NEIC
EPA-330/1-82-002
THE EFFECTS OF CAPPING ON LEACHATE PRODUCTION
AT THE LaBOUNTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
October 1982
National Enforcement Investigations Center, Denver
G.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF LEGAL AND ENFORCEMENT COUNSEL
EPA-330/1-82-002
THE EFFECTS OF CAPPING ON LEACHATE PRODUCTION
AT THE LaBOUNTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
October 1982
Steven W. Sisk
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Denver. Colorado
-------
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
CONCLUSIONS 3
METHODS *
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 7
PRECIPITATION 7
WATER TABLE FLUCTUATIONS AND GROUNDWATER FLOW 7
RIVER STAGE 10
GROUNDWATER QUALITY 13
RIVER LOADING 46
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A WATER QUALITY DATA FROM MONITORING WELLS
8 SAMPLE BOTTLE AND TUBING BLANK DATA
C STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
TABLES
1 Summary of Precipitation Data for June 1979 through May 1382 8
2 Mean Monthly Water Levels for Selected Rock Wells 11
3 Sequential 12-Month Average Water Table Gradients Between M0179R and Selected Rock Wells .... 12
4 Summary of River Stage Data from the USGS Cedar River Gaging Station 14
5 Results of Student t-Tests Conducted on Data from the Main Plume Wells 36
6 Summary of Pollutant Load Contributions from the LaBounty Site to the Cedar River 47
FIGURES
1 Site Location for LaBounty Disposal Site 2
2 Monitoring Well Locations 9
3 Monthly River Stage Date 15
4 Mean Concentrations of ONA, TCEA, and As in First Downgradient Wells 16
5 Data Graph for M0179R 18
6 Data Graph for MD279R 19
7 Data Graph for M0379R 20
8 Data Graph for M0279A 21
9 Data Graph for M0379A 22
10 Data Graph for M0779AS 24
11 Data Graph for M0779AO 25
12 Data Graph for M0779R 26
13 Data Graph for M0679AS 27
14 Data Graph for M0679AO 28
15 Data Graph for M0679RS 29
16 Data Graph for M0679RD 30
17 Data Graph for M0979A 31
18 Data Graph for H0979R 32
19 Data Graph for M0879A 33
20 Data Graph for M0879R 34
21 Data Graph for M0479A 39
22 Data Graph for M0479R 40
23 Data Graph for H0579A 41
24 Data Graph for M0579R 42
25 Data Graph for M1179R 43
26 Data Graph for M1079A 44
27 Data Graph for M1079R 45
-------
INTRODUCTION
Between 1953 and 1977, Salsbury Laboratories (Salsbury) of Charles
City, Iowa, disposed of wastes from the production of animal pharmaceuti-
cals on leased property known as the LaBounty site. The disposal area en-
compasses land on and adjacent to the Cedar River flood plain [Figure I].1
Investigations by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Iowa Department of Environmental Quality, in 1977 and 1978, revealed that
major waste components--orthonitroanil ine, 1,1,2 trichloroethane, and ar-
senicwere being leached from the disposal site and transported by ground-
water to the Cedar River. Approximately 200,000 people living downstream
from Charles City use the Cedar River or groundwater in adjacent alluvium
for water supplies.
Responding to an Administrative Order by EPA Region VII in Kansas City,
Missouri, Salsbury constructed a 24-well groundwater monitoring system at
the LaBounty site during the summer of 1979 and completed a clay cap over
the wastes in the fall of 1980. Since October 1979, Salsbury has monitored
groundwater quality, water table elevations, rainfall, and pollutant contri-
butions to the Cedar River at the LaBounty site. Monitoring results were
provided to EPA in a series of monthly reports. The data set presently
comprises 32 months of data, 12 months of results before the cap was com-
pleted and 20 months after.
In April 1982, the EPA Region VII Office of Regional Counsel requested
the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) to review and evalu-
ate the monitoring data to determine if site capping had affected leachate
production. If the cap were effective in reducing pollutant releases, then
decreases would be expected in contaminant concentrations in downgradient
wells and loadings to the Cedar River. However, other variables (precipi-
tation, water table fluctuations, groundwater flow rates and river stages)
could also potentially produce concentration and loading decreases. To
isolate the effects of capping, the other variables were first evaluated to
determine if significant changes had occurred during the 32-month monitor-
ing period.
-------
IGURE 1
SITE LOCATION, LaBOUNTY DISPOSAL SITE
(FROM REFERENCE 1. FIGURE 11
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Capping has not effectively reduced pollutant leaching where wastes
are below the water table; however, it has been effective where wastes are
above the water table. Capping has resulted in non-uniform decreases in
pollutant loadings to the Cedar River, ranging from 4 to 58%. Pollutant
concentrations in groundwater and river loadings indicate that waste dis-
posed of below the water table is the primary source of groundwater
contamination.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (TCEA) concentrations decreased in only 1 of 10
wells downgradient from wastes below the water table but did decrease
in wells downgradient from wastes above the water table. TCEA loading
to the Cedar River only declined about 4% after accounting for a de-
crease in groundwater flow of about 9%.
Arsenic (As) concentrations decreased in only 3 of 10 wells downgradi-
ent from wastes below the water table but generally decreased in wells
downgradient of wastes above the water table. Arsenic loading to the
Cedar River decreased by approximately 26%, after adjusting for the
decrease in groundwater flow under the site.
Orthonitroaniline (ONA) concentrations decreased in 6 of the 10 wells
downgradient from wastes below the water table and generally decreased
in wells downgradient of wastes above the water table. ONA loading to
the Cedar River decreased by approximately^58%, after accounting for
the decrease in groundwater flow.
-------
METHODS
To determine if capping has affected leachate production at the La-
Bounty site, the following were evaluated for significant changes during
the 32-month monitoring period:
precipitation
water table fluctuations (some wastes were disposed of below the
water table)
groundwater flow
river stage
groundwater quality
pollutant loading to the river (river loading)
The first four are variables other than capping that could potentially
affect groundwater quality and river loading. Precipitation was evaluated
by reviewing daily records from June 1979 through May 1982. Annual precipi-
tation totals from significant storms for the 3-year period were calculated
and compared. To assess water table fluctuations, mean monthly water levels
were calculated for bedrock wells that bracket the site upgradient and down-
gradient, then data from the first and last 12-month periods (before and
after capping) were compared. Water table gradients were calculated between
these bedrock wells and evaluated for four sequential periods for differ-
ences which would reflect changes in groundwater flow. River stage data
from a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station just upstream of the
LaBounty site were evaluated for changes during the 32-month monitoring
period by comparing monthly ranges and means.
Once these variables were assessed, groundwater quality and river load-
ing data were evaluated. Water quality data for ONA, TCEA, and As from all
monitoring wells were tabulated from the monthly reports submitted by Sals-
bury [Appendix A]. These data were plotted on graphs that were qualita-
tively evaluated for significant changes.
-------
A statistical analysis (Student t-test) of the water quality data was
also conducted to determine if there were significant differences in the
data collected before and after the cap was installed. Data collected dur-
ing the 8 months after capping were not used in the statistical analysis.
Previous estimates of groundwater flow rates between the disposal site ana
the river indicate a travel time of about 8 months; therefore, this period
was considered to be one of transition.2 3
The Student t-test, used to make a statistical comparison between a
sample data set and a known population where the sample size is less than
30, was applied to the well data using this equation:
where: x = sample mean (last 12-mo data)
jj = population mean (first 12-mo data)
S = standard deviation of the sample (last 12-mo data)
n = sample size (last 12-mo data)
Calculated t-values are compared to standard statistical tables that pres-
ent t-value ranges for various "levels of significance". The level of sig-
nificance that can be assigned to the calculated t-value is directly pro-
portional to the confidence that x and u are statistically equal.4 s 6
T-values calculated for the well data were evaluated at the 0.05 and 0.01
levels of significance.
Statistical analysis of data from the upgradient wells indicated sig-
nificant differences between the first and last 12-mo data. Because of the
low pollutant concentrations in these wells, laboratory interferences were
suspected. Data on blank samples, subsequently obtained from Salsbury,
[Appendix B] indicated a laboratory problem that was substantially reduced
(coincidental ly, after capping) in August 1981 by changing blank water.
Blank corrections were not made on any data submitted in Salsbury1 s monthly
reports.
Due to this uncertainty about the reported "pre-capping" low level
concentrations for some wells, statistical analyses are presented only for
those wells with high pollutant concentrations in the main leachate plume.
-------
These data are free from significant interferences by blank water contami-
nation and, consequently, are more meaningful in assessing the effects of
capping.
Data for pollutant loading to the Cedar River from the first and last
12 months of the monitoring period were also compared to determine if the
loading had decreased after capping. The results of this evaluation, how-
ever, are qualified because the data record is incomplete. Three of 12
data points are missing from the before-capping period, and 5 of 12 data
points are missing from the after-capping period.
-------
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
PRECIPITATION
When a storm occurs, only part of the precipitation infiltrates the
ground to recharge groundwater flow. When storms of low intensity occur,
none of the water may infiltrate to the water table; therefore, when compar-
ing rainfall data, storm intensities must be accounted for. Results of a
previous evaluation of precipitation and water table responses at the La-
Bounty site suggest that any storm not yielding at least 0.25 inches of
precipitation in 48 hours will not cause a noticeable change in water table
elevations.2
Monthly summaries of daily precipitation were reviewed for the 3-year
period between June 1979 and May 1982. Data from these records are summar-
ized in Table 1. Monthly precipitation data were adjusted to represent
only significant storms [Table 1]. The adjusted data indicate some monthly
changes, but only a minor decrease in annual precipitation during the 3-year
period with a 9% decrease from the first year to the last. The decreased
precipitation resulted in reduced groundwater recharge and flow, which is
quantified and evaluated in the following section.
WATER TABLE FLUCTUATIONS AND GROUNDWATER FLOW
One bedrock well upgradient of the disposal site (M0179R) and four
downgradient (M0479R, M0779R, M0979R, and M1179R) were chosen for evaluat-
ing water table fluctuations and the groundwater flow rate under the dis-
posal site [Figure 2].* These wells were selected because they bracket the
disposed wastes, are all in the bedrock portion of the surficial aquifer,
and exhibit large differences in water table elevations across the site,
thereby minimizing the impact of any minor measurement errors on gradient
calculations.**
* The groundwater monitoring system comprises 11 well nests with locations
designated by the first two digits following the letter N (e.g., M1179
is at location 11). Suffix letters designate individual wells at each
location (e.g., A, alluvial well; R, bedrock well; AS and RS, shallower
well; AD and RD, deeper well).
** The surficial aquifer comprises Cedar River alluvium and the weathered
upper portion of the underlying bedrock as determined while installing
the monitoring wells.7
-------
Table 1
SUMMARY OF PRECIPITATION DATA
FOR JUNE 1979 THROUGH MAY 1982
LaBOUNTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
Date
Monthly
Total
Precipitation
(in)
Adjusted
Monthly Total
Precipitation
(in)
Date
Monthly
Total
Precipitation
(in)
Adjusted
Monthly Total
Precipitation
(in)
Date
Monthly
Total
Precipitation
(in)
Adjusted
Monthly Total
Precipitation
(in)
06/79b
07/79
08/79
09/79
10/79C
11/79
12/79
01/80
02/80
03/80
04/80
05/80
Totals
6.29
7.06
13.60
1.31
3.50
2.40
0.50
1.99
0.67
0.70
1.67
3.66
43.35
5.84
6.87
10.18
1.05
3.20
2.30
0.50
1.63
0.56
0.53
1.37
3.56
37.59
06/80
07/80
08/80
09/80
10/80
11/80
12/80
01/81
02/81
03/81
04/81
05/81
4.37
3.55
12.96
3.07
2.43
0.37
0.31
0.11
2.04
0.45
6.65
2.85
39.16
4.30
3.32
12.66
2.84
2.32
0.30
-
-
1.50
0.42
6.46
2.71
36.83
06/81
07/81
08/81
09/81
10.81
11/81
12/81
01/82
02/82
03/82
04/82
05/82
7.12
5.33
4.65
1.49
1.92
1.21
0.89
1.82
0.20
1.91
3.06
7.28
36.88
7.12
5.33
4.62
1.47
1.59
1.00
0.59
1.40
-
1.32
3.02
6.76
34.22
a Monthly precipitation data were adjusted by subtracting the results of storms that resulted in <0.25 inches of precipi-
tation in 48 hours.
b Data supplied by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for 6/79 to 9/79 from Charles City station.
c Data from Salsbury's monthly reports for 10/79 to 5/82 from Charles City station.
00
-------
O
H
X
O
2
O
<
m
.-"*
M0379-A
M0379-R
A
A
M0279-A
M0279-R
C
CO
A
M0179-A
M0179-R
ro
M0679-
M0679-AD
M0679-RS
M0679-RD
M0779-AS
M0779-AD
M0779-R
LEGEND
LIMIT Of DISPOSED WASTE AS
IDENTIFIED BY BORINGS AND
SALSBURY PERSONNEL
NESTED MONITORING WELL
GROUNDWATER HOW
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
WASTES DISPOSED OF BELOW
THE WATER TABLE
MONITORING WELLS
DOWNGRADIENT OF WASTES
DISPOSED OF BEIOW THE
WATER TABLE
M1079-A
M1079-R
FIGURE 2
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
10
Mean monthly water level data for the wells calculated from weekly
measurements made by Salsbury personnel [Table 2], indicate seasonal varia-
tions of about 4 feet. Averages calculated for the first and last 12-mo
periods reveal that the only notable changes were declines at M0179R and
M1179R. The effect of these declines is to slightly flatten the water table
and decrease the hydraulic gradient across the site.
The hydraulic gradient together with the width, height, and permeabil-
ity of the zone through which groundwater moves are used to calculate the
rate of flow. At the LaBounty site, the permeability and flow width are
presumed to be relatively constant. The height of the zone of groundwater
flow, represented by water table elevations, has been relatively constant
during the monitoring period, as previously discussed. Therefore, changes
in groundwater flow may be evaluated in terms of changes in the hydraulic
gradient.
Water table gradients between M0179R (consistently the highest mea-
sured water table elevation at the site) and the downgradient wells were
calculated for four sequential 12-mo periods [Table 3]. These data quan-
tify the decrease in hydraulic gradient that has occurred during the moni-
toring period. The average decrease between the first and last calculated
gradient is 9%. The largest decrease was between M0179R and M1179R (19%).
Because the gradient is directly proportional to groundwater flow, a
decrease in flow under the disposal site (approximately 9%) during the mon-
itoring period is suggested. This decrease in groundwater flow can be at-
tributed to a concurrent decrease in precipitation. Consequently, if all
other variables remained constant, a 9% decrease in pollutant loading to
the river would be expected.
RIVER STAGE
River stage (water level elevation in the river) provides a hydraulic
pressure that groundwater flow must overcome before it can move into the
-------
11
Table 2
MEAN MONTHLY WATER LEVELS
FOR SELECTED ROCK WELLS3
LaBOUNTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
Date M0179R
10/79 984. 69b
11/79 985.01
12/79 983.78
01/80 982.75
02/80 981.76
03/80 981.82
04/80 983.35
05/80 982.23
06/80 984.31
07/80 985.16
08/80 987.58
09/80 985.67
10/80 985.00
11/80 982.61
12/80 981. 32
01/81 980.40
02/81 980.66
03/81 981.82
04/81 984.10
05/81 985.54
06/81 985.42
07/81 985.74
08/81 985.35
09/81 983.93
10/81 98Z. 16
11/81 981. 38
12/81 981. 17
01/82 980.29
02/82 980.04
03/82 980. 56
04/82° 986.92
First 12-
mo. mean 984.01
Last 12-
mo. mean 982.73
a Means were calculated
from consecutive days
average was used with
b Values are expressed
M0479R
975.38
975.93
975.21
974.95
974.91
975.49
975.55
974.71
976.88
975.84
977.63
977.38
975.61
974.91
974.59
974.58
974.74
974.61
975.44
975.77
976.78
975.71
975.97
975.72
974.89
974.64
974.62
975.08
975.19
974.85
978.20
975.41
975.62
from Salsbury1
M0779R
975.03
975.54
974.76
974.57
974.10
974.97
974.98
974.30
975.72
975.26
975.27
976.72
975.09
974.49
974.24
974.26
974.42
974.21
974.23
975.32
975.43
976.06
975.50
975.12
974.55
974.28
974.26
974.69
974.77
974.46
977.12
975.10
975.13
M0979R
975.79
975.40
974. 54
974.02
974.11
973.99
974.83
974.01
975.40
975.10
976.57
976.42
974.93
974.23
973.98
973.96
974.14
973.98
974.64
975.06
975.24
975.94
975.23
974.92
974.22
974.95
973.97
974.28
974.36
973.97
977.21
975.02
974.95
s monthly reports. When water
were encountered, they were
other readings
to determine
M1179R
983.98
983.75
982.80
982.16
980.59
981. 36
982.44
981.30
983. 17
983.58
985.07
984.32
982.99
981.72
980. 28
979.46
979.92
980.76
983.25
984.47
984.44
984.81
984.78
982.93
981.39
980.59
980.31
979.52
979.53
979.82
984.26
982.88
981.91
levels
averaged, then that
the monthly mean.
as feet above mean sea level.
c Table ends at 4/82 because only one
measurement was made in 5/82.
-------
12
Table 3
SEQUENTIAL 12-MONTH AVERAGE WATER TABLE GRADIENTS
BETWEEN M0179R AND SELECTED ROCK WELLS3
LaBOUNTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
Gradient f ft/100 ft1)
Period M0179R - M0479R
of Time
01/80-12/80
05/80-04/81
01/81-12/81
05/81-04/82
(1,000 ft)
0.079
0.078
0.078
0.076
M0179R - M0779R
(1,225 ft)
0.071
0.069
0.067
0.066
M0179R - M0979R
(950 ft)
0.093
0.091
0.089
0.087
M0179R - M1179R
(375 ft)
0.032
0.033
0.023
0.026
a Gradients were calculated from the data presented on Table 2 and the distances
indicated above.
-------
13
river. River stages measured during the monitoring period were evaluated
to determine if significant changes had occurred.
Daily river stage data from the USGS gaging station on the Cedar River,
0.4 mi upstream of the LaBounty site, are routinely recorded by Salsbury
personnel. Monthly means and ranges were determined for these data [Ta-
ble 4] and are shown graphically on Figure 3. Although very high stages
were occasionally observed, mean monthly levels varied by only about 2 ft.
The variations appear to reflect seasonal changes with no significant dif-
ferences during the monitoring period that would alter the rate of ground-
water inflow.
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Because changes in precipitation, groundwater flow, and river stage
were found to be minimal during the monitoring period, any major changes
observed in groundwater quality downgradient from the disposal site would
be attributed to capping.
Knowing the location of the main leachate plume is critical to under-
standing the significance of perceived changes in groundwater quality at
any given well. The general location of the plume was established by cal-
culating average pollutant concentrations for the 32-months of data for
selected wells in the first perimeter line downgradient from the disposal
site (wells M0479A, M0779AD, M0979A, and M1179R). The selected wells had
the highest pollutant concentration at each well nest location; bedrock
well M1179R is the only well at location 11.
The mean concentration data are shown graphically on Figure 4. The
data suggest that the ONA plume is centered near well M0979A while the TCEA
and As plumes are centered near M0779AD. Although different plume centers
are indicated for these chemicals, the main plume body appears to pass
through the M07 and M09 well nests.* Groundwater quality data from wells
* TCEA concentrations in M0479A and N0579A were the highest of all wells
before capping but declined significantly after capping, as will be
shown subsequently. Because these decreases are not comparably re-
flected in reduced river loadings, these wells are judged to be out-
side the main mass of the plume.
-------
14
Table 4
SUMMARY OF RIVER STAGE DATA
FROM THE USGS CEDAR RIVER GAGING STATION6
Charles City, Iowa
Date
10/79
11/79
12/79
01/80
02/80
03/80
04/80
05/80
06/80
07/80
08/80
09/80
10/80
11/80
12/80
Mean
Stage
975.72
976.49
975.59
975.51
975.32
976.45
976.08
975.72
976.79
975.52
978.01
976.84
975.88
975.56
975.39
Range
975.32 -
976.09 -
975.32 -
975.24 -
975.13 -
975.23 -
975.55 -
975.19 -
975.44 -
975.16 -
975.15 -
975.79 -
975.61 -
975.43 -
975.09 -
977.23
977.72
976.09
976.42
976.04
980.99
977.73
984.42
981.37
976.96
984.32
981.06
976.24
975.76
975.57
Date
02/81
03/81
04/81
05/81
06/81
07/81
08/81
09/81
10/81
11/81
12/81
01/82
02/82
03/82
04/82
Mean .
Stage0
975.49
975.41
975.80
976.19
976.21
977.28
976.72
975.94
975.59
975.45
975.32
975.29
975.14
977.40
977.47
Range
975.09 -
975.25 -
975.80 -
975.55 -
975.53 -
975.55 -
975.62 -
975.40 -
975.30 -
975.38 -
975.08 -
975.21 -
974.97 -
974.90 -
976.32 -
976.62
976.10
977.45
977.23
979.52
982.21
979.46
977.92
976.07
975.57
975.52
975.80
975.20
982.25
980.41
a Summarized from data presented in Salsbury's monthly reports.
b Expressed as feet above mean sea level
-------
NOTE. DATA FOR THIS GRAPH IS PRESENTED ON TABLE 4.
985-
984-
983-
982-
981-
980-
979-
978-
977-
976-
975-
MONTHLY MAXIMUM
MONTHLY MEAN
MONTHLy MINIMUM
I ' ' I '
OCT 79 JAN 80
Till
I I 1 I
JAN 81
l I I l I
JAM 82
FIGURE 3
MONTHLY RIVER STAGE DATA
FROM THE USGS CEDAR RIVER GAGING STATION
CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
80
2 60-
h-
2
s
40-
20-
ORTHONITROANILINE
i
vt
5
i
10-
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
4OO
300-
2OO-
1OO
M0479A
M0779AO
M0979A
M1179R
FIGURE 4
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF ONA, TCEA, AND AS
IN FIRST WELLS DOWNGRADIENT FROM THE DISPOSAL SITE
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
17
farther downgradient indicate that the plume continues through the M06 and
M08 wells [Figure 2]. As discussed later, the main plume wells are down-
gradient from wastes disposed of below the water table.
Water quality data from the monitoring wells were qualitatively ana-
lyzed for the periods before and after capping to determine if changes had
occurred. Data from each well were plotted on graphs with vertical scales
selected primarily to illustrate variations in concentrations rather than
for well-to-well comparisons. As previously noted, data from wells in the
main leachate plume were statistically analyzed for changes occurring after
capping. Water quality data for ONA, TCEA, and As, tabulated from Sals-
bury1 s monthly reports, are presented in Appendix A.
Upgradient Wells
The upgradient wells are completed in bedrock (M0179R, M0279R, and
M0379R) and in the overlying unconsolidated materials (M0179A, M0279A and
M0379A). Well M0179A has been dry since it was constructed. . Water quality
data for the other upgradient wells are presented in Figures 5 through 9.
The data indicate low level contamination that is generally highest at
M0179R.
The low level contamination in these wells is attributed to upgradient
contamination from the Salsbury plant [Figure 1] and/or from leaking sewer
lines carrying Salsbury1s wastewater. Other evidence suggesting these
sources are contaminated groundwater seeps and springs on the south bank of
the Cedar River near the east bridge in Charles City. As much as 36 micro-
grams per littr (ug/£) of ONA, 370 ug/£ of TCEA, and 1 milligram per liter
(mg/£) of As have been measured in these groundwater discharges.8
Data for ONA from the bedrock wells reveal that after some high ini-
tial values, concentrations declined to less than 0.2
-------
18
I 0
8
3
2
ORTHONITROANItlNE
I'M1
Ocl 79 Jon 80
i i i I i i J i i I r i i i i r
Jon 81
i I I I I T
Jan 82
30C'-
400-
§ J0°-
200-
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
i i t j r i r i T i r i T i i j r i i i i i i i i i t i
Oct 79 -Ion BO Jon 81 Jan 82
i I I 1
0
8
y
ARSENIC
I I J I I I i i /
Oct 79 Jan 80
i I I j I I <
Jon 31
« i i | i r
Ian 82
FIGURE 5
DATA GRAPH FOR M0179R
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
19
S 8-
4
S
s
2-
ORTHONITROANILINE
DETECTION LIMIT VALUES
I I I j I I I ! i i I I i I I j i 1 I I T
Oct 79 Jan 80 Jan 81
I I I T I i i
Jon 82
20-
I
ae
2
8
15-
10-
5-
1. 1, 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
OETECTION LIMIT VALUES
j I I j i 1 J I 1 I I I i 1 I j 1 I I i i I I I I i I i I I I I
Ocl 79 Jon 80 Jon 81 Jan 82
010-
008-
< 006-
oe
O
2 _,
U 004-
002-
\
ARSENIC
I I I
Oct 79 Jan 80
I i I I T T I I I I I I I I I T I I I I I
Jan 81 Jan 82
FIGURE 6
DATA GRAPH FOR MO279R
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
20
5
o
2
ORTHONITROANILINE
i I < I i i i i i i
Jon 82
80
60-
40-
I 20H
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
I T I [ I I i I 1 j j I I J j j I f
Ocl 79 Jon BO Jan 81
' I I I
J
Jan 82
010
ju 008-
£ 006-
= OOi-
002.
013
ARSENIC
I ' ' T '
Ocl 79 Jan 80
I I i I I I I I I j "''
Jon 81
I I I I I I I I
Jan E2
FIGURE 7
DATA GRAPH FOR MO379R
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
21
1 1?5
1 D
< jr
« *
o
I-
ORTHONITROANILINE
j I I j i
Ocl 79 J0r> 80
i I I J J I J « i I i I j I I J
Jon 81
I I I I I 1 I I
Jon 37
25
XI
I '
10-1
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
| ' ' I ' '
Oct 79 Jon 80
I ill i I I I I I I rr
ion B I
f I I 1 I I I 1 I I
Jon 8?
010
01S
2 oic_
OOi
059
| I I | I I I i I II I I I I I I *
Ocl 79 Jon 80 Jon 81
I I I I i I I I j 1 T I I I
Jan 82
FIGURE 8
DATA GRAPH FORMO279A
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
22
5-
o
3-
2-
1-
ORTHONITRO ANILINE
-i-pr-r
Oel 79 Jon 80
160
40
Z 30-|
t/t
5 20-
O
S
z 10-
Jon 81
1. 1, 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
| ' ' I ' ' ' '
Ocl 79 Jon 80
n i i r i i i i i
Jon 31
i i i i i i i i i i
Jan 82
S 015-f
^
" 010
I
5
£ 005-
Oct 79 Jan 80
i | i i
Jon 81
I I I I I I I i I I
Jan 82
FIGURE 9
DATA GRAPH FOR MO379A
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
23
In the two shallow wells ("A" wells), concentrations are variable but have
not exceeded 3.5 ug/£ since March 1980.
Concentrations of TCEA in well M0179R consistently range from 200 to
about 900 ug/£ with lower values observed in M0379R and the lowest in
M0279R, which is open just below the surficial aquifer. In the shallow
wells, TCEA concentrations generally range from 5 to 20 |jg/£.
Arsenic concentrations are also highest in M0179R, averaging about
0.05 mg/i since December 1980. Much lower concentrations were observed in
M0279R and M0379R, which occasionally peaked at about 0.01 mg/£. Except
for one value of 0.059 mg/£, concentrations in the shallow wells were gen-
erally less than 0.02 mg/£.
Downqradient Wells
For the purpose of discussion, the downgradient wells are divided into
those in the main leachate plume (Main Plume Wells) and those outside (Other
Downgradient Wells), as previously defined.
Main Plume Wells
The wells in this group include:
M0679AS M0779R
M0679AD M0879A
M0679RS M0879R
M0679RD* M0979A
M0779AS M0979R
M0779AD
Water quality data for these wells are shown graphically on Figures 10-20.
The figures are arranged so as to first proceed downgradient on the north-
ern side of the disposal site (M07 to M06 wells), then downgradient on the
eastern side (M09 to M08 wells).
* Well N0679RD is included here because of its map location only. This
well was installed to monitor a zone just below the surficial aquifer.
Pollutant concentrations in this well are in the range of values observed
in wells constructed upgradient of the disposal site.
-------
24
ORTHONITROANILINE
Jon 82
S 20-
I
1, 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
Ocl 79 Jon 80
I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I
Jon 81 Jon 82
260'
240
200-
180-
UO-
120
100.
-o,
|l
79 Jon BO
I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I | I I I
Jon 81 Jo" 82
FIGURE 10
DATA GRAPH FOR MO779AS
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
25
so
E 40-
!g 30-
5
g»H
10
ORTHONITROANILINE
| I I T i
Oct 79 Jon 80
i I i I
I I < I I I I
Jon 81
I I I I
I I I I I I
Jan 82
40
35
£ 30
M
0 55-
20-
1, 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
| J I | t t I I I I I
Ocl 79 Jon 80
I J
I I '
Jan 81
I I I I I I
Jon 82
SCO
z 4M-i
5
£ 400-1
VI
8 350
ARSENIC*
300-
I F ' I '
Ocl 79 Jan 80
1^IiII I
Jan 81
I I I | I
Jan 8?
FIGURE 11
DATA GRAPH FORMO779AD
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
26
10
6
ORTHONITROANILINE
I ' ' I '
Oci 79 Jon 80
4 | i i < | I I i I t I I I
I Jon 81
I lilt II
Jon 82
122
12
g 10
J-
2
s .
S 8<
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
Oei 79
1 I | I I
Jan BO
n r i i
i j i i i i < i i
Jan 81
I '
Jan 82
II
I 1 I I I t I i I I I I I
FIGURE 12
DATA GRAPH FOR MO779R
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
27
13-
'2-
£
S 8-"
f
ORTHONITROANILINE
I f I I
Oci 79 Jon SO
' I
till
Jon BI
I I I I I 1 I
Jon 82
1. 1,2 TR1CHLOROETHANE
£ 2C-1
0
i
r t i j
, 79 Jan SO
r i f i
I I
Jon 81
i j I I I I I I
I '
Jan 87
1 II
200-
150-
£
CK
§ 50-1
C-
I 1 I I I I i I I
Oci T> Jon BO
Jon 8 I
1 I I I I I I I
Jon 8?
FIGURE 13
DATA GRAPH FOR MO679AS
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
28
25
20
= 15-
1 ,_!
ORTHONITROANILINE
j i
Oci 79
J I . I
Jan 80
i T i r i r
Jan 81
i r
i n
Jon 87
20
£
t/l
<
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
, i I , 1
Ocl 79 Jon 80
i r i j rii / jirjiriijiri i i i i i i
Jan 81 Jan 82
250
200
150
^ 100
z
SO-
ARSENIC
I . . I .
Ocl 79 Jan BO
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
Jan 81
I I I I I I
Jan 82
FIGURE 14
DATA GRAPH FORMO679AD
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
29
2*0
100
ORTHONITROANILINE
III i i I i i i
Ion 87
70
a.
*ft
10-
v\
1. 1, 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
Otl 79 Jon 80
SO
o- 30
tn
4
| 70
I
1 0
I I I J I | I I
I 1
Jon 81
?0 2
10
I
I I I j I I I I I
Jon 8?
| ' ' j I
Oct T> Jon 80
i I I I I I I [ I
Jon 81
1 1
I ( i I
Jan 82
I I
FIGURE 15
DATA GRAPH FOR MO679RS
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
30
!
u
I
2-
I
ORTHONITROANILINE
j i i j II r i i i i r
Od 79 Jon 80
I r r i i i i
Jon 81
i I I J
I I I I J II
Jon 87
15-
10
O
O
5_
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
VALUES ARE LESS THAN
DETECTION
I
1 '
Oct 79
i j 1 1 i 1
Jon 80
I i i 1 t I j 1 1 I 1 1 1
Jon 81
1 1 1 ' | "
Jon 82
1 1 1 1
03
FIGURE 16
DATA GRAPH FOR MO679RD
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
31
ORTHONITROANILINE
1. 1, 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
s
Oct 79
Jon BO
Jon 81
400-
£ 330-
h-
K 360-
5; 340-
| 3M-
= 300.
5 zsr.
26T-
"Si
= ! ARSENIC
I i I
Ocl 79 Jon 80
1 I '
Jan 81
1 I I
Jon 82
FIGURE 17
DATA GRAPH FOR MO979A
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
32
,10-
SS 30.
0.
s
5
_l
i
20-1
10-
ORTHONITROANILINE
I
j I i r i r i r
Oct 79 Jan 80
i i i
i
Jan 81
i i I I I I I I I J J
Jan 8?
3-
Z
2 2'
O
5
s
i'
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
O«t 79 Jon 80
1 I I I I I I i I I I I I
Jan 81
I | .
Jon 82
250-
200-
2 150+
wt
« 100
50.
260
O ,
i ' I '
Oct 79 Jan BO
i I i I r
I I I I I I 1 I I I I
Jan 81
I I
Jan 82
FIGURE 18
DATA GRAPH FOR MO979R
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
33
200
UJ
5 150-
£ 125-
ui
S 100-
S «
I 50-
ORTHONITROANILINE
1 '
Ocl 79
I | I 1 1 i 1 1 1
Jon SO
' ' ' ' I ' '
Jon 81
Jan 82
40
30
20-
10
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
Ocl 79 'a" 80
I I I
Jan 81
I I I
Jan 82
200-
S 150H
a.
\n
a 100-
O
50-
1111
Ocl 79 Jon 80
' I
Jan 81
I I I I I
I I I I I I
Jan 82
FIGURE 19
DATA GRAPH FOR MO879A
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
34
104
3
2
ORTHONITROANILINE
r
i i
Oci 79 Jon 80
I I I 1
I I j I
Jon 81
I I I I I II
Jon 82
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
iO
£ 30~
i/>
5 2°-
j I r j i I j I i J I i i l i jl ! I i i » I i 1 i I j I I I i I
t 79 Jon SO Jan 8! Jan 82
50-
K
£ 30-|
i
£ 30-
10.
I'M'
Oci 79 la* SO
' I ' '
Jan SI
Jon 8?
FIGURE 20
DATA GRAPH FOR MO879R
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
35
Pollutant concentrations in the main plume wells are significantly
higher than those in upgradient wells, with ONA and TCEA generally greater
than 1,000 ug/£ and As greater than 25 mg/£. Concentrations rang" up to
228,000 |jg/£ for ONA (M0879A), 44,000 ug/£ for TCEA (M0779AD), and 460 mg/£
for As (M0779AD).
The data graphs for these wells clearly show that ONA concentrations
have decreased in M0779AD, M0779R [Figures 11 and 12], and all the east-side
wells [Figures 17, 18, 19, and 20] since the cap was installed. Many of
the graphs for ONA, TCEA and As show an apparent decrease in concentration
variations after capping, which may reflect a damping effect of the cap.
To determine if other, less obvious changes had occurred, the first
and last 12 months of monitoring data were compared using the Student t-test
[Appendix C]. Some of the data from the first 12 months were not used in
calculating the population mean primarily because the omitted data appeared
grossly inconsistent. In most instances, only one data point was omitted
for each parameter. If more than one parameter from a given sample appeared
inconsistent, then all data from that sample were omitted. Most of the
omitted data were obtained during the summer of 1980.
The results of the t-test analysis are summarized in Table 5. Calcu-
lated t-values were compared to standard table values for the 0.05 and 0.01
levels of significance to determine whether the data sets are statistically
different. When significant differences were revealed, the t-values showed
the nature of the change because of the x-u term in the equation. Positive
t-values indicate an increase in pollutant concentration after capping,
while negative values indicate a decrease.
Six of the 10 main plume wells show a statistically significant de-
crease in ONA concentrations; in one, M0679AS, concentrations increased.
In the 6 northern wells (M06 and M07 nests), 4 showed either no change or
an increase in ONA concentrations. All 4 eastside wells (M08 and M09 nests)
in the main plume exhibited significant decreases in ONA concentrations.
-------
36
Table 5
RESULTS OF STUDENT T-TESTS CONDUCTED ON DATA
FROM THE MAIN PLUME WELLS3
LaBOUNTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
Calculated
Well t Value
M0679AS
M0679AD
M0679RSd
M0779AS
M0779AD
M0779R
M0879A
M0879R
M0979A
M0979R
5.55
-0.88
-2.98
1.98
-15.65
0.44
-15.91
-44.10
-27.99
-10.61
ONA
TCEA
As
Result at 0.05 Result at 0.05 Result at 0.05
Level of Calculated Level of Calculated Level of
Significance t Value Significance t Value Significance
SDb
NSD
SD
NSD
SD
NSD
SO
SD
SD
SD
0.68
0.57
1.05
12.27
-1.36
1.56
-0.47
-0.40
1.63
-11.48
NSDC
NSD
NSD
SD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
SD
0.34
2.26
-2.63
0.11
-0.42
3.24
-5.89
-1.46
-0.13
-15.21
NSO
NSD
SD
NSO
NSD
SD
SD
NSD
NSD
SD
a Raw data used for the t-test calculations are in Appendix A. Statistical data
used for the calculations and results are in Appendix C.
b SD means the first 12-mo data are significantly different from the last 12-mo
data.
c NSD means the first 12-mo data are not significantly different from the last
12-mo data.
d At 0.01 level of significance, ONA and As are NSD; in all other wells, the
results at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels are the same.
-------
37
Eight of the 10 wells had no significant change in TCEA concentrations.
Of the two showing changes, TCEA concentrations decreased in one (M0979R)
but increased in the other (M0779R). The well showing decreased concentra-
tions is on the east side of the disposal site.
Six of the 10 wells showed no significant change in As concentrations
while a significant increase was noted in M0779R. Two of the three wells
having concentration decreases were the bedrock wells on the eastern side
(M0879R and M0979R).
The data indicate statistically significant reductions in ONA concen-
trations in 60% of the main plume wells, TCEA decreases in 10%, and As de-
creases in 30%. Concentration reductions were more frequent on the east-
ern side of the fill with 7 decreases of 12 possible compared to 3 of 18 on
the northern side. Three wells on the north side revealed concentration
increases (ONA in M0679AS, TCEA in M0779AS, and As in M0779R) compared to
none on the eastern side.
Previous investigations of the LaBounty site indicate that the main
plume wells on the north side (M06 and M07 wells) are hydraulically down-
gradient from wastes disposed of below the water table.1 7 9 10 These
wastes are near the center of the south half of the fill [Figure 2]. Main
plume wells on the eastern side (M08 and M09 wells) may be on the periphery
of the plume originating from wastes below the water table. The observed
variations in concentration reductions in the main plume wells are attri-
buted to the location of wastes below the water table relative to ground-
water flow and the distribution of pollutants in these wastes. The ground-
water flow, which has not been affected by capping, apparently is continuing
to leach these wastes.
Other Downqrradient Wells
This group of wells comprises those located outside the main leachate
plume, including:
-------
38
M0479A M1079A
M0479R M1079R
M0579A M1179R
M0579R
Water quality data for these wells are shown graphically on Figures 21
through 27. The figures are arranged so as to first proceed downgradient
on the northern side of the disposal site (M04 to M05 wells) then downgra-
dient on the eastern side (Mil to M10 wells).
Pollutant concentrations in these wells are generally higher than those
in upgradient wells, but much less than in the main plume wells. The not-
able exceptions are the TCEA concentrations in the M04 and M05 wells, which
exceeded those of the main plume before capping (see footnote on p. 13).
ONA, TCEA, and As concentrations in the northern wells, except for
M0479R, declined substantially after capping. The drop in concentrations
was concurrent for the three pollutants with no suggestion of a significant
lag time phenomenon. Contaminant levels in M0479R also appeared to de-
cline; however, the data plot is inconclusive.
The obvious decline in pollutant concentrations on the northern side
of the disposal site is attributed to the wastes being above the water ta-
ble. When the cap was installed, the source of infiltrating water (i.e.,
the driving force) was essentially eliminated. Concentrations are expected
to continue declining as the groundwater flow flushes pollutants sorbed by
natural materials below the water table.
On the eastern side, ONA and As concentrations have declined in H1179R.
The only other apparent changes were declines in ONA in M1079R and TCEA in
M1079A. The changes are also probably related to capping; however, the
concentrations are low enough to have been affected by the change in labor-
atory blank water as previously discussed.
-------
39
8J
4
o
I
ORTHONITROANILINE
' * I > .
1 1
Oci 79
i f i r i i i i i
Jon 80
( I J 1 | f 1 I
Jan 81
r r
r i j i i
Jon 82
I'M11'
Oct T) Jan 80
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
Jon 81
Jon 82
40
I 2°H
Of
O
I ioH
I'M1'1
Otl 79 Jan 80
I J I T I
Jon 81
I I I I I I IT I [ I I I
Jon 82
FIGURE 21
DATA GRAPH FOR MO479A
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
40
8J
I
a
O
ORTHONITROANILINE
j I
Oct 79
I J I I
Jon BO
i i I I I
i j T
Jon 81
III I I i 1 I i J I
Jon 8?
40
3C-
S
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
\ ' ' I '
i 79 Jon 80
III II I I
I I I I I I
Jon 81
I I I 1
Jan 82
1
U
1
40
30
20-
-OH
i T i r-r
Oct 79 Jon 80
I I I I | I I I I I I I I
Jan 81
I I | I I I I I
Jon 8?
FIGURE 22
DATA GRAPH FOR MO479R
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
57
ORTHONITROANILINE
<
QE
0
52 8
50,
£ 30-
5 20-
5
10-
' I ' ' '
ion 82
I I I I I I I I I I J < I < I I < I I I ' I I I
Oct 79 Jon 80
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
t I I I
Oct 79 Jon 80
I I | I I
Jan 81
i I i i i n
Jon 82
20-
S 15H
i
S 10-
05-
AR5ENIC
I '
Oct 79
I I I J I I I I
Jon 80
Jan 81
1 I '
Jon 82
FIGURE 23
DATA GRAPH FOR MO579A
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
42
15 -
JO -
35 -
l-o-l.
O
QfiRTHONITROANILINE
A
j 1 I j I I I T
Oct 79 Jon 80
i T i r i I
Jan 81
, I/I I I I I | I J
V Jon 32
5
8-
6-
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
I'M'
Oct 79 Jon 80
i r r r T r
i i i i i
Jan 81
' ' I '
Jan 82
I I
5
4
a
13-
in
09
08-
07
06
0'-
ARSENIC
J . . , i
Ocl 79 Jon 80
1 i I I I I I
Jon 81
v
Y
Jan 82
FIGURE 24
DATA GRAPH FOR MO579R
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
43
9-
oe o
yj w^
*-
& 7'
6
s ,
< 5-
K
u
O f
i -
2
1 _
ORTHONITROANILINE
r r i i
Ocl 79 Jon BO
1 I '
Jan 81
i i i i i i i i i
Jan 82
400
£ 300-
200-
100
1, 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
T i f
79 Jon 80
i i i r
i i i r
i i i
Jan 81
i I I | I I
Jan 82
I I
16-
14-
I 8-
i i i i i i
Oct 79 Jan 80
i i i i
Jon 81
r i i i i i j i j
Jon 82
I <
FIGURE 25
DATA GRAPH FOR MO1179R
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
44
£ 7iJ
I 5°-
5
ORTHONITROANIL1NE
I I '
Ott 79 Jon 80
ion 81
Jor 87
80-
S 60-
I
S J
o
5
£ 50-
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
1111)111
Oci 79 Jon 80
Jon 81
I ' '
Jan 82
ARSENIC
30-
I -,
I ,oj
I ' I I I II I I I I l[llltllllllllllll
Od 79 Jan SO Jon 81 Jan 82
FIGURE 26
DATA GRAPH FOR MO1079A
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
45
1 i 1 2
u
i
I C
9
8
7
a
5
j
8 3-
ORTHONITROANILINE
j I I j I i i I i I
Oci 79 Jon 80
' I '
Jan 81
' I
Jon 62
130 .
120 .
£ no
« 100
&
* 90
2 30
o
i 70
i 60
so
4C
1. 1. 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
Oci 79
1 j i i 1 1 I 1 1 i i
Jon 80
Jon 81 J"n 82
= 03
s
01
TJ.
= '
o1
ARSENIC
j i i j i i i
Oct 79 Jan 80
r r
Jon 81
' I '
Jan 82
FIGURE 27
DATA GRAPH FOR MO1079R
LaBOUNTY SITE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA
-------
46
RIVER LOADING
Although the data record for pollutant loading to the Cedar River [Ta-
ble 6] Is incomplete because of missed samples (due to high flows and ice
cover), the data appear consistent with changes in groundwater quality in
the main plume wells. The ONA loading apparently declined 67% after cap-
ping, the TCEA loading decreased 13% and the As loading has decreased 35%.
These percentages are based on 9 data points from the first 12-mo period
and 7 data points from the last 12-mo period and were not adjusted for the
approximately 9% decrease in groundwater flow under the waste.* Once ad-
justed, these reductions would be 58%, 4%, and 26%, respectively.
The ONA loading before capping exceeded 10 Ib/day at least five times;
during the last 12 months, the load did not exceed 7 Ib/day. The average
loading before and after capping (first and last 12-month period) was 12.8
and 4.19 Ib/day, respectively.
Most of the TCEA loading data were reported as ranges because upstream
concentrations were frequently below detection limits. If the midpoints of
the ranges are used with the definitive values for evaluating the data, no
obvious differences are noted between the first and last 12-mo data sets.
However, the average loadings for these periods were 16.6 and 14.2 1b/ day,
respectively.
A similar comparison of the As data reveals that two loadings of over
100 Ib/day were measured before capping, and no loading over 70 Ib/day was
measured during the last 12 months. The average loadings for these periods
were 57.7 and 44.1 Ib/day, respectively.
* In calculating the ONA loading before capping, the spurious value of
80 Ib/day was omitted so that only 8 data points were used instead of 9.
-------
Table 6
SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOAD CONTRIBUTIONS
FROM THE LaBOUNTY SITE TO THE CEDAR RIVER
LaBOUNTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
47
Pollutant Loading (Ib/day)
Date
Orthon itroaniline
1,1,2 Trichloroethane
Arsenic
10/79
11/79
12/79
01/80
02/80
03/80
04/80
05/80
06/80
07/80
08/80
09/80
10/80
11/80
12/80
01/81
02/81
03/81
04/81
05/81
06/81
07/81
08/81
09/81
10/81
11/81
12/81
01/82
02/82
03/82
04/82
05/82
06/82
9.7
80.2 (?)
11.5
_c
-
-
13.9
7.05
25.9
19.6
3.55
11.2
10.6
5.42
3.11
-
-
3.53
4.11
6.65
3.92
-
-
5.3
1.12
3.2
2.46
-
-
4.46
7.0 (6.9-7.0)
-
5.8 (5.8-5.9)
11.4
12.3
23.6
-
-
-
13.6 (3.9-23.2)
10.0 (5.4-14.5)
30.4 (21.5-39.3
19.0 (11.7-26.4)
8.4 (4.6-12.2)
20. 8 (9.3-32.3)
8.1 (0-16.2)
9.0
7.0
-
-
9.4 (5.9-13)
3.0
24.5 (0-29)
9 (0-18)
-
-
22.5 (15-30)
5.5 (0-11)
9.8 (4.4-15.2)
7.9 (3.5-12.3)
-
-
6.1
22.4 (6.4-38.3)
-
25
36.1
38.8
65.9
-
-
-
35.2
47.4
106
49.3
38.4
102
35.6
38.2
34.6
-
-
48
64.2
82.5
48
-
-
66.1
25.8
19.6
22.8
-
-
41.7
63.8
-
68.8
(34.1-43.6)
(33.2-36.1)
(63.1-69.1)
(23.7-28.0)
(17.4-21.7)
(63.9-73.7)
b
c
Net loading values presented in Salsbury's monthly reports based on flow
proportionate sampling at Stations 11 and 12 in the Cedar River (just up
and downstream from the LaBounty site).
This value is inconsistent with other loading data and is suspect.
The dash indicates no data.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Conestoga-Rovers and Assoc., Nov. 1980. Hydrogeologic Evaluation,
LaBounty Lanfill site. Charles City, Iowa: Salsbury Lab. Inc.
2. April 6, 1981. Rainfall Effects on Leachate Production at the LaBounty
Site, Charles City, Iowa. Memo: from S. W. Sisk, Hydrologist, USEPA
National Enforcement Investigations Center, Denver, Colorado.
3. Munter, J. A., July 1980. Evaluation of the Extent of Hazardous Haste
Contamination in the Charles City Area. Iowa City, Iowa: Iowa Geol.
Sur., p. 50-53.
4. Leabo. D. A., 1968. Basic Statistics. 3rd ed. Homewood, Illinois:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., p. 190-238.
5. Zar, J. A., 1982. Power and Statistical Significance in Impact Eval-
uation. Groundater Monitoring Review 2:3, p. 33-35.
6. Hayslett, H. T., 1968. Statistics Wade Simple. Garden City, New York:
Ooubleday and Co., p. 92-95.
7. Sisk, S. W., Oct. 1979. Summary of Major Hydrogeologic Studies Con-
ducted at the LaBounty Chemical Dump Site, Charles City, Iowa. Kansas
City: USEPA Region VII.
8. Dahl, T. 0., Nov. 1978. NPDES compliance Monitoring and Water/Waste
Characterization, Salsbury Laboratories/Charles City, Iowa (June 19-30,
1978). Denver: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-330/2-78-019,
166 p.
9. Hickok, E. A., and Assoc., Aug. 1977. Soil Characteristics, LaBounty
Site. Des Moines, Iowa: Iowa Dept. Env. Qual.
10. Hickok, E. A., and Assoc., Aug. 1977. Waste Characteristics, Laflounty
site. Des Moines, Iowa: Iowa Oept. Env. Qual.
-------
APPENDICES
A WATER QUALITY DATA FROM MONITORING WELLS
B SAMPLE BOTTLE AND TUBING BLANK DATA
C STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
-------
APPENDIX A
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM MONITORING WELLS
-------
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM MONITORING WELLS
LaBOUNTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
A-l
Date
10/79
11/79
12/79
01/80
02/80
03/80
04/80
05/80
06/80
07/80
08/80
09/80
10/80
11/80
12/80
01/81
02/81
03/81
04/81
05/81
06/81
07/81
08/81
09/81
10/81
11/81
12/81
01/82
02/82
03/82
04/82
05/82
ONAa
.178
.32
.62
1.1
.34
.11
.42
.46
1.03
.45
.40
.39
-
.27
.60
.19
.12
.44
.29
.32
.18
.68
.37
.21
.24
.40
.12
.08
.21
.13
.18
.45
M0279A
TCEAb
52.8
12
15
12
7.7
24
27
9.
7
5
7
13
-
6
13
8
6
7
11
5
<5
15
6
5
6
<5
6
<5
<5
6
7
<5
M0379A
AsC
<.005
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
.005
.0046
<.002
<.002
.003
.003
.009
-
.003
<.002
.002
.018
.059
<.002
<.002
.012
<.002
<.002
<.002
.002
.002
.003
.002
.004
<.002
.003
<.002
ONA
8.80
.42
.48
18
3.7
.78
.71
4.5
<.015
12
4.2
5.2
1.5
3.3
5.3
2.1
.87
.84
1.4
2.9
2.7
2.2
2.4
1.9
2.1
2.4
.93
1.1
3.4
.29
.84
1.3
TCEA
45.8
14
160
11
16
50
9
7
13
16
12
26
57
9
19
13
11
7
41
<5
7
18
12
10
20
9
10
9
<5
8
11
6
As
.0045
.015
.0039
.0035
.0043
.0034
.0095
<.002
.044
.005
.006
.009
.005
.009
.010
.007
.009
.008
.005
.004
.007
.008
.012
.004
.010
.015
.024
.008
.009
.003
.019
.004
ONA
6,210
6,600
4,900
4,400
6,600
2,600
1,200
2,200
450
580
630
500
860
830
2,000
2,300
2,900
2,300
-
1,300
540
250
130
74
65
51
34
24
17
24
14
11
M0479A
TCEA
26,700
18,000
25,000
15,000
50,000
28,000
24,000
30,000
54,000
58,000
51,000
61,000
63,000
57,000
62,000
49,000
41,000
37,000
-
16,000
12,000
7,000
5,200
4,600
3,700
1,900
1,100
670
1,200
1,200
1,300
1,100
As
31
29
33
36
37
31
27
21
16
18
17
16
14
20
14
14
16
15
18
19
22
16.3
14.5
9.7
10.1
10.4
11.7
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.0
5.00
-------
A-2
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM MONITORING WELLS
LaBOUMTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
Date
10/79
11/79
12/79
01/80
02/80
03/80
04/80
05/80
06/80
07/80
08/80
09/80
10/80
11/80
12/80
01/81
02/81
03/81
04/81
05/81
06/81
07/81
08/81
09/81
10/81
11/81
12/81
01/82
02/82
03/82
04/82
05/82
ONA
121
370
330
200
160
160
140
300
240
680
570
200
140
81
64
69
84
50
45
40
33
50
48
57
56
50
49
74
71
59
31
21
M0579A
TCEA
52,800
40,000
64,000
55,000
55,000
28,000
15,000
40,000
48,000
48,000
29,000
9,100
11,000
11,000
12,000
9,600
9,500
7,600
10,000
6,500
9,200
14,000
17,000
15,000
18,000
15,000
13,000
12,000
9,900
9,500
5,100
2,600
M0679AS
As
.10
.17
.16
.19
.11
.12
.19
.13
.14
.18
.14
.14
.16
.10
.10
.08
.10
.14
.12
.08
.09
.10
.10
.08
.10
.09
.12
.09
.07
.05
.05
.052
ONA
6,440
8,700
8,400
6,000
6,800
8,200
6,800
7,300
7,100
7,700
7,800
9,000
9,700
11,000
13,000
8,700
8,600
9,100
8,600
9,800
8,300
8,400
8,600
8,800
9,200
8,900
9,700
12,000
12,000
9,300
10,000
9,200
TCEA
16,300
14,000
24,000
17,000
17,000
14,000
7,000
9,700
16,000
16,000
14,000
19,000
19,000
19,000
22,000
23,000
12,000
17,000
20,000
13,000
13,000
16,000
15,000
13,000
14,000
14,000
18,000
16,000
17,000
15,000
19,000
19,000
As
120
100
120
102
110
120
140
130
100
140
110
130
110
130
98
110
200
180
180
140
110
110
110
100
110
120
110
138
200
130
140
75
ONA
4,620
8,900
3,900
3,300
6,300
7,900
5,400
4,700
7,800
25,000
12,000
15,000
17,000
12,000
12,000
8,900
8,800
7,000
4,200
8,700
4,300
8,700
7,400
6,700
6,000
7,200
8,800
-
-
-
7,200
4,500
M0679AD
TCEA
4,690
7,500
7,000
6,200
9,500
8,700
5,000
4,200
11,000
17,000
14,000
12,000
15,000
8,200
10,000
9,400
9,700
8,700
9,300
11,000
5,900
9,800
9,400
7,300
5,800
7,200
10,000
-
-
-
13,000
9,000
As
67
84
70
60
130
130
96
130
150
240
140
200
220
120
120
190
190
180
120
180
100
160
130
110
110
130
160
-
-
-
140
130
-------
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM MONITORING WELLS
LaBOUNTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
A-3
Date
10/79
11/79
12/79
01/80
02/80
03/80
04/80
05/80
06/80
07/80
08/80
09/80
10/80
11/80
12/80
01/81
02/81
03/81
04/81
05/81
06/81
07/81
08/81
09/81
10/81
11/81
12/81
01/82
02/82
03/82
04/82
05/82
ONA
3,490
7,100
6,700
10,000
16,000
11,000
10,000
11,000
9,400
2,800
4,600
550
300
710
4,200
8,400
10,000
8,800
9,500
6,400
7,200
8,000
7,800
8,000
8,100
8,800
9,000
9,500
11,000
14,000
13,000
11,000
M0779AS
TCEA
15 , 300
16,000
21,000
24,000
18,000
6,700
11,000
12,000
19,000
5,300
6,600
2,200
1,700
10,000
16,000
21,000
23,000
22,000
24,000
19,000
19,000
23,000
23,000
18,000
19,000
19,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
22,000
M0779AD
As
190
190
190
190
200
200
220
230
180
150
170
130
110
180
180
200
240
230
220
220
220
220
220
200
200
190
180
170
250
170
140
160
ONA
48
38
41
38
42
42
29
24
32
36
51
36
29
47
51
42
33
20
18
20
20
24
24
23
22
21
19
18
16
16
13
11
,800
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
TCEA
23,600
20,000
20,000
42,500
33,000
27,000
17,000
19,000
37,000
35,000
44,000
37,000
25,000
40,000
28,000
27,000
35,000
24,000
37,000
18,000
21,000
24,000
24,000
20,000
22,000
20,000
23,000
24,000
33,000
34,000
39,000
39,000
As
420
350
380
360
370
380
390
420
350
380
460
360
340
350
390
450
460
460
430
420
430
420
410
400
400
380
380
370
400
320
300
330
ONA
228
150
104
103
150
124
160
160
84,
140
140
100
81,
96,
110
130
120
86,
85,
72,
87,
82,
76,
63,
57,
55,
49,
52,
48,
46,
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
000
,000
,000
,000
000
000
,000
,000
,000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
51,000
39,
000
M0879A
TCEA
20,500
21,000
28,000
18,000
20,000
14,000
15,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
19,000
16,000
15,000
24,000
18,000
27,000
40,000
29,000
40,000
22,000
22,000
23,000
22,000
17,000
14,000
15,000
18,000
19,000
18,000
17,000
20,000
19,000
As
200
180
200
180
190
170
170
160
140
170
210
150
110
130
120
130
160
150
140
170
130
140
150
140
140
130
140
140
200
110
130
140
-------
A-4
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM MONITORING WELLS
LaBOUNTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
M0979A
Date
10/79
11/79
12/79
01/80
02/80
03/80
04/80
05/80
06/80
07/80
08/80
09/80
10/80
11/80
12/80
01/81
02/81
03/81
04/81
05/81
06/81
07/81
08/81
09/81
10/81
11/81
12/81
01/82
02/82
03/82
04/82
05/82
ONA
158,000
99,000
150,000
95,000
110,000
80,000
140,000
160,000
63,000
120,000
120,000
83,000
83,000
88,000
61,000
36,000
41,000
37,000
31,000
33,000
34,000
48,000
34,000
34,000
26,000
23,000
22,000
17,000
15,000
13,000
13,000
13,000
TCEA
21,900
10,000
11,000
11,000
8,900
6,600
8,000
9,900
11,000
13,000
14,000
14,000
12,000
19,000
19,000
15,000
13,000
15,000
18,000
9,200
8,500
12,000
10,000
9,500
8,800
8,400
9,800
15,000
33,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
As
370
330
340
310
260
320
340
350
310
380
350
310
330
330
300
330
380
390
330
350
340
340
330
360
350
350
350
310
350
280
280
320
M1079A
ONA
<5
6.9
.58
.28
.04
.029
.19
.54
.63
.069
.35
.63
.17
.32
.68
.45
.22
.33
.23
.38
.13
.34
.20
.47
.23
.20
.15
.09
.13
.43
.21
.38
TCEA
6.10
99
84
32
32
22
76
32
36
78
49
69
41
32
41
42
36
4B
5B
21
30
38
32
27
34
31
39
35
25
43
77
78
As
.180
.236
.220
.227
.168
.132
.164
.176
.162
.171
.165
.242
.257
.146
.181
.082
.113
.195
.145
.130
.198
.144
.186
.145
.150
.170
.135
.120
.099
.087
.112
.075
ONA
.177
.26
1.3
.41
.17
.08
.069
.19
.14
.30
.16
.17
.34
.30
.09
.15
.10
.12
.12
.11
.08
.11
.14
.12
.17
.18
.14
.13
.15
.14
.09
.10
M0179R
TCEA
406
410
460
490
660
330
950
530
570
550
570
370
480
680
370
640
900
840
290
290
230
260
210
340
460
420
780
770
870
aio
560
450
As
.501
.081
.08C
.067
.086
.20]
.188
.18C
.247
2. 1C
.965
.09:
.08;
.08:
.105
.117
.25E
.062
.07(
.047
.04(
.03
-------
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM MONITORING WELLS
LaBOUNTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
A-5
M0279R
Date
10/79
11/79
12/79
01/80
02/80
03/80
04/80
05/80
06/80
07/80
08/80
09/80
10/80
11/80
12/80
01/81
02/81
03/81
04/81
05/81
06/81
07/81
08/81
09/81
10/81
11/81
12/81
01/82
02/82
03/82
04/82
05/82
ONA
.065
.12
5.5
.02
.03
<.015
<.015
.017
.08
.06
.05
.05
.04
.06
.02
.02
-
.04
.04
.02
.03
.03
.03
.01
.01
.04
<.015
<.015
-
<.015
<.015
<.015
TCEA
441
<5
8
8.0
6.8
3
20
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5
6
-
<5
7
<5
<5
<5
<5
5
<5
<5
<5
<5
-
<5
5
<5
As
.0044
<.002
<.002
.0035
.002
.0027
.0022
.003
<-002
.002
.002
.007
<.002
.002
.002
.004
-
.008
.010
.002
.003
.005
.005
.002
<.002
.003
.003
.011
-
.004
<.002
<.004
M0379R
ONA
.204
.03
.48
.05
.04
<-015
.079
.26
.053
.034
.02
.04
.04
.07
.07
.02
.03
.04
.04
.05
.07
.03
.02
.02
.03
.03
<.015
<-015
<.015
<.015
<.015
<.015
TCEA
56.0
24
26
32
30
34
27
27
31
27
25
25
26
28
33
33
36
31
29
30
26
27
28
29
29
32
37
32
45
36
56 -
53
As
.0074
<.002
<.002
.0027
.0027
.0039
.0034
.002
.0024
<.002
.003
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
.002
.006
.008
<-002
.002
.018
.005
.006
.002
<.002
.002
.013
.007
.010
<.002
<.002
.004
ONA
5,180
8,100
5,700
3,900
5,100
5,100
5,700
5,900
4,900
5,300
4,600
4,700
5,200
4,800
4,400
4,500
4,200
4,300
4,800
3,600
4,500
2,400
4,400
4,000
4,200
4,000
3,800
4,100
4,000
3,600
2,600
2,800
M0479R
TCEA
17,600
24,000
23,000
20,000
16,000
11,000
21,000
24,000
38,000
36,000
24,000
25,000
24,000
33,000
31,000
38,000
26,000
26,000
25,000
16,000
23,000
12,000
23,000
16,000
19,000
16,000
18,000
17,000
16,000
11,000
12,000
14,000
As
32
39
40
26
31
32
26
33
24
26
24
23
29
21
18
23
26
27
25
17
21
6.5
29
26
30.
23.
24.
19
17.
16.
15
11.
5
0
5
6
4
2
-------
A-6
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM MONITORING WELLS
LaBOUNTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
Date
10/79
11/79
12/79
01/80
02/80
03/80
04/80
05/80
06/80
07/80
08/80
09/80
10/80
11/80
12/80
01/81
02/81
03/81
04/81
05/81
06/81
07/81
08/81
09/81
10/81
11/81
12/81
01/82
02/82
03/82
04/82
05/82
ONA
410
280
430
240
250
340
380
290
400
440
300
300
370
290
350
250
260
300
290
220
250
170
220
250
200
220
230
200
210
210
180
170
M0579R
TCEA
7,060
6,800
9,500
7.300
5,500
2,800
4,400
4,800
6,400
6,400
8,500
6,400
5,900
7,000
5,000
5,200
4,300
3,800
3,500
3,200
3,700
2,200
3,600
3,000
2,200
2,700
2,600
2,300
2,400
2,100
2,500
2,500
M0679RS
As
.150
.098
.100
.057
.072
.0571
.0573
.064
.110
.095
.048
.074
.051
.054
.036
.045
.040
.040
.065
.034
.048
.023
.044
.048
.034
.035
.037
.032
.037
.037
.056
.041
ONA
13
19
11
<5
1.6
4.6
17
12
240
100
30
71
41
47
9
.80
.07
25
31
80
16
.08
15.5
18
8.2
18
10
.08
.16
.32
32
17
TCEA
706
410
590
290
240
300
550
510
1,500
1,700
770
1,600
1,700
1,400
640
690
610
900
990
1,400
630
630
670
770
510
640
600
470
480
580
1,0.00
700
As
1.74
1.14
1.52
1.26
1.64
1.27
2.24
1.66
10.1
20.2
5.70
7.68
7.93
4.59
3.00
2.90
2.43
2.48
4.72
5.30
2.60
3.21
2.45
2.60
2.17
1.90
2.04
1.70
1.60
1.95
2.60
1.55
ONA
.154
.39
.23
.20
.04
.17
.31
.09
.065
.11
.10
.14
.07
.09
.08
.15
.01
.08
.12
.10
.18
.19
.18
.13
.02
.10
<.015
<.015
.09
<.015
.04
.015
M0679RD
TCEA
7.70
8.1
12
14
<5
100
28
8
5.5
5
7
7
5
8
5
8
5
6
5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
As
.062
.069
.05E
.054
.061
.05C
.050'
.056
.0524
.03E
.024
.056
.024
.044
.032
.075
.042
.040
.044
.042
.45
.052
.038
.043
.042
.050
.035
.046
.041
.039
.046
.037
-------
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM MONITORING WELLS
LaBOUNTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
A-7
M0779R
Date
10/79
11/79
12/79
01/80
02/80
03/80
04/80
05/80
06/80
07/80
08/80
09/80
10/80
11/80
12/80
01/81
02/81
03/81
04/81
05/81
06/81
07/81
08/81
09/81
10/81
11/81
12/81
01/82
02/82
03/82
04/82
05/82
ONA
1,560
3,400
2,300
2,400
2,600
2,500
5,300
3,400
23,000
24,000
4,100
4,300
7,200
4,100
5,300
3,500
3,700
4,700
7,100
3,600
3,700
4,600
2,800
3,500
3,200
3,500
3,900
3,000
3,500
3,700
1,800
2,200
TCEA
4,700
6,700
8,700
5,500
5,900
3,000
5.900
5,400
25,000
22,000
8,800
7,800
9,900
9,400
12,000
7,700
8,000
12,000
10,000
7,300
7,900
9,200
7,200
6,600
6,100
3,400
7,600
7,200
7,300
5,800
6,600
7,600
As
19
52
46
38
34
27
57
36
190
220
40
36
54
37
48
37
46
62
87
45
55
86
39
47
46
52
42
49
54
72
44
36
M0879R
ONA
10,400
8,000
2,200
2,900
2,500
2,700
3,500
2,900
2,100
4,100
3,900
1,500
1,700
1,700
1,400
870
500
480
810
610
450
750
500
310
280
-
140
110
97
56
57
50
TCEA
3,410
3,000
2,100
2,800
1,900
1,300
2,300
2,500
2,300
2,700
2,400
1,600
2,000
3,400
3,500
3,600
2,200
1,800
2,000
1,700
1,500
2,400
2,400
1,800
2,000
-
2,500
2,500
3,700
1,700
2,000
1,600
As
55
50
24
40
30
38
34
44
22
25
28
24
24
35
24
32
28
28
28
28
28
38
31
34
30
19
24
34
32
27
33
35
ONA
32,800
28,000
13,000
16,000
20,000
14,000
26,000
18,000
14,000
25,000
22,000
23,000
19,000
19,000
19,000
19,000
13,000
16,000
13,000
16,000
13,000
16,000
15,000
14,000
16,000
14,000
9,800
15,000
11,000
11,000
10,000
8,200
M0979R
TCEA
3,410
3,800
2,900
3,600
3,050
1,100
2,900
2,800
1,500
3,300
3,200
3,700
2,800
2,500
2,900
3,100
2,200
1,800
1,500
2,100
2,000
2,400
2,400
1,900
2,400
2,100
2,000
2,600
2,200
2,000
2,200
1,900
As
150
140
85
109
97
81
92
110
94
160
150
260
100
93
70
100
71
93
73
93
93
90
86
81
88
80
81
82
63
64
75
59
-------
A-8
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM MONITORING WELLS
LaBOUNTY SITE
Charles City, Iowa
M1079R
Date
10/79
11/79
12/79
01/80
02/80
03/80
04/80
05/80
06/80
07/80
08/80
09/80
10/80
11/80
12/80
01/81
02/81
03/81
04/81
05/81
06/81
07/81
08/81
09/81
10/81
11/81
12/81
01/82
02/82
03/82
04/92
05/82
ONA
.67
.51
1.1
1.2
.12
.26
.16
.41
.30
.45
.21
.26
.29
.13
.14
.19
.10
.09
.11
.10
.13
.08
14
.02
.05
.14
.07
.03
.13
.08
.07
TCEA
80
58
81
71
68
130
66
71
76
72
67
59
56
59
55
60
61
52
43
65
55
52
52
52
55
52
55
56
57
56
97
-
As
.008
.008
.021
,0159
.016
.0113
.0175
.022
.0186
.021
.023
.017
.026
.024
.014
.022
.018
.010
.017
.020
.017
.025
.032
.020
.016
.016
.013
.011
.011
.009
.013
*
ONA
268
.73
>5
.40
.19
.16
2.4
.58
.35
.65
.34
.17
.27
.29
.20
.22
.12
.09
.06
.06
.08
.04
.15
.06
.04
.22
.07
.03
.09
.09
.05
.07
M1179R
TCEA
394
140
170
270
240
150
52
210
130
110
130
200
200
230
330
470
430
370
77
200
190
160
180
190
250
200
320
350
390
430
280
240
As
9.0
11.3
12.7
8.8
4.06
2.19
15.1
14.0
10.5
6.45
15.8
5.19
6.51
5.08
1.26
.81
.54
1.21
2.81
2.30
2.39
2.20
2.45
1.86
1.54
1.35
.40
.24
.31
.72
1.61
.276
a Orthonitroaniline - Concentrations expressed in micrograms
per liter.
b 1,1,2-Trichloroethane - Concentrations expressed in micro-
grams per liter.
c Arsenic - Concentrations expressed in milligrams per liter.
-------
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE BOTTLE AND TUBING BLANK DATA
-------
Telephone 515 257-2422
B-l
,. SALSBURY LABORATORIES. aNC. char.esoty.iowa
j //jy
July 12, 1982
Steve Sisk
NEIC
Bldg. 53, Box 25227
Denver, CO 80225
Dear Steve:
Attached is a current summary of the sample bottle and tubing
blank checks which have been performed as part of the LaBounty
well monitoring program.
Bottle checks have been made monthly, just prior to sampling.
The procedure has been to select a single sample bottle from among
those used in sampling for each of the following: low level ONA
(<5 ppb), 1,1,2-TCE, arsenic and TOC/COD. These bottles are filled
with high grade purified water and the contents later analyzed
along with the rest of the well samples.
The intent of these checks has been to monitor the quality of the
sampling container/preservatives and tubing. Blank corrections have
not been made to those values reported as part of the LaBounty
monitoring program.
Due to higher than expected ONA and 1,1,2-TCE levels in the sample
bottle checks it was decided in August, 1981 to begin - 1) using HPLC
grade bottled water in place of Salsbury's glass distilled-deionized
water, and 2) having the environmental technician rinse those bottles
used in sampling for ONA and 1,1,2-TCE with reagent grade acetone.
A noticeable improvement was observed.
Tubing blank checks have been performed only on each new lot of tubing
received. The procedure has been to place a section of the new tubing
in the peristaltic pump and pump high grade purified water through it into
separate sample bottles. The bottle contents are analyzed for those
parameters listed.
It appears the last lot of tubing was checked during February, 1981
following receipt of a large order. Higher than expected ONA and
1,1,2-TCE levels were experienced in the tubing blank check samples.
FEED ADDITIVES PHARMACEUTICS BIOLOGICS
-------
B-2
Steve Sisk - 2 - July 12, 1982
The cause is similar to that observed in the sample bottle blank
checks. A noticeaole improvement should be observed in the next
tubing blank check using those changes made in August, 1981.
If you have questions or comments, please phone me at
515/257-3482.
Very truly youcs,
Neil A." Leipzig, P.
Environmental Engineer
NAL:hl
Attach.
cc: Cooper
Rovers
Kliever
Steincamp
Smith/file
-------
INTRA-COW1PANY MEMORANDUM
B-3
To
From
Subject
FOR T^E RECORD
A. A. Farmer
LaBountv Sample
Tiibiae Blanks
Bottle and
*3>^«r
**- *_--J
Date
SALSBURY LABORATORY
j Chanm city Iowa. USA
June 10, 1°82
S. INC.
SAMPLE BOTTLE BLANKS
Date
5/80
6/80
7/80
8/80
9/80
10/80
11/80
12/80
1/81
2/81
3/81
4/81
5/81
6/81
7/81
8/81
*9/81
10/81
11/81
12/81
1/82
2/82
3/82
4/82
5/82
*Began
water,
4/80
5/80
6/80
7/80
11/80
2/81
ONA
nob
0.09
0.12
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.17
0.15
0.21
0.02
0.53
0.11
2.8
0.38
1.1
0.59
0.78
< 0.015
0.02
0.02
0.02
< 0.015
< 0.015
< 0.015
< 0.015
4 0.015
using Fisher HPLC
i
1.8
0.14
0.22
0.60
0.85
0.49
1,1,2-TCE
nob
* 5
6
< 10
< 5
8
< 5
< 5
28
6
^ 5
< 5
78
< 5
< 5
52
32
« 5
< 5
< 5
< 5
* 5
< 5
. 5
4 5
< 5
grade bottled
TUBING
< 5
-------
APPENDIX C
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
-------
C-l
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Results of Student t-test calculations using the equation presented in
the text are shown in the table following this discussion. Calculated t-
values are compared to the 0.05 and 0.01 levels of significance, which cor-
respond to the 95 and 99% confidence intervals, respectively. The following
data were omitted from calculations of u (mean of first 12-mo data) because
they appeared inconsistent with other values. In most instances, only one
data point was omitted for each parameter. If more than one parameter from
a given sample appeared inconsistent, then all data from that sample were
omitted.
a
Well Omitted Data
M0679AD ONA, TCEA, and As for 7/80
M0679RS ONA for 1/80
ONA, TCEA, and As for 6/80 and 7/80
M0779AS ONA, TCEA, and As for 9/80
M0779AD ONA, TCEA, and As for 6/80 and 7/80
M0879A ONA, TCEA, and As for 10/79
M0879R ONA, TCEA, and As for 10/79
a Raw data are presented in Appendix A.
An assumption necessary to use the t-test equation presented in the
text is that averages for the first 12-mo data approximate the population
mean for groundwater quality before capping. A derivative of the text equa-
tion allows these data to be treated as a separate sample set.3 4 To use
the derivative equation, the standard deviation and sample size of the first
12-mo data are "pooled" with those for the last 12-mo data.
As noted in the text, one apparent effect of capping was to reduce
concentration variations in groundwater. Statistically, this implies a
decrease in standard deviations. Less conservative results would be expec-
ted by pooling standard deviations for data collected before and after
capping.
-------
C-2
To test this hypothesis, three parameters with calculated t-values
near the NSD range were examined. New t-values (t ) were calculated using
the following derivative equation for ONA in well M0679AS, and As in wells
M0779R and M0879A. The subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the first and last 12-mo
data, respectively.
t =
X2 " Xl
n Sx x
X1X2
where S
/ s2 s2
- - = -i/ +
xixa y "i n2
(n2 -
where S2 =
T-values calculated from the above equations and those from the text
equation (t ) are evaluated at the 0.01 level of significance as follows:
Well
M0679RS
M0779R
M0779A
Parameter
ONA
As
As
\
5.55
3.24
-5.89
Result
SD
SD
SD
S,
4.45
2.40
-4.17
Result
SD
NSD
SD
The above data suggest that results for the text equation yield more
conservative results; consequently, the derivative equation was not used.
-------
Parameter
0.05 L.O.S.'
Result
0.01 L.O.S.'
Result (if dif-
ferent from 0.05)
ONAC .
TCEAd
As6
ONA
TCEA
As
ONA
TCEA
AS
ONA.
TCEA
As
ONA
TCEA
As
ONA
TCEA
As
7520
15333
118
7224
8162
114
19.9
596
2.58
8372
14172
192
38150
29758
383
3186
6240
38.5
9533
15750
121
6755
8600
130
11.3
640
2.20
9616
21500
193
18917
26917
378
3283
6875
51.8
1254
2137
30.4
1599
2300
21.2
9.92
144
0.50
2178
2067
31.1
4252
7229
41.3
757
1410
14.2
12
12
12
9
9
9
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
N0679AS
5.55
0.68
0.34
M0679AD
-0.88
0.57
2.26
N0679RS
-2.98
1.05
-2.63
N0779AS
1.98
12.27
0.11
W0779AD
-15.65
-1.36
-0.42
M0779R
0.44
1.56
3.24
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
±2.31
±2.31
±2.31
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
SO
NSD
NSO
NSD
NSO
NSO
SO
NSD
SD
NSD
SD
NSD
SD
NSD
NSD
NSO
NSD
SD
±3.11
±3.11
±3.11
±3.36
±3.36
±3.36
±3.11 NSD
±3.11
±3.11 NSD
±3.11
±3.31
±3.11
±3.11
±3.11
±3.11
±3.11
±3.11
±3.11
i
CO
-------
o
Parameter
0.05 L.O.S.'
Result
0.01 L.O.S.
Result (if dif-
ferent from 0.05)
ONA
TCEA
As
ONA
TCEA
As
ONA
TCEA
As
128636
18291
176.7
3309
2264
32.6
114833
11608
331
58750
18666
140.8
254
2190
30.4
24333
15833
330
15196
2774
21.1
230
620
5.2
11187
8950
27.3
12
'12
12
11
11
12
12
12
12
H0879A
-15.91
-0.47
-5.89
a0879R
-44.10
-0.40
-1.46
N0979A
-27.99
1.63
-0.13
M0979R
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
±2.23
±2.23
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
SD
NSD
SD
SD
NSD
NSD
SD
NSD
NSD
±3.11
±3.11
±3.11
±3.17
±3.17
±3.11
±3.11
±3.11
±3.11
ONA
TCEA
As
20983
2938
127.3
12750
2175
78.5
2655
230
11.1
12
12
12
-10.61
-11.48
-15.21
±2.20
±2.20
±2.20
SD
SD
SD
±3.11
±3.11
±3.11
a Table values for 0.05 and 0.01 levels of significance for n-1 degrees of freedom
b Result is expressed as either a Significant iDfference (SD) or No Significant Difference (NSD) between p and x.
c Orthonitroaniline (ONA) data are expressed in micrograms per liter.
d 1,1,2 Trichloroethane (TCEA) data are expressed in micrograms per liter.
e Arsenic (As) data are expressed in milligrams per liter.
------- |