
121
1.790
1,290
1,400
1,090
390
121
1,790
1,290
1,400
1,090
390
121
1,790
1,290
1,400
1,090
390
121
1,790
1,290
1,400
1,090
390
121
1,790
1,290
1,400
1,090
390
6,080
•$
(m3/d)
36.9
545
393
427
332
119
36.9
545
393
427
332
119
36.9
545
393
427
332
119
36.9
545
. 393
427
332
119
36.9
545
393
427
332
119
36.9
545
393
427
332
119
1,850

C (ppm)+
100
2
100
100
97
63
100
2
140
27
82
52
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
I .
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
4
14
2
—
Cl~
J (kg/d)*
3.68
1.09
39.4
42.8
32.1
7.49
3.68
1.09
55.1
11.5
27.2
6.18
0.0368
1.09
0.787
1.28
0.662
0.238
0.074
1.09
0.787
0.855
0.663
0.240
0.074
1.09
0.787
0.855
0.663
0.240
0.074
1.09
0.787
1.71
4.64
0.238
41.61

M (kg)**
149
44.1
1,600
1,700
1,300
303
247
73.0
3,690
770
1,820
414
2.25
66.5
48.0
78.1
40.4
14.5
4.88
71.9
51.9
56.4
43.8
15.8
4.14
61.0
44.1
47.9
37.1
13.4
1.63
24.0
17.3
37.6
102
5.24
13,000

C (ppm)
175
25
200
140
130
80
175
83
180
50
115
85
150
1
150
40
50
85
110
1
90
45
55
85
90
1
65
40
60
35
65
1
65
32
35
28
--
S04
J (kg/d)
6.44
13.7
78.7
59.9
43.1
9.52
6.44
45.4
70.9
21.4
38.1
10.1
5.52
O.b47
59.1
17.1
16.6
10.1
4.05
0.547
35.4
19.2
18.2
10.1
3.13
0.547
25.6
17.1
19.9
4.16
2.39
0.547
25.6
13.7
11.6
3.33
1251

M (kg)
261
555
3,190
2,430
1,750
386
432
3,040
4,750
1,430
2,550
677
337
33.4
3,610
1,040
1,010
616
267
36.1
2,340
1,270
1,200
667
175
30.6
1,430
958
1,110
233
52.6
12.0
563
301
255
73.3
39,100

C (ppm)
38
158
70
35
14
32
38
34
61
6
1
6
5
14
24
5
8
3
11
26
19
7
10
13
9
24
26
4
6
4
4
23
21
3
3
4
--
TOC
J (kg/d)
1.40
86.4
27.6
15.0
4.64
3.81
1.40
18.6
24.0
2.57
0.330
0.710
0.180
7.65
9.45
2.14
2.65
0.357
0.405
14.2
7.48
3.00
3.31
1.55
0.331
13.1
10.2
1.71
2.00
0.476
0.147
12.6
8.27
1.28
1.00
0.476
45.41

M (kg)
56.7
3,500
1,120
608
188
154
93.8
1,250
1,608
172
22.1
47.6
11.0
467
576
130
162
21.8
' 26.7
937
494
198
219
102
18.5
734
571
95.7
112
26.7
3.23
277
182
28.2
22
10.5
14,200

-------
                            TABLE 25.   (Continued)
00
Soluble Fe

Period
11/1/76


12/10/76

(40. 5d)
12/10/76

1/20/77

2/15/77
(67d)
2/15/77

3/0/77

4/17/77
(61d)
4/17/77

5/16/77

6/22/77
(66d)
6/22/77

7/18/77

8/17/77
(56d)
8/17/77


9/9/77

(22d)
Sum 312. 5d
Area
symbol*
All)
A221
A32I
A41I
A5II
A62I
All!
A22I
A32I
A4II
ASH
A62I
All)
A?2I
A32I
A41I
ASH
A62I
A11I
A«?*?l
A321
A411
ASH
A621
All!
A22I
A32I
A41I
ASH
A621
All!
A221
A321
A41I
A5I1
A62I
Via

C 
-------
ELEVATION

m ft


304-
302,




300-


298.

296-


294-




292-
290-
9 O &
fm Q 9

i— 1,000 v
/
^^ 	 -^ 	 — -^
_ 990



E1 E

1 ! I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
— 980


«—
— 970
*—
^*™ ^™~
^ 	

^
— 960

<=
— 950 ^ 	

sL' ^^ *J^ \^ \^ \i/ **A^ si/ ^A/ si* ^k *1/
VH =0.37 cm/d
Vw = 30.5 cm/a
i it 1 I I i i
^^ *> ^^ ^^ ^

V = 762 cm/d
H
Vw = 2 . 93 cm/d
V




1 38 m
\
/

N
e- x
^
i^-^—
* —
^

/

x _JI_L
.^ 	 ^
^
^ —

• ^
L- 940 \
o:
UJ >.
Q. <
Q. _i
rs u
^

UJ
-1 V
Q <
Q _l
2

f
^ >
O _J
/ —1 
-------
00
TABLE 26. CONTAMINANT FLUX AND MASS THROUGH
HORIZONTAL INLET SECTION OF SITE 3 (SAND LAYER)

Ptrlix)
11/1/76


12/10/76



(40.5d)
12/10/76

1/20/77

2/15/77


<6M|
2/15/77

1/8/77

4/17/77


(Sid)
4/17/77

5/16/77

6/22/77


(664)
6/22/77

7/18/77

8/17/77


(56d)
8/17/77


9/7/77





ATM
tyitol*
AI22
AI12
AI42
A232
A242
A122
A112
AM2
A122
A112
AI42
A212
A242
A122
A112
A142
AI22
AI32
AI42
A212
A242
A122
A112
A142
AI22
AI12
AI42
A212
A242
A32!
A332
AM2
AI22
AI12
AI42
A232
A242
A122
A112
A342
AI22
A112
AI42
A232
A242
A322
A312
A 342

w
94
69
68.5
169
490
IM
165
139
94
69
585
169
490
158
165
139
94
69
58.5
169
490
158
165
139
94
69
58.5
169
490
158 '
165
119
94
69
58.5
169
490
158
165
119
94
69
58.5
169
490
158
165
139
Q
I.1/')
716
525
445
1,287
1,711
1,201
1,257
1,059
716
525
445
1.287
1,711
1,201
1,257
1,059
716
525
445
1.287
1.711
1,201
1,257
1,059
716
525
445
1,2(17
1,713
1,201
1,257
1.059
716
525
445
1,287
J.7J3
1,203
1,257
1.059
716
525
445
1.287
3,713
1,203
1,257
1,059

CU-I
99
74
lit
120
. 57
100
110
1,601
96
98
98
IB
58
140
94
142
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
cr
j (k,/d>'
71.0
IB. 9
51.1
155
211
120
119
1,800
68.9
51.6
41.7
4B.9
216
168
119
150
0.72
1.05
0.89
2.58
7.46
2.40
1.26
2.11
1.41
1.05
0.890
2.58
7.46
2.40
1.26
2.11
1.43
1.05
0.89
2.58
7.46
2.40
1.26
2.11
1.41
1.05
0.89
2.58
7.46
2.40
1.26
2.11

H (k,)"
2.900
1,600
2,080
,280
,610
,860
,630
15 ,000
.620
:,460
,930
: ,280
14.500
11,100
7.970
10.100
44
64.1
54.1
157
455
146
76.9
129-
94.4
69.1
58.7
170
492
158
81.2
119
80.1
58.8
49.8
145
418
134
70.6
118
29.3
21.5
18.2
52.9
153
49.2
25.8
43.1

C (W-)
240
160
160
25
10
200
210
200
225
160
160
50
45
180
160
100
170
125
125
30
15
150
90
90
100
85
85
110
160
90
65
B5
125
10
10
45
45
65
65
65
102
58
58
108
45
65
71
II
SO,"
1 (',/«)
172
84.2
71.4
12. 1
112
240
265
155
161
84.2
71.4
64.4
168
216
202
106
122
65.7
55.8
18.6
131
180
113
95.0
71.7
44.7
37.9
142
597
108
107
89.7
89.6
16.8
11.2
57.9
168
78.1
82.0
68.6
71.1
30.5
28.9
139
168
78.1
89.5
74.9

«
6.970
1,410
1,890
1,100
4.540
9.720
I0.7DO
6,280
10,800
5.640
4,780
4.110
11,100
14,500
11,500
7,100
7.440
4,010
1,400
2.160
7.990
11.000
6,890
5,800
4,730
2,950
2,500
9,170
19,400
7,110
7,060
5.920
5.020
2.060
2.060
1,240
9,410
4,370
4,600
1,840
1.500
625
592
2,650
1,440
1.600
1.640
1.540

C <«->
114
55
56
15
68
70
46
46
42
9
9
10
11
61
26
10
1
6
6
16
a
24
a
B
9
a
a
7
a
19
12
12
a
l
i
6
5
26
7
7
4
4
4
4
5
21
5.5
5.5
toe
J (k9/d)
81.8
28.9
24.5
45.1
254
84.1
Sfl.O
48.6
M.I
4.71
4.01
12.9
41.0
73.1
12.8
11.7
2.15
1.16
2.68
20.6
29. B
28. B
10.1
8.44
6.45
4.21
1.57
9.01
29.8
22.8
15.1
12.7
5.73
1.58
1.14
7.71
18.6
11.2
8.81
7.19
2.87
2.10
1.78
5.15
18.6
25.2
6.93
5.81

N (kg)
3.310
1.170
992
1.830
10,100
1,410
2,150
1,970
2,020
317
269
864
2,750
4,910
2,210
2,120
111
191
161
1,260
1,820
1,760
616
515
426
270
236
595
1,970

1,000
838
321
88.5
75.0
433

1,750
495
414
58.8

36.5
288

517
142
120
                                            5l» - 31 Id
                                                             »H. In   1.340
                                                                                  10,220
                                                                                              —      797*
                                                                                                               248,000.
—     1,170'
                                                                                                                                                364,000.
                                                                                                                                                                        196'
                                                                                                                                                                                    61,000

-------
                                    TABLE   26  (Continued)
oo
en

Period
11/1/76



12/10/76


(40. 5d)
12/10/76

U20/77

2/15/77


(67d)
2/15/77

3 fan'

4/17/77


(61d)
4/17/77

5/16/77

6/2Z/77


(66d)
6/22/77

7/18/77

8/17/77


<56<1)
8/17/77


9/7/77



(70. bell
Sun - 31 Id

Area
symbol*
A1Z2
AI32
AI42
A232
A242
A322
A332
A342
A122
A132
A142
A732
A242
A3Z2
A332
A34?
A122
A132
AI42
A232
AJ42
AJZ2
A332
A342
M22
AI32
AI42
A232
A242
A322
A332
A342
AI22
A132
A142
AJ33
A242
A322
A332
A342
A122
AI32
AM2
A232
A242
A322
A33?
A342
V In

C (ppn)
2.90
140
44.0
0.03
0.10
5.90
0.50
0.50
120
27.0
27.0
3.70
5.50
38.0
270
160
16.0
6.40
6.40
100
9.20
61.0
220
220
176
152
152
88.0
35.0
284
291
291 •
7.60
32.0
32.0
15.0
4.70
17.0
231
231
7.00
10.0
10.0
5.00
2.00
37.2
49.0
49.0
-
Soluble Fe
J (kg/d)
2.08
73.6
19.6
0.04
0.37
7.10
0.63
0.53
66.1
14.2
12.0
4.76
20.5
42.7
340
169
11.5
3.37
2.85
232
34.3
71. J
277
232
126
80.0
67.8
113
123
341
367
307
5.45
16.8
14.3
6.70
17. S
20.4
291
244
5.02
5.26
4.46
6.44
7.46
44.7
61.8
51.7
78)'

H (kg)
84.2
2,980
794
1.62
15.0
287
25.5
21.5
5,770
951
804
319
1,370
2,860
22,800
11,300
701
206
174
14,200
2,090
4,470
16,900
14,200
O.J20
5,280
4,480
7,460
8,120
22,500
24,200
20,300
305
941
800
375
980
1,140
16,300
13,700
103
108
91.4
132
153
916
1,270
1,080
243,000.

C (ppn)
0.0002
0.0002
0.0005
0.0004
0.0002
. 0.0027
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0020
0.0020
0.0009
0.0003
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0020
0.0030
0.0030
0.0030
0.0030
0.0010
0.0030
0.0030
0.0005
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.000!
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
o.oooz
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0024
0.0018
0.0002
0.0002
—
Soluble Kg
J (kg/d)
0.00014
0.0001
0.0002
0.0005
0.0007
0.0032
0.0002
0.0002
0.0001
0.0010
0.0009
0.0012
0.0011
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0014
0.0016
0,0013
0.0039
0.0112
0.004
0.0038
0.0032
0.0036
0.00016
0.00013
0.00026
0.00075
0.00024
0.00025
0.00021
0.0001
0.0001
0.00009
0.00026
0.00075
0.0002
0.00025
0.00021
O.OUOI
0.0001
0.00009
0.00026
0.009
0.0022
0.00025
0.00021
0.0093*

H (kg)
0.0057
0.0041
0.0081
0.020
0.028
0.130
0.008
0.008
0.0067
0.057
0.060
0.080
0.074
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.085
0.098
0.080
0.240
0.680
0.244
0.232
0.195
0.024
0.011
0.009
0.017
0.0495
0.016
0.016
0.014
0.0056
0.0056
0.005
O.OIS
0.042
0.011
0.014
0.012
0.002
0.002
0.0018
0.0053
0.185
0.045
0.005
0.004
2.90

C (PP»)
0.005
0.14
0.17
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.074
0.054
0.054
0.005
0.005
0.043
0.005
0.005
0.040
0.007
0.007
0.014
0.007
0.060
0.020
0.020
0.172
0.061
0.061
0.025
0.010
0.071
0.082
0.082
0.068
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.005
0.005
0.200
0.200
0.015
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.030
0.040
0.040
-
Soluble Pb
J (kg/d)
0.0036
0.0737
0.0758
0.0064
0.0187
0.0120
0.0063
0.0053
0.0530
0.0280
0.0240
0.0064
0.0187
0.0520
0.0060
0.0053
0.0287
0.0037
0.0031
0.0180
0.0260
0.0720
0.0250
0.0210
0.123
0.0320
0.0270
0.0320
0.0370
0.0050
0.103
0.0870
0.0490
0.0037
0.0031
0.0090
0.0190
0.0060
0.252
0.211
0.0110
0.0020
0.0018
0.0064
0.0187
0.0360
0.0500
0.0420
0.328*

H (kg)
0.150
3.00
3.10
0.260
0.760
0.490
0.260
0.210
3.55
1.88
1.61
0.43
1.25
3.50
0.410
0.360
1.75
0.230
0.190
.10
.60
.4
.53
.30
8.10
2.10
1.80
2.10
2.40
5.60
6.80
5.70
2.70
0.210
0.170
0.500
1.06
0.340
14.1
11.8
0.210
0.040
0.040
0.110
0.380
0.740
1.03
0.870
102

C (PP.)
0.01
1.70
0.54
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.85
0.12
0.12
0.03
0.01
0.11
0.77
0.43
0.15
0.04
0.04
0.92
0.10
0.37
0.38
0.38
1.40
0.73
0.73
0.62
O.J6
1.20
1.60
1.60
0.03
0.17
0.17
0.08
0.01
0.03
1.00
1.00
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.15
0.24
0.24
-
Soluble Zn
J (kg/d)
0.007
0.894
0.241
0.013
0.037
0.096
0.063
0.053
0.610
0.063
0.054
0.039
0.037
0.132
0.971
0.454
0.110
0.021
0.018
1.18
0.373
0.444
0.479
0.401
1.00
0.384
0.326
0.798
0.970
1.44
2.02
1.69
0.022
0.089
0.076
0.103
0.037
0.036
1.26
1.06
0.057
0.026
0.022
0.039
0.149
0.180
0.303
0.253
3.67* 1

H (kg)
O.JSO
36. Z
9.76
0.53
1.50
3.90
2.55
2.15
41.0
4.22
3.62
2.61
2.48
8.05
65.1
30.4
6.70
1.28
1.10
72.0
22.7
27.1
29.2
24.5
66.0
25.3
21.5
52.7
64.0
95.0
133
III
1.23
4.98
4.26
S.80
2.10
2.02
70.6
59.4
1.17
0.533
0.451
0.800
3.05
3.70
6.21
5.19
,140
                                         Area symbol A|J)(: where I  • offslte well number; J •  level  of sampling point In well;  and k -  soil layer If k •  1 • lower clay «nd k - 2 • sand.

                                      t  Concentrations of constituents on 9/7/77 are from concentration versus time diagram (see Figures 48 to  54 ).

                                      I  Contaminant flux (J) « C (ppra) « Q (»3/d) » 10"J (unit • kg/d).

                                     •*  Input mass (M) through vertical Inlet section of the  control volume - J x Period (unit - kg).

-------
                TABLE  27    CONTAMINANT  FLUX AND MASS THROUGH HORIZONTAL
                            OUTLET SECTION OF SITE  3  (SAND LAYER)
00


Period
11/6/76
12/10/87
(35d)
12/10/76
2/15/77
2/15/77
(67d)
2/15/77
3/8/77
4/17/77
(61d)
4/17/77
5/16/77
6/22/77
(66d)


ATM
symbol*
A4I2
A422
A432
M42
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
AS32
A542
A622
A632
A642
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642


ATM
<»?)
40
181
163
183
30.9
221
254
185
81.6
105
141
40
181
163
183
30.9
221
254
185
81.6
105
141
40
181
163
183
30.9
221
254
185
81.6
105
141
40
181
163
183
30.9
221
254
1S5
81.6
105
141


(«3/d)
304
1,378
1,241
1,393
234
1,683
1,934
1,409
621
800
1,073
304
1,378
1,241
1.393
234
1,683
1,934
1,409
621
800
1,073
304
1,378
1,241
1,393
234
1,683
1,934
1,409
64
800
1,073
304
1,378
1.241
1,393
234
1,683
1,934
1.409
621
800
1,073


C (PP-)'
93
56
96
87
92
92
98
33
60
89
83
27
33
119
94
82
86
126
24
62
83
79
3
4
3
3
2
69
66
2
2
a
4
2
2
2
2
2
51
20
2
2
2
2

Cl"
J (kg/d)1
28.3
77. J
119
121
217
155
190
46.6
37.3
71.0
89.3
8.2
45.6
148
131
19.3
145
244
33.9
32.3
66.1
85.0
0.910
5.52
3.73
4.18
0.470
116
128
2.82
1.24
6.37
4.30
0.610
2.76
2.49
2.79
0.47
85.8
38.7
2.82
1.24
1.60
2.15


M (kg)"
991
2,710
4,160
4,240
7,600
5,430
6,650
1,630
1,310
2,490
3,126
549
3,060
9,912
8,780
1,290
9,720
16,300
2,270
2,160
4,430
5,700
55.5
337
228
255
28.7
7,080
7,810
172
75.6
389
262
40.3
182
164
184
31.0
5.660
2,550
186
81.8
106
142


C (ppn)
135
105
138
130
129
129
128
BO
80
151
129
50
60
115
165
115
125
110
75
85
160
125
40
SO
75
75
50
137
115
50
es
140
85
45
45
50
50
55
ISO
65
40
85
105
100

50;
J (kg/d)
38.0
145
172
181
30.4
217
248
113
«*•'
120
139
15.2
82.8
143
230
27.1
210
212
105
52.8
127
134
12.1
69.0
93.1
104
11.7
230
222
70.6
52.8
111
91.4
13.6
62.1
62.1
69.7
12.9
252
125
56.4
52.8
83.6
107
	

M(kg)
1,330
5,080
6,020
6,340
1,060
7,600
8,680
3,960
1,740
4,200
4,860
1.018
5,550
9,580
15,400
1,820
14,100
14,200
7,040
3.540
8.610
8.980
738
4,210
5,680
6,340
714
14,000
13,500
4,310
3.220
6,770
5,580
898
4.100
4,100
4,600
851
16,600
8.250
3,720
3,400
3,540
7,060
	

C (PP»)
32
29
155
13
13
13
131
170
30
96
9
6
8
3
4
1
5
2
2
6
6
7
5
6
8
8
8
6
4
4
3
2
5
7 .
1
9
13
9
12
— ...
TOC
J (kg/d)
9.71
40.0
192
18.1
3.06
21.8
253
240
18.6
76.4
9.67
1.82
11.0
3.72
5.57
.235
8.40
3.86
2.82
3.72
4.77
7.52
1.51
8.28
9.94
11.1
1.88
10.0
7.73
5.64
1.86
1.59
5.37
2.12
8.28
8.69
9.76
2.36
11.7
13.5
12.7
8.08
7.16
12.9


M (kg)
340
1,400
6,720
634
107.1
763
8,1)60
8,400
651
2,670
339
122
7,440
249
373
15.7
563
269
189
249
320
504
92
505
606
677
1)5
610
472
344
113
97.0
320
140
547
574
644
155
772
891
838
533
473
851

-------
00
TABLE 27 (Cc
Area
Period symbol
11/6/76




12/10/76




(35d)
12/10/76

1/20/77

2/15/77



(67d)
2/15/77


3/8/77


1/17/77



(61d)
4/17/77


5/16/77


6/22/77



(66d)
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
ft412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
»nt1 nued)
Soluble Fe
C (ppm)
118
119
141
1.50
82.0
229
80.0
104
416
13.0
25.0
3.30
66.0
160
0.01
0.03
82.0
40.0
60.0
6.60
16.0
1.40
69.0
5.30
23.0
23.0
28.0
158
0.02
110
44.0
85.0
2.50
125
109
203
203
186
275
144
81.0
246
106
186
J (kg/d)
35.8
164
175
2.09
19.3
385
154
146
258
10.3
26.8
1.00
91.1
198
.013
.007
137
77.3
84.7
4.10
12.7
1.50
20.9
7.31
28.5
32.0
6.60
265
.038
155
27.3
67.7
2.68
37.9
150
252
283
43.8
462
278
114
152
84.4
200
M (kg)
1,250
5,740
6,130
73.2
676
13,500
5,390
5,110
9.03CT
36f
938
67.0
6,100
13,300
0.870
0.470
9,180
5,180
5,670
275
851
101
1,280
446
1,740
1,950
403
16,170
2.32
9,460
1,670
4,130
163
2,500
9,900
16,600
18,700
2,890
3,050
18,300
7,520
10,000
5,570
13,200
C (ppm)
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0005
0.0002
0.0002
0.0010
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0010
0.0002
0.0007
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
. 0.0010
'0.0005
0.0010
0.0002
0.0002
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
0.0006
0.0004
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
Soluble Hg
J (kg/d)
0.000061
0.00028
0.00025
0.00028
0.000012
0.00034
0.00039
0.0014
0.00012
0.00016
0.00022
0.000061
0.00028
0.00025
0.00028
0.000047
0.00034
0.00039
0.00028
0.00062
0.00016
0.00075
0.00030
0.0014
0.0012
0.0014
0.00024
0.00067
0.00039
0.00028
0.00061
0.0004
0.0011
0.000061
0.00028
0.00037
0.00042
0.00047
0.001
0.00077
0.00042
0.00019
0.00024
0.00022

M (kg)
0.0021
0.0098
0.0088
0.0098
0.00042
0.012
0.014
0.049
0.0042
0.0056
0.0077
0.0041
0.019
0.017
0.019
0.003
0.023
0.026
0.019
0.042
0.011
0.050
0.0183
0.085
0.073
0.085
0.015
0.041
0.024
0.017
0.037
0.024
0.671
0.004
0.018
0.024
0.028
0.031
0.066
0.051
0.028
0.013
0.016
0.015

C (ppm)
0.210
0.190
0.010
0.005
0.200
0.400
0.100
0.210
0.100
0.040
0.059
0.009
0.080
0.014
0.005
0.005
0.160
0.160
0.190
0.012
0.039
0.005
0.200
0.008
0.050
0.050
0.100
0.300
0.005
0.400
0.070
0.070
0.005
0.102
0.135
0.227
0.227
0.207
0.590
0.100
0.001
0.083
0.100
0.100
Soluble Pb
J (kg/U)
0.064
0.262
0.0124
0.007
0.047
0.672
0.193
0.296
0.062
0.032
0.063
0.0027
0.110
0.017
0.007
0.0011
0.269
0.309
0.268
0.0074
0.031
0.0054
0.061
0.011
0.062
0.070
0.023
0.504
0.0097
0.564
0.044
0.056
0.054
0.031
0.186
0.282
0.316
0.049
0.992
0.193
0.0014
0.052
0.080
0.107
Soluble Zn
M (kg)
2.24
9.17
0.434
0.245
1.65
23.5
6.76
10.4
2.17
1.12
2.21
0.181
7.37
1.14
0.47
0.74
18.0
20.7
18.0
0.500
2.08
0.360
3.72
0.670
3.78
4.27
1.40
30.7
0.592
34.4
2.68
3.42
3.29
2.05
12.3
18.6
20.9
3.23
65.5
12.7
0.092
" 3.43
5.23
7.06
C (ppm)
1.00
0.780
0.900
0.010
0.980
1.08
0.870
0.950
1.18
0.140
0.220
0.050
0.220
0.570
0.010
0.010
0.700
0.280
0.710
0.190
0.170
0.020
0.620
0.070
0.170
0.170
0.210
1.00
0.020
1.10
0.21
0.63
0.04
0.560
0.550
1.10
1.10
0.900
2.10
0.910
0.310
0.870
1.30
0.910
J (kg/d)
0.303
1.07
1.11
0.014
0.231
1.82
1.68
1.34
0.733
0.111
0.236
0.015
0.303
0.708
0.014
0.0025
1.17
0.541
1.00
0.118
0.135
0.022
0.188
0.100
0.211
0.237
0.050
1.68
0.040
1.55
0.130
0.501
.043
0.170
0.759
1.36
1.53
0.212
3.53
1.75
0.437
0.540
1.03
0.978
M (kg)
10.6
37.5
38.9
0.490
8.09
63.7
58.8
46.9
25.7
3.89
8.26
1.01
20.3
47.4
0.940
0.170
78.4
36.2
67.0
7.90
9.05
1.47
11.5
6.10
12.9
14.6
3.10
102
2.44
94.6
7.93
30.6
2.62
11.2
50.1
89.8
101
14.0
233
116
28.8
35.6
68.0
64.5

-------
            TABLE   27.   (Continued)
                                                   Q                      cr                               so°
                            .             Area
                            Area
              Period       symbol         (m2)      (m3/d)      C (ppni)     J  (kg/d)    H (kg)      C  (ppm)    J (kg/d)      H (kg)    C (ppm)	

              -——-       —           —~4-        ^—^         ^         12 2         683       ^j         1.21         67.8
              6/22/77       A422          181       1.378          2         2.76       155           35         48.3       2.700        3         414        232
                            A432          163       1  241          2         2.49       139           50         62.1       3.480        6         7.46        418
              7/18/77       A442          183       1393          2         2.79       156           50         69.7       3.900        6         8.37        469
                            A512           30.9       234          2         0.470       26.3         60         14.1         790        6         1.41         79.0
                            A522          221       1,683         39       65.6      3.670          100        168.0       9.410        5         8.41        471
              8/17/77       A532          254       1.934          7       13.5        756           40         77.3       4.330        4         7.13        433
                            A542          185       1.409          2         2.82       158            4          5.65        316        5         7.06        JW>
                            A622           81.6       621          2         1.24        69.4         35         21.7       1220        4         2.9         39
                            A632          105         800          2         1.60        89.6         85         67.7       3,790        4         3.19        179
              (56d)         A642          141       1.073          3.1        3.33       187           85         91.4       5.120        6         6.45        361

              8/17/77       A412           40         304          4         1.21        31.7         30          9.11        239        3         0.911        23.9
               '  '         A422          181       1.378          4         5.52       145           30         41.4       1,086        2         2.76         72.4
                            A432           63         241          2         2.49        65.3         35         43.5       1.140        2         2.49         65.3
              q/17/77       A44?           H3         393          2         279        73.2         35         48.8       1,280        2         2.79         73.2
                            ml           309       234         15         354        929         33          7.78        204        3         0.707        18.5
                            A522          221       1.683         27        45.4      1.190           55         92.5       2.430        3         5.04        132
                            A 32          |U       }'™         12        23<2        610           34         65.7       1,720        3         5.80         52
                            A542          185       1  409          5         7.06       186           17         24.0         630        4         5.65        148
                            A622           816       621          2         1.24        32.5         40         25.0         656        4         2.50         65.6
 .                          -„          ,05         QOO          2         1 60        42.0         61         48.6       1.270        3         2.39         62.7
09             (26.23d)      M42          141       1,073          2         2.15        56.4         66         71.0        1.860        5         5.38        141

            Sum -311.23d    Ah> Qut     1.580      12.070         -       447*     139,000           -       999*       311,000        -        17«rf        55.700

-------
            TABLE   27   (Continued)
00
Soluble Fe

Period
6/22/77



7/18/77




8/17/77
(56d)
8/17/77








9/12/77
(26.23d)
311.23d
* Area
Area
Symbol*
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
A412
A422
A432
A442
A512
A522
A532
A542
A622
A632
A642
Y out
symbol A...:
J. ' J f>
Concentrations of
* Tnnti


C (ppm)
4.50
36.0
96.0
96.0
59.0
347
56.0
258
30.0
80.0
210
2.20
3.90
5.60
5.60
11.0
279
78.0
114
264
90.0
111
--
where 1

J (kg/d) M (kg)
1.37 76.7
49.7 2.780
119 6,660
134 7,500
13.9 778
583 32,600
108 6,050
364 20,400
18.6 1,040
63.7 3,570
226 12,700
0.670 17.6
5.38 141
6.96 183
7.81 205
2.59 68.0
469 12,300
151 3,960
161 4,220
164 4,300
71.7 1,880
•119 3,120
1,2601 39,1000
= off site well number;
constituents on 11/6/76 are from
f.M = r. d
innil * n Im3/ri\ x IIT3 1
Soluble Hg

C (ppm)
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0007
0.0005
0.0004
0.0004
0.0005
0.0005
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0018
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0022
--
j - level

J (kg/d)
0.000061
0.00028
0.00025
0.00028
0.00005
0.0012
0.0010
0.0006
0.0002
0.0004
0.0005
0.000061
0.00028
0.00025
0.00028
0.00005
0.003
0.0004
0.0003
0.0001
0.00016
0.0024
0.00631
of sampling
concentration versus

IA\.

M (kg)
0.003
0.016
0.014
0.016
0.003
0.067
0.056
0.034
0.011
0.022
0.028
0.0016
0.0073
0.0066
0.0073
0.0013
0.079
0.011
0.008
0.003
0.004
0.063
1.96
point
Soluble Pb

C (ppm)
0.005
0.082
0.230
0.230
0.200
0.720
0.200
0.140
0.028
0.420
0.200
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.031
0.850
0.450
0.460
0.510
0.260
0.290
--

J (kg/d) M (kg)
0.0015 0.084
0.113 6.33
0.286 16.0
0.321 18.0
0.047 2.63
1.21 67.8
0.387 21.7
0.200 11.2
0.017 0.950
0.335 18.8
0.215 12.0
0.0015 0.040
0.007 0.180
0.006 0.160
0.007 0.180
0.236 6.19
1.43 37.5
0.870 22.8
0.650 17.0
0.320 8.40
0.210 5.50
0.310 8.31
2.221 690
1n well; and k = soil layer If k
time diagram (see


Figures 48 to 54 ).

Soluble In

C (ppm)
0.07
0.20
0.53
0.53
0.49
2.40
0.64
1.20
0.15
1.70
1.00
0.10
0.14
0.09
0.09
0.08
1.60
0.95
0.85
0.86
3.20
0.44
—
= 1 = lower



J (kg/d)
0.021
0.280
0.660
0.740
0.120
4.04
1.24
1.69
0.090
1.35
1.07
0.030
0.190
0.110
0.126
0.190
2.69
2.88
1.20
0.53
2.55
0.47
9.641
clay and



M (kg)
1.18
15.7
37.0
41.4
6.72
226
69.4
94.6
5.04
75.6
60.0
0.780
4.98
2.88
3.30
4.98
70.6
75.5
31.5
13.9
66.9
12.3
3000
k = Z = sai


           **  Input mass  (M) through vertical output section of the control volume = J x Period (unit = kg).
            I  Average value.

-------
     The vertical  flow in  the  sand  formation  of the  control
     volume is  derived from the  following  equation:

     Vv = VH tan 9                                           (55)
        = 762 cm/day x 0.038 = 29 cm/day (Figure 59)

     The revised shapes and subareas of the horizontal  inlet and
outlet planes were formed  based  on  these calculations,  and the
flow rate passing through  each subarea was then calculated.
Results are given in Tables 26 and  27 and  Figures 60  and 61.

Mass Balance--               •
     The fluxes of the specific  contaminants, J (kg/day), through
the partitioned faces of the control volume were calculated
using Equations 43 or 46.   The input fluxes through  the vertical
lower clay layer and horizontal  sand layer for each  constituent
were calculated; the results were given earlier in Tables 25 and
26, respectively.  The horizontal output fluxes through the sand
layer are given in Table 27.

     Travel time for the vertical flow through the sand layer
was about five days (38 *  7.62 m/day «= 5 days); through the
lower clay layer was about 3.5 days.  This latter flow joined
with the flow in the sand  layer, and the total flow required
3.5 to  8.5 days to pass through the control volume.   Based  on
the above information and the flow pattern, Tp and Tp'   (inflow
and outflow time periods,  as defined in Section 5) values are
as follows:

     T   for the inflow in sand layer       =  311 days
      p
     T   for the inflow in lower clay layer =  312.5 days
      P                                    3
     Total  input volume = 311 d x 10,220 m /day
                         +  312.5 d  x  1 ,850 m3/day

                        = 3,756,545 m3

     en  -T   =  3,756,545 m3	 =  311-23  days.
        '   P1       12,070 m3/day

From the TD  and TD'  values, the  total  input  and  output  mass of
the  control  volume  was solved; the  results are  given in  Tables
22  to  24   The  amount  of contaminant  flux  and attenuation  or
elution  of  a certain  contaminant was  calculated  using  Equations
38  to  40 and 43  and  44.  The  results  are  tabulated below:
                                190

-------
14
       300 _
       298 -
        290
             9 90    os — i
                                                                              OS -3
             980
       2 96 - - 970






       294 -



            -960



       292 -
950
        288r


            - 940


         m   ft

       ELEVATION
                                                                                             in
                                CONTROL AREA'A- ...
                     ,                           ' J R
               K= 1  = LOWER  CLAY        1 =  OFF-SITE  WELL  NO.

               k=2  = SAND              j =  LEVEL OF SAMPLING

                                            PO-INT

                                        k =  SOIL LAYER
                          Figure  60.      Horizontal  inlet section  of site 3.

-------
\a
' >
        288 '
            fc 940
         m   ft
       ELEVATION
                                                            28.2 m     28.2 m  '^-6.
                                                      i m
                CONTROL AREA
k = 1  = LOWER CLAY
k =2  = SAND
                                                    1 = OFF-SITE  WELL  NO.
                                                    j = LEVEL OF SAMPLING
                                                        POINT
                                                    K = SOIL LAYER
                          Figure 61.     Horizontal  outlet section of  site  3.

-------
             Unit  Input  Flux
      Sand  Layer   Lower  Clay  Layer
                    	 g/day/m2
                             Unit Output Flux
                                Sand Layer
Cl~
SO?"
4
TOC
Hg
Pb
Zn
Fe
595
873

146
0.
0.
2.
583




0069
245
74

                       7
                      21
                       7
                       0.0004
                       0.018
                       0.11
                      17
                                 283
                                 632
                                 113
                                   0.0040
                                     41
                                     10
 1
 6
                                 797
Pi fference

 319
 262
  40
   0.0033
  -1.15
  -3.25
-197
     It  is  apparent that the sand layer transported more contami
nants  than  the  lower clay layer.   Ratios of contaminant flux
between  sand  and  lower clay layers are listed below:
  Contaminant
                  Ratio of Contaminant Flux (-|
                                                       sand
                                                     ower
     Cl
     SO
2-
      '4
     TOC
     Hg
     Pb
     Zn
     Fe
85
42
21
17
14
25
34
High groundwater flow is probably responsible in part for the
high contaminant fluxes in the sand layer.  However, the ratio
of flow velocity between the sand and lower clay layers was
about 25.   Only the contaminant flux ratios of zinc and TOC were
close to this velocity ratio, the others varied.  Chloride,_
sulfate, and iron were higher, mercury and lead, lower.  This
could come from factors such as the difference of adsorption
capacity or groundwater quality between the sand and the lower
clay.
     The quantity of contaminants attenuated or eluted can also
be calculated; results are given below:
                               193

-------
                   Attenuation         Elution        Percent
Contaminant         mg/day/m3         mg/day/m3       Change
   Cl"                6,240                              47

   SO*"               4,690                              23

   TOC                  990                              26
   Hg                 .0894                              47

   Pb                                    28.5           412

   Zn                                    84.6           122

   Fe                                   6,000            43

          (Results are based on a 62,800-m3 control volume.)


The data  presented show that, with the exception of sulfate,
iron,  and mercury, the migration trends were similar to those for
the Site  1 control volume.  Chloride, sulfate, TOC, and soluble
mercury were attenuated while soluble lead, zinc, and iron were
eluted.   The chloride attenuation seems much higher than theo-
retically possible.  A probable source of this chloride was the
salt  used for road deicing.  This salt entered the control volume
as slugs  of high concentrations during the winter, but had not
yet passed out of the discharge end.  These high chloride values
distorted the mass balance calculations.

      As previously suggested, the attenuation of mercury was
probably  due to the  low solubilities and strong adsorption and
complexation abilities of mercuric solids.  The elution of iron
from  the  soil could  mean that the original groundwater and land-
fill  leachate mixture was relatively reduced compared to the
groundwater quality  or that soluble  iron complexes were formed
during migration.  The relatively high flow velocity at this
site,  about eight times higher than  that at Site 1, also could
account for the leaching or actual physical transport of some
loosely adsorbed iron or iron colloids into the groundwater.
The latter could also occur to lead  and zinc.  Because of the
incomplete information on groundwater conditions, dissolved
oxygen, sulfides, and other ligands, a detailed evaluation of
the migration of iron, sulfate, lead, and zinc cannot be
accurately assessed.

      Site 3 had much higher contaminant fluxes than Site 1.  The
following is suggested:

      • The higher unit groundwater  flow rate at  Site 3
        could physically transport more constituents through
        the soil pore space.
                               194

-------
     t   Site  3  is  older and has been more heavily loaded.
        Although  the sludge was placed within the clay
        strata  at  Site 3,  the Site 3 soil seems to be
        completely saturated and the relatively higher
        amounts and concentrations of contaminants being
        leached into the groundwater reflect this slow
        but  steady passage of contaminants.

     •   Since Site 3 has higher precipitation, rain, and
        snow   than Site 1, more contaminants could be
        leached from the sludge at Site 3, assuming a
        direct  correlation between contaminant transport
        and  leachate generation.

Observations  on Concentration Isopleths and Related Factors

     As illustrated in Figure 3, the six new off-site plume
wells were placed  in two parallel lines, 73 m apart, south and
southwest of the disposal  area and across the path of the leachate
plume and groundwater flows.  Wells 1, 2, and 3 were in Line 1
and Wells 4,  5, and 6 were in Line 2.  Due to a planned burial
of additional sludge and inert debris, well placement was
constrained  to  a narrow 46- to 75-m-wide zone between the disposal
area and the two creeks to the south and west.

     Concentration isopleths were prepared for the contaminants
over the 1-yr sampling period  (Figures 62  to 73).  The geologic
formations consisted of an upper unsaturated clay, middle
saturated gumbo clay, and sand strata  (6).  Based on these iso-
pleths, changes in concentration of a  specific contaminant could
be considered with regard to sampling  location, depths, geo-
hydrologic conditions, and season.

     Site 3  is located in a temperate  zone of the continental
United States and is subjected  to. rather sharp demarcations in
season and climate.  These climatic changes strongly influenced
the observed concentration trends for  various contaminants.  The
soil surface was  frozen and covered with snow in  the severe winter
of 1976-1977.  The  amount of infiltration or  groundwater  flow was
minimal, as  shown by specific  conductance isopleths  (Figure 73).
The extreme  stratification  ranging  from  the top  10,000 to  2,500
mhos/cm in about  3  m  is quite  interesting.  Under these conditions,
the leachate plumes observed for  the  various  contaminants  were
distinct entities  and  usually  were  associated with  one parti-
cular  soil stratum.  Thus,  the  leachate  plumes were  moving at a
predictab e  rate  within that particular  soil  stratum and  emerging
across the monitoring  boundaries.   The winter months would, there-
fore   appear So be  an  ideal  time  to  determine  the  actua   concen-
tmion garments  of  certain contaminants within  a  particular
soil stratum   Overall, the  leachate  plumes  varied  significantly
with samol^q  time   it was  present  at  one  particular point in the
Uonitoring g'riS during  one  sampling  and  was  almost  completely

                                195

-------
OS-1     OS-2
                                 II',  1
•0
                                          OS-1
                                     os-2      os-:
                                                                       OS-1
         290
 OS-2     OS-J
                                                                                              M
                                                                                                    CLAY
                                                                                              LWER,
                                                                                     CLAY
                                                                                                    1 ,AI II >
                     5/16/77
                                     7/18/77
                                                                                                    CLAY
                                                                                                    CLAY
                                                                                                     Al II >
9/12/77
                          re  62$.  Site 3  iron concentration  isopleths for  line 1

-------
            OS-4      OS-5
    in
    d
'
    <
     i
    n,
                                OS-6
                                                           OS-6      OS-4     OS-5     OS-
          1/20/77

OS-4      OS-5
                    5/16/77
                                                                                                 CLAY
                                                                                                 CLAY
                                                          SAND
OS-6     OS-4
3/8/77

 OS-5    OS-6
          7/10/77
                                                                                                 CLAY
                                                                                             iito= CLAY
                                                                                                 SAND
                  9/12/77
                    Figure  62b.   Site 3 iron  concentration  isopleths  for line  2.

-------
11)
                                                                                              CLAY
                                                                                              CLAY
                                                                                              SAND
                    5/16/77
                                                7/10/77
                                                                           9/12/77
                     i-iyure bta.  Site  3  lead concentration isopleths  for  line

-------
            OS-4
•
     n


     \
                                                            OS-6
     •
     i
     '

     m

     a
300





298






296





294





292





290
                                OS-6
                           .if
                      o. oos
                                                                     OS-4
                                                                               OS-5    OS-6
                                                                                            LOWER.
                                                                                                  CLAY
                                                                                         CLAY
                                                                                                  SAND
                                                                                                  CLAY
                                                                                                E CLAY
                    5/16/77
                                         7/18/77
                                                                       £.005  __-——
SAND
                                                                              9/12/77
                     Figure 63b.   Site 3  lead concentration  isopleths  for line  2.

-------
OS-1     OS-2
OS-3
i >
• i
o
                                         05: '.
         OS-2
                                                          {..0001
DS-l
                                     1/20/77


                                     OS-2
                             OS-3
                    5/16/77
         7/18/77
                                                                                              n  § CLAY
                                                                                                  CLAY
                                                                                                  • .Al II )
                                                                                                  CLAY
                                                                                                  CLAY
                                                                                                  SAND
                                                                 9/12/77
                             .   Site 3  mercury  concentration isopleths  for line  1

-------
'.

300





298





296






294




292





290
       os-4
                os-5
                        OS-
             (&)
             V^     -oboi
                OOOi
               11/1/76



    304 OS-4     OS-5
               5/16/77
                                 S-4
                                        OS-5
                                                  OS-
                                                                   OS-5     OS-<
OS-6    OS-4
                                     1/20/77



                                     OS-5      OS-6
                                         7/18/77

                                                           CLAY
                                                                                     SAND
                                                                                    CLAY
                                                                                JMB CLAY
                                                                                    SAND
                                                                   9/12/77
               Figure  64b.   Site  3  mercury concentration  isopleths  for line 2.
                              *

-------
I >
' »
I >
                                       OS-1      OS-2     OS-
                    OS- 1      OS-2     OS-
                                                                            0. 001

                                                                                          M
                                          LOVJEH
                                                                                                • I A r
                                                                                                CLAY
                                                                                                SAND
                   5/16/77
7/18/77
                                                                                                < I AY
                                                                                                CLAY
                                                                                                SAND
9/12/77
                 Figure 65a.  Site 3  cadmium concentration  isopleths  for line  1

-------
            OS-4
    II

    t I



    •I
    d
t .
 •
290
           11/1/76


304-PS-4      OS-5
                                DS-6
                                                           OS-6      OS-4     OS-5     OS-
                                                 7/18/77

                                                                                                CLAY
                                                                                                SAND
                                                                                                CLAY
                                                                                              * CLAY
                                                                                                SAND
                                                                             9/12/77
                    Figure 65b.  Site  3 cadmium  concentration  isopleths  for line  2

-------
i >
<.)
i-
        302



        300
      €.  290


      O
         296
         292
         290
              OS-1     OS-2      OS-3
                      5/16/77
OS-1      OS-2      OS-;
                                           OS-1
         1/20/77


          OS-2
                                                              OS-3
                                                              it
                                                    7/18/77
                                                                        os-i      os-2      OS-;
                                                                                               GJWEBI
                                                                                                     CLAY
                                                           CLAY
                                                                                                     SAND
         3/8/77


OS-1      OS-2     OS-3
                                                                                                    9 CLAY
                                                                                                      CLAY
                                                                                                      SAND
                                                                                 9/12/77
                    t-iyureood.   ->He 3  chromium  concentration  isopleths

-------
-1
I,-,
d
    3O41



    302




    300




    298




    296
    292



    29O
        OS~4      OS-5      OS-£     OS-4      OS-5       OS-fi      OS-4      OS-5  -   OS-6


 fi

 d
            11/1/76


304 OS-4      OS-5




302-



300



298




296



294



292



290
                  1/20/77


OS-6    OS-4       OS-5       OS-6
                                             
-------
I >
' >
' ll
        304  <
        10.'
                                OS-3
D5-1
 OS-2     DS-
                                                  1/20/77


                                         OS-1      OS-2
                                                     . o/
JOS-1
OS-2	(TS-
          OS-3
                    5/16/77
7/18/77
                                                                                                   CLAY
                                                                                                   CLAY
                                                                                                   • ,AI II >
                                                                                            jm
                                                   LOWER,
                                                                                                  CLAY
                                                 CLAY
                                                                                                  SAND
                                     9/12/77
                               Site  3 copper concentration  isopleths  for line  1.

-------
        OS-4 -     OS-5      OS-f>     OS-4
Z
Q
hi

d

 >

     290
                11/1/76


     304J3S-4      OS-5
302-




300




298




296




294




292




290
                        OS-6
                5/16/77
                                                                  OS-4      OS-5     OS-6
                                         7/18/77
                                                                                            1 CLAY
                                                                                              CLAY
                                                                                         SAND
                                                                                       i||C=^ CLAY
                                                                                         m£ CLAY
                                                                                             SAND
9/12/77
                Figure 67b.   Site  3  copper  concentration  isopleths  for line  2.

-------
I )
• '
oo
                                        OS-1      OS-2      OS-3
                    OS-1
 OS-2      OS-,
                                                 1/20/77


                                        OS-1      OS-2      OS-3
                   5/16/77
7/18/77
                                                                                                 CLAY
                                                                                                 CLAY
                                                                                                 SAND
                                                                                                 CLAY
                                                                                                 CLAY
                                                                                                 SAND
9/12/77
                  Mgure bba-   Site 3 nickel concentration  isopleths  for line  1

-------
    304


    302



    300



    298
Z


^   296

 •
n
    ,!
i
        294


        292



        290
           OS-4      OS-5      OS-fi
           A  \  \
\
                                                OS-5       OS-6
\
                               OS-6
     i
    <
    in
    a
                                             1/20/77


                                   OS-4      OS-5       OS-6
                                                                   OS-4      OS-5    OS-6
                                                                                               CLAY
                                                                                               CLAY
                                                                                            SAND

                                                                                               CLAY
                   5/16/77
                                                7/18/77
                                                                                               SAND
                                                                            9/12/77
                    Figure 68b.   Site 3 nickel  concentration isopleths for  line  2.

-------
       304
             OS-1     OS-2      OS-3
i i
< •
       290
       304
       11/1/76
OS-1     OS-2
                               OS-3
       302
                            OS-1      OS-2      OS-
         1/20/77
OS-1      OS-2      OS-3
                    5/16/77
                                    7/18/77
                             OS-1      OS-2
5-J
                                                                                        \
                                                                                                  CLAY
                                                                                                  CLAY
                                                                                                  SAND
                                                                                                  CLAY
                                                                                                  CLAY
                                                                                                  SAND
                                     9/12/77
                    rigure  69a.  Site  3 zinc  concentration isopleths  for  line  1.

-------
        OS-4     OS-5      OS-£
•(
 •
 it

 ,!


 -'
 a
                                                                 OS-4      OS-5     OS-
                                             1/20/77


                                             OS-5      OS-6
                                                                                         t> i CLAY
                                                                                             CLAY
                5/16/77
7/18/77
                                                                                             SAND
                                                                                            CLAY
                                                                                            CLAY
                                                                                            SAND
                                                                         9/12/77
                 Figure 69b.   Site  3  zinc concentration  isopleths  for line  2.

-------
i >
i •
i •
         304 * OS-1     OS-2      OS-3     ^OS-1       OS-2
         iOi'


         300
      €. 290

      O
         296

            |0
       i i
292



290



304


302



300


298
         296 |

       Ul
       GJ 294 .
         292


         290
               OS-1
11/1/76

  OS-2
                       2 O
                                 ,, ....
              OS-3
                      5/16/77
                                 7/18/77
                                                     OS-1       OS-2      OS-J
OS- 1
                                                               < Z.O
                                                              3/8/77

                                                               OS-2
                                                                              D
                                                                               U
                                                                                               OJWEK
                                                                                                      . i AY-
                                                                                CLAY
                                                                                                      SAND
OS-3
                                                                                 9/12/77

                                                                            LOWEK
                                                                                                      CLAY
                                                                                CLAY
                                                                                   SAND
Figure 70a.
                                         chloride concentration isopleths  for line  1

-------

/
 i
 i
 •
3041



302




300




298




296




294



292
 - <
 :


 LU

 d
     290
        os-4
                  OS-5
                           OS-J5
            11/1/76


304 OS-4      OS-5



    1

302



300



298




296



294



292
     290
                                    DS-4
                                              OS-5
                                                        OS-
                             OS-6    OS-4
1/20/77


OS-5       OS-6
                                                                  OS-4
                                                                            OS-5     OS-<
OS-4
                                                                                \

                                                                                         LOWER,
                                                                                               ( I AY
                                                                                               CLAY
                                                                                               SAND
                                                                                     OS-6
                 5/16/77
                                              7/18/77
                                                                           9/12/77
                                                                                               CLAY
                                                                                               CLAY
                                                 SAND
               Figure  70b.  Site 3 chloride concentration isopleths for  line  2.

-------
        304
OS-2
OS-3
i >
i •
i.
         1/20/77


OS-1      OS-2      OS-3
                                                                                OS-2
                                                05:=,
                                                                      OS-1
                                                         3/8/77


                                                          OS-2

                                                                                                L
                                                                                             LOWER,
                                                                                                   CLAY
                                                                                                   CLAY
                                                                                                    • ,AI II -
                                                          OS-3
                     5/16/77
         7/10/77
                                                         9/12/77
                                                                                             M
                                                                                             LOWE.K,
                                                                                                   CLAY
                                                                                                   CLAY
                                                                                                   SAND
                                 Site 3 sulfate concentration isopleths  for line  1.

-------
       -OS-4
O
•i
.,',
d


 <
 •
                                             OS-5      OS-6
                                                                           QS-5     OS-6

                                                                                          • F
                                                                                             CLAY
                                                                                             CLAY
SAND
                                                                                       =?f\== CLAY
                                                                                        J4«fe5g CLAY
                5/16/77
                                             7/10/77
                                                                                             SAND
                                                                          9/12/77
                 Figure 7ib.   Site 3  sulfate concentration  isopleths for  line 2.

-------
        304 *OS-1     OS-2      OS-3      OS-1      OS-2      OS-3      OS-1      OS-2      OS-
        30O
     E 290
      O
        296
I ••
I '
III
         92
290
        304 t
        302
                                OS-3
                    5/16/77
                                          7/10/77
                                                                                                  CLAY
                                                                                                  CLAY
                                                                                                  SAND
                                                                                              n   ; CLAY
                                                                                                  CLAY
                                                                                                  SAND
9/12/77
                                 Site  3 TOC  concentration isopleths for  line 1.

-------
'
i
»
i
•
n
3

                                             OS-5      OS-fi
    290
                11/1/76
•
I
 ,

-
                            OS-6   OS-4
1/20/77

OS-5      OS-6
     290
                                                                           GS-5     OS-i
         3/8/77

OS-4      QS-5
                                                                                         D

                                                                                         •
                                                                                       LOWER.
                                                                                              CLAY
                                                                                              CLAY
                                                 SAND
                                                                                   OS-6
                5/16/77
                                             7/18/77
                                                                          9/12/77

                                                                                              CLAY
                                                                                              CLAY
                                                                                              SAND
                Figure 725.   Site 3 TOC  concentration  isopleths  for line  2.

-------
304 #OS-1     OS-2      OS-j     .05-1      OS-2      OS-:
o'
         302


         ion
         290  \
      O
         296
         292
         290
         30'i
         302
         300
                    NO  DATA

                    REPORTED
      I i
      <
       •
      Ml
         296
      CJ  294
         292



         290
       11/1/76


OS-1     OS-2
                                 OS-3
      NO  DATA

      REPORTED
                                                                       OS-1
                                                                   OS-2     OS-:
                     5/16/77
                                     7/18/77
                                                                                                     CLAY
                                                                                                     CLAY
                                                                                                     SAND
                                                                                  Yn    CLAY
                                                                                                     CLAY
                                                                                       SAND
                                                                                9/12/77
                                  Site  3  specific conductance  isopleths for  lin

-------

i
i
•
304f



302




300




298




296





294




292
    290
       OS-4
                 OS-5
                           OS-
              NO  DATA

              REPORTED
i:;
UJ
 302-




 300




 298




 296




 294




 292




 290
                11/1/76


                  OS-5
               NO DATA


               REPORTED
                5/16/77
                                              OS-5
                                                        OS-6
                         OS-6
                                              7/18/77
                                  •
                                  »
                                                                  OS-4
                                                                            OS-5     OS-6
                                                                                         — --r-~~J!*S7
                                                                                               CLAY
                                                                                               CLAY
                                                                                               SAND
                                                                       3/8/77


                                                              OS-4      OS-5     QS-6
                                                                                               CLAY
                                                                                               CLAY
                                                                                               SAND
                                                                           9/12/77
                Figure 73b.   Site  3 specific conductance  isopleths for  line 2

-------
absent in the next.  The breakup for the specific conductance
stratification, for example, suggests leachate movement through
the supposedly highly impermeable middle and low clay layers
at a much higher rate than was calculated.   This coincides with
indications by geologists of the existence  of channels or cracks
in the alluvial clay deposited during the geologic formation (6).

     Each stratum was possibly leaching at  its own controlled
rate, depending on the hydraulic gradient and mounding condi-
tions evident at the site.  As a result, the leachates may have
moved as highly variable and discontinuous  pulses.

     Predominant metal species escaping from the landfill in
descending order of magnitude were iron, lead, cadmium, and
mercury.  Similarities existed between the  concentration isopleths
for iron, lead, cadmium, zinc, and nickel,  with lesser similari-
ties existing for chromium and copper (Figures 62 to 69).

     For most of the contaminants, the late spring and summer
months represented the periods of greatest  contaminant migration.
This was presumably due to the relatively high infiltration rate,
allowing spring precipitation and runoff to move through the
landfill.  A rise in ground temperature also would increase the
biological  activity and chemical reaction rate, resulting in
transformations and interactions in the fill and soil.  These
reactions and interactions, coupled with the large leachate
volume generated, probably enhanced the flux of contaminants
through the different soil layers and into  the groundwater.  As
shown by the concentration isopleths for iron (Figure 62), a
change in the location and orientation of the concentration
gradients occurred during these periods.   Instead of distinct
leachate plumes separated by low ambient background quality wate?~,
the contaminants usually completely saturated the monitoring grid
with relatively concentrated leachates.

     The concentration isopleths for chloride indicated strati-
fication of this contaminant during the winter months and dilution
and elutriation in spring, summer, and early fall, resulting in  a
decrease in concentration to low levels or  below detection limits
(Figure 70).   Similar trends were observed  for sulfate, although
the seasonal  changes in concentration were  less dramatic
(Figure 71).   No consistent correlations  existed between specifi:
conductance,  chloride, TOC, and sulfate concentrations with thosa
of the heavy metals monitored in the study.   At times, the concei-
tration trend of sulfate showed some correlation with the metals.

     Overall, the concentration isopleths for the contaminants
showed the  same general pattern of two distinct major direction?
of heachate migration out of the landfill.   These were at both
ends of the monitoring grid.   Careful observation of the plan


                               220

-------
location  of the monitoring wells in relation to the landfill
indicated that the major directions and points of escaping
leachate  were  from the northern portion of the landfill where the
majority  of the trench operations occurred and from the southern-
most portion through Wells 3 and 6.  This was perhaps due to  the
influence of the new sludge burial operation or another component
of the trench  operation which was conducted farther to the east.
This particular component was escaping more to the south than
westward.  There are indications that concentrated leachate was
escaping  from  the middle and lower clay levels; this trend was
highly dependent on the season.  Various isopleths also showed
that the  leachate escaping from the clay strata was moving into
the sand  layer where it was picked up by the prevailing ground-
water flow.  The contaminants were not dispersed until they had
traveled  farther downstream.  Again, the problem of proper well
location  and sampling depth and frequency is indicated.

Environmental  Impact Assessment

     This 40-yr-old disposal site, which has been used for the
burial of municipal sewage sludge incinerator ash, dewatered
raw municipal  sewage sludge, and paunch manure, has leached
considerable amounts of contaminants, particularly iron, lead,
and TOC (Table 28).

     Most of the leachate emanation observed during this monitor-
ing program occurred in the lower sand stratum immediately below
that of the clay containing the buried sewage sludge and incine-
rator ash.  The upper section was composed of organic  si1ty clay
perforated with root holes in various locations, the middle of a
highly plastic clay, and the lower silty clay with low to medium
plasticity overlying the alluvial sand.

     The  quality of the three overlying clay strata  (upper,
middle, and lower) was a major  factor in the observed  conoantra-
tions and flux of leachate from the disposal area as the leachate
apparently passed through the clay formation.  This was evidenced
by the high contaminant concentrations immediately below the
clay stratum in the alluvial sand  layer.   It was assumed that  the
lower clay layer was fractured  by  shrinkage  cracks after it was
deposited and before the  upper  zone covered  it.  It  is also
possible  that this clay is well-structured  and leachate was
migrating through as if it were sand.  The  existence and extent
of cracking was unproved, but was  tentatively  identified through
permeability testing and  examination  of  soil  boring  samples taken
in the field.   The actual permeability of  this zone  could  there-
fore be much higher than  the test  values  indicated.
                               221

-------
       TABLE 28. NUMBER OF  TIMES  SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
           EXCEEDED EPA DRINKING  WATER  STANDARDS  (SITE  3)
Constituent
*
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Background
Phase I
0-1*
0-1
1-1
0-1
0-1
0-0
0-1
0-1
1-1
Wells
Phase II
4-23
0-23
21-23
3-23
5-23
0-23
0-22
0-23
7-22
Downstream
Phase I
0-4
0-4
4-4
1-4
4-4
0-1
0-4
0-4
4-4
Wells
Phase II
22-124
0-133
126-133
11-131
55-124
0-133
2-133
0-132
54-131
*  The first number indicates  number of  times standard was exceeded; the
   second number is sample population.
                                  222

-------
physical  (e.g.,  swelling) and adsorptive properties of various
clays.   It is  possible that the exchange sites were oversaturated
with  soluble  salts,  resulting in significant reduction in the
adsorption for heavy metals.   The data suggest that not all  clay
strata  can be  expected to provide the high degree of attenuation
for contaminants under natural conditions.

     Conditions  for  the movement of leachate were different
within  each stratum.  High groundwater mounding apparently
existed over  the clay.  This provided the necessary hydraulic
gradient to force contaminants slowly, perhaps in a pulselike
manner, laterally westward through the clay for a distance of
46 or more meters until it seeped into the adjoining creek.
There was also vertical percolation through the underlying clay
strata.  While it may have taken 40 yr to move through the
middle  and lower clay strata, leachate derived from the high
contaminant loading  existing in this landfill has moved through
these strata  and is  now leaching into the underlying alluvial
sand  stratum.

     Groundwater movement in this alluvial sand stratum was
determined by  regional groundwater flow patterns traveling south-
southwest.  The  flow rate in this layer is an order of magnitude
greater than  that in the clay, thus providing considerable
dilution water for escaping leachate.  However, because of the
extremely high contaminant concentrations escaping from the above
clay  layers,  high concentration leachate plumes still occurred.

     A  highly  variable background groundwater quality also
affected the  results.  Highly variable fluctuations were observed
in background  groundwater quality for iron, nickel, cadmium
(primarily in  the upper sampling depths), and mercury.  However,
significant increases over background concentration values
occurred for almost  all contaminants.  Leachate in this alluvial
sand  layer couTd possibly intersect the adjacent creek, but the
majority of it was expected to go much farther south until inter-
secting a major river system.

     Though the'landfill was  located  in clay, it appeared to
leach a considerable amount of contaminants after  a 40-yr
retention period.  Those contaminants originally contained in
the disposal  area have migrated slowly into the surrounding down-
stream soil strata,  contaminating them as well and providing
a reservoir for additional migration  to subsequent downstream
concentric soil  zones.   Had it not been for the presence of the
creeks to the southwest  and south of  the  site, this contaminant
migration might have  continued for many miles downstream of
the disposal  area.

     The  two adjacent  creeks  served  as an interceptor of the
leachate migrating  laterally  from the clay  strata, effectively


                               223

-------
mixing the concentrated leachate with storm water runoff flowing
through the creeks.   However, it was suggested that the leachate
flow through the alluvial  sand layer was migrating considerable
distances and contaminating a significant area downstream of
the landfill.  Although the exact extent of this contamination
is not known, based on concentrations as well as on the leachate
plume profiles observed, it was thought to be extensive.  Based
on the contaminant concentrations in the sludge deposited in the
landfill as well as the high concentrations emanating from the
site after a 40-yr existence, it was hypothesized that leaching
of various contaminants from the landfill would occur for a
considerable period of time into the future.
                                224

-------
SITE 4

Soil Analyses

     During the drilling of the  in-refuse  well,  soil samples were
taken from the refuse-soil interface  (3.5  to  4.0 m), midway
between soil  and groundwater  (4.6 to  4.9 m),  and the soil-ground-
water interface (5.8 m).  These  samples were  sequentially
extracted, first with water and'then  concentrated nitric acid
Results are presented in Table 29.  Soils  at  the three depths'
were neutral  and had similar  levels of TOC, nitrate-nitrogen,
chloride, and acid-extractable cadmium and mercury.  Since the
TOC levels were relatively low throughout  (presumably background
levels), and  COD,  TKN, and ammonium were present in laraest
concentrations at  the refuse-soil interface,  the leachate
appeared to be strongly attenuated by the  soil.

     Large concentrations of  calcium  were  present in water-
soluble form.   The element is believed to  have originated from
the calcareous shale and limestone deposits at lower soil depths.
Very low to undetectable cadmium and  mercury  were found in the
soil.   Levels  of acid-extractable copper at the  refuse-soil
interface and  lead from the three soil depths were higher than
those typically found in soils (1, 2).  The lead's source cannot
be determined  without knowing its background  level at this site.
However, since the sludge did not contain a high lead content,
that detected  in soil  was probably from the indigenous geologic
materials, rather  than due to the disposal  cf sewage sludge.

Sludge  Analyses

     Two grab  sludge samples  taken one year apart from the sewage
treatment plant were sequentially extracted,  first with water and
then with concentrated nitric acid.   Results  show significantly
higher  concentrations  of TOC,  chloride,  and sulfate in the 1976
sample  than those  from 1975 (Table 29).   None of the heavy metals,
including lead and copper,  was present at elevated concentrations
when compared  to published data  (9).   These metals were principally
in the  acid-extractable  form.   The 1976- sample contained  higher
levels  of cadmium, chromium,  and copper,  and  lower levels of  lead,
mercury, and  iron  when compared to the heavy metal  contents in
the 1975 sample.   Since  the sludge was strongly alkaline  (pH  12.3),
a  low  solubility of these sludge-borne heavy metals in water  was
expected,  resulting in their  limited  movement away from the
landfill.

Leachate Analyses

     Leachates  collected from the in-refuse well  during Phases I
and II  were analyzed for selected constituents (Table 30).
Concentrations  of  the  various  constituents  were generally greater


                               225

-------
                         TABLE 29
               ANALYTICAL  RESULTS  FOR  SITE  4,  PHASE  I*
t\>
                      Soil  Samples Taken Below Landfill During  Drilling  of  In-Refuse Well
       Consti tuent
 Refuse-Soil Interface
    [3.7 to 4..0 m)
Water             Acid
        6/26/75
   Midway Between
  Soil & Groundwater
.. .   (4.6 to 4.9,.ni) .
Water          Acid
      6/16/75
                                                                        Soi 1 -Groundwater
                                                                            Interface
„ 4.           A  -.,
Water         Acid
      6/16/75
pH
TOC
COD
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Moisture, %
7
960
1610
227
193
10
132
<40
118
<0
0
1
12
0
0

.1

.01
.30
.4
.6
.008
.5


90
0
62
44
26458
0
22
24.1


.68
.30


.009


7
800
920
17
9
110
187
98
0
<0
<0
1
0
0

.0

.01
.30
.1
.5
.009
.5
27. 3

136
0.68
39
13
18416
<0.006
32

7
1020
1035
42
6
14
105
50
178
<0
<0
1
4
<0
0

.2

.01
.30
.2
.0
.001
.9
27.4

96
0
31
11
17437
<0
18



.56
.50


.010



-------
TABLE 29.   (continued)

Const ituen'

t+ Water
pll 12.
Tot. Solids
TOC 3600
COD 4412
MBAS
TKN 534
NH4-N 137
N03-N 0.
Cl 1187
S04 230
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
5889.
0.
0.
8.
3.
<0.

1 .


6/17/
3
7

03
30
8
3
001

2

S
Acid
'75

14000
1 .
13.
85
5960
0.

28

1 udge
Water
30465
3250
625

5
17


010



Background G
Aci
6/5/76
'

2
34
108
3750
<0
8
16
88
d


.8



.003
.6


10/1
7
201
39
41
0
<0
0
2
11
12
0
0
0
1
0

0

0/75
.6
.7
.1
.36

.00
.01
.00
.32
.00

.01



2

7

1

0

roundwater
6/5/76
13
13
870

0.
0.
<0 .
1 .

-------
      TABLE  29.    (continued)
ro
r\>
oo
Constituent
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn

7/8/75
7.2
2087
8
19

2.1
0.4
0.10
50
900
350
0.006
0.05
0.074
0.13
0.005

0.120

Offslte We"
10/8/75
7.9
1941
28
30

1 .3
0.3
0.45
65
912
160
0.004
0.01
0.015
0.20
0.0002

0.062

11 (Shallow)
11/3/75
7.6
2066
15
20

0.7
<0.1
0.85
87
825
275
0.004
0.02
<0.006
0.17
<0.0002

0.070


6/5/76


1 .5

<0.01



81
1050

0.003
<0.01
<0.01
0.18
<0.0002
0.02
0.02
0.02
        *   Soil  and  sludge were extracted with water and cone, nitric  acid.   Sampling
           dates  are also indicated.

        "f   Concentrations are expressed as mg/kg of dry soil, mg/kg of wet  sludge,  mg/1  of
           groundwater or leachate.

        #   Moisture  couuerits  we're  82.9  and  85%  for  the  6/17/75 and  6/5/76  r- o.np1 PS >
           respectively.

-------
          TABLE  30.  CHEMICAL ANALYSIS  OF LEACHATES  FROM  IN-REFUSE  WELL  (SITE  4)
ro


Constituent 7 / 8 /
pH 7
Tot. Solids 5411
TOC 4960
COD 8570
MBAS
TKN 1459
NH/i-N 1432
NOvN <°
CT 508
S04 60
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
317
0
9
4
124
0

0


75
.1
.02

.060
.50
.70

.005

.760


Phase
TO/10/75
7
6948
4320
5443
1082
986
<0
624
1

0
3
2
42
. 0

0

.4
.02

.025
.30
.12

.0005

.345

I
n/13/
8
23760
4160
10998
1058
596
2248
0
51
36
350
0

3


75
.3

.21
.64
.34

.00





6/5/76


6



3

.530


227
0
680
16

0
0
<0
12
<0
0
0
0
.51

.003
.08
.01

.000
.08
.02
.01






2




-------
      TABLE  30.   (Continued)
r\>
CO
O
*
Consti tuent
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Sp. Cond.

11/23/76
0.010
0.06
0.07
13.00
<0.0002
0.12
• 0.200
0.13
4
1
146


1/19
<0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
5
485
2650

777
.005
.85
.08
.50
.0005
.09
.090
.23





Phase
3/7/77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
128
520
.005
.11
.05
.80
.0002
.09
.470
.29




II
5/21/77
0.005
0.14
0.05
0.21
<0.0002
0.18
0.080
0.12
2
1
105


7/21
<0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
4

-------
in 1975 than  they were in 1976, or in Phase II.  Variation--  in
constituent concentrations were noted with sampling dates.

     Nitrogen existed primarily in the ammonium form.   Levels
of total  solids,  TOC, COD, chloride, chromium, copper, iron,
and lead  in the 1975 samples were relatively high.   Chromium
and lead  levels in the November 1975 sample" increased  to 51.6
and 3.5 ppm,  respectively.  This is somewhat surprising since
the strong alkalinity (pH 8.3) of the leachate would have precipi-
tated these metals out of the solution phase.   The  dramatic
decreases in  concentration of the constituents measured in  the
leachates during  Phase II were probably due, in part,  to disper-
sion and  dilution resulting from large quantities of leachate
generated following rainfall.

Groundwater Analyses

     Chemical analyses of groundwater are presented in Table  29
and in Table  4 of Appendix E for Phases I and  II, respectively.

Background Groundwater--
     The  background groundwater from a private well in Phase  I
monitoring showed similar concentrations of heavy metals between
the two sampling  dates (Table 29).  While the  TOC concentration
decreased, concentrations of chloride, and particularly sulfate,
increased in  the  1976 sample.  In Phase II, a  new background
well was  installed in an upstream location south of the landfill.
Concentrations of various contaminants detected in  the ground-
water from this well were in the same order of magnitude as
concentrations in the background groundwater in Phase  I.  Cadmium,
chromium, copper, mercury, and nickel levels were generally  near
or below  detection levels in the background groundwater of
Phase II.  The September 1977 sample, however, showed  slightly
elevated  concentrations of mercury, nickel, lead, zinc, and
chloride, as  well as specjfic conductance.  The changes in  contami
nant concentrations with time illustrate the dynamic environment
of groundwater and the significance of sampling frequency in
providing a true  picture of groundwater quality.

     Overall, the levels of TOC, iron, -and chloride in the  back-
ground well were  generally close to those in the downstream  well,
(Figures  74 and 75).  Other background contaminant  levels were
lower than the corresponding levels found in the downstream  well.

Groundwater from  Off-site Well--
     Only one shallow off-site well was installed  (at  4.9 mj  at
this site due to  the presence of limestone bedrock  that prevented
deeper drilling.   It was intended only to intercept any surface
or near subsurface water than might tend to migrate along the
soil/bedrock  piane.
                               231

-------
   1.5
    .8
                                         _!	I
    .1-


\

                       \

                            V
c
r-l
    •3
    .6-
    .4'
    .2
         I    f   !    1
      NQJFMAMJJASQ
      1375 •  : * 1377
                                                   SG
            Ficurs  74    Fe,  ?b, 2nd  In levels  in

                              (Site  4)
                             232

-------
   2DOr
   150,-
      l
      I
      j
   lOQr
    50

                          \
\
                             \
         J	i

o
OT
   16QOr
   I2DO
   800
   4CQ
                 .•^ -100
                     -50
                     •125
                                                          LEGEND
                                                        OS-1 -----
          1    <    i    1
     20-
      N   0   J    F   M   A
        Ficure  75.
          7CC  levels  in crcundv/atei

-------
     Groundwater from the off-site  well  was  characterized  by
exceedingly high levels  of total  solids  (2,031  ppm),  calcium
(262 ppm), and sulfate (922 and  1,312 ppm}.   There  were  indica-
tions that these high contaminant levels were due  to  existing
geologic materials  (e.g., limestone and  black shale layers), and
intrusion of the river water.

     Except for lead, the heavy  metals  were  detected  at  very
low levels, particularly during  Phase II monitoring.   The  increas
in lead concentration in downstream groundwater was related  to
its relatively high content in  the  soil.  As  indicated earlier,
its source might be indigenous  rather than sludge-borne.   However
it was necessary to determine  the lead  content  in  soil taken at
the same depth outside the zone  of  landfill  influence to  establis
its source in the disposal area.

     Iron concentrations in the  downstream groundwater were
generally lower than the concentrations  found in other case
study sites.  These were at background  ground water  levels  showir, c
the profound effect of soil attenuation  (by  limestone, sulfide,
and clay), since the soil and  the sludge buried at  this  site
had relatively large quantities  of  total iron.

Environmental Impact Assessment

     Since this landfill receives only  sewage sludge, there  has
been concern about the possible  contamination of ground  and
surface waters by chemical constituents  and  bacterial pathogens
resulting from the disposal operation.   To determine  groundwater
quality, concentrations of various  contaminants in  the ground-
water were compared with EPA drinking water  standards (Table 31).
In addition, bacteriologic examination  of one off-site ground-
water sample was also included  in the evaluation.

Background Groundwater--
     The parameters in the background groundwater  that exceeded
drinking water standards were  iron, mercury,  lead,  sulfate,
and TOC.

     Iron levels in the background  groundwater  were not  exceed-
ingly high, although the standard was exceeded  on  four of  eight
occasions.  In Phase II  monitoring, except for  the  first  samplin,
round, iron concentrations in  groundwater at  the background
well were relatively low when  compared  to the data  obtained  for
other case study sites.   Nevertheless,  the data indicated  an
elevated level of iron in the  background groundwater.

     The level of mercury exceeded  the  standard twice in  the
background groundwater of Phase  II.  This finding  was not
substantiated by the downstream  groundwater,  soil,  sludge, and
leachate data since mercury concentrations in these sources
varied from low to nondetectable.  Lead  also  exceeded the  standa

                              234

-------
      TABLE 31.  NUMBER OF TIMES SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
           EXCEEDED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (SITE 4)
Constituent
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Background
Phase I
0-2*
0-2
2-2
0-2
0-2
0-0
0-2
1-2
2-2
Wells
Phase II
0-6
0-6
2-6
2-6
2-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
3-6
Downstream
Phase I
0-4
0-4
0-4
1-4
3-4
0-1
0-4
4-4
2-4
Wells
Phase II
0-6
0-6
3-6
0-6
6-6
0-6
0-6
6-6.
1-6
*  The first number indicates number of times standard was exceeded; the
   second number is sample population.
                                   235

-------
twice in the background groundwater of Phase II.   The source
of the lead has not been determined.

     Sulfate data indicate a high background concentration of
this contaminant.  This level  appeared to be the  result of the
oxidation of pyrite present in the soil.   Total  organic carbon
showed the largest concentration at the first sampling and
declined significantly thereafter.  However, since TOC exceeded
the standard five out of eight times, a slight contamination, by
organic species is suggested.

Downstream Groundwater--
     The parameters that exceeded drinking water  standards were
the same as those found in the background groundwater, i.e.,
iron, mercury, lead, sulfate,  and TOC.  The degree of concentra-
tion levels, however, was elevated.

     Although 50 percent of the samples exceeded  the iron stan-
dard in Phase II, the concentrations were similar to those of
background levels.  The data suggest that iron leaching out of
the fill was strongly attenuated by the soil matrix.

     Mercury was present in trace amounts in the  downstream
groundwater.  Based on the concentration trends observed in
Phases  I and II, it can be concluded that it did  not contaminate
the water  in the downstream well.

     Lead was present at elevated concentrations  and exceeded
the standard on  nine out of ten occasions.  Although the concen-
trations were not exceedingly high (a  range from 0.02 to 1.8 ppm
with an average  of 0.28 ppm), observed trends clearly indicated
contamination of the downstream groundwater.  Whether the lead
was indigenous or leached from the sludge during  rainfall periods
is not  known.

     The downstream groundwater was highly contaminated with
sulfate.  Concentrations ranged from 825 to 1,650 ppm with an
average of 1,156 ppm.  Since the  sulfate levels in the leachates
were low, these  high sulfate concentrations were presumably due
to the  oxidation of pyrite (black shale) and intrusion of river
water moving as  subsurface water above the limestone hardpan.

     Although TOC exceeded the standard three out of ten occasion;,
its levels in the downstream well were not greatly elevated  (an
average of 10.2  ppm).  However, the data suggest that the clay
soil did not completely prevent leachate migration from the  site.
As a result, a slight contamination of organics probably had
occurred.  This  finding is also supported by the identification
of fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus (10 and 30 colonies/
100 ml) in the 7-22-77 sample.
                                236

-------
     In practicing trenching of sewage sludge at this site, the
sludge was placed in trenches dug at depths of 3 to 4 m in a
clay  ayer (5.5 to 6.0 m thick) overlying limestone bedrock.  It
took leachate less than 8 yr to pass through the clay layer and
migrate over 30 m downstream along the clay-limestone interface.
rhis_was indicated by the contamination of sulfate, lead, and
possibly iron, TOC, and fecal bacteria in the groundwater down-
stream.  Oxidation of pyrite in the disposal area may result in
lowering of the solution pH, thereby increasing the mobility of
most heavy metals.  However, some degree of soil attenuation of
leachate and heavy metals was noted, although the extent of this
attenuation was not determined.  It was predicted that future
monitoring would reveal similar or higher levels of contamination
in the groundwater at this site.

SITE 5

Soil Analyses

     During drilling of the in-refuse well, soil samples were
taken from the refuse-soil interface (7.3 to 7.6 m), midway
between soil  and groundwater (9.1 m), and the soi1-groundwater
interface (11 to 11.3 m).  These samples were extracted sequen-
tially with water and concentrated nitric acid.  The results are
given in Table 32.

     The largest concentrations of TOC, COD, and TKN were found
at the soi1-groundwater interface.   The data suggest a signi-
ficant downward movement of leachate into the groundwater
supplies, as  indicated by the TOC,  COD, chloride, and sulfate
trends.  The  concentrations of ammonium and nitrate were very
low at all three soil depths.

     Large portions of calcium and chromium at the  refuse-soil
interface (7.3 to 7.6 m) were soluble in water, whereas £* lower
depths they were present primarily in the acid extractable form.
Except for iron, the other metals analyzed were only sparingly
soluble in water.   Significant movements of copper  and iron
to lower depths were suggested by the acid-extractable concen-
trations of these two metals.  Concentrations of acid-extractabl e
lead at the first two depths were quite high, and were greater
than the lead levels (10 ppm) generally found in soils (1, 2).
However, no significant migration of the element toward the
groundwater was indicated by the soil analysis.

Sludge Analyses

     Two grab sludge samples obtained from the sewage treatment
plant during  Phase I were sequentially extracted, first with
water and then concentrated nitric acid.  The results showed
considerable  variations in the concentrations of various consti-
tuents in the sludge between sampling dates (Table  32).

                                237

-------
                      TABLE  32.   ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 5, PHASE I*
no
to
oo
                    Soil Samples Taken Below Landfill During Drilling of In-Refuse Well

                                                  Midway  Between       SoiI-Groundwater
                      Refuse-Soil Interface      Soil * Groundwater      Interface
                        (7.3 to 7.6 m)               (9.1  m)            (11  to 11.3 m)
Constituent'
TOC
COD
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Wate
420
1198
12
3
<0
47
183
96
<0
1
0
30
0
0
r
5/16/75




.1



.01
.80
.50 •

.002
.2
Aci







25
0
<0
3
44416
0
24
d








.11
.13
.25

.110
.0
Wate
120
160
16
4
<0
<10
75
8
<0
0
1
67
<0
<0
r
5/16/75




.1



.01
.20
.00

.001
.2
Aci







166
0
3
29
8190
0
15
d








.12
.90
.25

.139
.5
Water
5/1
720
2994
29
3
0.3
32
123
16
<0.01
<0.20
<0.15
8
0.003
<0.2
Aci
6/75







115
0
2
12
18844
0
8
d








.05
.88
.80

.056
.1

-------
TABLE 32.    (continued)
Sludge
Constituent^

pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Moisture, %
Water
9/10/75
7.7

687
2410

560
429
584
33
159
0.03
0.20
0.10
17
<0.001

0.8

70.4
Acid










1955
2.83
46.40
92.20
92.60
0.011

151


Water Acid
6/7/76


25575

0.49


450
150

1.5
96
75
13750
0.011
5.1
38
175
85
Background
Groundwater

9/10/
6
258
2
6

0
0
8
5
2
<0
0
<0
0
0

0



75
.8




.5
.3



.001
.02
.01
.09
.001

.060



-------
       TABLE 32.   (continued)
ro
£k
Q
Existing
Offsite Well
Constituent"1"
PH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
NO-j-N
Cl3
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
9/10/75





1.3
0.6;
0.51
37
32
24
0.004
0.01
<0.006
0.31
<0.0002

0.028

6/7/76


12

<0.01


21
33

0.010
<0.01
<0.01
23
<0.0002
<0.01
0.009
0.06
OffsJte Well (Shallow)
5/28/75
6.7
462
300
603

13.7
1.2
<0.02
23
11

0.001
0.02
<0.006
1.98
0.002

<0.020

9/10/75 10/29/75
6.8
355
8
22

1.9
i.o
1-68 -5.
10 e
3 "
2 •£
0.003 *>
0.02 'G
0.008 £
0.39 =>
<0.0002 c

0.054

6/7/76


16

<0.01


24
30

0.002
<0.01
0.01
32
<0.0002
<0.01
0.009
0.20
         Soil and sludge were  extracted  with  water and cone,  nitric acid. Sampling
         dates are  also  indicated.
       t Concentrations  are  expressed  as  mg/kg  of dry  soil,  mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
         groundwater  or  leachate.

-------
    Generally, when  the  data  were  compared  to  those  reported
by Sommers  (9) for  250  sludge  samples  from 150  sewage treatment
plants, the concentrations  of  the  selected constituents  (with
the exception of iron)  were  within  the ranges,  but  slightly
less than the median  concentrations  reported.

    The methylene  blue-activated  substances (MBAS) were  present
in insignificant quantities  in the  sludge.  The data  for  fecal
bacterial counts were  inconclusive  and,  therefore,  not reported.

Decomposition Gases  In-Refuse  Well

    Gas samples taken  at 0.9  m below  the cover surface,  and  1.5  m
above the landfill,  bottom were analyzed  for  four major gas  species
(Table 33).  Carbon  dioxide  and methane  were the major gases  found,
followed by nitrogen  and  oxygen.   Presence of nitrogen and  oxygen
were indications of  sample  buret leakage during shipment.   There
was no apparent trend  in  gas composition with sampling depths  and
dates.

Groundwater from Background  and Off-Site Wells

    Results from groundwater  monitoring during Phases I  and  II
are given in Table  32  and in Table  5 of  Appendix E,  respectively.
Concentrations of the  contaminants  measured  in  the  groundwater
were generally lower  in the  background well  than in  the down-
stream off-site wells.   This indicated proper placement of  the
background  we! 1 .

    There  were seasonal  variations in the groundwater contami-
nant levels (see Figures  76  and 77  for selected contaminants).
Peak concentrations  of contaminants occurred at different sampling
dates.  For example,  during  Phase  II monitoring, TOC  concentra-
tions decreased steadily  and iron  concentrations fluctuated while
decreasing  over the  1-yr  sampling  period.  The  iron  level  in  the
downstream  groundwater was  50  times greater than that in  the
background  groundwater; iron from  both sources  greatly exceeded
the EPA drinking water standard.  Trends  in changes  in concen-
trations of TOC, sulfate, and  chloride were similar in background
and downstream groundwater (Figure  77).

    When  results  from Phase I were compared with those of
Phase  II,  the concentrations of various  contaminants  in the back-
ground qroundwater  from the two phases were similar,  except for
chloride,  sulfate,  iron,  and TOC.   However, cadmium,  chromium,
copp-er,  iron, nickel, chloride, sulfate,  and TOC concentrations
in  the downstream  groundwater were higher in Phase II than  in
Phase  I    Possibly! leachate emanating from the landfill  continued
to  reach the  groundwater.
                               241

-------
      TABLE  33.   GAS  COMPOSITION  AT  SITE  5  IN-REFUSE  WELL
                	Samp!ing Date	

                    5/28/75                      9/10/75
Gas Species     Upper      Lower             Upper      Lower
   CH4          36.0       29.8              28.5       43.0

   C02          49.2       37.5              67.2       50.4

    02           3.3        7.3               0.7        1.1

    N2          11.5       25.4               3.6        5.4
                              242

-------
         I   1    I   t    I    I   I

-------
 aor
 SQ-
 20-
                t   i   i    i
                                  i   i    i
2QOr
150
100
      I   I
 40
  NDJFMAPvlJJAS
                                                 LEGEMD
                                               BG
    Ficure  77.  C1 ,  SO,,  and TOC levels  in  crcundwater
                       *  (Site 5)
                          244

-------
Environmental  Impact Assessment

     This  disposal  site receives large quantities of sewage
sludge.  With  relatively high annual precipitation and numerous
springheads  within  the disposal area, it is anticipated that the
impact  from  sludge  burial  would be high.  To place the possible
degradation  of groundwater quality in perspective, concentrations
of various contaminants in the water are compared with EPA
drinking water standards (Table 34).

Background Groundwater--
     In  the  background groundwater, iron, mercury, lead, and TOC
exceeded the drinking water standards one or more times.  Although
the standard for iron was  exceeded six out of seven occasions, it
was indicative of the high iron content that occurs naturally
in the  soil  and/or  water in this area.

     Concentrations of mercury and lead exceeded the drinking
water standards once and twice, respectively, on seven occasions.
However,  these elevated concentrations were not  in line with
other readings, which were near or below detection levels;
contamination  of background groundwater by these metals was not
conf i rmed.

     Total organic  carbon was detected  at high levels on the first
two sampling dates  in Phase II; however, these levels decreased
significantly thereafter.   There was  no i ndi cati on _ that the back-
ground groundwater  was contaminated with leachate  in the form of
organic species.  Some organic pollution is apparently present
in the natural groundwater of this  area.

Downstream Groundwater--
     Concentrations of iron,  lead,  and  TOC  in the  groundwater
from downstream wells were found to exceed  the drinking water
standards  2 to 11 times during the  project.

     The  iron concentrations  were  exceedingly high  in the  down-
stream groundwater.   Despite  the fact  that  the groundwater  in the
background well had a  naturally high  iron  content,  the  disposal
operation  contributed  significant  additional amounts of iron  to
the groundwater.

     Lead exceeded the drinking water  standard  in  3  out of  11
samples.  In  Phase  II, these  concentrations either  exceeded
(twice) or approached  the  drinking  water standard.   As  a  result,
contamination of the  groundwater with  lead  by the  disposal
operation was highly  suspect.
                                      -
 did  not contribute  significant  organic  pollution.
                               245

-------
     TABLE  34. NUMBER OF TIMES SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
         EXCEEDED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS  (SITE 5)
Constituent
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
S04
TOC
Background
Phase I
0-1*
0-1
0-1
0-1
1-1
0-0
0-1
0-1
0-1
Wells
Phase II
0-6
0-6
6-6
1-6
1-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
3-6
Downstream
Phase I
0-5
0-5
5-5
0-5
1-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
3-4
Wells
Phase II
0-6
0-6
6-6
0-6
2-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
2-6
The first number indicates  number of times standard was exceeded;  the
second number is simple  population.
                               246

-------
u A    l*\   I  ^ 5 results presented indicated that the landfill
had  not leached detectable amounts of cadmium, copper, mercury
or organic  substances (as indicated by TOC).  Leaching of sub-'
stantial  amounts of iron was occurring, however.  This iron
was  probably from the buried sludge or clay material in the vici-
nity of the fill.  The proximity of the downstream well to the
edge of the disposal  area (less than 30 m) could have resulted
in the detection of higher levels of contaminants than would be
detected  at locations farther away from the site.

     The  impact on groundwater quality from landfilling of
sewage sludge  was less pronounced at this site as compared to
other sites investigated.  This site had been carefully selected
following extensive geological surveys and detailed study.  The
operation and  management at this site is claimed to be one of
the  best  in the country.  The majority of the leachate generated
presumably  moves through the soil strata and along the soil-shale
interface,  escaping as surface leachate emanations along the
creek.   Little of the leachate generated is expected to percolate
deeper into the groundwater in the area.

SITE 6

Soil Analyses

     Soil samples from the refuse-soil interface (6.1 to 6.7 m)
and  soi1-groundwater  interface (7.6 to 8.2 m) were sequentially
extracted,  first with water and then concentrated nitric acid.
Results  are given in  Table 35.

     Concentrations of TOC and COD were high at both depths,
suggesting  downward movement of organic substances and reduced
chemical  species from leachate.   Except for sulfate and iron,
the  levels  of  water-soluble constituents measured in the upper
depth  were  either similar or higher than those of the lower depth.
Water-soluble  mercury concentrations (0.140 and 0.038 ppm) were
relatively  high with  respect to those in the acid-extractable
form.   Other heavy metals generally were only sparingly soluble
in water.   With the possible exception of lead (15 ppm), none of
the  chemical constituents analyzed were present in elevated
levels  in the  acid extract.   This suggests that concentrations of
these  constituents in the soil were not profoundly affected by
the  disposal operation.

jludge Analysis

    Two  grab  sludge  samples  obtained 1  yr apart from the  sewage
treatment plant were  sequentially extracted with water and
concentrated nitric acid (Table  35).   Constituent concentrations
in the two  sludge samples differed considerably.   The constituents
analyzed  fall  within  the concentration ranges  found  in data
presented by Sommers  (9).   Except for iron and inorganic nitrogen,

                               247

-------
                           TABLE   35.   ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE  6,  PHASE  I* •
ro
-P.
oo



Constituent^

TOC
COD
TKN
NH4-N
NOa-N
C1
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Soil Samples
Refuse-Sol
(6.1 to
Water
5/28/
3000
4792
78
62
1
96
120
103
<0.01
<0.20
0.20
2
0.140
<0.2
Taken Below Landfill During Drilling of In-Refuse Well
1 Interface
6.7 m)
Acid
75







176
0.36
<0.20
27.0
2625
0.640
15.0
Soi 1-Groundwater
(7.6 to 8.2
Water
5/28/75
2800
3057
20
17
1
16
250
73
0.01
<0.20
<0. 10
7
0.038
<0.2
Interface
m)
Acid








162
0.08
<0.20
4.8
1187
0.426
9.3

-------
     TABLE  35.   (continued)
ro
                                       Sludge
                                             Background Groundwater
      Constituent'*'
Water         Acid
       6/4/75
Water        Acid
      6/8/76
                                                                    10/29/75
6/8/76
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
i c
Hg
N i
1 * 1
Pb
Zn
Moisture, %
5.
587
937
448
398
7
123
10
32-
0
1
0
4
0
0


5
13500
14
1450
150
.04
.88
.20
*
.0004
.5

98.5
60
0
3
11
181
0
2


.12
.75
.2

.002
.6


0.
225
36
1188
<0.
0.
6.
74
95
12



001
12
2


6
203
4
9
1
0
2
4

<0

-------
      TABLE  35.   (continued)
      Constituent^
Offsite  Well (Shallow)
ro
in
O
5/28/75
PH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
7
148






26
10
5
<0

-------
TABLE  35.  (continued)
Constituent^
pH
Tot . Sol i ds
TOC
COD
NBAS
TKN
N H 4 - N
N03-N
C«
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn

5/28/75
7.5
200






7
53
9
0.002
<0.01
0.090
3.85
0.043

0.050

Offsite Wei
9/11/75
5.0
359
11
21

4.3
31
1 .94
6
4
3
0.002
0.01
<0.006
0.41
0.0002

0.015

1 (Deep)
10/29/75
6.5
66
2
4

0.5
0.4
4.15
5
5
2
<0.001
<0.01
0.010
0.05
<0.0002

0.016


6/8/76


9.4

0.10



11
2.9

<0.001
<0.01
<0.01
0.12
<0.0002
<0.01
<0.005
0.07
      Soil  and  sludge  were  extracted with water and cone, nitric acid.  Sampling
      dates  a re  also  indicated.
      Concentrations  are  expressed  as mg/kg of dry soil, mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
      groundwater  or  leachate.

-------
they were generally less than the median concentrations reported.
None of the heavy metals were present in elevated concentrations
in the sludges.

Decomposition Gases in In-Refuse Well

     Gas samples taken at depths of from 0.9 m below the cover
surface and 1.5  m above the landfill bottom were analyzed for
four major gases (Table 36).   Generally, 50 percent or more of
the total volume was methane, and from 30 to 40 percent consisted
of carbon dioxide.  Nitrogen  and oxygen were present, indicating
sample buret leakage during shipment.  The percentages of methane
and carbon dioxide remained relatively constant during the three
sampling dates.

Groundwater from Background and Off-Site Wells

     Results from groundwater monitoring during Phases I and II
are given in Table 35 and in  Table 6 of Appendix E, respectively.
It was speculated that the Phase I shallow well (OS-1 at 4.6 m)
and deep well (OS-2 at 7.9 m) may not have intercepted leachate
flow emanating from the fill.  Thus, in Phase II an additional
offsite well (OS-3) with three sampling depths  (3, 8.5, and 17.1  m)
was installed north of the landfill.

Background Groundwater--
     The background groundwater, as measured in Phase I, contained
higher concentrations of total solids and iron  than the downstream
groundwater sampled on October 29,  1975.  There were also higher
levels in the background groundwater of iron, copper, and zinc
than in the downstream groundwater  sampled on June 8, 1976.  It
was suspected that these contaminants may have  come from the water
pipes.  Nevertheless, none of the contaminants  in the background
groundwater taken  in  June  1976 showed elevated  concentrations,
as most of the heavy  metals were below detection limits.

     Among the contaminants measured in Phase II, concentrations
of iron and lead were lower  in the  project background .ground-
water than in the  downstream groundwater  (Figures 7-8 and 79).
Other contaminant  levels were largely similar in the background
and downstream groundwaters.   This  would  indicate proper locatior
of the project background well.

     The quality of the Phase I  background groundwater was
comparable to the  groundwater taken  from  the project background
well  in Phase II.  Except  for the presence of iron,  the  quality
of the groundwater from these two background wells appeared
acceptable.

Downstream Groundwater--
      During  Phase  I,  there were  considerable variations  in
contaminant  levels  in the  downstream wells  in the monitoring


                               252

-------
  TABLE 36.  GAS COMPOSITION AT SITE  6  IN-REFUSE WELL

6/8/7
Gas Species Upper

CH4 57.9
C02 30.5
02 0.7
N2 10.9

5
Lower

52.6
30.8
3.5
13. 2

— o a ill p I in
9/1
Upper
01
49. 0
37.1
13.0
10.8

Ua t c 	
0/75
Lower

29.3
47.1
3.5
20.1

10/30/75
Upper Lower

--* 58.7
40.6
0.2
0.5
Buret broken in transit
                           253

-------

    f   i    i    (   f    r   t   r    f
    r«-»      ^^•*«-»
           —- IT.
NQJFMAMJJ.  ASO
                                               BG —
                                               QS3*.
                                               QS2-2.
                                               QS2-3.
    Fiaurs   78.  Fa,  Pb,  and  Zn  levels  in  croi
                        (Sits  5)
                       254

-------
    30
    50-
    40
    20
     r- \  145
         i    i_* -"Tj™""i"""  i	i^'^y-   tiit
E


C.
HI
 e
 a.


 *
IS -
     10
                                      A


             1 J   F   M   A  M   J
                                    A    S   0
       1S7S
                                                        L£GS?,'D
                                                  5G
                                                      OS3.2
       Figure  79.   Cl,  SC., a,d  ICC  levels  in   grcurdwater

                            " f S i t a 5 ;
                           255

-------
period (Table 35).   The lowest levels  of these  contaminants
(primarily heavy metals)  were found in the June 1976  samples.
In the first and/or second samplings (May and September 1975),
total solids, TOC,  iron,  mercury,  and  lead were present at
slightly elevated concentrations in the downstream wells.   Among
the heavy metals in the downstream groundwater, there were
consistently higher levels of lead from the deep well than from
the shallow well.  Differences in  contaminant levels  between the
shallow and deep downstream wells  generally decreased in the
third and fourth samplings.

     Concentrations of various contaminants in  the downstream
groundwater were not correlated with their levels in  either
the soils taken from the in-refuse well or the  sludge from the
treatment plant.  This is expected considering  soil attenuation
and low contaminant concentrations in  the soils or sludge.

     During Phase II, TOC, sulfate, chloride, and iron levels
in the groundwater were highest in the first samplings, possibly
the result of water contamination with leachate and fill
materials during drilling.  There were considerable fluctuations
of contaminant  levels  in the  groundwater  over the 1-yr sampling
period  (Figures 78 and 79).   Peak concentrations of contaminants
occurred  at  different  sampling  levels, depending on the contami-
nant measured.   However, concentrations  of lead, zinc, chloride,
and TOC  appeared to peak at  the second sampling level  in  the
OS-3 well.   Overall,  no discernible differences existed in
concentrations  of  various  contaminants in  groundwater  at  the
three  levels.

      Contaminant concentrations in  the groundwater taken  from
the  OS-1  and  OS-2  wells in  Phase  II were  similar to  or lower
than  the  concentrations found in  Phase  I.  When contaminant
levels  in these two wells  were  compared  with those in  OS-3, it
was  noted that  only  iron  and  probably  lead levels were consis-
tently  higher in the  OS-3  well  than either in  OS-1 or  OS-2.
Other  contaminant  levels were about the  same in the  three off-
site  wells.   This  would suggest that  the  groundwater  intercepted
at these  wells  was  of similar  quality.   Since  the contaminant
levels  were  low, it  is  possible that  the  off-site  wells may have
missed  the  leachate  plumes.

Environmental  Impact  Assessment

      In  evaluating  the groundwater  quality,  the  concentrations
of selected  parameters  were  compared  with EPA  drinking water
standards.   Results  suggested contamination  by i™"*0.1^
groundwater from background  and downstream wells.  Probable con-
 tamination of the  downstream wells  with  mercury,  lead, and
 organic substances  (TOC)  was also indicated  (Table 37).
                                256

-------
      TABLE  37.  NUMBER  OF TIMES SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
           EXCEEDED  EPA  DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (SITE 6)
Constituent
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Background
Phase I
0-2*
0-2
2-2
0-2
0-2
0-1
0-2
0-2
0-2
Wells
Phase II
0-6
0-6
6-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
1-6
Downstream
Phase I
0-8
0-8
4-8
2-7
1-8
0-2
0-8
0-8
2-6
Wells
Phase II
0-21
0-21
14-21
1-21
0-21
0-21
0-19
0-19
1-18
*  The first number indicates number of times standard was  exceeded; the
   second number is sample population.

-------
     The standard for iron was  exceeded in  all  eight background
groundwater samples,  indicating that groundwater in the vicinity
of the landfill  had a naturally high concentration of the  metal.
The standard for iron was also  exceeded in  18 out of 25 samples
taken from the downstream wells.   It appeared that iron levels
were greater in the groundwater north of the fill area (OS-3)
than they were south  of it (OS-1  and OS-2).   These differences
were attributed to soil inhomogeneity existing  at the dis-
posal site.

     Generally, mercury was not present in  background ground-
water as readings were below the minimum detection limit on all
occasions.  Concentrations of mercury exceeded the standard in
three of 28 samples from the downstream wells,  two occurring
in groundwater south of the fill (Phase I)  and one in groundwater
north of the fill (Phase II).  Since the three readings were
inconsistent with most other downstream well readings, which
were usually below detection limit, the landfill did not appear
to be leaching mercury into the groundwater north or south of
the  fill area.

     Lead  in the background groundwater did not  exceed the
standard on any  occasion  in eight samples.   It was generally
not  present in the natural groundwater  as readings were at or
below the  detection  limit  on all but one occasion.  The standard
for  lead was exceeded  once in  28 samples of downstream ground-
water when  a high  reading  was  recorded  in the  shallow well ground-
water south of the fill  area.  However, readings  generally showed
consistent  and well-defined  increases  in downstream groundwater
north of  the fill  when compared to  the  lead levels  in  background
groundwater.  Thus,  lead  contamination  in the  groundwater  inter-
cepted  by  the north  off-site well  (OS-3) may have  occurred.

     Total  organic carbon  (TOC) exceeded the standard  once in
six  samples of the background  groundwater and  three  times  in
24  samples  of downstream  groundwater.   Due  to  the  consistently
low  TOC  levels  in  the  background and downstream  wells,  there  was
no  clear  indication  that  these wells were contaminated  by  organic
compounds  migrating  from  the landfill.

      Using  the EPA drinking  water  standards, there  were no clear
indications that the groundwater has been contaminated  with
soluble  salts, organic substances,  or  heavy  metals.   Data
evaluation  was  impaired  by the land of landfill  leachate  data
and  inconclusive fecal bacterial counts obtained in  Phase  I
 (data  not  shown).  No  apparent increase was  detected for  the
selected  contaminants  when comparing background  groundwater
readings  to those  for downstream groundwater  readings.   Increases
 in iron concentration  were observed in the  downstream groundwater
 to the  north  of  the  site, and  this  was probably due to soil
 characteristics  rather than  the  result of  the  disposal  operation.
                                258

-------
Lead  did  not  usually exceed the standard, but small, well-defined
increases  in  its  levels were observed in the downstream groundwater.

     Copious  quantities of septic tank pumpings from resorts, which
previously were  discharged to the ocean, have been buried since
1972-73  in township landfills along the coast.  However, state-
mandated  monitoring wells outside the disposal area or along the
property  boundary line have repeatedly failed to show any evidence
of leachate contamination at many landfill sites.  It is apparent
that  wells in such areas are incapable of detecting leachate.
It is speculated  that the leachate at this site is sinking deep
into  the  groundwater and moving along as concentrated leachate
plumes.   Because  of the locations of the project off-site wells
and inadequate sampling frequency, these plumes have been relatively
undetected throughout the course of the investigation.  As evi-
denced by study  results at Sites 1 and 3, leachate plumes may not
be traveling  laterally along the soi 1 -groundwater interface.  It
is suggested  that one way to detect this leachate would be to
establish multiple depth groundwater monitoring wells immediately
underneath the disposal area.

     Soil  attenuation of contaminants cannot  be adequately
assessed  due  to  the lack of leachate data.  However, some degree
of attenuation usually occurs in soils.  Because of the coarse-
textured  soils in the disposal area, significant migration of
contaminants  to  lower depths could be expected.  This is impounded
by the tremendous quantities of septic tank pumpings and sewage
sludge going  into the landfill.  Thus, although the monitoring
results  are inconclusive, it is speculated that considerable
contamination of the groundwater at the  landfill area has occurred.

SITE 7

Soil  Analyses

     Soil samples taken at  the refuse-soil  interface  (at 7.6 m)
and soil-groundwater interface (at  10.7  m) were  sequentially
extracted, first with water and then concentrated nitric acid
(Table 38)   The results  showed that TQC , COD, TKN, ammonium,
chloride, sulfate,  and water-soluble chromium and lead  were
higher at the shallower depth.  Vertical  movement of  these
constituents has apparently been  limited  by  soil  attenuation.

     The  concentrations of  ws ter-sol ubl e  chromi um .copper ,  iron ,
and lead  were very  high  in  the sc^l.at  the  7.6-m  depth -These
metals may be associated  with  the  high  TUC  and COD  in  the soi 1


-------
                           TABLE  38.   ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 7, PHASE I*
ho
CTi
o
Soil Samples Taken Below Landfill During Drilling of In-Refuse Wei


Constituent^

TOC
COD
TKN
NH4-N
NOo-N
Cl
so4
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Ref use-Soi 1
(7.6
Water
7/31/
1300
3631
175
160
<1
406
55
118
0.04
1.19
5.00
76
0.002
4.2
Interface
m)
Acid
75







12
0.25
4.52
3.82
2889
0.005
9.1
Soi 1 -Groundwater
(10.7
Water
7/31/75
675
1996
38
5
33
62
<20
2056
0.04
0.63
7.86
180
0.003
0.5
Interface
m)
Acid








27750
0.26 -
4.32
4.36
3156
0.002
3.7

-------
TABLE 38.    (continued)


t
Constituent

PH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
!i>\<: --H
KO.'i-N
;' "•
j U f.
!-*
Ca
Cd
C r
Cu
Fp
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn

Sludge#
Water Acid Water
7/31/75


5000 116740
32096
15
1490
8'M
4
;UO 1900
90 2375
3778 30600
0.81 15.07
628 8975
11.50 37.50
145 1511
0.011 0.003

25.0 284



Acid
6/8/76











1.1
18750
49
3000
<0.01
5 . 4
338
106
Background
Groundwater

7/31/75


7
6

0.1
0.1
8.7
5
3
79
<0.001
<0.01
0.360
0.42
<0.0002

0.030


-------
      TABLE  38.   (continued)
CTl
Constituent
pH .
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn

9/18/75
7.6
4263
82
127

51.4
38.8
0.02
4
12
83
0.001
0.01
0.010
1.31
<0.0002

0.018

Offslte Well
10/2/75


89
195

38.0
33.0
0.59
133
18
59
0.002
. 0.25
0.030
6.25
0.0002

0.020

(Shallow)
11/4/75
8.0
3511
30
37

47.6
47.6
1.10
143
13
88
<0.001
0.04
0.020
5.28
0.0002

<0.010


6/8/76


17

0.26



127
16

0.002
0.01
<0.01
4.9
<0.0002
0.01
<0.005
0.20

-------
TABLE  38.	(continued)
Constituent
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH/i-N
NO-j-N
C 1 '
SO/j
Ca"J>
Cd
f -^
\s \
Cu
f" -.
HQ
Ni
Pb
Zn

9/18/75
7.9
427
67
135

18.1
17.9
<0.02
61
21
67
0.002
<0.01
0.016
0.17
<0.0002

0.052

Offsite Well
10/2/75
8.1
1630
60
141

16.7
15.1
0.78
75
24
52
0.003
<0.01
0.016
0.15
0.0002

<0.010

(Deep)
11/14/75
8.2
396
88
no

16.0
14.4
1 .0
68
22
63
0.002
0.02
0.020
2.09
<0.0002

0.010


6/8/76


26

<0.01



52
9.1

0.007
0.01
0.01
0.88
<0.0002
0.24
0.012
0.70
  *   Soil  and  sludge  were  extracted with water and  cone, nitric acid.  Sampling
     dates  are also  indicated.

  t   Concentrations  are  expressed  as mg/kg  of dry soil, mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
     groundwater  or  leachate.

  #   Moisture  content was 49% for the  6/8/76 sample.

-------
under the fill would have precipitated these metals out as
sulfides, rendering them sparingly soluble in the soil  solution.

Sludge Analyses

     Results of the sequential  extraction of the grab sludge
samples obtained from the sewage treatment plant are presented
in Table 38.  It is difficult to compare the sludge data,  since
no moisture percentage was reported for the sample obtained in
1975.  Presumably, the sample with 49 percent moisture  had a
lower moisture content than did the 1975 sample.  There were
considerable variations between the two samples in constituent
concentrations (wet weight basis).

     Concentrations of copper,  iron, lead, and particularly
chromium in the 1975 sludge were very high in the water-soluble
fraction.  This is consistent with the observations made of
these metals in the soil at the refuse soil interface.   Except
for chromium and lead, the constituents measured in the sludge
in both years were generally within the ranges, but less than
the median concentrations reported by Sommers (9).  Chromium
contents greatly exceeded the median concentration (890 ppm),
while those of lead were only slightly higher than the  median
(500 ppm).  The high levels of these two metals, especially
those of chromium, probably were due to the discharge of waste-
water from the leather tanning and finishing industries.

Leachate Analyses

     The leachates collected during Phases I and II were analyzed
for the same constituents as were those in the groundwater samples
Results are shown in Table 39.   The pH, total solids, TKN,
ammonium chloride, and lead showed relatively small changes in
concentrations over the three sampling dates in 1975.  Concen-
trations of the selected constituents in the June 1976  sample
were generally either close to or lower than the corresponding
1975 levels.  None of the heavy metals in the Phase I leachate
were found at elevated concentrations.

     The leachate analyses for Phase II showed constituent
concentrations that were close to and/or below the concentrations
found in Phase I.  Constituents showing significant decreases
were chromium, iron, lead, chloride, and TOC.  Reasons  for the
decline in levels of these constituents in the leachates are
unknown; it may be due to failure to intercept the concentration
centroids of the leachate plumes or actual dilution of  the
generated leachate volumes.
                               264

-------
TABLE  39.   CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF LEACHATES FROM IN-REFUSE WELL (SITE 7)
Constituent*
PH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
T K N
NH^-N
C 1 "
SO/,
f r, "
Co
f r
Cu
f Q
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn

9/18/75
7.5
4413
1083
2736
544
521
0.03
1090
164
0.011
0.14
0.040
96
0.0007

0.364

Phase
10/2/75
7.7
3770
1333
4505
555
517
0.11
1283
0.011
2.93
0.063
126
0.0002

0.264

I
11/4/75
7.6
3736
733
1345
510
482
0.12
1123
115
0.006
1.91
0.130
104
0.0002

0.340


6/8/76
118
<0.01
1000
<0.001
0.05
0.02
1 .1
<0.0002
0.04
0.03
0.06

-------
      TABLE  39.   (Continued)
rvi
en
Phase II
Consti tuent
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Sp. Cond.
11/12/76
<0.001
0.03
<0.01
1.60
<0.0002
0.01
0.005
0.19
36
1
184
4115
1/11/77
0.010
0.12
0.03
9.40
<0.0002
0.06
0.060
0.26
5
1
78
__ t
3/31/77
<0.005
0.08
0.03
4.70
0.002
0.05
0.050
0.14
3
6
395

5/18/77
0.010
<0.01
0.04
6.00
0.0011
0.11
0.020
0.06
3
10
69
4400
7/26/77
<0.005
0.08
0.01
2.70
0.0002
0.12
0.250
0.08
26
15
59

9/19/77
0.005
0.15
0.05
7.80
0.0008
0.15
0.040
0.15
423
1
94
10000
       t
'Specific  conductance  in  jjmhos/cm, all other constituents concentration's  in  ppm.

 Insufficient  sample.

-------
Decomposition  Gases  in  In-Refuse Wei 1

     Gas  samples  collected from two different depths during
Phase II  were  analyzed  for four decomposition gases (Table 40).
Although  the  data were  incomplete, averages of the second and
third sampling results  indicated that the volumes of methane,
carbon dioxide,  nitrogen, and oxygen were 50.8, 26.2, 17.7,  and
5.4,  respectively.   Changes in concentrations of the four gases
with  sampling  depth  and date were not confirmed due to
missing data.

Groundwater Analyses

     Background  water samples were obtained from a private well
(Phase I) and  a  project background well  (Phase II).  Downstream
groundwater samples  were taken from two  off-site wells (OS-1 and
OS-2  at depths of 6.7 and 9.8 m, respectively) during Phase I
and Phase II,  and also  from a deeper off-site well  (OS-3 at
13.7  m) installed in Phase II.  Groundwater monitoring results
obtained during  Phases  I and  II are given in Table 38 and in
Table 7 of Appendix  E,  respectively.

     With the  exception of copper, lead, and nitrate, contami-
nant  concentrations  during 1975 were generally lower in the back-
ground groundwater in comparison to those in the groundwater
from  downstream  wells.   While nitrate was slightly elevated,
copper and lead  concentrations in the background groundwater
were  within the  ranges  of most terrestrial waters  (4).

     There were  wide fluctuations in contaminant concentrations
by sampling date and level (Figures 80  and 8l).  During Phase I,
the contaminants analyzed from the June  1975 sample  showed  over-
all lower levels than those in the 1975  samples  (Table 38).   In
addition, concentrations of total solids, TOC, MBAS, TKN,
ammonium, chloride,  cadmium,  and  iron were,  for  the  most  part,
higher in the shallow well than  in the  deep  we 1 .   This differen-
tial   impact on the groundwater was also  found  later  in Phase  u.
Although chromium and lead were  present  at elevated  concentra-
tions  in the  sludge and  in a  water-soluble form  in  the soil  at
the refuse-soil   interface, the  concentrations  of  these metals
in the downstream groundwater were  low,  sometimes  below
detection limits.

      Groundwater collected from  tn,  project
                     co                  «         p
 nickel  and lead were  generally  below  detection  limits.  When
 c Spared to the downstream  groundwater .contaminant  levels  in
 the background groundwater  were  general  y  lower  than  those
 in the groundwater  from  the  three  on-s-f.a wells  liable
 Appendix E and Figures 80 ana  81;.
                               267

-------
  TABLE  40.  CHANGES  IN GAS COMPOSITION IN IN-REFUSE WELL
             AT TWO DEPTHS FROM SITE 7


9/18/75
Gas Species Upper Lower

CH4 5.5
C02 18.8
02 6.2
N2 69.5

— — O a m p 1 lily U a L, t: — 	
10/2/75
Upper Lower

~f 53.6
32.4
3.3
10.7


1 1/14/75
Upper Lower

48.0
20.0
7.4
24.6
*Air contaminated sample

~Buret broken in transit
                            268

-------
JQr
.15
.10
.05
    -r^V
                     XN   S
                                                    LEGEND





                                                  BG





                                                  OS-1





                                                  OS-2




                                                  QS-3
 .4
     Figure  80.  re,  ? b ,
                                          "! n around watar
                          269

-------
1975	r^1377
                                            EG


                                            CM


                                            OS-2

                                            CS-3
  F1s.r, 81.  a, SO.  and Tac levels in ground*,-
                      \ i I bS


                       270
70 C
 7)

-------
     While  chloride and sulfate concentrations remained
relatively  constant in the downstream groundwater regardless
of sampling depth,  concentrations of iron, nickel, lead,  zinc,
and TOC  appeared  to be consistently higher in the groundwater
from the shallow  well  (OS-1) than from the deeper wells (OS-2
and OS-3).   Except  for iron and possibly TOC, contaminant
levels  in the downstream groundwater were generally low.   Again,
the high chromium and  lead levels in the sludge seemingly had no
adverse  effects  on  groundwater quality beneath the landfill.
However, there were indications of leachate movement in the form
of organic  substances  into the shallow groundwater, as shown  by
the TOC  levels in OS-1.

     Results of bacteriologic examination indicated the presence
of pollution in the form of both fecal coliform and fecal
streptococcus at  OS-1  and OS-2 wells (Table 41).  Fecal coliform
counts  of fecal  streptococcus showed possible contamination of
both wells.  This partially substantiates the TOC findings, i.e.,
the passage of some organic pollution through the shallow ground-
water was indicated.

Environmental Impact Assessment

     The residents  in  the vicinity of the disposal area were
primarily concerned with the possible degradation of the well-
water supply.  To determine the water quality, concentrations
of various  parameters  in the groundwater were compared with the
EPA drinking water  standards (Table 42).  In addition, evalua-
tions of fecal bacterial counts were also included.

Background  Groundwater--
     Except for iron,  which greatly exceeded the  standards seven
out of seven times, the quality of the background groundwater
in Phases I and II  appeared to be good.  Although the acid-
extractable iron concentrations in the soil at the disposal site
were not high, there were considerable amounts present in the
water-soluble form  that contributed to high levels of iron in
the background groundwater.

Downstream Groundwater--
     The contaminants  in the downstream  groundwater with concen-
trations exceeding  drinking water standards were  iron, TOC,
mercury, and lead  (Table 42).

     Iron levels exceeded the standard 22 out of  26 times in
downstream wells, which  is  not surprising since  its levels in
the background well were exceedingly  high.  This  indicated that
most of this metal  detected in the downstream wells was  probably
background level  rather than due to the  disposal  operation.
Concentrations of  iron detected in the deeper downstream wells
                               271

-------
    TABLE  41    BACTERIOLOGIC EXAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER
                FROM  OFF-SITE WELLS (SITE 7)*
Well Fecal Collform
	 ml nm
OS-1 4
< 3
< 3
OS-2 < 3
3
3
Fecal Streptococcus
00 ml — 	
23
23
4
23
7
15
*7-29-77 sample
                              272

-------
       TABLE 42.  NUMBER OF TIMES SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
           EXCEEDED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS  (SITE 7)
Constituent
Cd
Cu'
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Background
Phase I
0-1*
0-1
1-1
0-1
0-1
0-0
0-1
0-1
0-1
Wells
Phase II
0-6
0-6
6-6
0-6
0-6
0-5
0-6
0-6
1-6
Downstream
Phase I
0-8
0-8
6-8
0-8
1-8
0-2
0-8
0-8
8-8
Wells
Phase II
0-18
0-18
18-18
1-18
1-18
0-18
0-18
0-18.
8-18
*  The first number indicates  number of times standard was exceeded;  the
   second  number  is sample population.
                                  273

-------
i n
(OS-2 and OS-3) averaged "approximately  the  same  as  those
the background well simples.   However,  leaching  of  "-on  from
the fill was noted, since  iron levels  in  the  shallow  well  (OS-1)
were s  ghtly, yet consistently,  above  those  in  the background
well.  This indicated that the shallow  groundwater  intercepted
iron leaching from the fill.

     Mercury levels generally showed small  but  perceptible
increases when comparing groundwater in the downstream  wells to
background groundwater.  However, mercury contamination  is not
suspected since high mercury contents  were  not  noted  in  the
sludge  or soil and the standard for this  element was  only exceedei
one  out of 26 times in the downstream  wells.

     Lead was present in relatively high  concentrations  in the
sludge.  This was  also reflected in the leachate and  the shallow
groundwater- downstream from the landfill.  Although the shallow
groundwater only exceeded the standard for lead on  one  occasion,
the  levels in this well were consistently higher than those in
the  background groundwater.  This lead, however, had  not moved
to deeper  layers in the groundwater.

      Chloride  concentrations  in downstream groundwater did  not
exceed  the  standard in  26 samples.  However, these concentra-
tions  showed  significant  increases  on  all occasions when  compared
to background  groundwater, and the  standard was approached  on
numerous  occasions.

      The  standard  for TOC  concentrations was exceeded 16  out  of
26 times  in  the  downstream wells,  primarily  at  the OS-1  and
OS-2 wells.   Therefore, contamination  of the downstream  ground-
water in  the  form  of  organic compounds had occurred.  These
compounds  migrated through  the  shallower groundwater, and
apparently had not reached  the  groundwater intercepted  by the
deep well  (OS-3).   Fecal  streptococcus was detected  in  the  OS-1
and OS-2 wells,  but the concentrations had not  reached  the  point
that the water was considered unsafe  to  drink.  More work is
needed to substantiate this  finding.

      Overall, the data indicate  some  degree  of  groundwater
 contamination by the disposal operation  has  occurred,  as shown
 by the increased concentrations  of chloride, TOC,  iron,  and lead
 in the downstream groundwater.   Although some  of these  contami-
 nants did not exceed the  standards on  all  occasions, significant
 increases in their respective levels  were  noted on all  occasions
 when compared to background groundwater.

      The high contents of chromium in the  sludge  did not result
 in corresponding  high levels in soil  or  groundwater.   Concen-
 trations of other heavy metals (cadmium, copper,  nickel, zinc,
 and mercury) in the  groundwater were not elevated  as a result
 of the sludge disposal operation.

                                274

-------
     Although  the soils at this site are relatively coarse-
textured  and  large concentrations of heavy metals present
immediately  below the fill were in the water-soluble form, no
significant  migration of these metals was noted.  Based on the
locations of  the downstream wells, fecal bacteria had traveled
horizontally  a distance of more than 20 m in the groundwater.
The practice  of subsurface disposal of sludge at this
site has  had  a minimal impact on the groundwater quality.  Further
analysis  of  groundwater for fecal bacteria is needed to substan-
tiate the data obtained in this study.

SITE 8

Soil Analyses

     While drilling the in-refuse well,  soil samples were  taken
from the refuse-soil  interface  (2.4  to  2.7 m),  midway  between
the fill  and groundwater  (3 m), and  from  the soi 1 -groundwater
interface (3.4 to 3.7 m).  These  samples  were sequentially
extracted, first with water and then  concentrated  nitric  acid.
The results  are  presented  in  Table  43.

     The soils at this site are coarse  textured, moderately
acidic (pH 5.3 to 6.0), and have  a  shallow water table  (which
fluctuated,  but  generally  was at  a  depth  of  less than  3.7  m).
The analytical results show that  leachate from  the  landfill  has
migrated to a  depth  of 3  m, as  indicated  by  the TOC ,  COD,  and
TKN levels.   The  nitrogen  was present primarily in  the  organic
form, since ammonium  made  up  only 3.1  to 19  percent of TKN
concentrations .

     Chloride   and  especially water-soluble  calcium and iron,
decreased rapidly with  increasing soil  depth.   Large amounts
of calcium were  present  in the water-soluble form   which may be
related,  in  part, to the  acidic nature of the  soil.  Concentra-
tions of chloVide,  sulfate,  and heavy metals were  low when
rnmnared to  those typically  found in soils (1,  2).   Although
the "oil  is  well-drained  and  acidic, no significant migrations
of heavy metals  were noted.

            amounts  of lead at the soi 1 -groundwater interface
 contributeS to the high lead levels found in the downstream wells,

 Sludge Analyses
                                275

-------
                         TABLE  43.   ANALYTICAL  RESULTS FOR SITE 8, PHASE I*
INJ
^
cn
                      Soil  Samples Taken Below Landfill During Drilling of  In-Refuse Well
                        Refuse-Soil Interface
                           (2.4  to  2.7  m)
 Midway Between
Soil & Groundwater
      (3 m)
Sol1-Groundwater
   Interface
  (3.4 to 3.7  m)
Constituent'1"
PH
TOC
COD
TKN
NH4-N
NOo-N
ci3
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Moisture, %
Water
6/30/75
5.5
1350
6103
288
9
2.6
48
<10
230
0.03
0.20
0.40
138
0.019
0.4
12.3
Acid Water Acid Water Acid
6/30/75 6/30/75
1
40
0.07
1.60
3.06
1440
0.232
2.6

6.0
3800
13545
602
115
2.8
42
<10
102
0.01
0.07
0.40
19
0.020
0.1
23.3
5.3
1360
4909
199
25
1.9
24
<10
111
0.08
2.08
4.90
1140
0.264
2.5

89
0.01
<0.07
0.14
1
0.027
2.9
15.0
95
0.07
1 .63
3.00
1324
0.022
2.4


-------
        TABLE  43.   (continued)
no
•-4
                                                                          Background
                                           Sludge                         Groundwater
        Constituent      Water         Acid     Water        Acid
                               6/30/75                6/8/76                9/17/75
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
NOa-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Moisture, %
7.1
4200
9135
408
76
0.4
48
17
133
0.01
0.12
0.40
10
0.024

. 0.2

86.7
33300
5.6
13
63
127
0.12
1.73
31.00
116
0.229

3.6



0.12
1050
44
538
<0.003
3.0
24
75
83.0
31
95
0.6
2
25
46
0.002
<0.01
0.090
0.50
0.0004

0.080



-------
        TABLE   43.   (continued)
IS)
«vl
oo
Offsite Well (Sha
Constituent* 7/30/75
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca*
Cd
Cr .
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
7.5
156
320
2698
89
7.3
1.10
12
7
907
0.040
0.92
3.000
114
<0.0002

1.150

9/17/75
7.8
197
38
91
6.3
5.5
<0.02
15
17
77
0.002
<0.01
0.029
0.70
0.0006

0.090

llow)
10/3/75
8.2
108
50
66
8.0
7.7
0.62
17
10
77
0.001
0.19
0.016
8.38
0.001

0.024


6/9/76
29
<0.01

0.001
<0.01
<0.01
27
<0.0002
0.02
.0.5
0.48

-------
       TABLE
43
ro
Constituent
PH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
MBAS
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
Cl
SC-4
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn

7/30/75
7.0
55534
49
83

1.4
0.8
0.20
4
15
14
<0.002
<0.01
0.430
0.46
<0.0002
0.050
Offsite Well
9/17/75
7.8
32890
64
135

6.2
0.7
<0.02
9
14
15
0.003
<0.01
0.009
0.38
0.0008
0.231
1 (Deep)
10/3/75
7.8
2170
36
104

1.3
0.3
0.67
10
6
16
<0.001
<0.01
0.018
0.30
0.001
0.024

6/9/76


28

0.02


In
0
1—j
. 7

0.001
XV f\ 1
<0.01
<0.01
1-7
. 7
<0.0002
<0.01
0.02
0.15
         *   Soil  and  sludge  were  extracted with water and  cone, nitric acid.  Sampling
            dates  are also  indicated.

         1"   Concentrations  are  expressed  as mg/kg of dry soil, mg/kg of wet sludge, mg/1 of
            groundwater  or  leachate.

-------
in the 1975 sample,  were generally lower than those found in
1976 (Table 43).   Concentrations of the chemical  constituents
in the two sludge samples were within the ranges, but less than
the median concentrations reported by Sommers (9).   The chromium
concentration in the 1976 sample was exceedingly  high (6,176 ppm
on a dry weight basis).  The source of this element is unknown.
Based on preliminary results of the sludge analysis, local
industries discharging wastewater to the sewer have not adversely
affected the quality of the sludge generated at the treatment
plant.

Leachate Analyses

     The leachates collected from the in-refuse well during
Phases  I and II were analyzed for selected chemical constituents
(Table  44).  There were considerable variations in  constituent
levels  in  the leachates over the sampling dates.   Except for
zinc,  concentrations of most constituents decreased in Phase II
when  compared to  Phase  I.  The  greatest decreases were noted
for TOC and  iron.  These may have resulted from the dilution of
the generated leachate  volumes  and may, in part,  explain the
lower  concentration of  contaminants found in the  downstream
groundwater  during Phase II monitoring.

      Chloride and sulfate  concentrations were relatively low, a
finding consistent with  the low concentrations for these
constituents found  in  the  soil  and sludge at this site.

Groundwater  Analyses

      During  Phase I,  four  groundwater samples were taken from
the shallow  (OS-1 at  1.8 m) and deep (OS-2 at 5.6 m) wells.
Samples were taken  bimonthly from these two wells and also
from  the background well  (BG at 7.9 m) and from the new, deep
off-site well  (OS-3 at 16.9 m)  in the 12-mo Phase II monitoring.
These  samples were  analyzed for selected chemical contaminants
(or parameters).   The  results of  Phases I and II  are presented
in  Table 43  and  Table  8 of Appendix E, respectively.

Background Groundwater--
      The background sample in Phase I generally contained very
low levels of  contaminants (Table 43).  The high lead content
(0.08  ppm) in  this  sample  could not be confirmed by subsequent
analysis of  the  groundwater samples from the Phase II background
well.   The most  noticeable deviation in contaminant levels in
the background  groundwater involved the substantial increase in
sulfate in Phase II.   This may  be indicative of a high sulfate
background level  at this depth  or disturbances during well drill i ig

      Except  for sulfate, contaminant levels in the background
groundwater  ranged from low to  nondetectable during Phase  II
monitoring and  were generally  less  than the corresponding


                                280

-------
              TABLE  44.   CHEMICAL ANALYSIS  OF  LEACHATES  FROM  IN-REFUSE  WELL (SITE 8)
ro
oo
Constituent*
pH
Tot. Solids
TOC
COD
TKN
NM4-N
N03-N
Cl
S04
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
lln
' i*
Ni
Pb
Zn


7/30/75
6
4965
3000
8265
254
198
0
3
12
617
0
0
1
227
<0

0

.2




.28


.019
.09
.67

.0002

.680

Phase
9/17/75
7.2
19808
890
1194




43
0.016
0.19
0.31
63


0.770

I
10/3/75

1160
5721




47
0.033
5.62
1 .90
237


0.700


6/19/

2970






0.
0.
0.
320
<0.
0.
0.
0.

76








002
30
59

0002
02
08
26

-------
       TABLE 44.   (Continued)
IM
00
ro
*
Constl tuent
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
N1
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Sp. Cond.

11/11/76
0.050
0.07
4.50
390

1.10
2.0
17.0
11
12
17
475
Phase
3/30/77
<0.005
0.25
0.11
21
0.0006
0.03
0.07
0.59
<2
3
21
__#
IIf
5/18/77
0.005
0.17
0.83
85
0.0005
0.31
0.32
4.60
..#
__#
1
10000

9/18/77
0.005
0.13
0.45
39
0.0010
0.10
0.21
2.40
11
14
71
340
        Specific conductance in ymhos/cm,  all  other  constituents  concentrations in ppm

       fNo sample taken on 1/12/77 due  to  dry well.

       "Insufficient sample.

-------
concentrations  in the three off-site wells (Figures 82 and 83
and Table 8 of  Appendix E).

Downstream Groundwater--
     Considerable variations were noted in contaminant levels
in the groundwater over time and with sampling depths (Table 43).
In Phase I, samples from the shallow off-site well (OS-1) showed
higher levels of TKN, ammonium, calcium, chromium, iron, lead,
and zinc when compared to the deep off-site well  (OS-2).
Conversely, the total solid levels in the OS-2 well were several
times greater than those in the OS-1 well.  Among the heavy
metals in the shallow off-site groundwater, iron  increased with
subsequent samplings (from 0.70 to 27 ppm) and lead contents
were as high as 1.15 ppm.  These latter levels were consistent
with the water-soluble lead concentration found in soils at the
soi1-groundwater interface.  The data also suggests that lead
had been leached, to some extent, to the groundwater existing
at lower depths.

     Since the  TOC levels were high in samples from both the
shallow and deep off-site wells, vertical migration of leachate
in the form of  organic substances was indicated.  The overall
data suggest that attenuation of contaminants by  the soil at
this site was relatively poor.  The groundwater from off-site
wells ranged from neutral to moderately alkaline  (pH 7.0 to
8.2, depending  on sampling date and depth).  Although the soil
was moderately  acidic, the pH of the groundwater  indicated
that it was probably disturbed by well drilling.  However, it
gradually was shifted to the above pH range due to the buffering
by the bicarbonates that are prevalent in most groundwater
resources.  These disturbances were also suggested by the
relatively high TOC, COD, TKN, and calcium levels in the June
1975 sample in  the shallow off-site well when compared to subse-
quent samples taken from the same well.

     When the groundwater  data from the OS-1 and  OS-2 wells
of Phase  I were compared to that of Phase  II, the large  TOC
concentrations   in the two  off-site wells and elevated concentra-
tions in  the OS-1 well of  Phase  I were not noted  in  Phase II.
Meanwhile, exceedingly high concentrations of iron were  detected
at all three off-site wells during  Phase  II monitoring.   During
the  same  period, other metals  -  cadmium,  chromium, copper, nickel,
mercury,  and lead - were also  found at  low to nondetectable  levels
in these  downstream wells.

     Lead  zinc, and chloride  in the groundwater  from the OS-2
(medium  depth)  well  appeared  to  be  higher  than  the corresponding
concentrations  from  either  the OS-1  (shallow) or  OS-3 (deep
wplls  (Fiaures 82 and 83).  These contaminants  had apparently
nil  been  feached to  the  depth  (16.9 m) where  the  OS-3 well was
placed    TOC concentrations  in the  groundwater  from  the  OS-3
wen! however,  were  consistently  high  and  an  order of magnitude


                               283

-------
.120

90

1 GO
a
u.
30


.08


.08

E.
°- .04
.a
c.
.02



.3
.6

a.
*T -4
c
.2


/r
/ \
»
v A / \
\ / \ / \./
" V \ / A
_ A y, _._._.,/ \
/ ^ *x /* i
/x \ \/ .--' x (

.09 . .... ,
\ LEGEND
\
" \ A .
\ / '• X'
* ' \ •
\ / \ X
- '/ \ / OK 	 !
A * *

- / \ \ / °S*1 |
/ \ •• •
1 ._ \ / ^ 1

t i i i i i i i i i i


A
/ \
" / \
//"^\ / \
- // ^^-'^^s***\\
/^'~*"^^ 	 -X^_ \s^^
1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 """lit <
NOJFMAMJJ. ASO
1S75 	 J— 1277
Figure 82.   Fe,  Pb,  and  Zn  levels  in  aroundwater,
                   (Site 8)
                  284

-------
O
c
      N   0   J  F
       1275	1—1=77
         Ficur- 83.  Cl , SO*, and TOC levels in grcundwater
           J                 ' (sits a)
                           285

-------
greater than those in the shallower  wells.   If  leachate  from the
landfill has migrated into the groundwater  to considerable
depths, more tests will be required  to  identify  the  organic
species and possible contamination of  the groundwater  supply wit;
fecal bacteria.  Results of bacteriological  analyses found  no
fecal coliform in all three wells, while fecal  streptococcus was
detected at only very small or insignificant concentrations
(Table 45).

Environmental  Impact Assessment

     In determining the possible degradation of  groundwater
quality as a result of the landfilling  operation at  this  site,
concentrations of the selected contaminants  were compared with
the  EPA drinking water standards (Table 46).

     The background water showed concentrations  of  iron,  lead,
and  TOC that exceeded the drinking water standards.   Iron
concentrations exceeded the standards  five  out  of seven  times.
These concentrations (0.17 to 1.50 ppm) were not greatly  elevated
In fact, the standard was only barely  exceeded  on most occasions.

     Lead  in the background groundwater exceeded the  standard
only one out of seven times.  This occurred in  the  1975  grab
sample and was not confirmed by Phase  II monitoring  data.  Also,
lead was not detected in most of the Phase  II samples.

     The standard for TOC was exceeded two  out  of seven  times,
each one occurring in Phases I and II.   Again,  the  high  TOC
(31  ppm) in the 1975 grab background sample did not  appear in
the  Phase  II samples.  It was therefore unlikely that  background
groundwater was contaminated with organic pollutants.

     The groundwater from downstream wells  showed cadmium, copper
iron, lead, sulfate, and TOC exceeding the  drinking  water stan-
dards from 1 to 24 times.

     Elevated  levels of cadmium and copper  were detected in down
stream wells on one occasion each.  Since  these were from sample
populations of 25 and 26 for cadmium and copper, respectively,
gross contamination of the groundwater with these two  metals
appeared unlikely.

     Iron  levels exceeded the standard 24  out  of 25  times in
downstream groundwater.  These levels  increased considerably  in
the  second phase of this study, with concentrations  reaching  as
high as 204 ppm.  Thus, it is evident that  the  downstream
groundwater was heavily contaminated with  iron  as a  result of
the  landfill operation.

     Lead  exceeded the standard eight out  of 25 times.  The high
levels  found in Phase  I cannot be confirmed by  the  Phase II data


                               286

-------
        TABLE 45.  BACTERIOLOGIC EXAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER FROM
                         OFF-SITE WELLS (SITE 8)


Date	Well	Fecal Coliform	Fecal Streptococcus
                                        colonies/100 ml	
7-28-77   OS-1                 < 3                               3

                              < 3                               4

                              < 3                               3

7-28-77   OS-3                < 3                              23

                              < 3                             < 3

                              < 3                              21

9-18-77   OS-2                < 3                             < 3

                              < 3                             < 3

                              < 3                               9
                                    287

-------
        TABLE 46. NUMBER OF TIMES SAMPLED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
            EXCEEDED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (SITE 8)
Constituent
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Background
Phase I
0-1*
0-1
1-1
0-1
1-1
0-0
0-1
0-1
1-1
Wells
Phase II
0-6
0-6
4-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
1-6
Downstream
Phase I
1-8
1-8
6-7
0-8
5-8
0-1
0-7
0-7
8-8
Wells
Phase II
0-17
0-18
18-18
0-18
3-17
0-18
0-18
1-18
16-18
*  The first number indicates number of times  standard was exceeded; the
   second number is sample population.
                                  288

-------
The lead levels in Phase II were generally very low or non-
detectable, except for the three occasions on which the standard
was exceeded (0.056, 0.064, and 0.090 ppm).  Based on the lead
concentrations and number of times the standard was exceeded, it
is suspected that groundwater intercepted by the OS-1 and OS-2
wells was contaminated with lead.

     Total organic carbon  (TOC) was found at significant levels
in downstream wells.  The  standard was exceeded 24 out of 26
times.  Excessively large  TOC levels were detected in the deep
(OS-3) well, indicating passage of organic pollution  into the
deep groundwater.  Bacterial tests indicated that, although fecal
streptococcus was detected in some samples from the  downstream
wells, the levels were  so  low or  nondetectable there  appeared to
be no concern for health hazard.

     The  sandy, moderately acidic  soils,  a shallow water table,
and  the disposal  practice  (sludge-only,  lagooning, etc.) at
this site  has  resulted  in  adverse  effects  on the  groundwater
supplies.  Although the heavy metals  showed  limited  migration
through soils  into  the  groundwater,  contamination  of iron  and
organic compounds  (TOC) in the  three  off-site  wells  strongly
suggested  the  poor  quality of  the  downstream groundwater.  The
data  also  suggest  continual  monitoring  and  detailed  examinations
of organic species  and  fecal  bacteria  in the groundwater.
                                289

-------
                      REFERENCES
Allaway, W. H.  Agronomic Controls over Environmental
Cycling of Trace Elements.  Advan. Agron.,  20:235-274, 1968.

Bowen, H. J. M.  Trace'Elements in Biochemistry.   Academic
Press, New York, 1966.

Chow, V. T. (ed.-in-chief)•  Handbook of Applied  Hydrology.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964.

Davies, S. N. and R. C.  M. DeWiest.   Hydrogeology.   Wiley,
New York, 1966.

Hoskins-Western-Sonderegger.  Groundwater  Pollution  Study -
Site 1 Landfill.  Unpublished report prepared for SCS
Engineers, 1977.

Hoskins-Western-Sonderegger.  Groundwater  Pollution  Study -
Site 3 Landfill.  Unpublished report prepared for SCS
Engineers, 1977.

Lu, J. C. S.  Studies on the Long-Term Migration  and Trans-
formation of Trace Metals in the Polluted  Marine  Sediment-
Seawater System.  Ph.D.  Thesis, University  of Southern
California, 1976.

Mang, J. L., J. C. S. Lu, R. J. Lofy and R.  P.  Stearns.
A Study of Leachate from Dredged Material  in Upland  Areas
and/or in Productive Uses.  Contract Report  No.  DACW39-76-
C-0069, U. S. Army Waterways Experiment Station,  Vicksburg,
Miss., 1978

Sommers, L. E.  Chemical Composition of Sewage  Sludges and
Analyses of Their Potential  Uses as  Fertilizers.   J. Environ
Qua!. , 6:225-232, 1977.
                           290

-------
                        APPENDIX A

    GAS PROBE AND MONITORING WELL PLACEMENT PROCEDURES


IN-REFUSE WELL

     The monitoring well  in the landfills was drilled to  the
groundwater table.  A core auger or bucket rig was used for
drilling holes in refuse.  An air rotary drill may be used
but is subject to fouling in refuse.  Figure 1 shows a
typical installation.

     Experience indicated that for our typical 4-in diameter
monitoring well, the optimum well bore diameter was a mini-
mum of 6 in, and preferably 8 in or greater.  During the
drilling, refuse was pulled loose and protruded into the
hole.  This led to difficulties during the placement of the
gas probes attached to the outside of the well casing and in
backfill ing.

     Soil boring logs of the material brought to the surface
during the well drilling operation were carefully recorded.

     After the location of the well was determined on the site
and before the well driller arrived, a core sample of the
cover soil material was taken for determination of permea-
bility.  The Field Sampling Instruction Manual gives detailed
instructions on obtaining the sample.

     Two refuse samples were taken for determination of
moisture content from each hole at the one-third and two-
thirds overall landfill depth, respectively.  Approximately
one- shovel ful of refuse and/or sludge material was placed
in a plastic bag and sealed.  The bag containing the sample
was placed in a second plastic bag and again sealed.  This
double  bagging was to minimize moisture loss.

     Upon reaching the bottom of  the landfill  (when  the auger
brings  up mostly soil), a soil or core sample  (approximately
a shovelful) was taken and placed in a sterile piasticspeci-
men bag.  Two additional samples  were taken  following the same
procedure, one halfway between the landfill  bottom and
the groundwater, and the other at groundwater  level.
                            291

-------
GAS
SAMPLE

'' ^ SOIL '
/- r-> i ' — "
	 • — ~ f
SHALL I ,•-
GAS PROBE
- " - T X . 3-5 FT
(0.9 TO 1 . 5M ) DELCW
SURFACE


6 IN (15 CM)
J
NOMINAL /
DIA. BORE HOLE'



9 ' ~ ,
i r-



J
u






BA

DEE» GAS PROBE V
APPROX. 3-5 FT
(0.9 TO 1 . 5M)
BOTTOM OF REFUSE —
2 FT
( 0. 6M)
1
DF 2 FT
OF CONCKt I t. —

BACKFILL WITH
SOIL OR CONCRETE —
•


	 ^—

^ LEACHATE SAMPLE
-„ i 3_r7;.
rs^f>-"ii
	 * -— -
3




A



SOIL
CKFILt
A
^'.•^"i'J'o'
, i_a ". *>_>.

1
	 A 	 '
GRAVEL
BACKF I L
JK SURFACE CF LANDFILL


















t —
_
-















^_
^ f~r~>k-j'^Q^T~ ^^A'





IN vlU C 1*1 J
PVC PIPE TO EXTEND
MINIMUM OF 2 FT (0.6M)
ABOVE SURFACE


^\
C' '.NDFILLED REFUSE )
AND/OR SLUDGE 	

4.^— 	 CLAY OR
O^




*** -^ *^ At *"y i**i '^ d
*^ ,^^% A * & &• ' A* *\ * fc*'J
* o «^^^^J J ** .^
^jv.^.-p »•:<->*'?
//////'/
//////
/v/vx//
CONCRETE
PLUG
	 T~~^
«v^^ LAND^ I^-L
1
WELL
SCREEN
SECTION
T
LEGEND
• SOIL CORE SAMPLE
A REFUSE/SLUDGE
MOISTURE SAMPLE
• SOIL COVER
PERMEABILITY SAMPLE
NOT - :  SCALE
                                  GROUNDWATER
         Figure 1.  Typical  in-refuse well details
                          292

-------
 Since  the  exact  distance to groundwater was not always  known,
 several  samples  around the presumed mid-depth  were  obtained
 and retained  until  the midpoint location was established.

      Two  gas  probes were placed in the in-refuse well,  one  at
 approximately 3  to  5 ft below the surface and  the other
 3 to 5 ft  above  the landfill  bottom.  These gas probes  were
 located  outside  of  the well casing.

      The  materials  used and placement depths in backfilling
of the  in-refuse  well are shown in Figure 1.  In brief,  the
 well was  first backfilled with concrete, and the well  casing
 and deep  gas  probe  inserted.   The well was again backfilled
 with gravel,  then  with concrete, and finally native material.
 A concrete cap was  placed at  the top to secure the  well .

 PLUME  AND  GROUNDWATER WELLS

      Two  wells were placed in the presumed groundwater  down
 gradient  direction  from the in-refuse well described above.
 These  wells did  not penetrate any refuse, and were  approxi-
 mately 30  m (100 ft) from the in-refuse well.

      One  well  penetrated the  groundwater table elevation  to  a
depth of 0.61  m(2 ft).  This well was termed the shallow well.
The second  'well penetrated the groundwater table elevation  to
a depth of about 6.09 m  (20 ft)  (site conditions permitting).
This well  was  termed the deep  well.  Figure 2 illustrates
typical construction details  for each well.

      At Sites 1  and 3, six wells were placed in two parallel
lines normal to the  direction  of groundwater flow.  The  lines
were 45 to  75  m (150 to 250 ft)  apart and the wells  in each
line were spaced 75  to 90 m (250 to  300  ft) apart on centers.
Each contained four sampling levels  separated by bentonite
clay plugs.  Sand and gravel were backfilled in between  the
clay plugs. Figure 3  illustrates  typical  construction details
for each well.  All  of the  sampling  points  for each well
penetrated the groundwater  table and were  generally placed
about 3 m  (10   ft) apart.

      Background groundwater wells  utilizing the same well
construction as in  Figure  3 were placed  several hundred feet
above the disposal   area  at Sites 1  and  3.   At other sites,
a background well was constructed at one  depth  using the
same well  construction as  shown  in  Figure  2.
                             293

-------


-


20
(6.


FT
1M)

1
2 FT
( 0. 6M )
t
^













__
	 —CAP- 	 	 	 "'
j Jj








. GROUND SURFACE
SEAL -"""'
fi T M fin r M 1
PVC PIPE, TO EXTEND
MINIMUM OF 2 FT (0.6M)
.-SOIL'
M A T P(7 T A 1 PAr"^rTI 1 	
GROUNDWATER y
2 FT
C0.6M)
t
^rs









-
T^T--



*^
' . ,-. •

*'ELL
SCREEN
SECTION
SHALLOW WELL


NOT TC SCALE
WELL
SCREEN
SECTION

    3EEP  WELL
Figure 2.   Typical  background and downstream well
           detai1s.
                      294

-------
                        ROAD  SAND
                        AND  GRAVEL
                       PNEUMATIC
                       SAMPLER
          k- 6. 4 cm
Figure 3 .
Typical off-site plume well details showing
four pneumatic samplers and close-up of
sample collector.
                 295

-------
                              APPENDIX B.   GROUNDWATER READINGS FROM MONITORING WELLS
ro
vo
CD
Well
Site 1
IR
OS-X
EX-1
EX-2
EX-3
Site 2
IR
OS-1
OS-2
BG
EX-1
EX-2
Site 3
IR
OS-X
EX-1
EX-2
EX-3
EX-4
EX-5
Top of Pipe
Elevation (m)
571.92
564.29
578.18
573.04
570.88
351.95
345.87
346.18
347.54
351.78
349.74
311.97
308.46
309.76
308.64
308.44
311.39
308.09
Groundwater Elevation (m)
10/31/76
563.08
560.02
559.33
559.55
561.03
11/1/76
344.63
342.37
341.81
343.47
338.07
338.14
11/1/76
306.38
303.07
303.64
303.81
303.49
304.07
303.46
1/21/77
563.14
560.33
559.82
559.98
1/21/77
344.58
342.44
341.94
343.42
338.04
338.11
1/20/77
306.60
300.99
303.51
303.74
303.92
303.46
3/10/77
563.06
560.33
559.87
559.88
3/9/77
344.63
342.55
342.14
343.12
338.07
338.11
3/8/77
306.36
303.05
303.51
303.68
303.79
303.40
5/19/77
563.11
559.84
559.98
5/18/77
344.46
342.73
342.62
343.55
337.99
338.11
5/16/77
307.99
303.33
304.73
304.22
303.87
304.53
303.36
7/19/77
563.06
559.57
559.42
7/18/77
344.58
342.37
343.52
338.07
338.01
7/18/77
308.19
303.20
303.39
303.89
303.01
304.91
303.51
9/14/77
563.54
558.63
559.68
9/13/77
345.12
343.41
343.49
344.24
9/12/77
306.73
303.99
304.39
305.57
304.95
304.37

-------
     APPENDIX R.  (continued)
ro
10
Well
Site 4
IR
OS-X
BG
EX-1
EX-2
ilUJL
OS-1
BG
Sitej6
OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
BG
Site 7
OS-1
OS-2
BG
Site 8
OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
EX-1
BG
Top of Pipe
Elevation (in)
423.04
422.02
430.14
423.84
423.77

16.46
70.83

19.95
19.94
20.93
27.15
265.48
265.48
283.46
198.12
198.12
197.82
207.57
213.36
*
Groundwater Elevation (m)
11/24/76
420.68
419.05
424.55
420.36
420.47
11/15/76
14.00
57.11
11/10/76
17.66
14.74
17.82
11/12/76
259.78
259.71
265.61
11/11/76
197.51
197.52
193.62
206.27
211.59
1/19/77
420.83
419.14
424.19
419.31
420.60
1/19/77
14.36
57.24
1/10/77
14.85
17.52
1/11/77
259.44
259.33
265.25
1/12/77
197.13
196.94
189.44
206.01
211.01
3/6/77
421.35
419.36
425.13
419.98
421.28
4/1/77
14.36
56.98
3/30/77
17.41
14.81
17.41
3/31/77
259.92
259.80
265.67
3/30/77
195.45
197.88
189.90
206.74
212.29
5/21/77
421.23
419.20
424.73
419.98
421.11
5/9/77
14.26
56.93
5/17/77
17.22
14.81
17.42
5/18/77
260.25
260.17
266.19
5/18/77
195.79
197.11
190.32
206.33
211.18
7/21/77
421.13
419.18
424.73
419.98
420.93
8/1/77
14.26
57.03
7/26/77
16.95
14.58
17.39
7/26/77
259.81
259.79
256.81
7/27/77
196.82
195.78
190.00
205.61
210.87
9/16/77
420.52
419.03
424.40
419.67
420.06
9/21/77
14.28
56.55
9/16/77
18.32
14.71
17.55
9/19/77
259.41
259.49
265.35
9/18/77
197.11
197.18
189.96
206.12
210.92
       *   Elevations above mean sea  level.

-------
                           APPENDIX  C

               FIELD SAMPLING  INSTRUCTION MANUAL


     The objective of field sampling is to obtain representative
leachate, groundwater, gas, sludge,  and mixed refuse-sludge
samples from each of the case  study  sites.  The accuracy and  care
taken during sampling cannot be  overemphasized.  An accurate
analysis is directly dependent upon  the care taken by field
personnel in drawing and shipping  the  requisite samples.

     This manual is intended to  provide field personnel with  a
guide to the precise procedures  to be  employed as well as  alter-
native procedures, where applicable, for  coping with unantici-
pated problems.

SAMPLING CODE CONVENTION

     In labeling, the following  information should appear  on  each
sample container (Figures 1 and  2).

     •  Date:  Month and day only, use number for months.

     •  Sample sequence number:   Each  sample will be given a
        sequence number starting with  1 for the first sample.
        Consecutive numbers will be assigned for additional  sam-
        ples taken from each site.  For example, the second
        leachate sample taken will be  assigned the number  "2."

     •  Project code:  This five-digit code uniquely identifies
        this specific oroject, i.e., SCS-34.

     •  Location code:  Sample site location codes are  taken
        from the commercial airport nearest to the case  study
        site i.e., FYV.

     •  Sample hole designation (for groundwater sampling):
        well designation (A, B, or 1-6),  and sample  depth
        designation (1-4).

     •  Gas probe depth:
        A = shallow probe
        B = deep probe .
                               298

-------
    SAMPLE
      DATE
    SAMPLE
   SEQUENCE
    NUMBER
   PROJEC
    CODE

  LOCATION
    CODE
OFF-SITE WELL
 DESIGNATION
       Figure 1.  Leachate sampling  container labeling
                             299

-------

C A MO

DATF
C 4 MOt r"
SEQUENCE
NUMBER
PROJECT
CODE
LOCATION

;





i




^C3I
•
1


//L!-p\
™™» ^— _




-*' =3
Sr i




f&\





~



!i§-
i
1 1

,








	 HOLE
DEPTH
— 	 1 1OLE
LOCATION
'
Figure 2.   Sampling  container  labeling  for  gas  sample bottles
                            300

-------
     For leachate and groundwater  samples,  both  sides of  the
 sample bottles should be labeled with  a  waterproof  marking pen.
 Mark each container in LARGE  NEAT  BLOCK  LETTERS  as  in Figure 1.
 Use dashes (not slashes) to separate  items.   On  groundwater sample
 containers for offsite wells,  be sure  to  designate  which  well  is
 being sampled.

     For  gas samples.two strips  of masking  tape  should be  placed  on
 the containers as shown  in  Figure  2.   Label  the  tape  as  per the
 above-mentioned procedure.  Do not use waterproof  pens  directly
 on glass because the markings  are  almost impossible to  remove.

 LEACHATE AND  GROUNDWATER SAMPLING  PROCEDURES

 Nonpneumatic  Well Sampling

     A leachate sample will be obtained  from the in-refuse well.
 Groundwater samples will be taken  from the  background and shallow
 and deep off-site wells.   The materials  required are:

     •   One copy Field Sampling  Instruction Manual

     •   Styrofoam-1ined  corrugated shipping cartons
                                                      *
     •   Adequate supply  of  1- and  2-1  plastic bottles

     •   Sampling unit with  two sample bottles (Figure 3)

     •   One thermometer  with  a range  of  0 to 150°C

     •   Corning Model 3  pH  meter  (portable)

     •   One plastic funnel

     •   Black waterproof marking  pens

     •   Four  packs  minimum of "blue ice" for shipping (the "blue
         ice"  should be  frozen prior to obtaining the leachate
         samples; use  motel  ice machine or restaurant freezer)

     •   Several  rolls of fiber packing tape or duck tape

     •   Notebook for  field notes

*These containers are  prepared for  field  use as follows:   the  poly-
 ethvlene containers are  first washed  with hot tap water and  cooled
 aVrinsed with AA  grade 1:1  nitric and hydrochlor1c acld.
 to the field.


                                 301

-------
   SAMPLE  DISCHARGE LINE£,
   PRESSURE FITTINGS
   GLUE-ON PVC CAP
   3.8-Cm DIAMETER
   HARD RUBBER BALL
GLUE-ON PVC  END  PIECED
^•NITROGEN INLET LINE
                                   6.5 Cm ID PVC
                                    LUED-ON POLYVINYL
                                   WINDOW SCREEN
    Figure  3.   Pneumatic ejection groundwater sampler
               design.
                           302

-------
     t   Master  list of sample sequence numbers and sampling  dates
        by  site

     •   One styrofoam ice chest.

     Prior  to  taking a sample, the well  should be flushed several
times.   A premarked plastic sample bottle is placed inside the
device  and  the  weighted section attached.  The entire sampling
device  is then  lowered into the well  (Figure 3).   The sample
device  is pulled up after the flow of air bubbles subsides.   The
sample  bottle  is removed and securely capped.

     In Phase  I, only one 2-1 sample was taken from each well.
The samples were not acidified prior to shipment.  In Phase  II,
two 1-1 samples were obtained; in the field one sample
was treated with concentrated hydrochloric acid to pH <2 and the
other was untreated.  Upon completion of sampling at a site, check:

     •   Sample  Record Form to see that all samples and measure-
        ments  have been taken

     t   That all sample bottles have been properly marked and
        accounted for

     •   That all observations, remarks or comments have been duly
        recorded on the reverse side of the Sample Record Form.

Pneumatic Well  Sampling

     Groundwater samples will be obtained from each of the four
levels  of the  pneumatic wells.  The materials required are:

     •   Sample bottles

     •   Gas regulator

     t  Compressor-vacuum pump

     •  Greater than  2.5-cm  (1-in) crescent wrench to fasten
        2-stage regulator to  gas cylinder and crack, open  pipe caps

     •  Shipping cartons for  samples

     •   Individual  site  Sample  Record Forms  to record depth
        measurements,  checking  off samples  taken,  and recording
        comments:   a  map of  the site  showing  general  site layout
        and locations  of all  wells is attached

     •  30 5-m  (100-ft)  milar coated  Stanley  measuring  tape with
        several heavy  washers  attached  to the end  ring

     •  Clipboard

                                203

-------
     •   Acetone-base  black marking pen

     •   Glass  fiber tape

     •   Pocket knife

     •   One pair disposable  rubber gloves

     •   Plastic bags  (1-  or  2-gal size)

     •   Shipping labels

     t   Special weighted  PVC sampling  tube

     •   Nitrogen gas  cylinder.

     As a general  rule,  the  size of a gascylinder has been esti-
mated based on presumed  needs and a  size specified which should
be slightly in excess of  that required for  a complete round  of
sampling while still  being  portable  in the  field.  A "Q" size  gas
cylinder is to be picked  up  at the beginning of a sampling  round
and then returned to  the  supplier upon finishing that round  of
sampling.

Field Sampling--

     Sites using pneumatic  ejection-type samplers all have  column
posts with premarked  tubing  emerging from the column post side  wal
Construction has been standardized such that the air and water
lines for each sampling  device are arranged in descending order  of
depth as indicated in Figure 4.  Tubing for the uppermost probe,
level 1, is at the top and  the deepest, level 4, at the bottom  of
the column post.  The air tubes  by arbitrary convention are
located on the right side and sample discharge tubes on the  left.

     In case of damage to the exposed  post  and tubing, reconstruc-
tion of the unit and identification  of tubes is possible  by
carefully removing damaged  pieces and  observing the location of
tubes coming through a plastic plate set into the base of the
concrete slab.  This  plastic plate has four holes through which
a specific set of air and discharge  tubes have been pulled  through

     The base plate is numbered  from 1  to 4 to identify ground-
water levels.  Extra tubing where available was placed in a  simple
coil in the inside of the column post.  This can be pulled  up  and
out in  case of external  damage to exposed tubing.  Other sites
have merely used marked  air and  water  lines taped together.
Markings are down near ground level  inside  the column posts.

     The gas regulator should be carefully  threaded onto the
nitrogen gas cylinder by hand to start the  threading correctly.
                                304

-------
                                RD
                                        •WELL
                                        WEIGHTED
                                         BOTTLE
                                        SAMPLE
                                        BOTTLE
                              USE  NEW SAMPLE BOTTLE
                                AT  EACH WELL
Figure 4.   Sampling unit for liquid samples
                  305

-------
After having threaded on the gas regulator  as  much  as  possible by
hand, tighten with the wrench.  To open the gas  cylinder,  first:

     •  Check to see that black needle valve is  closed

     a  Open main gas cylinder valve

     •  Adjust pressure regulator valve to  working  pressure of
        50 psig.

     For those sites which do not have very deep wells,  the
pressure regulator can be set to a lower pressure setting.   This
can  be estimated on the basis of approximately 0.7  cm  (2.3  ft) of
water lift per unit psig.  The tubing has a maximum  design  pressure
of approximately 60 psig.  Exercise caution when using greater
pressures since excessive pressure may damage  the sampling  device
and  render it useless for further sampling.  The best  gauge of
correct pressure setting is to base it on the  rate  at  which sample
is discharged into sample bottle.  Subsequent  field procedure to
be used is:

     •  Connect the gas cylinder to the influent air hose.

     •  Crack the needle valve on the gas regulator to allow air
        to pressurize the sample probe.

     •  Adjust pressure regulator discharge pressure-

     •  Flush well several times.

     •  Place discharge hose line into sample-collection container
        After a full sample bottle has been collected, quickly
        change bottles.  Two 1-1 sample bottles  will be  taken of
        each sample.  One 1-1 sample  bottle is  acidified  with
        concentrated hydrochloric acid to pH <2%^and the other
        bottle unacidified.

     •  Completely empty contents of each sample probe.

     •  Preferably before or immediately after filling,  label each
        bottle using black marking pen with the appropriate
        identification described  (with illustrations)  on the
        particular site.  Sample  Record Form:   write out the
        sample identification exactly as indicated  on  the  Sample
        Record Form.  Do not use your own nomenclature-

     •  Repeat the procedure for  remaining  sample probes.

     The following is presented as a troubleshooter's  guide when
it is not possible to get a liquid sample using the conventional
procedure.  The following conditions or symptoms may occur,in
                               306

-------
which case the followi
problem should be empl

     a.  Symptom:

         Cause No .  1 :

         Procedure:
         Cause No. 2

         Procedure:

     b.  Symptom:


         Cause No. 1

         Procedure:
          Cause  No.  2;


          Procedure:


          Cause  No.  3


          Procedure :
ng methods of rectifying or solving the
oyed:

 Blows only air through water discharge  line.

 Bottom inlet plugged

 Connect air hose line to vacuum connection
 on compressor-vacuum 12-V pump.  Tightly
 clamp off water hose line.  Draw vacuum
 for 10 to 15 min.  Repeat conventional
 procedure.  If some water blows up the  line,
 seal at bottom where inlet has broken.
 Repeat procedure until full  flow occurs.

 If no change, pour water down the air line
 to fill probe, pump out and repeat pro-
 cedure .

 Groundwater level below probe inlet

 Nothing can be done.

 Blows air after  small quantity  of water has
 been air-lifted  to surface.

 Air-water house  lines are mixed.

 Change gas  cylinder or  compressor pump to
 the water hose  line.

  If  an  approximately 1-gal quantity of
 water  is  subsequently  pumped  to the  surface,
 fairly valid  confirmation that  the air and
 water  hose  lines  have  been  inadvertently
 mixed.   (However,  all  such  p?obabilities
  should have been  corrected  by this time.)
  If  it  still  blows  air  with  no change,
  see  1 .

  Groundwater level  just  up to  or slightly
  into  probe

  Repeat pumping  steps  until  complete  sample
  obtai ned.

  Inlet partially blocked or  very slow per-
  colation into probe

  See step 1 .
                                307

-------
     c.   Symptom:      No water  or  air  ejected from water  line
         Cause:        Either the probe is  sil ted-in.or  the  water
                       hose line is plugged
         Procedure:    Blow air  down water  hose  line  to  suspend
                       silt in available water solution.   Quickly
                       change to conventional procedure.   If
                       partially successful,  repeat to completely
                       evacuate  silt load from probe  until  dis-
                       charge runs  clear.
                       If still  no  flow, add  water  to probe  and
                       pump out. Repeat procedure.
BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLING PROCEDURE
     Sampling of water for bacteriological  examination requires
that the sampling equipment and  containers  be disinfected  prior
to collecting water.  The materials required  are:
     •  Sterile sample bottles (supplied by  laboratory)  -  suffi-
        cient quantity for 3 samples/well
     •  Disinfectant - pool chlorine, Clorox, or equivalent
     t  EPA Manual on Waterwell  Construction  (includes disinfec-
        tion procedures)
     •  3-5 empty 5-gal containers  or equivalent
     t  Swimming pool chlorine check kit
     •  Gasoline pump w/<2 in I.D.  hose
     t  Large plastic bags to encase pump and hose  after disin-
        fection
     •  Shipping boxes, styrofoam liners, labels
     •  Blue ice
     •  Disposable gloves
     •  Disposable paper cups for obtaining  water samples  for
        chlorine testing
     t  Whirl-pak or small new plastic  bags  for  placing  sterilized
        bottle cap inside while sampling.
                               308

-------
Field Sampling

     The following procedures  should  be  taken  step-by-step:

     •  Obtain  normal  samples.
     t  Disinfect wel 1:

        -  Calculate and prepare in large containers sufficient
           quantity (approximately 2x volume) of disinfectant
           solution, taking into consideration concentration of
           available disinfecting agent.  Desired final concen-
           tration to be 100 ppm or greater.

           Pour some excess down internal sides of well casing
           to disinfect inside  casing walls.  Make sure all
           internal surfaces of casing  have been wetted.

         -  Add inlet hose  to container  arid  shove outlet hose
           as far  below water  surface as  possible.

           Pump disinfectant  into well.

         -  Repeat  for  remaining containers,  taking  special caution
           not to  let  hose touch  anything while transferring  from
           one container  to  another.   If possible,  recirculate
           water  in wel 1 , al 1 owi ng  disinfecting  solution to run
           down  external  area  of  hose  in well.

           Note-   Hose and pump are  now disinfected.   Carefully
           — —    place hose (inlet  and outlet) into  large
                   clastic bags while wearing disposable  gloves.
                   These will  be used the following  day to remove
                   water from well  and must  not become recontam-
                   i nated.

      •  Let  disinfectant stand for 24 hr.





         24 hr previously.

      .  Start motor and  pump well to obtain  sample of water.
          Restart  pu.p  and  c.ll.ct  thr.e  s.jpl.,  fro.  "Jh ..U

                                  ^e^uc*  "•»"" "" ""«"

                                 309

-------
        of the cap nor the bottle.   Place  cottle  under  stream  of
        water and fill about 7/8  full.   Screw  on  cap  tightly.   If
        sample is to be used for  withdrawing samples, make  sure
        it has been disinfected  by  soaking  in  chlorine  solution
        (100 ppm) overnight.  Take  necessary precautions  to  see
        that sample does not become contaminated  by using  new
        plastic gloves for handling.   Store samples,  rope,  etc.,
        in new plastic bag.

     •  Chill samples in ice water  until  shipment time.

     •  Pack bottles securely with  sufficient  blue  ice  to  maintain
        temperature at approximately  4  C and ship air freight  to
        laboratory.

     •  Record and report any difficulties  in  sampling  while still
        in field.  It will  do no  good to anlyze  these samples
        unless all are maintained in  a  sterile condition.

GAS PROBE SAMPLING PROCEDURE

     Gas samples will be obtained from  probes  placed  in  the  in-
refuse well hole.  Each probe is  situated  at a different  depth
within the hole.  The materials  required are:

     •  1/4 in I.D. rubber hose (surgical  tubing  is  adequate),
        2 to 6 in lengths

     §  Sample bottle(s) - 250 ml (Corning  No. 9500)

     •  Masking tape

     •  Rubber suction bulb, aspirator  type

     •  One copy SCS Field Sampling Instructions

     •  Styrofoam-lined corrugated  shipping cartons

     •  Several rolls of fiber-packing  tape or duck  tape

     •  Notebook for field notes

*Gas burettes are  to be immersed in a solution of detergent and
 water to remove  residue soils or other foreign  material.  In-
 solubles will be  removed by immersing burette in acetone.  Resi-
 dues that might  have remained will be removed by soaking burettes
 in aqua regia.   The burettes are then rinsed  in distilled H70
 and dried in the  oven  at 103 C for 30 minutes.   The  burettes are
 removed and placed  in  the desiccators for 30  minutes.   Upon
 cooling, the stopcocks are greased with Apiezon N grease to
 insure a tight seal.   The burettes are then  evacuated  with a
 vacuum pump just  prior to shipment to the field.
                               310

-------
     •  Master list of sample sequence numbers  and  sampling  dates
        by  si te .

Gas Sampli ng

     Refer  to  Figure 5 while reading instructions.   The  procedure
i s as fol1ows :

     •  Mark  sample bottles as shown in Figure  2-

     •  Remove rubber stopper from the exposed  end  of one  gas
        probe  •


     •  Slip  the  end of one of the 6 in pieces  of rubber hose
        over  the  probe end-

     •  Slip  the  other end of the same rubber hose  over  one  end
        of the sample bottle

     •  Slip   one end of the second piece of rubber  hose  over the
        other end of the sample bottle.

     •  Slip   the  other end of the rubber hose onto  the rubber
        bulb .

     t  Open   the sample bottle stopcock nearest the gas  probe.
        Note:   The sample  bottle has been evacuated to remove
        any contaminants from the bottle.  Thus, when the stop-
        cock   is opened, a  brief hissing noise will  be heard.  This
        is the sound of the  vacuum being filled.  If the hissing
        sound  is not heard,  one of the stopcocks may have been
        opened during transport or at  some other time prior to
        sample taking.  Make  a note of this fact and continue  the
        prescribed  sampling  procedure.

      •  Open  the second stopcock-


     •  Beqin  aspirating the  rubber bulb to draw in  gases within
        the probe's area of  influence.  The number of squeezes
        necessary  varies with the probe depth.   A rule of thumb:
        one squeeze is required for each two ft of probe depth-

     •  When   the appropriate  number of squeezes have been taken,
        close  the  stopcock  nearest the rubber bulb-

     §  Close  the  other stopcock-
                                311

-------
             RUBBER  HOSE
     PLASTIC TUBE
                                           SAMPLE
                                           BOTTLE
BACKFILL
                                                           RUBBER  HCSE
                                                               RUBBER BULB
                     Figure 5.   Gas  sampling schematic
                                  312

-------
     •   Remove  the  sampling apparatus  from the gas  probe  and
        replace the rubber stopper (cap)  on the gas  probe end.

     •   Follow  steps  numbers 1-11  until  a sample is  obtained
        from each  of  the gas probes.

SOIL AND REFUSE SAMPLING PROCEDURE

     Soil  and refuse  samples will  be obtained from  well  locations
during  drilling and placement of the in-refuse well.  The
materials  required are:

     •   One copy Field Sampling Instruction Manual

     t   Styrofoam-1ined corrugated shipping cartons

     •   Adequate supply of commercially available polyethylene
        bags

     •   Several black waterproof marking  pens

     •   Sufficient "blue  ice" for shipping

     •   Several roles of  fiber-packing or  duck  tape

     •   Notebook

     •   Master list of  sample sequence numbers  and  sampling dates
        by  site

     •  One 4  Ib hammer

     •  One shovel

     •  Core sampling  device

     •  One  tarp 8 ft  x  8 ft.

 Soil Permeability  Sampling

     Locate an area  of  the site where  soil  cover has  been  placed
 over refuse for some  time.  With  a  shovel  excavate  the first  inch
 or  so  of  soil  to  remove grass,  weeds,  and organic  material _unti 1
 the soil  appears  uniform in texture.   Drive the sample device
 (with  hammer)  to  a depth of about 12  in    Carefully excavate
 around the  sampler and  remove  it,  seal  both ends and  place in  a
 doTble plas??cPbag.   Seal bag  and label  with site  designation.

 Refuse Sampling from In-Refuse


                            ^

                                313

-------
 Place  approximately  one  shovelful of refuse and/or sludge material
 in  a  double  plastic  bag,  seal and label properly.

 Soil  Sampling  from  In-Refuse Well

      Three soil  core samples will be taken from each site.  The
 first  sample will be obtained from the bottom of the bore hole
 at  the  refuse/soil  interface.  The second and third samples
 will  be  taken  half  the distance to groundwater and at the soil/
 groundwater  interface, respectively.  A split-tube or Shelby
 tube  sampler will be used depending on local  well driller equip-
 ment  capabilities.   Place about 1/3 Ib of soil sample in a double
 plastic bag, sealed  and  labeled properly.

      After the core  samples are taken, the Sides and ends will
 be  sliced off  and the center portion secured  and placed in a
 double  plastic bag,  sealed and labeled properly.

 PRESERVATION AND SHIPMENT OF FIELD SAMPLES

      Liquid, soil, and refuse or sludge samples will  be preserved
 by  chilling  in an ice chest packed with blue  ice.  Preparatory
 to  placing sample bottles into the chest or shipping carton,
 check to insure that all  sample bottles are properly labeled and
 that caps are  tightened down.  Carefully pack the bottles
 upright  in the shipping container.  Mark in large block print
 THIS SIDE UP  on all  four sides.

     It  is particularly important that the gas sample bottles
must be wrapped with  multilayers  of paper or in packing sleeves
to prevent breakage  and shipped in styrofoam-1ined corrugated
containers.  It is preferable that the samples be sent  to the
laboratory by air freight.  The collective samples for  each  site
will be insured for  $1,000.
                              314

-------
                           APPENDIX D

          METHODS FOR SAMPLE PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS.


     The following procedures were standardized for the prepara-
tion and analysis of sewage sludge, soil, leachate, and ground-
water samples received from the case study sites.

SAMPLE PREPARATION

Soils and Sludges

     A sequential extraction, first with deionized water and then
with concentrated nitric acid, was used for soils and sludges.
The extraction procedure is described below:

     t  A representative sample of 75 g of soil or sludge as
        received was placed in a previously sterilized mason
        glass jar.

     t  750 ml of sterilized deionized water were added.

     •  The contents were  stirred  for 30 min in a chrome-plated
        mixer with sterilized blades.

     •  The slurry was allowed to  settle.

     •  An aliquot of the  supernatant was pipetted into prepared
        microbiological  tubes for  determination of fecal coliform
        and fecal streptococcus.

     •  A portion of  the supernatant was  preserved with several
        ml of concentrated hydrochloric  acid  (pH  <2)  prior  to
        analysis  for  total  organic carbon.

     •  Aliquots  of  the  supernatant  were  pipetted  separately for
        the determinations of chemical  oxygen  demand,  total
         Kieldahl  nitrogen, ammonia,  nitrate,  chloride,  sulfate,
        and water-soluble  mercury.  For  colorimetric  and turbidi-
        metric methods,  where  turbidity  interferes with the
        determination,  a portion  of  the  supernatant was decanted
        through  a fluted filter  equivalent  to  Whatman  filter
        paper No. 42.
                                315

-------
     •  An aliquot of the supernatant was  concentrated and
        analyzed for water-soluble metals.

     •  An aliquot of the residue was pipetted  into  a BOD bottle,
        and analyzed for mercury.

     •  An equal volume of nitric acid was  added to  the soil  or
        sludge residue volume remaining in  the  jar (following
        water extraction).

     •  A Teflon-coated stirring bar was  placed in an agitating
        mixer on a hot plate and stirred  for approximately
        90 min (without boiling).

     •  Sufficient deionized water was added to the  contents  to
        make up to 750 ml.

     •  Appropriate blanks were prepared  for each  group of
        determinations.

Leachate and Groundwater

     Leachate and groundwater samples usually were brought back
to the laboratory within one to two days  after  they  were collec-
ted.  Analyses were commenced either immediately or  within a
few days after sample preparation.

Phase I —

     In Phase I the samples were not preserved  when  collected
nor filtered in the laboratory.  Sample preparation  included:

     •  A portion of the sample was pipetted and preserved with
        hydrochloric acid (pH <2) for the analysis of total
        organic carbon.

     •  The remaining portion was allowed to settle.

     •  An aliquot of the supernatant was pipetted into  prepared
        microbiological  tubes for determination  of fecal  coliform
        and fecal  streptococcus.

     i  The sample was  then  shaken  thoroughly and  aliquots  were
        drawn  for determination of  pH,  total  solids,  total
        Kjeldahl  nitrogen,  ammonia,  nitrate,  chloride,  and
        sulfate.

     •  An aliquot was  pipetted into  a  BOD bottle  and  analyzed
        for mercury.

     •  A  large  aliquot was  taken and  digested in  concentrated
        nitric  acid  by  gently  refluxing.  This process was
        repeated  several  times  until  a  light-colored  liquid

                               316

-------
        residue formed.   The residue was evaporated gently  to
        dryness,  dissolved in 1:1 hydrochloric acid,  and  diluted
      •  with deionized water.  The mixture was then filtered,  and
        the filtrate was analyzed for metals.

Phase II--

     Two samples  were collected from each sample point.   One
sample was preserved with hydrochloric acid (pH <2) and  the
other unacidified.  Laboratory sample preparation included:

     •  All samples were filtered through 0.45y glass-fiber
        filters before analysis.

     •  Sample preparation for contaminants other than metals
        was the same as  in Phase I, using unacidified samples.

     •  For metal  analysis,  the acidified samples were digested
        with concentrated nitric and hydrochloric acids  and
        autoclaved at 121°C.

     •  Aliquots  of the  acidified samples were pipetted  into  BOD
        bottles and analyzed for mercury.

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
     All  pH measurements were performed using an Orion Model  701
pH meter with glass electrode in combination with a saturated
calomel  reference electrode.  The pH meter was standardized
periodically under conditions of temperature and pH which were
as close as possible to those of the sample, using various
standard pH buffer solutions  (pH 4, 7, and 10).

Total Sol i ds

     The procedure used to determine percent solids was evapora-
tion at 180 C in an air convection oven.  Standard Methods
(13th Edition, Section 148A,  p. 288-289).

Total Organic Carbon

     Total organic carbon was determined by the combustion-infra-
red method.  Standard Methods (13th Edition.  Section 138A, p.  257)

Chemical  Oxygen Demand

     Chemical oxygen demand was determined using the dichromate
reflux method.  Standard Methods (13th Edition, Section 220,
p. 495).
                               317

-------
Ammonia

     Ammonia was analyzed by distillation procedure.   Standard
Methods  (13th Edition, Section 132, p. 222).

Nitrate

     Nitrate was determined by the brucine sulfate procedure.
Standard Methods (13th Edition, Section 213C,  p.  461).

Total  Kjeldahl  Nitrogen

     Total  Kjeldahl  nitrogen was determined by the classic
Kjeldahl digestion  procedure.  Standard Methods (13th Edition,
Section  216, p. 469).

Chloride

     Chloride was determined via the mercuric  nitrate procedure.
Standard Methods (13th Edition, Section 112B,  p.  97).

Metals  (Calcium, Copper,  Chromium, Lead, Iron, Cadmium. Zinc)

     Metals were determined by atomic absorption  spectrophotometry
(AA) according  to the  techniques in the U.S.  EPA  Manual of Methods
for  Chemical Analysis  of  Mater and Wastes, 1974,  p. 78.  In
Phase  II,  the PDCA  extraction procedure was followed for lead
determination.

Mercury

     Sample digestion  and mercury analysis by  flameless AA were
performed  according to the  EPA Manual of Methods, p. 118.
                                318

-------
                              APPENDIX E.  ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHASE II

                             TABLE 1A.  ANALYTIC RESULTS FOR SITE 1 IN-REFUSE
                                   AND ORIGINAL OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)
Sample
Date
In-Refuse
10/31/76
1/21/77
3/10/77
5/19/77
7/19/77
9/14/77
Off-Site
10/31/76
1/21/77
3/10/77
Constituents*
Cd
Well
0.050
0.050
T
0.005
0.045
0.040
Well (OS-X)
__
Cr

0.25
0.12
—
0.04
0.11
0.11
#
--
0.010 <0.01

0.01
Cu

0.13
0.11
__
0.02
0.13
0.09

--
0.01
0.01
Fe

800.0
1100.0
--
235.0
930.0
6.0

—
7.1
8.3
Hg

0.0002
<0.0002
--
—
<0.0002
<0.0002

—
0.0020
0.0010
Ni

0.48
0.37
—
0.24
0.48
0.30

__
0.02
<0.01
Pb

0.060
0.700
--
0.140
1.280
0.680

__
0.090

Zn

1.2
32.0
—
3.2
95.0
66.0

— -
6.4
3.0
Cl

._
230
__
18
92
153

— _
70
52
so4

__
85
__
__
150
17

_ _
250
340
TOC


14470
— —
2600
10100
3780

	
14
8
Sp. Cond.


18000

__
17500,
6900

_ „ ,
1340
1080
*Specific conductance in ymhos/cm,  all  other  constituent concentrations in ppm.
t-- Insufficient sample.
#Well  was accidentally removed between  the  third  and  fourth samplings.

-------
TABLE IB. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 1 BACKGROUND WELL (PHASE
Constituents*

10/31/76
Chlorides
level 1 15
level 2 35
level 3 31
level 4 —i"
Sul fates
level 1 80
level 2 260
level 3 270
level 4
Total Organic Carbon
level 1 26
level 2 16
level 3 25
level 4
Specific Conductance
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Cadmium
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Chromium
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Copper
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Iron
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4

0.001
0.003
0.006

<0.01
<0.01
0.01
--

0.01
0.02
0.03
— —

2.7
4.4
7.3
—
Sample
1/21/77
12
32
83
17
75
165
7
8
5
35
1300
1380

<0.001
<0.001
0.008

0.01
<0.01
0.01
—

<0.01
<0.01
0.06
—

61.0
1.5
44.0
—
Dates
3/10/77
6
13
23
128
17
40
260
260
4
3
5
12
34
41
94
98

0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001

<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01

<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01

4.9
34.0
11.0
0.1

5/19/77
6
6
12
33
25
40
140
310
6
11
5
14

0.004
0.003
0.005
0.004

<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06

<0.01
0.03
0.08
<0.01

62.0
71.0
68.0
253.0

7/19/77
7
7
13
30
17
20
105
240
2
2
3
3
220
220
460
880

<0.001
<0.001
0.003
0.007

<0.01
<0.01
0.10
o.n

<0.01
<0.01
0.28
0.22

15.0
1.0
131 .0
251-0
II)

9/14/77
10
9
11
28
22
19
50
200
2
4
2
5
230
190
325
810

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

3.9
1.8
0 8
3.5
320

-------
 :ABLE IB (continued)
Constituents*
Mercury
level
level
level
level
Nickel
1 eve!
level
1 eve!
level
1 pad
level
level
level
level
Zinc
level
level
level
level
1
2
3 '
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4


10/31/76
0.
0.
< 0.


0.
0.
0.


0.
0.
0.
0002
0005
0002
t

02
06
12


020
040
060
0.14
0.25
0.36
Sample
1/21/77
0.0020
0.0020
0.0010
Dates
3/10/77 5/19/77
0.
0010
0.0008
0.0010
0.0010

0.07
0.01
0.18
—

0.070
<0.005
0.130
0.15
0.04
0.47

0.
0,
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 0

.05
.03
.02
.08

.020
.070
.020
.005
.04
.18
.05
.01
0.0022
0.0026
<0.0002
<0.0002

0.09
0.08
0.13
0.14

0.020
0.190
0.210
0.110
0.28
0.43
0.56
3.70
7/19/77
<0,
<0,
<0 ,
<0,

<0
<0
0
0

0
<0
0
0
0
1
3
.0002
.0002
.0002
.0002

.01
.01
.06
.10

.005
.005
.098
.08
.06
.30
.80
9/14/77
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002

<0
<0
<0
<0

<0
0
<0
<0
0
0
0
0

.01
.01
.01
.01

.005
.010
.005
.005
.07
.08
.01
.07
Constituent concentrations in ppm.
T— Insufficient sample.
                                    321

-------
                 TABLE  1C.   CHLORIDE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                  FOR SITE 1  OFF-SITE WELLS  (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates
10/31/76
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4

25
29 .
__ t
34

32
40
35
30

27
29
54


30
34
29
57

31
30
29
57

34
31
31
35
1/21/77

131
24
—
--

28
17
31
29

—
--
27


—
—
12
65

52
38
—
56

—
37
—

3/10/77

6
16
—
28

329
21
21
27

--
26
17
15

2
< 2
24
< 2

13
3
5
24

13
6
20
33
5/19/77

11
15

43

5
10
24
26

—
--
8
28

42
43
30
44

<2
12
23
33

--
4
13
27
7/T9/77

6
15

28

5
10
26
24

5
21
7
27

36
24
26
27

<2
12
11
26

_.
6
-_
27
9/14/77

7
16
—
30

8
9
27
28

—
13
6
29

22
29
28
26

< 2
< 2
6
29

—
5
6
29
* Concentrations  in ppm.

t—  Insufficient sample.
                                322

-------
              TABLE  ID.  SULFATE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR
               FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
 Location
                                            Sample  Dates
10/31/76  1/21/77  3/10/77  5/19/77    7/19/77   9/14/77
 Offsite Well  No.  1
    level  1              200
    level  2              220.
    level  3
    level  4              224
            40
           100
           6
          15

          20
         35
         115

         290
           30
          100

          250
 24
 66

195
 Offsite Well No. 2
    level 1
    level 2
    level 3
    level 4
 Offsite Well No. 3
    level 1
    level 2
    level 3
    level 4
  Offsite Well  No.  4
    level  1
    level  2
    level  3
    level  4
  Offsite Well  No.  5
     level  1
     level  2
     level  3
     level  4
  Offsite Well No. 6
     level 1
     level 2
     level 3
     level 4
  320
  320

  270
280
210
350
130
   270
   230
   250
   210
   250
   230
   260
   270
   220
   220
   200
   370
   310
   270
   230
130
   1
 100
 110
  35

 110
  90
 90
130
300
250
260
180
250
  4
  6
210
 55
  20
  40
  70
 190
 175
  85
 250
 250
 35
100
265
250
 80
275
325
275
275
250
 50
 60
 175
 215
  35
 140
 250
25
115
250
230
30
190
60
270
190
200
215
215
15
40
200
225
35
__
265
41
67
170
185

120
42
230
60
65
120
105
18
26
50
75
30
50
240
*  Concentrations  in  ppm.
t  —  insufficient sample.
                                 323

-------
             TABLE  IE.  TQTAL  ORGANIC CARBON ANALYTICAL
             RESULTS FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE  WELLS  (PHASE  II)*

Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4

10/31/76

25
48
	 t
44

46
4
18
19

20
32
37
30

88
107
82
73

171
381
144
81

—
11
25
7

1/21/77

5
6
—
«. ••

7
4
4
3

—
—
5
•**

—
—
154
8

264
77
—
21

—
4
—

Sample
3/10/77

4
5
—
4

2
3
5
5

—
4
3
3

91
260
7
9

50
72
16
4

5
1
5
3
Dates
5/19/77

3
4
--
3

2
2
3
6

—
—
3
6

5
6
6
6

8
2
5
3

—
6
3
5

7/19/77

4
3
-—
4






4
3
2
3

3
3
2
4

5
4
4
3

—
5
—
4

9/14/77





i
i
X 1
^ 1
2
C
9
L.

0
o
1
5

3
2
4
3

4
8
3
.

— -»
3
3
3
* Concentrations  in ppm.
+—  Insufficient sample.
                                324

-------
                 TABLE  IF .   CADMIUM ANALYTICAL  RESULTS
                  FOR SITE 1  OFF-SITE WELLS  (PHASE  II)*

Off site Well No. I
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4

10/31/76
<0.001

-------
               TABLE 1G .  CHROMIUM ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates

Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
10/31/76

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01


-------
              TABLE  1H.  COPPER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
               FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates

Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
10/31/76

<0.01
<0.01
4-

<0.01
0.08
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

-------
                    TABLE  11  .   IRON ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR
                     FOR SITE 1  OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates

Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
10/31/76

1.50
<0.01
__ +
2.20

23.00
5.50
<0.01
0.09

0.04

-------
              TABLE  1J.   MERCURY  ANALYTICAL  RESULTS
               FOR SITE 1  OFF-SITE WELLS  (PHASE II)*
bamole Dates

Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
10/31/76
0.0002
<0.0002X
1/21/77
0.0020
0.0005
3/10/77
0.0009
0.0004
5/19/77
<0.0002
<0.0002
7/19/77
<0.0002
<0.0002
9/14/77
<0.0002
0.0035
    level 3
    level 4
<0.0002
0.0005   <0.0002   <0.0002    0.0095
  Offsite  Well  No.  2
    level  1
    level  2
    level  3
    level  4
  Offsite Well  No.  3
     level  1
     level  2
     level  3
     level  4
  Offsite Well No. 4
     level 1
     level 2
     level 3
     level 4
  Offsite Well No. 5
     level 1
     level 2
     level 3
     level 4
  Offsite Well  No.  6
     level 1
     level 2
     level 3
     level 4
* Concentrations  in  ppm.
+ --  Insufficient sample.
0.0003
0.0002
<0.0002
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
0.0005
<0.0002
<0.0020
<0.0002
0.0002
<0.0002
0.0003
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0003
0.0003
<0.0002
<0.0002
. . —
0.0003
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0009
0.0007
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0002
— . 	
<0.0002
0.0006
0.0008
0.0006
0.0010
0.0010
0.0006
0.0006
0.0020
0.0020
0.0010
0.0004
0.0007
0.0005
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0004
0.0017
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0007
0.0004
0.0006
0.0005
0.0005
0.0010
0.0004
0.0002
0.0005
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
	
<0.0002
<0.0002
O.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
O.0002
O.0002
O.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0008
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0002
0.0047
0.0024
0.0072
0.0065
0.0033
O.0002
0.0014
O.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0018
0.0017
O.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
                                   329

-------
                  TABLE  IK.   NICKEL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                  FOR  SITE  1  OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates

Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
OffsiteStell No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
10/31/76

<0.01

-------
                 TABLE 1L .   LEAD ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                 FOR SITE 1  OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates

Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
10/31/76

0.030
0.030
— t
0.040

0.020
0.050
0.010
<0.005

<0.005
<0.005
0.050
0.020

<0.005
0.020
0.060
0.010

<0.005
<0-005
<0.005
<0.005

<0.005
<0.005
0.210
0.210
1/21/77

<0.005
0.006
—
"

<0.005
<0.005
0.380
0.070

--
--
<0.005
— —

--
--
<0.005
<0.005

<0.005
<0.005
--
<0.005

<0.005
3/10/77

—
--
--
0.010

0.170
0.050
0.360
<0.005

—
0.020
0.030
<0.005

<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.009

<0.005

-------
                    TABLE 1M . "ZINC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                    FOR SITE 1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*

Off site Well No.
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No.
level 1
level 2
level 3 .
level 4
Off site Well No.
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No.
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No.
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No.
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4

10/31/76
1
0.08
0.23
— t
0.14
2
1.80
0.63
0.03
0.01
3
<0.01
0.11
0,35
0.13
4
0.03
0.06
0.11
0.17
5
0.05
0.16
0.05
0.01
6
0.04
<0.01
0.71
0.48

1/21/77

0.01
0.01
—
— ~

0.58
<0.01
0.87
0.04

--
_.
0..01


—
—
0.01
<0.01

0.01
0.01
—
0.01

—
<0.01
..
~ ~
Sample
3/10/77

0.06
0.06
—
0.03

0.95
0.18
0.72

-------
               TABLE  IN.  SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                      FOR SITE  1 OFF-SITE WELLS (PHASE II)*

Off-Site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off -Site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off-Site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off-Site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off-Site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off -Site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4

10/31/76 1/21/77

__t 44
55
— —
--

75
62
73
60

_ — — —
_ _ — —
58
--

_ .. — —
_ _ — —
_ _ — —
76
1120
54
70

1580
Sample
3/10/77

33
50
_ _
66

87
54
79
67

__
63
51
68

81
106
66
68
51
44
71
64

57
31
66
66
Dates
5/19/77 7/19/77

380
570
__ — —
920

300
480
1020
880

350
620
380
990

900
970
870
870
880
530
940
920

" 290
II 920

9/14/77

380
560
—
810

380
360
840
820

--
510
360
850

680
880
790
800
1060
660
810
840

280
320
820
* Specific conductance in ymhos/cm.

t— Insufficient sample.
                                    333

-------
                                     TABLE  2.   ANALYTICAL  RESULTS FOR SITE 2, PHASE II
GO
CO
•£»
Sample Date
Background
11/1/76
1/21/77
3/10/77
5/18/77
7/18/77
9/13/77
In-Refuse
11/1/76
1/21/77
3/10/77
5/18/77
7/18/77
9/13/77
Constituents*
Cd
Well
0.001
0.003
—
<0.001
<0.001
<0.002
Well
0.005
0.010
—
0.005
O.005
0.020
Deep Off-Site Well
11/1/76
1/21/77
3/10/77
5/18/77
7/18/77
9/13/77
0.007
<0.001
__
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
Cr

<0.01
<0.01
—
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

0.03
0.04
--
0.04
0.02
0.03
(OS-2)
0.01
<0.01
__
<0.01
0.01
0.01
Cu

<0.01
<0.01
--
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

0.03
0.03
—
<0.01
<0.01
0.03

<0.01
<0.01
—
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
Fe

0.42
0.94
__
0.59
1.20
0.76

5.50
1.90
--
1.20
1.50
1.70

4.40
2.10
__
1.96
1.10
1.10
Hg

<0.0002
0.0020
--
<0.0002
<0.0004
0.0004

<0.0002
<0.0002
—
<0.0002
0.0002
0.00025

0.0130
0.0040
__
0.0003
0.0005
0.0027
N1

<0.01
<0.01
--
<0.01
<0.01
0.01

0.16
—
--
0.20
0.12
0.09

<0.01
<0.01
_-
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Pb

0.130
0.019
—
0.019
0.014
0.037

1.400
0.150
—
0.240
0.440
0.370

1.500
0.075
_-
0.121
0.150
0.126
Zn

0.11
1.20
—
0.13
0.09
0.08

0.32
1.40
—
0.18
0.06
0.20

0.08
7.90
__
0.14
0.22
0.15
Cl

180
191
—
26
25
75

61 #
70
—
4
576
4

68
47
_-
9
43
15
S04

90
35
--
50
70
97

950
1250
--
1290
1400
723

160
160
__
270
230
76
TOC

89
10
--
3
2
12

520
451
—
346
318
148

99
52
__
13
16
19
Sp. Cond.

— t
190
--
--
1360
610

--
850
700

7500
4400

_ —
3000
250
--
2900
1160
     *Spec1fic  conductance In pmhos/cm, all other constituents concentrations  in  ppm.
     ''"--  Insufficient sample.
     #  Possible interference.

-------
oo

f*>
en
                                        TABLE 3A.  ANALYTICAL  RESULTS FOR SITE 3

                                   IN-REFUSE AND ORIGINAL  OFF-SITE  WELLS (PHASE II)
Sample Date
In-Refuse
11/1/76
1/20/77
3/8/77
5/16/77
7/18/77
9/12/77
Off-Site
11/1/76
1/20/77
3/8/77
5/16/77
7/18/77
9/12/77
Constituents*
Cd
Well
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.005
<0.005
0.010
Well (OS-X)
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.007
0.015
0.002
Cr

0.12
0.46
0.07
0.06
0.01
0.01

<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
<0.01
Cu

0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
<0.01
<0.01

0.04
0.05
0.10
<0.12
0.28
<0.01
Fe

6.5
9.1
15.0
17.0
24.8
16.0

14.0
40.0
23.0
28.5
86.0
2.2
Hg

<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0010
0.0003
0.0002
0.0002

0.0005
0.0002
0.0040
0.0005
0.0003
O.0002
Ni

0.02
0.30
0.28
0.08
0.05
0.04

0.10
0.15
0.13
0.10
0.21
0.02
Pb

0.150
0.065
0.470
0.240
0.140
0.090

0.090
0.120
0.270
1.900
0.310
0.037
Zn

0.16
1.80
0.41
0.65
<0.01
0.10

0.44
1.90
0.48
0.60
1.10
.09
Cl

12
26
30
<2
19
11

1
<2
1
<2
<2
<2
so4

20 #
4
12
30
70
33

50
20
30
30
30
25
TOC

2240
2028
1790
8
70
76

166
4
3
18
7
5
Sp. Cond.

__t
25000
24000
--
7500
8000

--
180
130
—
1500
1130
    *Specific conductance in ymhos/cm, all other constituents concentrations in ppm.



    •(•--Insufficient sample.



    # Possible interference.

-------
TABLE 3B.  ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 3 BACKGROUND WELL  (PHASE  II)
Sample Dates
Constituents*
11/1/76
Chlorides
level 1 24
level 2 21
level 3 70
level 4 16
Sul fates
level 1 60
level 2 50
level 3 87
level 4 50
Total Organic Carbon
level 1 110
level 2 99
level 3
level 4 126
Specific Conductance
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Cadmium
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Chromium
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Copper
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Iron
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4

0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02

111.0
<0.0
0.0
42.0
1/20/77
146
19
14
4
40
25
40
4
6
5
8
4
110
97
85
72

<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001

<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

10.0
6.3
85.0
9.2
3/8/77
<2
<2
<2
25
20
17
16
15
9
87
88
2400

0.015
<0.001
0.003
—

0.06
<0.01
0.03
—

0.01
<0.01
0.04
—

280.0
6.1
60.0
—
5/16/77
<2

-------
TABLE 3B
(continued)
Constituent*
Mercury
level
level
level
level
Nickel
level
level
level
level
Lead
level
level
level
level
Zinc
level
level
level
level

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4


11/1/76

0.0003
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002

0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.040
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.41

Sampl
1/20/77

<0.0002
0.0005
<0.0002
<0.0002

<0.01
<0.01
0.12
<0.01

<0.005
<0.005
0.047
<0.005
0.02
<0.01
0.29
0.01








e Dates
3/8/77 5/16/77

0.
0.
<0.


0.
0.
0.
—

0.
0.
0.
--
1.
<0.
0.


0030
0080
0002
f

61
01
48


250
010
080

40
01
33


0.
0.
<0.
<0.

0.
0.
0.
0.

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0003
0004
0002
0002

57
15
02
08

063
093
008
033
93
40
57
38
7/18/77

<0
<0
<0
<0

0
<0
0
<0

0
<0
0
<0
0
0
0
0

.0002
.0002
.0002
.0002

.22
.01
.02
.01

.180
.005
.015
.005
.78
.01
.05
.01
9/12/77

0
<0

-------
                TABLE 3C .   CHLORIDE  ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4

11/1/76

—t
99
74
115

2
2
120
57

99
100
110
3600

100
58
95
88

97
—
96
36

110
63
90
84

1/20/77

100
96
98
•w

1510
< 2
38
58

< 2
140
94
142

27
33
119
94

82
86
126
24

88
52
83
79
Sample
3/8/77

1
1
< 2
"

< 2
< 2
< 2
< 2

< 2
< 2
< 2


3
4
3

v.
2
—
66
< 2

< 2
< 2
8
4
Dates
5/16/77

<2
<2
<2


<2
<2
<2
<2

<2
<2
<2


<2
<2
<2


<2
51
20
<2

<2
<2
<2
<2

7/18/77

<2
<2
<2
• _>

<2
<2
<2
<2

<2
<2
<2
"

<2
<2
<2


2
—
7
<2

<2
<2
2
3

9/12/77

<2
<2
<2
™ ™

<2
<2
<2
2

<2
<2
<2
"

4
4
2


15
27
12
5

<2
<2
<2
2
Concentrations  in ppm.
t— Insufficient sample.
                                   338

-------
               TABLE 3D.   SULFATE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates

Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
11/1/76

__t
240
160
» ~

25
25
25
30

200
200
210
200

140
110
140
125
130
130
80
125
80
150
130
1/20/77

175
225
160
__

1
83
50
45

8
180
160
100

50
60
115
165
115
125
110
75
45
85
160
125
3/8/77

150
170
125
•" ~

3
1
30
35

3
150
90
"

40
50
75
™ ~
50
115
50
55
85
140
85
5/16/77

110
100
85
" ~

3
1
110
160

45
90
85
"

45
45
50
""
55
150
65
40
30
85
105
100
7/18/77

90
125
70
— ™

2
1
45
45

15
65
65


40
35
50
"
60
40
4
30
35
85
85
9/12/77

61
100
58
~ —

3
1
113
45

33
65
72


30
30
35

33
cc
bo
34
i 7
1 /
28
40
61
66
* Concentrations  in  ppm.

t—  Insufficient sample.
                                 339

-------
       TABLE  3E.    TOTAL  ORGANIC CARBON ANALYTICAL RESULTS


Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4

11/1/76
__t
114
55

176
158
35
68
94
70
46
** ™

35
30
167
14
14
135
181
18
32
106
9

1/20/77
38
42
9

35
34
10
11
185
61
26
30

6
8
3
4
1
5
2
2
19
6
6
7
Sample
3/8/77
5
3
6

27
14
16
8
97
24
8


5
6
8

8
4
4
4
3
2
5
Dates
5/16/77
11
9
8

24
26
7
8
19
19
12


7
6
7

10
7
9
15
13
9
12

7/18/77
9
8
3

17
24
6
5
39
26
7



6

6
4
5
4

4
6

9/12/77
3
3
4

22
23
3
5
31
20


•3

2

3
3
4
2
A
•3
O

* Concentrations  in  ppm.
i"--  Insufficient sample.
                                 340

-------
              TABLE  3F .   CADMIUM ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates
11/1/76
Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4



-------
             TABLE 3G .   CHROMIUM ANALYTICAL  RESULTS
              FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*

Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
1 eve! 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4

11/1/76

__t
<0.01
0.05
0.01

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
~~

0.04
0.03
<0.01
<0.01

0.03
0.24
0.02
0.03

0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01

1/20/77

<0.01
0.01
<0.01
"

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01

<0.01
<0.01
0.01

-------
TABLE 3H . COPPER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*

Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4

11/1/76

__ t
<0.01
0.33
0.16

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

<0.01
0.01
<0.01
— —

0.33
0.21
0.08
<0.01
0.26
0.37
0.22
0.16
0.28
<0.01
0.02
0.04

1/20/77

<0.01
0.10
<0.01
--

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

<0.01
0.03
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
0.24
0.11
0.06
0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
Sample
3/8/77

<0.01
0.01
<0.01
--

<0.01
<0.01
0.14
<0.01

<0.01
0.06
<0.01
™" —

0.12
<0.01
0.03
"
0.04
<0.01
0.22
<0.01
0.03
0.16
<0.01
Dates
5/16/77

<0.01
0.10
0.12
--

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

-------
                  TABLE  31 .   IRON ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                 FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates

Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
11/1/76

— t
2.9
140.0
44.0

5.3
1.4
0.03
0.1

84.0
5.9
0.5
...»

120.0
120.0
140.0
1.5

83.0
230.0
81.0
105.0

83.0
420.0
13.0
26.0
1/20/77

0.3
120.0
27.0
-—

8.2
0.5
3.7
5.5

3.5
38.0
270.0
160.0

3.3
66.0
160.0
<0.01

0.3
82.0
40.0
60.0

9.7
6.6
16.0
1.4
3/8/77

4.6
16.0
6.4
— ~

31.0
13.0
180.0
9.2

57.0
61.0
220.0
— —

69.0
5.3
23.0
—

28.0
—
0.02
110.0

0.3
44.0
85.0
2.5
5/16/77

8.2
176.0
152.0
— —

31.0
29.0
88.0
35.0

409.0
284.0
291.0


125.0
109.0
203.0


186.0

144.0
81.0

66.0
246.0
106.0
186.0
7/18/77

8.9
7.6
32
__

31.0
28.0
15.0
4.7

49.0
17.0
231.0
—

4.5
36-0
96-0


59.0
347.0
56.0
258.0

7.8
30.0
80.0
210.0
9/12/77

6.9
6.9
7.1
— —

49.0
32.0
3.7
1.9

91.0
41 .0
32.0


2.2
3.9
5.6
—

n.o
279.0
78.0
114.0

5.4
264.0
90.0
m.o
Concentration in ppm.
t~ Insufficient sample.
                                   344

-------
              TABLE  3J .  MERCURY ANALYTICAL RESULTS
               FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE  II)*
Sample


Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
11/1/76
__ t
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0005
1/20/77
<0.0002
<0.0002
0. 0020
3/8/77
0.0020
0.0020
0.0030
Dates
5/16/77
o'
0.
0002
0005
,0003
7/18/77
0.0008
<0.0002
<0.0002
9/12/77
<0.

-------
               TABLE 3K .   NICKEL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
Sample Dates

Off site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
11/1/76

__ t
<0.01
0.20
0.15

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

0.13
0.01
0.01


0.24
0.16
0.24
<0.01

0.22
0.49
0.23
0.23

0.24
0.47
0.03
0.05
1/20/77


-------
                    TABLE 3L.   LEAD ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                   FOR SITE 3 OFFSITE WELLS (PHASE II)*
                                                       :

                                              Sample  Dates
n/i/76
Off site
level
level
level
level
Off site
level
level
level
level
Off site
level
level
level
level
Off site
level
level
level
level
Off site
level
level
level
level
Off site
level
level
level
level
Well No. I
1
2
3
4
Well No. 2
1
2
3
4
Well No. 3
1
2
3
4
Well No. 4
1
2
3
4
Well No. 5
1
2
3
4
Well No. 6
1
2
3
4



-------
               TABLE  3M .  ZINC ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR
                 FOR SITE  3 OFFSITE  WELLS  (PHASE II)*

Offsite Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Offsite Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4

11/1/76

_.t
<0.01
1.70
0.54

0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01

0.96
0.08
0.05
—_

1.10
0.79
0.91
0.01

1.00
1.10
0.88
0.95

0.80
1.20
0.14
0.23

1/20/77

0.07
0.85
0.12
~

0.01
0.01
0.03 •
0.01

0.01
0.11
0.77
0.43

0.05
0.22
0.57
0.01

0.01
0.70
0.28
0.71

0.06
0.19
0.17
0.02
Sample
3/8/77

0.03
0.15
0.04
—

0.10
0.03
0.92
0.10

0.09
0.37
0.98
—

0.62
0.07
0.17
—

0.21
-_
0.02
1.10

0.01
0.21
0.63
0.04
Dates
5/16/77

0.73
1.40
0.73
~—

1.50
1.40
0.62
0.26

1.00
1.20
1.60
—

0.56
0.55
1.10
—

0.90
__
0.91
0.31

0.50
0.87
1.30
0.91

7/18/77

0.07
0.03
0.17
_ .

0.03
0.03
0.08
0.01

0.03
0.03
1.00
__

0.07
0.20
0.53
—

0.49
2.40
0.64
1.20

0.12
0.15
1.70
1.00

9/12/77

0.03
0.10
0.02
~"~

1.90
0.04
0.01
0.05

0.21
0.17
0.17
— —

0.10
0.14
0.09
—

0.08
1.60
0.95
0.85

0.04
0.86
3.20
0.44
* Concentrations in ppm.

i" — Insufficient sample.
                                 348

-------
              TABLE 3N.   SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE  ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                    FOR  SITE  3  OFFSITE  WELLS (PHASE II)*

Off-Site Well No. 1
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off-Site Well No. 2
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off-Site Well No. 3
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off -Site Well No. 4
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off-Site Well No. 5
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4
Off-Site Well No. 6
level 1
level 2
level 3
level 4

11/1/76 1/20/77

— t 1420
1120
1240
--
10000
1400
83
90
2000
1260
1200
1540
62
68
1000
83
85
78
470
64
1120
82
1100
1200
	 -
Sample Dates
3/8/77 5/16/77

1040
1000
97
__ — —
1700
1500
84
80
2000
1340
1060
"
54
55
81
™" """
75
73
60
95
95
1020
88

7/18/77

950
950
980
""
1320
2150
930
900
1800
1450
1200

600
600
600

780
670
600
1120
1080
1100
980

9/12/77

880
920
950

1310
2150
830
890
1320
1230
1040

500
385
610

470
670
540
360
1040
1020
1030
900
=
*Specific conductance in ymhos/cm.

t--Insufficient sample.
                                     349

-------
                                 TABLE  4.  ANALYTICAL  RESULTS  FOR SITE  4,  PHASE  II
co
en
o
Constituents*
Sample Date
Cd
Background Well
11/23/76 <0.001
1/19/77 0.001
3/7/77 0.001
5/21/77 <0.001
7/21/77 <0.001
9/16/77 <0.001
In-Refuse Well
11/23/76 0.010
1/19/77 <0.005
3/7/77 0.005
5/21/77 0.005
7/21/77 <0.005
9/16/77 <0.005
Shallow Off-Site Wei
11/23/76 0.001
1/19/77 0.002
3/7/77 0.003
5/21/77 0.002
7/21/77 0.001-
9/16/77 0.003
Cr

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

0.06
0.85
0.11
0.14
0.14
0.11
i (os-i;
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
Cu

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

0.07
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.03
)
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Fe

3.20
0.26
<0.01
0.04
0.07
0.90

13.00
1.50
0.80
0.21
20.00
13.00

1.60
3.30
0.27
0.07
0.06
0.45
Hg

O.0002
0.0007
0.0003
<0.0002
0.0030
0.0190

<0.0002
0.0005
0.0002
<0.0002
0.0002
<0.0002

<0.0002
0.0020
<0.0002
0.0010
0.0004
0.0007
Ni

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

-------
                                   TABLE 5.  ANALYTICAL RESULTS  FOR  SITE  5,  PHASE  II
co
en
Sample Date
Background
11/15/76
1/21/77
4/1/77
5/19/77
8/1/77
9/21/77
Constituents*
Cd
Well
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Cr

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Cu

0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
Fe

4.40
0.82
2.60
0.97
0.37
0.53
Hg

<0.0002
0.0010
0.0005
<0.0002
0.0002
0.0041
Ni

0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Pb

0.260
0.010
0.010
<0.005
<0.005
0.005
Zn

0.09
<0.01
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.41
Cl

37
10
9
11
13
21
S04

9
145
1
1
2
1
TOC

30
24
11
8
4
1
Sp. Cond.

130

__
86

120
Off-Site Well (OS-1)
11/15/76
1/21/77
4/1/77
5/19/77
8/1/77
9/21/77
0.005
0.009
0.010
0.004
0.008
0.001
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.06
<0.01
0.19
0.55
0.41
0.27
0.37
0.04
65.00
230.00
130.00
80.00
110.00
28.00
<0.0002
0.0010
0.0003
< 0.0002
0.0004
0.0005
0.04
0.08
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.01
0.040
0.100
0.040
0.031
0.074
0.005
0.07
0.13
0.18
0.14
0.21
0.11
61
32
33
27
41
33
14
130
23
32
50
35
23
21
9
5
7
5
500
— —
-._
560
— _
660
     Specific conductance in ^mhos/cm, all other constituents concentrations in ppm.

    "-- Insufficient sample.

-------
                                    TABLE  6.   ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 6,  PHASE  II
CO
en
ro
Sample Da
te
Cd Cr
Constituents*
Cu
Fe
Hg
N1
Pb
Zn
Cl
so4
TOC
Sp. Cond.
Background Well
11/10/76
1/10/77
3/30/77
5/17/77
7/26/77
9/16/77
Off -Site
11/10/76
1/10/77
3/30/77
5/17/77
7/26/77
9/16/77
Off -Site
11/10/76
1/10/77
3/30/77
5/17/77
7/26/77
9/16/77
Off -Site
11/10/76
1/10/77
3/30/77
5/17/77
7/26/77
9/16/77
<0.001 <0.01
<0.001 <0.01
<0.001 <0.01
<0.001 <0.01
< 0.001 <0.01
0.001 <0.01
Well No. 3 Level
<0.001 <0.01
—
—

-------
   TABLE 6.  (continued)
co
Sample Dat
Off-Site
11/10/76
1/10/77
3/30/77
5/17/77
7/26/77
9/16/77
Off-Site
11/10/76
1/10/77
3/30/77
5/17/77
7/26/77
9/16/77

,u
Cd
Well No. 1
<0.001
<0.001
__
__
0.004
--
Well No. 2
__
--
<0.001
—
<0.001
0.002
Constituents
Cr
(OS-1)
<0.01
<0.01
--
—
0.01
--
(OS-2)
—
--
<0.01
--
<0.01
<0.01
Cu

<0.01
<0.01
--
--
0.01
--

__
—
<0.01
--
<0.01
<0.01
Fe

1.50
0.12
--
--
0.03
--

__
—
0.09
--
0.11
0.21
Hg

0.0003
<0.0002
--
--
0.0005
—

__
—
0.0002
—
0.0004
<0.0002
Nl

0.02
<0.01
--
__
0.01
—

	
__
<0.01
-.
<0.01
<0.01
Pb

0.030
0.026
--
--
0.020
--

_ „
__
<0.005
__
<0.005
<0.005
Zn

0.01
0.12
--
--
0.02
--

	 ,
__
0.07
__
0.02
0.08
Cl

27
5
__
__
__
—

_ _
— -
3
__
6
4
so4

4
2
__
_-
_-
--

_ _
_ _
3
__
4
3
TOC Sp. Cond.

3 55
1
—
—
-._ __
—

— i — — —
— — — -
1 41
— 	
1 44
2
   *Specific conductance in umhos/cm,  all  other constituents  concentrations  in  ppm.
   — Insufficient sample.

-------
CO
en
                                       TABLE 7.  ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SITE 7, PHASE II
Sample 'Date
Background
11/12/76
1/11/77
3/31/77
5/18/77
7/26/77
9/19/77
In-Refuse
11/12/76
1/11/77
3/31/77
5/18/77
**/ i +* f • •
7/26/77
9/19/77
Constituents*
Cd
Well
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Well
<0.001
0.010
<0.005
0.010
<0.005
0.005
Cr

0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

0.03
0.12
0.08
<0.01
<0.08
0.15
Cu

<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.01
<0.01
0.01

<0.01
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.05
Fe

6.20
1.10
5.30
0.69
3.30
4.70

1.60
9.40
4.70
6.00
2.70
7.80
Hg

<0.0002
0.0006
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002

<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0002
0.0011
0.0002
0. 0008
Ni

0.02
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01

0.01
0.06
0.05
0.11
0.12
0.15
Pb

0.020
<0.005
0.007
<0.005
<0.005
0.008

0.005
0.060
0.050
0.020
0.250
0.040
Zn

0.05
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.03

0.19
0.26
0.14
0.06
0.08
0.15
Cl

14
8
3
4
5
4

36
5
3
3
26
423
S04

9
10
8
8
10
8

1
1
6
10
15
1
TOC

225
8
2
4
2
1

184
78
395
69
59
94
Sp. Cond.

57+
__t
__
250
--
240

4115
--
_ _
4400
--
10000
    Garage  Water  Well

    11/12/76    <0.001
<0.01   <0.01
0.25   <0.0002   <0.01   0.005   2.30
28
10
   *Specific  conductance in pmhos/cm,  all  other constituents  concentrations in ppm.

   '''--  Insufficient sample.

-------
   TABLE 7.  (continued)
OJ
en
en
Sample Da
Off-Site
11/12/76
1/11/77
3/31/77
5/18/77
7/26/77
9/19/77
Off-Site
11/12/76
1/11/77
3/31/77
> 5/18/77
} 7/26/77
9/19/77
Off-Site
11/12/76
1/11/77
3/31/77
5/18/77
7/26/77
9/19/77

i It;
Cd
Well No. 1
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
Well No. 2
0.001
O.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.002
0.001
Well No. 3
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
Constituents
Cr
(OS-1)
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
(OS-2)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
(OS-3)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
Cu

0.01
0.03
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
0.10

<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.01
<0.01
0.16

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Fe

12.0
14.0
9.6
5.0
14.0
26.0

1.7
3.4
3.0
1.6
3.6
16.0

6.3
6.8
1.2
2.1
3.9
3.1
Hg

0.0003
0.0007
0.0040
<0.0002
<0.0011
• 0.0008

<0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0007

0.0004
0.0007
0.0004
<0.0002
0.0014
0.0003
Ni

0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.05

0.02
0.02
0.01
<0.01
<0.02
0.02

<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.03
Pb

0.050
0.064
0.040
<0.005
<0.047
0.033

0.010
<0.005
0.008
<0.005
<0.005
0.021

0.005
0.009
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
*
Zn

0.08
0.29
0.18
0.01
0.05
0.13

0.23
0.12
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.14

0.02
0.14
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.09

Cl

171
42
78
209
26
13

108
52
58
79
193
26

124
66
52
60
117
140

S04

9
10
9
7
1
2

6
8
4
1
1
1

6
10
8
9
10
8

TOC

44
16
8
26
16
10

19
17
9
17
7
8

39
5
3
5
6
3

Sp. Cond

635
--t
--
1200
—
1500

555
--
—
680
—
2400

740
--
--
730
--
1000
   *Specific conductance  in ymhos/cm, all  other  constituents  concentrations in ppm.

   -t~--  Insufficient sample.

-------
                                   TABLE  8.   ANALYTICAL  RESULTS  FOR SITE 8,  PHASE  II
OJ
in
Sample Date
Constituents*
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni Pb
Zn
Cl
S04
TOC
Sp. Cond.
Background Well
11/11/76
1/12/77
3/30/77
5/18/77
7/26/77
9/19/77
In-Refuse
11/11/76
1/12/77
' 3/30/77
5/18/77
9/18/77
Original
11/11/76
1/12/77
3/30/77
5/18/77
7/27/77
9/18/77
<0.001
0.002
<0.001

-------
TABLE 8. (continued)
Sample Date
Cd
Constituents
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
*
Zn

Cl

so4

TOC

Sp. Cond.
Shallow Off-Site Well (OS-1)
11/11/76 0.003
1/12/77 <0.001
3/30/77 <0.001
5/18/77 <0.001
7/27/77 <0.001
9/18/77 <0.001
Deep Off-Site Well
11/11/76 0.001
1/12/77 <0.001
3/30/77 <0.001
5/18/77 <0.001
7/27/77 <0.001
9/18/77 <0.001
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
(OS-3)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.04
0.04
<0.01

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
94.00
1.20
1.80
0.82
18.00
0.52

1.10
24.00
0.35
30.00
23.00
65.00
<0.0002
0.0006
0.0013
0.0002
<0.0002
0.0018

0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0019
0.07
<0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.01

0.16
0.04
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.090
O.005
0.005
O.005
<0.005
<0.005

O.005
0.009
0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.06
0.39
0.17
0.14
0.19
0.07

0.04
0.13
O.05
0.07
0.04
0.03
32
11
11
8
17
17

41
12
<2
<2
4
<2
5
3
<1
<1
3
1

260
50
37
24
13
1
27
18
9
14
13
9

688
225
268
191
184
31
1060
-t
--
1400
--
340

1165
__
--
1000
--
1000
  Specific conductance in ymhos/cm, all  other constituents conentrations in ppm.
 '"-- Insufficient sample.

-------
                            APPENDIX F

                        NATIONAL PRIMARY
                    DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
 Maximum  Contaml nan-t  Levels for  Inorganic Chemicals

      Contaminant      Level  (mg/1)    Contaminant     Level (mg/1)

      Arsenic           0.05           Lead            0.05
      Barium            1.            Mercury         0.002
      Cadmium           0.010         Nitrate-N      10
      Chromium          0.05           Selenium        0.01
                                     Silver          0.05
Fluorides  - When the  annual  average  of the maximum daily  air
temperatures for the  location in which the public  water system
is situated is the following, the corresponding  concentration
of fluoride shall not be exceeded:

      Temperature (in
       degrees F)            (degrees C)        Level  (mg/1)

      50.0-53.7               10.0-12.0           2.4
      53.8-58.3               12.1-14.6           2.2
      58.4-63.8               14.7-17.6           2.0
      63.9-70.6               17.7-21.4           1.8
      70.7-79.2               21.5-26.2           1.6
      79.3-90.5               26.3-32.5           1.4


 Maximum Contaminant  Levels  for Organic Chemicals

 The maximum contaminant level for the total concentration  of
 organic chemicals is  0.7  mg/1.

 Maximum Contaminant  Levels  for Pesticides

      Chlorinated Hydrocarbons                   Level  (mg/1)

      Endrin                                   0.0002
      Lindane                                  0.004
      Methoxychlor                              0.1
      Toxaphene                                0.005
                                358

-------
     Chlorophenoxys                           Level (mg/1)

     2,4-0                                   0.1
     2,4,5-TP Silvex                           0.01


Maximum Microbiological Contaminant Levels

Two methods may be used:

(1)  When membrane filter technique is used, coliform densities
shall not exceed one per 100 milliliters as arithmetic mean
of all samples examined per month and either

       •  Four per 100 milliliters  in more than one standard
          sample when  less than  20  are examined per month; or

       •  Four per 100 milliliters  in more than five percent
          of the standard samples when 20 or more are examined
          per month.

(2)(a)  When fermentation tube method  is used  and 10 milliliter
standard  portions, coliforms  shall  not be present in more  than
10 percent of the portions  in  any month; and either

       o  Three or more portions in one  sample when  less  than
          20 samples are examined  per  month; or

       o  Three or more portions in more  than  five  percent of
          the samples  if 20  or more samples  are examined  per
          month.

   (b)  When fermentation tube method  i.s  used  and 100 ml Hi liter
standard  portions, coliforms  shall  not be  present in more  than
60 percent of the portions  in  any  month;  and  either

        o  Five  or more portions  in  more  than  one  sample  when
          less  than  five  samples are  examined; or

        o  Five  or more portions  in  more  than  20  percent  of
          samples when five samples or more  are  examined.

 Maximum  Contaminant Level  of Turbidity
                               359

-------
turbidity units may be allowed if supplier can demonstrate
to State that higher turbidity does not:

       o  Interfere with disinfection;

       «  Prevent maintenance of an effective disinfectant
          agent through the distribution system; and

       «  Interfere with microbiological determinations.


*Secondary drinking water standards  for  chloride and sulfate
  are 250 mg/1, and for copper  and zinc are 1 and 5 mg/1,
  respectively.  The 1962  USPHS drinking  water standard for
  iron is 0.3 mg/1.
                             360

-------