analysis of data from demolition landfills in minnesota index

1

Analysis of Data from Demolition Landfills in Minnesota

Index I. Introduction and Methods II. General Summary III. Site Summaries

1. Allenview 2. Beltrami 3. Summit Avenue – Mankato 4. Valley Demo and Recycling 5. East Side 6. Glenwood Ready Mix 7. Goodhue County 8. Lyon County 9. Mower County 10. Camp Ripley 11. Cross Lake 12. Hengel 13. Henkmeyer 14. TKD 15. Vonco 16. Wadena 17. Western Stearns 18. Lake of the Woods 19. Waseca 20. Bustad 21. Lansing 22. Rice County 23. Steele County 24. Albert Lea 25. Chippewa County 26. Crow Wing County 27. Dawnway 28. Dem-Con Landfill 29. Demolition Landfill Services 30. Dodge County 31. Fergus Falls Sanitary Landfill 32. Kandiyohi County 33. Meeker County 34. Murray County 35. Nobles County 36. Northeast Otter Tail 37. Olmstead County-Kalmar 38. Polk County 39. Renville County 40. Rock County

2

41. Stevens County 42. Veit 43. Voyageur 44. Morrison County Demo Landfill 45. East Central Demo Landfill

IV. Adequacy of Monitoring

3

I. Introduction and Methods Data was analyzed for 43 demolition landfills in Minnesota. Seventeen of these sites accepted demolition and industrial waste only, while 26 also accepted municipal waste. The objective of the analysis was to determine if the landfills impacted ground water. The null hypothesis was that concentrations of chemicals in up- and down-gradient wells were equal. The Kruskal-Wallis test was employed. The null hypothesis was rejected when the p-value for the statistical test was 0.05 or less. When differences were observed, site hydrologists were asked to provide physical interpretations of the results. When significant differences were observed, additional tests were performed. These included additional nonparametric group tests, correlation tests using the Spearmann Rank method, or nonparametric regressions. Examples of additional tests included trend analysis, differences between down-gradient wells, and comparisons to water quality standards. This report is divided into sections corresponding to individual sites. Specific statistical tests are discussed in each section. Each section includes a short discussion of how chemicals concentrations compare to drinking water quality standards. There is no discussion for surface water standards. The reader should be aware of the following. 1. When chemicals were never detected in samples from any well, they are not included

in the tables or discussion. Full parameter lists are not cited in this report. 2. The drinking water standard for manganese was assumed to be 1000 ug/L1. 3. Unless otherwise stated, all statistical analysis involved nonparametric tests (thus for

regression analysis, data were ranked prior to conducting the analysis). 4. The number of samples, sampling dates, and well information is not presented in this

report. Limitations of sample size on statistical analysis are discussed where appropriate.

5. For each facility, the discussion includes a section summarizing the well configuration at the site, results of group tests comparing chemical concentrations in wells, observed concentrations in wells, additional analysis if applicable (correlation, regression analysis), comparison with standards, and a conclusion.

6. Lead concentrations were not compared to water quality standards. There is an Action Limit of 15 ug/L, but a safe level for lead in water has not been determined.

7. The reader should be careful about interpreting data regarding exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits. Sample sizes and parameter lists varied widely between sites and even within some sites. For example, sites where just a few common metals were sampled would generally have a higher exceedance rate than a facility with a more extensive parameter list, since many of the chemicals on the extensive list are not detected under typical circumstances.

II. General Summary

Table II.1 provides a general summary for each site. Table II.2 provides a summary of sites where the null hypothesis was accepted or rejected, or where there was 1 Minnesota Department of Health. 1997. Health Based Value for Manganese. Office Memorandum by Larry Gust, Supervisor, Health Risk Assessment Unit. St. Paul, MN.

4

insufficient information to test the hypothesis. Table II.2 indicates that there tended to be a lower incidence of rejecting the null hypothesis for facilities that strictly handled demolition waste. Sites that also handled industrial waste, but not municipal waste, typically failed the null hypothesis due to the presence of inorganic chemicals at high concentrations in down-gradient wells (Table II.3).

Site name Null hypothesis Comment

Albert Lea -

There is insufficient data to conduct statistical analysis.

Dichlorodifluoromethane and dichlorofluoromethane were detected in one down-gradient well and not in

the up-gradient well, but these chemicals were also found in

monitoring wells associated with the municipal waste disposal area.

Allenview Rejected

Some differences between up- and down-gradient wells. With the

exception of nitrate, concentrations are within expected background ranges.

Nitrate, at the concentrations observed in the down-gradient well, is assumed to be associated with an anthropogenic

source.

Beltrami Accepted

No differences between up- and down-gradient wells, although there is

probably insufficient sampling in the wells.

Bustad Rejected

Concentrations of more than a dozen inorganic and organic chemicals were

greater in down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells.

Camp Ripley Accepted

No differences between up- and down-gradient wells, although there is

probably insufficient sampling in the down-gradient wells.

Chippewa County Accepted

Although manganese is elevated in down-gradient wells, it appears to be due to differences in redox conditions between up- and down-gradient wells.

Cross Lake - No down-gradient well identified; small sample size.

Crow Wing County Rejected Concentrations of several inorganic chemicals, including several trace

metals, are greater in down-gradient

5

wells than in up-gradient wells.

Dawnway Rejected

Concentrations of sulfate, alkalinity, and sodium were greater in down-

gradient wells compared to up-gradient well. The up-gradient well, however, has elevated concentrations

of chloride and CFCs.

Dem-Con Landfill Rejected

Down-gradient wells are highly impacted with VOCs, primarily

chlorinated solvents. Sulfate and specific conductance are also higher in down-gradient wells compared to up-

gradient wells.

Demolition Landfill Services Rejected

One of the three down-gradient wells at the site has higher levels of several

inorganic chemicals than the up-gradient wells.

Dodge County Rejected

Concentrations of VOCs, primarily CFCs and chlorinated aliphatic

compounds, were greater in the down- versus up-gradient well.

East Side Rejected

Concentrations for some chemicals higher in down-gradient wells Sulfate is the primary chemical of concern.

Calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium also greater in down- versus

up-gradient wells. Fergus Falls Sanitary

Landfill - Insufficient data for analysis

Glenwood Ready-Mix Rejected

Several inorganic chemicals are at higher concentration in down-gradient well, although at concentrations below

drinking standards.

Goodhue County Rejected

Several VOCs and inorganic chemicals occur at higher

concentrations in down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells. Vinyl chloride and chloromethane are VOCs

of greatest concern.

Hengel Rejected

Ground water has been impacted by the demolition landfill, primarily by inorganic chemicals. Sulfate is the

chemicals of greatest concern.

Henkemeyer Rejected Ground water at the site is impacted

by the demolition disposal area. Sulfate is the chemical of greatest

6

concern.

Kandiyohi -

Concentrations for several inorganic and organic chemicals are greater in

down-gradient wells, but these appear to be associated with the municipal

waste disposal area. Nitrate and dissolved solid concentrations may reflect impacts from the demolition landfill, but results are inconclusive.

Lake of the Woods - Insufficient sample size to complete analysis.

Lansing - Insufficient sample size to complete analysis.

Lyon County Rejected

Down-gradient wells had elevated concentrations of magnesium and total

dissolved solids compared to up-gradient wells.

Meeker County -

Specific conductivity is elevated in the down-gradient well, but there is

insufficient chemical analysis for indicator chemicals to reject the null

hypothesis.

Mower Rejected Concentrations of sulfate were greater in down-gradient wells compared to

up-gradient wells.

Murray County Rejected

VOCs occurred with greater frequency in down-gradient vs. up-gradient

wells. VOCs included chlorinated solvents and CFCs. Concentrations of chlorinated solvents decreased in the

down-gradient well during the sampling period.

Nobles County Rejected

Concentrations of some inorganic chemicals were greater in down-gradient wells compared to up-

gradient. There were other chemicals, however, which occurred at higher

concentrations in the up-gradient well. The demolition landfill does not

appear to have significantly impacted ground water.

Northeast Otter Tail Accepted

Significant impacts are evident from the municipal waste, but demolition impacts are not discernable. Sample size may be too small for reasonable analysis of wells down-gradient from

7

the demolition landfill.

Olmstead County-Kalmar Rejected

Concentrations of chloride, sulfate, and dissolved solids are greater in

down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells.

Polk County - Insufficient data Renville - No data

Rice County Rejected

Some down-gradient wells were highly impacted with a wide range of VOCs. Concentrations of inorganic chemicals were generally greater in

down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells.

Rock County Rejected

Sulfate and specific conductance were greater in the down-gradient well

compared to the up-gradient well. The sample size was very small and down-

gradient samples had very high turbidity.

Steele County -

Concentrations for several inorganic chemicals and

dichlorodifluoromethane are greater in down-gradient wells, but it cannot be

determined if these are associated with the municipal solid waste, demolition

waste, or both.

Stevens County Rejected

Chloride concentrations were greater in the down-gradient well compared to up-gradient wells. A wide variety of VOC were detected in the up-gradient well but not in the down-gradient well.

The demolition landfill does not appear to have significantly impacted

ground water.

Summit Avenue Rejected

Concentrations for some chemicals higher in down-gradient wells

Chemicals of interest are sulfate, radium-226, and chlorofluorocarbons; drinking criteria exceeded one or more

times for sulfate and radium-226

TKD Rejected

Ground water is impacted by the demolition disposal area.

Concentrations of calcium, alkalinity, sulfate, and dissolved solids are

greater in down-gradient versus up-gradient wells.

8

Valley Demo - Insufficient up-gradient data. Well 2 may show impacts from the landfill

Veit Rejected

Chloride and alkalinity concentrations were greater in down-gradient wells. The two down-gradient wells at the

site, however, appeared to differ significantly in their redox chemistry.

Vonco Rejected

Chloride, sulfate, and presence of VOCs indicate impacts. Assumes Well 4 represents down-gradient

conditions.

Voyageur Rejected

Concentrations of magnesium and potassium were greater in down-gradient wells, and VOCs were

detected in down-gradient wells but not in up-gradient wells. Upward trends in the down-gradient wells occurred for calcium, magnesium,

alkalinity, and iron.

Wadena Rejected The down-gradient well is impacted by VOCs and inorganic chemicals.

Waseca Rejected

Wells down-gradient of both demolition cells are heavily

contaminated with a variety of VOCs. Water quality standards were

frequently exceeded in these wells.

Western Stearns Rejected

The down-gradient well is impacted by organic and inorganic chemicals.

Vinyl chloride and sulfate are the chemicals of greatest concern.

Table II.1: Site summaries.

Hypothesis Number All sites

Accepted 4 Rejected 28

Insufficient information 11 Demolition Waste Only


Insufficient information 1 Demolition and Industrial Waste only


Insufficient information 1 Demolition, Industrial, and Municipal Waste

9


Insufficient information 9 Table II.2: Summary of statistical tests for each site. Table II.3 indicates the null hypothesis was rejected most often because of higher concentrations of inorganic chemicals in down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells. There was no discernable difference in the basis for hypothesis rejection between the three landfill classifications. At about 30 percent of all facilities, VOC concentrations were greater in down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells. The data do not include data for up-gradient wells that had higher concentrations of an inorganic chemical or a VOC compared to down-gradient wells.

Chemical Group Demolition Industrial Municipal

VOCs 2 3 8 Non-health

based 4 9 12

Health based 3 8 9 Total sites 7 10 26

Table II.3: Chemical groups for which concentrations in down-gradient wells exceeded concentrations in up-gradient wells. Table II.3 provides information about the chemical groups for which the null hypothesis was rejected. For cells in the table marked with an “X”, concentrations of one or more chemicals in that group was greater in down-gradient versus up-gradient well(s). Table II.4 provides more specific information for those sites where VOC concentrations were greater in down-gradient wells, Table II.5 for metals and metalloids, and Table II.6 for other inorganic chemicals.

Site name VOCs Metals and metalloids

Other Inorganics Radionucleides

Allenview - X X Ns Bustad X X X Ns

Crow Wing County - X X Ns Dawnway Ns X X Ns

Dem-Con Landfill X - X Ns Demolition Landfill Services - X X Ns

Dodge County X X X Ns East Side - X X Ns

Glenwood Ready-Mix X X X Ns Goodhue County X X X Ns

Hengel - X X Ns Henkemeyer Ns X X Ns

10

Lyon County - X X Ns Mower - - X Ns

Murray County X - - Ns Nobles County - X X Ns

Olmstead County-Kalmar - - X Ns Rice County X X X Ns Rock County - X X Ns

Stevens County - - X Ns Summit Avenue - Mankato X X X X

TK - X X Ns Veit - - X Ns

Vonco X X X Ns Voyageur X X - Ns Wadena X - X Ns Waseca X - - Ns

Western Stearns X X X Ns Table II.3: Chemical groups for which the concentration of one or more chemical was greater in down-gradient versus up-gradient well(s). Ns=not sampled

Table II.4 indicates that, for all sites where VOC concentrations were greater in down-gradient wells, CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) were greater in the down-gradient well(s). Chemicals detected most frequently included dichlorodifluoromethane, dichlorofluoromethane, and trichlorofluoromethane. A variety of chlorinated VOCs accounted for differences between up- and down-gradient wells, with 1,1,1-trichlorethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichlorethene, and vinyl chloride being detected most frequently. Other inorganics frequently detected included tetrahydrofuran, benzene, and to a lesser extent, acetone, ethyl ether, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene.

Site name CFCs Chlorinated

hydrocarbons Other

hydrocarbons Bustad X X X

Dem-Con Landfill X X X Dodge County X

Glenwood Ready-Mix X Goodhue County X X X Murray County X X X

Rice County X X X Summit Avenue - Mankato X

Vonco X X X Voyageur X X X Wadena X X Waseca X X

Western Stearns X X

11

Table II.4: VOC groups for which concentrations of one or more VOC were greater in down-gradient versus up-gradient well(s). Table II.5 illustrates, by facility, metal groups for concentration of one or more chemical was greater in down-gradient well(s) compared to up-gradient well(s). Typically, calcium, magnesium, or sodium concentrations were higher in the down-gradient wells. Other metals that were found at higher concentration in down-gradient wells included barium, cadmium, copper, chromium, and lead. Barium was the metal for which down-gradient concentrations most frequently exceeded up-gradient concentrations.

Site name Ca, Mg, Na,

or K Fe or MnOther metals

and metalloids Allenview X X

Bustad X X X Crow Wing County X X X

Dawnway X Demolition Landfill Services X X

Dodge County X East Side X X

Glenwood Ready-Mix X Goodhue County X X

Hengel X Henkemeyer X X Lyon County X

Nobles County X Rice County X X X Rock County X

Summit Avenue - Mankato X TK X

Vonco X Voyageur X

Western Stearns X Table II.5: Metals and metalloids for which concentration in down-gradient well(s) was greater than the concentration in up-gradient well(s). Table II.6 illustrates non-metal inorganic chemicals for which concentration in down-gradient well(s) exceeded the concentration in up-gradient well(s). Sulfate was the chemical that was most frequently at higher concentrations in down-gradient wells. Dissolved solids include a variety of inorganic chemicals, including metals listed in Table II.5.

Site name Sulfate Nitrate Chloride Dissolved

solids Allenview X

12

Bustad X X X Crow Wing County X X

Dawnway X Dem-Con Landfill X X

Demolition Landfill Services X X Dodge County X

East Side X X Glenwood Ready-Mix X X X

Goodhue County X X X Hengel X X X

Henkemeyer X X Lyon County X

Mower X Nobles County X X

Olmstead County-Kalmar X X X Rice County X X X X Rock County X X

Stevens County X Summit Avenue - Mankato X X

TK X X Veit X

Vonco X X X Wadena X

Western Stearns X X X Table II.6: Inorganic chemicals (other than metals and metalloids) for which concentration in down-gradient well(s) was greater than the concentration in up-gradient well(s).

Site % exceeds

Water Quality Standards

% exceeds Intervention

limits

Samples per parameter

per well VOCs

Albert Lea 0.00 0.00 8.7 Allenview 0.00 0.00 3.4 Beltrami 0.00 0.00 3.0 Bustad 0.25 0.38 7.5

Camp Ripley 0.00 0.00 7.1 Chippewa 0.00 0.00 7.6 Cross Lake Ins Ins - Crow Wing 0.00 0.00 24.5 Dawnway 0.00 0.00 0.1 Dem Con 2.80 5.46 14.0

DLS 0.00 0.00 4.0

13

Dodge 0.36 0.36 12.0 Eastside 0.00 0.00 17.5 Fergus Ins Ins -

Glenwood 0.00 0.00 9.7 Goodhue 0.37 0.49 19.1 Hengel 0.56 0.75 3.0

Henkmeyer Ins Ins 0.0 Kandiyohi 0.44 0.72 11.7

Lake Of The Woods Ins Ins - Lansing Ins Ins -

Lyon 0.00 0.00 0.1 Meeker 0.00 0.00 9.3 Mower 0.00 0.00 3.9 Murray 0.00 2.38 12.0

NE Otter 0.00 0.00 4.3 Nobles 0.00 0.00 21.3

Olmstead 0.00 0.00 6.6 Polk Ins Ins -

Renville Ins Ins - Rice 0.89 2.40 12.5 Rock 0.00 0.00 6.0 Steele 0.00 0.00 5.8

Stevens 0.00 0.00 11.2 Summit 0.00 0.00 0.4

TKD 0.00 0.00 3.0 Valley 0.00 0.35 2.7 Veit 0.00 0.00 8.4

Vonco 0.00 0.00 9.5 Voyageur 0.00 0.13 8.9 Wadena 0.00 0.00 2.9 Waseca 2.13 2.46 7.2

West Stearns 0.78 1.03 5.5 Inorganics With Non-Health Based Standards

Albert Lea 0.00 19.05 1.8 Allenview 2.22 17.78 11.3 Beltrami 4.17 50.00 3.0 Bustad 48.86 59.66 14.7

Camp Ripley 0.00 21.74 2.9 Chippewa 50.00 50.00 1.3

14

Cross Lake i i - Crow Wing 0.00 36.89 15.3 Dawnway 27.35 50.43 14.6 Dem Con 35.48 64.52 2.6

DLS 0.00 33.33 4.0 Dodge 55.56 88.89 2.3

Eastside 31.94 36.11 18.0 Fergus i I -


Henkmeyer 35.86 57.24 12.1 Kandiyohi 5.49 9.07 4.6

Lake Of The Woods i I - Lansing i I -


NE Otter 31.25 37.50 2.0 Nobles 1.11 66.67 11.3

Olmstead 34.92 68.25 5.3 Polk i I -

Renville i I - Rice 40.57 77.48 9.5 Rock 60.00 70.00 2.5 Steele 25.00 62.00 3.8

Stevens 35.29 52.94 4.3 Summit 6.35 79.37 7.9

TKD 0.00 19.23 6.5 Valley 0.00 0.00 6.0 Veit 0.00 0.00 6.1

Vonco 0.00 14.49 11.5 Voyageur 1.03 31.96 4.9 Wadena 27.27 63.64 2.8 Waseca 0.00 0.00 0.5

West Stearns 42.31 76.92 6.5 Inorganics With Health Based Standards

Albert Lea 4.76 14.29 2.2

15

Allenview 0.00 0.00 6.3 Beltrami 0.00 4.17 1.8 Bustad 4.66 16.77 8.3

Camp Ripley 0.00 0.00 2.2 Chippewa 2.63 36.84 1.5 Cross Lake Ins Ins - Crow Wing 0.00 3.70 3.1 Dawnway 14.95 52.34 2.1 Dem Con 3.23 16.13 1.6

DLS 0.00 11.22 2.5 Dodge 15.63 17.19 4.9

Eastside 2.07 5.52 11.2 Fergus Ins Ins -


Henkmeyer 34.85 45.45 1.7 Kandiyohi 1.58 5.91 3.9

Lake Of The Woods Ins Ins - Lansing Ins Ins -


NE Otter 0.00 28.57 0.8 Nobles 0.56 5.59 6.9

Olmstead 0.00 0.48 5.4 Polk Ins Ins -

Renville Ins Ins - Rice 5.24 16.59 4.9 Rock 16.67 16.67 1.4 Steele 2.96 8.15 1.6

Stevens 1.79 1.79 4.3 Summit 0.00 33.33 1.0

TKD 0.00 0.00 2.8 Valley 0.00 1.67 1.5 Veit 0.00 0.00 2.4

Vonco 0.00 5.34 3.4 Voyageur 0.00 3.03 1.5

16

Wadena 4.65 9.30 1.7 Waseca 0.00 6.52 1.2

West Stearns 9.52 9.52 1.6 Table II.7: Summary of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in down-gradient wells. Table II.8 summarizes median and mean exceedance rates per site (as a percent of samples collected in down-gradient wells) for VOCs and inorganic chemicals. The data do not include exceedance rates in up-gradient or side-gradient wells. The data therefore represent a high end estimate of exceedance rates, since there may be instances where standards or limits were exceeded in an up- or side-gradient well during the same sampling event where an exceedance was observed in the down-gradient well.

Water Quality Standards Intervention Limits VOCs

Median 0.00 0.00 Mean 0.24 0.47

Inorganics with non-health based standards Median 5.49 36.89

Mean 17.55 39.30 Inorganics with health based standards

Median 0.00 6.52 Mean 3.61 11.09

Table II.8: Median and mean exceedance rates, as a percent of samples collected in down-gradient wells. Table II.9 summarizes results from a nonparametric regression analysis. The model was % Exceedance Rate = a + b*waste or % Exceedance Rate = a + b*year, where a is the intercept and b is the slope. For VOCs, there was a significant correlation between exceedance of intervention limits and waste in place at the time of this analysis. There was a significant correlation between exceedance of water quality standards for VOCs and year of establishment for a facility. The slope for this second regression was negative, indicating greater exceedance rates as the age of the facility increased. No significant regressions were observed for the inorganic chemicals.

Waste Year

WQ standards

Intervention limits

WQ standards

Intervention limits Chemical

R2 P R2 p R2 P R2 p VOCs 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.04 0.41 0.02 0.22 0.10

Inorganics (non-health) 0.04 0.27 0.02 0.42 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.83

Inorganics (health) 0.01 0.54 0.06 0.17 0.14 0.19 0.12 0.23

17

Table II.9: Results from regression analysis. The model was % Exceedance Rate = a + b*waste or % Exceedance Rate = a + b*year, where a is the intercept and b is the slope.

Site Summaries 1. Allenview Demolition Landfill

There are four wells at the Allenview Demolition Landfill (Table III.1.1). Wells 1 and 4 are considered up-gradient, Well 2 down-gradient, and Well 3 side-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1997 and 2002.

Well Well location Type of well MW-1 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-2 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-3 Side-gradient Monitoring MW-4 Up-gradient Monitoring

Table III.1.1: Well summary for Allenview Demolition Landfill. Table III.1.2 summarizes comparisons of chemical concentrations, by well and between up- and down-gradient wells. Well 3, which is side-gradient to the disposal area, was not included in the analysis. Several inorganic chemicals differed between wells. There were no differences in the occurrence of VOCs between different wells. There were 19 detections of VOCs. Generally, VOCs were found in all wells during a particular sampling event. Toluene and xylene accounted for 12 of these detections, and these chemicals often were detected in field blanks. Consequently, we assume no difference in occurrence of VOCs between wells.

Chemical Well

comparisons

Up- vs. down-

gradient 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.338 0.141

Alkalinity < 0.001 0.089 Allyl chloride 1.000 1.000

Ammonia 1.000 1.000 Arsenic 0.095 0.143 Barium 0.006 0.006 Benzene 0.666 1.000 Cadmium 0.607 0.317 Calcium 0.020 0.674

Carbon tetrachloride 1.000 1.000 Chloride < 0.001 0.356

Chromium 1.000 1.000 Copper 1.000 0.854

Dichlorofluoromethane 0.338 0.141

18

Iron 0.149 0.068 Lead 1.000 1.000

Xylene 0.702 0.917 Magnesium 0.019 0.672 Manganese < 0.001 0.001

Mercury 1.000 1.000 Nitrate 0.002 < 0.001 Xylene 0.700 0.476

pH 0.083 0.197 Potassium 0.021 0.113 Sodium 0.190 0.450

Specific conductance < 0.001 0.036 Sulfate < 0.001 0.174

Temperature 0.844 0.844 Toluene 0.260 0.575

Total dissolved solids 0.004 0.674 Total suspended solids 0.021 0.021

Zinc 1.000 0.715 Table III.1.2: p-Values for well comparisons and up- versus down-gradient well comparisons. Well 3, which is side-gradient to the disposal area, is not included in the analysis. Comparisons between wells were variable (Table III.1.3). Wells 2 and 4 appear to show greater chemical concentrations than Well 1. Concentrations of barium, nitrate, and specific conductance were greater in the down-gradient well than in the up-gradient wells, while manganese concentrations were greater in the up-gradient well. Reasons for the high concentrations of suspended solids in Well 4 (an up-gradient well) are unknown.

Chemical Well 1 Well 2 Well 4 Alkalinity 205 288 369

Barium 84 155 ns Calcium 60 99 107 Chloride 8 16 38

Magnesium 19 37 39 Nitrate Nd 6.0 Nd

Potassium 1.3 1.5 3.0 Specific conductance 300 687 667

Sulfate 9.5 61 114 Total dissolved solids 254 448 580 Total suspended solids 74 32 1338

Zinc 18 Nd nd

19

Table III.1.3: Median chemical concentrations in Wells 1, 2, and 4 for those chemicals where concentrations differed between wells (see Table III.1.1). nd=not detected; ns=not sampled.

There were no trends in concentration for the three chemicals that occurred at higher concentrations in down-gradient wells (nitrate, barium, and specific conductance). Since sampling has been limited to a five-year period, additional sampling and analysis may provide more useful information. Iron exceeded it’s SMCL of 300 ug/L on two occasions in Well 4. The water quality standard of 500 mg/L for total dissolved solids was exceeded on one occasion in Well 2, three occasions in Well 3, and three occasions in Well 4. Exceedances of the Intervention Limit included two exceedances for arsenic in Well 4 (2.7 and 2.6 ug/L), five exceedances for manganese in Well 4 (concentrations ranging from 267 to 348 ug/L), five exceedances for nitrate in Well 2 (concentrations ranging from 4.4 to 6.9 mg/L), and one exceedance for iron in Well 3 (262 ug/L). Conclusions: Since nitrate concentrations in down-gradient wells are greater than in up-gradient wells, and because nitrate at the observed concentrations is assumed to be due to an anthropogenic source, the null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: The inorganic parameter list appears adequate, although sampling has been inconsistent. The number of samples collected for VOCs is limited. Utility of site on overall analysis: Ground water flow is questionable at this site. MW-2, although considered down-gradient, may actually be side-gradient. The well is also located about 300 feet from the waste, and it is not clear if ground passing beneath the disposal area would have reached the well if it was down-gradient. The site therefore has limited value. 2. Beltrami County Demolition Landfill There are five sampling locations at the Beltrami County Demolition Landfill (Table III.2.1). The North and East wells are down-gradient. The South well is up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1997 and 1999.

Sampling point Location Type of Well East Well Down-gradient Monitoring

North Well Down-gradient Monitoring South Well Up-gradient Monitoring

Swamp - Surface water Sedimentation Pond - -

Table III.2.1: Summary of sampling locations for Beltrami County Demolition Landfill.

Table III.2.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.2.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in

20

each well. The only chemical which differed in concentration between wells was sodium, which occurred at a higher concentration in the up-gradient well (South Well).

Closer examination of the site indicates the East Well may or may not be impacted by the demolition waste. Consequently, it is appropriate to compare only the North and South wells. Concentrations of sodium and specific conductance were greater in the South well.

Chemical Wells Up- vs. down-gradient

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 0.368 0.157 Alkalinity 0.733 0.796 Ammonia 1.000 1.000 Arsenic 0.368 0.480 Barium 0.501 0.281 Calcium 0.288 0.302 Chloride 0.185 0.775

Chromium 0.368 0.480 Copper 0.953 0.758

Iron 0.558 0.289 Lead 0.368 0.480

Magnesium 0.202 0.121 Manganese 0.368 0.480

Nitrate 0.368 0.480 pH 0.304 0.440

Potassium 0.264 0.157 Sodium 0.061 0.027

Specific Conductance 0.177 0.197 Sulfate 0.384 0.793

Total Dissolved Solids 0.733 0.796 Total Suspended Solids 0.587 0.302

Turbidity 0.565 1.000 Zinc 0.558 0.724

Table III.2.2: Results of statistical tests (p-values) comparing median concentrations between wells and between up- and down-gradient wells.

Chemical East Well

North Well

South Well

Swamp Sedimentation Pond

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Alkalinity (mg/L) 260 220 256 140 55 Ammonia (ug/L) nd nd nd 0.70 nd Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

21

Barium (ug/L) 47 30 0.06 0.04 0.52 Calcium (mg/L) 65 55 60 65 53 Chloride (mg/L) 3.50 0.50 1.60 2.90 1.70

Chromium (ug/L) nd 1.40 nd 1.30 nd Copper (ug/L) nd 1.40 nd Nd nd Iron (mg/L) 0.16 nd nd 0.06 0.04 Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd

Magnesium (mg/L) 17 12 24 16 18 Manganese (mg/L) 0.02 nd nd Nd nd

Nitrate (mg/L) 0.40 0.46 0.05 0.11 0.05 PH 7.61 7.64 7.79 7.75 8.05

Potassium (mg/L) 1.80 2.30 2.20 1.40 1.30 Sodium (mg/L) 2.6 2.4 10.2 2.3 14.6

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 489 419 467 431 463 Sulfate (mg/L) 16 11 11 1 39

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 268 226 235 220 44 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 36 76 151 16 88

Turbidity (NTU) 49 85 65 Zinc (ug/L) nd nd nd 13 70

Table III.2.3: Median chemical concentrations for each sampling point. There were no significant trends in concentration during the sampling period, although only three samples were collected from each well. Table III.2.4 summarizes exceedances of water quality standards. There is a somewhat greater frequency of exceeding intervention limits in the East Well, although the concentrations are within the range of expected background concentrations for these chemicals. There was a single detection of 1,1,2-Trichloroethene that exceeded the intervention limit in the South Well.

Chemical South Well East Well North Well Water Quality Standards

Iron 1 1 0 Intervention Limits 1,1,2-Trichloroethene 1 0 0

Iron 0 2 1 Manganese 0 1 1

Sulfate 0 1 0 Total Dissolved Solids 3 3 3 Table III.2.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. Conclusion: There were no chemicals for which concentrations in down-gradient wells exceeded concentrations in the up-gradient wells. The null hypothesis is accepted, although only three samples were collected from each well.

22

Adequacy of Monitoring: Although sampling has been consistent, there are only three years of data. There has been uncertainty about which wells are up- or down-gradient. Utility of site in overall analysis: The south well is considered an up-gradient well, but there has been confusion about the direction of ground water flow at the site. Unless flow can be resolved, the site is not adequate for overall analysis. 3. Summit Demolition Landfill

There are four wells at the Summit Demolition Landfill (Table III.3.1). Wells 1 and 4 are considered down-gradient, Well 2 up-gradient, and Well 3 side-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1993 and 2002.

Well Well location Type of well MW-1 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-2 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-3 Side-gradient Monitoring MW-4 Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.2.1: Well summary for Summit Demolition Landfill.

Group comparisons indicated higher concentrations of nitrate, sulfate, and Radium-226, and a greater frequency of detection for Dichlorodifluoromethane, Dichlorofluoromethane, and Trichlorofluoromethane in down-gradient wells compared to the up-gradient well (Tables 3.2 and 3.3). Concentrations of magnesium, specific conductance, total dissolved solids, and Dichlorofluoromethane were greater in Well 1 than in Well 4 (Table III.3.4). Combining and ranking data for Dichlorodifluoromethane, Dichlorofluoromethane, and Trichlorofluoromethane, concentrations of these chemicals were greater in Well 1 than in Well 4.

Comparison of Well 1 and Well 2 indicated higher concentrations of nitrate, magnesium, barium, and Radium-226 in the down-gradient well (Well 1; results not shown). Comparison of Well 2 and Well 4 indicated higher concentrations of chloride, specific conductance, and sulfate in the down-gradient well (Well 4). Comparison of Well 1 and the side-gradient well (Well 3) indicated higher concentrations of alkalinity, chloride, magnesium, specific conductance, sulfate, Radium-226, and Radium-228, and a lower pH in the down-gradient well (Well 1). Nitrate concentrations did not differ between the two wells.

p-values

Chemical1 Up- vs. down-

gradient Well vs.

well Down-gradient wells (1 vs. 4)

Alkalinity 0.106 < 0.001 0.857 Barium 0.101 0.514 0.270 Calcium 0.248 0.116 - Chloride 0.340 < 0.001 0.303

23

Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.036 0.007 0.115 Dichlorofluoromethane 0.029 < 0.001 0.012

Magnesium 0.164 < 0.001 0.007 Methylene chloride 0.988 0.913 0.480

Nitrate < 0.001 < 0.001 - PH 0.761 0.467 0.466

Radium-226 0.033 < 0.001 0.268 Radium-228 0.553 0.003 0.918

Specific conductance 0.226 0.453 0.023 Sulfate 0.016 0.002 -

Temperature 0.838 0.004 0.235 Total dissolved solids 0.849 0.001 0.016

Trichlorofluoromethane 0.006 0.034 0.094 Table III.3.2: Results of group comparisons between up- and down-gradient wells; between all wells; and between the down-gradient monitoring wells.

Well Location

Chemical Up-

gradient Down-

gradient Side-

gradient Dichlorodifluoromethane (% detections) 0 27 0

Dichlorofluoromethane (% detection) 0 45 0 Nitrate (mg/L) < 0.01 3.0 2.0

Radium-226 (pCi/L) 2.0 2.0 1.0 Sulfate (mg/L) 65 102 46

Trichlorofluoromethane (% detections) 0 38 0 Table III.3.3: Median concentrations of chemicals for which there were differences in up- and down-gradient wells.

Chemical Well 1 Well 4 Dichlorofluoromethane (% detections) 83 0

Magnesium (mg/L) 70 47 Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 907 1061

Temperature (oC) 13 10 Radium-226 (pCi/L) 4 2

Dichlorodifluoromethane + Dichlorofluoromethane +

Trichlorofluoromethane (% detections) 52 7

Table III.3.4: Median concentrations of chemicals in down-gradient wells. Data are only for chemicals in which there were statistically significant differences between the two wells.

Regression analysis of ranked concentrations on sampling date indicated significant upward trends for chloride, Dichlorofluoromethane, temperature, Trichlorofluoromethane, and radium-226, and a downward trend for pH (Table III.3.5).

24

Chemical p-value Correlation coefficient Slope direction

Chloride 0.007 0.374 Upward Dichlorodifluorometha

ne 0.019 0.565 Upward

pH 0.000010 0.693 Downward Temperature 0.030 0.247 Upward

Trichlorofluoromethane 0.030 0.514 Upward Radium-226 0.017 0.365 Upward

Table III.3.5: Summary of regression coefficients for the model ranked concentration = a = b*sampling date. Only regressions with p-values less than 0.05 are shown.

The Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 250 mg/L for sulfate was exceeded in Well 1 on three occasions. The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 pCi/L for radium-226 was exceeded in Well 1 on 10/16/98, 4/14/00, and 10/17/00 (6 pCi/L for each date). The water quality standard for dissolved solids was exceed on 4, 2, and 1 occasion, respectively, in Wells 1, 2, and 3. Table III.3.6 summarizes exceedances of intervention limits. Samples sizes were not the same for each well. Data in Table III.3.6 can therefore be somewhat misleading. Wells 1 and 2, which have similar sample sizes and represent down- and up-gradient locations, show similar exceedance rates. The exception is nitrate, which exceeded the intervention limit five times in Well 1 and did not exceed the limit in Well 2.

Well Barium Chloride Dissolved Solids

Nitrate Radium-226 Radium-228 Sulfate

1 3 10 8 5 13 12 13 2 1 13 11 0 13 13 10 3 1 3 11 5 3 3 7 4 1 9 0 0 7 4 9

Table III.3.6: Number of exceedances of intervention limits in each well. Conclusion: The data suggest differences between up- and down-gradient wells and a possible trend of increasing concentrations in Well 1. Concentrations of some chemicals, including chlorofluorocarbons, are higher in down-gradient Well 1 than in down-gradient Well 4. Sulfate, radium-226, and chlorofluorocarbons are the chemicals of concern. The nitrate results are unclear, since concentrations in the side-gradient well were similar to the down-gradient well. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: The number of inorganic parameters is limited. Utility of site in overall analysis: Well MW-1 is an adequate down-gradient well located within 50 feet of the waste footprint. Well MW-2 is an adequate up-gradient well. The site is adequate for inclusion in an overall analysis of demolition landfills.

25

4. Valley Demolition Landfill There are five wells at the Valley Demo Landfill. Table III.4.1 indicates three of

these are shallow monitoring wells located down-gradient of the landfill. Two domestic wells are located up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1998 and 2002.

Well Well location Type of well Guldan Up-gradient Domestic

Guemmer Up-gradient Domestic MW-1 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-2 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-3 Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.4.1: Well summary for Valley Demo Landfill.

Table III.4.2 shows there were differences in turbidity, specific conductance, and lead concentrations between up- and down-gradient wells. Turbidity was higher in down-gradient wells (medians of 143 and 2 NTUs), specific conductance was higher in up-gradient wells (medians of 690 and 569 umohs/cm), and lead concentrations were higher in up-gradient wells (medians of 1.15 and 0.5 ug/L). VOCs were detected in Well 3 on only one occasion and in no other samples.

p-values

Chemical1 Upgradient vs. downgradient

All wells compared

Down-gradient wells

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.414 0.406 0.368 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.414 0.406 0.368 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.414 0.406 0.368

Alkalinity 0.172 < 0.001 0.006 Arsenic 0.414 0.406 0.368 Barium 0.077 0.209 0.361 Benzene 0.414 0.406 0.368 Cadmium 0.073 0.519 1.000 Chloride 0.114 < 0.001 0.002

Chromium 0.073 0.519 1.000 Ethylbenzene 0.414 0.406 0.368

Lead 0.023 0.224 1.000 Magnesium 0.661 < 0.001 < 0.001

Methylene chloride 0.414 0.406 0.368 Naphthalene 0.414 0.406 0.368

n-Propylbenzene 0.414 0.406 0.368 PH 0.592 0.051 0.318

Redox 0.657 0.944 0.970 Selenium 0.068 0.064 1.000

Silver 0.134 0.240 1.000

26

Specific conductance < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Sulfate 0.492 < 0.001 < 0.001 Toluene 0.414 0.406 0.368 Turbidity < 0.001 < 0.001 0.355 Xylene 0.414 0.406 0.368 Xylene 0.404 0.406 0.368

Table III.4.2: Results of group comparisons between up- and down-gradient wells; between all wells; and between the three down-gradient monitoring wells.

Comparisons of down-gradient wells show high concentrations of alkalinity, chloride, magnesium, specific conductance, and sulfate in Well 2 compared to Wells 1 and 3 (Table III.4.3; see Table III.4.2 for p-values). Trend analysis using ranked values showed a decreasing concentration of sulfate in Well 2 (p = 0.006) and decreasing specific conductance in Well 1 (p = 0.028). There were no exceedances of drinking limits at the site. Intervention limits were exceeded for arsenic on two occasions in the Guldan well (7.1 and 7.4 ug/L) and once in MW-1 (2.7 ug/L), for benzene once in MW-3 (3.9 ug/L), and for methylene chloride once in MW-3 (18 ug/L).

Chemical Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Drinking standard (mg/L)

Alkalinity as CaCO3 (mg/l) 288 340 289 -

Chloride (mg/l) 4.0 4.6 2.0 250

Magnesium (mg/L) 25.1 36.2 26.6 -

Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 529 690 553 -

Sulfate (mg/L) 16 53 28 500 Table III.4.3: Median concentrations of chemicals for which there significant differences in concentration (see Table III.4.2), by down-gradient well. Conclusion: The up-gradient wells are probably not adequate for comparisons with downgradient wells to assess landfill impacts. The hypothesis cannot be tested. Adequacy of monitoring: The number of samples collected for VOCs is limited. Utility of site in overall analysis: There is no shallow, up-gradient monitoring well. The site is therefore not adequate for inclusion in the overall analysis. 5. East Side Demolition Landfill

There are four wells at the East Side Demolition Landfill (Table III.5.1). Well 1 is considered up-gradient, while Wells 2, 3, and 4 are considered down-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1997 and 2002.

27

Well Well location Type of well MW-1 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-2 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-3 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-4 Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.5.1: Well summary for East Side Demolition Landfill. Table III.5.2 summarizes comparisons of chemical concentrations (p-values), by well and between up- and down-gradient wells. There were no differences in the occurrence of individual VOCs between different wells. All 15 VOC detections, however, occurred in down-gradient wells, including nine detections in Well 4, four in Well 2, and two in Well 3. Methylene chloride and Xylene were detected in blanks on one occasion each. Many of the VOCs detected, including methyl isobutyl ketone, acetone, and xylene, are common contaminants in sample blanks. In addition, all the VOC detections occurred during the first two years of sampling. The results for VOCs are therefore inconclusive. Table III.5.2 shows that several inorganic chemicals differed between wells (p-values < 0.05). Further analysis shows that concentrations of several inorganic chemicals differed between up- and down-gradient wells. Table 5.3 illustrates concentrations for chemicals that differed between up- and down-gradient wells. Concentrations were generally greater in down-gradient wells. Further comparison of the three down-gradient wells revealed differences in concentrations between these wells, with Well 2 generally having the highest concentrations for most chemicals and Well 4 the lowest. Well 2 was characterized by very high concentrations of sulfate, magnesium, calcium, and total dissolved solids.

Chemical Wells

Up- vs. down-

gradient 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.392 0.564

Acetone 0.100 0.404 Alkalinity 0.009 0.006 Ammonia 0.032 0.044 Arsenic 0.465 0.863 Barium 0.392 0.083

Cadmium 1.000 1.000 Calcium < 0.001 0.010 Chloride 0.010 0.081

Chromium 1.000 1.000 Copper 0.033 0.506

Iron 0.392 0.083 Lead 0.549 0.451

m-Xylene 0.392 0.564

28


Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0.262 0.297 Naphthalene 0.553 0.404

n-Butyl Benzene 1.000 1.000 Nitrate 0.003 0.001

n-Propyl Benzene 0.392 0.564 pH 0.035 0.066

Potassium 0.002 0.059 Redox 0.810 0.631

sec Butyl Benzene 0.392 0.564 Sodium < 0.001 < 0.001

Specific conductance 0.001 0.045 Sulfate < 0.001 < 0.001

t-Butyl Benzene 0.392 0.564 Total dissolved solids < 0.001 0.032 Total suspended solids 0.640 0.678

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.816 0.336 Zinc 0.743 0.330

Fluoride 0.343 0.189 Table III.5.2: p-Values for well comparisons and up- versus down-gradient well comparisons.

Chemical Up-gradient Down-gradient Alkalinity (mg/L) 449 379 Ammonia (mg/L) 0.05 0.05 Calcium (mg/L) 126 199

Manganese (mg/L) 0.03 0.38 Nitrate (mg/L) 13.6 0.8 Sodium (mg/L) 7.2 24.1

Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 966 1303 Sulfate (mg/L) 42 400

Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 579 940 Table III.5.3: Chemical concentrations in up- and down-gradient wells. Concentrations differed between up- and down-gradient wells at a significance level of 0.05 (see Table III.5.2 for p-values).

Chemical p-value Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Calcium (mg/L) < 0.001 435 199 118 Chloride (mg/L) 0.034 3.7 3.1 11.5 Copper (mg/L) 0.027 0.07 0.03 0.03

Magnesium (mg/L) 0.001 208 67.2 60.3 Potassium (mg/L) 0.002 5.3 3.5 3.3

29

Sodium (mg/L) 0.001 40.7 23.4 17.3 Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 0.002 2656 1303 853

Sulfate (mg/L) 0.002 1490 400 135 Total dissolved solids (mg/L) < 0.001 2250 940 562

Table III.5.4: Chemical concentrations in down-gradient wells. Concentrations differed at a significance level of 0.05. Considering the chemicals in Table III.5.4, upward trends in concentration were observed in down-gradient wells for calcium (p = 0.00025; R2 = 0.52) and magnesium (p = 0.0000094; R2 = 0.65). Table III.5.5 summarizes comparisons with standards and intervention limits. The standard for sulfate (SMCL = 250 mg/L) was exceeded on five occasions in Well 2 and four occasions in Well 3, while the manganese standard (1000 ug/L) was exceeded three times in Well 2. The HRL for nitrate was exceeded on five occasions in Well 1.

Chemical Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Standards

Manganese 0 3 0 0 Nitrate 5 0 0 0

Dissolved Solids 4 7 6 5 Sulfate 0 5 4 0

Intervention limits Arsenic 0 1 0 0

Dissolved Solids 7 7 7 7 Iron 1 0 0 0 Lead 1 1 0 0

Manganese 0 4 5 3 Nitrate 7 3 1 0 Sulfate 0 5 5 5

Table III.5.5: Summary of number of exceedances of standards and intervention limits. Conclusions: Based on results for this site, the null hypothesis is rejected. Down-gradient wells have higher concentrations of sulfate, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium than up-gradient wells. Adequacy of Monitoring: Monitoring has been adequate. Utility of site in overall analysis: MW-2 and MW-3 are down-gradient wells and are sufficiently close to the waste area for ground water to pass beneath the disposal area and reach the well. MW-1 is clearly an up-gradient well. MW-4 is probably correctly identified as a down-gradient well, although slight changes in ground water flow in the vicinity could change this conclusion. The amount of waste up-gradient of MW-4 appears to be considerably less than the amount up-gradient of MW-2 and MW-3. The site is adequate for analysis.

30

6. Glenwood Demolition Landfill

There are three wells at the Glenwood Demolition Landfill (Table III.6.1). Well 1 is considered up-gradient, Well 2 down-gradient, and Well 3 down-gradient of the disposal area. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1998 and 2002.

Well Well location Type of well MW-1 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-2 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-3 Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.6.1: Well summary for Glenwood Demolition Landfill. Table III.6.2 summarizes results of comparisons between all wells, up- and down-gradient wells, and the two down-gradient wells (Well 2 and Well 3). Concentrations of several inorganic chemicals and trichlorofluoromethane were greater in either both or one of the down-gradient wells compared to the up-gradient well. Table III.6.3 summarizes concentrations for select chemicals in each well. Well 2, in general, showed greater impacts than Well 3. No trends were evident in chemical concentration within any well.

Chemical All wells

Up- vs. down-

gradient Well 2 vs.

Well 3 Alkalinity 0.015 0.030 0.025 Ammonia 1.000 1.000 1.000 Arsenic 0.286 0.116 0.796 Barium 0.014 0.003 0.773

Cadmium 0.610 0.494 0.346 Calcium 0.026 0.019 0.050 Chloride 0.081 0.025 0.949

Chloroethane 0.269 0.171 0.317 Chromium 0.720 0.665 0.487

Specific conductance 0.004 0.058 0.006 Copper 0.913 0.669 1.000

Iron 0.811 0.517 1.000 Lead 0.892 0.649 0.796

Magnesium 0.018 0.011 0.050 Manganese 0.038 0.073 0.088

Mercury 0.472 0.221 1.000 Methylene chloride 0.269 0.171 0.317

Nitrate 0.423 0.199 0.658 PH 0.308 0.135 0.653

31

Potassium 0.083 0.052 0.268 Redox 0.707 0.897 0.513 Sodium 0.032 0.010 0.376 Sulfate 0.012 0.021 0.110

t-butyl benzene 0.472 0.221 1.000 Temperature 0.714 0.432 0.798

Toluene 0.269 0.171 0.317 Total dissolved solids 0.082 0.033 0.513 Total suspended solids 0.035 0.011 0.513 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.038 0.172 0.037

Zinc 0.092 1.000 0.658 Table III.6.2: p-Values for comparison of median concentrations between wells, between up- and down-gradient wells, and between the two down-gradient wells (Well 2 and Well 3).

Chemical Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Alkalinity (mg/L) 277 556 309

Barium (mg/L) 80 157 157 Calcium (mg/L) 78 121 86 Chloride (mg/L) 10.8 6.7 5.9

Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 563 863 573 Magnesium (mg/L) 29 53 33 Manganese (mg/L) 0.010 0.010 0.11

Sodium (mg/L) 2.6 4.9 5.9 Sulfate (mg/L) 27 38 57

Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 343 590 466 Total suspended solids (mg/L) 7.0 2920 1890 Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd 2.1 Nd

Table III.6.3: Median chemical concentrations in wells. Nd=not detected The water quality standard for dissolved solids was exceeded on 2 and 1 occasions, respectively, in Wells 2 and 3. Table III.6.4 summarizes exceedances of intervention limits. Nitrate exceeded the intervention limit on three occasions in the up-gradient Well 1, while sulfate exceeded the intervention limit on three occasions in Well 3 (a down-gradient well).

Chemical Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Nitrate 3 0 0 Sulfate 0 1 3

Dissolved Solids 3 3 3 Iron 1 1 1

Arsenic 0 1 1 Cadmium 1 0 0 Copper 1 0 0

32

Lead 1 1 1 Table III.6.4: Summary of exceedances for intervention limits. Conclusion: Concentrations of some inorganic chemicals are higher in down-gradient wells than in up-gradient wells. Well 2 shows the greatest impacts. The occurrence of Trichlorofluoromethane on one occasion in the up-gradient well creates uncertainty about the source for this chemical. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: With the exception of field parameters, only three samples have been collected from each well. Utility of site in overall analysis: MW-2 is within 50 feet of the waste footprint and is clearly down-gradient of the disposal area. MW-3 is also close to the waste and probably is down-gradient of the disposal area. The oldest waste occurred in the eastern part of the landfill, near MW-2. MW-1 is about 75 feet up-gradient of the disposal area. The site is adequate for analysis. 7. Goodhue County Demolition Landfill There are nine wells at the Goodhue County Demolition Landfill (Table III.7.1). Wells 1 and 6 are considered down-gradient of the disposal area, Wells 4, 4D, and 9 up-gradient, Wells 2, 5, and 7 down- and side-gradient, and Well 3 up- and side-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1993 and 2002.

Well Well location Type of well MW-1 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-2 Down-, side-gradient Monitoring MW-3 Up-, side-gradient Monitoring MW-4 Up-gradient Monitoring

MW-4D Up-gradient Monitoring MW-5 Down-, side-gradient Monitoring MW-6 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-7 Down-, side-gradient Monitoring MW-9 Up-gradient Monitoring

Table III.7.1: Well summary for Goodhue County Demolition Landfill. Table III.7.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.7.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Down-gradient wells had greater concentrations of alkalinity, ammonia, barium, calcium, chloride, magnesium, potassium, sodium, specific conductance, sulfate, and dissolved solids compared to up-gradient wells. No VOCs were detected in up-gradient wells, while many VOCs were detected in down-gradient wells. VOCs detected most frequently included chloroethene, cis 1,2-dichloroethene, ethyl ether, benzene, tetrahydrofuran, dichlorodifluoromethane, and dichlorofluoromethane. Nitrate concentrations were greatest in up-gradient wells, indicating changes in oxidation-

33

reduction conditions as water passes beneath the demolition disposal area. Well 1 appears to be the most highly impacted well. Wells MW-1 and MW-6 are directly down-gradient of the demolition waste, while Well MW-5 may not be directly down-gradient. MW-3 and MW-9 are clearly representative of background water quality. We can therefore make comparisons among these four wells. Concentrations of several chemicals were greater in the down-gradient wells than in the up-gradient wells, including alkalinity, ammonia, barium, benzene, calcium, chloride, chloroethane, cis 1,2-dichloroethene, ethyl ether, dichlorofluoromethane, dichlorodifluoromethane, magnesium, potassium, sodium, specific conductance, sulfate, and total dissolved solids. Well 1 was the more impacted of the down-gradient wells.

All wells Just up- and down-gradient

wells

Chemical Wells Up- vs. down-

gradient Wells Up- vs. down-

gradient 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.642 0.552 1.000 1.000

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 0.806 0.442 0.690 0.028 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1,1-Dichloroethane 0.136 0.016 0.131 0.014 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.523 0.704 0.240 0.280

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.260 0.442 0.240 0.280 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene 0.625 0.740 0.597 0.471

1,2-Dichloropropane 0.260 0.442 0.240 0.280 2-Chlorotoluene 0.806 0.442 0.690 0.280

Alkalinity < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Ammonia < 0.001 < 0.001 0.003 < 0.001 Barium < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Benzene < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Bromomethane 0.525 0.705 0.240 0.280 Cadmium 0.228 0.898 0.059 1.000 Calcium < 0.001 < 0.001 0.003 < 0.001 Chloride < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Chlorobenzene 0.331 0.144 0.337 0.125 Chloroethane < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Chloroform 0.806 0.442 0.690 0.280

Chloromethane 0.010 0.032 0.052 0.007 cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Ethyl Benzene 0.804 0.403 0.738 0.235 Ethyl Ether < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

34

Iron 0.008 0.002 0.339 0.561 m,p-Xylene 0.915 0.666 0.779 0.322 Magnesium < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Manganese 0.808 0.892 0.865 0.675

Methyl tert-butyl Ether 0.629 0.745 0.500 0.913 Methylene Chloride 0.898 0.957 0.786 0.886

Naphthalene 0.236 0.163 0.341 0.253 Nitrate 0.011 0.005 0.032 0.002 Nitrite 0.474 0.232 0.410 0.156

n-Propylbenzene 0.806 0.442 0.690 0.280 pH 0.017 0.005 0.007 0.001

p-Isopropyltoluene 0.642 0.539 0.535 0.355 Potassium 0.006 < 0.001 0.016 0.001

Oxidation-reduction potential 0.684 0.375 0.802 0.663 sec-Butylbenzene 0.806 0.442 0.690 0.280

Sodium < 0.001 < 0.001 0.004 < 0.001 Specific Conductance 0.002 0.017 0.004 0.005

Sulfate < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 t-Butylbenzene 0.003 0.003 0.019 0.014 Temperature 0.204 0.059 0.274 0.095

Tetrahydrofuran < 0.001 < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 Toluene < 0.001 < 0.001 0.868 0.875

Total Dissolved Solids 0.024 0.001 0.012 0.001 Total Suspended Solids 0.505 0.167 0.413 0.155

Vinyl Chloride 0.124 0.058 0.057 0.019 Zinc 0.805 0.460 0.788 0.455

Table III.7.2: Results of statistical tests (p-values) comparing median chemical concentrations between wells and between up- and down-gradient wells.

Chemical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 4D 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd 2-Chlorotoluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd

35

Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd

n-Propylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd sec-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd t-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd 385 350 nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd 385 370 nd Nd nd nd nd nd Nitrite Nitrogen (mg/L) nd 3.18 5.00 5.80 1.93 nd nd nd 2.28

Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) 0.25 7.05 5.35 5.80 4.35 1.90 7.20 7.20 5.75

Benzene (ug/L) 0.35 nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) 0.55 nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Chloroethane (ug/L) 0.60 nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) 0.70 nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Ammonia-Nitrogen (mg/L) 0.99 nd nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) 3.05 nd nd nd nd 1.15 nd nd nd

PH 6.80 7.70 7.60 7.80 7.15 7.30 7.70 7.65 7.60Chloride (mg/L) 48 25 28 16 25 28 25 20 8 Sulfate (mg/L) 58 9 9 26 51 32 27 22 15

Iron, Dissolved (ug/L) 130 50 50 50 50 200 50 50 500 Barium (ug/L) 130 195 210 110 90 110

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 390 620 67 150 120 120 78 Oxidation-reduction Potential (mV) 420 420 377 400 425 410 515 460 430

Alkalinity (mg/L) 465 336 323 358 440 340 280 260 280 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 853 . . 395 700 1900 380 380 198

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 1041 683 663 700 905 605 580 590 500 Manganese (ug/L) 1253 25 25 25 43 2400 25 25 43 Potassium (ug/L) 7950 1450 2300 2000 2500 7000 2000 2000 2000

Sodium (ug/L) 29000 6000 7100 4000 14500 13000 7000 7000 3500Magnesium (ug/L) 35000 27200 29600 38680 40500 32000 29000 27000 27000

Calcium (ug/L) 195000 110000 103200 100300 145000 140000 96000 96000 885001,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

36

Zinc (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Table III.7.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. Correlation analysis revealed no significant upward trends in concentration during the sampling period, with the exception of chloride, which increased in Wells 1 (R2 = 0.790) and 2 (R2 = 0.695). Concentrations of several chemicals decreased during the sampling period, including sulfate, alkalinity, magnesium, and sodium in Well 1, calcium in Wells 2 and 3, and sulfate in Well 4. Table III.7.4 summarizes exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits. There were many exceedances of standards for VOCs in the down-gradient wells (Wells 1 and 6). Intervention limits were exceeded for a variety of organic and inorganic chemicals, with Well 1 having the most exceedances if nitrate is excluded. Nitrate concentrations were low in well 1 compared to other wells, indicating the disposal area may impact nitrate through denitrification.

Chemical 1 2 3 4 4D 5 6 7 9 Standards

Chloromethane 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 Tetrahydrofuran 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vinyl chloride 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Manganese 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Dissolved solids 6 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 Iron 1 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0

Nitrate 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intervention limits

Benzene 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Dissolved solids 6 0 0 4 2 3 1 1 1 Chloromethane 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0

Methylene chloride 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Tetrahydrofuran 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Toluene 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vinyl chloride 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Sulfate 7 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 Manganese 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Iron 6 1 0 2 4 0 1 0 0 Nitrate 0 5 6 5 4 4 0 1 1

Chloride 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table III.7.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. Conclusion: Concentrations of many organic and inorganic chemicals are higher in down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells. Detected VOCs include vinyl chloride and chloromethane. The null hypothesis is rejected.

37

Adequacy of Monitoring: Sampling for VOCs has been adequate. The inorganic parameter list does not include trace metals. The well positions seem adequate. Utility in overall analysis: Wells MW-1 and MW-6 are clearly down-gradient and within 50 feet of the demolition waste. Wells MW-9 and MW-3 are representative of background water quality. The site is therefore adequate for overall analysis. 8. Lyon County Demolition Landfill There are three wells at the Lyon County Demolition Landfill (Table III.8.1). Wells 2 and 3 are considered down-gradient of the disposal area, while Well 1 is considered up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1996 and 2001.

Well Well location Type of well MW-1 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-2 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-3 Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.8.1: Well summary for Lyon County Demolition Landfill. Table III.8.2 summarizes group comparisons of median chemical concentrations between all wells and between up- and down-gradient wells. Only magnesium and total dissolved solids differed between the different groups. Table III.8.3 shows median chemical concentrations in each well. Magnesium and total dissolved solids were both greater in the two down-gradient wells (Wells 2 and 3) compared to the up-gradient well (Well 1). There were no differences in median concentrations between the two down-gradient wells. There were no apparent trends in chemical concentrations during the sampling period.

Chemical All wellsUp- vs. down-

gradient Arsenic 1.000 1.000

Iron 0.149 0.065 m,p-Xylene 0.317 0.317 Magnesium < 0.001 < 0.001 Manganese 0.380 0.380 o-Xylene 0.317 0.317 Toluene 0.687 0.519

Total dissolved solids 0.013 0.004 Total suspended solids 0.105 0.089 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.188 -

Zinc 0.170 0.236

38

Table III.8.2: Results of statistical tests (p-values) comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells and in up- versus down-gradient wells.

Chemical DMW1 DMW2 DMW31,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 1.4 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd

Arsenic (ug/L) 3.3 2.9 nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd 0.21 nd Chromium (ug/L) nd 3 nd

Iron (ug/L) 13 113 16 Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) 1.4 1.1 nd Magnesium (mg/L) 16 23 27 Manganese (ug/L) 8.5 23 nd o-Xylene (ug/L) 1.2 nd 0.4 Toluene (ug/L) 1.2 1.0 0.8

Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 207 369 315 Total suspended solids (mg/L) 38 26 20 Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd 1 2.4

Zinc (ug/L) 87 83 44 Table III.8.3: Median chemical concentrations in wells. Table III.8.4 summarized the exceedances of intervention limits. Water quality standards were exceeded once for iron and twice for dissolved solids, both in Well 2.

Chemical Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Standard

Dissolved solids 0 2 0 Iron 0 1 0

Intervention Limit Arsenic 2 1 0

Dissolved solids 4 6 6 Iron 0 3 0

Manganese 0 2 0 Table III.8.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. Conclusion: Concentrations of magnesium and total dissolved solids were greater in down-gradient wells. We therefore reject the null hypothesis. Adequacy of monitoring: There has been an insufficient number of samples collected for both inorganic chemicals and VOCs.

39

Utility of site in overall analysis: The site has clearly defined down-gradient wells (DMW-2 and DMW-3) and a well-defined up-gradient well (DMW-1). The down gradient wells are within 150 to 200 feet of the waste footprint. The site is adequate for overall analysis. 9. Mower County Landfill There are four wells at the Mower County Demolition Landfill (Table III.9.1). Wells 1 are 3 are considered down-gradient of the disposal area. Wells 2 and 4 are up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1998 and 2002.

Well Well location Type of well MW-1 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-2 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-3 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-4 Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.9.1: Well summary for Mower County Demolition Landfill. Table III.9.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.9.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Although there were several differences in concentration between wells, sulfate was the only chemical that differed in concentration between up- and down-gradient wells. Well MW-4 is the down-gradient well closest to the waste. Comparing water chemistry in Well MW-4 to that in MW-1 shows that sulfate concentrations were higher in MW-1 (p = 0.018).


Alkalinity 0.030 0.571 Bromoethane 0.172 0.264

Chloride < 0.001 0.669 Chloromethane 0.872 0.682

Magnesium 0.002 0.167 Methyl ethyl ketone 0.457 0.264

Naphthalene 0.172 0.264 pH 0.012 0.856

Specific conductance 0.036 0.091 Sulfate 0.004 0.001

Temperature 0.645 0.782 Turbidity 0.382 0.369


40

Chemical MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4

Alkalinity (mg/L) 240 265 275 240 Bromoethane (ug/L) Nd nd nd Nd

Chloride (mg/L) 7.9 4.4 12 15 Chloromethane (ug/L) Nd nd nd Nd

Magnesium (ug/L) 25500 24500 29000 26000 Methyl ethyl ketone (ug/L) Nd Nd nd Nd

Naphthalene (ug/L) Nd Nd nd Nd PH 7.30 7.01 6.86 7.39

Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 544 552 638 537 Sulfate (mg/L) 44 21 28 25

Turbidity (NTUs) 62 17 27 188 Table III.9.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. Concentrations of chloride and specific conductance decreased in Wells 2 and 4 during the sampling period (R2 < -0.821). There was just one exceedance of water quality standards and intervention limits, for a concentration of 585 mg-sulfate/L in Well 1. Conclusion: The null hypothesis is accepted. Adequacy of Monitoring: There are only three to five samples for VOCs. The parameter list for inorganic chemicals is limited, including no sampling for many trace elements. Utility in an overall analysis: Well MW-4 is directly down-gradient of the demolition waste and is within 200 feet of the waste. MW-1 is an up-gradient well. The other wells on the site, although down-gradient of the waste, may be too far from the waste for ground water to have moved from the disposal area to the wells. The site is adequate for overall analysis of impacts from demolition waste. 10. Camp Ripley Demolition Landfill

There are four wells at the Camp Ripley Demolition Landfill (Table III.10.1). Well 1 is considered down-gradient, Well 2 up-gradient, and Well 3 side-gradient. Well 4 is considered down-gradient, but has been sampled on only one occasion. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1994 and 2002 and has been somewhat erratic, particularly during the first few years of sampling.

Well Well location Type of well MW-1 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-2 Up-gradient Monitoring

41

MW-3 Side-gradient Monitoring MW-4 Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.10.1: Well summary for Camp Ripley Demolition Landfill. Table III.10.2 summarizes statistical comparisons of chemical concentrations between monitoring wells. Well 4 was not included in the analysis since there was only one sampling event for this well. The results indicate there are no significant differences between wells.

Chemical p-value Alkalinity 0.482 Ammonia 0.607 Cadmium 0.449 Calcium 0.735 Chloride 0.138

Chromium 0.994 Copper 0.717

Iron 0.733 Lead 0.645

Magnesium 0.585 Manganese 0.637

Nitrate 0.225 Sodium 0.486 Sulfate 0.415

Total dissolved solids 0.162 Total suspended solids 0.157

Zinc 0.997 Table III.10.2: p-values for comparisons of chemical concentrations between Wells 1 through 3. Trend analysis revealed no changes in chemical concentrations over time, although only four data points exist for most chemicals. Table III.10.3 shows concentrations for select chemicals in each well. Well 4, considered to be representative of ground water immediately down-gradient of the disposal area, does not appear to show impacts from the disposal area. The values for Well 4 represent a single sampling event, however.

Chemical Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Alkalinity (mg/L) 85 90 79 53 Calcium (mg/L) 32 12.5 25 12 Chloride (mg/L) 2.35 1.50 0.24 0.30

Iron (mg/L) 0.08 0.03 0.51 0.07 Magnesium (mg/L) 10.1 6.4 5.4 4.0

Sodium (mg/L) 4.0 3.5 4.0 1.9 Sulfate (mg/L) 7.2 7.6 6.0 2.3

42

Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 186 150 140 80 Total suspended solids (mg/L) 320 22.5 206 31 Table III.10.3: Median chemical concentrations in wells. There was only one sampling event for Well 4. No standards were exceeded. Intervention limits were exceeded on two occasions for nitrate in Well 2, once for sulfate in Well 1, three times each for dissolved solids in Wells 2 and 3, and four times for dissolved solids in Well 1. Conclusions: The null hypothesis is accepted. Adequacy of monitoring: Sampling has been erratic, with long time periods between sampling events. Trend analysis is therefore not possible. Utility of site in overall analysis: The site has complex geology and Well MW-2 is located about 400 feet from the waste footprint. We cannot say with confidence that MW-2 represents down-gradient conditions. The site is not useful for overall analysis. 11. Cross Lake Demolition Landfill There are 3 wells at the Cross Lake Demolition Landfill (Table III.11.1). Well 3 is considered side-gradient of the disposal area. Wells 1 and 2 are considered up-gradient. Sampling occurred in 2000 and 2001.

Well Well location Type of well MW-1 Up Monitoring MW-2 Up Monitoring MW-3 Side Monitoring

Table III.11.1: Well summary for Cross Lake Demolition Landfill. Table III.11.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.11.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Because of the small number of samples and the limited parameter list, we developed a ranking procedure to compare concentrations in wells. Concentrations for select chemicals were ranked following the assumption that concentrations would increase if impacts from the landfill occurred. Chemicals included magnesium, manganese, iron, calcium, sodium, specific conductance, and sulfate. Oxidation-reduction potential was also ranked, but in reverse order, assuming redox potential decreases as landfill impacts increase. The resulting ranks were then compared for the three wells. Mean ranks (using ANOVA) differed between wells (p = 0.021). Mean ranks were 4.39 for Well 1, 2.89 for Well 2, and 3.39 for Well 3. Wells 1 and 2 were considered statistically equal, as were Wells 2 and 3. Wells 1 and 3 differed (p = 0.007) using the Least Significant Difference Method. Although only two sampling dates were used in the analysis, mean ranks can be compared between the two times. Significant differences were observed only for Well 3 (p = 0.019), with a higher mean rank (3.78) for

43

the later sampling event (5/15/01) compared to the earlier event (mean rank = 2.00; date = 11/13/00). Since no well is clearly identified as being down-gradient, we cannot make conclusions about impacts from the landfill. Well 3 appears to largely be side-gradient and does not differ from the up-gradient well in mean rank.


Alkalinity 0.101 - Barium 0.016 - Calcium 0.651 - Chloride 0.068 -

Iron 0.165 - Magnesium 0.565 - Manganese 0.036 -

Nitrate 0.368 - Potassium 0.493 -

Oxidation-reduction potential 0.148 - Sodium 0.964 -

Specific conductance 0.108 - Sulfate 0.228 -

Temperature 0.544 - Total dissolved solids 0.259 - Total suspended solids 0.325 -

Table III.11.2: Results of statistical tests comparing median chemical concentrations between wells and between up- and down-gradient wells.

Chemical MW-3 MW-2 MW-1 Alkalinity (mg/L) 150 170 185

Barium (mg/L) 23 20 31 Calcium (mg/L) 51000 60000 33850 Chloride (mg/L) 1.0 1.0 2.5

Iron (mg/L) 47 49 78 Magnesium (mg/L) 7150 7850 8250 Manganese (mg/L) 103 12 48

Nitrate (mg/L) nd nd 0.5 Potassium (mg/L) 470 540 755

Oxidation-reduction potential (mV) 204 197 161 Sodium (mg/L) 2550 2500 2950

Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 280 330 370 Sulfate (mg/L) 4.5 4.5 6.5

44

Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 200 190 220 Table III.11.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. Table III.11.4 summarizes exceedances of intervention limits. There were no exceedances of water quality standards. The intervention limit for iron was exceeded four times, including each well for the 5/15/01 event. The intervention limit for manganese was exceeded once.

Chemical Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Iron 2 1 1

Dissolved solids 1 1 1 Manganese 1 0 0

Table III.11.4: Number of exceedances of intervention limits in each well. Conclusion: There are insufficient data to evaluate the null hypothesis. The primary needs at the site are a down-gradient well and additional sampling. Adequacy of Monitoring: There is no apparent down-gradient well, sample size is small for inorganic chemicals, and VOCs have not been sampled. Utility in overall analysis: Because there is no well-defined down-gradient monitoring well, the site is not useful for overall analysis of demolition landfills. 12. Hengel Demolition Landfill There are seven wells at the Hengel Demolition Landfill (Table III.12.1). Wells 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are considered down-gradient of the disposal area. Wells 4 and 11 are up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1996 and 2002.

Well Well location Type of well MW-6 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-7 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-8 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-9 Down-gradient Monitoring

MW-10 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-4 Up-gradient Monitoring

MW-11 Up-gradient Monitoring Table III.12.1: Well summary for Hengel County Demolition Landfill. Table III.12.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.12.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Concentrations of alkalinity, chloride, potassium, sodium, specific conductance, sulfate, and dissolved solids were significantly greater in down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells. Well 6 is the most highly impacted well, with elevated concentrations of alkalinity, magnesium, and sulfate compared to other wells.

45

Well MW-6 is the monitoring well closest to the waste footprint in the down-gradient direction. There were a total of 13 detections of VOCs in Well MW-6, 10 in MW-7, 6 in MW-8, and none in MW-4. CFCs, tetrahydrofuran, and ethyl ether were the primary VOCs detected.


gradient 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.204 0.665

1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.490 0.529 Alkalinity < 0.001 < 0.001 Ammonia 1.000 1.000 Arsenic 0.677 0.617 Barium 0.092 0.399

Bromomethane 0.204 0.665 Cadmium 1.000 1.000 Calcium 0.151 0.347 Chloride < 0.001 < 0.001

Chloroethane 0.904 0.665 Chromium 1.000 1.000

Copper 0.714 0.418 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.146 0.329 Dichlorofluoromethane 0.733 0.347

Ethyl Ether 0.644 0.529 Iron 1.000 1.000 Lead 1.000 1.000

Magnesium 0.467 0.664 Manganese < 0.001 0.575

Mercury 1.000 1.000 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.204 0.665

Naphthalene 0.904 0.665 Nitrate Nitrogen 0.256 0.513

pH 0.709 0.640 Potassium 0.066 0.042

Oxidation-reduction potential 0.775 0.433 Sodium 0.052 0.027

Specific Conductance < 0.001 < 0.001 Sulfate < 0.001 < 0.001

Temperature 0.103 0.003 Tetrahydrofuran 0.161 0.135

Toluene 0.204 0.665 Total Dissolved Solids 0.470 0.035

46

Total Suspended Solids 0.155 0.938 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.128 0.347

Zinc 0.622 0.464 Table III.12.2: Results of statistical tests (p-values) comparing median concentrations between wells and between up- and down-gradient wells.

Chemical Well 10 Well 11 Well 4 Well 6 Well 7 Well 8 Well 91,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 0.5 nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 3 nd nd Alkalinity (mg/L) 220 258 231 545 274 353 545 Ammonia (mg/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Barium (ug/L) nd 31 nd nd nd nd 53

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 13 nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Calcium (mg/L) 76 71 70 108 172 53 97 Chloride (mg/L) 2.0 1.0 1.8 56.5 8.5 148.0 30.0

Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd 2.0 nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 15.2 nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 3.6 nd nd

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 0.6 nd nd Iron (ug/l) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Magnesium (mg/L) 19 18 18 65 39 10 29 Manganese (ug/L) nd nd 0.0 4.0 nd nd 2.5

Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 30

Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 1.5 nd 0.5 nd nd 3.0 2.5

pH 7.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Potassium (mg/L) nd nd nd 7.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Oxidation-reduction potential (mV) 57 113 67 72 67 85 85 Sodium (mg/L) 3 3 3 69 16 170 16

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 458 455 398 1029 757 1326 1017 Sulfate mg/L) 8 5 12 58 48 26 64

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd 3.25 6.95 nd 240 Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 0.55 nd nd

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 432 210 242 530 534 610 490

47

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 109 180 7 5 62 9 14 Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Table III.12.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. Concentrations of several chemicals increased in down-gradient wells during the sampling period, including chloride and sulfate in Well 10, alkalinity and chloride in Well 7, potassium in Well 8, and sulfate in Well 9. Correlation coefficients exceeded 0.76 for each of these relationships. Well 6, considered the most impacted well, had decreasing concentrations of sodium and dissolved solids during the sampling period. There were no significant changes in concentration during the sampling period for the up-gradient wells. Table III.12.4summarizes the number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits for each well where there was at least one exceedance. Sulfate exceeded its intervention limit on seven occasions each in Wells 6 and 7, both considered down-gradient of the demolition disposal area. Chloride concentrations exceeded the intervention limit on 14 occasions in Well 8, which is up-gradient of the disposal area. 1,1-Dichloroethene exceeded it’s HRL on six occasions in Well 8.

Chemical Well 6 Well 7 Well 8 Well 9 Well 10 Standard

Dissolved solids 2 1 2 0 1 1,1-Dichloroethene 0 0 6 0 0

Intervention limits 1,1-Dichloroethene 0 1 7 0 0

Arsenic 0 0 1 0 0 Dissolved solids 3 2 3 1 2

Nitrate 0 0 2 1 1 Tetrahydrofuran 0 0 0 1 0

Chloride 5 0 14 0 0 Sulfate 7 7 0 1 0

Table III.12.4: Number of exceedances, by well, of standards and intervention limits. Conclusions: Concentrations of some inorganic chemicals, particularly sulfate, were greater in down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: Sampling has been inconsistent for both VOCs and inorganic chemicals. Utility of data in overall analysis: Wells MW-6, MW-7, and MW-8 are directly down-gradient and within 100 feet of the current waste footprint. Well MW-6 is closest to the footprint. Well MW-4 is an up-gradient well. The site is adequate for overall analysis.

48

13. Henkemeyer Demolition Landfill There are nine wells at the Henkmeyer Demolition Landfill (Table III.13.1). Wells 5, 6, and S-1 are considered down-gradient of the disposal area. Well 1 and the Shed well are up-gradient. Wells 2, 4, and the Friedmann well are side-gradient. Well 3 has been abandoned. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1989 and 2001.

Well Well location Type of well MW-1 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-2 Side-gradient Monitoring MW-3 Closed Monitoring MW-4 Side-gradient Monitoring MW-5 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-6 Down-gradient (closed) Monitoring

S-1 Down-gradient - Friedmann Side-gradient Domestic

Shed Up-gradient Domestic Table III.13.1: Well summary for Henkemeyer County Demolition Landfill. Table III.13.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.13.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Concentrations of alkalinity, barium, manganese, sulfate and specific conductance were greater in shallow down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells. Concentrations of barium and manganese are more than two orders of magnitude greater in down-gradient wells, while sulfate is about six times greater in down-gradient wells. Well 6 is the most highly impacted wells, having a median concentration of sulfate that exceeds the water quality standard of 250 mg/L.

All wells Only up- and down-

gradient monitoring wells


gradient Wells Up- vs. down-

gradient Alkalinity < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Barium 0.002 0.003 0.050 0.007 Chloride < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 1.000

Iron < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.476 Manganese < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

pH < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.157 Specific conductance < 0.001 0.014 0.018 0.018

Sulfate < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Table III.13.2: Results of statistical tests (p-values) comparing median concentrations in wells and in up- versus down-gradient wells.

49

Chemical Friedman 1 2 3 4 5 6 S-1 ShedAlkalinity 304 163 125 365 138 207 383 173 168

Barium 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 40.7 81.5 0.1 0.1 Chloride 345 55 26 38 420 6 448 27 62

Iron 3.71 0.01 3.89 6.50 0.01 0.01 0.20 1.04 0.19Manganese 1.13 0.02 0.37 1.30 0.28 0.09 9.47 0.83 0.14

pH 7.16 6.86 6.67 6.95 6.60 7.60 6.97 6.98 7.51Specific conductance 1600 510 358 1200 1600 640 1995 480 565

Sulfate 237 38 36 275 141 97 251 38 45 Table III.13.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. There were no trends in concentration for any chemical during the sampling period. Barium appeared to increase during the sampling period, but there an insufficient number of samples to conduct the correlation analysis. Table III.13.4 summarizes exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits. Sulfate concentrations are naturally elevated at the site, with 21 exceedances of intervention limits in the up-gradient well. There were no exceedances of the water quality standard for sulfate in Well 1, however, compared to four exceedances in Well 4, five in Well 5, and 9 in Well 6. Well 6 also showed high exceedances rates for chloride and manganese, neither of which exceeded water quality standards in Well 1.

Chemical 1 2 3 4 5 6 S1 Shed FriedmannStandards

Chloride 0 0 0 19 0 17 1 1 12 Iron 0 19 2 0 0 4 15 4 12

Dissolved solids 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Manganese 0 0 1 3 0 17 6 1 12

Sulfate 0 0 1 4 5 9 1 0 8 Intervention limits

Chloride 10 1 0 26 0 17 2 9 19 Dissolved solids 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Iron 0 19 2 0 0 15 16 13 13 Manganese 0 18 2 13 3 17 10 1 16

Sulfate 21 0 2 23 9 17 7 1 20 Table III.13.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits. Conclusions: Concentrations of some inorganic chemicals, particularly sulfate, were greater in the down-gradient well compared to the up-gradient well. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: There is a limited sampling parameter list.

50

Utility in overall analysis: Wells MW-5 and MW-6 are down-gradient of the waste footprint. All the wells except for MW-5 are within 50 feet of the waste. Well MW-1 is an up-gradient well. The site is adequate for an overall analysis. 14. TKD Demolition Landfill There are three wells at the TKD Demolition Landfill (Table III.14.1). Well 3 is considered down-gradient of the disposal area. Well 1 is up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1997 and 2002.

Well Well location Type of well MW-1 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-2 Side, down--gradient Monitoring MW-3 Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.14.1: Well summary for TKD County Demolition Landfill. Table III.14.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.14.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Concentrations of alkalinity, calcium, sulfate, nitrate, and dissolved solids were greater in down-gradient wells compared to the up-gradient well. Iron, manganese, and chloride concentrations were greater in the up-gradient well. Well 2 showed the highest concentrations for many chemicals, indicating it may be impacted by the landfill.

Chemical All wells Well 1 vs. Well 3

Alkalinity < 0.001 < 0.001 Barium 0.002 0.297 Calcium 0.051 0.050 Chloride 0.001 0.036 Copper 0.350 0.817

Iron 0.019 0.019 Magnesium 0.141 0.184 Manganese 0.004 0.006

Nitrate 0.011 0.014 o-Xylene 0.368 0.317

pH 0.218 0.283 Potassium 0.488 0.658

Redox Potential 0.779 0.564 Sodium 0.716 0.602

Specific Conductance 0.001 0.003 Sulfate < 0.001 0.001

Temperature 0.257 0.225

51

Total Dissolved Solids 0.018 0.021 Total Suspended Solids 0.225 0.149


Chemical MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 Alkalinity (mg/L) 205 274 368

Barium (ug/L) 84 155 60 Calcium (mg/L) 60 85 98 Chloride (mg/L) 8.0 14.3 3.7 Copper (ug/L) nd Nd 1.2 Iron (mg/L) 0.09 0.02 0.02

Magnesium (mg/L) 19 24 24 Manganese (mg/L) 0.58 0.20 0.01

Nitrate (mg/L) nd 3.86 0.35 o-Xylene (ug/L) nd Nd nd

PH 6.41 6.63 6.86 Potassium (mg/L) 1.30 2.20 1.50

Oxidation-reduction potential (mV) 94 103 119 Sodium (mg/L) 4.4 4.5 4.6

Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 300 613 674 Sulfate (mg/L) 10 63 25

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 254 432 386 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 74 8 9

Zinc (mg/L) 18 Nd nd Table III.14.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. Concentrations of alkalinity, chloride, manganese, and dissolved solids decreased during the sampling period in Well 1. Few trends were observed in Wells 2 and 3. Table III.14.4 summarizes exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. Iron and manganese exceeded their water quality standards in Well 1. Their presence at high concentrations is assumed to represent naturally-occurring concentrations. Well 2 showed greater impacts than Well 3.

Chemical MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 Standards


Intervention limits Iron 2 0 0

Dissolved solids 3 4 4

52

Manganese 7 2 0 Nitrate 0 3 0 Sulfate 0 4 1

Zinc 1 0 0 Table III.14.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits. Conclusion: Concentrations of calcium, alkalinity, sulfate, and dissolved solids are greater in down-gradient versus up-gradient wells. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: There are only three samples for most chemicals. The well positions appear adequate. Utility of site for overall analysis: MW-3 is the only well potentially down-gradient of the waste area. The waste closest to this well is 400 feet away and is less than five years old. The well may not be representative of down-gradient conditions and, even if it were, water is unlikely to have passed beneath the waste and to the well within the past seven years. The site is not adequate for overall analysis. 15. Vonco Demolition Landfill

There are six wells at the Vonco Demolition Landfill (Table III.15.1). Wells 1, 5A, and 5B are considered down-gradient, Well 3 up-gradient, and Wells 2 and 4 either down- or side-gradient to the disposal area. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1992 and 2001.

Well Well location Type of well MW-1 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-2 Side-gradient Monitoring MW-3 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-4 Down-,side-

gradient Monitoring

MW-5A Down-gradient Monitoring MW-5B Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.15.1: Well summary for Vonco Demolition Landfill. Table III.15.2 summarizes results of the statistical analysis comparing median concentrations of chemical parameters. Concentrations of several inorganic chemicals differed between up- and down-gradient wells. Examination of a site map showing well locations and ground water flow suggests that ground water may not have moved from beneath the waste footprint and to Wells MW-5A and MW-1. Consequently, we compared MW-4 to MW-3 (down- and up-gradient, respectively). Concentrations of alkalinity, calcium, dichlorofluoromethane, specific conductance, sulfate, and total dissolved solids were greater in MW-4 than in MW-3.

53


gradient Well MW-3 vs. MW-4

1,1-Dichloroethene 0.398 1.000 0.164 Alkalinity < 0.001 0.367 < 0.001 Ammonia 0.103 0.215 1.000 Arsenic 0.073 0.538 0.091 Barium 0.430 0.965 0.316

Bromoethane 0.687 1.000 0.317 Cadmium 0.727 0.480 1.000 Calcium < 0.001 < 0.001 0.006 Chloride < 0.001 < 0.001 0.005

Chloromethane 0.601 1.000 0.331 Chromium 0.958 0.597 1.000

Copper 0.890 0.567 0.469 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.267 1.000 0.333 Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 1.000 < 0.001

Iron 0.929 0.756 0.874 Lead 0.766 0.480 0.871


Nitrate < 0.001 < 0.001 0.317 Nitrite 0.416 1.000 1.000

pH < 0.001 0.085 < 0.001 Potassium 0.003 0.054 0.790

Oxidation-reduction potential 0.248 0.242 0.602 Sodium 0.026 0.961 0.101

Specific conductance < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Sulfate < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Temperature 0.016 0.138 0.938 Tetrahydrofuran 0.577 1.000 0.317

Total dissolved solids < 0.001 < 0.001 0.088 Total suspended solids 0.343 0.951 0.731 Trichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 1.000 < 0.001

Zinc 0.299 0.693 0.268 Aluminum 0.416 0.180 0.317 Fluoride 0.416 0.180 0.317

Ferrous iron 0.416 0.564 0.317 Phosphorus 0.416 0.346 0.317

Sulfide 0.416 0.655 0.317

54

Table III.15.2: Results (p-values) of statistical analysis comparing median chemical concentrations between wells, between up- and down-gradient wells, and between wells MW-3 and MW-4.

Table III.15.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations for each of the six wells. Concentrations of calcium, chloride, nitrate, specific conductance, sulfate, and total dissolved solids were greater in the up-gradient well (Well 3) compared to the shallow down-gradient wells 1 and 5A. Well 4, however, had the greatest concentrations of these chemicals, as well as elevated concentrations of Dichlorofluoromethane, Trichlorofluoromethane, alkalinity, sodium, and magnesium. Well 4 is considered to represent ground water conditions down-gradient of the disposal area (personal communication with facility hydrologist).

Chemical Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5A Well 5B1,1-Dichloroethene (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd

Alkalinity (mg/L) 150 240 150 260 160 140 Aluminum (mg/L) 14.0 6.3 7.2 3.0 19.0 9.7 Ammonia (mg/L) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 Arsenic (mg/L) 2.00 0.65 1.00 0.50 1.80 0.63 Barium (mg/L) 0.066 0.090 0.063 0.087 0.056 0.033

Bromoethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd Nd nd nd Cadmium (mg/L) nd nd Nd Nd nd nd Calcium (mg/L) 50 120 86 125 57 65 Chloride (mg/L) 13 18 26 52 15 21

Chromium (mg/L) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd

Copper (mg/L) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd 8.7 nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd Nd nd nd Ferrous iron (mg/L) 35 35 37 35 37 37

Fluoride (mg/L) 0.62 0.40 0.43 0.38 0.49 0.57 Iron (mg/L) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 33.6 Lead (mg/L) nd Nd Nd Nd nd nd

Magnesium (mg/L) 20 27 24 37 22 20 Manganese (mg/L) 0.011 0.019 0.019 0.005 0.160 0.020

Nitrate (mg/L) 0.1 22.0 13.0 6.4 0.1 5.9 Nitrite (mg/L) 0.02 0.32 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Oxidation-reduction potential (mV) 405 414 401 415 24 27 PH 7.87 7.12 7.53 7.23 7.20 7.54

Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.27 0.25 0.15 0.42 7.50 0.15 Potassium (mg/L) 2.55 1.90 1.85 1.80 3.85 1.25 Sodium (mg/L) 4.0 5.0 4.0 10.5 6.0 3.0

55

Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 380 650 565 743 421 458 Sulfate (mg/L) 38 51 74 170 34 40 Sulfide (mg/L) 1.90 1.30 0.80 1.20 1.50 0.67

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd Nd Nd nd nd Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 255 540 385 725 315 315 Total suspended solids (mg/L) 63 133 73 230 240 9 Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd 3.7 0 nd

Zinc (mg/L) 0.005 0.005 0.03 0.005 5.54 0.015 Table III.15.3: Median chemical concentrations in Wells 1, 2, 3, 4, 5A, and 5B. Table III.15.4 shows correlation coefficients between ranked chemical concentrations and sampling date. There was a strong positive correlation for all chemicals in Well 4, indicating concentrations have increased during the sampling period. Results are mixed for the other wells and, in general, show no consistent trend in chemical concentrations as a function of sampling date.

Chemical Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Alkalinity 0.482 0.382 -0.091 0.646 Calcium 0.690 0.889 -0.619 0.924 Chloride 0.450 -0.308 0.396 0.838

Magnesium 0.612 0.243 0.514 0.701 Nitrate -0.790 0.109 0.059 0.786 Sodium -0.292 -0.228 -0.535 0.849

Specific conductance 0.155 0.573 -0.281 0.841 Sulfate -0.139 -0.407 -0.432 0.514

Total dissolved solids 0.616 0.819 0.059 0.935 Table III.15.4: Correlation coefficients for the relationship of sampling date and ranked chemical concentrations. Table III.15.5 summarizes exceedances of standards and intervention limits in each well. The HRL for nitrate was exceeded on eight occasions in the up-gradient well (Well 3) and only twice in down-gradient wells. The SMCL for sulfate was exceeded on seven occasions in Well 4. The intervention limit for chloride was exceeded on 13 occasions in Well 4 but not in any other well. The intervention limit for sulfate was exceeded on 27 and 30 occasions, respectively, in Wells 3 and 4.

Chemical Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5A Well 5BStandard

1,1-Dichloroethene 0 2 0 Chloride 0 1 0

Manganese 0 0 0 Dissolved Solids 0 6 0

56

Nitrate 0 2 0 Sulfate 0 7 0

Intervention Limit 1,1-Dichloroethene 0 2 0

Arsenic 1 0 1 Dissolved Solids 10 10 4

Chloride 0 13 0 Iron 0 1 0

Lead 1 0 0 Manganese 1 0 0


Table III.15.5: Summary of exceedances for standards and intervention limits. Conclusion: Assuming Well 4 represents ground water conditions down-gradient of the disposal area, the null hypothesis is rejected. Concentrations of some chemicals in Well 4 are greater than in other wells, VOCs are present, and there are positive correlations between sampling date and chemical concentration. Adequacy of Monitoring: Sampling was sporadic in the first few years of monitoring, both for inorganic chemicals and VOCs. Sampling has been more consistent in recent years. Utility of site in overall analysis: MW-5A and MW-1, although down-gradient of the waste, may be too far from the waste footprint to have impacted. MW-4 is considered to be down-gradient of the demolition waste because ground water flow tends to be a west-southwest direction. Well MW-3, although close to the demolition waste, is up-gradient of the waste. Well MW-2 may be impacted by the waste. Because there are reliable down- and up-gradient wells, the site is useful for an overall analysis of demolition landfills. 16. Wadena County Demolition Landfill There are four wells at the Wadena Demolition Landfill (Table III.16.1). Wells 2 and 4 are down-gradient, Well 3 is up-gradient, and Well 1 is side-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1996 and 2002.

Sampling point Location Type of Well MW-1 Side-gradient Monitoring MW-2 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-3 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-4 Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.16.1: Summary of sampling locations for Wadena Demolition Landfill.

57

Table III.16.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.16.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. There were few differences between wells. Specific conductance and alkalinity were significantly greater in the down-gradient wells compared to the up-gradient well. Despite the lack of statistical significance, concentrations of chloride, magnesium, sodium, potassium, sulfate, and dissolved solids were consistently greater in down-gradient wells than concentrations in the up-gradient well. In addition, there were 12 VOC detections in down-gradient wells, compared to just one in the up-gradient well. Well MW-4 appears to be directly down-gradient of the demolition area, while Well MW-3 represents background water quality. Comparing these two wells, concentrations of tetrahydrofuran were greater in Well MW-4 than in MW-3.


1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.475 1.000 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.475 1.000

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene 0.112 0.414 Alkalinity 0.041 0.011 Ammonia 1.000 1.000 Barium 0.156 0.121

Cadmium 1.000 1.000 Chloride 0.065 0.391

Chloroethane 0.475 1.000 Dibromochloromethane 0.475 1.000

Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.284 0.224 Ethyl Ether 0.475 0.414

Iron 0.261 0.386 Magnesium 0.160 0.064 Manganese 0.096 0.103

Methylene Chloride 0.475 0.221 Nitrate 0.109 0.184

PH 1.000 1.000 Potassium 0.284 0.180

Oxidation-reduction potential 0.809 0.639 sec-Butylbenzene 0.112 0.414

Sodium 0.132 1.000 Specific conductance 0.052 0.025

Sulfate 0.153 0.055 Tetrahydrofuran 0.054 0.116

Toluene 0.112 0.414 Total Dissolved Solids 0.117 0.136 Total Suspended Solids 0.269 0.394

58

Trichlorofluoromethane 0.163 0.116 Zinc 0.675 0.784


Chemical MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd 0.60 Alkalinity (mg/L) 659 598 283 678 Ammonia (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd Barium (ug/L) 239 188 100

Cadmium (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd Chloride (mg/L) 519 121 12 150

Chloroethane (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd Nd nd 1.40 Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd

Iron (mg/L) nd Nd nd 0.56 Magnesium (mg/L) 66 51 24 74 Manganese (mg/L) 1.07 Nd 0.04 0.53

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 0.35 1.10 2.26 nd

PH 6.83 6.81 7.00 6.86 Potassium (mg/L) 5 6 1.8 18.7

Oxidation-reduction potential (mV) 73 79 82 98 sec-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd Nd nd 1.40

Sodium (mg/L) 416 107 5 133 Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 2160 1921 572 1814

Sulfate (mg/L) 95 40 4 132 Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd Nd nd 10.80

Toluene (ug/L) nd Nd nd 0.70 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 1600 929 367 5636 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 10 83 13 10050 Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd 1.35 nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) 10 19 18 0.079 Table III.16.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. Trend analysis could not be performed because of the small sample size. Table III.16.4 summarizes the number of water quality and intervention limit exceedances in each well.

59

Chemical MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4

Water Quality Standards Chloride 4 1 0 0

Iron 0 0 0 1 Dissolved solids 4 3 0 0

Manganese 4 2 0 0 Intervention Limits

Chloride 4 2 0 2 Iron 0 0 0 1

Dissolved solids 4 4 4 2 Manganese 4 2 1 2

Nitrate 0 0 1 0 Sulfate 3 2 0 1

Table III.16.4: Summary of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. Conclusions: Concentrations of some chemicals are greater in down-gradient wells than in up-gradient wells. Concentrations of alkalinity and specific conductance were greater in down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells. VOCs were frequently detected in the down-gradient wells, but detected only once in the up-gradient well. Well MW-4, the well most representative of down-gradient water quality, had detectable concentrations of tetrahydrofuran for both sampling events. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: Although sampling has been consistent, there are four or fewer samples for each well. Utility of site in overall analysis: MW-4 is directly down-gradient of the disposal area and is within 300 to 400 feet of the waste footprint. Ground water has probably had sufficient time to reach the well. Well MW-3 is an up-gradient well. This site is adequate for inclusion in overall analysis of demolition wastes. 17. Western Stearns Demolition Landfill

There are three wells at the Western Stearns County Demolition Landfill (Table III.17.1). Well 7 is considered up-gradient, Well 8 down-gradient, and Well 9 either down- or side-gradient to the disposal area. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1997 and 2002.

Well Well location Type of well MW-7 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-8 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-9 Side, down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.17.1: Well summary for Western Stearns Demolition Landfill.

60

Table III.17.1 summarizes results of statistical tests comparing median chemical concentrations between all wells and between up- and down-gradient wells. Concentrations of alkalinity, calcium, chloride, ethyl ether, magnesium, potassium, sodium, specific conductance, sulfate, tetrahydrofuran, total dissolved solids, and trichlorofluoromethane were greater in the down-gradient well compared to the up-gradient well. Nitrate concentrations were greater in the up-gradient well, which may indicate denitrification as nitrate in ground water passes beneath the disposal area. We observed a strong correlation (p = 0.025; R2 = -0.924) between oxidation-reduction potential and sampling date for Well 8, indicating that conditions are becoming more reducing with time in the down-gradient well. We also observed a significant upward trend in concentration of ethyl ether (p = 0.003) and a downward trend for barium (p = 0.035) in the down-gradient well.

Chemical All wells Up- vs. down-

gradient 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.513 0.414 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.035 0.055 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.402 0.180

Alkalinity 0.003 0.005 Ammonia 0.005 1.000 Barium 0.281 0.917 Benzene 0.513 0.414

Bromobenzene 1.000 1.000 Bromochloromethane 1.000 1.000

Bromodichloromethane 1.000 1.000 Bromoform 1.000 1.000

Bromoethane 1.000 1.000 Calcium 0.007 0.021

Carbon tetrachloride 1.000 1.000 Chloride < 0.001 < 0.001

Chlorobenzene 1.000 1.000 Chloroethane 0.238 0.224 Chloroform 1.000 1.000

Chloromethane 1.000 1.000 cis 1,2-Dichloroethene 0.238 0.224

Cis 1,2-Dichloropropene 1.000 1.000 Copper 0.105 0.121

Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.098 0.116 Dichlorofluoromethane 0.059 0.081

Ethyl ether 0.017 0.032 Iron 0.605 0.508

Magnesium 0.007 0.021

61

Manganese 0.100 0.392 Methyl tert butyl ether 0.283 0.125

Methylene chloride 0.513 0.414 Nitrate 0.015 0.021

o-Xylene 0.513 0.414 PH 0.107 0.070

Potassium 0.015 0.020 Oxidation-reduction potential 0.939 0.917

Sodium 0.030 0.043 Specific conductance 0.002 0.005

Sulfate < 0.001 0.001 Tetrachloroethylene 0.449 0.371

Tetrahydrofuran 0.006 0.011 Total dissolved solids 0.019 0.021 Total suspended solids 0.368 0.564 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.011 0.023

Vinyl chloride 0.098 0.116 Table III.17.2: Results (p-values) of statistical analysis comparing median chemical concentrations between wells and between up- and down-gradient wells.

Chemical Well 7 Well 8 Well 9 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) Nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) Nd 0.85 nd 1,1-Dichloroethene (ug/L) Nd nd nd

Alkalinity (mg/L) 250 440 270 Ammonia (ug/L) 0.1 0.1 0.21 Barium (ug/L) 65.5 71.7 121 Benzene (ug/L) nd Nd nd

Bromobenzene (ug/L) nd Nd nd Bromochloromethane (ug/L) nd Nd nd

Bromodichloromethane (ug/L) nd Nd nd Bromoform (ug/L) nd Nd nd

Bromoethane (ug/L) nd Nd nd Calcium (mg/L) 78 210.5 96.7

Carbon tetrachloride (ug/L) nd Nd nd Chloride (mg/L) 4.5 151 10.8

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd Nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd Nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd Nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd Nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethene (ug/L) nd Nd nd

62

Cis 1,2-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd Nd nd Copper (ug/L) 1 2.4 1

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd 1.45 nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd 2.6 nd

Ethyl ether (ug/L) nd 1.4 nd Iron (ug/L) 30 35 100

Magnesium (mg/L) 23.25 60.75 28.95 Manganese (ug/L) 20 50 110

Methyl tert butyl ether (ug/L) nd Nd nd Methylene chloride (ug/L) nd Nd nd

Nitrate (mg/L) 3.825 0.985 0.235 o-Xylene (ug/L) nd Nd nd

pH 7.06 6.5 7.12 Potassium (mg/L) 1.6 2.5 2.15

Oxidation-reduction potential )mV) 137 155 169 Sodium (mg/L) 3.05 12.4 6.4

Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 501 1769 632 Sulfate (mg/L) 20.4 412 66

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd Nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd 32 nd

Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 322 763.5 363 Total suspended solids (mg/L) 55.5 48.5 199.5 Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd 2.75 nd

Vinyl chloride (ug/L) Nd 1.35 nd Table III.17.3: Median chemical concentrations in Wells 7, 8, and 9. Table III.17.4 summarizes exceedances of standards and intervention limits in each well. The HRL for vinyl chloride was exceeded on three occasions in Well 8, while the SMCL for sulfate was exceeded on six occasions in this well. Nitrate exceeded its intervention limit on four occasions in the up-gradient Well (7), but not in either Well 8 or 9.

Chemical Well 7 Well 8 Well 9 Standard

Chloride 0 1 0 Iron 0 0 1

Dissolved Solids 0 4 0 Manganese 0 2 0

Sulfate 0 6 0 Vinyl chloride 0 3 0

63

Intervention Limit 1,1-Dichloroethene 0 1 1

Chloride 0 7 0 Dissolved Solids 4 4 4



Vinyl chloride 0 3 0 Table III.17.4: Summary of exceedances for standards and intervention limits. Conclusion: Concentrations of some chemicals, particularly vinyl chloride and sulfate, are greater in down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: Sampling for both inorganic chemicals and VOCs has been sporadic. Utility of site in overall analysis: MW-8 is directly down-gradient of the waste footprint and is within 50 feet of the footprint. MW-7 appears to be a reasonable up-gradient well. The site therefore has utility in the overall analysis. 18. Lake of the Woods Demolition Landfill Sample sizes are insufficient to conduct statistical analysis of the data from the Lake of the Woods Demolition Landfill. Concentrations of most inorganic chemicals were greatest in Well 8, which is located either side- or down-gradient of the disposal area. Concentrations of most inorganic chemicals were greater in the up-gradient well (Well 9) than in the down-gradient well (Well 10). Water quality standards were exceeded for nitrate in Wells 8 and 9. Intervention limits were exceeded for chloride, sulfate, and nitrate in Wells 8 and 9, for nickel in Well 9, and for nitrate in Well 7. There is no well that can confidently be considered down-gradient of the waste. The null hypothesis cannot be tested.

MW-10 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9

Chemical Down-

gradient Down- or

side-gradientDown- or

side-gradient Up-gradient Ammonia (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Barium (ug/L) 5.0 19 47 25

Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Calcium (mg/L) 60 72 207 108 Chloride (mg/L) 3.0 23 181 97

64

Chromium (ug/L) nd nd 1.2 nd Copper (ug/L) 2.3 1.00 4.1 4.2

Iron (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Magnesium (mg/L) 20 24 62 38 Manganese (ug/L) nd nd nd 0.06

Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 2.4 8.7 29 21

Potassium (mg/L) 0.39 0.9 2.4 2.7 Selenium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Sodium (mg/L) 2 3.4 38 95 Sulfate (mg/L) 8 20 158 99

Zinc (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nickel (ug/L) nd nd nd 77

4-Bromofluorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd 2 nd Table III.18.1: Concentrations in wells at the Lake of the Woods Demolition Landfill. 19. Waseca Demolition Landfill

There are 44 sampling locations at the Waseca Demolition Landfill (Table III.19.1). There are two demolition cells at the facility. One was closed in 1980 and the other in 1994. Wells WP-4 and WP-7 are down-gradient of the 1980 facility, while Well DW-3 is up-gradient. Well DW-3 is down-gradient of the 1994 facility, while Well M-102 is up-gradient and Well MW-104 is side-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1986 and 2002.

Sampling point Location Type of Well DW-1 - - DW-2 - -

DW-3 Up-gradient to 1980 landfill; Down-gradient to 1994 landfill Monitoring

MW-6 - - MW-105 - -

MW-212A - - PZ-212B - -

WP-1 - - WP-2A - - WP-2B - - WP-3 - - WP-4 Down-gradient to 1980 landfill Monitoring

WP-6A - - WP-6B - -

65

WP-7 Down-gradient to 1980 landfill Monitoring WP-8 - - MW-1 - - MW-2 - - MW-3 - - MW-4 - - MW-5 - -

MW-101 - - MW-102 Up-gradient to 1994 landfill Monitoring

MW-102B - - MW-103 - - MW-104 Side-gradient Monitoring MW-201 - -

MW-202A - - MW-214A - - MW307A - - MW-307B - - MW-308 - - MW-309 - - MW-401 - - MW-402 - - MW-403 - - MW-404 - - MW-405 - - PZ-101B - - PZ-202B - - PZ-207A - - PZ-207B - - PZ-214B - -

SW-1 - - Table III.19.1: Summary of sampling locations for Waseca Demolition Landfill.

Table III.19.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.19.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. There are large variations in concentrations of VOCs in the different wells. There is limited data for inorganic chemicals. Considering Wells MW-102, DMW-3, and Wells WP-4 and WP-7, these wells, respectively, represent water quality up-gradient of both demolition cells, between the two cells, and down-gradient of the two cells. Concentrations of VOCs were generally greater in MW-102 (Table III.19.4). The greatest differences in water quality, however, were between wells up-gradient of the 1980 cell and the two wells down-gradient of this cell (Wells WP-4 and WP-7). The down-gradient wells are heavily contaminated with a wide variety of VOCs.

66

After consultations with the project hydrologist, it was concluded that Well MW-201 could serve as an up-gradient well, Well MW-402 as a well down-gradient of the MSW but up-gradient of the demolition waste, and Well DMW-3 as a well located down-gradient of the demolition waste. Since DW-3 is also down-gradient of the MSW, we compared water chemistry in DW-3 and MW-402. The only difference was in specific conductance, which was higher in Well DW-3. Comparing Well DW-3 to Well MW-201 (the up-gradient well), concentrations were higher in the up-gradient well.

To compare water chemistry for the 1980 landfill, we compared water chemistry in wells DW-2 and DW-3. There were significantly different concentrations of several VOCs, all of which were chlorinated aliphatic compounds. Comparing Well DW-2, which represents water chemistry down-gradient of the 1980 landfill, to Well MW-201 showed the same differences. There is a source for these VOCs in Well DW-2. It is unclear if the demolition landfill is the source of those VOCs. Comparisons of DW-2 and DW-1 (another well down-gradient of the 1980 landfill) showed some differences and some similarities in concentrations of these VOCs.

Chemical Wells Up- vs. down-gradient (1980

landfill)

Up- vs. down-gradient (1980

landfill) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane < 0.001 1.000 1.000 1,1,2-Trichloroethane < 0.001 0.681 0.394

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene < 0.001 0.866 0.001 1,1-Dichloroethane < 0.001 0.023 < 0.001

1,1-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 < 0.001 0.007 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.979 1.000 1.000 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene 0.002 0.470 0.134

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.876 1.000 1.000 1,2-Dichloroethane < 0.001 0.136 0.006

1,2-Dichloropropane < 0.001 0.192 0.007 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.177 1.000 1.000

1,4-Dichlorobenzene < 0.001 1.000 1.000 Acetone < 0.001 0.470 0.134 Arsenic < 0.001 0.001 Benzene < 0.001 0.007 < 0.001

Bromodichloromethane 0.021 1.000 1.000 Bromoform 0.217 1.000 1.000

Bromomethane 0.971 0.558 0.225 Cadmium < 0.001 0.425

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.145 1.000 1.000 Chlorobenzene < 0.001 0.004 < 0.001 Chloroethane < 0.001 0.016 0.002

67

Chloroform < 0.001 0.015 0.241 Chloromethane 0.447 0.558 0.225

Chromium 0.005 0.683 cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 0.011 0.004 cis 1,3-Dichloropropene 0.999 0.681 0.394

Copper 0.431 1.000 Dibromochloromethane 0.999 0.681 0.391

Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 0.042 < 0.001

Ethyl Benzene < 0.001 0.008 < 0.001 Ethyl Ether < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001

Iron < 0.001 0.001 Isopropylbenzene < 0.001 0.297 0.031

Lead < 0.001 1.000 Manganese < 0.001 < 0.001

Mercury < 0.001 1.000 Methyl Ethyl Ketone < 0.001 0.681 0.394

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone < 0.001 1.000 1.000 Methyl tert-butyl Ether 0.227 0.470 0.134

Methylene Chloride < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 Naphthalene 0.446 0.681 0.241

n-Butylbenzene 0.725 1.000 1.000 Nitrate < 0.001 0.040

n-Propylbenzene 0.750 1.000 1.000 pH < 0.001 0.002 1.000

p-Isopropyltoluene < 0.001 1.000 1.000 sec-Butylbenzene 0.380 1.000 1.000

Specific Conductance < 0.001 < 0.001 0.382 Tetrachloroethylene < 0.001 1.000 1.000

Tetrahydrofuran < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 Toluene < 0.001 0.476 0.034

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 0.727 0.052 Trichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 1.000 1.000

Turbidity < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 Vinyl Chloride < 0.001 0.030 < 0.001

Xylenes < 0.001 0.259 < 0.001 Zinc 1.000 1.000


68

Chemical MW-102B WP-2A PZ-207A WP-3 PZ-207B SW-11,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 1880 nd nd

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 53 nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 59 nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd 19 nd 424 nd 1

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 75 nd nd 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 40 nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) 4.0 nd nd nd 34.5 12.0 Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Bromodichloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Bromoform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd 3.5 5.5

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 580 nd nd cis 1,3-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 16.0 Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Iron (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 52.0 Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 12.5 Manganese (ug/L) 1.0 nd nd nd nd 3.0

Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

69

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) nd nd 2.0 nd nd nd

n-Propylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd PH 7.34 6.92 7.04 7.19 7.43 7.57

p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd sec-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 831 289 691 779 606 814 Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 104 nd Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 15 nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Turbidity (NTU) 10 44 13 24 14 9 Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Zinc (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chemical PZ-214B MW-

212A WP-6B PZ-

202B WP-6A MW-

202A1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 4280 nd

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1379 nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1477 nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 206 nd 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) 15.0 13.0 15.0 42.5 nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Bromodichloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

70

Bromoform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 146 nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) 0.5 nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1623 nd cis 1,3-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



Iron (ug/L) nd 1.0 nd nd nd Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Manganese (ug/L) 0.5 nd nd nd nd

Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) nd nd nd nd 4.5




Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) 104 nd nd nd nd nd Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Turbidity (NTU) 143 14 9 57 35 7

71

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Chemical WP-2B PZ-

101B MW-3 MW-4 WP-1 MW-

6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1 nd


1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 4 nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) 23.0 nd nd 4.0 Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd




Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd 2.0

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd cis 1,3-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd 12.5 Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



Iron (ug/L) 1.0 nd 4.0 nd 1.0

72

Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Manganese (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Mercury (ug/L) nd nd 1.0 nd nd



n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) nd nd 4.5 nd

n-Propylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd PH 6.90 7.32 6.80 7.29


Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 837 636 1588 553 Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd 5 nd nd nd nd Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


Turbidity (NTU) 8 273 13 93 Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Zinc (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Chemical MW-309 MW-

105 MW-101 MW-

307A MW-307B

PZ-212B

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,2,3-Trichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

73

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 18.0 39.0 Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd




Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) 2.5 nd nd nd 3.0


Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



Iron (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Manganese (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd




Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 18

74

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Turbidity (NTU) 11 10 6 19 135 5


Zinc (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chemical MW-214A MW-

308 MW-5 MW-

103 MW-201 MW-

102 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) 6 nd nd 1 2 9

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 6 Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd 3.0 9.5 11.0 Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd 1 1 5

Bromodichloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd Bromoform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd

Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd 5 nd 1 Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 5 nd 42 Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd 1.5 nd nd nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) 1 nd nd 1 4 2 cis 1,3-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 28 19 10

75

Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 1 2 nd Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 2

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 9 39 Iron (ug/L) nd nd 1.0 11.0 12.0 6.0

Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Manganese (ug/L) nd nd 0.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd


Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 9 Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) nd nd nd nd nd

n-Propylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd PH 7.05 7.29 6.22 6.50 6.99


Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 851 552 1288 1129 899 Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 26 Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


Turbidity (NTU) 11 3 4 5 6 Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd 1 2 1

Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Zinc (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chemical MW-401 WP-8 MW-2 DW-3 MW-104 MW-

1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd 86 nd nd nd nd


1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 15 nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd 16 nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

76

1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L)

Acetone (ug/L) Arsenic (ug/L) 13.0 4.0 nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd


Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 18 nd nd nd nd cis 1,3-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



Iron (ug/L) nd 1.0 nd nd nd Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Lead (ug/L) nd 1.0 1.0 Manganese (ug/L) nd 1.5 nd nd nd

Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) nd 1.0 nd

n-Propylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd PH 7.05 7.01 7.06 6.98

p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

77

sec-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 574 812 765 946

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Turbidity (NTU) 5 793 18 4


Zinc (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Chemical MW-403 DW-2 WP-4 WP-7 MW-404 DW-1

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd 105 1511 98 nd 15001,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 42 nd 1361 nd 175

1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd 38 3828 5940 6 28001,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 2 nd 274 nd 137

1,2,3-Trichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 53 nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd Acetone (ug/L) nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) 16.0 nd nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1 nd


Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 1134 261 2 1765Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 21 644 3016 5 1535cis 1,3-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

78

Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 10 nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 6 nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 26 nd

Iron (ug/L) 1.0 nd nd nd Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Manganese (ug/L) nd nd nd 1.0

Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) nd 1.5 nd nd



Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 628 1031 1200 1678 1079 1778Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 23 nd Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


Turbidity (NTU) 14 24 72 590 2 14 Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 3 149

Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Zinc (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Chemical MW-402 MW-405 DW-1-2

DW-2-1

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 94 2320 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 6 14 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 42 165

1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 19 4380 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 5 203

79

1,2,3-Trichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 2350

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd Acetone (ug/L) nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) nd Benzene (ug/L) nd 1 nd 6

Bromodichloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Bromoform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd

Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 3030 Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 16 29 cis 1,3-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Copper (ug/L) nd Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Iron (ug/L) nd Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Lead (ug/L) nd Manganese (ug/L) nd

Mercury (ug/L) nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd 18 Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 1.0

80

n-Propylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd PH 7.15 7.41 7.00 6.76

p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd sec-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 632 1051 547 1645 Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Toluene (ug/L) nd 9 nd nd

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 55 Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Turbidity (NTU) 4 2000 16 11 Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd 315

Xylenes (ug/L) nd 1 nd 20 Zinc (ug/L) nd

Table III.19.3: Median chemical concentrations for each well.

Chemical MW-102 DW-3 WP-4 WP-7 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 1511 98

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) 1 nd nd 1361 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) 9 nd 3828 5940

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 274 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) 1 nd 53 nd

Arsenic (ug/L) 11 nd Benzene (ug/L) 5 nd nd nd

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) 1 nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) 42 nd 1134 261

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) 2 nd 644 3016 Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) 10 nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) 2 nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) 39 nd nd nd

Iron (ug/L) 6 nd Lead (ug/L) nd 1

Manganese (ug/L) 1 nd Methylene Chloride (ug/L) 9 nd nd nd

Nitrate (mg/L) nd 1 PH 6.99 7.06 6.78 6.79

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm)

899 765 1200 1678

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) 26 nd nd nd Turbidity (NTU) 6 18 72 590

81

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) 1 nd nd nd Table III.19.4: Median chemical concentrations in select wells. There were no trends in concentration during the sampling period. Table III.19.5 summarizes exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. The intervention limit for tetrahydrofuran was exceeded on 33 occasions in the up-gradient well MW-102. Several VOCs, primarily chlorinated aliphatic compounds, exceeded their water quality standard in Wells WP-4 and WP-7.

Chemical DW-1 DW-1-2 DW-2 DW-2-1 DW-3 MW-1Water Quality Standards

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 17 1 1 0 0 0 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3 1 8 1 0 0

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 17 1 19 1 0 1 1,1-Dichloroethane 18 1 6 0 0 0

1,1-Dichloroethylene 17 1 9 0 0 0 1,2-Dichloroethane 6 1 1 0 0 0

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acetone 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic, Dissolved, ug/l 0 0 1 0 0 0 Benzene 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bromomethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chloroform 0 0 0 0 0 0

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene 18 0 1 0 0 0 cis 1,3-Dichloropropene 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dibromochloromethane 0 0 0 0 0 0

Iron, Dissolved, ug/l 2 0 0 0 0 1 Manganese, Dissolved, ug/l 2 0 0 0 0 0

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0 0 0 0 0 0 Methylene Chloride 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tetrachloroethylene 0 0 2 0 0 0

Tetrahydrofuran 0 0 0 0 0 0 trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vinyl Chloride 17 1 1 0 0 1 Intervention limits




82

1,2-Dichloropropane 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1 0 0 0 0 0

Acetone 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arsenic, Dissolved, ug/l 2 0 1 0 1 0

Benzene 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bromomethane 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium, Dissolved, ug/l 1 0 0 0 0 0 Carbon Tetrachloride 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chloroform 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chloromethane 0 0 0 0 0 0


Ethyl Ether 0 0 0 0 0 0 Iron, Dissolved, ug/l 5 0 1 0 0 1

Manganese, Dissolved, ug/l 7 0 0 0 2 0 Mercury, Dissolved, ug/l 0 0 0 0 0 0 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0 0 0 0 0 0

Methylene Chloride 3 1 0 0 0 1 Nitrate Nitrogen, mg/l 0 0 1 0 0 0

Tetrachloroethylene 1 0 7 0 0 1 Tetrahydrofuran 1 0 0 0 0 0

Toluene 0 0 0 0 0 0 trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene 7 1 0 0 0 0

Vinyl Chloride 17 1 1 0 0 1

Chemical MW-101

MW-102

MW-102B

MW-103

MW-104

MW-105

Water Quality Standards 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0 1 0 0 0 0






83




Tetrahydrofuran 0 33 0 0 0 0 trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene 0 0 0 0 0

Vinyl Chloride 6 0 23 0 0 Intervention limits














84



Chemical MW-2MW-201

MW-202A

MW-212A

MW214-A MW-3

















85











Chemical MW-307A

MW-307B

MW-308

MW-309 MW-4

MW-401








Iron, Dissolved, ug/l 2 0 0 1 1 0

86

Manganese, Dissolved, ug/l 0 0 0 0 0 0 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0 0 0 0 0 0

Methylene Chloride 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tetrachloroethylene 0 0 0 0 0 0

















Vinyl Chloride 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chemical MW- MW- MW- MW- MW-5 MW-6

87

402 403 404 405 Water Quality Standards



















88









Chemical PZ-

101B PZ-

202B PZ-

207A PZ-

207B PZ-

212B PZ-

214B Water Quality Standards










89














Methylene Chloride 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nitrate 0 0 0 0 0 0




Chemical SW-1 WP-1 WP-2A WP-2B WP-3 WP-4


90



1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acetone 0 0 1 0 0 0 Arsenic 1 0 1 1 0 0


Chloroform 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene 0 0 3 0 23 4 cis 1,3-Dichloropropene 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dibromochloromethane 0 0 0 0 0 0

Iron 2 0 2 1 2 0 Manganese 2 0 0 0 0 0


Tetrahydrofuran 0 0 0 0 1 0 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene 0 0 2 0 0 0






Acetone 0 0 1 0 0 0 Arsenic 2 0 2 1 0 0


Cadmium 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carbon Tetrachloride 0 0 0 0 0 0


Cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene 1 0 6 0 23 4 cis 1,3-Dichloropropene 0 0 0 0 0 0

91

Dibromochloromethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethyl Ether 0 0 0 0 0 0

Iron 2 0 5 1 2 0 Manganese 2 0 0 1 2 0

Mercury 0 0 0 0 0 0 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0 0 3 0 0 0

Methylene Chloride 0 0 1 0 2 0 Nitrate 0 3 0 0 0 0


Toluene 0 0 1 0 0 0 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene 0 0 2 0 8 0


Chemical WP-6A WP-6B WP-7 WP-8

Water Quality Standards 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 3 0 0 0 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1 0 0 0

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 3 0 3 3 1,1-Dichloroethane 3 0 3 0

1,1-Dichloroethylene 3 0 3 0 1,2-Dichloroethane 1 0 1 1

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 Acetone 0 0 0 0 Arsenic 0 1 0 0

Benzene 0 0 0 0 Bromomethane 0 0 0 0

Chloroform 0 0 0 0 Cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene 3 0 3 0 cis 1,3-Dichloropropene 0 0 0 0 Dibromochloromethane 0 0 0 0

Iron 0 0 0 0 Manganese 0 0 0 0

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0 0 0 0 Methylene Chloride 0 0 0 0 Tetrachloroethylene 0 0 0 0

Tetrahydrofuran 1 0 0 0 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene 0 0 0 0

Vinyl Chloride 0 0 1 0 Intervention limits

92

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 3 0 1 0 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1 0 0 0

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 3 0 3 3 1,1-Dichloroethane 3 0 3 2

1,1-Dichloroethylene 3 0 3 0 1,2-Dichloroethane 1 0 1 1

1,2-Dichloropropane 0 0 0 0 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0 0 0 0

Acetone 0 0 0 0 Arsenic 0 1 0 0

Benzene 1 0 1 0 Bromomethane 0 0 0 0

Cadmium 0 0 0 0 Carbon Tetrachloride 0 0 0 0

Chloroform 0 0 1 0 Chloromethane 0 0 0 0

Cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene 3 0 3 3 cis 1,3-Dichloropropene 0 0 0 0 Dibromochloromethane 0 0 0 0

Ethyl Ether 0 0 0 0 Iron 0 1 0 0

Manganese 0 0 0 0 Mercury 0 0 0 0

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0 0 0 0 Methylene Chloride 0 0 0 0

Nitrate 0 0 0 0 Tetrachloroethylene 0 0 0 0

Tetrahydrofuran 1 0 0 0 Toluene 0 0 0 0

Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene 0 0 2 0 Vinyl Chloride 0 0 1 0

Table III.19.4: Summary of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits for each well. Conclusions: The two wells down-gradient of both disposal areas had high concentrations of a variety of VOCs. Up-gradient wells also had several detections of VOCs, but the suite of VOCs differed from the down-gradient wells and concentrations were lower in the up-gradient wells. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: Sampling for VOCs has been adequate. Sampling for inorganic chemicals has been inadequate due to small sample sizes and incomplete parameter lists.

93

Utility of site in overall analysis: The site is complicated by the presence of the MSW and possibly an unknown waste in the vicinity of Wells DW-1 and DW-2. Wells DW-1, DW-2, DW-3, MW-201, and MW-402 are properly located and should show impacts if ground water has been impacted by the different waste sources. The utility of this site is uncertain. 20. Bustad Demolition Landfill

There are four wells at the Bustad Demolition Landfill (Table III.20.1). Well 4 is considered up-gradient, with the remaining wells considered down-gradient of the disposal area. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1996 and 2001.

Well Well location Type of well MW-1 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-2 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-3 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-4 Up-gradient Monitoring

Table III.20.1: Well summary for Bustad Demolition Landfill. Tables III.20.2 and III.20.3 summarize median chemical concentrations and results of statistical tests. Down-gradient wells show greater concentrations of many chemicals, including a variety of inorganic chemicals and VOCs. Concentrations of most chemicals were greatest in Well 3.

Well Down-

gradient Up-

gradient p-value

Up- vs. down; Well MW-1 eliminated

Trichloroethylene Nd nd 0.309 - 1,1-Dichloroethane 5.35 nd 0.024 0.012

1,2,3-Trichloropropane Nd nd 0.623 - Acetone Nd nd 0.309 -

Alkalinity 440 235 < 0.001 < 0.001 Ammonia Nd nd 0.175 - Arsenic 1.3 Nd 0.054 - Benzene Nd Nd 0.283 -

Bromomethane Nd Nd 0.236 - Calcium 180000 67500 < 0.001 < 0.001 Chloride 38 12 < 0.001 < 0.001

Chloroethane Nd Nd 0.016 0.013 Chromium 1.29 0.90 0.024 0.006

Copper Nd Nd 0.712 Dichlorodifluoromethane 2.6 Nd < 0.001 < 0.001

Iron 2700 40 < 0.001 < 0.001

94

Lead Nd Nd 0.096 Magnesium 62500 25000 < 0.001 < 0.001 Manganese 890 260 0.036 < 0.001

Nitrate Nd 1.5 0.053 - pH 7.0 7.4 0.008 0.053

Potassium 4750 1400 < 0.001 < 0.001 Oxidation-reduction potential 110 200 0.055 -

Sodium 24500 5450 < 0.001 < 0.001 Specific conductance 1100 460 < 0.001 < 0.001

Sulfate 190 27 < 0.001 < 0.001 Total dissolved solids 990 320 < 0.001 < 0.001 Total suspended solids 55 17 0.084 -

Zinc 15 15 0.351 - Table III.20.2: Results of group comparisons between up- and down-gradient wells. Statistically significant differences are shown in bold.

Chemical Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 p-value1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) Nd 6.3 7.6 nd 0.009

1,2,3-Trichloropropane (ug/L) Nd nd Nd nd 0.369 Acetone (mg/L) Nd nd Nd nd 0.025

Alkalinity (mg/L) 440 410 870 235 0.000 Ammonia (mg/L) Nd 0.14 0.34 nd 0.001 Arsenic (mg/L) Nd 2.35 6.45 nd 0.000 Benzene (ug/L) Nd nd 0.5 nd 0.000

Bromomethane (ug/L) Nd nd Nd nd 0.089 Calcium (mg/L) 180000 120000 440000 67500 0.000 Chloride (mg/L) 46 17 44 12 0.000

Chloroethane (ug/L) nd Nd Nd nd 0.074 Chromium (mg/L) 0.8 Nd 3 nd 0.000

Copper (mg/L) nd Nd Nd nd 0.790 Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd Nd Nd nd 0.000

Iron (mg/L) 68.5 3350 8200 35.5 0.000 Lead (mg/L) nd Nd Nd nd 0.295

Magnesium (mg/L) 67000 33000 115000 25000 0.000 Manganese (mg/L) 103 890 1600 260 0.000

Nitrate (mg/L) 0.22 Nd Nd 1.5 0.000 Oxidation-reduction Potential (mV) 295 45.5 48 200 0.000

PH 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.4 0.044 Potassium (mg/L) 2600 4450 29000 1400 0.000 Sodium (mg/L) 26500 11000 42500 5450 0.000

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 1100 780 2600 460 0.000

95

Sulfate (mg/L) 240 36 680 26.5 0.000 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 980 525 2400 320 0.000 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 11 27 100 17 0.110 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 0.793

Zinc (mg/L) nd nd nd nd 0.351 Table III.20.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. Detection frequencies for VOCs were greatest in Well MW-3 (20.6%). This well had the highest concentrations of most chemicals. The lowest detection frequency was in the up-gradient Well MW-4 (1.8%). Concentrations of several VOCs decreased during the sampling period in Wells 2 and 3, including 1,1-Dichloroethane, Benzene, Chloroethane, Dichlorofluoromethane, and trans 1,2-Dichloroethene. Well 1 showed increasing concentrations of sulfate, calcium, magnesium, and sodium, while oxidation-reduction potential and nitrate concentrations decreased during the sampling period. This may indicate a shift in redox conditions in Well 1. Table III.20.5 summarizes exceedances of standards and intervention limits. Standards were exceeded in all samples for sulfate and iron in Well 3. Well 3 also showed high exceedance rates for manganese and bromoethane.

Chemical Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Standard

1,1-Dichloroethene 0 0 0 1 Bromoethane 0 0 3 0

Chloromethane 0 0 1 0 Dissolved Solids 13 10 14 0

Arsenic 0 0 3 1 Iron 1 14 14 1

Manganese 0 2 13 0 Sulfate 7 0 13 0

Intervention Limit 1,1-Dichloroethane 0 1 0 0 1,1-Dichloroethene 0 0 0 1

Bromomethane 0 1 3 0 Dissolved Solids 13 14 14 15

Chloride 1 0 0 0 Chloromethane 0 0 1 0

Lead 0 0 1 2 Nitrate 4 0 0 1

Arsenic 0 7 12 2 Iron 5 14 14 5

Manganese 3 14 14 7

96

Sulfate 15 2 13 0 Table III.20.4: Summary of exceedances for standards and intervention limits. Conclusions: Chemicals showing higher concentrations in down-gradient wells include a variety of inorganic and organic chemicals. Well 3 showed the greatest impacts. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of monitoring: Sample sizes and parameter lists are generally adequate, although a reduced VOC list has been used on occasion. Utility of site in overall analysis: MW-4 is considered up-gradient of the disposal area. It appears to meet this criteria. MW-1 is considered down-gradient but is sufficiently close to the property boundary that it may be side-gradient. MW-2 and MW-3 appear most likely to represent down-gradient conditions. The site is therefore adequate for analysis, although well MW-1 should be eliminated from the analysis. Removing MW-1 from the analysis lowered p-values for all chemicals except pH (Table III.7.2). 21. Lansing Demolition Landfill Sample sizes are insufficient to conduct statistical analysis of the data from the Lansing Demolition Landfill. Table III.21.1 indicates specific conductance is greater in the down-gradient wells than in the up-gradient well, while pH is lower. MW-2 is considered the best of the down-gradient wells, since it is directly down-gradient of and within 200 feet of the waste. MW-3 and MW-4 may not be down-gradient of the waste and are probably too far from the waste footprint to have been impacted. Table III.21.1 has a much higher conductivity than the up-gradient well (MW-1). Adequacy of monitoring: There was VOC data for only one sampling event and no data for trace metals. Sampling is not adequate. Utility of site in overall analysis: Well MW-2 is directly down-gradient of the waste and should reflect chemistry of water that has passed beneath the demolition waste. MW-1 is an up-gradient well. The site would be useful for overall analysis if there were sufficient data.

MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4

Chemical Up-

gradient Down-

gradient Down-

gradient Down-

gradient PH 7.79 6.86 7.22 7.47

Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 493 1584 973 772 Turbidity (NTU) 1073 96 74 231

Table III.21.1: Chemical concentrations in wells from the Lansing Demolition Landfill. 22. Rice County Demolition Landfill

97

There are 16 sampling locations at the Rice County Demolition Landfill (Table III.22.1). Wells 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 7B, 7C, and 8B are down-gradient. Wells 1B and 10A are up-gradient. Well 9B is side-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1991 and 2001.

Sampling point Location Type of Well M1A Down-gradient Monitoring

MW1B Up-gradient Monitoring MW2A Down-gradient Monitoring MW2B Down-gradient Monitoring MW3A Down-gradient Monitoring MW3B Down-gradient Monitoring MW4B Down-gradient Monitoring MW5A Down-gradient Monitoring MW5B Down-gradient Monitoring MW6A Down-gradient Monitoring MW7B Down-gradient Monitoring MW7C Down-gradient Monitoring MW8B Down-gradient Monitoring MW9B Side-gradient Monitoring

MW10A Up-gradient Monitoring MW11A Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.22.1: Summary of sampling locations for Rice County Demolition Landfill.

Table III.22.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.22.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. There are a large number of statistically different median concentrations, both between individual wells and up- vs. down-gradient wells. Within the down-gradient wells, there were significant differences in median concentrations of many chemicals. Well 5A appears to have the highest concentrations of many inorganic chemicals as well as a large number of VOC detections. Well 5A was compared to up-gradient wells. Results (Table III.22.4) indicate Well 5A has higher concentrations of most inorganic chemicals and has a large number of VOC detections (215) compared to two detections in the up-gradient wells.

Chemical All

wells Position

Up- vs. down-

gradient wells

Down-gradient

wells

Well 5A vs. up-

gradient wells

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.000 0.972 0.847 0.999 1.000 1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 0.001 0.423 0.267 < 0.001 1.000 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.557 0.879 0.668 0.460 0.211

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

98

1,1-Dichloroethane < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.359 0.881 0.670 0.283 0.225 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.833 0.939 0.764 0.738 1.000 1,2-Dichloroethane < 0.001 0.043 0.033 < 0.001 < 0.001

1,2-Dichloropropane < 0.001 0.363 0.228 < 0.001 < 0.001 1,4-Dichlorobenzene < 0.001 0.606 0.400 < 0.001 0.001 2,3-Dichloropropene 0.546 0.758 0.758 0.534 0.355

2-Phenylbutane 0.005 0.005 Acetone < 0.001 0.821 0.770 < 0.001 0.119

Alkalinity < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Ammonia < 0.001 0.049 0.057 < 0.001 < 0.001 Arsenic < 0.001 0.963 0.794 < 0.001 < 0.001 Benzene < 0.001 0.473 0.240 < 0.001 < 0.001 Cadmium 0.004 0.390 0.688 0.004 0.390 Calcium < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Chloride < 0.001 0.004 0.007 < 0.001 0.001

Chlorobenzene 0.001 0.525 0.337 0.001 0.039 Chloroethane < 0.001 0.513 0.345 < 0.001 0.001

Chloromethane < 0.001 0.489 0.312 < 0.001 0.002 Chromium 0.691 0.565 0.753 0.680 0.836

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Copper 0.006 0.609 0.419 0.005 0.116

Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 0.002 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001

Ethyl Benzene 0.001 0.884 0.676 < 0.001 0.070 Ethyl Ether < 0.001 0.081 0.058 < 0.001 < 0.001

Iron < 0.001 0.022 0.012 < 0.001 < 0.001 Lead 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.087

m,p-Xylene < 0.001 0.824 0.599 < 0.001 0.022 Magnesium < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Manganese < 0.001 0.006 0.022 < 0.001 < 0.001

Mercury 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.004 0.740 0.526 0.003 0.036

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0.305 0.938 0.763 0.232 0.225 Methyl tert-butyl Ether < 0.001 0.823 0.610 < 0.001 0.009

Methylene Chloride 0.693 0.772 0.735 0.537 0.314 Nitrate+Nitrite < 0.001 0.461 0.224 < 0.001 < 0.001

o-Xylene < 0.001 0.633 0.419 < 0.001 < 0.001 pH < 0.001 0.037 0.015 < 0.001 < 0.001

Potassium < 0.001 0.224 0.265 < 0.001 0.004

99

Selenium 0.477 0.045 0.025 0.734 0.140 Sodium < 0.001 0.031 0.101 < 0.001 < 0.001

Specific Conductance < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Sulfate < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.198

Temperature < 0.001 0.776 0.661 < 0.001 0.001 Tetrachloroethylene < 0.001 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 0.007

Tetrahydrofuran 0.363 0.886 0.687 0.281 0.157 Toluene < 0.001 0.780 0.554 < 0.001 0.009

Total Dissolved Solids < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Total Suspended Solids < 0.001 0.380 0.408 < 0.001 0.122

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 0.260 0.165 < 0.001 < 0.001 Tribromomethane 0.127 0.127

Trichlorofluoromethane 0.007 0.783 0.554 0.005 1.000 Vinyl Chloride < 0.001 0.146 0.097 < 0.001 < 0.001

Zinc 0.056 0.672 0.384 0.101 0.633 Table III.22.2: Results of statistical tests (p-values) comparing median concentrations between wells and between up- and down-gradient wells.

Chemical MW-11A MW-3B MW-5A MW-3A MW-8B MW-2B1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 5.6 nd 1.7 nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 17.8 22.8 1.5 7.0

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 5.2 nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd 2.2 nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 2,3-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

2-Phenylbutane (ug/L) 1.7 Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Alkalinity (mg/L) 392 251 751 473 361 309 Ammonia (mg/L) 0.04 nd 0.52 0.20 nd nd

Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd 7.3 nd nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd 4.5 nd nd nd

Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Calcium (ug/L) 115000 70000 208000 127000 106000 98850 Chloride (mg/L) 23 2 20 23 13 18

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

100

Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 1.0 nd nd nd Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 19.5 1.7 2.6 nd

Copper (ug/L) nd 2.1 nd nd nd 4.1 Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd 22.5 21.4 1.5 nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd 5.3 3.1 0.9 nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd 97.0 6.9 nd nd

Iron (ug/L) 22 76 10500 4500 nd 21 Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Magnesium (ug/L) 44000 26750 60000 55000 36000 38250 Manganese (ug/L) 10 18 1914 1018 nd nd


Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd 0.5 nd nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate+Nitrite (mg/L) 9.3 7.2 nd nd 0.3 10.7

o-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd 1.0 nd nd nd PH 7.10 7.40 6.40 6.80 7.30 7.20

Potassium (ug/L) 1270 1500 3250 2110 2025 1110 Selenium (ug/L) 0.50 1.10 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 Sodium (mg/L) 8.3 4.8 11.9 11.4 7.6 4.0

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 883 537 1280 979 667 737 Sulfate (mg/L) 56 150 46 73 37 45 Temperature 10.0 10.3 11.0 11.0 9.4 9.1

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 2.3 nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 558 948 783 569 423 456 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 381 10 52 261 58 51

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 1.8 nd nd nd Tribromomethane (ug/L) 1.6

Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd 10.4 0.8 nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) nd 54 16 11 46 30 Chemical MW-4B MW-5B MW-1B MW-1A MW-2A MW-9B

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

101

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) 6.5 nd nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) 1.8 nd nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) 0.6 nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 2,3-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

2-Phenylbutane (ug/L) 3.7 Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Alkalinity (mg/L) 339 258 244 411 427 274 Ammonia (mg/L) nd 0.02 nd nd 0.63 nd

Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Cadmium (ug/L) nd 2.00 nd nd nd nd Calcium (ug/L) 112000 75200 69260 114000 126000 81680 Chloride (mg/L) 18 3 4 23 10 8

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd 2.45 nd nd nd nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) 4.3 nd nd nd nd nd Copper (ug/L) 1.5 41.0 3.4 nd 3.5 nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) 1.1 nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) 1.6 nd nd nd nd nd


Iron (ug/L) 24 nd 38 137 nd nd Lead (ug/L) nd 2.15 nd nd nd nd

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Magnesium (ug/L) 45000 28000 27900 51300 38000 28530 Manganese (ug/L) 10 25 17 50 47 nd



Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate+Nitrite (mg/L) 6.3 2.8 3.8 6.3 6.2 3.4

102

o-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd PH 7.20 7.30 7.37 7.00 6.90 7.30

Potassium (ug/L) 1290 500 1651 1800 30850 1700 Selenium (ug/L) 1.90 1.32 3.25 1.00 0.50 0.50 Sodium (mg/L) 7.3 2.7 4.5 5.5 9.3 4.2

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 823 546 520 923 975 581 Sulfate (mg/L) 56 47 44 42 45 31 Temperature 10.5 9.7 10.0 10.0 9.5 9.7

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) 8.6 1.9 nd nd nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 500 350 323 535 567 346 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 308 860 426 157 136 42

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Tribromomethane (ug/L) 3.1

Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) 36 nd 52 20 20 nd Chemical MW-7B MW-10A MW-7C MW-6A

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) 0.8 nd nd 1.2

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 2,3-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd

2-Phenylbutane (ug/L) 1.4 1.1 0.6 Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Alkalinity (mg/L) 542 326 288 369 Ammonia (mg/L) 0.02 nd 0.18 1.14

Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd Calcium (ug/L) 153000 87050 75550 73300 Chloride (mg/L) 39 16 4 119

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

103

Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Copper (ug/L) 8.8 nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) 2.4 nd nd 1.2 Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 1.2

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd 4.4

Iron (ug/L) nd nd 1004 nd Lead (ug/L) nd 2.10 nd nd

M,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Magnesium (ug/L) 57000 27900 26200 97500 Manganese (ug/L) nd nd 38 888

Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd


Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nitrate+Nitrite (mg/L) 0.2 14.4 0.1 0.2

o-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd PH 7.20 7.15 7.20

Potassium (ug/L) 5835 2050 2270 Selenium (ug/L) 0.50 0.50 Sodium (mg/L) 22.0 7.0 3.8 44.3

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 1007 696 536 Sulfate (mg/L) 53 17 18 127 Temperature 9.7 10.3 9.5

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 665 422 293 920 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 85 4 4 1980

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Tribromomethane (ug/L) 2.0 nd nd

Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) 55 nd nd 33 Table III.22.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well.

104

Chemical Up-gradient wells

Well 5A

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (%) 0 6 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (%) 0 88

1,1-Dichloroethane (%) 0 94 1,1-Dichloroethylene (%) 0 6 1,2-Dichloroethane (%) 0 82

1,2-Dichloropropane (%) 0 76 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (%) 0 41 2,3-Dichloropropene (%) 0 6

Acetone (%) 4 18 Alkalinity (mg/l) 257 751 Ammonia (mg/l) Nd 0.52 Arsenic (mg/l) 1.0 7.3 Benzene (%) 0 82

Cadmium (ug/l) nd Nd Calcium (ug/l) 71100 208000 Chloride (mg/l) 12 20

Chlorobenzene (%) 0 18 Chloroethane (%) 0 35

Chloromethane (%) 0 35 Chromium (ug/l) nd Nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (%) 0 94 Copper (ug/l) 3.4 Nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (%) 0 82 Dichlorofluoromethane (%) 0 41

Ethyl Benzene (%) 0 12 Ethyl Ether (%) 0 100

Iron (ug/l) 10 10500 Lead (ug/l) Nd Nd

m,p-Xylene (%) 0 18 Magnesium (ug/l) 27900 60000 Manganese (ug/l) 5 1914

Mercury (ug/l) nd Nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (%) 0 18

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (%) 0 6 Methyl tert-butyl Ether (%) 0 18

Methylene Chloride (%) 4 12 Nitrate+Nitrite (mg/l) 4.1 nd

o-Xylene (%) 0 41

105

PH 7.3 6.4 Potassium (ug/l) 1651 3250 Selenium (ug/l) 3.25 0.5 Sodium (mg/l) 5.3 11.9

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 535 1280 Sulfate (mg/l) 37 46

Tetrachloroethylene (%) 0 24 Tetrahydrofuran (%) 0 6

Toluene (%) 0 24 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) 339 782.5 Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) 180 52

Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (%) 0 94 Vinyl Chloride (%) 0 88

Zinc, Dissolved (ug/l) 1.0 16 Table III.22.4: Median concentrations in the up-gradient wells and in Well 5A (a down-gradient well) Trend analysis revealed a large number of correlations between chemical concentration and sampling date. Table III.22.5 summarizes correlation coefficients that exceeded 0.700 or were less than –0.700. There were no obvious overall trends, but in general, concentrations of nitrate, sulfate, dissolved solids, and calcium were decreasing in most wells, while concentrations of chloride and sodium were increasing. In wells having strong correlations with VOCs, the trend was generally upward.

Chemical R2 10a

Alkalinity -0.793 Calcium -0.824

Magnesium -0.889 Manganese 0.890

Nitrate+Nitrite -0.937 Specific Conductance -0.839

Sulfate -0.894 Total Dissolved Solids -0.982

11a Calcium -0.911

Magnesium -0.889 Sodium 0.903

Zinc 0.707 1a

Manganese -0.851

106

Potassium -0.800 Selenium 1.000 Sodium 0.779

Sulfate, Total -0.770 Total Dissolved Solids -0.712

1b Chloride 0.732

Nitrate+Nitrite 0.920 2a

Dichlorodifluoromethane -0.717 Iron -0.732

Nitrate+Nitrite -0.718 Selenium -0.877

Total Suspended Solids -0.743 2b

Nitrate+Nitrite -0.935 Potassium 0.792 Selenium 1.000

3a Chloroethane -0.988

Selenium -0.966 Sulfate -0.790

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene -0.859 3b

Chloride 0.806 Iron, Dissolved -1.000

Magnesium 1.000 Potassium 0.810

4b 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 0.906

1,1-Dichloroethane 0.817 Alkalinity 0.824 Calcium 0.762

Magnesium 0.837 Nitrate+Nitrite -0.972

Sodium 0.901 Tetrachloroethylene 0.770

Total Suspended Solids -0.777 5a

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.770

107

5b Chloride 0.925

Lead -0.750 Nitrate+Nitrite 0.776

Potassium 0.912 Selenium 0.832 Sodium 0.718

7b Chloride 0.727 Copper -0.949 Sulfate -0.822

7c Chloride 1.000

Magnesium 0.801 8b

Calcium -0.724 Chloride -0.732

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.737 Copper -0.955

Potassium -0.853 Selenium -0.979 Sodium -0.700 Sulfate -0.834

Tetrachloroethylene 0.704 9b

Chloride -0.777 Copper -0.950

Nitrate+Nitrite -0.947 pH 0.711

Zinc 0.825 Table III.22.5: Summary of correlation coefficients less than –0.700 or greater than 0.700. Table III.22.6 summarizes the number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. There were no exceedances of water quality standards for VOCs in either up-gradient well, while there were more than 30 exceedances in down-gradient wells 4B and 5A. Even within inorganic parameters, with the exception of nitrate, exceedance rates were generally greater in the down-gradient wells.

Chemical MW-10A

MW-11A

MW-1A

MW-1B

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-3A

MW-3B

MW-4B

MW-5A

MW-5B

MW-6A

MW-7B

MW-7C

MW-8B

MW-9B

108

Water Quality Standards 1,1,2-

Trichloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 10 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,1-Dichloroethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,1-Dichloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,2-Dichloroethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,2-Dichloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cadmium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Chloromethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 cis 1,2-

Dichloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Iron 0 0 0 2 0 1 10 0 0 11 0 0 0 7 0 0 Manganese 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 0

Nitrate 5 3 2 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sulfate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tetrachloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total dissolved

solids 4 7 9 1 11 1 10 19 6 12 0 1 10 0 1 1

Vinyl chloride 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 1 0 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 Intervention Limits

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

1,1,2-Trichloroethene 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 29 15 7 0 0 0 18 0

1,1-Dichloroethane 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,1-Dichloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,2-Dichloroethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 12 0 0 0 0 2 0

1,2-Dichloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 Benzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cadmium 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Chloride 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Chloromethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 cis 1,2-

Dichloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0

Iron 0 1 10 3 1 3 11 1 2 11 1 0 1 7 1 3 Manganese 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 0 1 1 0 0 0

Nitrate 6 9 12 13 10 14 0 27 12 0 10 0 0 0 0 7 Sulfate 0 3 5 1 1 0 7 11 2 4 1 1 2 0 1 0

Tetrachloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 1 16 0 0 0 21 0 Total dissolved

solids 9 9 12 13 12 14 12 21 13 12 13 1 10 9 9 9

Vinyl chloride 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 1 0 15 0 0 0 0 1 0

109

Zinc 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table III.22.6: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. Conclusion: Concentrations of most inorganic parameters and several VOCs were greater in down- vs. up-gradient wells. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: The parameter list for VOCs has not been complete. Otherwise, sampling and the monitoring design appear adequate. Utility of site for overall analysis: Well MW-5A is the only well that might be down-gradient of the demolition landfill. It may be impacted by the MSW, since ground water flow direction is unclear. MW-5A is at least 600 feet from the waste footprint. This site is not adequate for overall analysis. 23. Steele County Demolition Landfill There are 17 wells at the Steele County Demolition Landfill (Table III.23.1). Wells 10, 10A, 12, 13A, 13B, 14, 1A, 2A, 2B, 5, 9, 9A, and the shop well are considered down-gradient of the disposal area. Wells 11, 3, 4, 6A, and 7 are considered up-gradient. The 2 B-series wells are nested, deeper wells than the other wells. The shop well is considered a domestic well. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1997 and 2001.

Well Well location Type of well 10 Down-gradient Shallow monitoring

10A Down-gradient Shallow monitoring 12 Down-gradient Shallow monitoring

13A Down-gradient Shallow monitoring 13B Down-gradient Deep monitoring 14 Down-gradient Shallow monitoring 1A Down-gradient Shallow monitoring 2A Down-gradient Shallow monitoring 2B Down-gradient Deep monitoring 5 Down-gradient Shallow monitoring 9 Down-gradient Shallow monitoring

9A Down-gradient Shallow monitoring Shop Down-gradient Domestic

11 Up-gradient Shallow monitoring 3 Up-gradient Shallow monitoring 4 Up-gradient Shallow monitoring

6A Up-gradient Shallow monitoring 7 Up-gradient Shallow monitoring

Table III.23.1: Well summary for Steele County Demolition Landfill.

110

Table III.23.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells and between up- and down-gradient wells. Table III.23.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each of the shallow monitoring wells. Concentrations of several inorganic chemicals were greater in down-gradient wells than in up-gradient wells, including dissolved solids, alkalinity, calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, sodium, sulfate, and specific conductance. Dichlorodifluoromethane was detected 42 times in shallow, down-gradient monitoring wells, compared to just once in an up-gradient well. There are several disposal areas at this site, including municipal solid waste disposal areas. There is no well that is clearly down-gradient of just the demolition fill area. Well 12 is the closest down-gradient well from the demolition area. It may, however, be impacted by a municipal solid waste disposal area to the east. Well 14 is considered down-gradient of the MSW but up-gradient of the demolition area. We can therefore compare the chemistry of Wells 12 and 14 to determine if Well 12 might be impacted by the MSW. Concentrations of several chemicals differed between Wells 12 and 14 (Table 16.4). Well 14 had higher concentrations of several chemicals, indicating it has been impacted by the municipal waste. Comparing concentrations of chemicals in the up-gradient wells, we find that only barium, dichlorodifluoromethane, iron, xylene, magnesium, and manganese can be compared between Well 12 and the up-gradient wells. Table 16.4 shows that concentrations of barium, iron, and manganese were greater in the down-gradient well (Well 12). The most striking result is the presence of relatively strong reducing conditions in Well 12. Reducing conditions are often the result of organic contaminants. There is no evidence of VOCs in Well 12.

All wells Shallow wells


gradient All wells Up- vs. down-

gradient 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.934 0.681 0.893 0.655

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 0.901 0.680 0.850 0.653 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene 0.934 0.681 0.893 0.655 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.934 0.681 0.893 0.655

Acetone 0.004 0.175 < 0.001 0.032 Alkalinity < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Ammonia < 0.001 0.932 0.004 0.735 Arsenic 0.079 0.512 0.091 0.375 Barium < 0.001 0.712 0.002 0.923 Benzene 0.654 0.802 0.478 0.593

Bromobenzene < 0.001 0.125 < 0.001 0.106 Bromochloromethane 0.753 0.680 0.684 0.653

Cadmium 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Calcium < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001 Chloride < 0.001 0.855 < 0.001 0.093

111

Chromium 0.742 0.390 0.799 0.303 cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.564 0.407 0.524 0.366

Copper 0.438 0.468 0.570 0.388 Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 0.001 Dichlorofluoromethane 0.829 0.816 0.761 0.799

Ethyl Benzene < 0.001 0.399 < 0.001 0.363 Ethyl Ether < 0.001 0.058 < 0.001 0.026

Iron, Dissolved < 0.001 0.004 < 0.001 0.019 m,p-Xylene < 0.001 0.641 < 0.001 0.618

Magnesium, Dissolved < 0.001 0.116 < 0.001 0.023 Manganese, Dissolved < 0.001 0.004 < 0.001 0.009

Methylene Chloride 0.896 0.681 0.844 0.655 Nitrate Nitrogen < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001

o-Xylene 0.193 0.770 0.145 0.852 pH < 0.001 0.309 < 0.001 0.570

Potassium < 0.001 0.003 < 0.001 0.012 Oxidation-reduction potential 0.131 0.107 0.208 0.048

Sodium < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Specific Conductance < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Sulfate < 0.001 0.080 < 0.001 0.028 Temperature 0.632 0.319 0.842 0.311

Tetrahydrofuran 0.836 0.681 0.773 0.655 Toluene 0.012 0.006 0.006 0.008

Total Dissolved Solids < 0.001 0.111 < 0.001 0.003 Total Suspended Solids < 0.001 0.277 < 0.001 0.077

Xylenes 0.678 0.742 0.537 0.792 Zinc 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Table III.23.2: Results of statistical tests (p-values) comparing median concentrations in wells and up- versus down-gradient wells. Tests were conducted for all wells (shallow and deep) and for just shallow wells.

Chemical 10 10A 12 13A 14 1A 2A 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd

Bromobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1.0 nd nd

112

Bromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

o-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Xylenes (ug/L) 0.5 Ammonia (mg/L) 1.0 1.0 nd nd nd nd nd Toluene (ug/L) 1.5 nd nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) 2.0 nd nd 3.0 4.0 nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) 3.0 nd nd 2.0 9.0 nd nd

Potassium (mg/L) 4.5 4.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 PH 7.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 7.0

Sulfate (mg/l) 7 26 15 119 10 33 170 Arsenic (ug/l) 26.0

Oxidation-reduction potential (mV) 139 -18 -35 -6 -61 -31 -80 Manganese (ug/l) 162 164 138 17 999 2 71 Alkalinity (mg/L) 328 394 411 564 812 296 451

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 366 364 431 886 902 353 1065 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 563 630 713 1263 1483 602 1598

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 817 1220 14 7 18 29 96 Iron, Dissolved (ug/l) 1479 5063 1040 8 7824 10 538

Sodium (ug/L) 9700 8560 9800 16000 45000 9300 52000 Magnesium (ug/L) 21500 27700 30600 66000 65000 24000 65550

Calcium (ug/L) 92000 89200 101000 190000 220000 87200 213000Barium (ug/L) 14.0 7.0 nd nd nd nd

Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloride (mg/L) 6.0 6.0 57.0 58.0 6.0 225.0

Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 2.0

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 1.0 nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chemical 3 4 5 6A 7 9 9A

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

113

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd 4.0 nd nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd 0.5 nd nd

Bromobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Bromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

o-Xylene (ug/L) 0.5 nd nd nd nd nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Xylenes (ug/L) 0.5 0.5 nd nd Ammonia (mg/L) 1.0 nd nd nd 0.5 1.0 nd Toluene (ug/L) 1.0 nd nd 1.5 3.5 nd

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd 1.0 nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd 2.0 nd nd nd nd

Potassium (mg/L) 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 3.0 nd PH 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

Sulfate (mg/l) 14 20 41 15 20 14 34 Arsenic (ug/l) 15.5 2.0 2.5 .

Oxidation-reduction potential (mV) -56 97 -34 195 320 181 6 Manganese (ug/l) 2 3 1541 373 9 166 176 Alkalinity (mg/L) 222 277 477 362 330 428 394

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 438 313 630 511 414 424 434 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 660 533 1062 893 717 639 707

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 17 16 3 23 8 2244 94 Iron, Dissolved (ug/l) 28 16 72 5082 17 1058 42

Sodium (ug/L) 7500 3600 8100 17800 3600 24300 6060 Magnesium (ug/L) 30000 31000 52000 35000 30000 29500 35400

Calcium (ug/L) 78000 70200 149000 112500 99000 84500 109000Barium (ug/L) 2.0 nd nd

Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloride (mg/L) 19.0 4.0 61.0 68.0 16.0 3.0 5.0

Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 18.0 nd nd 2.0 nd

Zinc (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Table III.23.3: Median chemical concentrations in each of the shallow monitoring wells.

114

Chemical 12 14 up-gradient

Alkalinity (mg/L) 411 812 - Barium (ug/L) 7.0 nd 1.0

Bromobenzene (ug/L) nd 1.0 - Calcium (ug/L) 101000 220000 - Chloride (mg/L) 6.0 58 -

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd 9.0 nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd 4.0 -

Iron, Dissolved (ug/l) 1040 7824 17 m,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd 1.0 nd Magnesium (ug/L) 30600 65000 30050 Manganese (ug/l) 138 999 9.0

PH 8 6 7 Potassium (mg/L) 4.0 2.0 -

Sodium (ug/L) 9800 45000 - Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 713 1483 -

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 431 902 - Table 16.4: Comparison of chemical concentrations between Well 12, Well 14, and the up-gradient wells. Values are shown only for chemicals that differed in concentration between either Well 12 and Well 14 or Well 12 and the up-gradient wells. Trend analysis was not performed for this site because wells down-gradient of the demolition disposal area could not be differentiated from wells down-gradient of the municipal waste disposal area. Table III.23.4 summarizes exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits for each of the wells. Iron, and to a lesser extent, manganese, frequently exceeded both standards and intervention limits. An exception was in Well 3, which is an up-gradient well that had high concentrations of nitrate. The relationships of iron, manganese, and nitrate indicate that reducing conditions occur as water passes beneath the disposal areas. This is further illustrated by the change in oxidation-reduction potential from more than 200 mV in up-gradient wells to less than 0 mV in down-gradient wells. Other than changes in redox conditions, sulfate and chloride concentrations were elevated in Well 2A.

Chemical 12 10 6A Shop 2B 1A 9 2A 5 13A 14 3 7 13B Standard

Arsenic 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chloride 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nitrate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Sulfate 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dissolved solids 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 5 5 0 0 1 Manganese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0

115

Iron 4 4 2 5 8 0 1 1 0 0 5 0 0 1 Intervention limit

Arsenic 0 2 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chloride 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 2 1 1 0 0 0

Nitrate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 Sulfate 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 8 0 4 0 0 0 0

Dissolved solids 5 2 2 0 2 5 2 3 5 5 5 3 6 5 Manganese 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 5 0 0 5

Iron 5 5 2 5 8 1 2 8 4 0 5 0 0 5 Table III.23.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits for each well. Conclusion: Concentrations of several inorganic chemicals and dichlorodifluoromethane are greater in the down-gradient wells. These differences are accompanied by changes in the redox chemistry of ground water as it passes beneath disposal areas. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: Sampling has been sporadic. VOCs have only been consistently sampled since 1999. Sampling in some wells is inadequate. The well positions appear adequate. Utility of site in overall analysis: The demolition landfill is located between two large municipal waste disposal areas. Ground water flow maps suggest that Well 12 will be impacted by only demolition waste, assuming the liner for the western municipal waste area is effective. Although the chemistry of wells 12 and 14 differ, indicating well 12 may represent different conditions, the presence of reducing conditions in Well 12 suggests presence of organic contaminants. These are often associated with municipal waste and not demolition waste. Without specific information about the materials in the demolition disposal area, it is difficult to use well 12 as an indicator of just the demolition waste. The site therefore has limited utility. 24. Albert Lea Demolition Landfill There are 29 sampling locations at the Albert Lea Demolition Landfill (Table III.24.1). Four of these are surface water sampling locations. Wells H, K, and L are considered down-gradient of the disposal area. Well P-68 is up-gradient. No information was provided for the remaining wells. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1989 and 2001.

Well Well location Type of well Bancroft Creek - Surface water

CV-1 - - CV-2 - - CV-3 - -

116

CV-4 - - MW-A - Monitoring MW-B - Monitoring MW-C - Monitoring MW-D - Monitoring MW-E - Monitoring MW-F - Monitoring MW-G - Monitoring MW-H Down-gradient Monitoring MW-K Down-gradient Monitoring MW-L Down-gradient Monitoring OW-1 - - OW-2 - - OW-3 - - OW-4 - - OW-5 - - OW-6 - -

P-2 - - P-3 - -

P-68 Up-gradient Monitoring P-7 - - P-8 - -

SW-1 - Surface water SW-2 - Surface water SW-3 - Surface water

Table III.24.1: Well summary for Albert Lea Demolition Landfill. Table III.24.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.24.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Although Table III.24.2 indicates there are differences between the up-gradient well and the down-gradient wells, the up-gradient well had insufficient sample size for comparison of inorganic chemicals. Consequently, only the occurrence of VOCs can be compared between the up- and down-gradient positions. Dichlorodifluoromethane and Dichlorofluoromethane were the only VOCs detected in either the up- or down-gradient wells. These were detected on 16 and 8 occasions, respectively, in Well H, which was sampled on 19 occasions. Despite the apparent difference in occurrence of the two CFCs in up- and down-gradient samples, these two chemicals were frequently detected in other wells, including C, E, F, G, and OW1 through OW6.

Chemical Wells Up- and down-gradient wells

1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 0.001 1.000 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.984 1.000

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene < 0.001 1.000 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 0.992 1.000

117

1,1-Dichloroethane < 0.001 1.000 1,1-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 1.000

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene 0.396 1.000 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.989 1.000

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.984 1.000 2,2-Dichloropropane 0.988 1.000

Acetone 0.259 0.471 Arsenic < 0.001 0.015 Benzene < 0.001 0.471

Bromomethane 0.900 1.000 Cadmium 0.041 1.000

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.994 1.000 Chloride < 0.001 0.027

Chloroethane < 0.001 1.000 Chloroform 0.356 1.000

Chloromethane 0.062 1.000 Chromium 0.142 1.000

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 1.000 Copper 0.012 1.000

Dibromochloromethane 0.994 1.000 Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001

Ethyl Benzene 0.048 1.000 Ethyl Ether < 0.001 0.471

Iron < 0.001 0.017 Isopropylbenzene < 0.001 1.000

Lead 0.023 1.000 Magnesium < 0.001 0.012 Manganese < 0.001 0.010

Mercury 0.990 1.000 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.994 1.000

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0.081 1.000 Methyl tert-butyl Ether 0.001 1.000

Methylene Chloride < 0.001 0.538 Naphthalene 0.487 1.000

n-Butylbenzene 0.984 1.000 Nitrate < 0.001 1.000

n-Propylbenzene 0.984 1.000 p-Isopropyltoluene 0.002 1.000

Specific Conductance < 0.001 0.016

118

Tetrachloroethylene < 0.001 1.000 Tetrahydrofuran < 0.001 1.000

Toluene 0.166 0.471 trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 1.000

Trichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 1.000 Vinyl Chloride < 0.001 Xylenes, Total < 0.001 0.567


Chemical Bancroft Creek CV1 CV2 CV3 CV4 MW-A


1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 2,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) 12.4 nd 5.8 13.4 nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 0.26

Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloride (mg/L) nd nd nd nd

Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 8.8

Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

119

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Iron (ug/L) 1790 2290 1695 1705 20

Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Magnesium(mg/L) 31 22 24 31 Manganese (ug/L) 42 14 20 58 50




n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate Nitrogen, mg/l nd nd nd nd

n-Propylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 653 511 547 644 Temperature 9.8 9.6 10.0 9.8



Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Vinyl Chloride (ug/L)

Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Zinc (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 10 Chemical MW-B MW-C MW-D MW-E MW-F MW-G


1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1700 1.4 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd




Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd nd 4.05 nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 2.8

120


Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloride (mg/L) 2 18 12 2 117 74


Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1.1

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 3120 126 Copper (ug/L) 8.0 4.4 nd 3.9 nd 2.4

Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd 16.8 nd nd nd 7.1 Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 27

Iron (ug/L) 20 748 20 11 5760 5620 Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Magnesium(mg/L) 32 50 41 36 80 113 Manganese (ug/L) 15 530 8 1 2150 829




n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate Nitrogen, mg/l nd 0.16 1.35 4.66 nd nd


Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 739 962 887 927 2208 2195 Temperature 11.7 10.9 12.3 10.2 10.0 9.5



Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) 2 76 50

Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Zinc (ug/L) 10 5 74 10 20 20

121

Chemical MW-H MW-K

MW-K? MW-L OW1 OW2






Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd 3.2 1.5 1.8 Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloride (mg/L) 14 5 6 750 699


Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) 2.9 nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


Iron (ug/L) 7 5 1715 33650 30900 Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Magnesium(mg/L) 41 24 23 131 127 Manganese (ug/L) 68 347 426 929 767



Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

122

Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate Nitrogen, mg/l nd nd nd 0.18 0.18


Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 860 535 584 3536 3561 Temperature 10.2 10.1 10.8 10.2 10.5



Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) 0.55 1.5

Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Zinc (ug/L) 60 39 44 78 50 Chemical OW3 OW4 OW5 OW6 P2 P3






Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) 49 90 nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd 0.20 nd nd

Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloride (mg/L) 510 382 67 73


Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

123



Iron (ug/L) 20800 18600 7610 5610 Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Magnesium(mg/L) 126 138 117 119 Manganese (ug/L) 593 607 1100 1035

Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate Nitrogen, mg/l 0.18 nd nd nd


Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 3238 2869 1910 1951 Temperature 10.6 10.6 10.5 10.5



Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) 1.40 1.80 1.85 2.50

Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Zinc (ug/L) 34 29 20 5 Chemical P68 P7 P8 SW-1 SW-2 SW-3


1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd nd




124

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) nd 2.92 2.70 Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) 0.24 0.10 0.10

Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloride (mg/L) 20 19


Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) 0.50 0.50 0.50

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Copper (ug/L) 6.16 3.06 3.42

Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


Iron (ug/L) 720 2150 1475 Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Lead (ug/L) 1.10 1.70 0.90 Magnesium(mg/L) 31 29 31 Manganese (ug/L) 240 337 224

Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate Nitrogen, mg/l 6.44 3.78


Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 735 638 Temperature 11.4 9.6



Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

125

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) 0.7 1.0 Xylenes (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) 10 11 20 Table III.24.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. There were no significant trends in concentration of CFCs in Well H. Sample size for other chemicals was too small to conduct trend analysis. Table III.24.4 summarizes the number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in the up- and down-gradient wells. High concentrations of manganese, arsenic, and iron may be naturally-occurring in Well L.

Chemical MW-H MW-K MW-L P-68 Standards

Manganese 0 0 4 Ns Intervention limits

Arsenic 0 0 4 Ns Iron 0 0 4 Ns

Manganese 1 3 4 ns Table III.24.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits. Conclusions: There is insufficient data to accept or reject the null hypothesis. The CFCs dichlorodifluoromethane and dichlorofluoromethane occurred frequently in a down-gradient well (Well H) but not in the up-gradient well, but these CFCs were frequently found in other wells at the site. Adequacy of Monitoring: Sampling for VOCs has been adequate. Sampling for inorganics has not been adequate due to small sample sizes and incomplete parameter lists. Well positions appear adequate, but locations relative to the municipal waste could be better defined. Utility of site in overall analysis: Well MW-D is down-gradient of the demolition waste, but it is nearly 1000 feet from the waste. The site of the waste area is fairly small. It is possible the well is not in the proper location, and it is likely that water has not passed from beneath the waste to the well. The site is not adequate for overall analysis. 25. Chippewa County Demolition Landfill There are 18 sampling locations at the Chippewa County Demolition Landfill (Table III.25.1). Three of these are surface water sampling locations. There is one domestic well. Wells 9 and 16 are considered down-gradient of the disposal area. Well 14B is up-gradient. No information was provided for the remaining wells. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1989 and 2002.

Sampling point Well location Type of well

126

SW-1 - Surface water

SW-1B - Surface water SW-2 - Surface water Shop - Domestic

MW-1 - Monitoring MW-2 - Monitoring

MW-3A - Monitoring MW-3B - Monitoring MW-4A - Monitoring MW-4B - Monitoring MW-5 - Monitoring MW-6 - Monitoring MW-9 Down-gradient Monitoring

MW-14B Up-gradient Monitoring MW-14BB - Monitoring MW-15A - Monitoring MW-15B - Monitoring MW-16 Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.25.1: Well summary for Chippewa County Demolition Landfill. Table III.25.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.25.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Concentrations of arsenic and iron were greater in the up-gradient well compared to the down-gradient wells. The median arsenic concentration of nearly 38 ug/l in the up-gradient well is very high and is higher than would be expected under natural conditions. Water in this well appears to be highly reducing. Manganese concentrations were greater in the down-gradient wells compared to the up-gradient wells, but concentrations are well within natural background levels.


1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 0.001 1.000 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene < 0.001 1.000

1,1-Dichloroethane < 0.001 1.000 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.023 1.000 1,1-Dichloropropene < 0.001 1.000

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene 0.173 1.000 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.899 1.000

Acetone < 0.001 1.000 Allyl Chloride 0.833 1.000

Arsenic < 0.001 0.006 Barium 0.325 0.121 Benzene < 0.001 0.408

127

Bromomethane 0.253 1.000 Cadmium < 0.001 1.000

Chloroethane < 0.001 1.000 Chloromethane < 0.001 1.000

Chromium 0.662 0.127 cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 1.000

Copper 0.136 0.429 Dibromochloromethane 0.833 1.000

Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 1.000 Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 1.000


Iron < 0.001 < 0.001 Isopropylbenzene 0.849 1.000

Lead 0.001 0.513 Manganese < 0.001 0.009

Mercury 0.212 1.000 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0.849 1.000

Methylene Chloride < 0.001 1.000 Nitrate < 0.001

PH < 0.001 0.101 Specific Conductance < 0.001 0.308

Temperature 0.083 0.008 Tetrachloroethylene < 0.001 1.000

Toluene 0.044 0.765 trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 1.000

Trichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 1.000 Turbidity < 0.001 0.550

Vinyl Chloride < 0.001 1.000 Xylenes 0.004 0.408


Chemical SW-1 MW-3A MW-9 MW-4B MW-4A MW-3B Acetone (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

Allyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) 4.5 nd 3.8 nd nd nd Barium (ug/L) 160 168 171 52 854 Benzene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

128

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) 0.52 nd Nd nd nd nd

Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

Chromium (ug/L) nd nd 15.5 nd nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd

Copper (ug/L) 7.09 nd 7.60 Nd 3.60 nd Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd

Iron (mg/L) 0.06 1.96 nd 0.75 nd 0.22 Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd

Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd Nd nd Manganese (mg/L) 0.15 0.33 0.57 0.27 nd 0.04

Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) nd nd 3.2 nd

PH 6.97 6.66 7.33 7.23 8.51 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 1235 1063 612 538 451

Temperature 10.4 12.6 9.3 10.1 9.4 Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd Nd nd trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd Nd nd

Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd Nd nd Turbidity (NTU) 22 6.4 9.0 8.0 158

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) 0.04 nd Nd nd 0.02 nd Chemical MW-6 SW-1B MW-5 Shop SW-2 MW-2

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

129

Allyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd Nd Nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) nd 10.5 Nd 11.6 4.0 1.6 Barium (ug/L) 494 123 147 Benzene (ug/L) 1.6 nd nd Nd nd nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd 0.2 nd 0.3 nd nd

Chloroethane (ug/L) 1.2 nd nd Nd nd nd Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd

Chromium (ug/L) nd nd Nd Nd nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) 1.5 nd Nd 24 nd nd

Copper (ug/L) nd nd 5.10 5.60 3.39 2.15 Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) 10.6 nd nd 3.65 nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) Nd nd nd Nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) 13.3 nd nd 10.6 1.45 nd

Iron (mg/L) 5.37 1.50 0.02 4.285 0.67 1.27 Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd nd

Lead (ug/L) Nd 2.15 nd 2.05 nd nd Manganese (mg/L) 1.20 1.19 0.47 1.03 0.25 0.44

Mercury (ug/L) 0.1 nd nd nd Nd nd Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd 1.4 Nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) nd 2.7 nd 0.53 nd

PH 6.66 7.43 6.88 7.48 6.84 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 1242 896.5 921 937 1244

Temperature 11.0 8.6 10.5 8.7 10.8 Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 1.05 nd Nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd Nd Nd trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 1.5 Nd Nd

Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd Nd Turbidity (NTU) 24 18 18 4 13

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 1.5 nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) 0.7 nd nd 0.6 nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) Nd nd nd Nd nd Nd

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) 5.2 nd nd 30 Nd Nd

130

Xylenes (ug/L) Nd Nd nd nd nd Nd Zinc (ug/L) Nd 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.02 Chemical MW-14BB MW-16 MW-1 MW-15A MW-15B MW-14B

Acetone (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd Nd Allyl Chloride (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd Nd

Arsenic (ug/L) 6.2 1.6 2.8 nd nd 38 Barium (ug/L) 227 118 48 14 Benzene (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) Nd nd 0.39 nd nd nd

Chloroethane (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloromethane (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chromium (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd nd

Copper (ug/L) Nd 26 nd nd nd Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) Nd nd Nd nd nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) Nd nd Nd nd nd Nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) Nd nd Nd nd nd Nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) Nd nd Nd nd nd Nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) Nd nd Nd nd nd Nd

Iron (mg/L) 1.60 1.05 0.15 0.99 3.62 5.38 Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd

Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd Manganese (mg/L) 0.48 0.31 0.04 0.38 0.15 0.13

Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd Nitrate (mg/L) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

PH 6.98 7.15 6.46 7.26 7.49 7.12 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 647 868 1285 805 626 860

Temperature 9.4 9.7 10.6 12.1 10.9 9.4 Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) Nd Nd nd nd nd Nd

Toluene (ug/L) Nd Nd nd nd nd Nd trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) Nd Nd Nd nd nd Nd

Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) Nd Nd Nd nd nd Nd Turbidity (NTU) 579 72 175 6 37 34

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd Nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd

1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd

131

1,1-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd

1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd

Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd Zinc (ug/L) 0.02 0.37 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05

Table III.25.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. There were no trends in concentration in either of the two down-gradient wells, although there were no more than six data points for any chemical. Iron concentrations decreased during the sampling period in the up-gradient well (R2 = -0.880). Table III.25.4 summarizes the number of exceedances in the up- and down-gradient monitoring wells. Each of the chemicals shown in Table III.25.4, with the possible exception of barium, is often found at natural concentrations that exceed water quality standards.

Chemical MW-14B MW-9 MW-16 Standards

Arsenic 8 0 0 Iron 8 0 5

Manganese 0 1 0 Intervention limits

Arsenic 8 1 0 Barium 0 2 1


Table III.25.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits. Conclusion: There is no evidence of impacts to the down-gradient wells. Manganese concentrations in these wells, although greater than those found in the up-gradient well are within natural background concentrations. The lower levels observed in the up-gradient well appear to be due to strongly reducing conditions found in that well, which results in very high concentrations of iron and arsenic. The null hypothesis is accepted. Adequacy of Monitoring: Sampling for VOCs is adequate. Sampling for inorganic chemicals is not adequate due to small sample size and limited parameter lists. Utility of site in overall analysis: There is no well-defined down-gradient well. The site is therefore not useful for overall analysis. 26. Crow Wing Demolition Landfill

132

There are four sampling locations at the Crow Wing Demolition Landfill (Table III.26.1). Wells 7B and 7A are down-gradient. Wells 13 and 13B are up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1990 and 2001.

Sampling point Location Type of Well MW-7B Up-gradient (closed) Monitoring MW-7A Up-gradient Monitoring MW-13 Down-gradient Monitoring

MW-13B Down-gradient Monitoring Table III.26.1: Summary of sampling locations for Crow Wing Demolition Landfill.

Table III.26.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.26.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Concentrations of cadmium, chloride, chromium, copper, lead, magnesium, manganese, nitrate, sodium, dissolved solids, zinc, and boron were greater in up-gradient well 7A than in up-gradient well 13. Concentrations of alkalinity and potassium were greater in the down-gradient well.

There is some question about whether well 7A is a good background well. It is close to highway 210 and may be impacted by road salt. Concentrations of sodium and chloride were high in this well.

Chemical Oxygen Demand Wells Up- vs. down-gradient

Well 7A vs. Well 13

Acetone 0.113 0.086 0.042 Alkalinity < 0.001 < 0.001 0.002 Ammonia < 0.001 < 0.001 0.299 Arsenic 1.000

BOD 0.880 Boron 0.007 0.002 0.016

Cadmium < 0.001 < 0.001 0.010 Calcium < 0.001 < 0.001 0.439

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.451 0.408 1.000 Chemical Oxygen Demand

Chloride < 0.001 0.077 0.004 Chromium < 0.001 < 0.001 0.028

Copper < 0.001 < 0.001 0.016 Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 0.042

Fluorene 0.480 Indole 0.437 Iron 0.846 0.818 1.000 Lead < 0.001 < 0.001 0.016

Magnesium < 0.001 0.019 0.006

133

Manganese 0.029 0.084 0.015 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.247 0.092 0.381 Methylene Chloride 0.090 0.775 0.042

Nickel < 0.001 < 0.001 Nitrate 0.001 < 0.001 0.004

o-Xylene 0.403 0.153 0.649 pH < 0.001 0.267 < 0.001

Phenanthrene 0.335 Phenol 0.684

Potassium < 0.001 0.120 0.002 Oxidation-reduction Potential 0.660 0.386 0.239

Sodium < 0.001 < 0.001 0.007 Specific Conductance < 0.001 0.280 0.839

Sulfate 0.001 < 0.001 0.196 Total Dissolved Solids 0.005 0.886 0.003 Total Suspended Solids < 0.001 0.115 0.699 Trichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 0.042

Turbidity 0.005 0.056 Zinc < 0.001 < 0.001 0.004


Chemical MW-13 MW-13B MW-7A MW-7B Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd

Alkalinity (mg/L) 185 228 78 152 Ammonia (ug/L) 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.21 Arsenic (ug/L) 0.01 0.01

Biochemical oxygen demand 5.00 5.00 Boron (ug/L) 10 20 70

Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd 0.90 0.20 Calcium (mg/L) 29 63 41 38

Carbon tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd Chemical oxygen demand 150

Chloride (mg/L) 0.5 6.9 77.6 1.9 Chromium (ug/L) nd nd 1.30

Copper (ug/L) nd nd 2.10 1.20 Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd 2.20 nd nd

Fluorene (ug/L) nd nd Indole (ug/L) nd nd Iron (mg/L) 0.13 0.12 0.07 0.10

134

Lead (ug/L) nd nd 2.05 Magnesium (mg/L) 1 20 13 11 Manganese (ug/L) 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03

Methyl ethyl ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Methylene chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Nickel (ug/L) nd nd 7.45 Nitrate (mg/L) 0.19 0.70 1.85

o-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Phenanthrene (ug/L) 0.01 nd

Phenol (ug/L) nd nd PH 11.00 7.50 6.93 8.37

Potassium (mg/L) 8.0 1.0 1.3 5.2 Oxidation-reduction potential (mV) 200 99 85 100

Sodium (mg/L) 7.2 3.7 19.7 11.0 Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 500 412 501 330

Sulfate (mg/L) 11 12 10 3 Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 210 288 303 175 Total suspended solids (mg/L) 310 1 267 5 Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd 1 nd nd

Turbidity (NTUs) 2 113 2 Zinc (ug/L) 0.01 0.09 36.00 16.00

Table III.26.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. Concentrations of calcium, chloride, iron, sodium, and dissolved solids increased in Well 7A during the sampling period (R2 > 0.748), while nitrate concentrations decreased (R2 = -0.871). In Well 13, the only trend was for sodium, which decreased during the sampling period (R2 = -0.952). Table III.26.4 summarizes the number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits. There were several exceedances of the intervention limits for iron and manganese in all wells, reflecting naturally-occurring concentrations of these chemicals. Chloride, nitrate, and cadmium interventions were exceeded in Well 7A, while sulfate was exceeded on one occasion in Well 13. Chemical MW-7A MW-7B MW-13 MW-13B Water Quality Standards

Iron 0 0 0 2 Total dissolved solids 0 0 0 1

Intervention Limits Cadmium 1 0 0 0 Chloride 5 0 0 0

Manganese 0 0 0 1 Nitrate 2 0 0 0

135

Sulfate 0 0 1 0 Iron 3 5 1 5

Total dissolved solids 8 8 5 14 Table III.26.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits, by well. Conclusion: The shallow down-gradient well had elevated concentrations of potassium and alkalinity compared to Well 7A. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: Sampling appears adequate, although there have been some inconsistencies and parameter lists are not complete. Utility of site in overall analysis: Well 13 is directly down-gradient of and within 200 to 300 feet of the waste footprint. Well 7A is up-gradient but may be impacted by road salt. Well MW-1 may be a better background well. The utility of this site in an overall analysis is questionable. 27. Dawnway Demolition Landfill There are five wells at the Dawnway Demolition Landfill (Table III.27.1). Wells 2, 3, 4, and 6 are considered down-gradient of the disposal area. Well 2 is up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1989 and 2001.

Well Well location Type of well MW-2 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-3 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-4 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-5 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-6 Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.27.1: Well summary for Dawnway Demolition Landfill. Table III.27.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.27.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Concentrations of alkalinity, sodium, sulfate, and suspended solids were greater in down-gradient wells compared to the up-gradient well. Wells 3 and 4 appear to be the most highly impacted wells. Concentrations of chloride and the CFCs dichlorodifluoromethane and trichlorofluoromethane were greater in the up-gradient well compared to the down-gradient wells. There is some concern that Well 5 is not truly up-gradient of the disposal area and may instead be side-gradient. Nevertheless, the chemistry of Well 5 differs from the remaining wells based on concentrations of chloride, suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, and the CFCs.


136

Alkalinity < 0.001 0.006 Ammonia 0.420 0.527 Barium 0.406 0.147 Boron 0.256 0.079

Calcium < 0.001 0.051 Chemical Oxygen demand 0.287 0.075

Chloride < 0.001 < 0.001 Copper 0.863 0.953

Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.149 0.025 Iron 0.589 0.297

Magnesium < 0.001 0.991 Manganese 0.997 0.924

Nitrate < 0.001 0.002 pH 0.367 0.453

Potassium 0.049 0.312 Sodium < 0.001 < 0.001

Specific conductance < 0.001 0.200 Sulfate < 0.001 < 0.001

Tetrachloroethene 0.406 0.046 Total dissolved solids < 0.001 0.313 Total suspended solids 0.002 0.002 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.057 0.003


Chemical MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 Alkalinity 365 297 502 320 430 Ammonia 0.08 nd 0.10 nd nd Barium 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.07 Calcium 105 170 205 110 140 Chloride 27 34 34 98 47 Copper nd nd Nd Nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.60 1.50 - 4.30 0.28 Iron 0.12 0.13 0.03 0.06 0.30

Magnesium 31 57 70 47 49 Manganese 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01

Nitrate 3.05 4.50 17.00 8.60 6.80 pH 7.20 7.30 7.20 7.24 7.20

Potassium 1.51 2.45 1.92 2.20 2.00 Sodium 25 30 20 11 16

137

Specific conductance 800 1131 1330 936 1000 Sulfate 16 332 210 56 140

Tetrachloroethene nd nd Nd 0.31 nd Total dissolved solids 490 867 1090 580 675 Total suspended solids 160 60 520 7 30 Trichlorofluoromethane nd nd Nd 0.3 nd

Boron 0.03 1.10 0.07 - 0.20 Chemical Oxygen demand 12.5 11.5 9.0 0.03 51.5

Table III.27.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. There were no correlations between chemical concentrations and sampling date in Wells 2 and 6. In the remaining wells, there were upward concentration trends for alkalinity, potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium, and dissolved solids (R2 > 0.658). Table III.27.4 shows the number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. The water quality standard for sulfate was exceeded on 20 occasions in Well 3, while the standard for nitrate was exceeded on nine occasions in Well 4. Median concentrations exceed the water quality standard for these chemicals in the respective wells. Well 5 had 34 exceedances of the intervention limit for chloride, but there were no exceedances of the water quality standard.

Chemical MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 Standards

Chloride 0 1 0 0 0 Iron 6 4 1 1 3

Manganese 0 1 1 1 1 Nitrate 1 1 9 4 1

Dissolved solids 3 8 6 8 8 Sulfate 0 20 3 0 1 Boron 0 1 0 0 0

Intervention limits Chloride 3 3 1 34 5

Iron 6 4 2 3 4 Manganese 1 2 2 1 2

Nitrate 13 15 9 20 10 Dissolved solids 9 8 6 9 8

Sulfate 0 27 9 4 23 Boron 0 1 0 0 1

Table III.27.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits. Conclusions: Down-gradient wells showed elevated concentrations of sulfate, alkalinity, and sodium compared to up-gradient wells. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. Despite this, the up-gradient well had higher concentrations of chloride and the CFCs

138

dichlorodifluoromethane and trichlorofluoromethane. This well either may not represent up-gradient conditions, or there may be an anthropogenic source for these chemicals. Adequacy of Monitoring: Although there have been some inconsistencies in sampling, the number of samples and parameter list are adequate. Utility of site in overall analysis: Well MW-5 may be impacted by the demolition waste. There are therefore no reliable up-gradient wells. The site is not adequate for overall analysis of demolition landfills. 28. Dem Con Demolition Landfill

There are 19 sampling locations at the Dem Con Demolition Landfill (Table III.28.1). Wells 117, 118, and 119 are down-gradient. Wells 8 and 10 are up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1987 and 2000.

Sampling point Location Type of Well DC-117 Down-gradient Monitoring DC-118 Down-gradient Monitoring DC-119 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-1 - Monitoring


MW-111 - Monitoring MW-112 - Monitoring MW-113 - Monitoring MW-114 - Monitoring MW-115 - Monitoring MW-116 - Monitoring MW-211 - Monitoring MW-213 - Monitoring

MW7 - Monitoring MW8A Up-gradient Monitoring MW9A - Monitoring W120 Up-gradient Monitoring W121 - Monitoring

Table III.28.1: Summary of sampling locations for Dem Con Demolition Landfill.

Table III.28.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.28.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. There were many differences in median concentrations between up- and down-gradient wells. Concentrations of sulfate and specific conductance were greater in

139

the down-gradient wells. The number of VOC detections (Table III.28.4) and concentrations of VOCs were much greater in down-gradient wells.


All up- and down-gradient wells

1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.001 1.000 1.000

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane < 0.001 0.100 0.021

1,1-Dichloroethane < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 1,1-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.051 0.246 0.217 1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 0.001 1.000 1.000 1,2-Dichloroethane < 0.001 0.004 < 0.001

1,2-Dichloropropane < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.156 1.000 1.000

1,3-Dichloropropane 0.178 1.000 1.000 1,4-Dichlorobenzene < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 2,2-Dichloropropane 0.472 1.000 1.000

Acetone < 0.001 0.003 < 0.001 Ammonia 0.021 0.221 0.061 Arsenic 0.999 0.380 0.789 Benzene < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Cadmium 0.003 0.006 0.002 Chloride 0.021 0.386 0.061

Chlorobenzene < 0.001 0.004 < 0.001 Chloroethane < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Chloroform < 0.001 1.000 1.000

Chloromethane 0.082 0.019 0.033 Chromium < 0.001 0.103 < 0.001

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Copper 0.012 0.112 0.231

Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Ethyl Benzene < 0.001 1.000 1.000 Ethyl Ether < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.156 1.000 1.000 Iron < 0.001 0.069 0.006 Lead 0.002 0.168 0.160

Manganese < 0.001 0.366 < 0.001

140

Mercury 0.044 1.000 1.000 Methyl Ethyl Ketone < 0.001 0.100 0.014

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone < 0.001 1.000 1.000 Methyl tert-butyl Ether 0.022 0.002 0.022

Methylene Chloride < 0.001 0.295 0.342 Naphthalene < 0.001 0.100 0.021

n-Butylbenzene 0.156 1.000 1.000 Nitrate 0.440 0.564 0.406

Nitrate+Nitrite 0.996 0.592 0.902 Nitrite 0.440 0.221 0.406

n-Propylbenzene < 0.001 0.004 0.001 pH < 0.001 0.148 < 0.001

p-Isopropyltoluene 0.246 1.000 1.000 Specific conductance < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Sulfate 0.021 0.009 0.061 t-Butylbenzene 0.156 1.000 1.000

Tetrachloroethylene < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Tetrahydrofuran < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Toluene < 0.001 0.019 < 0.001 Total Dissolved Solids 0.021 0.386 0.061 Total Suspended Solids 0.021 0.008 0.061

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Trichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Turbidity < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 Vinyl Chloride < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Xylenes < 0.001 0.100 0.014 Zinc < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001


Chemical DC-117 DC-118 DC-119 MW-1 MW-101,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) 1.45 nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) 8.3 nd nd 1.1 nd 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) 18.5 0.3 nd 0.6 nd 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

141

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) 1.10 nd nd nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,3-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) 0.70 nd nd nd nd 2,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Ammonia (mg/L) 0.16 nd nd nd

Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd nd 1.0 Benzene (ug/L) 1.30 nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) 0.12 nd nd nd Chloride (mg/L) 61 29 100 8

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) 0.38 0.70 1.50 3.95

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) 24.0 nd nd 1.7 nd Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) 12.5 nd nd 5.5 nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) 24.0 3.8 nd 4.1 nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) 23.0 nd nd nd nd

Hexachlorobutadiene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Iron (mg/L) 1.20 0.13 0.25 3.37 0.06 Lead (ug/L) 1.80 nd 1.50 5.00 3.30

Manganese (ug/L) 0.31 0.04 0.01 0.17 0.02 Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 0.97 4.10 7.50 1.60

Nitrate+Nitrite (mg/L) 0.51 2.06 3.78 0.81 Nitrite (mg/L) nd nd nd nd

n-Propylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd PH 6.56 7.13 7.18 7.47

p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 1001 645 768 420

142

Sulfate (mg/L) 50 58 32 18 t-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) 6.9 nd nd 0.9 nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) 19.5 nd nd 1.7 nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 660 540 610 280 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 6.7 2.7 2.7 45.0

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) 1.15 nd nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) 1.15 0.25 nd nd nd

Turbidity (NTU) 12.2 5.2 6.1 14.6 Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) 10.0 nd nd nd nd

Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Zinc (ug/L) 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.03 Chemical MW-11 MW-111 MW-112 MW-113 MW-114

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 1.00 nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 1.4 1.8 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 4.7 1.8 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,3-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 2,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Ammonia (mg/L) 0.08 0.06 0.45

Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1.15 Cadmium (ug/L) 1.70 nd 1.68 6.53 0.08 Chloride (mg/L) 20 95 96


Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) 7.00 0.25 0.25 1.00 3.00

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 0.3 2.4 2.3

143

Copper (ug/L) 16.5 nd nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd 2.2 8.3 5.2 25.5 Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd 1.3 3.0 5.7 10.0

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd 2.1 6.0 nd 17.5

Hexachlorobutadiene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Iron (mg/L) 1.72 0.37 0.09 0.23 0.43 Lead (ug/L) 8.20 nd nd nd 1.00

Manganese (ug/L) 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.05 Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd



n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 4.10 1.20 0.11

Nitrate+Nitrite (mg/L) 2.08 0.63 0.08 Nitrite (mg/L) nd nd nd



Sulfate (mg/L) 29 21 23 t-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 3.3 1.7 Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 570 590 630 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 2.0 4.0 5.3

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1.50

Turbidity (NTU) 5.9 1.9 1.2 2.0 Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd 1.5 5.8 1.5

Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Zinc (ug/L) 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 Chemical MW-115 MW-116 MW-211 MW-213 MW-7

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd 9.70 nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 0.6 nd nd

144

1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 0.8 nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,3-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 2,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Ammonia (mg/L) nd nd

Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) 19.85 2.63 0.05 6.10 6.20 Chloride (mg/L) 16 14


Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) 0.25 1.00 1.33

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 0.8 nd nd Copper (ug/L) 9.0 nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd 12.0 16.0 nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd 2.0 3.0 1.3 nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Hexachlorobutadiene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Iron (mg/L) 0.10 0.31 0.22 0.06 0.31 Lead (ug/L) 8.70 nd nd nd

Manganese (ug/L) 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.36 Mercury (ug/L) nd 0.015 nd



n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 3.10 12.00

145

Nitrate+Nitrite (mg/L) 1.58 6.03 Nitrite (mg/L) nd nd



Sulfate (mg/L) 31 29 t-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 1.6 nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 480 400 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 11.0 2.0

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd 2.50 2.70 nd nd

Turbidity (NTU) 2.5 13.2 1.8 0.9 Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Zinc (ug/L) 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.07 Chemical MW-8 MW-9 W120 W121

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd 7.45 nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 6.6 nd nd 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd 19.5 nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,3-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 2,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Ammonia (mg/L) nd 0.02

Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) 0.20 0.24 Chloride (mg/L) 85 60

146

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) 0.25 0.25

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 0.3 nd nd Copper (ug/L) nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd 41.5 nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd 34.0 nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd 1.3 nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Hexachlorobutadiene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Iron (mg/L) 0.14 0.81 Lead (ug/L) 1.35 1.70

Manganese (ug/L) 0.34 0.02 Mercury (ug/L) nd nd

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd 2 nd

n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 2.40 0.29

Nitrate+Nitrite (mg/L) 1.21 0.17 Nitrite (mg/L) 0.02 nd

n-Propylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd PH 7.07 6.41 7.11 8.10

p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 693 1316 558 415

Sulfate (mg/L) 27 32 t-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd 36.5 nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 640 830 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 33.0 2.7

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd 6.90 nd nd

Turbidity (NTU) 24.6 2.4 Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

147

Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Zinc (ug/L) 0.16 0.31

Table III.28.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well.

Chemical Down-gradient wells

Up-gradient wells

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 28 0 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 42 4

1,1-Dichloroethane 54 0 1,1-Dichloroethylene 14 0 1,2-Dichloroethane 6 0

1,2-Dichloropropane 23 0 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 9 0

Acetone 6 0 Benzene 30 0

Chlorobenzene 6 0 Chloroethane 14 0

Chloromethane 4 0 cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene 48 0 Dichlorodifluoromethane 60 4 Dichlorofluoromethane 68 0

Ethyl Ether 32 0 Methyl tert-butyl Ether 10 2

Tetrachloroethylene 40 0 Tetrahydrofuran 30 0

Toluene 4 0 trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene 26 0

Trichlorofluoromethane 46 0 Vinyl Chloride 42 0

Table III.28.4: Number of VOC detections in down- and up-gradient wells. Table III.28.5 summarizes the number of times water quality standards or intervention limits were exceeded in the up- and down-gradient wells. Monitoring Well 117, a down-gradient well, is heavily contaminated with chlorinated solvents. The water quality standard for iron was exceeded in each well. Chemical MW-117 MW-118 MW-119 MW-8 MW-10 Water Quality Standards

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 24 0 0 0 0 1,1-Dichloroethylene 2 0 0 0 0

Cadmium 2 0 0 4 0

148

Dissolved solids 2 2 2 2 0 Iron 10 2 4 6 2

Tetrachloroethylene 14 0 0 0 0 Vinyl Chloride 32 0 10 0 0

Intervention Limits 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 30 0 6 0 2

1,1-Dichloroethane 20 0 0 0 0 1,1-Dichloroethylene 2 0 0 0 0

Cadmium 2 0 0 4 0 Chloride 0 0 2 2 0

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene 26 0 0 0 0 Dissolved solids 2 2 2 2 2

Iron 10 8 10 11 4 Manganese 8 0 0 6 0

Tetrachloroethylene 30 0 0 0 2 Tetrahydrofuran 4 0 0 0 0

Vinyl Chloride 32 0 10 0 0 Table III.28.5: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits, by well. Conclusions: VOC detection frequencies and concentrations of most chemicals were greater in down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells. Sulfate and specific conductance were greater in the down-gradient wells. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: VOC sampling appears adequate. Sampling for inorganics has been limited, both in quantity of samples and parameter list. Utility of site in overall analysis: The wells considered down-gradient of the demolition landfill may be impacted by the MSW. The site is therefore not adequate for inclusion in the overall analysis of sites. 29. Demolition Landfill Services Demolition Landfill There are five wells at Demolition Landfill Services (Table III.29.1). Wells 5, 6, and 8 are considered down-gradient of the disposal area, while Wells 1 and 7 are up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 2000 and 2002.

Sampling point Location Type of Well MW-1 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-5 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-6 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-7 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-8 Down-gradient Monitoring

149

Table III.29.1: Summary of sampling locations for Demolition Landfill Services Demolition Landfill.

Table III.29.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.29.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Chloride was the only chemical in which concentrations differed between up- and down-gradient wells. There were, however, many differences in chemical concentrations within the down-gradient wells. Well 8 generally had the highest concentrations of most inorganic chemicals. Concentrations of alkalinity, calcium, lead, potassium, specific conductance, sulfate, and dissolved solids were greater in Well 8 than in either of the up-gradient wells.

Well MW-1 may be impacted by slag deposition, while Well MW-6 may not be down-gradient of demolition waste and may be too far from the waste to be impacted yet. Consequently, Wells MW-5 and MW-7 can be compared. The only differences in chemistry of these two wells was lower oxidation-reduction potential in Well MW-7 and higher concentrations of chlorobromomethane in Well MW-5.


Well 8 vs. up-gradient

Alkalinity 0.001 0.346 0.007 Ammonia 1.000 1.000 1.000 Arsenic 1.000 1.000 1.000 Boron < 0.001 0.080 0.381

Calcium 0.039 0.689 0.024 Chloride < 0.001 0.012 1.000

Chlorobromomethane 0.009 0.723 0.052 Chloroethane 0.493 0.405 1.000

Chromium 1.000 1.000 1.000 Copper 1.000 1.000 1.000

Iron 1.000 1.000 1.000 Lead 0.037 0.052 0.050


Mercury 0.635 0.469 1.000 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0.176 0.405 0.083 Methyl tert-butyl Ether 0.858 0.485 0.392

Nitrate 0.447 0.447 0.536 pH 0.050 0.214 0.013

Potassium 0.025 0.305 0.021 Redox 0.046 0.157 0.780 Sodium 0.162 0.248 0.695

Specific Conductance 0.002 0.861 0.007

150

Sulfate 0.359 0.074 0.024 Total Dissolved Solids 0.023 0.741 0.025

Turbidity 0.085 0.622 0.955 Zinc 0.064 0.215 0.046


Chemical MW-1 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 Alkalinity (mg/L) 260 310 180 170 790 Ammonia (mg/L) 0.07 nd 0.05 0.08 0.09 Arsenic (mg/L) Nd nd Nd nd 0.003 Boron (mg/L) 0.72 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02

Calcium (mg/L) 89 51 78 57 230 Chloride (mg/L) 32 3.5 3.1 4.2 6.6

Chlorobromomethane (ug/L) 0.72 0.69 1.3 0.03 0.04 Chloroethane (ug/L) Nd nd Nd nd nd Chromium (mg/L) 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.005

Copper (mg/L) Nd nd Nd nd 0.006 Iron (mg/L) nd Nd nd nd Lead (ug/L) 22 23 19 68

Magnesium (mg/L) 25 50 14 130 20 Manganese (ug/L) 0.02 nd Nd nd nd Mercury (mg/L) Nd 0.00 Nd nd nd

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) Nd nd Nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) Nd nd Nd nd nd

Nitrate (mg/L) 3.50 2.00 1.10 1.60 2.20 PH 7.46 7.85 7.42 7.84 6.24

Potassium (mg/L) 2.10 3.30 4.00 4.80 16.00 Redox (mV) 122 53 116 -69 -62

Sodium (mg/L) 16 33 29 47 20 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 547 434 415 367 1520

Sulfate (mg/L) 34 140 130 75 130 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 560 230 350 280 990

Turbidity (NTU) 24 47 20 35 26 Zinc (ug/L) 8.3 8.2 8.3 7.2

Table III.29.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. Alkalinity increased in MW-5 (p =0.0015). The number of samples collected for most other parameters is not sufficient for useful trend analysis.

151

Table III.29.4 summarizes exceedances of intervention limits. There were no exceedances of water quality standards. There is no obvious pattern to the number of exceedances.

Chemical MW-1 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 Arsenic 0 0 1 0 1 Nitrate 2 3 3 3 3 Sulfate 0 2 2 2 3

Total dissolved solids 2 3 3 3 3 Table III.29.4: Number of exceedances of intervention limits in each well. Conclusion: Concentrations of chlorobromomethane were greater in the down-gradient well, and concentrations of alkalinity increased during the sampling period. Consequently, the null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: The number of samples has not been adequate, for either VOCs or inorganic chemicals. Utility of site in overall analysis: WellDMW-5 is down-gradient of waste, but the waste has only been in place for two years and the well is 100 feet from the footprint. MW-7 is an adequate up-gradient well. The utility of this site in an overall analysis is limited. 30. Dodge Demolition Landfill There are 14 sampling points at the Dodge County Demolition Landfill (Table III.30.1). Well 11 is considered down-gradient of the disposal area, while Well 1 is up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1985 and 2000.

Sampling point Location Type of Well MW-1 Up-gradient Monitoring

MW-2A - Monitoring MW-2B - Monitoring MW-5A - Monitoring MW-5B - Monitoring MW-6 - Monitoring MW-7 - Monitoring

MW-8A - Monitoring MW-8B - Monitoring MW-9 - Monitoring

MW-10 - Monitoring MW-11 Down-gradient Monitoring

P-1 - - P-2 - -

Table III.30.1: Summary of sampling locations for Dodge County Demolition Landfill.

152

Table III.30.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical

concentrations in all wells. Table III.30.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Concentrations of manganese, specific conductance, and several VOCs were greater in the down-gradient well compared to the up-gradient well. VOCs detected in down-gradient but not up-gradient wells include chloroethane, dichlorodifluoromethane, dichlorofluoromethane, benzene, and vinyl chloride. Detection frequencies were 17, 53, 59, 45, and 10 percent for, respectively, chloroethane, dichlorodifluoromethane, dichlorofluoromethane, benzene, and vinyl chloride.

Chemical wells up-down 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.936 0.494

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 0.378 1.000 1,1-Dichloroethane < 0.001 1.000

1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.172 1.000 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene 0.974 0.494

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.919 1.000 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.788 1.000 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.008 1.000

Acetone 0.078 1.000 Arsenic < 0.001 0.009 Benzene < 0.001 0.006

Bromomethane 0.813 1.000 Cadmium < 0.001 0.285

Chlorobenzene < 0.001 1.000 Chloroethane < 0.001 < 0.001

Chloromethane 0.788 1.000 Chromium < 0.001 0.059

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 1.000 Copper < 0.001 0.399

Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001


Iron < 0.001 0.468 Lead < 0.001 0.831

Manganese < 0.001 < 0.001 Mercury 0.003 0.352

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.873 0.494 Methyl tert-butyl Ether 0.813 1.000

Methylene Chloride 0.915 0.494

153

PH < 0.001 < 0.001 Specific Conductance < 0.001 < 0.001 Tetrachloroethylene 0.214 1.000

Tetrahydrofuran < 0.001 0.144 Toluene < 0.001 0.457

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.005 1.000 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.852 1.000

Turbidity < 0.001 0.088 Vinyl Chloride 0.004 0.010

Xylenes 0.973 0.592 Zinc < 0.001 0.254


Chemical MW-1 MW-10 MW-11 MW-2A MW-2BAcetone (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) 2.00 nd nd nd nd Benzene (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd 0.30 nd nd

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 1.30 nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd 1.40 nd nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd 3.00 nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd 3.1 5.7

Iron (ug/L) 0.31 0.81 4.90 0.05 1.25 Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Manganese (ug/L) 0.16 0.11 2.30 0.07 0.10 Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd PH 7.29 7.21 6.30 10.74 7.92

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 551 1010 2335 511 777 Temperature 10.1 11.2 13.0 9.7 9.6

154

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd

Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd Turbidity (NTU) 4 10 14 4 6

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) 0.025 nd Nd nd nd Chemical MW-5A MW-5B MW-6 MW-7 MW-8A

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) nd 4.50 4.00 5.00 7.00 Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd 0.30 0.20 0.70

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) 1.50 0.35 nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) 0.95 1.60 1.60 3.50 1.40

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) 0.80 0.70 nd nd nd Copper (ug/L) nd nd 25 20 20

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) 7.30 7.55 nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) 16 13.85 nd nd nd

Iron (ug/L) 0.42 2.65 0.07 0.23 7.00 Lead (ug/L) nd nd 15.00 6.00 4.00

Manganese (ug/L) 3.07 0.93 0.07 0.07 1.60 Mercury (ug/L) nd nd

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

155

PH 6.72 6.95 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 1551 1205

Temperature 11.3 8.7 Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) 24 16 nd nd nd Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Turbidity (NTU) 28 5 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) 1.1 nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) 0.015 0.020 0.035 0.040 0.030 Chemical MW-8B MW-9 P-1 P-2

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) 3.30 3.30 5.50 Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) 0.30 0.45 0.40

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) 2.25 2.20 1.50

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Copper (ug/L) 20 10 10



Iron (ug/L) 0.95 4.60 0.02 Lead (ug/L) 8.00 2.00

Manganese (ug/L) 0.14 1.55 0.37 Mercury (ug/L) 0.6

156

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd PH

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) Temperature


Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Turbidity (NTU)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) 0.025 0.030 0.040 Table III.30.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. There were no significant trends in chemical concentrations during the sampling period. Table III.30.4 summarizes the number of exceedances for water quality standards and intervention limits. The up-gradient well has high concentrations of iron. Vinyl chloride exceeded its water quality standard on three occasions in the down-gradient well, while the standard for manganese was exceeded on nine occasions.

Chemical MW-1 MW-11 Water Quality Standards

Cadmium 1 1 Vinyl chloride 0 3

Manganese 1 9 Iron 31 5

Intervention Limits Arsenic 6 0

Cadmium 1 1 Mercury 1 1

Vinyl chloride 0 3

157

Manganese 2 9 Iron 31 8

Table III.30.4: Number of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. Conclusions: Concentrations of CFCs and chlorinated aliphatic compounds were greater in down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells. Adequacy of Monitoring: Parameter lists are limited, and there has been insufficient samples collected for inorganic chemicals. Utility of site for overall analysis: MW-11 is directly down-gradient and within 100 feet of the demolition waste footprint. MW-1 is an up-gradient well. The site is adequate for inclusion in an overall analysis. 31. Fergus Falls Demolition Landfill

There are seven wells at the Fergus Falls Demolition Landfill. None of the existing monitoring wells is down-gradient of the demolition landfill. Monitoring wells on the site are representative of up-gradient positions or are down-gradient of either the municipal landfill or ash disposal area. Data from the FF-series wells are insufficient to conduct statistical analysis. Consequently, we cannot assess ground water impacts from the demolition landfill. 32. Kandiyohi Demolition Landfill

There are 35 sampling locations at the Kandiyohi Demolition Landfill (Table III.32.1). Of the shallow monitoring wells, Wells DW1, DMW2, 12, 14A, 15, 16, 20, 20A, 21, 6A, and 9A are considered down-gradient, Wells 7A and 18 up-gradient, and Wells DMW1A, 10A, 11, 17, and 4 down- or side-gradient to the disposal area. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1996 and 2001. There is a municipal waste disposal area at the site. Only three wells (DMW1A, DMW1B, and DMW2) are considered to be representative of the demolition disposal area. DWW1A and DMW1B are considered up-gradient of the demolition disposal area, while DMW2 is side- and down-gradient.

Well Well

location Type of well Reflects municipal

waste area Combs side Domestic -

DMW1A side Shallow monitoring No DMW1B side Deep monitoring No DMW2 down Shallow monitoring No DW1 down Shallow monitoring Yes

Hillcrest up Domestic - Jordan down Domestic -

MW10A side Shallow monitoring - MW10B side Deep monitoring -

158

MW11 side Shallow monitoring - MW12 down Shallow monitoring Yes Mw14A down Shallow monitoring Yes MW14B down Deep monitoring Yes MW15 down Shallow monitoring Yes MW16 down Shallow monitoring Yes MW17 side Shallow monitoring - MW18 up Shallow monitoring - MW19 side Shallow monitoring - MW1A variable Shallow monitoring - MW1B variable Deep monitoring - MW20 down Shallow monitoring Yes

MW20A down Shallow monitoring Yes MW20B down Deep monitoring Yes MW21 down Shallow monitoring Yes MW4 side Shallow monitoring -

MW6A down Shallow monitoring Yes MW6B down Deep monitoring Yes MW7A up Shallow monitoring - MW7B up Deep monitoring - MW8A variable Shallow monitoring - MW9A down Shallow monitoring Yes MW9B down Deep monitoring Yes

P1 down - - Prentice up Domestic -

Thornberg down Domestic - Table III.32.1: Well summary for Kandiyohi County Demolition Landfill. Table III.32.2 summarizes results of the statistical analysis comparing median concentrations of chemical parameters. Comparisons were for all wells and between up- and down-gradient wells. Because of the large number of wells at the site, including domestic wells and deeper nested wells, we conducted the analysis for all wells, all monitoring wells, and all shallow monitoring wells.

All Wells All monitoring wells All shallow monitoring wells

Chemical Wells

Up- vs. down-

gradient Wells

Up- vs. down-

gradient Wells

Up- vs. down-

gradient1,1,1-Trichlorethane 0.909 0.547 0.832 0.580 0.799 0.586

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethene < 0.001 0.015 < 0.001 0.024 < 0.001 0.033 1,1,2,2-Tetratchloroethane 0.878 0.729 0.784 0.750 0.768 0.701

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.878 0.729 0.784 0.750 0.768 0.701

159

1,1,2-Trichloroethene < 0.001 0.053 < 0.001 0.074 < 0.001 0.212 1,1-Dichloroethane < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 0.005 < 0.001 0.055 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.878 0.729 0.784 0.750 0.768 0.701

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropene 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,2-Dibromoethene 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.878 0.729 0.784 0.750 0.768 0.701 1,2-Dichloroethane < 0.001 0.107 < 0.001 0.138 0.008 0.385

1,2-Dichloropropane < 0.001 0.008 < 0.001 0.015 < 0.001 0.018 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.878 0.729 0.784 0.750 0.768 0.701 1,4-Dichlorobenzene < 0.001 0.185 < 0.001 0.221 < 0.001 0.301

Acetone 0.370 0.639 0.266 0.667 0.191 1.000 Alkalinity < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Allyl Chloride 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Antimony 0.116 0.289 0.104 0.333 0.574 0.431 Arsenic < 0.001 0.099 < 0.001 0.046 < 0.001 0.217 Barium < 0.001 0.029 < 0.001 0.037 < 0.001 0.112 Benzene < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Biochemical oxygen demand 0.557 0.706 0.557 0.706 0.329 0.752 bis 1,2-ethylhexyl phthalate 0.322 0.677 0.322 0.677 0.428 0.607

Boron 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Bromochloroethane 0.821 1.000 0.706 1.000 0.682 1.000

Bromodichloroethane 0.878 0.729 0.784 0.750 0.678 0.701 Bromoform 0.878 0.729 0.784 0.750 0.768 0.701

Bromomethane 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Cadmium 0.682 0.150 0.643 0.127 0.575 0.051 Calcium < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Carbon tetrachloride 0.878 0.729 0.784 0.750 0.768 0.701 Chemical oxygen demand 0.045 0.070 < 0.001 0.070 0.141 0.140

Chloride < 0.001 0.222 < 0.001 0.096 < 0.001 0.494 Chlorobenzene < 0.001 0.138 < 0.001 0.172 0.009 0.236 Chloroethane < 0.001 0.032 < 0.001 0.047 < 0.001 0.091 Chloroform 0.003 0.486 0.002 0.522 0.012 0.538 Chromium 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

cis 1,2-Dichloroethene < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Cobalt 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 - - Copper 0.088 0.562 0.077 0.659 0.176 0.955

Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Ethyl ether < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Ethylbenzene 0.888 0.624 0.800 0.652 0.799 0.586

160

Hexachlorobutadiene 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Iron < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 0.003 < 0.001 0.061

Isobutylbenzene 0.835 0.728 0.726 0.750 0.719 0.700 Lead 0.632 1.000 0.590 1.000 0.587 1.000

m,p-Xylene 0.759 0.407 0.645 0.445 0.662 0.400 Magnesium < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Manganese < 0.001 0.131 < 0.001 0.032 < 0.001 0.113

Mercury 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Methyl ethyl ketone 0.878 0.729 0.784 0.750 0.768 0.701

Methyl isobutyl ketone 0.878 0.729 0.784 0.750 0.768 0.701 Methyl tert butyl ether < 0.001 0.546 < 0.001 0.579 0.001 0.502

Methylene chloride 0.878 0.729 0.784 0.750 0.768 0.701 Naphthalene 0.878 0.729 0.784 0.750 0.768 0.701

Nitrate < 0.001 0.777 < 0.001 0.670 < 0.001 0.036 Nitrate+nitrite < 0.001 0.265 < 0.001 0.265 < 0.001 0.281

Oxidation-reduction potential 0.731 0.434 0.909 0.531 0.914 0.961 o-Xylene < 0.001 0.139 < 0.001 0.173 < 0.001 0.210

pH < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Potassium < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 Selenium 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Sodium < 0.001 0.379 < 0.001 0.612 < 0.001 0.375

Specific conductance < 0.001 0.008 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 Styrene 0.878 0.729 0.784 0.750 0.768 0.701 Sulfate < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 0.001

Tetrahydrofuran < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 0.047 Thallium 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Toluene 0.003 0.323 0.002 0.385 < 0.001 0.301

Total dissolved solids < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.007 < 0.001 Total suspended solids < 0.001 0.010 < 0.001 0.023 < 0.001 0.020 trans 1,2-Dichlorethene < 0.001 0.140 < 0.001 0.174 0.768 0.701 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.753 0.624 0.629 0.652 0.768 0.701

Vanadium 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Vinyl chloride < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Zinc 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Table III.32.2: Results (p-values) of statistical tests comparing median chemical concentrations between wells and between up- and down-gradient wells. Table III.32.3 shows median chemical concentrations in each of the shallow down-gradient wells. Table III.32.4 shows median chemical concentrations or frequency of detection for select chemicals in shallow down- and up-gradient wells. The

161

concentrations and frequencies shown in Table III.32.4 were significantly different at the 0.05 level. The data clearly show down-gradient impacts from the disposal area. To further discern if the demolition area impacts ground water, well DMW2, which is a shallow well down-gradient of the demolition area, was compared to wells down-gradient of the municipal waste area. Concentrations of total dissolved solids and nitrate were greater in Well DMW2 compared to the other down-gradient wells (p < 0.032). Concentrations were also greater than in up-gradient, shallow monitoring wells. Comparisons with side-gradient Well DMW1A, however, showed no differences in concentrations of total dissolved solids or nitrate.

Chemical DMW1A DMW2 DW1 MW10A MW11 MW12 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 1 nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2Dibromoethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Alkalinity as CaCO3 (mg/L) 340 374 627 462.5 327 401.5

Allyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Barium (mg/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd 1 nd nd nd

Bromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Bromodichloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


Cadmium, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Calcium, Dissolved (mg/L) 99 101 165 106 89.5 123.5 Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloride (mg/L) 9 18 2 2 9.5 20.5 Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 4 nd nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

162

Chromium, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 1 nd nd nd

Copper, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd 2 nd 5.5 2 Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd 1 nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1.5 nd

Hexachlorobutadiene (ug/L) nd nd 62 nd nd nd Iron, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd 4 nd nd nd

Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Lead, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Magnesium, Dissolved (mg/L) 32 34 nd 41 34.5 41 Manganese, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Mercury, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd 7 nd nd nd Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd 4 nd nd nd

Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) 14 5 368.5 2.5 1 3 o-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd 6 nd nd nd

pH 7 7 1156 7 7 7 Potassium, Dissolved (mg/L) 2 3 nd 3 3.5 3

Redox Potential (mV) 415 416 41 400 391 355 Selenium (ug/L) ns ns nd 1 1 1

Sodium, Dissolved (mg/L) 3 6 nd 4 3 6 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 753.5 769 nd 791 752 876

Styrene (ug/L) nd nd 666 nd nd nd Sulfate, Total (mg/L) 9 20 20 5.5 37 37.5


Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 445 425 nd 455 406 528.5 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 17 176 nd 6 20.5 2

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 1 nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd 2 nd nd nd

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd 1 nd nd nd Zinc, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Boron (mg/L) nd nd 7 nd nd nd

163

Thallium (ug/L) ns ns 11 nd nd Nd Vanadium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Antimony (ug/L) nd nd Ns nd nd nd

bis-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (ug/L) ns ns nd nd nd Biological oxygen demand (mg/L) ns ns ns 1 1 Chemical oxygen demand (mg/L) 6 22 15 11 3

Chemical MW14A MW15 MW16 MW17 MW18 MW19 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2Dibromoethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Alkalinity as CaCO3 (mg/L) 349.5 319 257.5 254 218 235

Allyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd 2.5 nd nd Nd

Barium (mg/L) nd nd 1 nd nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd 0.5 nd nd nd

Bromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Bromodichloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


Cadmium, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Calcium, Dissolved (mg/L) 107 80.5 71 82.5 53 58 Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloride (mg/L) 31.5 8 22 27.5 2 2 Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chromium, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 1 nd nd nd nd

Copper, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

164

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd 3 nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd 6 nd nd nd

Hexachlorobutadiene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Iron, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd 1 1 nd nd

Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Lead, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Magnesium, Dissolved (mg/L) 36.5 33 21 29 15 18 Manganese, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Mercury, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) 5 3 1 8.5 nd 1 Nitrate+Nitrite Nitrogen (mg/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

o-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd pH 7 7 8 7 8 8

Potassium, Dissolved (mg/L) 3 2 3 2 nd 2 Redox Potential (mV) 382 429 414 364 399.5 392

Selenium (ug/L) 1 ns 1 ns ns ns Sodium, Dissolved (mg/L) 9 6.5 21 2 5 1

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 800 642 600 641 378.5 429 Styrene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Sulfate, Total (mg/L) 16.5 11 9 11 8 4 Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 475 369.5 328.5 432.5 223 253 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 2.5 9 6 222 7 16


Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd 2 nd nd nd Zinc, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Boron (mg/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Thallium (ug/L) Nd ns nd ns ns ns Vanadium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

165

Antimony (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd bis-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (ug/L) nd ns nd ns ns ns

Biological oxygen demand (mg/L) 1 ns 1 ns ns ns Chemical oxygen demand (mg/L) 3 11 6 64 8 15

Chemical MW1A MW20 MW20A MW21 MW4 MW6A 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd 1,2Dibromoethane (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd 1 ns nd nd nd 1,3-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd Alkalinity as CaCO3 (mg/L) 304.5 410 494.5 297 265 578

Allyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd Arsenic, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd 1.5 nd nd nd

Barium (mg/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd 2 ns nd nd nd

Bromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd Bromodichloromethane (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

Bromoform (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

Cadmium, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Calcium, Dissolved (mg/L) 81.5 98.5 112 71 77 149 Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

Chloride (mg/L) 2.5 29.5 56 21 28 3 Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

Chromium, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 2 ns 1 nd nd

Copper, Dissolved (ug/L) nd 2 2 nd nd Nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd 11.5 ns 2 nd 2 Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd 1 ns 0.5 nd nd

166

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd 11 ns nd nd nd

Hexachlorobutadiene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd Iron, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd Lead, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd Magnesium, Dissolved (mg/L) 24 44 53 30 26.5 47 Manganese, Dissolved (ug/L) nd 1 1.5 nd nd nd

Mercury, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) 2 nd nd 3 nd 2 Nitrate+Nitrite Nitrogen (mg/L) nd nd 1 nd nd nd

o-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd pH 8 7 7.5 8 7.5 7

Potassium, Dissolved (mg/L) 2 4 5.5 3 4 3 Redox Potential (mV) 271 315 393.5 403 349 381

Selenium (ug/L) 1 ns ns ns 1 ns Sodium, Dissolved (mg/L) 2 26.5 30 9 5 4

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 577 992 1017.5 630 611 981 Styrene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

Sulfate, Total (mg/L) 4.5 40 34.5 14 24 11 Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd ns 0.5 nd 5

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd 7.5 ns nd nd nd Toluene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 320.5 542.5 1121 380 359.5 566.5 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 1.5 4694.5 14890 77 29.5 1

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd 35 ns nd nd nd Zinc, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd ns nd nd nd

Boron (mg/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Thallium (ug/L) nd ns ns ns nd ns Vanadium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Antimony (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

bis-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (ug/L) 1.5 ns ns ns nd ns

167

Biological oxygen demand (mg/L) 1 ns ns ns 1 1 Chemical oxygen demand (mg/L) 8 313 272 15 33 3

Chemical MW7A MW8 MW9A 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd 1,2Dibromoethane (ug/L) nd nd nd

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd 2 1,3-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd Alkalinity as CaCO3 (mg/L) 274.5 282.5 599.5

Allyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd Arsenic, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd 100

Barium (mg/L) nd nd 1 Benzene (ug/L) nd nd 3

Bromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd Bromodichloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd

Bromoform (ug/L) nd nd nd Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd

Cadmium, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd Calcium, Dissolved (mg/L) 68.5 83 157 Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd

Chloride (mg/L) 44.5 5.5 57.5 Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd

Chromium, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 1

Copper, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd 2 15 Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd 1

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd Nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd 16

168

Hexachlorobutadiene (ug/L) nd nd Nd Iron, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd 21.5

Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd Nd Lead, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd Magnesium, Dissolved (mg/L) 25.5 25 57 Manganese, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd

Mercury, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd nd

Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) 1 2.5 nd Nitrate+Nitrite Nitrogen (mg/L) nd nd 2

o-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd pH 8 7 7

Potassium, Dissolved (mg/L) 3 1 6 Redox Potential (mV) 312 380 202

Selenium (ug/L) 1 1 1 Sodium, Dissolved (mg/L) 23.5 2.5 16

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 684 581 1254 Styrene (ug/L) nd nd nd

Sulfate, Total (mg/L) 10.5 11 17 Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd 10 nd

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 374 323 721 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 3 26 47

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd 45 Zinc, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd nd

Boron (mg/L) nd nd nd Thallium (ug/L) nd nd Nd Vanadium (ug/L) nd nd Nd Antimony (ug/L) nd nd Nd

bis-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (ug/L) nd nd Nd Biological oxygen demand (mg/L) 1 1 1 Chemical oxygen demand (mg/L) 3 17 28.5

169

Table III.32.3: Median chemical concentrations for each of the shallow monitoring wells.

Chemical Down-gradient Up-gradient 1,2-Dichloropropane (% detections) 21 0

Alkalinity (mg/L) 374 235 Benzene (% detections) 39 0

Calcium (mg/L) 106 61 cis 1,2-Dichloroethene (% detections) 49 0

Dichlorodifluoromethane (% detections) 73 0 Dichlorofluoromethane (% detections) 39 0

Ethyl ether (% detections) 52 0 Magnesium (mg/L) 37 22

Nitrate (mg/L) 2 1 pH 7 8

Potassium (mg/L) 3 2 Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 830 679

Sulfate (mg/L) 16 10 Tetrachloroethylene (% detections) 18 0

Tetrahydrofuran (% detections) 16 0 Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 513 305 Total suspended solids (mg/L) 20 6 Vinyl chloride (% detections) 42 0

Table III.32.4: Median chemical concentrations or frequency of detection in shallow down- and up-gradient wells. All differences were significant at the 0.05 level. Table III.32.5 shows the number of times a standard or intervention limit was exceeded. Wells 9A, 16, and 20 are impacted by VOCs, including vinyl chloride. There were relatively few exceedances for inorganic chemicals, such as chloride and sulfate. Chemical 2 4 8 11 12 15 16 17 18 20 21 10A 14A 1A 6A 7A 9A DW1Standard

Chloroform 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arsenic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0

Iron 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 Manganese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Dissolved solids 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 2 0 6 0 6 5 Nitrate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0

Vinyl chloride 0 0 3 0 0 5 12 0 0 19 5 0 0 0 3 0 18 8 Intervention limit

TCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,2-Dichloroethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

170

1,2-Dichloropropane 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 Benzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0

Cadmium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chloroform 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sulfate 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Tetrahydrofuran 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Chloride 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Arsenic 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 6 1

Iron 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 2 6 5 Manganese 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 5

Dissolved solids 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 Nitrate 5 0 0 0 6 4 1 6 0 0 0 3 8 5 0 0 0 0

Vinyl chloride 0 0 3 0 0 5 12 0 0 19 5 0 0 0 3 0 18 8 Table III.32.5: Number of exceedances of standards and intervention limits in shallow monitoring wells. Conclusions: Concentrations of VOCs and some inorganic chemicals were greater in down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells. Most of the ground water impacts appear to be associated with the municipal waste disposal area. Nitrate and dissolved solid concentrations may be higher in wells down-gradient of the demolition disposal area compared to up-gradient wells, but the results are not clear. There is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Adequacy of Monitoring: There is insufficient sample size in the wells considered representative of the demolition disposal area. Utility of site in overall analysis: Although Well DMW-2 is considered a down-gradient well for the demolition disposal area, it appears more side-gradient. If it was down-gradient, then it would also be down-gradient of the municipal waste disposal area. This site is not adequate for use in the overall analysis. 33. Meeker County Demolition Landfill There are 22 sampling locations at the Meeker County Demolition landfill. Well DMW-1 is down-gradient of the disposal area, while Well TW-100 is up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1992 and 2001.

Sampling point Location Type of Well Creek - Surface water

DMW-1 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-110 - Monitoring MW-111 - Monitoring

MW-111A - Monitoring

171


MW-113A - Monitoring MW-114 - Monitoring

SW-1 - Surface water SW-2 - Surface water TW-1 - Monitoring

TW-100 Up-gradient Monitoring TW-101 - Monitoring

TW-103A - Monitoring TW-105 - Monitoring

TW-105A - Monitoring TW-1RD - Monitoring

TW-2 - Monitoring TW-3 - Monitoring TW-4 - Monitoring TW-5 - Monitoring

Table III.33.1: Summary of sampling locations for Meeker County Demolition Landfill. Table III.33.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.33.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Although there are many differences between sampling locations, most of these are probably associated with the municipal solid waste landfill. Arsenic concentrations were greater in the up-gradient well, but concentrations were within the range of background concentrations. Specific conductance was greater in the down-gradient well. Tetrahydrofuran was detected on 14 occasions in the up-gradient well and not detected in the down-gradient well. No time trends were apparent in either the up- or the down-gradient well.


1,1,2-Trichloroethylene < 0.001 1.000 1,1-Dichloroethane < 0.001 1.000

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene < 0.001 0.491 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.002 1.000 1,2-Dichloroethane < 0.001 1.000

1,2-Dichloropropane < 0.001 1.000 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene < 0.001 1.000

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.858 1.000 1,4-Dichlorobenzene < 0.001 1.000

Acetone < 0.001 0.212 Arsenic < 0.001 0.011

172

Benzene < 0.001 0.326 Bromodichloromethane 0.790 1.000

Bromomethane < 0.001 1.000 Cadmium 0.713 0.378

Carbon Tetrachloride < 0.001 1.000 Chlorobenzene < 0.001 1.000 Chloroethane < 0.001 1.000 Chloroform < 0.001 1.000

Chloromethane < 0.001 1.000 Chromium 0.004

Cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 1.000 Copper 0.160 0.087

Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 1.000 Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 1.000

Ethyl Benzene < 0.001 1.000 Ethyl Ether < 0.001 1.000

Iron < 0.001 0.934 Isopropylbenzene < 0.001 1.000

Lead < 0.001 0.751 Magnesium < 0.001 0.287

Mercury 1.000 Methyl Ethyl Ketone < 0.001 0.326

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone < 0.001 1.000 Methylene Chloride 0.003 0.326

Naphthalene < 0.001 1.000 n-Butylbenzene < 0.001 1.000

Nitrate < 0.001 0.564 n-Propylbenzene 0.913 1.000

pH < 0.001 0.019 p-Isopropyltoluene < 0.001 1.000

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) < 0.001 < 0.001 t-Butylbenzene 0.002 1.000 Temperature 0.008 0.649

Tetrahydrofuran < 0.001 0.008 Toluene < 0.001 0.982 Turbidity < 0.001 0.885

Vinyl Chloride < 0.001 1.000 Xylenes < 0.001 0.110

Zinc 0.284 0.731

173


Chemical Creek DMW-1 MW-110 MW-111

MW-111A MW-112

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene nd nd Nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane nd Nd Nd nd nd nd

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene nd Nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichlorobenzene nd Nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane nd Nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane nd Nd nd nd nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene nd Nd nd nd nd nd

1,3-Dichlorobenzene nd Nd nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone nd Nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic 8.0 1.0 nd nd 5.0 nd Benzene nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Bromodichloromethane nd Nd nd nd nd nd Bromomethane nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Cadmium 1 Nd nd nd nd nd Carbon Tetrachloride nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Chlorobenzene nd Nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane nd Nd nd nd nd nd Chloroform nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane nd Nd nd nd nd nd Chromium 1.0 nd nd 0.5

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene nd Nd nd nd nd nd Copper 3.5 1.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.5

Dichlorodifluoromethane nd Nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene nd Nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Iron 510 59 10 154 460 222 Isopropylbenzene nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Lead Nd nd nd nd nd Magnesium 175 105 15 215 188 1367

Mercury nd nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone nd Nd nd nd nd nd Methylene Chloride nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Naphthalene nd Nd nd nd nd nd

174

n-Butylbenzene nd Nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate Nd 1.00 nd nd nd

n-Propylbenzene nd Nd nd nd nd nd pH 8.00 7.03 6.96 7.71 7.13

p-Isopropyltoluene nd Nd nd nd nd nd Specific Conductance

(umhos/cm) 830 681 822 416 926

t-Butylbenzene nd Nd nd nd nd nd Temperature 8.5 10.6 9.5 8.5 11.1

Tetrahydrofuran nd Nd nd nd nd nd Toluene nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Turbidity 57 62 6 6 149 Vinyl Chloride nd Nd nd nd nd nd

Xylenes nd Nd nd nd nd nd Zinc 10 39 19 20 9 52

Chemical MW-113

MW-113A MW-114 SW-1 SW-2 TW-1

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichlorobenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,3-Dichlorobenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene nd nd 0.5 nd nd nd

Acetone nd nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic nd 3.0 10.0 5.0 4.0 nd Benzene nd nd 1 nd nd nd

Bromodichloromethane nd nd nd nd nd nd Bromomethane nd nd nd nd nd nd

Cadmium nd nd nd nd nd nd Carbon Tetrachloride nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chlorobenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroform nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium 1.0 nd 2.0 1.0 1.5 nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene nd nd nd nd nd nd Copper 5.0 5.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 1.0

Dichlorodifluoromethane nd nd nd nd nd nd

175

Dichlorofluoromethane nd nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Benzene nd nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Ether nd nd nd nd nd nd Iron 350 337 33600 465 486 430

Isopropylbenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd Lead nd nd nd 1.0 1.0 nd

Magnesium 1744 254 2900 135 137 260 Mercury nd nd nd nd nd nd

Methyl Ethyl Ketone nd nd nd nd nd nd Methyl Isobutyl Ketone nd nd nd nd nd nd

Methylene Chloride nd nd nd nd nd nd Naphthalene nd nd nd nd nd nd

n-Butylbenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate nd nd nd 3.00 3.00 nd

n-Propylbenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd pH 7.15 7.38 6.45 8.00 8.00 7.39

p-Isopropyltoluene nd nd nd nd nd nd Specific Conductance

(umhos/cm) 651 406 860 1076 908 426

t-Butylbenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd Temperature 9.2 8.0 11.5 15.0 15.0 10.0

Tetrahydrofuran nd nd nd nd nd nd Toluene nd nd nd nd nd nd

Turbidity 17 2 11 7 6 3 Vinyl Chloride nd nd nd nd nd nd

Xylenes nd nd 1 nd nd nd Zinc 20 20 43 16 14 19

Chemical TW-100 TW-101 TW-103A TW-105 TW-105A TW-

1RD 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethane nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichlorobenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,3-Dichlorobenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone nd nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic 4.0 3.0 13.5 nd 3.5 nd Benzene Nd nd nd nd nd nd

176

Bromodichloromethane Nd nd nd nd nd nd Bromomethane Nd nd nd nd nd nd

Cadmium Nd nd nd nd nd nd Carbon Tetrachloride Nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chlorobenzene Nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane Nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroform Nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane Nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium 1.5 nd 1.5 nd 1.0

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene Nd nd 2.0 nd nd nd Copper 7.5 1.0 7.0 1.0 1.0

Dichlorodifluoromethane Nd nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane Nd nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene Nd nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether Nd nd nd nd nd nd

Iron 70 130 565 10 181 144 Isopropylbenzene Nd nd nd nd nd nd

Lead Nd nd nd nd nd Magnesium 136 331 545 2 502 195

Mercury Nd nd nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone Nd nd nd nd nd nd

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Nd nd nd nd nd nd Methylene Chloride nd nd nd nd nd nd

Naphthalene nd nd nd nd nd nd n-Butylbenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd

Nitrate nd nd nd nd nd n-Propylbenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd

pH 7.32 6.97 7.04 6.99 7.06 p-Isopropyltoluene nd nd nd nd nd nd

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 487 912 450 544 430

t-Butylbenzene nd nd nd nd nd nd Temperature 8.7 9.8 9.5 10.0 9.5

Tetrahydrofuran nd nd 170 nd nd nd Toluene nd nd nd nd nd nd

Turbidity 51 131 74 29 1 Vinyl Chloride nd nd nd nd nd nd

Xylenes nd nd nd nd nd nd Zinc 18 26 10 22 37 17

Chemical TW-2 TW-3 TW-4 TW-5

177

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 0.5 nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd 1 nd nd

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd 0.5 nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd 3.5 nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,3-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd 3.0 nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd 367 nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) 348.5 2.0 Benzene (ug/L) nd 14 nd nd

Bromodichloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Cadmium (ug/L) 1 nd nd nd Carbon Tetrachloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd 10.5 nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd 5 nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) 2.5

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 4.0 nd nd Copper (ug/L) 18.0 2.0 14.0 8.0


Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd 75 nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) 11 169 nd nd

Iron (ug/L) 310 43160 50 20 Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd 1 nd nd

Lead (ug/L) 7.0 Magnesium (mg/L) 430 720 90 10

Mercury (ug/L) Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd 429 nd nd

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd 157 nd nd Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Nitrate (mg/L) n-Propylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

PH

178

p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Specific Conductance

(umhos/cm)

t-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Temperature

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd 172 nd nd Toluene (ug/L) nd 289 nd nd

Turbidity (NTU) Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd 6.5 nd nd

Xylenes (ug/L) nd 97 nd nd Zinc (ug/L) 1110 15 20 40

Table III.33.4: Median chemical concentrations in each well. Table III.33.4 shows the number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in the up- and down-gradient wells. Iron was the only chemical to exceed a water quality standard. There were more exceedances of intervention limits in the up-gradient well compared to the down-gradient well.

Chemical TW-100 DMW-1 Standards

Iron 2 2 Intervention limits

Arsenic 8 0 Iron 6 7

Methylene chloride 2 0 Tetrahydrofuran 14 0

Table III.33.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits. Conclusion: Specific conductivity is greater in the down-gradient well compared to the up-gradient well. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: Sampling for VOCs is adequate. Sampling for inorganic chemicals is not adequate due to small sample size and limited parameter lists. There could be better clarification for the wells not considered as up- or down-gradient wells. Only one up- and one down-gradient well were identified for the site. Utility of site in overall analysis: Well TW-100 is an up-gradient well. Well DMW-1 appears to be in a direct down-gradient location and is within 100 feet of the demolition disposal area. Neither of these two wells is impacted by the MSW. The site is adequate in the overall analysis of demolition landfills. 34. Murray Demolition Landfill

179

There are 20 sampling locations at the Murray County Demolition Landfill (Table III.34.1). Well MW-14 is down-gradient. Wells MW-8 and MW-9 are up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1992 and 2002.

Sampling point Location Type of Well MW-1 - Monitoring MW-2 - Monitoring MW-3 - Monitoring MW-7 - Monitoring MW-8 Up Monitoring MW-9 Up Monitoring

MW-10 - Monitoring MW-11 - Monitoring MW-12 - Monitoring MW-13 - Monitoring MW-14 Down Monitoring MW-15 - Monitoring

P1A - - P4 - - P5 - -

P5A - - P12 - - P13 - - P14 - -

DeYonge - Domestic Table III.34.1: Summary of sampling locations for Murray Demolition Landfill.

Table III.34.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.34.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Ammonia, iron, and sulfate concentrations were greater in up-gradient wells compared to down-gradient wells. VOCs, however, were detected with much greater frequency in the down-gradient well (Table III.34.4). Detected VOCs include chlorinated solvents and CFCs.

Further analysis of the site indicated MW-14 may be impacted by the MSW. Chemistry of Wells MW-7 and MW-14 were similar. Wells MW-2, MW-10, and P-12, considered to be down-gradient of the MSW, were less impacted by VOCs than either well MW-7 or MW-14. The results indicate that either the demolition waste is a source of VOCs, or the assumed ground water flow direction is not accurate.

Chemical Wells Up- and down-gradient wells

Up- vs. down-gradient wells

1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 0.001 1.000 1.000

180

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 1,1-Dichloroethane < 0.001 1.000 1.000

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene 0.025 0.387 0.168 1,2-Dichloropropane < 0.001 1.000 1.000

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.187 0.387 0.168 Acetone 0.011 1.000 1.000

Ammonia < 0.001 0.007 0.031 Arsenic 0.014 0.244 0.920 Benzene < 0.001 0.353 0.507 Cadmium 0.617 0.140 0.294 Chloride < 0.001 0.006 0.383

Chloroethane < 0.001 0.387 0.168 Chloromethane 0.881 1.000 1.000

Chromium 0.672 1.000 1.000 cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Copper 0.082 0.424 0.214 Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 0.054 0.016

Ethyl Benzene 0.131 0.601 0.656 Ethyl Ether < 0.001 0.054 0.016

Iron < 0.001 0.007 0.012 Isopropylbenzene 0.692 1.000 1.000

Lead 0.002 1.000 1.000 Manganese < 0.001 0.944 0.735

Mercury < 0.001 1.000 1.000 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.084 1.000 1.000 Methylene Chloride 0.001 0.365 0.965

Naphthalene 0.797 1.000 1.000 n-Butylbenzene 0.770 1.000 1.000

Nitrate < 0.001 0.007 0.046 n-Propylbenzene 0.761 1.000 1.000

PH < 0.001 < 0.001 0.778 p-Isopropyltoluene 0.007 1.000 1.000

Specific Conductance < 0.001 < 0.001 0.488 Sulfate < 0.001 0.020 0.020

Tetrachloroethylene < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Tetrahydrofuran < 0.001 1.000 1.000

Toluene 0.051 0.852 0.868 trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 0.002 0.001

Trichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 1.000 1.000

181

Turbidity < 0.001 < 0.001 0.964 Vinyl Chloride < 0.001 0.387 0.168

Xylenes 0.001 0.513 0.422 Zinc 0.017 0.122 0.309


Chemical P-5A MW-2 P-5 P-1A MW-8 P-14 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd


1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd n-Propylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) nd nd 1.02 0.44

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Arsenic (ug/L) nd 10.9 nd 9.6 Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

182

Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1.50 nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

PH 7.08 7.19 6.84 6.69 7.41 Temperature 9.2 13.5 10.1 9.9 9.8

Chloride (mg/L) 4.2 3.0 8.7 2.0 Sulfate (mg/L) 55 26 123 72

Turbidity (NTUs) 15 208 510 4 65 Iron (ug/L) 10 501 582 580

Ammonia (ug/L) 10 160 30 580 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 732 550 1094 1382 670

Manganese (ug/L) 10 957 53 282 Zinc (ug/L)

Chemical P-12 P-13 P-4 MW-

9 MW-1 MW-








p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd




183

Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Mercury (ug/L) nd nd 1.80 nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 1.67 nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 0.80 nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd 10.0 nd nd 3.2 Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Copper (ug/L) nd nd 10.00 nd nd nd Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1.20 nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 2.60 nd

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 3.20 nd PH 7.05 7.11 8.92 6.68 7.68

Temperature 9.9 10.0 9.5 10.9 9.9 Chloride (mg/L) 12.3 2.7 2.0 24.4 41.1 Sulfate (mg/L) 44 43 65 90 37

Turbidity (NTUs) 12 15 57 206 83 Iron (ug/L) 10 10 67 800 132

Ammonia (ug/L) 10 10 480 1045 10 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 839 711 248 1142 526

Manganese (ug/L) 2 169 31 1570 395 Zinc (ug/L)

Chemical MW-14 MW-7MW-

3 MW-

12 MW-11 MW-








184

p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) 1.90 1.20 nd nd nd nd


trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 0.80 nd nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 1.52 0.22 3.74 1.11 1.31

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) 3.90 22.90 nd nd nd nd

Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Copper (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) 1.20 5.85 nd nd 1.35 1.15

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd 9.40 nd nd nd nd PH 7.03 6.80 7.26 7.13 7.22

Temperature 9.5 9.9 9.8 9.7 10.2 Chloride (mg/L) 3.8 8.1 8.3 11.6 9.4 Sulfate (mg/L) 35 30 38 52 41

Turbidity (NTUs) 8 288 12 6 22 Iron (ug/L) 10 10 295 354 84

Ammonia (ug/L) 10 10 10 10 10 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 792 945 628 746 726

Manganese (ug/L) 2 10 11 9 17 Zinc (ug/L)

Chemical DeYongeMW-

15 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd 0.55

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd 1.60

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd

Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd

185

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd

Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd

Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd n-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd n-Propylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd

p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd nd Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd Toluene (ug/L) nd nd

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd 0.75

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd Mercury (ug/L) nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 14.05 0.31

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 11.75

Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd

Copper (ug/L) 26.50 nd Lead (ug/L) 2.00 nd

Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd 1.15 Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd 3.25

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd 6.05 PH 6.88 6.78

Temperature 9.2 9.3 Chloride (mg/L) 23.4 36.9 Sulfate (mg/L) 121 69

Turbidity (NTUs) 4 1512 Iron (ug/L) 514 185

Ammonia (ug/L) 10 10 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 1197 1488

Manganese (ug/L) 47 354 Zinc (ug/L)

Table III.34.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well.

186

Chemical Down-gradient

Up-gradient

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 44.83 0.00 cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene 89.66 7.27 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75.86 34.55 Dichlorofluoromethane 10.34 0.00

Ethyl Ether 10.34 0.00 Tetrachloroethylene 72.41 0.00

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene 20.69 0.00 Table III.34.4: Percent detection frequency of select VOCs in down- and up-gradient wells. Correlation analysis of concentration on sampling date for the down-gradient well showed decreasing concentrations during the sampling period (R2 < -0.692) for Trichloroethene, cis-1,2-Dichloroethene, and Tetrachloroethene. There were no significant trends for any chemical in the up-gradient wells. Table III.34.5 summarizes the number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in the up- and down-gradient wells. Tetrachloroethene exceeded its intervention limit on 17 occasions in the down-gradient well (Well 14). The intervention limit for sulfate was exceeded on five occasions in the up-gradient well. Chemical MW-8 MW-9 MW-14 Water Quality Standards


Intervention Limits 1,1,2-Trichloroethene 0 0 1

Benzene 1 0 0 Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0 0 1

Arsenic 0 4 2 Nitrate 1 0 0 Sulfate 5 2 1

Tetrachloroethene 0 0 17 Vinyl chloride 0 0 1

Manganese 1 1 3 Iron 7 5 2

Table III.34.5: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits, by well. Conclusion: VOCs occur with much greater frequency in the down-gradient well than in the up-gradient wells. VOCs include chlorinated solvents and CFCs. Decreasing concentrations of chlorinated solvents were observed in the down-gradient well. The null hypothesis is rejected.

187

Adequacy of Monitoring: Parameter lists are not complete. Utility of site for overall analysis: There were concerns about possible effects of ground water mounding on Wells MW-8 and MW-9, but these wells show different chemistry than Wells MW-1 and P-1A. They seem adequate as up-gradient wells. MW-14 shows impacts from VOCs and is therefore down-gradient of either the demolition waste or the MSW. The assumed ground water flow at the site suggests it is impacted by the demolition waste, but MW-7, which should not be affected by the demolition waste, shows similar chemistry as well MW-14. MW-14 is therefore not a clear down-gradient well for the demolition waste. The site has limited utility for overall analysis. 35. Nobles County Demolition Landfill There are five sampling locations at the Noble County Demolition Landfill (Table III.35.1). Wells 8 and 11 are down-gradient. Well 7 is up-gradient. Wells 9 and 10 are side-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1992 and 2002.

Sampling point Location Type of Well MW-7 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-8 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-9 Side-gradient Monitoring MW-10 Side-gradient Monitoring MW-11 Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.35.1: Summary of sampling locations for Noble County Demolition Landfill.

Table III.35.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.35.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. There are many differences in concentrations of inorganic chemicals between wells, well position (up-, side-, or down-gradient), and up- vs. down-gradient wells. Concentrations of alkalinity, calcium, nitrate, and dissolved solids were greater in up-gradient wells compared to down-gradient wells. Manganese and sulfate concentrations were greater in down-gradient wells. Chloride concentrations were greater in Well 8 (a down-gradient well) than in other wells. Well 9 (a side-gradient well) had very high concentrations of sulfate, calcium, and dissolved solids.

Chemical Wells Position Wells 7, 8, and

11 Up- vs. down-

gradient 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 0.144 0.033 0.191 0.069

Acetone 0.807 0.745 0.437 0.443 Alkalinity < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Ammonia < 0.001 < 0.001 1.000 1.000 Arsenic < 0.001 < 0.001 1.000 1.000

Cadmium 0.478 0.535 0.368 0.480

188

Calcium < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001 Chloride < 0.001 0.445 < 0.001 0.265

Chromium 0.287 0.368 1.000 1.000 Copper 0.220 0.109 0.305 0.214

Ethyl Ether 0.128 0.508 0.177 0.591 Iron < 0.001 0.022 0.021 0.054

Magnesium 0.005 0.003 0.560 0.429 Manganese < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 0.021

Nitrate < 0.001 < 0.001 0.002 0.023 pH 0.076 0.087 0.076 0.032

Potassium < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.248 Oxidation-reduction potential 0.699 0.446 0.461 0.281

Sodium 0.001 0.065 0.120 0.096 Specific Conductance < 0.001 0.037 0.497 0.940

Sulfate < 0.001 0.002 0.044 0.041 Total Dissolved Solids < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001 Total Suspended Solids 0.014 0.180 0.017 0.284

Zinc 0.811 0.669 0.769 0.878 Table III.35.2: Results of statistical tests (p-values) comparing median concentrations between wells and between up- and down-gradient wells.

Chemical MW-10 MW-11 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (ug/L) nd Nd nd Nd Nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd Nd nd Nd Nd Alkalinity (mg/L) 305 339 439 320 360 Ammonia (ug/L) 0.12 nd nd Nd Nd Arsenic (ug/L) 20 nd nd Nd Nd

Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd Nd Nd Calcium (mg/L) 76 78 115 87 210 Chloride (mg/L) 3.00 1.00 3.65 11.70 5.00

Chromium (ug/L) nd nd Nd Nd Nd Copper (ug/L) nd nd Nd Nd Nd

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd Nd Nd Nd Iron (ug/L) 0.76 nd Nd 0.04 Nd

Magnesium (mg/L) 35 44 44 43 42 Manganese (ug/L) 0.22 0.01 0.02 0.27 0.12

Nitrate (mg/L) 0.01 1.06 1.22 0.21 0.26 pH 8.30 7.80 7.36 7.83 7.60

Potassium (mg/L) 5.90 3.00 2.15 1.00 4.90 Oxidation-reduction potential ( mV) 264 273 246 260 262

189

Sodium (mg/L) 9.00 8.00 7.65 8.25 8.00 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 625 630 660 689 1120

Sulfate (mg/L) 39 49 28 37 365 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 360 381 492 394 872 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 37 416 69 52 83

Zinc (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd Nd Table III.35.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. There were several downward trends for chemical concentrations in Well 10 during the sampling period. These included iron, manganese, sulfate, and dissolved solids. There were few other significant trends, with the exception of increasing oxidation-reduction potentials in the two down-gradient wells (Wells 8 and 11). Table III.35.4 summarizes the number of exceedances for water quality standards and for intervention limits. The water quality standard for sulfate was exceeded on 8 occasions in a side-gradient well (Well 9). The standard for dissolved solids was exceeded on several occasions in Wells 7 and 9. Chemical MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 Water Quality Standards

Nitrate 0 0 0 0 1 Sulfate 0 0 8 0 0

Iron 0 1 0 4 0 Arsenic 0 0 0 8 0

Total dissolved solids 5 0 8 0 0 Intervention Limits

Nitrate 2 0 0 0 1 Sulfate 0 4 8 0 1

Manganese 0 8 2 3 1 Iron 0 3 0 5 2

Arsenic 0 0 0 9 0 Total dissolved solids 12 12 9 9 12

Table III.35.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits, by well. Conclusions: Concentrations of sulfate were greater in down-gradient wells compared to up-gradient wells. We therefore reject the null hypothesis. Adequacy of Monitoring: Monitoring has been adequate. Utility of site in overall analysis: Ground water velocities at the site are assumed to be slow, since the geologic material is clay. It is approximately 400 feet from the demolition waste to Well MW-11. It is unlikely that ground water has moved from the waste disposal area to this well. Ground water flow direction is uncertain at the site, and

190

MW-11 may not be in a direct down-gradient location. This site is not useful for overall analysis. 36. Northeast Otter Tail Demolition Landfill There are 20 wells at the Northeast Otter Tail Demolition Landfill (Table III.36.1). Wells 14A and 15A are considered down-gradient of the disposal area. Wells 10A, 11A, 11B, 12A, 12B, 13A, 1A, 1B, 1C, 2C, 6A, 6B, and 6C are considered up-gradient. Wells 8A, 8B, 9A, and 9B are considered to be between the municipal and demolition disposal areas. A creek located at the site has also been sampled. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1992 and 2001.

Well Well location Type of well 1CR Creek Surface water

MW-10A Up-gradient Monitoring MW-11A Up-gradient Monitoring MW-11B Up-gradient Monitoring MW-12A Up-gradient Monitoring MW-12B Up-gradient Monitoring MW-13A Up-gradient Monitoring MW-14A Down-gradient Monitoring MW-15A Down-gradient Monitoring MW-1A Up-gradient Monitoring MW-1B Up-gradient Monitoring MW-1C Up-gradient Monitoring MW-2C Up-gradient Monitoring MW-6A Up-gradient Monitoring MW-6B Up-gradient Monitoring MW-6C Up-gradient Monitoring MW-8A Between municipal and demo Monitoring MW-8B Between municipal and demo Monitoring MW-9A Between municipal and demo Monitoring MW-9B Between municipal and demo Monitoring

Table III.36.1: Well summary for Northeast Otter Tail Demolition Landfill. Table III.36.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells and between up- and down-gradient wells. Table III.36.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Because of the large number of wells at this facility, including shallow and deep monitoring wells in addition to wells located between the municipal and demolition disposal areas, several analyses were performed. When all wells were considered, there were a large number of differences between wells. This included a wide variety of organic and inorganic chemicals. Many of these differences persisted when up- and down-gradient wells were compared. Similar results were observed when only shallow monitoring wells were considered, although

191

there were fewer significant differences. The results indicate significant impacts from the disposal areas.

Consequently, comparison is warranted between down-gradient wells located between the municipal and demolition areas with wells located down-gradient of the demolition area. Concentrations of alkalinity, calcium, chloride, dichlorofluormethane, specific conductance, and sulfate were higher in down-gradient well MW-15A compared to the up-gradient well MW-6A. Comparing MW-15A to Well MW-8A, which is the well closest to the demolition area in an up-gradient direction, concentrations of each of these chemicals was greater in Well 15A.

all wells shallow wells

Chemical All wellsUp vs. down

Down vs. between All wells

Up vs. down

Down vs. between

1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 0.001 0.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene < 0.001 < 0.001 1.000 < 0.001 0.001 1.000

1,1-Dichloroethane < 0.001 < 0.001 1.000 < 0.001 < 0.001 1.000 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.044 0.634 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene < 0.001 0.029 0.011 < 0.001 0.357 0.073 1,2-Dichloroethane < 0.001 0.504 1.000 < 0.001 0.343 1.000

1,2-Dichloropropane < 0.001 0.028 1.000 < 0.001 0.006 1.000 1,3-Dichloropropane 0.686 0.797 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Acetone 0.001 0.206 0.078 0.837 0.925 0.043 Alkalinity < 0.001 < 0.001 0.815 < 0.001 0.081 0.867 Ammonia 0.013 0.062 0.108 0.005 0.353 0.066 Arsenic 0.006 0.024 0.008 0.095 Benzene < 0.001 0.002 0.541 < 0.001 0.001 1.000 Boron 0.040 0.008 0.010 0.843 0.927 0.013

Bromoform 0.985 0.634 1.000 0.970 0.343 1.000 Cadmium 0.726 0.599 0.468 0.346 0.381 0.514 Calcium < 0.001 < 0.001 0.335 < 0.001 0.009 0.312 Chloride < 0.001 < 0.001 0.857 < 0.001 0.003 0.664

Chlorobenzene 0.970 0.797 1.000 0.915 0.504 1.000 Chloroethane < 0.001 < 0.001 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.043 Chloroform 0.686 0.797 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Chloromethane 0.062 0.075 1.000 0.159 0.095 1.000 Chromium 0.278 0.050 0.238 0.372 0.888 0.639

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 0.006 1.000 < 0.001 0.002 1.000 Copper 0.960 0.767 0.400 0.715 0.757 0.502

Dibromochloromethane 0.988 0.621 1.000 0.970 0.343 1.000 Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001

Ethyl Ether < 0.001 < 0.001 1.000 < 0.001 < 0.001 1.000

192

Iron 0.342 0.447 0.530 0.095 0.033 0.662 Isopropylbenzene < 0.001 0.197 1.000 < 0.001 1.000 1.000

Lead 0.600 0.344 0.127 0.951 0.501 0.189 m,p-Xylene < 0.001 0.083 0.004 1.000 0.052 0.043 Magnesium < 0.001 < 0.001 0.172 < 0.001 0.160 0.230 Manganese < 0.001 0.001 0.007 0.003 0.373 0.004

Mercury 0.588 0.227 0.727 0.587 0.375 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.031 0.491 1.000 0.970 0.556 1.000

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone < 0.001 0.075 1.000 0.030 0.129 1.000 Methyl tert-butyl Ether 0.318 0.806 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Methylene Chloride < 0.001 0.013 1.000 0.002 0.070 1.000 Naphthalene 0.261 0.043 0.330 0.398 0.543 0.399 Nickel, Total 0.036 0.272 0.128 0.094 0.070

Nitrate Nitrogen < 0.001 0.268 0.372 < 0.001 0.826 0.056 o-Xylene 0.032 0.250 1.000 0.380 0.244 1.000

pH < 0.001 < 0.001 0.087 < 0.001 0.037 0.125 p-Isopropyltoluene 0.060 0.009 0.011 0.504 0.360 0.073

Potassium 0.004 0.036 0.121 0.005 0.512 0.071 sec-Butylbenzene 0.709 0.644 1.000 0.857 0.513 1.000

Sodium 0.001 0.041 0.120 0.002 0.430 0.151 Specific Conductance < 0.001 < 0.001 0.741 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.798

Sulfate < 0.001 0.995 0.971 < 0.001 0.042 1.000 t-Butylbenzene < 0.001 < 0.001 0.011 1.000 1.000 0.730

Tetrachloroethylene < 0.001 < 0.001 1.000 0.052 0.095 1.000 Tetrahydrofuran < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001

Toluene 0.001 0.075 1.000 0.005 0.052 1.000 Total Dissolved Solids < 0.001 < 0.001 0.660 < 0.001 0.028 0.778 Total Suspended Solids < 0.001 0.004 0.035 < 0.001 0.025 0.351 Trichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 < 0.001 1.000 < 0.001 0.176 1.000

Vinyl Chloride < 0.001 0.046 1.000 < 0.001 0.052 1.000 Zinc 0.079 0.542 0.124 0.543

Table III.36.2: Results of statistical tests (p-values) comparing median chemical concentrations in wells, in up- versus down-gradient wells, and in wells down-gradient of the demolition landfill and down-gradient of the municipal waste disposal area. Tests were conducted for all wells (shallow and deep) and for just shallow monitoring wells.

Chemical 10A 11A 11B 12A 12B 14A1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) 0.54 nd nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) 0.35 nd nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) 0.94 nd nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

193


1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Alkalinity (mg/l) 730 314 340 445 345 250

Ammonia-Nitrogen (mg/l) 0.040 0.055 0.015 0.090 0.040 0.190Arsenic, Dissolved (ug/L) 6.4 nd nd nd 2.1 ns

Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Boron (ug/L) 200 35 55 240 60 70

Bromoform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) 0.3 nd nd 0.25 nd nd Calcium (ug/L) 220000 90000 89900 248450 25000

0 7600

0 Chloride (mg/l) 74 10 7 291 367 2

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) 0.51 nd nd nd nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd ns ns ns 7 18

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Copper (ug/L) 11 59 30 19 10 30

Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) 88.00 nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) 12.00 nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) 0.92 nd nd nd nd nd Iron (ug/L) 5824 3500 2084 830 1015 1300

0 Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Lead (ug/L) nd 6.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 5.80m,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Magnesium (ug/L) 62910 37000 37500 79195 71000 2400

0 Manganese (ug/L) 1000 300 6 80 110 295

Mercury (ug/L) nd 0.15 nd nd nd ns Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/l) 0.10 1.75 0.73 0.49 0.50 1.20

194

o-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd PH 6.74 7.48 7.30 7.30 7.20 7.60

p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) ns nd nd nd nd nd Potassium, Dissolved (ug/L) 1700 2000 1700 1950 3050 1100

sec-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Sodium (ug/L) 33550 2900 4000 94500 10850 2000

Sp. Conductance (umhos/cm) 1794 672 864 2091 1700 500 Sulfate (mg/L) 40 36 43 220 92 9

t-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) 1.30 nd nd nd nd nd


Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 1075 419 430 1500 1420 360 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 170 30 54 160 99 140 Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) 15.80 nd nd nd 0.05 nd

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Zinc, Dissolved (ug/L) nd nd Ns nd nd ns

Chemical 15A 1A 1B 1C 1CR 2C 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 0.48 nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd 0.82 1.8 nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd ns

1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd 0.70 nd nd 1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd 0.14 nd nd nd 1,3-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Alkalinity (mg/l) 800 765 420 275 300 304

Ammonia-Nitrogen (mg/l) ns 0.080 0.02 0.115 0.090 0.280Arsenic, Dissolved (ug/L) ns 2.4 7.5 nd ns nd

Benzene (ug/L) nd nd 0.61 nd nd nd Boron (ug/L) 9200 80 50 ns 66 ns

Bromoform (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd 0.30 0.075 ns 0.7 Calcium (ug/L) 195000 240500 139000 82865 77500 9119

0 Chloride (mg/l) 31 48 40 1 2 2

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 1.30 nd nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

195

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) 6 nd 3.75 nd ns nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 0.62 nd nd nd Copper (ug/L) 20 15 83 34 ns 10

Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) 0.20 11.00 8.45 nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) 0.52 3.50 4.45 nd nd nd

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd 5.2 nd nd nd Iron (ug/L) 2600 374 9200 1871 925 8163

Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Lead (ug/L) 2.00 1.00 0.5 nd 2.45 6.65

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Magnesium (ug/L) 64000 73595 43000 26250 25500 2656

5 Manganese (ug/L) 605 1600 1200 0 175 0

Mercury (ug/L) ns nd 0.1 nd ns nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd ns

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd ns

Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/l) 0.60 1.35 0.68 0.10 0.10 0.10o-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

PH 6.90 6.85 7.20 7.30 7.70 7.30p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd ns

Potassium, Dissolved (ug/L) 2100 3750 2000 2 2000 2 sec-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd ns

Sodium (ug/L) 44000 18000 5800 3 3250 2 Sp. Conductance (umhos/cm) 1550 1656 880 592 505 661

Sulfate (mg/L) 250 81 24 22 14 22 t-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd ns

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd 0.26 Nd nd nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) 4.10 nd 9.3 nd nd nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 1500 938 563 334 335 365 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 230 78 20 4 5 20 Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd Nd nd nd nd Zinc, Dissolved (ug/L) ns nd Nd 15 69 1190

Chemical 6B 6C 8A 8B 9A 9B

196

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd



1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Alkalinity (mg/l) 260 420 280 284 310 340

Ammonia-Nitrogen (mg/l) nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic, Dissolved (ug/L) nd 0.75 nd nd nd nd

Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Boron (ug/L) 43 ns 23 75 45 40

Bromoform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) 0.17 nd 0.3 0.6 0.3 nd Calcium (ug/L) 91000 nd 72000 82000 97000 1000

00 Chloride (mg/l) 34 ns 11 5 9 4

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd 10.00 nd nd nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd 7.5 nd 4.8 2

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Copper (ug/L) 10 2700 10.5 11.5 12.7 24

Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd 1.00 nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd 30000.00

nd nd nd nd

Iron (ug/L) 12000 100 13900 229 20000 11500

Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd ns nd nd nd nd Lead (ug/L) nd nd 1.15 1.25 2.00 1.40

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Magnesium (ug/L) 30000 nd 27210 26000 32000 3200

0 Manganese (ug/L) 34 nd 0 305 0 0

Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd 0.20 nd nd nd nd

197

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd 7.20 nd nd nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Naphthalene (ug/L) nd 2200.00 nd nd nd nd

Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/l) 5.70 nd 5.50 0.10 1.50 1.50o-Xylene (ug/L) nd 5000.00 nd nd nd nd

PH 7.60 720.00 7.60 7.60 7.40 7.40p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd 2.10 nd nd nd nd

Potassium, Dissolved (ug/L) 3000 nd 1700 3000 800 505 sec-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd 7.75 nd nd nd nd

Sodium (ug/L) 2800 nd 5100 6000 2450 2400Sp. Conductance (umhos/cm) 658 nd 570 574 690 730

Sulfate (mg/L) 19 nd 21 29 42 42 t-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd 425.00 nd nd nd nd


Toluene (ug/L) nd 250.00 nd nd nd nd Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 410 50 383 360 435 430 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 6 ns 180 28 74 60 Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd ns nd nd nd nd

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd ns nd nd nd nd Zinc, Dissolved (ug/L) nd ns nd nd nd nd

Chemical 13A 6A 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) 0.56 nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) 0.34 nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd

1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd 1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd 1,3-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd Alkalinity (mg/l) 450 320

Ammonia-Nitrogen (mg/l) 0.030 0.035 Arsenic, Dissolved (ug/L) ns nd

Benzene (ug/L) nd nd Boron (ug/L) 50 50

Bromoform (ug/L) nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) 0.255 nd Calcium (ug/L) 180000 100000

198

Chloride (mg/l) 79 20 Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd Chromium (ug/L) ns 1.2

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd Copper (ug/L) 13 46.5

Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) 27.00 nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) 6.30 nd

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd Iron (ug/L) 23135 3150

Isopropylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd Lead (ug/L) 4.20 1.75

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd Magnesium (ug/L) 51000 26500 Manganese (ug/L) 22 4

Mercury (ug/L) ns nd Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd

Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/l) 23.00 1.10 o-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd

PH 7.01 7.35 p-Isopropyltoluene (ug/L) nd nd

Potassium, Dissolved (ug/L) 1750 4000 sec-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd

Sodium (ug/L) 5250 5900 Sp. Conductance (umhos/cm) 1306 707

Sulfate (mg/L) 52 29 t-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 720 435 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 52 43 Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) 18.00 nd

199

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd Zinc, Dissolved (ug/L) ns nd

Table III.36.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. Trend analysis is not useful in the wells down-gradient of the demolition landfill. Only six samples were taken for most chemicals. Table III.36.4 summarizes the number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. Wells 10A and 1B are the most highly impacted wells, with exceedances for several organic and inorganic chemicals. There are several exceedances for multiple wells for sulfate, nitrate, manganese, chloride, and iron.

Chemical 10A 1B 1C 6A 8B 9A 8A 2C 12B 6B 1A 11A 15A 14A 12A 6C 11B 9B 13A Creek

Standards 1,1,2-Trichloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,1-Dichloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,1-Dichloroethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Benzene 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cadmium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arsenic 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chloromethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dichlorodifluoromethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Methylene chloride 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tetrachloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vinyl chloride 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zinc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nickel 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boron 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sulfate 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Nitrate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0

Dissolved solids 8 7 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 0 4 1 1 0 7 0 2 0 5 1 Manganese 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0

Chloride 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Iron 8 8 2 3 4 3 3 2 5 0 4 4 1 1 6 9 8 4 4 6

Intervention limits 1,1,2-Trichloroethene 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,1-Dichloroethene 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,1-Dichloroethane 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Benzene 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cadmium 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arsenic 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200

Chloromethane 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dichlorodifluoromethane 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Methylene chloride 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tetrachloroethene 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vinyl chloride 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zinc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nickel 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boron 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 Sulfate 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 7 0 2 1 0 0 Nitrate 0 0 0 1 0 2 6 0 0 8 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 6 0

Dissolved solids 8 8 2 8 8 8 8 2 7 8 5 6 1 1 7 6 7 8 5 6 Manganese 4 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Chloride 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 3 1 0 0 6 0 3 0 5 0 Iron 8 9 2 4 9 3 3 2 7 0 5 4 1 1 8 9 8 5 6 6

Table III.36.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. Conclusion: Concentrations of alkalinity, calcium, chloride, dichlorofluoromethane, specific conductance, and sulfate were higher down-gradient of the demolition landfill. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: Adequate for VOCs, but sampling for inorganic chemicals has been inconsistent and is not adequate. Utility of site in overall analysis: This site is complicated by the presence of several different waste types. Ground water flows down-gradient through each of the waste areas. Consequently, several groups of wells can be compared to provide an indication of water chemistry associated with a particular waste. Well MW-15A is an adequate down-gradient well, MW-6A is up-gradient, and 8A is up-gradient of the demolition waste but down-gradient of the other wastes. The site is therefore useful for overall analysis of demolition landfills. 37. Olmstead County Demolition Landfill There are four wells at the Olmstead County Demolition Landfill (Table III.37.1). Wells 21, 22, and 27 are considered down-gradient of the disposal area, while Well 19 is considered up-gradient. A pond located at the site has also been sampled. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1996 and 2001.

Well Well location Type of well EMS-19 Up-gradient Monitoring EMS-21 Down-gradient Monitoring

201

EMS-22 Down-gradient Monitoring EMS-27 Down-gradient Monitoring

Pond - Surface water Table III.37.1: Well summary for Olmstead County Demolition Landfill. Table III.37.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells and between up- and down-gradient wells. Table III.37.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Concentrations of chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids, and specific conductivity were greater in down-gradient versus up-gradient wells. Xylene was present in the up-gradient well. On two occasions, toluene was detected in samples containing xylene. These VOCs may be associated with field or laboratory contamination of the samples. The three down-gradient wells differed in concentrations of alkalinity, barium, chloride, dichlorodifluoromethane, manganese, sodium, and sulfate, but there was no single well which had consistently higher concentrations of these chemicals. Well EMS-21 appears to be the best down-gradient well. Comparisons between Well EMS-21 and EMS-19 showed greater concentrations of alkalinity, chloride, specific conductance, sulfate, and total dissolved solids in the down-gradient well.

Chemical All wells up- vs. down-gradient

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.789 0.306 Alkalinity 0.001 0.222 Ammonia 0.843 0.567 Arsenic 0.556 0.373 Barium 0.040 0.396 Benzene 0.346 0.069 Cadmium 1.000 1.000 Chloride < 0.001 0.006

Chromium 1.000 1.000 Copper 1.000 1.000

Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.002 0.083 Dichlorofluoromethane 0.183 0.329

Lead 1.000 1.000 Manganese 0.020 0.401

Silver 0.828 0.740 Sodium < 0.001 0.002

Sp. Conductance 0.003 0.000 Sulfate 0.001 0.002

Tetrahydrofuran 0.183 0.329 Toluene 0.541 0.142

Total Dissolved Solids 0.019 0.005

202

Total Suspended Solids 0.049 0.104 Xylene 0.121 0.016

Zinc 0.845 0.936 Table III.37.2: Results of statistical analysis (p-values) comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells and between up- and down-gradient wells.

Chemical EMS-19 EMS-21 EMS-22 EMS-27 Pond 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd ns

Alkalinity (mg/L) 387000 424000 343000 343000 88000 Ammonia (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd 10 Arsenic (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd nd Barium (ug/L) 221 291 302 201 64 Benzene (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd ns Cadmium (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd nd Chloride (ug/L) 1000 23000 43500 1000 35150

Chromium (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd nd Copper (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd Nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd Ns Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd Ns

Lead (ug/L) nd Nd Nd nd nd Manganese (ug/l) nd 8.5 4.0 nd 37

Silver (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd nd Sodium (ug/L) 15800 9600 15200 5400 13900

Sp. Conductance (umhos/cm) 880 1027 974 1016 ns Sulfate (ug/L) 101000 139000 151000 235000 162000

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd ns Toluene (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd ns

Total Dissolved Solids (ug/L) 540000 666000 612000 692500 389500 Total Suspended Solids (ug/L) 9000 6000 1000 4000 7500

Xylene (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd Ns Zinc (ug/L) 55 52 68 39 12

Table III.37.3: Median chemical concentrations in wells. Wells 21, 22, and 27 showed upward concentration trends during the sampling period for some inorganic chemicals (chloride, sodium, sulfate, specific conductance, and total dissolved solids), with upward trends for all these chemicals in Well 22. In Well 19, sulfate was not strongly correlated with other parameters or chemicals. In Wells 21, 22, and 27, sulfate was strongly correlated with dissolved solids and specific conductance (R2 > 0.800). Table III.37.4 summarizes exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each of the wells. The intervention limit for sulfate was

203

consistently exceeded in all wells, but the water quality standard was exceeded on only two occasions (in Well 27).

Chemical Well 19 Well 21 Well 22 Well 27 Standard

Sulfate 0 0 0 2 Dissolved solids 7 7 6 7

Intervention Limit Arsenic 1 0 0 0

Chloride 0 0 1 0 Manganese 0 1 0 0

Sulfate 7 7 7 7 Dissolved solids 7 7 7 7

Table III.37.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. Conclusion: Concentrations of alkalinity, chloride, sulfate, dissolved solids, and specific conductance were greater in down-gradient wells than in up-gradient wells. We therefore reject the null hypothesis. Adequacy of Monitoring: VOC sampling appears adequate. The parameter list for inorganics is limited, particularly with respect to major cations. Well positions appear adequate. Utility of site in overall analysis: There are adequate down-gradient wells and an adequate up-gradient well. The site is adequate for inclusion in an overall analysis of demolition landfills. 38. Polk County Demolition Landfill Wells down-gradient of the demolition landfill could not be identified for the Polk County demolition landfill. 39. Renville Demolition Landfill Data was not available for the Renville Demolition Landfill. Renville was a demolition landfill that accepted industrial waste. The landfill has a capacity of 73,390 cubic yards, with 68,290 of this utilized. The number and configuration of wells at the facility is unknown. The null hypothesis cannot be tested. 40. Rock County Demolition Landfill There are 16 sampling locations at the Rock County Demolition Landfill (Table III.40.1). Well DMW-2 is down-gradient. Well DMW-1 is up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1990 and 2002.

204

Sampling point Location Type of Well MH1 - Monitoring MH2 - Monitoring MW2 - Monitoring

MW2A - Monitoring MW3 - Monitoring MW4 - Monitoring

MW4A - Monitoring MW4B - Monitoring MW6A - Monitoring MW6B - Monitoring MW8A - Monitoring MW9A - Monitoring

S2 - - S2A - -

DMW-1 Up-gradient Monitoring DMW-2 Down-gradient Monitoring

Table III.40.1: Summary of sampling locations for Rock County Demolition Landfill.

Table III.40.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.40.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Although there were many significant differences in chemical concentrations between individual wells, there were few significant differences between up- and down-gradient wells. Well DMW-2 (down-gradient) had very high concentrations of manganese, sulfate, and specific conductivity. The very high turbidity in this well may account for the high concentrations of other chemicals.

Chemical Wells Position Up- vs. down-

gradient 1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 0.001 0.866 1.000 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.964 0.954 1.000

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene < 0.001 0.346 1.000 1,1-Dichloroethane < 0.001 0.236 1.000

1,1-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 0.954 1.000 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene 0.164 0.786 1.000

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.954 0.909 1.000 1,2-Dichloropropane < 0.001 0.825 1.000 1,3-Dichloropropane < 0.001 0.954 1.000

Acetone < 0.001 0.645 1.000 Arsenic 0.111 0.403 0.317 Barium 0.299 0.077 0.121

205

Benzene < 0.001 0.167 1.000 Bromomethane 0.701 0.909 1.000

Cadmium 0.056 0.143 1.000 Chloride < 0.001 0.298 0.034

Chloroethane < 0.001 0.365 1.000 Chloroform < 0.001 0.954 1.000

Chloromethane 0.004 0.825 1.000 Chromium < 0.001 < 0.001 0.221

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 0.034 0.334 cis 1,3-Dichloropropene 0.964 0.954 1.000

Copper 0.114 0.232 0.317 Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 0.014 1.000 Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 0.328 1.000

Ethyl Benzene < 0.001 0.825 1.000 Ethyl Ether < 0.001 0.081 0.301

Iron < 0.001 0.010 0.157 Lead 0.088 0.538 1.000

Manganese < 0.001 0.001 0.032 Mercury < 0.001 0.959 1.000

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.071 0.614 1.000 Methylene Chloride < 0.001 0.475 1.000

Nitrate 0.007 0.072 pH < 0.001 0.283 0.841

Specific Conductance < 0.001 0.032 0.003 Sulfate < 0.001 0.002 0.021

Tetrachloroethylene < 0.001 0.825 1.000 Tetrahydrofuran < 0.001 0.257 0.334

Toluene < 0.001 0.475 1.000 trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 0.428 1.000

Trichlorofluoromethane < 0.001 0.678 1.000 Turbidity < 0.001 0.006 0.014

Vinyl Chloride < 0.001 0.074 1.000 Xylenes < 0.001 0.385 1.000

Zinc 0.408 0.030 0.248 Table III.40.2: Results of statistical tests (p-values) comparing median concentrations between wells and between up- and down-gradient wells.

Chemical MH-1 MH-2 MW-2B MW-9A DMW-1 MW-2A1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd 12.0 nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

206

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 11.0 nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd 36.0 nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 17.0 nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd 62.0 nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd 230.0 nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) 4.0 nd nd nd nd Barium (ug/L) 6.0 44.0 223.5 122.0 Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) 0.8 nd nd nd nd Chloride (mg/L) 2 2 27 73

Chloroethane (ug/L) nd 24.5 nd nd nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd 19 nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) 19.8 nd nd nd nd


Copper (ug/L) 28.7 nd 3.3 nd 2.0 Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd 15.9 nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd 15.0 nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd 170.0 nd nd nd nd

Iron (ug/L) 8680 2790 170 5 254 5 Lead (ug/L) 7.8 nd nd nd nd

Manganese (ug/L) 800.0 4700.0 113.0 77.0 7.0 7.0 Mercury (ug/L) 0.2 nd nd Nd nd

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd nd Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd 450.0 nd nd Nd nd

Nitrate (mg/L) nd 0.3 34.2 nd PH 7.59 7.16 7.40 6.97


663 669 861 866

Sulfate (mg/L) 134 39 36 31 Temperature 9.9 10.1 9.8 10.6

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd 10.0 nd nd nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd 77.0 nd nd nd nd

207

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd 5.0 nd nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) 1.2 160.0 nd nd nd nd

Turbidity (NTU) 18.0 4.0 10.0 21.0 Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Xylenes (ug/L) nd 184.0 nd nd nd nd Zinc (ug/L) 116.5 20.0 7.5 29.0 51.0 20.0

Chemical MW-

8A MW-4 MW-3 MW-6A DMW-2 S-2A 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 0.9 nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 1.0 nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd 1,3-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Barium (ug/L) 125.0 42.0 nd 8.5 Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) 0.15 nd 0.41 nd nd Chloride (mg/L) 61 8 6 8

Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 0.4 nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 28.0

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) 37.3 nd 4.2 1.6 nd nd cis 1,3-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Copper (ug/L) 1.5 nd 4.1 nd 8.0 Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) 4.4 nd nd 1.7 nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd 5.1 nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) 7.7 nd 2.6 nd nd nd

Iron (ug/L) 25 5 1170 5 1496 Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Manganese (ug/L) 1470.5 21.0 371.0 493.0 4989.0 Mercury (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

208

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) nd 0.8 7.7

PH 6.59 6.89 6.58 7.27 Specific Conductance

(umhos/cm) 1104 887 2558 2183

Sulfate (mg/L) 90 65 1350 1755 Temperature 9.6 9.9 10.0 13.2

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) 181.0 nd nd nd nd nd


Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd Turbidity (NTU) 4.1 24.6 34.4 170.0

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd 1.3 nd nd Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) 26.0 39.0 10.0 48.0 109.5

Chemical S-2 MW-

6B MW-

4A MW-4B 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1,3-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd Barium (ug/L) nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Bromomethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd 0.75 Chloride (mg/L) 7

Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd cis 1,3-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

209

Copper (ug/L) nd 3.0 Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd


Iron (ug/L) 23 50 Lead (ug/L) nd 1.4

Manganese (ug/L) 46.0 73.0 Mercury (ug/L) nd nd

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Nitrate (mg/L) nd PH 8.65


2700

Sulfate (mg/L) 1270 Temperature 9.9


Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Turbidity (NTU) 68.0

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Xylenes (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) 5.0 10.0 Table III.40.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. There were not a sufficient number of samples for trend analysis in the up- and down-gradient wells. Table III.40.4 summarizes exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits. Although there were many exceedances for VOCs, none of these occurred in the up- and down-gradient wells (Wells DMW-1 and DMW-2). The standard for sulfate was exceeded on four occasions in the down-gradient well (DMW-2).

Chemical DMW-

1 DMW-

2 MW-

8A MW-

3 MW-

6A MH2MW-

2B MW-

4A MW-

2A MW-

9A MW-

4 MH-

1 MW-

6B Water Quality Standards

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,1-Dichloroethylene 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,2-Dichloropropane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Benzene 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

210

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cis 1,3-Dichloropropene 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Methylene Chloride 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tetrachloroethylene 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tetrahydrofuran 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Manganese 0 3 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Iron 1 2 1 4 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sulfate 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chloromethane 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Vinyl Chloride 0 0 19 5 18 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0

Intervention Limits 1,1,2-

Trichloroethylene 0 0 0 3 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,1-Dichloroethane 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,1,2-

Trichloroethane 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,1-Dichloroethylene 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,2-Dichloropropane 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Acetone 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Benzene 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chloroform 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cis 1,2-

Dichloroethylene 0 0 26 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cis 1,3-Dichloropropene 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ethyl Ether 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Methylene Chloride 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tetrachloroethylene 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tetrahydrofuran 0 0 31 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Nitrate 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chloride 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Cadmium 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

Arsenic 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 Manganese 0 3 12 6 5 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 2

Iron 4 3 3 6 1 1 9 1 1 0 0 0 2 Sulfate 0 4 4 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 4

Vinyl Chloride 0 0 19 5 18 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 Chloromethane 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Table III.40.4: Number of exceedances of water standards and intervention limits in each well. Conclusion: Sulfate and specific conductance were significantly greater in the down-gradient well compared to the up-gradient well. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: VOC and inorganic chemical lists are incomplete. The number of samples collected for inorganic chemicals has not been adequate.

211

Utility of site in overall analysis: Well DMW-1 is up-gradient. Well DMW-2 is down-gradient of the demolition waste footprint but up-gradient of the MSW. The site is therefore adequate for inclusion in the overall analysis. 41. Stevens County Demolition Landfill There are 11 sampling locations at the Stevens County Demolition Landfill (Table III.41.1). Well DMW-1 is down-gradient. Well MW-1 is up-gradient of both the MNSW and demolition landfills. Wells MW-4, MW-5, and MW-6 are up-gradient of the demolition landfill and down-gradient of the MSW landfill. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1990 and 2002.

Sampling point Location Type of Well DMW-1 Down-gradient Monitoring MW-1 Up-gradient Monitoring MW-2 - Monitoring MW-3 - Monitoring

MW-4 Up-gradient (between MSW and demo) Monitoring



MW-7 - Monitoring OFC Well - - TS Well - - TW Well - -

Table III.41.1: Summary of sampling locations for Stevens County Demolition Landfill.

Table III.41.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.41.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Analysis at this site is complicated by the presence of a MSW landfill between the up-gradient wells and the demolition landfill. We first compared the two up-gradient wells and observed differences only in concentrations of nitrate and 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (both at higher concentration in Well MW-3). Comparison of the three wells between the MSW and the demolition landfills showed generally higher concentrations of chemicals in MW-5. Comparing Wells DMW-1 and MW-1 (down- vs. up-gradient), we observed higher concentrations of calcium, chloroform, cis-1,2-dichloroethane, dichlorofluoromethane, manganese, and methyl isobutyl ketone in the down-gradient well compared to the up-gradient well. Concentrations of each of these chemicals was greater in the down-gradient well than in MW-5.

212

Chemical Wells 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane < 0.001 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 0.349

1,1-Dichloroethane 0.577 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.577 1,2-Dichloroethane 1.000

1,2-Dichloropropane 0.552 1,4-Dichlorobenzene < 0.001

Acetone 0.669 Alkalinity 0.020 Ammonia 0.009 Arsenic 0.002 Barium 0.016 Benzene < 0.001 Cadmium 0.072 Calcium 0.030 Chloride 0.001

Chlorobenzene < 0.001 Chloroethane < 0.001 Chloroform < 0.001

Chloromethane < 0.001 Chromium 0.289

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 Copper 0.343

Dibromochloromethane 0.577 Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.001 Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.001

Ethyl Benzene 0.526 Ethyl Ether < 0.001

Iron 0.020 Lead 0.028

Magnesium 0.051 Manganese < 0.001

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.111 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone < 0.001

Methylene Chloride 0.911 Nitrate < 0.001

Potassium 0.051 Sodium 0.014

213

Sulfate 0.021 Tetrachloroethylene < 0.001

Tetrahydrofuran < 0.001 Toluene 0.019

Total Dissolved Solids 0.008 Total Suspended Solids 0.375

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.066 Vinyl Chloride < 0.001

Zinc 0.708 Table III.41.2: Results of statistical tests (p-values) comparing median concentrations between wells.

Chemical MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 DMW-

1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Alkalinity (mg/L) 290 240 330 300 510 Ammonia (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 19.10 0.04 Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd Barium (ug/L) 30 150 43 55 93 44 Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 0.63 0.48 Cadmium (ug/L) 0.20 0.15 0.35 0.15 0.32 Nd Calcium (ug/L) 110000 91500 120000 77000 99000 170000 Chloride (mg/L) 60 41 47 4 38 98

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 0.66 Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 0.58

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd nd

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1.00 8.2 Copper (ug/L) 9.95 12 10.5 14 15 Nd

Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 8.40 2.30 Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 2.20

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

214

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 7.45 4.3 Iron (ug/L) 29 18 65 97 95 220 Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd

Magnesium (ug/L) 38000 31000 43000 30500 58500 78000 Manganese (ug/L) 15 nd nd nd 350 630

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 3.05

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 1.33 14.00 3.73 2.11 0.21

Potassium (ug/L) 4150 4100 4815 2030 28600 21000 Sodium (ug/L) 14450 7900 9950 5300 34500 53000 Sulfate (mg/L) 99 47 82 7 141 250

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd 0.45 nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 11.2 6.50

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 530 440 580 290 710 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 5.0 55.0 2.0 2.0 11.0

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) nd 20 nd nd 20 Nd Chemical MW-6 MW-7 OFC TS TW

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd 0.69 1.90

1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 1.50

1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Alkalinity (mg/L) 380 270 344 375 Ammonia (ug/L) 3.45 nd 0.05 Arsenic (ug/L) nd nd 3.40 nd 2.00 Barium (ug/L) 80 44 8 23 Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Calcium (ug/L) 59800 110000 168500 171000 Chloride (mg/L) 41 22 23 28

Chlorobenzene (ug/L) 5.15 nd nd nd nd Chloroethane (ug/L) 0.04 nd nd nd 3.35 Chloroform (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

215

Chloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Chromium (ug/L) nd nd nd nd 12.50

cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) 0.68 nd nd 3.70 19.90 Copper (ug/L) nd nd 4.5 nd 34.5

Dibromochloromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) 4.80 nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Ethyl Ether (ug/L) 12.30 nd nd nd 2.55

Iron (ug/L) 211 1 2690 4270 1575 Lead (ug/L) nd nd nd 4.30 nd

Magnesium (ug/L) 30000 43500 58000 70000 Manganese (ug/L) 209 3 470 247 295

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Methylene Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) nd 24.10 nd nd

Potassium (ug/L) 27900 4750 5450 6600 Sodium (ug/L) 29300 7700 20300 23400 Sulfate (mg/L) 67 111 385 431

Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) nd 0.47 nd nd nd Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) 15.8 nd nd nd nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 740 610 1020 1100 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 16.0 10.0 7.0 12.0

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd

Zinc (ug/L) nd nd 73 22 105 Table III.41.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. There were not a sufficient number of samples to conduct trend analysis. Table III.41.4 shows the number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. There were relatively few exceedances in the down-gradient well (MW-1), while the up-gradient wells were highly contaminated with a variety of VOCs.

Chemical MW-1

MW-2

MW-3

MW-4

MW-5

MW-6

MW-7

TS TW OFC DMW-1

Water Quality Standards 1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 Cadmium 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

216

Chloromethane 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nitrate 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 Sulfate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2

Total Dissolved Solids

3 0 3 0 3 3 3 2 0 4 0

Vinyl Chloride 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 3 0 0 0

Intervention Limits 1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane 0 1 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0

1,2-Dichloroethane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Arsenic 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 7 0

Cadmium 0 3 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 Chloride, mg/l 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3

Chloromethane 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 cis 1,2-

Dichloroethylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

Iron 2 2 4 6 6 4 0 6 2 11 2 Manganese 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 3 1 11 3

Nitrate 0 3 4 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 Sulfate 2 0 2 0 2 2 4 2 0 2 3

Tetrachloroethylene 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tetrahydrofuran 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 Total Dissolved

Solids 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 0 4 0

Vinyl Chloride 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 3 0 0 0

Table III.41.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits. Conclusion: The null hypothesis is rejected because concentrations of several chemicals, organic and inorganic, were higher in the down-gradient well compared to the up-gradient well. Adequacy of Monitoring: Sampling for inorganics has been erratic. The parameter lists are not complete. Utility of site in overall analysis: Well MW-1A is an up-gradient well, well DMW-1 is down-gradient of the demolition waste, and wells MW-4, MW-5, and MW-6 are between the MSW and the demolition waste. The site is adequate for inclusion in the overall analysis. 42. Veit Demolition Landfill There are 12 sampling locations at the Veit Demolition Landfill (Table III.42.1). Wells 101-A, 101-B, and 102-A are considered to be down-gradient of the disposal area.

217

Well 103-A is up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1997 and 2002.

Well Well location Type of well Creek - Surface water

Creek point 2 - Surface water MW-1A Down- gradient Monitoring MW-1B Down-gradient Monitoring MW-2A Down-gradient Monitoring SWC2 - -

MW-3A Up-gradient Monitoring Table III.42.1: Well summary for Veit Demolition Landfill. Table III.42.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.42.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. The only differences between up- and down-gradient wells were for chloride and total dissolved solids, both of which were higher in down-gradient wells. Wells 1A and 2A, both of which were down-gradient, appeared to have different redox chemistry. Well 1A had more reducing conditions as evidenced by higher concentrations of iron and manganese and iron and lower concentrations of nitrate compared to Well 102A. These differences may mask differences in up- and down-gradient water quality. For example, median sulfate concentrations in Well 101A were only 8 mg/L, compared to 161 mg/L in Well 102A. The concentration in the up-gradient well was 53 mg/L. Thus, there were no apparent differences between up- and down-gradient wells.


gradient 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.048 0.394

Acetone 0.693 0.544 Alkalinity 0.029 0.220 Ammonia 0.317 0.248 Arsenic 0.189 0.335 Benzene 0.073 0.167 Calcium 0.121 0.505 Chloride 0.030 0.014

Chloroethane 0.651 0.564 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.027 0.122 Dichlorofluoromethane 0.007 0.187

Ethyl Ether 0.050 0.275 Iron 1.000 0.252 Lead 0.317 0.378

218


Mercury 1.000 1.000 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 1.000 0.564

Nitrate 0.121 0.866 pH 0.374 0.303

Potassium 0.095 0.237 Oxidation-reduction Potential 0.439 0.094

Sodium 0.564 0.142 Specific Conductance 0.083 0.378

Sulfate 0.033 0.578 Tetrahydrofuran 0.007 < 0.001

Toluene 1.000 0.394 Total Dissolved Solids 0.121 0.238 Total Suspended Solids 0.121 0.046

Vinyl Chloride 0.651 0.564 Zinc 1.000 0.495


Chemical Creek PO1MW

-1 MW-

1A MW-

1B MW

-3 MW-101A

MW-101B

MW-102A

MW-103A

MW-2

SWC2

1,1-Dichloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd nd Nd 1.2 nd 2.4 nd Acetone (ug/L) 6.5 nd nd nd nd Nd nd 55.0 nd nd nd nd

Alkalinity (mg/L) 220 200 1200 nd nd 1200 340 640 480 820 240 Ammonia (mg/L) nd nd 0.20 0.20 1.85 nd

Arsenic (ug/L) nd 0.01 Nd nd nd Benzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd Nd 2.0 nd nd nd Calcium (mg/L) 68 nd 270 81 200 115 Chloride (mg/L) 84 95 160 nd 86 22 59 11 72 110

Chloroethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd Nd Nd nd nd nd nd Dichlorodifluoromethane

(ug/L) nd nd 3.7 nd nd Nd Nd Nd 27.5 nd 6.0 nd

Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd Nd Nd 42.0 nd 30.0 nd

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) nd nd nd nd nd Nd Nd Nd 2.2 nd 2.1 nd Iron (mg/L) nd nd 4.4 0.1 nd nd Lead (ug/L) nd Nd Nd nd nd

Magnesium (mg/L) 21 nd 85 25 88 49 Manganese (ug/L) 0.1 16.5 0.6 5.2 0.9

Mercury (ug/L) nd nd Nd Nd nd nd Methyl Isobutyl Ketone

(ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd Nd Nd 11.0 nd nd nd nd

219

Nitrate (mg/L) 0.8 0.1 0.5 3.0 0.5 PH 8.20 6.75 7.60 7.10 7.65

Potassium (mg/L) 6.5 1.9 5.4 1.65 3.8 Oxidation-reduction

potential (mV) 399 403 398 413 428

Sodium (mg/L) 49 120 65 75 7 Specific Conductance

(umhos/cm) 820 2200 815 1800 920

Sulfate (mg/L) 33 30 12 8 72 161 53 85 32 Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd Nd Nd 79.5 nd 63.0 nd

Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nd Nd 9.3 nd nd nd nd Total Dissolved Solids

(mg/L) 400 1300 475 1095 500

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.04

Vinyl Chloride (ug/L) Zinc (ug/L)

Table III.42.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. Because of the small sample size (two to four events for each parameter in each well), trend analysis could not be performed. We compared ranked values between two sampling events (3/10/94 and 4/10/94), assuming higher concentrations of indicator chemicals (calcium, magnesium, sulfate, alkalinity, potassium, chloride, dissolved solids, and sodium) are associated with similar impacts to ground water. Using a paired t-test with an assumed difference in means of 0, ranked concentrations were higher in the down-gradient wells (p = 0.002 and 0.48) for the second sampling event. There was no significant difference between sampling events for the up-gradient well (p = 0.085). This does not indicate a trend, but suggests that concentrations of chemicals may be more variable in the down-gradient wells compared to the up-gradient wells. Table III.42.4 summarizes exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits. Exceedances occurred for iron, vinyl chloride, tetrahydrofuran, and sulfate in down-gradient wells. There were no exceedances in the up-gradient well.

Chemical MW-102A MW-2 MW-101A MW-101B Creek SW Standards

Iron 0 0 2 0 0 0 Vinyl chloride 1 0 0 0 0 0

Tetrahydrofuran 1 0 0 0 0 0 Dissolved solids 2 0 2 1 1 0

Sulfate 1 0 0 0 0 0 Intervention limits

1,1-Dichloroethene 2 3 0 0 0 0 Arsenic 0 0 1 0 0 0

Iron 0 0 2 1 0 0 Nitrate 1 0 0 0 0 0

220

Vinyl chloride 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tetrahydrofuran 4 3 0 0 0 0 Dissolved solids 2 0 2 2 1 0

Sulfate 3 1 0 1 0 0 Chloride 1 1 3 0 2 1

Table III.42.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits. Conclusions: Concentrations of chloride and alkalinity were greater in down-gradient wells compared to the up-gradient well. There appeared to be differences, however, between the two down-gradient wells, particularly in their redox chemistry. The null hypothesis is rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: Very small sample sizes exist for VOCs and inorganic chemicals. Utility of site in an overall analysis: Wells MW-1A and MW-2 are down-gradient of the waste disposal area, while MW-3 is up-gradient. The site is adequate for overall analysis. 43. Voyageur Demolition Landfill There are nine sampling locations at the Voyageur Demolition Landfill (Table III.43.1). Wells MW-97-3, MW-97-2, MW-98-1A, MW-98-2A, are down-gradient. Well MW-93-3 is up-gradient. Data collected for this analysis was collected between 1997 and 2002.

Sampling point Location Type of Well MW 97-1 Down-gradient Leachate MW 97-2 Down-gradient Monitoring MW 97-3 Down-gradient Monitoring MW 93-3 Up-gradient Monitoring

MW 98-1A Down-gradient Monitoring MW98-2A Down-gradient Monitoring MW-4A Side-gradient Monitoring

Water supply - - Leachate Leachate Leachate

Table III.43.1: Summary of sampling locations for Voyageur Demolition Landfill.

Table III.43.2 summarizes results of group tests comparing median chemical concentrations in all wells. Table III.43.3 summarizes median chemical concentrations in each well. Down-gradient well 98-02, considered the best of the down-gradient wells, had higher concentrations of alkalinity, specific conductance, total dissolved solids, and trichlorofluoromethane, compared to the up-gradient well (93-03). Trichlorofluoromethane was detected on 14 occasions in the down-gradient wells, with all the detections occurring in Wells 97-3, 98-1, and 98-2. Trichlorofluoromethane was

221

not detected in the up-gradient well. Although the statistical tests do not reveal the presence of VOCs in down-gradient wells, there were a total of 43 VOCs detections (5.1% of samples) in the down-gradient wells. There were no detections in the side- or up-gradient wells. The detection frequency in leachate was 20.6 percent. VOCs detected in the down-gradient wells included 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-Trichloroethene, 1,1-Dichloroethene, Acetone, Benzene, Dichlorodifluoromethane, Dichlorofluoromethane, Xylene, Toluene, and Trichlorofluoromethane.


gradient Well 98-02 vs.

Well 93-03 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.706 0.245 0.131

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene < 0.001 1.000 1.000 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.758 0.245 0.296

Acetone < 0.001 1.000 1.000 Alkalinity 0.003 0.205 0.001 Ammonia 0.261 0.317 0.296 Arsenic 0.238 Benzene 0.735 0.245 0.296 Cadmium 0.205 0.157 0.221 Calcium < 0.001 0.695 0.062 Chloride 0.088 0.599 0.317

Chromium 0.079 0.294 0.197 Copper 0.191 0.555 0.285

Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.429 0.245 1.000 Dichlorofluoromethane 0.638 0.174 0.131

Ethyl Ether < 0.001 1.000 1.000 Iron 0.567 0.668 1.000 Lead 0.162 0.767

m,p-Xylene 0.939 0.348 0.296 Magnesium < 0.001 0.092 0.062 Manganese 0.084 0.335 0.439

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 1.000 1.000 1.000 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone < 0.001 1.000 1.000 Methyl tert-butyl Ether < 0.001 1.000 1.000

Naphthalene < 0.001 1.000 1.000 Nitrate 0.011 0.847 0.006

Nitrate+Nitrite 0.392 o-Xylene 0.939 0.348 0.296

pH 0.042 0.117 0.929 Potassium 0.007 0.082 0.128

Oxidation-reduction 0.597 0.327 0.302

222

potential sec-Butylbenzene < 0.001 1.000 1.000

Sodium 0.025 0.193 0.093 Specific Conductance 0.001 0.117 < 0.001

Sulfate 0.015 0.050 0.870 Temperature 0.445 0.200 0.182

Tetrahydrofuran < 0.001 1.000 1.000 Toluene 0.098 0.174 0.131

Total Dissolved Solids 0.004 0.147 0.016 Total Suspended Solids 0.549 0.445 1.000

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.001 1.000 1.000 trans 1,2-Dichloropropene < 0.001 1.000 1.000 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.053 0.013 0.004

Turbidity 0.043 0.007 0.194 Zinc 0.015 0.240 1.000


Chemical Leachate MW-4-01 MW-93-03MW-97-

1 MW-97-

2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) Nd Nd nd nd nd

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) 42 Nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) 2300 Nd nd nd nd Alkalinity (mg/L) 770 91 102 76 106 Ammonia (ug/L) 13 0.24 Arsenic (ug/L) 21 2.45 2.45 Benzene (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) 3.2 1.1 1.7 Calcium (mg/L) 609 26 29 17 20 Chloride (mg/L) 2460 2.10 1.00

Chromium (ug/L) 25 1.30 Copper (ug/L) 96 Nd 1.1

Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd Nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) 9660 Nd nd nd nd Iron (ug/L) 18 25 13 Nd Lead (ug/L) 12 5.0 3.0 1.3 1.6

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) Nd Nd nd nd Nd Magnesium (mg/L) 88 7.7 9 8 14 Manganese (ug/L) 23 29 2.73 0.05 0.02

223

Mercury (ug/L) 5.7 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) 0.001 nd nd nd nd

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (ug/L) 730 nd nd nd nd Methyl tert-butyl Ether (ug/L) 330 nd nd nd nd

Naphthalene (ug/L) 100 nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 20 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3

Nitrate+Nitrite (mg/L) 0.05 0.1 o-Xylene (ug/L) Nd Nd nd nd nd

PH 6.70 7.91 7.96 8.69 8.65 Potassium (mg/L) 29 0.90 0.90 1.40

Oxidation-reduction potential (mV)

19 2 47 109 83

sec-Butylbenzene (ug/L) 20 nd nd nd nd Sodium (mg/L) 797 2.55 2.40 3.10

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 6970 196 207 155 202 Sulfate (mg/L) 1.3 6.0 9.0 9.8 9.8

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) 680 nd nd nd nd Toluene (ug/L) 260 nd nd nd nd

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 7860 67 131 109 127 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 10 308 61 12 30

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) 20 nd nd nd nd trans 1,2-Dichloropropene (ug/L) 30 nd nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) 12 nd nd nd nd

Turbidity (NTU) 61 56 587 307 Xylenes (ug/L) 56

Zinc (ug/L) 4500 41 13 Chemical MW-97-

3 MW-98-

1A MW-98-

2A Supply

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd

Acetone (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd Alkalinity (mg/L) 98 108 133 Ammonia (ug/L) 0.011 0.230 Arsenic (ug/L) 0.04 2.20 2.70 Benzene (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd Cadmium (ug/L) 3.0 0.9 0.6 Calcium (mg/L) 24 33 39 Chloride (mg/L) 1.10 37.50 1.50

Chromium (ug/L) 1.00 16.50 1.10

224

Copper (ug/L) 1.9 0.7 3.5 1.0 Dichlorodifluoromethane (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd Dichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd

Ethyl Ether (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd Iron (ug/L) 47.8 12.5 0.3 Lead (ug/L) 3.1 5.0

m,p-Xylene (ug/L) Nd nd nd nd Magnesium (mg/L) 10 12 12 Manganese (ug/L) 0.04 0.09 1.76

Mercury (ug/L) Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ug/L) nd nd nd nd


Naphthalene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Nitrate (mg/L) 0.1 0.4 0.1

Nitrate+Nitrite (mg/L) 0.4 0.1 o-Xylene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

PH 8.05 8.10 7.88 Potassium (mg/L) 1.45 1.20 1.10

Oxidation-reduction potential (mV)

37 89 96

sec-Butylbenzene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Sodium (mg/L) 2.50 2.40 2.90

Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 188 229 248 Sulfate (mg/L) 11.7 15.0 10.0

Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) 7.5 8.2 8.0 Toluene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) nd nd nd nd Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 124 228 200

trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene (ug/L) 172 216 40 trans 1,2-Dichloropropene (ug/L) nd nd nd nd Trichlorofluoromethane (ug/L) nd nd nd nd

Turbidity (NTU) nd nd 1.8 nd Xylenes (ug/L) 229 96 70

Zinc (ug/L) Zinc, Dissolved, ug/l 19 17 13

Table III.43.3: Median chemical concentrations in each well. Trend analysis revealed no significant changes for the up-gradient well in concentrations of any chemical during the sampling period. Concentrations of calcium (R2 = 0.809), magnesium (R2 = 0.673), alkalinity (R2 = 0.650), and iron (R2 = 0.614)

225

increased in down-gradient wells, as a group, during the sampling period. Sample size for most of the down-gradient wells was too small to conduct the trend analysis for individual wells. Table III.43.4 summarizes exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in the wells. Except for one exceedance for total dissolved solids in Well 98-1, there were no exceedances of water quality standards in down-gradient wells. There were also relatively few exceedances of intervention limits in the down-gradient wells, although the limits for benzene and 1,1-dichloroethene were exceeded on at least one occasion.

Chemical Leachate MW-98-1 MW-98-2 MW-97-3 MW-97-2 MW-93-3 MW-4 Water Quality Standards

1,1,2-Trichloroethene 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acetone 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethyl ether 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Methyl isobutyl ketone 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Methyl tert butyl ether 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nitrate 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tetrahydrofuran 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arsenic 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chloride 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total dissolved solids 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Intervention limits 1,1,2-Trichloroethene 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,1-Dichloroethene 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Acetone 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Benzene 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ethyl ether 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Methyl isobutyl ketone 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Methyl tert butyl ether 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Naphthalene 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nitrate 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tetrahydrofuran 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toluene 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Arsenic 2 0 1 0 1 0 0

226

Chloride 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Iron 0 0 0 2 0 1 1

Total dissolved solids 1 7 8 4 2 7 1 Table III.43.4: Number of exceedances of water quality standards and intervention limits in each well. Conclusion: Down-gradient concentrations of some chemicals exceeded up-gradient concentrations. VOCs were detected in about five percent of samples collected from down-gradient wells, compared to no detections in the up-gradient well. Upward trends in concentration occurred in the down-gradient wells for calcium, magnesium, alkalinity, and iron. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. Adequacy of Monitoring: Adequate for VOCs, but inadequate sample size and parameter list for inorganic chemicals. Utility of site in overall analysis: Well 98-2 is an adequate down-gradient well, while 93-3 is an adequate up-gradient well. The site is therefore adequate for use in an overall analysis. 44. Morrison County Demolition Landfill Morrison County Demolition Landfill has a closed MSW Landfill, an open MSW Landfill, and leachate storage ponds located directly up-gradient of the Demo Landfill. There is documented ground water contamination migrating down-gradient of the closed MSW Landfill with the ground water plume located both up-gradient and down-gradient of the Demolition landfill area. There are no monitoring wells directly associated with the Demolition landfill area. The site, therefore, does not have adequate monitoring for assessing potential impacts from the demolition landfill. 45. East Central Demolition Landfill East Central Demolition Landfill does not have monitoring wells installed for the Demolition landfill area. There are monitoring wells installed for the adjacent MSW landfill area, but those monitoring wells do not accurately depict ground water flow at the Demolition landfill area. The site, therefore, does not have adequate monitoring for assessing potential impacts from the demolition landfill.

IV. Adequacy of Monitoring Table IV.1 summarizes an assessment on the adequacy of monitoring. The data were sufficient, in most cases, to conduct group comparisons. The data was not generally suitable for conducting trend analysis. The primary concerns were incomplete parameter lists, especially for inorganic chemicals. Sampling at many sites included either trace elements or major ions, but frequently not both. There were also uncertainties about the location of wells relative to the demolition disposal areas, particularly at sites where municipal waste was also being disposed. There was also limited sampling for boron,

227

which is a relatively mobile chemical that could be associated with some types of demolition waste.

Adequate monitoring

Site VOCs Inorganics Well position Comment

Albert Lea yes no (1,2) uncertain

Need better information on

location of wells not designated as

up- or down-gradient

Allenview no (1) yes uncertain Only one down-gradient well

Beltrami no (1) no (1) uncertain

Differences of opinion exist as to which wells

are up- and down-gradient

Bustad yes yes yes -

Camp Ripley no (3) no (3) uncertain Only one down-gradient well

Chippewa yes no (1,2) uncertain

Need better information on

location of wells not designated as

up- or down-gradient

Cross Lake no (2) no (1) no No apparent

down-gradient well

Crow Wing yes yes yes - Dawnway yes yes yes - Dem Con yes no (1,2) yes -

DLS no (1) no (1) yes -

Dodge County no (1,2) no (1,2) uncertain

Only one up- and one down-

gradient well, with many more

unidentified locations

East Side yes yes uncertain Only one down-gradient well

228

Fergus Falls yes no (1) no No down-

gradient well identified

Glenwood no (1) no (1) yes - Goodhue yes no (2) yes - Hengel no (3) no (3) yes -

Henkmeyer no (2) no (2) yes -

Kandiyohi no (1) no (1) no

There is only one well that may be

considered down-gradient of

the demolition disposal area,

and this well is sometimes side-

gradient.

Lake of the Woods no (1,2) no (1,2) uncertain Only one up- and

one down-gradient well

Lansing no (1,2) no (1,2) uncertain Only one up- and

one down-gradient well

Lyon County no (1) no (1) yes -

Meeker yes no (1,2) no


gradient well. Many other wells

exist at the site and are not

identified with respect to location.

Mower no (1) no (2) yes -

Murray no (2) no (2) uncertain

Only one down-gradient well.

Many other wells exist at the site

and are not identified with

respect to location.

Nobles yes yes yes - Northeast Otter Tail yes no (3) yes -

Olmstead yes no (2) yes -

229

Polk no data no data no data - Renville no data no data no data -

Rice no (2) yes yes -

Rock no (2) no (1,2) no





Steele no (3) no (3) yes -

Stevens no (2) no (3) no





Summit Demo yes no (2) yes -

TKD no (1) no (1) uncertain Only one down-gradient well

Valley Demo no (1) yes no Need up-gradient well(s)

Veit no (1) no (1) yes -

Vonco yes yes uncertain

The most impacted well

(Well 4), is considered to be side-gradient to the disposal area

Voyageur yes no (1,2) yes - Wadena no (1) no (1) yes -

Waseca yes no (1,2) uncertain

Many wells do not have defined positions. One well serves as

both an up- and a down-gradient

well.

230

Western Stearns no (3) no (3) uncertain Only one down-gradient well

(1) insufficient sample size (2) insufficient parameter list (3) Sampling has been inconsistent

Table IV.1: Assessment of the adequacy of sampling at the 43 disposal sites.

analysis of data from demolition landfills in minnesota index

Documents