EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF LANDFILL
LEACHATE ON GROUND-WATER OUALITY AT
THE LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
LANDFILL SITE
SUBMITTED TO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATTN: James H. Scarbrough
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
CONTRACT NO.: 68-01-3959
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL
HYDROLOGY DIVISION
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report describes work performed for the Solid Waste section,
Region IV, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by the contractor. The
contents do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or com-
mercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. The
reader is advised to utilize the information and data herein w.ith cau-
tion and judgement.
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
Acknowl edaements vi i
Purpose and Scope 1
Previous Investigations 2
Location and description of Study Area 3
Topography and Drainage 3
Regional Geology 6
Piedmont Province 6
Coastal Plain 8
Middendorf Formation 9
Climate 12
Site Hydrogeology 14
Site Geology 14
Shallow Groundwater Hydrology
Shallow Groundwater Quality
Deep Groundwater Hydrology 30
¦51
Summary _ 01
Recommended Alternatives to Minimize Present and
Potential Contamination
Appendices
Appendix A - Figures
Appendix B - Tables
References Cited
ii i
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE PAGE
1. Site Location Map a
2. Site Topography Map 5
3. Geologic Belts of South Carolina 7
4. Generalized Cross-Section of S.C. Coastal Plain 10
5. Plan View of Study Area 15
6. Cross-Section X-X' 16
7. Cross-Section W-W' 1&
8. Cross-Section Y-Y1 20
9. Potentiometric Surface Map 22
10. Cross>S.ecti.on Z~ZThrough, Landfi;l 1 and Dump .. 23
11. Precipitation Record, Specific Conductance, and Hydrograph,
Well #2 36
12. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Well #2 37
13. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Well #2 38
14. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #2 39
15. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #2.. 40
16. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #2 4]
17. Precipitation Record, Specific Conductance, and Hydroaraph,
Well #6 42
18. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Well #6 43
19. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Well #6 44
20. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #6 45
21. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #6 46"
22. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #6 47
23. Precipitation Record, Specific Conductance, and Hydroaraph,
Well #14 48
24. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Well #14 49
25. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Well #14 50
26. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #14 51
27. -Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #14 52
28. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #14 53
29. Precipitation Record, SDecific Conductance, and Hvdrograph,
Well #11 '. 54
30. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Well #11 55
31. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Well #11 55
32. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #11 57
33. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #11 58
34. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #11 59
35. Precipitation Record, Specific Conductance, and Hydrograph,
Well #13 ¦ 60
36. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Well #13 61
37. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Wei1 #13 62
38. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #13 63
39. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #13 64
40. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Well #13 65
iv
-------
FIGURE PAGE
41. Precipitation Record and Specific Conductance for A1, B',
E and F 66
42. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station A1 57
43. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station A' g8
44. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station A' 69
45. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station A' 7Q
46. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station A' 71
47. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station B' 72
48. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station B' 73
49. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station B' 74
50. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station B' 75
51. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station B' 76
52. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Private Well E 77
53. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Private Well E 78
54. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Private Well E 79
55. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Private Well E 80
56. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Private Well E 81
57. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Private Well F 82
58. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Private Well F 83
59. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Private Well F 84
60. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Private Well F 85
61. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Private Well F 86
62. Precipitation Record and Specific Conductance for C', D1
and G 87
63. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station C' 88
64. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station C' 89
65. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station C' 90
66. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station C' 91
67. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station C' 92
68. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station D' 93
69. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station D' 94
70. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station D' 95
71. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station D' 96
72. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Surface Station D' 97
73. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Private Well G 98
74. Filtered Water Quality Trends, Private Well G 99
75. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Private Well G 100
76. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Private Well G 101
77. Unfiltered Water Quality Trends, Private Well G 102
78. Drill Loq #1 ...103
79. Drill Log #2 104
80. Drill Loq #3 106
81. Drill Log #4 107
82. Drill Log #5 108
83. Drill Log #6 109
84. Drill Log #7 ' HO
85. Drill Log #8 HI
86. Drill Log #9 113
87. Drill Log #10 114
88. Drill Loo #11 116
89. Drill Log #12 118
90. Drill Log #14 119
91. Drill Log (A.W. Martin) B 120
92. Drill Log (A.W. Martin) C 120
V
-------
TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. February Unfiltered Water Quality Data 123
2. March Unfiltered Water Quality Data 12.4
3. April Unfiltered Water Quality Data 125
4. May Unfiltered Vater Quality Data 126
5. June Unfiltered Water Quality Data 127
6. July Unfiltered Rater Quality Data 128
7. August Unfiltered Water Quality Data 129
8. September Unfiltered Water Quality Data 130.
9. October Unfiltered Water Quality Data 131
10. November Unfiltered Water Quality Data 132
11. December Unfiltered Water Quality Data 133
12. January Unfiltered Water Quality Data 134
13. January Filtered Water Quality Data ...135
14. February Filtered Water Quality Data 136
15. March Filtered Water Quality Data 137
16. April Filtered Water Quality Data 138
17. May Filtered Water Qualtiy Data 139
18. June Filtered Water Quality Data 140
19. July Filtered Water Quality Data 141
20. August Filtered Water Quality Data 142
21. September Filtered Water Quality Data 143
22. October Filtered Water Qyality Data 144
23. November Filtered Water Quality Data 145
24. December Filtered Water Quality Data 146
vi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC)
wishes to gratefully acknowledge Mr. John Booth, Director, Lexington
County Recreation Commission for his permission to drill in the study
area.
Acknowledgement is also made to Messers, Hartsill W. Truesdale,
Donald A. Duncan, George Dixon, James Ferguson, and Gary Padgett for
their assistance in conducting the investigation and editing this re-
port .
This investigation of the environmental impact of leachate on
ground and surface waters of the Lexington County Landfill (LCL) was
begun in September 1977, and was completed in January 1979. The work
in this study was performed by SCDHEC, Hydrology Division under a con-
tract with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Technical
direction was provided by James Scarbrouoh, EPA Project Officer. The
principal investigator was Joseph 0. Lewis. The work was under the
immediate supervision of D. A. Duncan, Director of the Hydrology Divi-
sion.
The 1975 EPA contractor's study concluded that, in time, the land-
fill will force the abandonment of the shallow aquifer in the area and
will probably restrict the usefulness of the deeper aquifers. The re-
port recommended that a less permeable cover meaterial be used, and
the fill be graded to minimize ponding and infiltration. A second
major recommendation was to collect and treat the leachate at its dis-
charge area and/or to collect the leachate and spray it back onto the
landfill.
vii
-------
Although one monitoring point in the 1975 E.P.A. study was instal-
led through the refuse, current E.P.A. policy discourages such place-
ment.
vi i i
-------
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of the geologic and hydrologic investigation of the
Lexington Landfill (LCL) area was to continue the assessment of the
environmental impact of leachate on ground and surface waters with
emphasis on obtaining a more detailed description of site geology and
on isolating the effect of the abandoned Cayce Dump, All published
and unpublished reports and available data were reviewed and evaluated
for reliability and accuracy.
Fourteen stratigraphic test holes were drilled, six monitoring
wells were constructed and three existing wells were incorporated in-
to the ground-water monitoring network. Four surface-water monitoring
sites were designated, located and sampled to meet project objectives.
Ground-water samples were collected and analyzed to determine
trends in the chemical quality of ground water in the study area. An
analysis of the hydrogeologic setting was made in order to determine
the direction and rate of movement of local ground water.
1
-------
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Two previous investigations have been made of the Lexington County
Landfill (LCL). One was performed by J. Michel entitled Ground Water
Pollution and Geochemical Variations in Leachate from Solid Waste Dis-
posal and the other under a previous EPA contract, entitled Evalution of
the Effect of the Lexington County, South Carolina Landfill on Ground
and Surface Water.
J. Michel's study was conducted from April 1975 to December 1975 to
obtain detailed information concerning the nature of surface and ground-
water pollution froifi solid-waste disposal at the LCL and abandoned "Old
Cayce Dump" (OCD). The main objectives were to determine if contamina-
tion of the Middendorf aquifer was occurring, find a geochemical "finger-
print" to identify the leachate, and to propose hydrologic and geochemi-
cal models to determine trends and variations.
Ms. Michel's conclusions were that there were long-term increases in
certain ground-water parameters which were resulting from the introduction
of leachate into the Middendorf. She also concluded that no large-scale
ground-water pollution was occurring from the OCD because it is located
in a local ground-water discharge area and a large part of the leachate
is discharged into the surface streams. The surface-water quality has
been impaired due to leachate from the LCL, but more so from the loading
of strongly anaerobic water percolating through the ponded refuse in the
Cayce dump. No recommendations were offered.
The previous EPA study was conducted from February 1975 to December
1975 to evaluate the effect of solid-waste disposal on ground and sur-
2
-------
face-water resources within and adjacent to the LCL. The main objectives
were to determine the type and extent of contaminants, and their associ-
ated trends during the period of the study. Soils, climatology, and
geology and their relationships to pollutant generation and attenuation
were also studied.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
Lexington County is located in central South Carolina (see Figure
1). The northern part (approximately one-fourth) of the county is in
the Piedmont physiographic province and the southern three-fourths of
the county is in the "Sandhills" part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain Pro-
vince.
The study area is located on the east of U.S. Highway 321 approxi-
mately five miles south of the City of Cayce. The LCL is an abandoned
sand mine which was converted into a landfill in May 1972. The Cayce
dump to the southeast was a swampy area part of which was called "Stanley
Pond" which was completely filled in and covered over in the early 1970's.
The cover material in the study area was obtained on site and is very
sandy with little clay.
Topography and Drainage - The LCL is topographically higher than the
surrounding region (see Figure 2). To the east and south, toward the
Congaree River, the surface slopes steeply (2.0 - 2.5 percent); while to
the west, toward U.S. 321 and beyond, the surface slopes more gently
(about 1.0 percent).
3
-------
SCALE 1:126,720
Figure 1. Location of the Lexington County, South Carolina Landfill.
4
-------
^ * ~jk _,--«~ -X t_;V>—' / -.^
Figure 2. Site toDonraphy showing generalized refuse disposal areas. Reproduction of U.S.G.S. 7.5-minute
Southwest Columbia quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000.
-------
The main surface drainage for the LCL area is Congaree Creek which
flows to the Congaree River. Both Congaree Creek and the Congaree River
flow in an southeasterly direction.
The precipitation in the immediate area that does not Dercolate in-
to the surrounding coarse sands flows directly into the landfill nit.
The northern edge, which is the highest Doint, slopes toward the south
and east where the lowest point is normally a small oond near the south-
eastern edge of the pit.
On the southern end, toward the OCD, a ridge of medium to coarse
grained sand separates the landfill from the abandoned Cayce dump. Pre-
cipitation which infiltrates into the sand and refuse of the LCL mi-
grates within the sand ridge and re-emerges in a spring within the OCD.
Water from this spring flows initially in a southeasterly direction under
an unsurfaced road (see Figure 2} and gradually meanders toward the
Congaree River. This stream is the only observed semi-permanent surface
drainage emanating from the immediate study area.
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The study area is located near the "fall line", between two geo-
logical provinces, the Piedmont and the Coastal Plain (see Figure 3).
Piedmont Province - The Piedmont Province occurs between the Blue
Ridge and the Coastal Plain Provinces and crosses South Carolina in a
northeast-southwest direction in a band approximately 100 miles (161
kilometers) wide. The Piedmont is divided into five distinct geological
belts: the Carolina slate belt, Charlotte belt, Kings Mountain belt,
Inner Piedmont belt, and the Brevard Zone.
6
-------
GEOLOGIC BELTS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BLUE RIDGE AND PIEDMONT
NORTH
GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC MAP
SOUTH CAROLINA
EXPLANATION
coastal plain rocks
PooriJ 10rt«o ''0"» ••!•<£ 'O mafic •atcanic
t««»i aid »•'*> »'9iiiiia» «»<
9»«fwac»« -1vp« Pui«*ii«oni'f
cqn
cmaklotte e:..
'OCM 0*
'/ fiofTOiffitt 91 * a
r- _ oniav 4"*coil4'*' 4'« w'iji" i 4
• • «gaO&'o e'^gt
Lkm j
KINGS mountain belt
Pftfittf** »nd ic"«-'f ceTu"4t 1
t»Qd<«* of gH»d^4'i< ac»| l9«'i«(if| i«4
rt,i>»« I
Lbi;
0H£Vfc«O BELT
0->« K"»M •it'* OCC««<0*0>
Unt>«ula« 6*41 0* '•"tfl'fni
rjn
BLUE RIDGE BC'.T
a«® pK'cc't iO[U
Source: Overstreet and Bell, 1965, plate 2.
Figure 3
-------
The Piedmont Province is comprised of thick sequences of strata
composed of meta-volcanics and meta-sediments that have undergone more
than one instance of deformation, metamorphism, and igneous intrusion
during the Paleozoic (Overstreet, William C., 1970). The oldest dis-
cernable rock unit is a volcanic assemblage known as the Persimmon Fork
Formation, which is overlain by a meta-sedimentary grouD called the
Richtex. The Richtex, Persimmon Fork, and an overlyino meta-volcanic
unit are intruded by granitic plutons in many areas of the Piedmont.
Several periods of metamorphism of varying intensities have occur-
red throughout the Piedmont. Areas bordering the Coastal Plain have
undergone the least amount of deformation and are weakly (greenschist
facies) metamorphosed, while toward the west, deformation is more pro-
nounced and higher grades (amphibolite facies) result (Overstreet,
William C., 1970).
The basement rock in the study area is composed of crystalline rock
similar to that found in the Piedmont. Exact depth to :basement could-
not be determined due to a lack of deep-well data available in the study
area, but the basement is in excess of 163 feet (50 meters). This in-
formation was obtained from two wells. Willie Sox, of Sox Well Drilling,
drilled a well for the recreation area at Eray Park to 150 feet (45.7
meters) with no rock formations encountered in 1975. Dixianna Sand and
Glass Company's well #2, which is located across U.S. 321, west of the
landfill, did penetrate saprolite at 163 feet (50 meters) with no un-
weathered rock encountered.
Coastal Plain - The Coastal Plain can be roughly divided into three
subdivisions: The Upper Coastal Plain is composed of sediments that have
8
-------
formed mainly by stream deposition (fluvial) and in some instances by
wind action (aeolian). The Middle Coastal Plain has undergone exten-
sive erosion so that the original surface is difficult to define. The
Middle and Lower Coastal Plains are mantled by alluvial deposits, coast-
line features, and marine sediments thought to be of Pleistocene origin
(Colquhoun, D.J., 1965).
The sediments of the Coastal Plain were deposited on a base of
crystalline rock that dips at a steeper angle than the sedimentary units
overlying it. The sediments are like a wedge, thinner and dipping gen-
tly (approximately 0.25 per cent) along the fall line becoming thicker
and dipping more steeply (about .50 per cent) eastward toward the coast
(Colquhoun and Johnson, 1968).
The Coastal Plain sediments can be grouped into 12 units or forma-
tions (see Figure 4). Older UDper Cretaceous formations crop out on the
edge of the Coastal Plain and successively younger (Tertiary and Quater-
nary) units crop out closer to the coast (Colquhoun and Johnson, 1968).
Middendorf (Tuscaloosa) Formation - The study area is in the out-
crop area of the Middendorf Formation which consists of interbedded
fluvial sand and kaolinitic clay. The formation lies upon bedrock that
dips to the southeast, and is exposed throughout the study area.
The Middendorf in the vicinity of the landfill is composed of yellow-
ish orange (10YR 6/6) to light brown (5YR 5/6) medium to coarse grain
arkosic sand, with some gravel, intercalated with lenses of orange, purple,
brown, and red clays. Individual beds of medium to coarse sands in no'
regular sequence were encountered in the drilling program. These small
units -tend to pinch out within comparitively short distances.
9
-------
Landfill
UPPER COASTAL PLAIN
MIDDLE COASTAL PLAIN LOWER COASTAL PLAIN
WHITE SAND HILLS.RED SANDHILLS
ORANGE BURG PaRLE*
SCARP SCARP
pleistocene
Pisolitic * . -C
KAOL1H COBSLf * "
HO»»ZON MSI
OLIGOCENE — EAALY AND
MEOlAC MIOCENE
PLEISTOCENE
/
8£thera
SCARP
J
¦ / •
' / :
> / i
' J -. 4
*
U|
u
O
e
-j
P<£s
J4f
o.
'-V
/¦ -.
/V/o;
>
>0
20
30 M»U»
/o^
80*°°'
c.*.
MIDDLE
COASTAL
PLAIN
---l B«ouforl
-------
The composition of sediments within the Middendorf exhibits the
disintegration of the parent crystalline rocks of the nearby Piedmont,
indicating that it was formed within a deDOsitional environment of
sediment laden streams eroding and draining the Piedmont in the late
Cretaceous (Colquhoun, D.J., 1965).
The water-bearing properties of the Middendorf vary greatly due
to its heterogeneous nature, resulting in complicated ground-water
flow patterns. It is the generally accepted thesis that permeable
deposits of medium to coarse grained sands occur as irregular masses
intercalated with impervious beds of clay. The sediments are not uni-
formly permeable, given the wide variability of well yield, but the
Middendorf does represent the major source of ground water in the Up-
per Coastal Plain, fn Geology and Ground Water of the Savannah River
Plant and Vicinity, George Siple of the U.S. Geological Survey states
that there are beds or lenses of clay in the Middendorf which in many
areas may be sufficiently extensive as to separate these water-bearing
sands into two or more aquifers, but the drill-hole data to make this
determination in the study area are not available. Exact thickness of
the Middendorf in the study area is not known, but the Bray Park well
and Dixianna Glass and Sand Company well #2 indicate that the eleva-
tion of Piedmont bedrock is about ninety to one-hundred feet, (27.4 to
30.5 meters) above mean sea level, although its surface is probably
highly irregular.
Overlying the Middendorf on topographic highs is a white (N9) to
light brown (5YR 6/4) medium to coarse-grained sand with thickness as
much as 60 feet (18.3 meters). These sands overlying the Middendorf
11
-------
are characterized by some crossbedding, long gentle slopes, and rounded
summits which were probably formed by wind action. Few fossils have
been found in these sands, which makes age determination difficult. The
Pliocene is the estimated age of the Pinehurst Formation in North Carolina,
which is thought to have the same paleo-environment as the sands in the
study area.
CIimate - The climatology for the site was adequately discussed in
the 1975 EPA report and is based on data collected by the National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport,
approximately 3 miles to the northwest.
For the period 1939 to 1978, precipitation in the form of rainfall
(snow averaged 1.7 inches (4.3 centimeters) per year) has averaged from
the minimum monthly rainfall of a trace (October 1963) to a maximum of
16.72 inches (42.5 centimeters, August 1949). Average precipitation is
45.26 inches (115.0 centimeters) per year (1939-1978).
The greatest rainfall occurs in July and August. This period ave-
rages 5.6 inches (14.2 centimeters) per month. The driest months are
October and November averaging 2.7 inches (6.7 centimeters) per month.
12
-------
During the study period (September 1977 to January 1979) precipi-
tation was slightly below normal for the period 1939 to 1978 and was
distributed as follows:
Month
September 1977
October
November
December
January 1978
February
March
Apri 1
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1979
Precipitation
(inches/centimeters)
1.51/ 3.8
4.81/12.2
2.10/ 5.3
3.69/ 9.4
9.26/23.5
1.28 3.3
3.49/ 8.9
4.28/10.9
3.09/ 7.8
4.73/12.0
2.10/ 5.3
4.45/11.3
4.09/10.4
0.79/ 2.0
2.98/ 7.6
1.82/ 4.6
4.19/13.2
13
-------
SITE HYDROGEOLOGY
Site Geology - The stratigraphy to a depth of about seventy-five
feet (22.9 meters) was determined by the drilling of fourteen chrono-
logically numbered wells and stratigraphic tests using a Simco 2400
four-inch (10.2 centimeter) power auger.
Existing wells were given a lettered designation. (Lettering
designated A', B', etc. indicates surface water sample station.)
The field work was carried out between October 1977 and January
1979, with the bulk of the drilling done in December 1977. Additional
drilling, not specified within the contract requirements, was performed
by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC) for a better understanding of geological conditions and the
effect those conditions have on contaminant migration.
The purpose of the drilling was two-fold; (1) to establish a shal-
low aquifer monitoring system, and (2) to determine the stratigraphy in
and around the study area.
Three cross sections were constructed from drilling data (see Fig-
ure 5). Cross section X-X' located east of the LCL and OCD was based
on borings #3, #4, #6, #8, and #11; cross sections W-W traversing the
LCL north to south was based on borings #2, #9, and #10, with added in-
formation from previously installed monitoring wells (B and C); the OCD
cross section (Y'-Y) was constructed from data acquired from borings #1,
#6, and #12.
Cross section (X-X1) illustrates litholggies east of the landfill
and OCD (see Figure 6). The oldest unit is a very pale (5YR 8/2) to
grayish orange (10YR 7/14) clay intercalated with a medium to coarse
14
-------
Figure 5. Plan view of the study area showing the locations of sampling points, stratigraphic
tests, and cross-sections. Disposal area boundaries are approximate.
-------
CT>
90-
270
80
70-
60t
50 J
1!>" -
! ™-\l
j r
J N
4
\ F
150 ; 12
i;
T
90
80
70
l.l'GFNn
SAtin
~
SANOV CLAY
CLAY
o
REFUSE
bJ
60
50
SCALE 1
Figure
6.
Cross-section X-X1 from stratigraphic test 4 to monitoring well 6.
-------
light brown (5YR 5/6) sand averaging 35 feet (10.7 meters) below the
surface. This clay is considered to be part of the Middendorf Forma-
tion. Individual sand units within this formation could not be cor-
related indicating they are irregular or pinch out at relatively short
distances.
Overlying the clay is a light brown (5YR 6/4) to orange (10YR 8/6),
medium to coarse grained sand with a maximum thickness of 45 feet (13.7
meters) at stratigraphic boring #4. It is thought to be aeolian in ori-
gin and Pliocene in age. It was discovered in this study that in some
places this sand had been excavated (west of Bray Park) and waste mat-
erial deposited on top of the clay. Stratigraphic borings #3, #8, and
#1.1 indicate 8 feet (2.4 meters) as the average thickness of the refuse.
Overlying the Bray Park waste is an olive gray (5YR 3/1) to yellowish
brown (10YR 6/2) coarse grained sand 2 to 5 feet (0.6 to 1.5 meters) in
thickness.
Cross section W-W' illustrates litholgoies associated directly with
the LCL (see figure 7). A pfnfc to grayish orange (10 YR 5/6) clay in-
tercalated with a light brown (5YR 5/6) medium to coarse-grained sand
underlies the landfill and is exposed on the eastern floor.
On the southern end overlying this clay is an off-white (N8) med-
ium to coarse-grained sand. This light brown (5YR 5/6) sand with thick-
ness up to 60 feet (18.3 meters can be observed along the walls of the
landfill on the east and west sides. On the northern end the medium to
coarse-grained sand reaches thicknesses averaging 32 feet (9.8 meters)
as indicated by borings #9 and #10.
17
-------
00
100 1
90-
80.
300.
270.
240.
10
70 J
60^
50-
40"
210.
1B0.
150.
120.
C B
T'U
FLr>op.
II
LEGEMO
SAND Q
SAUDY CLAY Q
CLAY 0
SURFACE MATER 0
300
270
240
210
X 80
450
-120
•100
¦ 90
.80
. 7 n
- 60
r 50
40
M
E
T
E
* r
SCALE 1 : 2400
Figure 7. Cross-section W-W' from stratigraphic test 9 to monitoring well 2.
-------
During the period of study, waste material was deposited on the
clay floor on the west side of the landfill. Previous well E (since
abandoned) indicated 12 feet (3.7 meters) of wastes on the southwest
end. At this time the estimate is 25 feet (7.6 meters) at that point.
No other data on waste thickness are available. The cover for the
landfill is a light brown (5YR 5/6) medium to coarse-grained sand.
The cross-section through the OCD (Y<-Y) illustrates subsurface
lithologies of the Stanley Pond area (see Figure 8 supra). The pond
itself was turned into a trash dump in the mid 1960's. Drilling showed
a pale-orange (10YR 8/2) slightly plastic clay of unknown thickness
averaging 16 feet (4.9 meters) below the surface. • Overlying this unit,
in the vicinity of monitoring well #6 east of the OCD is a coarse-
grained yellowish-orange (10YR 6/6) sand, 8 feet (2.4 meters) in thick-
ness. To the west, stratigraphic boring #12 indicated 15 feet (4.6
meters) of sandy clay overlying the clay.
Lithologies were much different in the dump area where Stanley
Pond once existed, as indicated by stratigraphic boring #1. Overlying
the pale-orange (10YR 3/6) clay is a 4-foot (1.2 meter) thick dark or-
ganic-rich silt, which may have been deposited at the bottom of Stanley
Pond. Overlying the dark silt was 10 feet (3 meters) of black highly
decomposed waste material which was covered by a 7-foot (2.1 meters)
layer of medium-grained light-brown (5YR 6/4) sand.
Shallow Ground Water Hydrology - Water-level data from monitoring
wells and points of spring emergence give a varying and complex hydro-
logic picture of shallow ground-water flow in the study area. Water
levels measured in wells #2, #6, #11, #13, and #14 indicate water-table
flow is in a south-southeasterly direction through the LCL and the OCD
19
-------
80 -
240
01.0 CAYCE 0IJMP
ro
O
70 -i
60 -
220
200
180
160
50
I'll!
40
rt
E. i
T
e :
** i
S !
120
L
I:
V
A
T
I
0
N
M
S
I,
1
N
I-
I:
r:
r
l.F.GF.NI)
CI.AY pj
SANDY CLAY
REFUSE M
SANHY REFUSE R
s 11. r y
SCALE
SAND 1 !
SIIRFACF. UATF.R L 1
220
200
180
I 60
J to
120 ^ 40
Figure 8. Cross-section Y-Y1 from stratigraphic test 12 to monitoring well 6.
-------
(see figures 9 arid 10 supra). J. Michel stated that the flow of ground
water from the LCL is radials but this cannot be confirmed without a
more extensive shallow well network.
The study area consists of a local recharge-discharge flow system
superimposed on the deeper regional flow systems that probably have a
hydraulic gradient to the southeast. The recharge that is not dis-
charge to small streams becomes part of that regional flow (J. Michel,
1975).
In the vicinity of the landfill, there is a small unnamed stream
which has its headwaters in the abandoned Cayce Dump at A'. A sub-
stantial quantity of shallow ground water and leachate apparently are
discharged to this stream which is the only observed surface flow out
of the study area. During drier weather, stream flow decreases away
from A' until there is no surface flow within several hundred meters.
This leachate enriched water may reenter the shallow ground-water sys-
tem at some point between A' and 1-26, but such a determination was
beyond the scope of this study.
It is estimated that the surface discharge at A1 constitutes a
very small percentage of the total discharge from the drainage basin
above A' and that ground-water discharge is by far the most signifi-
cant. It is impossible to predict the amount of this ground-water dis-
charge which becomes contaminated by passing through the refuse or the
depth to which any leachate is able to flow. It can be said, however,
that a large volume of water falling in the small drainage basin (about
0 21 square miles) has the potential to become leachate and contaminate
21
-------
Figure 9. Water-table surface measured on July 7, 1978. Contour lines dashed where inferred.
Arrows indicate probable flow direction.
-------
130 ',on
120
110
100
125
-/.no
-175
90 •
80
2SO
o
_i _
60
i r>
50
40
-l
30
£|no
.)
0*
20
I 3 law
10 ; „
ri3o
120
mo
•100
-90
7 VI .80
i
¦70
-60
I 7")
I.FCI-NI)
Sand
o
Cl«y
~
Garbage
0
Surface Water
Id
Silt
1-1
100
'50
40
-30
-20
¦ 10
SCALE 1:4200
Figure 10. Cross-section Z-Z' from the northern edge of the Lexington County Landfill to
monitoring well 14.
-------
the deeper sands in the Middendorf aquifer system, although the data
to confirm this possibility has not been collected because such work
is beyond the scope of this study.
Monitoring well locations were selected on information from pre-
vious studies, field observations of seeps, and topography. Wells #6
and #11 were used to intercept possible contaminants generated in the
Bray Park Dump. Monitoring well #2 was intended to isolate the effects
of the LCL. Monitoring wells #13 and #14 were drilled to assess the
impact of both the OCD and LCL on shallow ground water. Well #10 was
drilled as a background well.
Drill logs indicate a basal clay of unknown thickness beneath
the LCL and the OCD (see Figure 10 supra). Even taking into account
the heterogeneous nature of the Middendorf Formation, the continuity
of this clay in the OCD area appears very probable. Ground water emer-
ging from the OCD probably is caused by rain percolating through sand
and waste material in the LCL area and traveling laterally on top of
this basal clay, which is within about twenty feet (6.1 meters) of the
surface in the vicinity of the OCD.
Michel reported that contaminant levels for seeps emerging from
the surface of the OCD are an order of magnitude lower at the headwaters
near the center of the dump area than several tens of feet down stream,
indicating most of the dissolved material results from contact with
wastes within the OCD-rather than the LCL, although there are other con-
taminant avenues, such as ground-water flow from LCL.
As previously stated, wells #6 and #11 were used to determine if
the Bray Park Dump was contaminating shallow ground water. Well #11
was placed on the north-eastern edge of the Bray Park Dump and screened
24
-------
at a depth of 50-57 feet (15.2 - 17.4 meters). Well #6 was placed
south-east of the Bray Park Dump and screened at a depth of 27-34 feet
(8.2-10.4 meters). Geochemical data show little contamination in well
#6, indicating either leachate is following deeper flow lines or mi-
grating in a more southerly direction. Well #11 could be showing no
contamination because it is upgradient, with respect to ground-water
flow, from the Bray Park Dump area.
Monitoring wells #13 and #14 (screened at a depth of 15 to 20
feet) indicate little contamination which would infer shallow ground
water is protected by an aquitard separating contaminated surface water
flowing southeast- fronf ground water migrating due south. Monitoring
well #2 (screened at a depth of 50-57 feet) is intercepting leachate
generated in the LCL migrating due south. A hydrologic relationship
between well #2 and surface water in the OCD was difficult to establish
due to fluctuations in precipitation and a lag in response to these
fluctuations.
Shallow Ground Water Quality - The quality of ground water in the
water-table aquifer was determined by sampling DHEC wells #2, #6, #10,
#13, #14, private wells E and F. Surface water quality was determined
by sampling stations A', B', C'» and D\ Parameters for analyses were
established by the EPA. The DHEC laboratories analyzed unfiltered sam-
ples for total metals plus selenium, chlorides, nitrates, phenols, cya-
nide, total hardness and COD. An independent laboratory, under an EPA
contract, analyzed filtered samples for metals plus arsenic and selenium.
All metals were acidified with HC1 in the field immediately after
sampTing. (Dissolved metals were acidified after filtration through a
25
-------
0.45 micron membrane filter). COD samples were acidified with I^SO^.
Phenols were fixed with CuSO^ and chilled. The pH for cyanide was
raised to excess of 12 with NaOH (no sample was taken if the pH was
less than 6 due to safety considerations). Chlorides, nitrates, and
total hardness were left unfixed and delivered to the DHEC labs with-
in 45 minutes.
Water-quality data for filtered and unfiltered samples are shown
in Tables 1 through 24 and graphically in Figures 12 through 78.
DHEC well #2 located between the LCL and the COD as recommended
by J. Michel is assumed to represent leachate quality horizontallyleav-
ing the LCL ('see Figures 12 through 17). The most significant water-
quality changes are elevated conductivity and chlorides which approached
drinking water standards (see bottom) once during the period of study.
The elevated iron and manganese may be attributed to leachate and/or the
dissolving of these metals from the formation between the landfill and
well #2. Lead exceeded drinking water standards three times. Hardness,
COD, copper, cadmium, chromium and selenium are slightly elevated above
background for normal Upper Coastal Plain shallow ground water. In gen-
eral the concentration of dissolved material in well #2 appears to be a
function of precipitation (increased precipitation produces greater vol-
umes of more dilute leachate). Leachate leaving the LCL is probably lo-
calized and restricted to the water table aquifer and shallow ground
water entering the OCD may be previously contaminated by the LCL.
As more solid wastes are added to the LCL, the average concentra-
tions of Teachable substances can be expected to increase in the ground
National Intermin Primary Drinking Water Regulations or National Sec-
ondary Drinking Water Regulations, as applicable.
26
-------
water with seasonal fluctuations caused by variation in precipitation
and evapotranspiration.
DHEC well #6 was drilled to monitor water-quality changes to the
southeast of the LCL, but, as a result of the discovery of the Bray
Park abandoned dump, the purpose of well #6 was changed to indicate
the effect of leachate generated in the Bray Park Dump on shallow ground
water. However, there was no conclusive indication that shallow water
quality at well #6 was significantly affected during the period of study,
with the exception of one sample in February in which dissolved lead
exceeded the drinking water standard.
DHEC well #10, which was intended to monitor background quality in
the water-table aquifer, was vandalized several times during the period
of study and its use for this purpose is subject to considerable doubt.
Elevated lead, iron, manganese, chromium, cadmium and arsenic were de-
tected in August; but it is not known if their occurrences are indica-
tive of background conditions or were derived from foreign material dump-
ed into the well.
DHEC well #11 was drilled to assess water quality changes to the
southeast of the LCL. During drilling about 10 feet (3.0 meters) of
solid waste was penetrated. It is believed that this waste is part of
the Bray Park Dump. Conductivity was highest when water level and pre-
cipitation were lowest but only slight contamination (lead of 0.07 mg/1
in May) was detected (also, selenium approached standard on some rounds).
It is possible that well #11 is upgradient of most of the dump and is
affected only by the refuse above.
27
-------
DHEC wells #13 and #14 were drilled to determine the impact of the
study area on the shallow ground water. These wells were also used to
determine if there is a relationship between the surface water leaving
the OCD and the shallow ground water. Water levels in wells #13 and
#14 are-about 9 feet (2.7 meters) and 12 feet (3.7 meters) lower, re-
spectively, than the nearby surface flow.
It is possible that the small stream is losing water (and leachate)
to the ground, causing contamination and/or the OCD is contaminating the
ground water via subsurface flow. In any case, the contamination of the
water-table aquifer at these points appears to be low-level consisting
of iron, chromium, lead and arsenic in well #13 and iron and chromium in
well #14.
Surface sampling station A' was used to indicate leachate quality
emanating from the surface of the OCD. It is the most mineralized
water analyzed in this study. The drinking water standard for mercury
was exceeded once (February 1978) and the conductivity reached 1000
umho/cm during dry weather in November 1978. Chloride, hardness, barium,
and chromium also exceeded background. It is believed that the poorer
quality of water at A' is the result of leachate production in the LCL
and the top 5 feet of the OCD.
Surface sampling station B' downstream of A' reflects rapid dilution
in the 150 yards (137 meters) of surface flow. Volume of flow appears
to increase, indicating that the stream is a gaining stream for that dis-
tance in contradiction to the conclusion that the stream may be a losing
stream drawn from the relatively lower water levels in wells #13 and #14.
28
-------
The dilution causes significant reduction in nearly all parameters.
The flow path of this water was not fully studied, but it was obser-
ved that the stream disappeared on the west side of 1-26 in the spring
of the study year.
The Rucker Wells (E and F) were sampled as another indication of
water quality in the water-table aquifer downgradient of the LCL and
OCD and because wells E and F are being used as drinking water sources.
The most significant water quality characteristics for well F were
mercury (filtered) with a concentration of 0.28 mg/1 in February (ex-
ceeding the drinking water standard) and conductivity of 330 umho/cm
during dry weather in early November (exceeding background levels by
an order of magnitude). Other parameters approached or exceeded drink-
ing water standards on some rounds. These included: Fe, Mn, Pb, Hg
for well E and Pb, Fe, Mn, Hg for well F. It is suspected that the
source of these contaminants is the Bray Park Dump, based on water lev-
els, but this conclusion is highly conjectural without knowledge of
amount, lateral extent, and types of wastes buried in the abandoned
Bray Park Dump.
Surface sampling stations C' and D' are small ponds; C; is located
within the LCL pit and D' is located east of 1-26. Sample station C'
was selected to determine the quality of surface runoff which collects
in the LCL pit. Sampling station D' was selected as a background sur-
face water station. Several parameters for C' and D' exceeded drinking
water standards or had elevated levels on some sampling rounds. These
parameters included:
29
-------
C' D1
Fe Fe
Cr Mn
T.H. Cr
Pb Cu
CI
Mn COD
Se
Water quality at C1 is greatly influenced by dilution as a result
of surface runoff within the landfill pit as evidenced by the highest
concentrations of most paramters occurring in the summer months when
evapotranspiration is highest. The occurrence of elevated concentra-
tions in the pond at D' cannot be explained within the scope of this
investigation.
Deep Ground Water Hydrology - The clay units under the landfill
appear to behave as local aquitards, but they appear to grade into
coarse units and hydrologically connect the different sands of the
Middendorf Formation (J. Michel, 1975). Individual beds of coarse
and fine sediments are interr.iixed and grade laterally into one another
or pinch out within comparatively short distances (G.E. Siple, 1967),
therefore clays under the study area are probably not efficient barri-
ers to the downward migration of contaminants.
Three wells (B, C, and "old" E) drilled in the LCL pit in 1975 in-
dicate little degradation of aquifers deeper than 30 to 40 feet (9.1 to
12.2 meters) within the Middendorf directly beneath the landfill. Only
"old" well E penetrated the refuse. This well showed some elevation
of the following parameters: specific conductance, COD, iron, manganese.
Wells B and C showed little or no contamination. It is possible that
insufficient time has elapsed for ground-water flow to carry leachate to
this depth.
30
-------
SUMMARY
The drilling of fourteen relatively shallow borings, some of which
were made into monitoring wells, were used to further define the hydro-
geologic setting for the LCL. A light gray to pink kaolinitic clay was
encountered in all fourteen borings, but it can nqt be concluded that the
clay is one continuous unit which would be a permeability barrier to
downward migration of leachate contaminated ground water. In fact, due
to the typically heterogenous nature of Middendorf sediments, it is con-
cluded that the clays are not continuous and that they are aquitards on
a local basis only. Therefore, interpretation of water-qua1ity and
water-level data is difficult and subject to speculation. It is pos-
sible that some of the monitoring wells are drilled into perched water
tables which may not be significantly affected by leachate from the
numerous sources in the study area. A newly discovered leachate source
(Bray Park Dump) further complicated the determination of cause and ef-
fect relationships with the limited number of wells available.
It is clear, however, that the study area has the potential to sig-
nificantly impair ground-water quality on a regional basis in the deeper
sands of the Middendorf aquifer system for the following reasons:
1. Elevated coneentrations of several contaminants occurred during
the study period even though sporadic;
2. The area has strong potential as a regional recharge area due
to its location in the outcrop of the Middendorf aquifer system
on a topographic high where the head differential between deeper
zones in the Middendorf and the overlying aquifers is at a maxi-
31
-------
mum (static water level in existing well B was consistently
12 to 14 feet (3.7 to 4.3 meters) higher than well C during
1975), and
3. The abandoned sand pit which contains the LCL is very large
and if completely filled, as planned, will contain a volume
of solid waste many times greater than that which existed at
the time of this study.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES TO MINIMIZE
PRESENT AND POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION
After considerable study the environmental impact of the LCL re-
mains poorly understood because of the complex lithologic setting and
the multiple Teachate sources. The question concerning deep migration
of leachate -contaminated ground water would require additional research.
It is recommended that the hydro!ogic relationship between the
shallow aquifers and the deeper parts of the Middendorf be more accura-
tely defined prior to considering leachate collection and treatment. In
order to make this determination it is recommended that four test holes
to basement rock should be drilled (with cores taken at 10-foot inter-
vals) and geophysically logged in order to more accurately determine the
site stratigraphy. The information gathered from the test holes could
then be used as the basis for the installation of piezometers and perma-
nent monitoring wells in the locations and to the depths which will pro-
vide the most meaningful data possible. A complete understanding of the
geohydrologic conditions is absolutely necessary to determine:
32
-------
1. the ultimate fate of the resulting leachate;
2. the design of a monitoring program, and
3. the design of a leachate collection system, should this become
necessary.
Until a more comprehensive evaluation can be performed, the fol-
lowing steps are recommended to be performed promptly:
1. Existing wells B, C, and "old" E should be plugged with cement
prior to covering with solid wastes. If they are not to be
covered, they could be incorporated into the monitoring program.
2. The daily and intermediate cover material should be changed to
a clayey sand instead of sand now being used. The final cover
should be at least 24 inches of a low permeability (e.g. clay).
3. New waste cells could be completely encased in a low permea-
bility material, especially at edges of the landfill to prevent
lateral migration of leachate through the sandy walls.
33
-------
appendices
34
-------
APPENDIX - A
FIGURES
35
-------
MONITORING WELL # 2
W.L.
H-
3
o
ro
w
4 --
2 -•
Mar'78 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct * Nov Dec Jan '79
Figure n Precipitation record from the Columbia Metropolitan Airport, weekly hydrographs, and specific conduc
-------
Sampling Point 2
Figure 12 Water quality trends from filtered samples for Cadmium, Manganese, and Mercury
in narrs ner million
a nn wnonnn: i i ¦ i imi i v 111-1 11 i i~ i Vi' n i l '
-------
Sampling Point 2
00 .re 13 Water quality trends from filtered samples for Chromium, Barium, Iron, and Lead
Figure parts per million
dnu rrienu i :> i in uai us u i i i ium /
-------
Sampling Point 2
200-
190-
170-
150 -
130-
110
90
Drinking Standards
Mn
Hg
Cr
Fe
.05 ppm
.002 ppm
.05 ppm
.30 ppm
.8
.7
-.6
-.5
50
30
10 - H%
Cr*
-ji
-.3
-.2
A
o
Feb"78 Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan'79
Figure 14 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Chromium, Iron, Mercury, and Manganese
in parts per nfillion
inn; i i t ill uu I bj VJ V- t Ml l i iwiiy
-------
Sampling Point 2
Feb'78 Mar Apr May Jim Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan'79
Figure 15 water quality trends from unfllte^ed samples for COD, Hardness, Chlorides, and Lead
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point 2
Figure 16 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Nitrates, Copper, Zinc (in parts per rnillion)
and Phenols (in parts per billion
-------
MONITORING WELL # 6
W.L.
Mar'78
Jan179
Figure 17 Precipitation record from the Columbia Metropolitan Airport, weekly bydrographs, and specific conduc —
-------
Sampling Point 6
Fiaure 18 'Water quality trends from filtered-samples for Cadmium, Manganese, and Mercury
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point ®
-------
Sampling Point 6
¦ Feb '78 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan '79
Figure 20 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Chromium, Iron, Mercury, and Manganese
in parts p6r million
-------
Sampling Point 6
Drinking Standards
Phenols N/A
NO3 10 ppm
Zn 5.0 ppm
Cu 1.0 ppm
Nitrates
Zni
Cu A-
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan'79
Feb"78 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Figure 21 ^ater quality trends from unfiltered samples for Nitrates, Copper, Zinc ( in parts per million)
and Phenols ( in oarts oer billion)
-------
Sampling Point 6
Feb'78 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan'79
Figure 27. Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for COD, Hardness, Chlorides, and Lead
in parts per million
-------
MONITORING WELL It 14
Figure 23 Precipitation record from the Columbia Metropolitan Airuort, weekly hydrographs, and specific conduc-
tance.
-------
Sampling Point 14
Figure 24 Water quality trends from filtered samples for Cadmium, Manganese, and Mercury
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point ^
Drinking Standards
D90
380.
.070
.060
.050
.040
.030
.3
.010
.005
s_
o
(O
ca
Ba
1.0
ppm
Pb
.05
ppm
Cr
.05
ppm
Fe
.30
ppm
.312
Jan*78 Feb
410
koo
,.070
-90
80 1.060
70
-60
50
-40
30
-20
10
¦ n
trD
. .050
..040
...030
.020
.010
-a
cr
Dec'78
Fiaure 25 Water quality trends from filtered samples for Chromium, Barium, Iron, and Lead
in parts per million
-------
.0020
,0018
0016
0014
0012
0010
0008
0006
0004
0002
Sampling Point 14
Drinking Standards
• Mn
.05
ppm
Hg
.002
ppm
Cr
.05
ppm
Fe
.30
ppm
-.8
-.7
6
-.5
-.4
-.3
-.2
Mn •
1
•
•
»
*
h ^—-
i —. , ~—
— *
v
Mar
Apr
May
Juri Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan179
Figure 26 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Chromium, Iron, Mercury, and Manganese,
in parts per mi-llion
-------
Sampling Point 14
800 j
700-
120-
600-
100
500-
400-
300-
200
100
80-
40
20
10-
q pa
o
O H
Pb
.05
ppm
CI
250
ppm
TH
N/A
COD
N/A
- 300
- 200
- 100
Pb
Feb'78 Mar
Apr
r>
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan'79
Figure 27 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for COD, Hardness, Chlorides, and Lead
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point 14
Drinking Standards
Phenols N/A
NO 3 10 ppm
Zn 5.0 ppm
Cu 1.0 ppm
Nitrates
Zn »
Feb*78 Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan'79
Figure 28 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Nitrates, Copper, Zinc (in parts per Million)
and Phenols (in parts per billion)
-------
MONITORING WELL #11
Figure 29 -Precipitation record from the Columbia Metropolitan Airport, weekly hydrographs, and specific conduc
lance.
-------
Sampling Point H
Figure 30 Water quality trends from filtered samples for Cadmium, Manganese, and Mercury
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point 11
vn
^ Figure 31 Water quality trends from filtered samples for Chromium, Barium, Iron, and Lead
in parts per mil-lion
-------
Sampling Point 11
Figure 32 ^ater quality trends from unfiltered samples for Chromium, Iron, Mercury, and Manganese
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point H
Figure 33 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for COD, Hardness, Chlorides, and Lead
In parts per million
-------
Sampling Point 11
Drinking Standards
Phenols
N/A
no3
10 ppm
Zn
5.0 ppm
Cu
1.0 ppm
. ¦ i i i ... . — A - ..... .. i. . —— ¦ ¦—, . t ... ... —- I . ,
Feb'78 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan'79
Figure 34 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Nitrates, Copper, Zinc (in parts per million)
and Phenols (in parts per billion)
-------
MONITORING WELL It 13
giire 35 precipitation record from the Columbia Metropolitan Airport, weekly hydrographs, and specific conduc
-------
Sampling Point ^
Figure 36 Water quality trends from filtered samples, for Cadmium, Manganese, and Mercury
r^TC nUr:fTl.mTV;fJ,7,er million
-------
Sampling Point 13
-------
Sampling Point 13
Figure 38 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Chromium, Iron, Mercury, and Manganese
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point 13
Fiaure 39 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for COD, Hardness, Chlorides, and Lead
y in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point 13
Phenols
N/A'
no3 10
ppra
Zn 5.0
ppm
Cu 1.0
ppra
Phenols
Feb178 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec. Jan'79
Figure 40 Water quality trends from unflltered samples for Nitrates, Copper, Zinc (in par£s per million)
DliAnnl r ( i* n na^+c nor hi! 1 1 \
-------
SAMPLING POINTS A B', E and F
Figure 41 Precipitation record from the Columbia Metropolitan Airport and Specific Conductance
-------
Sampling Point A'
Jari'78 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec'78
Figure 42 Water quality trends from filtered samples, for Cadmium, Manganese, and Mercury
in oarts oer million
-------
Sampling Point A>
-------
Sampling Point
Feb'78 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan'79
Fl'aurp AA Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Chromium, Iron, Mercury, and Manganese
in parts Rer million
-------
Sampling Point A'
Figure 45 Water quality trends from unfiitered samples for COD, Hardness, Chlorides, and Lead
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point A'
-------
Sampling Point'
Jan '78 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec'78
Figure 47 Water quality trends from filtered samples for Cadmium, Manganese, and Mercury
In parts ver million
-------
Sampling Point 2.'
-------
Sampling Point s'
Figure 49 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Chromium, Iron, Mercury, and Manganese
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point B'
800,
700-
120-
Drinking Standards
Pb
.05 ppm
CI
250 ppm
TH
N/A
COD
N/A
600-
100-
500-
80-
400-
300 -
200-
100
o •
o
u
60-
Feb'78 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan* 79
c- " Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for COD, Hardness, Chlorides, and Lead
79Uj"e 50 in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point b'
Drinking Standards
Phenols N/A
NO3 10 ppE
Zn 5.0 ppir
Cu 1.0 ppn
-------
Sampling Point E
Figure 52 Water quality trends from filtered-samples for Cadmiijm, Manganese, and Mercury
1n parts per* million
-------
Sampling Point E
-------
Sampling Point E
F-inure 54 Water quality trends from unflltered samples for Chromium, Iron, Mercury, and Manganese
r,y in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point je
Feb178 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan *79
Figure 55 Water quality trends from unflltered samples for COD, Hardness, Chlorides, and Lead
In parts per pillion
-------
Sampling Point e_
Figure 56 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Nitrates, Copper, ZillC (in parts per million)
and Phenols (in parts per billion)
-------
Sampling Point, F '
Figure 57 Water quality trends from filtered samples for Cadmium, Manganese, and Mercury
In parts per million
-------
Sampling Point F
Figure 58water quality trends from filtered samples for Chromium, Barium, Iron, and Lead
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Po1rit_£_
Figure 59 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Chromium, Iron, Mercury, and Manganese
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point
Figure 60 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for COD, Hardness, Chlorides, and Lead
In parts per million
-------
Sampling Point f
Figure 61 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Nitrates, Copper, Zinc (in parts per million)
anH Phono!c fin nartc npr hillinn^
-------
SAMPLING POINTS C', D' and G
oo
Jan'79
Figure 62 precipitation record from the Columbia Metropolitan Airport and specific conductance.
anrl Hhorinlc nn narrc; npr m u)(iri.i
-------
Sampling Point &
Figure 63 Water quality trends from filtered samples for Cadmium, Manganese, and Mercury
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point C'
Drinking Standards
.090
.080.
.070
.060
.050
.040
.030
.020
.010
.005
.4
.3
.1
c_> co
Ba
1.0
ppm
Pb
.05
ppm
Cr
.05
ppm
, Fe
.30
ppm
, Fe »-
Jan'78 Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
\o
Figure 64 Water quality trends from filtered samples for Chromium, Barium, Iron, and Lead
in parts per million
J10
400
..070
90
80 1.060
-70
60
50
40
30
20
10
n
n>
.050
..040
...030
..020
.010
~o
iD-
Dec '78
-------
Sampling Point c'
200-
190-
170-
Drj,nking Standards
Mn
.05
ppm
Hg
*002
ppm
Cr
,05
ppm
Fe
.30
ppm
t-,0020
.0018
-.8
¦. 7
-.0016
-.0014
-.0012
-.6
.0010
-.5
-.0008
Cr
Hg
Feb'78 Mar
Jan'79
Figure 65Water quality trends from unfilterea samples for Chromium, Iron, Mercury, and Manganese
in parts per million
-.0006
.0004
-.0002
w
-------
Sampling Point c'
Figure 66 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for COD, Hardness, Chlorides, and Lead
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point C'
Figure 67 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Nitrates, Copper, Zinc (in parts per million)
arirl Phonnl c (in nartc npv hil.ljonl..
-------
Sampling Point p
Figure 68 Water quality trends from filtered samples for Cadmium, Manganese, and Mercury
ill parts pey million.
-------
Sampling Point D'
~§- Figure 69water quality trends from filtered samples for Chromium, Barium, Iron, and Lead
in parts per million ^
-------
Sampling Point d'
Figure 70 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Chromium, Iron, Mercury, and Manganese
In parts per million
-------
Sampling Point
Figure 71 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for COD, Hardness, Chlorides, and Lead
In parts per million
-------
Sampling Point o'
-------
Sampling Point G
Figure 73 Water quality trends from filtered samples for Cadmium, Manganese, and Mercury
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Point G
Figure 74 Water quality trends from filtered samples for Chromium, Barium, Iron, and Lead
in parts per million
-------
Sampling Po1nt_G
2.00-
190
170
Drinking Standards
Mn
.05
ppm
Hg
j002
ppm
Cr
.05
ppm
Fe
,30
ppm
t-. 0020
>-.0018
5 h 150
-.0016
130
-.0014
110
,8
.7
-.0012
3 A 90
-.0010
.2
70
50
-.5
-.4
-.0008
.0006
1 • 30
£
10 -
Q>
Mri
Hg —
Cr*-
Feb'78 Mar
$
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan'79
Figure 75 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Chromium, Iron, Mercury, and Manganese
in parts per million
-.2
-.1
o
n
.0004
.0002
w
-------
Sampling Point G
800,
Drinking Standards
700-
120-
Pb
.05 ppm
CI
250 ppm
TH
N/A
COD
N/A
600-
100-
500-
80-
h
o
400-
60-
- 300
- 200
-------
Sampling Point ^
Figure 77 Water quality trends from unfiltered samples for Nitrates, Copper, Zinc (in parts per million)
and Phenols (in parts per billion)
-------
County: Lexington
DRILL ilULb LOG
Grid Coord:
Date: 10-27-77
Lat-long:
Location: Lexington County Landf111/Cavce Dump
Total Depth: ?/.¦
"Water Table: m
E1evat1on:_
Drilled by: Gaorge Workman
STRAX. WELL # 1
Screen Depth
Logged by; I. Lewis and Bill flnfnrth
Type Drill: Pr««r Au««r
•Sample taken corresponding
to depth.
0>
*
Oeptn
ft
1-
2--
3—
4--
5--
4-.
7-t
9--
S.O-J-
l-t"
L2--
*3^
LV-
r
— 3
±U>
—15
. .20
+25
L
i
r
*-
--30
135
..40
-¦43
•50
Predoni.
litho.
Sand
Trash
Sandy
Trash
Sllty
Sand
Clay
TD
Grain Size
sand
10
60
30
30
(1)
60
10
10
90
-SiliflL.
Comments
Lt. brown
turning
darker
black
black to
dark gray
dk. brown
whit*
Idrilling characteristics,
minerals, contacts, env. c
dep., etc.
fill, moist at 4'
saturated, moderate shall
hydrogen sulfide
trash mixed with a
moderately coarse sand
appears to be pond bottom
filled with organics
micaceous
very plastic with a thin
layer of coarse sand on
Figure 78
* .. It • I .•
1 . t
103
-------
County: Lexington County
DRILL HOLE LOG
Grid Coorci:
Date: Oct. 23. 1977
_Lat-Long:
Location: On Sand Ridge between Lexington Landfill & Cayce Dump n-j Total Depth: 75'
Hater Table: 31'
Elevation: 236.91
Drilled by: George Workman
Logged by:_ Joel Lewis
Screen Depth: 50'-57*
Type Dri11: Power Auger
"Sample taken corresponding
to depth.
Depth
i-
1-^
m ft
Predotn.
Litho.
Sand
Grain Size (%)
sand
60
35
Color
Light olive
gray 5Y6/1
Dark
Brown
Comments
drilling characteristics,
minerals, contacts, env. o
dep., etc.
Easy Drilling
Dry
3-r
•L
—10
Sand
70
30
Med. Drk.
Brown
Drk. yellowf.:
brown
10YR4/2
Dry
sh
4-r
5-1-
Sand
—15
70
30
Very Pale
Orange
10YR8/2
Golden
Brown
Dry
6-L
10"
L2-
13--
LM-
-.20
Sand
L
t251
-.30
-35
40
-45
Sand
•501
65
35
6C
40
6C
SC
60
6C
6C
40
40
40
40
Grayish
Orange
10YR7/4
Light Brwn
Off White
Very pale
orange
1QYR8/2
Very pale
orange
10YR8/2
Off White
Mod. yellov^i;
Brwn. 10YR<
Grayish or,
10YR7/4
Off White
Very Pale
Orange
10YRS/2
Same
sh
Ail
snge
Moist
Hoist
Wet - not completely
Saturated
Figure 79
ffor. 1th ^n.i •>>."/ 'r'U''
-------
County:
URILI HOLt LOG
Grid Coord:
Ua te:
_Lat-Long:
Location:
Page 2
El evation:_
Drilled by:_
Logged by:_
Type Dri11:_
Total Oeptli:_
Water Table:_
Screen Depth"
~Sample caken corresponding
to depth.
A<
£
Oeptn
ft
I-
50
Predom.
Litho.
Sand
Grain Size (%)
sand
60
40
Color
Off White
Comments
drilling characteristics,
minerals, contacts, env.
dep., etc.
2—
3-r
k—
60
Sand
65
6--
74
70
Clay
55
55
40
40
Brownish
White
Wet - not completely
Saturated
15
80
70
Eink to
White
Grayish
orange pink
5YR7/2
Hard drilling
Plastic
TD.
3-r
LOT
75
Sand
it"
12"
i>
L4-f
pu t
RnArrt W-t-r P<.
-------
County: Lexington County
DRILL HOLE LOG
Grid Coord:
Date:12-12-77
_Lat-Long:_
Location- Lexington Co. Landfill Strat. Well #3
El evation: ~ 230
Dri11ed by: George Workman
_Total Depth: 37'
Water Table:
Screen Depth:
Logged by: Joel Lewis
Type Dri11: Auger 2400
*Sample taken corresponding
to depth.
J*
Depth
1-
2—
4-1"
S —
7-
®"" J-3C
L0--
LIT
L2--
13--
hr.
n ft
— 5
10
—15
6— ..20.
*25
-351
.. 60
t-45
j;
Predom.
Litho.
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Clay
Grain Size (%)
a c
sand
co irs<
m
diuji
to
arsii
to
to
co
sil
1 cc
vei y ccar:
veiy soar:
>,
Color
Olive
Gray
5 Y 3/2
Olive
Black
5 Y 2/1
e
Dark yellow]
orange
10 YR 6/6
Dark yellow:
brown
10 YR 4/2
Mod. Reddish
Brown
10 R 4/6
sh
sh
Comments
drilling characteristics,
minerals, contacts, env. r
dep., etc.
Garbage mixed
Garbage mixed
Sand only
lite brown
5 YR 5/6
lite brown
5 YP. 6/4
very pale
orange
10 YR 8/2
Very hard drilling
C ' r ' 1
Fiqure 80
rionh i-f 1 th 40il "nv. rVnt-n
106
-------
~RILL HOLE LOG
Date: 12-14-77
County: Lexington County
Grid Coord:
Location:
Lexington Co. Landfill
Strat. Well ft4
Elevation: ~250
Drilled by: George Workman
Logged by: j„«i T.ewts
Type Drill: Powered Auger
Lat-Long:_
_Total Depth: 4??'_
Water Table:
Screen Depth:
*Sample taken corresponding
to depth.
J*
£
Depth
i-
2-1-
6-r
125
i~T — 3G
10--
LtT
Li"
L3~
K
A
I
5-L
ft
r5
3- -Lao
i-15
.20
Predom.
Litho.
Sand
Sand
.35
..4a
445
*"50
Sand
Clay
Grain Size (%)
sand
coarse
cos
t
vei
sand
rse
o
y ctar:
vei y c iar£
lit
to ¦ -erv
Color
Lite
Brown
5 YR 5/6
Dark yellowijsh
orange
10 TP 6/6
Lite brown
S YR 5/6
pale yellow
orange
10 YR 3/6
Comments
drilling characteristics,
minerals, contacts, env.
dep., etc.
Dark yellow:
orange
10 YR 6/6
Hod. Brown
5 YR 4/4
Dark yellow:
Id yR l>jL
sh
sh
Pale yellow|L
orange
10 YR 8/6
5 r* 7/2
grayish
orange
.sh
Figure 81
Hont nf Hp^lth flnil fnv. Cf-ntrn'
107
-------
DRILL HOLE LOG
Dace: 12-11-77
County: r»THnffi-nn County _Gria Coord:
Location: Lexington County Landfill Strat well 5
_Lat-Long:_
_Total Depth: 50'
"Water Table: 49'
Elevation: 240
Drilled bv: 9»nn;°
Logged by: j. Lewis
Type Drill: Power Auger
Screen Depth:
*Sample taken corresponding
to depth.
&
(y°>
Deptn
l~
3-r
5-r
6-1-
7-.
un-
it--
L*r
U-
5-r
ft
1- 3
i
U
4JO
-.15
20
[
I-
il*
(
U
I
I
[
r
9-f i30
135
..4fl
-1-451
Predora.
Litho.
•50
Sand
Clay
Grain Size (%)
sand
c m
medium
to
cosrse
si.
Color
Dark yellow:
brown
10 YR 4/2
Lsh Easy Drilling
Dark yellowp.;
orange
10 YR 6/6
Lite brown
5 YR 5/6
Comments
drilling characteristics,
minerals, contacts, env. o
dep., etc.
,sh
Grayish-ori
pink
5 YR 7/2
Very pale
orange
10 YR 8/2
Mod. orangp
pink
5 YR 8/4
Lite 3rown
5 YR 6/4
Grayish
orange
pink
5 YR 7/2
1 nge
Mod. hard drilling
Mod. wet not saturated
______ Figure 82
'.in . Out.. of '3n«! l.IV. '' it'
-no,
-------
County: Lexington County
DRILL HOLE LOG
Grid Coord:
Date:
¦17-TS-77
Lat-Lona:
Location: Lexington Count? Landfill Strat well 6
Elevation} 212.56
Drilled by: George Workman
Logged by: j. Lewis
Type Drill:_
Power Auaer
_Total Depth: -u'
Water Table: . tft¦
Screen Depth: 27-34'
*Sample taken corresponaing
to depth.
,
-------
DRILL HOLE LOG
Date: 12_i5_77
Coun ty: u^njt-.ni
Location: Lexington County Landfill
Grid Coord:
Strat Z_
Elevation: ^260
Drilled by: Ufirirnian
Logged by: .Tn^
Type Dri11: Powgr Auger
_Lat-Lcng:_
_Tota! Depth: 44
Water Table:
Screen Depth:
'Sample taken corresponding
to depth.
*5
&
Deptn
2-T
5 —
6—
I
"1
7-*
10--
m
L2--
L3-
IV-
5--
ffl ft
— 5
[
-i-lD
I-
L
—15
..20
.25
9-- _l 30
-.35
Predom.
Litho.
Sand
,.4G
•+45
50
Clay
o- C
Grain Size 1%)
sand
si 2
cos rse
mecium
cos rse
to
Color
moderate
brown
5 YR 3/4
Lite brown
5 YR 5/6
Dark yellowish
orange
10 YR 6/6
lite Brown
5 YR 5/6
Grayish Orange
10 YR 7/4
Comments
drilling characteristics,
minerals, contacts, env. c
dep., etc.
Easy Drilling
pale red
purple
5 RP 6/2
Very hard drilling
Auger would not. penetrate
Fiaure 84
r>. .. J »•«.
„r fionr nf Vfon 1 th and Tnv . (Vntro'
110
-------
DRILL HOLE LOG
Grid Coord:
County: Lexington County
Location:.Lexington County LaMflli-strat- hm-lng ,'JjT
El evati on:
Drilled by: George Wnrirmaw
Logged by: Joel Lewis
Type Drill: Power Auger
Date: 12-16-77
Lat-long:
_Total Depth: 64'
Water Table: 56'
Screen Depth:
*Sample taken corresponding
to depth.
ce
Deptn
!-•
I
I
j
i
34
6—
7-J.
9-*-
LO--
LtT
L2--
13-1"
L4--
m ft
— 5
.15
-.20
W
-j-25
-301
I
I.
.35
i4fl
—45
-50
Predom.
Litho.
Sand
Sandy
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Grain Size (%\
sand
Co< rse
oo
to
ve*y
ve
to
7 cjars
Sl.t -
co
vex f ct ars
Sil
coprse
C(
co irs<
co
to
arsfe
to
ilt
lit
rse
Color
verly
vei jr
Dark
yellowish
brown
10 YR 4/2
moderate
yellowish
brown
10 YR 5/4
Dark
yellowish
orange
10 YR 6/6
Pale reddis
brown
10 R 5/4
Grayish
orange
pink
10 R 8/2
Lite
brown
5 YR 5/6
Moderate
brown
5 YR 4/4
very pAtg,
orange
10 YR 8/2
Grayish
orange
pink
5 YR 7/2
Same
Comments
drilling cnaracteristies,
minerals, contacts, env. c
dep., etc.
Garbage mixed
very foul odor
Garbage mixed
foul odor
Mod. hard drilling
Kaolin lenses
intermixed
Hard drilling
Hard drilling
Figure 85
fin r« ^ ^ f '!<"** 11 h * n. i nf ro
m
-------
County:
DRILL HOLE LOG
Grid Coord:
Date:
_Lat-Long:_
Location:
Strat. boring ir'8
Elevation:
Drilled by:
Logged by:
Type Drill:
_Total Depth:
"Water Table:"
Screen Depth!
*Sample taken corresponding
to depth.
V
Deptn
ft
Predom.
Litho.
Grain Size fsl
sand
en
c
Color
Comments
drilling characteristics,
minerals, contacts, env. o
dep., etc.
1-
2-L
3t
1
4-r
5--
64-
7-f
9~r
10-
Lt"
L2--
L3--
jU--
Clfiy
65
70
75:
_80
85,
a: It
It
Grayish
orange
pink
5 YR 7/2
1
same
Very hard drilling
Mod. saturated
saturated vater has
foul odor
fV»J nr Mr* 1 f-h lni! "nv Frrit-r
112
-------
DRILL HOLE LOG
Date:
County:
Lcylngton County
Grid Coord:
Location: Lexington Comity Landfill '/ 9
Elevation:
Lat-Long:_
Total Depth:
"Water Table:
Screen Depth:
Drilled by:_
Logged by:_
Type Dri11
flanryp. UnrltTTun
Tnel Lewis
Power Auger
~Sample taken corresponding
to depth.
C
&
Depth
!-•
2-i-
3—
5--
6--
7-f
LO-
UT
L2--
L3--
144-
ft
— 5
r
[
loo
15
0
25
30
35
Predom.
Litho.
Sand
Clayey
sand
Sandy
clay
-•45
LS0
Grain Size (i)
Mid.
sand
Sill
to
:oax se
jars e
tc
verfr cc
ledi
arsi i
Color
Mod. brown
5YR4/4
Lite Brown
5YS5/6
Lite Brown
5YSS/6
Mod. Brown
5YR4/4
Lite brown
w/mod.or an
pink
5YR8/4
T
5e
Comments
drilling characteristics,
minerals, contacts, env. o
deo.. etc.
5YI5/6
Clay lenses
Figure 86
113
-------
Coun ty: Lexington
DRILL HOLE LOG
Grid Coord:
Location: Lexington County Landfill Hon, well 10
Elevation: 273.47'
Drilled by: George Workman
Logged by: Joel Lewis
Type Dri11: Power Auger 2404
Date: 12/22/77
_Lat-Lortg:
_Total Depth:
"Water Table:"
Screen Depth!
_£i.
_42_
50'-57'
*Sample taken corresponding
to depth.
V
Depth
.1
1-
2-1-
4_.
5-»-
6--
7-1
»--
iO-*-
L1-"
12- -
L3--
L4--
h
Predom.
Litho.
ft
Sand
3— i-w
--15
20
25
30
35
40
-+¦45
-^"50
Sandy
clay
v C
Grain Size (%)
sand
Coi ,rse
Co. Lrse
Co; trse
Co irse
Course
CO
Co
irse
cc
irse
:o v»ry
o very
Color
Moderate
brown
5YR3/4
Moderate
brown
5YR3/4
Lite brown
5YR5/6
Lite brown
5YR5/6
Lite brown
5YR5/6
Lite brown
5YR5/6
Comments
drilling characteristics,
minerals, contacts, env. c
dep., etc.
Very pale
orange
10YR8/2
and
5YR5/6
Mod. orang<
pink
5YR8/4
and 5YR5/6
Pale yelloi'
brown
10YR6/2
Lite brown
5YR6/4
Easy drilling,coarse sand
very dry. Clean no clay
evedent
Some clay evident
Clay lenses
Evident
hard drilling
Moist
Saturated
Figure 87
t* > I H . Or»-'
* j ^ i r»n Pnn*". nf -i n« I f nv . fmfm!
114
-------
uruuu ituLt uua
County: Grid Cocrd: _Lat-Long:
Location: Monitoring wall #10 Total Depth:
"Water Table:
Screen Depth:
Elevation:
Drilled by:
Logged by: ""Sample taken corresponding
Type Dri11: t0 depth.
*<
nt\ of Health ^ ml '"V- r' "trnl
.115
-------
County: Lexington Couni-u
Location: 321 Landfill 9l\
ORILL HOLE LOG
Grid Cooru:
Date: Jan. 8, 1973
Lat-Long:
_Total Depth: 64'
Elevation: 245.55
Water Table:41'
Screen Depth: 50'-57'
Drilled by: George Workman
Logged by: J. Lewis
Type Drill: Power Auger
*Sample taken corresponding
to depth.
.x<
eft
ty
Deptn
!-¦
2—
3—
5-1-
7-r
»"• -t-30
JLO--
LiT
L2--
13-
L4--
ft
u
I
Lo
—15
-.20
25
-35
..40
-t-45
SO
Predom.
Litho.
Sand
&
Garbage
Sand
Clayey
Sand
Sand
Clay
M :d.
Caars
Grain Size (%)
sand
Co irsf
Co :oai se
e 11 ve cy < oai se
S Lit
> ed.
- mid.
- c >ar le
- t j c( ars
Silt
Color
Light olive
gray
515/2
Dark
yellowish-
orange
10YR6/6
Med. orange
pink
5YR8/4
Dusky
yellow
5Y6/4
Very pale
orange
10YR8/2
Pale Red
5R6/2
Pale red
10R6/2
Comments
drilling characteristics,
minerals, contacts, env. r
dep., etc.
Very foul odor
Garbage
Mod. Saturated
Dry
Pinkish Gray
5YR8/1
Figure 88
I' , ~ w» -
"f "r-, 1th at,.! "nv
116
-------
County:
DRILL HOLE LOG
Grid Coord:
Date:
Lat-Long:_
Location:
Monitoring well " 11
Elevation:_
Drilled by:_
Logged by:_
Type Ori11:
Deotn
i-
2-r
3 —
4-r
5—
6-1-
7-r
9-r
LO--
LI"
L2-"
L3"
L4--
ft
50
5i
6C
Predom.
Litho.
Clay
Silt
ID
17C
173
_8C
85
90
t"
_10'l
_Total Depth:_
"Water Table:_
Screen Depth:
~Sample taken corresponding
to depth.
Grain Size
sand
Si
Si .t
'ale Pink
5RP8/2
Color
Pinkish
gray
5YR8/1
Comments
drilling characteristics,
minerals, contacts, env. o
dep., etc.
Mod. Plastic
Moist
Saturated
Co
noif nf Health sni' Frv. Crntrol
117
-------
County: Lexington County
Location: Lexington Landfill
DRILL HOLE LOG
_3rid Coord:
412
Date: 2-6-73
_Lat-Long:
Jotal Deoth: 19'
"Water Table: 5'
1 Elevation:
Screen Depth:
Drilled by: George Workman
Logged by:_ Z. Lewis
I Type Drill: Power Auger
"Sample taken corresponding
to depth.
V
Deptn
!-¦
1
2-j-
J
3-j-
4-}-
i
6-r
7-i-
9"
LO-r
LtT
L2-"
13-
L«t
.5-1-
ft
— 5
4*>
L
¦IS
.20
..25
1
r
[
--30
..35
..M
--43
Predom.
Litho.
Sandy
•Clay
Sandy
Clay
Clay
-50
C^ars
:ilt
Grain Size (S)
sand
e -
fin
mec ium
Color
Lite brown
5 YR 5/6
Dark yellow
brown
10 YR 6/6
Lsh
Grayish
orange
10 YR 7/4
Comments
drilling characteristics,
minerals, contacts, env. 0*
deo., etc.
acist
moist
saturated
Figure 89
ni<;tr,'hiirinn: OPVPlmmonf WaCo** Pflso'irrp^ ..nnwi
cr-ion. Opt of Health and Fnv. Cmt^ol
118
-------
County: Lexington
DRILL HOLE LOG
Grid Coord:
Date:
Mar. 13, 1978
Lat-Long:_
Location: Lexington Landfill
Well *14
Total Depth:_
25'
Water Table: IS'
Elevation:
Dri11ed by! George workman
Logged by: Joel Lewis
Type Drill- ''owe Auger"
Screen Depth: is - 20'
*Sample taken corresponding
to depth.
Deptn
I-
2 —
3 —
4-t.
5-i-
I
;4
9— J.3Q
10"
L2--
13-'
a
ft
— 5
r
i
[
Jjo
i-
r
-.15
j. 22
125
..35
40
-43
i
Predom.
Litho.
l50
Sand
Clayey
Sand
Sand
Kaolin
Grain Size (%)
sand
mec lum
Sot e ci
Silt tb
fine smd
soi le c jars
ry c
sai
Silt
oar$e
d
Color
Drk. yel-
lowish
Orange
10YR6/6
It. brown
SYR5/6
Dark
Yellowish
Orange
10YR6/6
Grayish
Orange
10YR7/4
Comments
drilling cnaracteristics,
minerals, contacts, env. o
dep., etc.
Grains angular in,shape
Hard and Plastic
Figure 90
D1stHh„Hon: Ov-Wnt '.r Omnu^on. Deot. of Health and uw. Cntrol
119
-------
WELL LOGS
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL, SOUTH CAROLINA
03/12/75
Well B
0.0 - 3.05 m
(0.0 - 10.0 ft)
Light brown, fine- to coarse-grained sand,
3.05 -
(10.0
3.23 -
(27.0
9.45 -
(31.0
12.19
(40.0
14.32
(47.0
18.29
(60.0
8.23 m
- 27.0 ft)
9. 45 m
- 31.0 ft)
12.19 m
- 40..0 ft)
- 14.32 m
- 47.0 ft)
- 18.29 m
- 60.0 ft)
- 19.81 m
- 65.0 ft)
Light gray to white clay (kaolin?) with some
gravel 1/2 to 6 mm.
Light gray to white clay with fine- to ir.ediuin-
grained sand.
Light gray to white clay with fine gravel.
Light brown medium- to coarse-grained sand.
Light gray to white clay,
Light brown, fine- to medium-grained sand.
03/13/75
Well C
0.0 - 3.05 m
(0.0 - 10.0 ft)
3.05 - 8.23 m
(10. 0 - 27.0 ft)
Light brown, fine- to coarse-grained sand be-
coming slightly clayey near 3.05 m (10 ft).
Light gray to white clay with some gravel.
120
Figure 91
-------
Well C - (Continued)
8.23 - 9-45 m Light gray to white clay with fine- to medium-
(27.0 - 31.0 ft) grained sand.
9.45 - 12.19 m
(31.0 - 40.0 ft)
12.19 - 14.32 m
(40.0 - 47.0 ft)
14.32 - 18.29 m
(47.0 - 60.0 ft)
18.29 - 20.?3 m
(60.0 - 68.0 ft)
Light gray to white clay with fine gravel.
Light brown, medium- to coarse-grained
sand.
Light gray to white clay.
Light brown, fine- to medium-grained sand.
121
F'iqure
-------
APPENDIX - B
TABLES
122
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL STUDY
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CHART
PARAMETER SAMPLE LOCATION NUMBER
(ppm) Rn(j j February 1978
2
6
10
11
A
E
F
Fe
30
1.4
2.0
.2
60
4
1.7
Mn
.41
<05
< .05
<.05
.36
C.05
<.05
Ba
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
< 1.0
<1.0
< 1.0
<1.0
Cd
A
o
<.01
i—1
o
V
< .01
< .01
< .01
<.01
Cr
< .05
<.05
< .05
< .05
<. 05
< .05
< .05
Hg
< -2
< -2
< -2
< -2
< -2
< -2
< -2
Pb
.09
.13
.07
< .05
.11
<•05
.09
Se
.
Zn
< .1
<•1
< .1
< .1
< .1
.5
.2
-
'
•
TABLE 1.. WATER QUALITY DATA (UNFILTERED)
123
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL STUDY
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CHART
PARAMETER SAMPLE LOCATION NUMBER
fnnm') Rnd II March 1978
2
6
10
11
13
14
A'
B'
C'
D'
E
F
G
Fe
19
1.3
1.5
.2
2
2
40
1.6
1.4
4
14
1.1
9
Mn
.32
.10
< .05
< .05
<.05
A
o
.23
.40
.06
.05
< .05
Ba
<1.0
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Cd
.01
.01
<.01
< .0~1
<.01
<•01
<.01
<.01
< .01
< .01
<.01
A
o
1—»
»—4
o
V
Cr
< .05
<.05
< .05
< .05
<.05
<.05
<.05
m
o
V
.06
.72
< .05
< .05
< .05
Hg
C 0002
<0002
<.0002
<.0002
<.0002
<.0002
—rr
o
o
o
V*
<0002
^0002
<•0002
•A
O
o
o
N>
< 0002
<0002
Pb
.05
<.05
< .05
< .05
<.05
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
Se
< .01
<.01
< .01
< .01
<.01
<.01
< .01
<.01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
T.H.
33
91
!
i
!
I
j
i
TABLE 2.. WATER QUALITY DATA (UNFILTERED)
124
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL STUDY
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CHART
PARAMETER SAMPLE LOCATION NUMBER
rnnml **4 III April 1978
1
2
6
10
11
13
14
A'
B'
c'
D'
E
F
G
Fe
20
3
3
.2
4
.1
50
2
.6
4
16
.3
2
Mn
.25
<.05
< .05
< .05
*.05
< .05
.30
^ .05
< .05
.40
^.05
< .05
< .05
Ba
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
Cd
Cr
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
IT)
o
•
V
Hg
.0003
.0002
.0002
.0002
.0005
?0002
f0002
f0002
50002
.0002
.0002
Pb
.08
*.05
< .05
< .05
<.05
in
o
V
<- .05
< .05
.05
< .05
.28
.06
<.05
Se
< .01
<.01
.< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
<.01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
T.H.
45
12
12
34
64
3
•
Cu
< .1
* .1
* .1
* .1
< .1
< .1
< .1
< .1
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL STUDY
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CHART
PARAMETER SAMPLE LOCATION NUMBER
(ppm) Rnd IV May 1978
2
6
10
11
13
14
A»
B'
C'
D'
E
F
G
Fe
30
.2
9
.1
30
.1
50
2
.3
3
19
1.0
2
Mn
.26
*. 05
< .05
< .05
<.05
<¦ .05
.24
.12
< .05
.20
.06
< .05
< .05
Ba
<.5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
Cd
< .01
<.01
< .01
<.01
<.01
<.01
< .01
<.01
< .01
<.01
< .01
< .01
<•.01
Cr
< .05
<.05
< .05
Chloride
240
. 1
5
4
18
20
32
60
2
26
30
4
As
< .01
<.01
< .01
< .01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<•01
A !
t
©
<.01
TABLE 4. . WATER QUALITY DATA (UNFILTERED)
i nc
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL STUDY
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CHART
PARAMETER SAMPLE LOCATION NUMBER
(ppm)
Rnd V June 1978
2
6
10
11
13
14
A'
B1
C'
D'
E
F
G
Fp
30
1 .2
.8
¦?o
80
3
7
1 .9
10
.9
1.8
Mil
.24
<.05
< .05
<.05
.41
.14
.16
.08
.05
<.05
in
o
V
Ba
< .5
<•5
< .5-
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
* .5
Cd
<01
<•01
< .01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
Cr
<.05
<.05
< .05
<.05
<.05
<•05
<.05
< .05
< .05
•< .05
< .05
He
?0002
10002
10002
*0002
."O 002
*0002
?0002
*0002
.1)002
.0003
.*0002
Pb
.11
*.05
< .05
.11
*.05
<.05
.09
< .05
< .05
< .05
<.05
Se
<•01
< .01
4 .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
A
•
o
1—»
Cu
< .1
< .1
< .1
< .1
< .1
.2
.1
1.1
< .1
<.1
<•1
T.H.
28
< 10
< 10
< 10
10
38
90
13
11
11
< 10
Zn
.1
.1
< .1
< .1
.1
.1
.4
.1
.2
.1
.2
COD
180
8
2
21
47
16
56
39
15
6
4
nitrate
.13
.05
.70
1.18
.28
CHLORIDE
140
2
5
3
40
35
80
5
23
31
2
PHENOLS
fopb)
6.6
12
19
27
14
9.1
4.2
6.6
8.4
11
11
V
TABLE 5..WATER QUALITY DATA (UNFILTERED)
127
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL STUDY
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CHART
PARAMETER
(ppm)
SAMPLE LOCATION NUMBER
Rnd VI July 1978
TABLE 6. . WATER QUALITY DATA (UNFILTERED)
128
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL STUDY
CHEMICAL AN/LYSIS CHART
PARAMETER SAMPLE LOCATION NUMBER
| (ppm) Rnd VII August 1978
2
6
10
11
13
14
A*
B'
C'
D'
E
F
G
Fe
30
4
70
1.3
50
1.2
9
1.9
.9
3
12
2
.8
Mil
.44
<.05
.12
<•05
<.05
in
o
V
.13
.17
.05
.19
.06
< .05
< .05
Ba
*.5
< .5
< .5
* ."5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
* .5
* .5
< .5
* .5
< .5
Cd
.043
*.01
.01
i—1
o
V
<.01
< .01
H
o
V
<.01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
Cr
< .05
<.05
.08
< .05
<•05
m
o
V
< .05
.07
in
o
4
V
.42
<.05
< .05
o
•
V
Hg
.0002
fo002
4
.0002
1o002
<
.0002
<
.0002
*0002
<
.0002
<
.0002
.0005
.0002
.0006
.0002
Pb
.05
<.05
.17
A
o
u?
.05
o
V
m
o
V
< .05
< .05
< .05
< .05
A
•
o
M1
< .05
Se
*.01
*.01
i-H
o
V
< .01
<.01
*,QL-
*.01
'< .01
* .01
<•01
< .m
<.01
T.H.
71
< 10
* 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
60
11
11
< 10
Cu
.1
< .1
.1
.3
< .1
< .i
< .1
< .1
.3
.4
< .1
.1
< .1
Zn
.2
.1
.4
.1
.2
< .1
.1
.1
.2
.4
.1
.2
COD
740
11
85
31
15
40
7.5
9.2
10
100
5.4
6.6
1.2
NTTRATK
-16
i.n
.55
.30
.57
.15
6.1
.16
.64
1.06
.46
CHLORIDE
110
3
7
5
50
3
41
24
29
1
M
32
14
8.8
13.6
16
10
8.8
8.8
8.4
4.2
6.0
4.8
SULFATE
23
<¦ 10
* 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
18
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
Cn
< .01
<.01
< .01
A
o
<•01
<.01
.26
.18
.18
.011
< .01
< .01
As
.01
<.01
.06
< .01
.06
<.01
<.01
<.01
< .01
<.01
i-H
o
v
< .01
.
1
TABLE 7...WATER QUALITY DATA (UNFILTERED)
129
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL STUDY
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CHART
PARAMETER SAMPLE LOCATION NUMBER
(ppm) RND VIII September 1978
2
6
10
11
13
14
A'
B'
C'
D'
E
F
G
Fe
30
1.2
8
.4
60
1.3
80
5
.7
4
16
1.0
.5
Mn
.38
<.05
<•05
.07
<.05
<.05
.45
.54
.07
.18
.07
<.05
<.05
Ba
<.5
< .5
< ,5
<•5
< ,5
* .5
< .«?
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
Cd
.016
<.01
<.01
< .01
<.01
<•01
<•01
< .01
< .01
< .01
<.01
<.01
<.01
Cr
<.05
<.05
m
o
•
V
< .05
.06
< .05
<.05
.18
<.05
.70
<.05
< .05
< .05
Hg
.0003
10002
?0002
.0002
.0002
^0002
<
.0002
5)002
.0005
.0002
.0005
J3002
Pb
<.05
<.05
< .05
< .05
.08
•<.05
<.05
< .05
< .05
< .05
.07
.05
.05
Se
< .01
.< .01
< .01
<.01
<.01
T.H.
< 10
< 10
65
13
< io
71
42
56
10
13
< 10
< 10
COD
120
14
160
19
19
9
19
28
39
77
8
10
6
NITRATE
.11
1.22
.33
1.33
.58
.36
.10
.35
.72
.22
.60
1.10
.58
CHLORIDE
110
3
5
5
5
5
46
47
35
5
23
31
5
...—
TABLE 8..WATER QUALITY DATA (UNFILTERED)
730
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL STUDY
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CHART
PARAMETER SAMPLE LOCATION NUMBER
131
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL STUDY
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CHART
PARAMETER SAMPLE LOCATION NUMBER
(ppm) RND X November 1978
2
6
10
11
13
14
A'
B'
C'
D'
E
F
G
Fe
30
1.3
3
.1
.1
3
140
4
.3
15
30
.8
1.9
Mn
.43
^.05
.08
< .05
<.05
<.05
.58
.26
<.05
1.7
.12
< .05
.05
Ba
< .5
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL STUDY
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CHART
PARAMETER SAMPLE LOCATrON NUMBER
133
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL STUDY
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CHART
PARAMETER SAMPLE LOCATION NUMBER
(ppm) RND XII January 1979
2
6
10
11
13
14
A'
B'
CT
D'
E
F
G
Fe
40
.2
.2
.1
.6
100
1.7
.4
.6
15
.9
M.n
.56
<.05
<.05
<.05
<\05
.55
.09
<.05
.07
.12
< .05
Ba
<.5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
^ .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
< .5
Cd
<.01
<.01
< .01
<.01
<.01
< .01
<.01
< .01
<•01
<•01
< .01
Cr
<.05
<.05
<.05
<.05
< .05
<.05
<.05
<•05
<.05
< .05
< .05
Hg
<
.0002
.0007
^0002
<
.0002
<
.0002
<
.0002
.0002
<
.0002
<
.0002
<.
.0002
.0002
Pb
.05
<•05
•i10
•' o
*
V
<•05
< .05
<.05
< .05
< .05
<.05
< .05
<.05
Se
T.H.
90
<20
< 20
< 20
< 20
100
26
45
< 20
< 20
< 20
COD
85
6
7
2
8
48
17
28
23
7
10
NITRATE
.70
1.38
1.78
.26
1.25
.04
.16
.07
<.02
.16
1.09
CHLORIDE
115
1
4.5
2.5
1
60
33
.32
4
21
33
-
TABLE 12..WATER QUALITY DATA (UNFILTERED)
134
-------
ROUND 1
JANUARY
1978
Sample #
1 ppm
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mi
"g
Se
2
<.03
0.004
<.02
31.
0.012
0.19
<.0002
0.015
6
<.03
<.002
<.02
0.06
0.035
<.02
0.0003
<.006
10
•
<.03
<.002
<.02
<.02
0.010
<.02
0.0008
<.006
11
<.03
<.002
<.02
0.15
<.001
<.02
0.0003
0.007
Det. Lim
0.03
0.002
0.02
0.02
0.001
0.02
0.0002
0.006
•
TABLE 13 WATER QUALITY DATA FOR TOTAL METALS (FILTERED)
135
-------
ROUND 2
FEBRUARY
1978
Sample # »
¦ ppm
Zn
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Se
#2
<.5
<.1
<.001
<.005
0.1
35.
<.005
0.52
0.0017
<.001
#6
<.5
<.1
<.001
<.005
0.1
<.3
0.007
<.005
0.0004
<.001
#10
<.5
<.1
<.001
<.005
0.2
<.3
0.011
0.016
0.0004
<.001
#11
<.5
<.1
<.001
<.005
0.3
<.3
0*015
0.010
0.0005
<.001
AA
<.5
<.1
<.001
<.005
0.1
63.
<.005
0.39
0.0024
<.001
E
1.3
<.1
0.001
<.005
0.2
3.1
0.012
0.028
0.0020
0.001
F
<.5
<.1
<.001
<.005
0.2
1.7
0.008
0.026
0.0028
<.001
Req. Det.
.5
0.1
0.001
0.005
0.1
0.3
0.005
0.005
.002
0.001
—imiiiL
TABLE 14 WATER QUALITY DATA FOR TOTAL METAL'S (FILTERED)
136
-------
ROUND 3
MARCH
1978
Sample #
ppm
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Se
3105 (E)
<.005
0.2
<.001
<.005
2.3
<.005
0.036
<.01
¦ 3106 (G)
<.005
< .1
<.001
<.005
3.12
<.005
0.068
<.01
3107 (13)
<.005
< .1
<.001
<.005
0.3
<.005
0.014
<.01
3108 (10)
<.005
0.2
<.001
0.006
.77
0.008
0.014
<.01
3109 (2)
0.006
< .1
-------
ROUND 4
APRIL
1978
Sample #
ppm
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Hq
Se
LF Pondc'
<.1
0.008
<.005
<•3
<.005
0.089
<.0002
<.01
Lake D
<.1
0.005
<.005
2.79
<.005
0.015
<.0002
<.01
A'
0.152
<.001
<.005
46.3
<.005
0.353
<.0002
<.01
B'
<.1
0.001
0.011
2.31
<.005
0.179
<.0002
<.01
E
<.1
< .001
<.005
11.4
<.005
0.059
<.0002
<.01
F
<.1
<.001
<.005
0.783
<.005
0.021
<.0002
< .01
G
<.1
0.002
0.021
2.13
< . 005
0.039
<.0002
<.01
2
<.1
0.003
0.017
14.5
< .005
0.273
<.0002
< .01
6
< .1
<•001
<.005
<.3
<.005
<.005
<.0002
<.01
10
<.1
0.0116
<.005
< .3
<.005
0.009
<.0002
<.01
11
<.1
0.002
<.005
<.3
<.005
0.011
<.0002
<.01
13
<.1
0.001
< .005
< .3
<.005
0.005
0.0002
< .01
14
<.1
<.001
<.005
<.3
<.005
0.007
<.0002
< .01
Det. Limit
0.1
0.001
0.005
0.3
0.005
0.005
0.0002
0.01
TABLE 16 WATER QUALITY DATA FOR TOTAL METALS (FILTERED)
138
-------
ROUND 5
MAY
1978
Sample #
• ppm
Zn
Ba | Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe |
Pb
Mn
Hg
Se
& Lake
<0.5
<0.1
i0.001
<.005
< .1
2.1
<0.005
.091
<.0002
< .002
C If Pond
<0.5
<0.1
<0.001
<.005
<•1
0.6
<0.005
.017
<.0002
.011
A
<0.5
0.1
<0.001
<.005
<.1
55.3
<0.005
.251
<.0002
.004
B
<0.5
<0.1
<0.001
<.005
<.1
0.8
<0.005
.150
<.0002
.004
E
1.0
<0.1
<0.001
< .005
< .1
13.5
<0.005
.056
.002
.002
F
<0.5
<0.1
<0.001
<.005
0.2
0.4
<0.005
.010
<.0002
<.002
G
2.2
<0.1
0.001
< .005
<.1
1.5
<0.005
.014
<.0002
< .002
2
<0.5
<0.1
<0.001
.018
<.1
25.3
<0.005
.312
<.0002
.035
6
<0.5
<0.1
<0.001
<.005
<.1
<0.3
<0.005
<.005
<.0002
< .002
10
<0.5
<0.1
<0.001
< .005
<.1
<0.3
<0.005
.013
<.0002
< .002
11
<0.5
<0.1
<0.001
<.005
<.1
<0.3
<0.005
.006
<.0002
.009
14
<0.5
<0.1
0.001
.088
<.1
<0.3
<0.005
.006
<.0002
<.002
Det. Limit
0.5
0.1
0.001
.005
0.1
0.3
0.005
.005
.0002
.002
TABLE 17 WATER QUALITY DATA FOR TOTAL METALS (FILTERED)
T 39
-------
ROUND 6
JUNE
1978
Sample #
ppm
AS
Ba
Cd
Cr
Zn
Fe
Pb
Mi
Hg
Se
A'
:0.005
0.1
<.001
<0.005
<0.5
24.6
.007
.185
0.0002
<.001
\
B
:0.005
<0.1
<•001
0.007
<0.5
0.52
<.005
.053
0.0002
< .001
C
:0.005
<0.1
<.001
0.016
<0.5
0.04
< .005
.016
-0.0002
<.001
D
:0.005
<0.1
.001
0.011
<0.5
H1
•
K 1
.005
.044
:0.0002
< .001
E
:0.005
<0.1
<.001
<0.005
<0.5
11.5
< .005
.061
:0.0002
<.001
F
:0.005
<0.1
.001
<0.005
<0.5
0.1S
<•005
.021
0.0002
< .001
G
:0.005
<0.1
.001
<0.005
3.0
o.i;
< .005
.006
0.0004
<.001"
2
0.012
<0.1
< .001
<0.005
<0.5
26.8
<.005
.300
:0.0002
< .001
6
:0.005
<0.1
<.001
<0.005
<0.5
0.05
< .005
< .005
:0.0002
<.001
10
:0.005
<0.1
.004
<0.005
<0.5
0.13
.005
.025
0.0002
< .001
11
:0.005
<0.1
.001
0.008
<0.5
0.10
< .005
.014
:0.0002
<.001
13
:0.005
<0.1
.006
0.005
<0.5
0.15
.012
.011
J 0.0002
<.001
14
:0.005
<0.1
.001
<0.005
<0.5
0.13
<.005
.005
:0.0002
<.001
Det. Limit
0.005
0.1
.001
0.005
0.5
0.03
.005
<.005
0.0002
.001
TABLE 18 WATER QUALITY DATA FOR TOTAL METALS (FILTERED)
140
-------
ROUND 7
JULY
1978
Sample #
ppm
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ilg
Se
A
<0.1
<.001
<0.005
55.0
.008
.35
'0.0002
<.001
D
0.1
<.001
<0.005
0.82
<-005
.15
-0.0002
<.001
C
<0.1
<.001
<0.005
0.09
.005
.02
0.0003
<.001
D
0.1
<.001
<0.005
0.79
.020
.06
'0.0002
<.001
E
0.1
~.001
<0.005
11.0
.007
.05
'0.0002
<•001
F
0.2
<.001
<0.005
1.01
.006
.02
0.0003
<.001
G
<0.1
<.001
0.008
1.87
.005
.02
CO. 0002
<.001
2
<0.1
<.001
0.012
22.2
.005
.32
CO. 0002
.011
6
<0.1
<.001
<0.005
0.04
.008
.01
cO-0002
<.001
11
0.2
<.001
<0.005
0.07
.006
.01
«0.0002
<.001
13
0.1
<.001
<0.005
0.12
.006
.02
CO.0002
<.001
14
0.1
<.001
<0.005
0.13
<.005
.01
0.0002
<.001
Det. Limit
0.1
.001
0.005
0.03
.005
.005
0.0002
.001
TABLE 19 WATER QUALITY DATA FOR TOTAL METALS (FILTERED)
141
-------
ROUND 8
AUGUST
1978
Sample #
ppm
Zn
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Ml
Hg
Se
A
' <.5
c .1
<.001
.014
<0.1
1.08
<.005
.017
<.0002
<.001
B
<-5
<•1
<.001
.011
<0.1
1.31
<.005
.174
.0002
<-001
C
<.5
<*1
<•001
.018
<0.1
0.39
.005
.170
<.0002
<.001
D
<.5
< .1
<.001
.010
<0.1
1.11
.006
.079
<.0002
<.001
E
<.5
< .1
.001
.013
<0.1
0.84
.006
.054
.0003
<.001
F
<.5
<•1
<.001
.011
0.2
2.30
.013
.009
.•0005
<.001
G
¦ 2.4
<«1
<.001
.005
<0.1
0.83
<.005
.020
.0004
<.001
2
<.5
<•1
<.001
.016
0.1
23.3
.011
.346
<.0002
<.001
6
<.5
< .1
<.001
.007
<0.1
0.35
<.006
.009
.0002
<.001
11
1.6
-------
ROUND 9
SEPTEMBER
1978
bampie #
ppm
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Se
2
.009
<0.1
< .001
.008
15.0
.008
.405
.0002
.002
J FT
< .005
<0.1
<.001
.005
5.99
.008
.051
.0003
< .001
6
<.005
<0.1
< .001
<.005
.09
.011
< .005
.0005
< .001
11
<.005
<0.1
.001
.009
< .03
.011
in
o
o
•
V
.0002
< .001
13
<.005
<0.1
.001
.011
.08
.028
.008
.0003
<.001
14
<.005
<0.1
A -I;.
.
O
o
t-*
.017
.23
.005
.011
.0004
< .001
A
<.005
0.2
<.001
<.005
37.0
.011
.351 <
.0002
< .001
B
<.005
<0.1
<.001
.006
.92
<•005
.182
.0005
< .001
C
<.005
<0.1
<.001
.014
.15
.007
.008
.0002
<.001
D
<.005
<0.1
.001
.010
.28
.049
.103
.0003
< .001
G
<.005
<0.1
<.001
<.005
.24
.009
.008
.0006
<.001
F
< .005
<0.1
<.001
<.005
1.32
<.005
.018
.0004
<.ooi !
Det. Limit
.005
0.1
.001
.005
.03
.005
.005
.0002
.001
TABLE 21 WATER QUALITY DATA FOR TOTAL METALS (FILTERED)
143
-------
ROUND 10
OCTOBER.
1978
Sample f
ppm
Zn
Ba
Od
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Se
A
<0.5
0.1
<.001
.006
<0.1
23.7
< .005
.097
<.0002
<.001
B
<0.5
<0.1
<.001
<.005
<0.1
.73
<.005
.574
<.0002
< .001
c
<0.5
<0.1
.001
<.005
<0.1
.16
< .005
<.005
<.0002
<.001
D
<0.5
<0.1
<.001
.006
<0.1
.51
.010
.042
<.0002
< .001
E
<0.5
<0.1
looi
.007
<0.1
25.3
.009
.107
<.0002
<.001
F
<0.5
<0.1
.001
in
o
o
•
V
<0.1
1.18
.017
.013
.0002
< .001
G
3.6
<0.1
.001
.006
<0.1
1.07
<.005
.026
<.0002
<.001
2
<0.5
<0.1
.003
<.005
<0.1
10.9
<.005
.301
<•0002
.001
6
<0.5
<0.1
.002
<.005
<0.1
.06
.007
<.005
<.0002
<.001
11
<0.5
<0.1
.001
<.005
<0.1
.10
.006
*
o
o
00
<.0002
<.001
14
<0.5
<0.1
.002
<.005
<0.1
.08
.011
.008
<.0002
< .001
Det.
T.iTnit"
0.5
0.1
.001
.005
0,1
r 03
.005
.005
.0002
.001
—
TABLE 22 WATER QUALITY DATA FOR TOTAL METALS (FILTERED)
144
-------
ROUND 11
NOVEMBER
1978
ocunpie #
: ppm
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb | I Hg 1 Se
Round
13 X
<0.1
.002
.049
.23
. .. .006 [<.005 [ 000?001
A +
0.2
<•001
.005
97.2
<•005 1 [-- nnrpL ooi 1
B^
0.1
<.001
<•005
6.19
_<.005 .352 <.ono?1 .001 1
C *¦
<0.1
<.001
.009
.14
<.005 I<.OOf? I ,000?K 001 1
Df
<0.1
<.001
.012
.52
- -01i 1 .026 1 .0002|<.001 !
E
<0.1
<.001
<.005
20.1
• 016 .109 .00021<. 001 1
F
<0.1
<.001
<.005
1.93
.009 .012 <.0002 <.001
G
<0.1
.<•001
<•005
1.73
.005 .043 .0002 <.001
2 r
<0.1
<.001
.013
16.3
<•005 .384 <.0002 <.001
6 ^
<0.1
<•001
<•005
.26
.025 <.005 |<.00021< .001 |
10
<0.1
<.001
<.005
2.21
.011 .038 1 .0002(<.001 J
11 t
<0.1
<.001
<.005
.11
.016 <.005 J <.00021< .001 [
13 #
<0.1
<.001
.005
.54
.007 J <.005 |<.00021<.001 |
14 *
<0.1
<.001
.009
.06
.018 | .006 |<.0002|<.001 |
Det.
0.1
.001
.005
.03
.005 .005 .0002 J .001
(III
ill
TABLE 23 WATER QUALITY DATA FOR TOTAL METALS (FILTERED)
145
-------
ROUND 12
DECEMBER
1978
Sample #
ppm
AS
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mi
Hg
Se
Zn '
A
< .001
0.2
.002
.005
<0.1
107.
< .005
.586
.0003
! .001
.041
B
< .001
<0.1
.002
< .005
<0.1
2.00
< .005
.175
*
< .001
.047
C
<•001
<0.1
.001
<.005
<0.1
0.23
< .005
.012
.0003
< .001
.024
D
< .001
<0.1
<.001
< .005
<0.1
0.51
< .005
.020
.0002
C .001
.035
E
<.001
<0.1
.002
.005
<0.1
19.0
<.005
.107
.0004
c .001
.098
F
< .001
<0.1
< .001
<.005
<0.1
2.57
< .005
.025
.0005
: .001
.070
2
.003
<0.1
•003
< .005
<0.1
12.0
< .005
.470
v .0003
.001
.030
6
<•001
<0.1
.002
<.005
<0.1
0.13
< .005
< .005
.0003
: .001
.026
11
c .001
<0.1
.002
< .005
<0.1
0.13
<.005
.008
.0002
c .001
.042
13
<.001
<0.1
<.001
<•005
<0.1
0.54
< .005
< .005
.0002
: .001
.019
14
: .001
<0.1
.002
.312
<0.1
0.57
<.005
.008
.0002
c.001
.158
Det.
Limit
.001
0.1
.001
.005
0.1
0.03
.005
.0002
.001 1
.005
1
*Insuffi
Client
sample
I
•
TABLE 24 WATER QUALITY DATA FOR TOTAL METALS (FILTERED)
146
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Butler, Robert J., 1972, Age of Paleozoic Regional Metamorphism in
the Carolinas, Georgia, and Tennessee South Appalachians: Ame-
rican Journal of Science. V. 272, p. 72-80.
Colquhoun, D.J., 1962, On Surficial Sediments in Central South Caro-
lina - A Progress Report, S.C. State Development Board, Division
of Geology, Geologic Notes, v. 6, p. 62.
Colquhoun, D.J. and Johnson, H.S., Jr.,,1968, Tertiary Sealevel Fluc-
tuation in South Carolina: Paleogeography, Paleoclimato.logy,
Palaeocology, v. 5, p. 105-106.
Colquhoun, D.J., 1965, Terrace Sediment Complexes in Central South
Carolina, University of South Carolina, Atlantic Coastal Plain
Geological Association Field Conference, p. 62.
Hem, John D., 1970, Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Charac-
teristics of Natural Water, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper, 1473, SW-12d pp. 126, 171.
Illinois State Geological Survey, 1971, Hydrology of Solid Waste Dis-
posal Sites in Northeastern Illinois, p. 61.
Michel, J.M., Ground Water Pollution and Geochemical Variations in
Leachage from Solid waste Disposal, University of South Carolina,
p. 1-67.
147
-------
REFERENCES (continued)
Overstreet, William C., 1970, The Piedmont in South Carolina in Fisher,
et. al., eds Studies m Appalachian Geology: Central and Southern
New York, Interscience Publishers, p. 369-382
Siple, G.E., 1967, Geology and Ground Water of the Savannah River Plant
and Vicinity, South Carolina p. 24.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Contract No. 68-01-2993), 1975,
Evaluation of the Effect of the Lexington County South Carolina
Landfill Oft Ground and Surface Water Resources, d. 1-53
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 24, 1975, National In-
terim Primary Drinking Water Standards: Federal Register, v. 4,
no. 248.
148
-------
5077? -I0t
REPORT" DOCUMENTATION i. "coht no. j ?.
PAGE J _ - J.
<¦ Tille and SuMitlc
Evaluation of the Impact of Landfill Leachate on Ground-Water
Quality at the Lexington County, South Carolina Landfill Site
7. Autlior(s) „
Joseph 0. Lewis, D. A. Duncan
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Office of Environmental Quality Control, Hydrology Division
J. Marion Sims Building
2600 Bull Street
.Columbia, South Carol i na. „ 29201
12. Sp?n*oring Organization Namr «snd Address
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
15. Supplementary Notes
3. Recipient's Accession No.
EPA 904/9-80-050
5. Report Date
April 1980
8. Performing Organization Rvpt. No.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or C.'cnt(G) No.
<« 68-01-3959
(G)
13. Type of Report & Period Cohered
14.
•16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
This report describes efforts made . °]11tor the leachate impact on the groundwater
at the Lexington County, South Caro Landfill. The geology and hydrogeology of
the-region, as well as the Particular, are discussed in detail to help
determine the movement of groundwater near the landfill. The purpose of the report
was to isolate the groundwater effects 0f a nearby a5andoned sitej Cayce Dump> .
Fourteen strati graphic test holes, six monitoring wells, and three existing wells
were used for groundwater monitoring- Four surfacev.'ater monitoring sites were also
set up. The full impact of the le te on the groundwater proved to be beyond the
scope of this report. However, se I steps were recommended to minimize potential
contamination until a further uld be performed. The report was submitted in
fulfillment of contract number 68-u^959 by the South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control on May iyo0.
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Leachate, Landfill, Groundwater, AqUifers Monitoring Wells, Percolating
b. Identifiers/Open I"nded Terms
e- COSMT ricVI/Croup
AvftllnUllity St.iten.cnt
*
(;'ei AfJsi- UO.111)
. Su« l'iv:*r„r;,„
19. Security Class (This Report)
20. Security Class (Ttiis IVk<:)
21. No. of Pdfir*
14> <
22. I'm*
ns on Hovcrst*
OP'HON/U I OKU
(J oun«»«ly N1 lv« .1;
Or p. rtmer.t of Cot
$2 « V/>
)
"\
------- |