attachment 2 groundwater contour maps - prodenv.dep.state …
TRANSCRIPT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE 2 2.0 GROUNDWATER FLOW 4 3.0 GROUNDWATER QUALITY 7 4.0 CORRELATION OF RELATED PARAMETERS 9 5.0 ADEQUACY OF MONITORING NETWORK 10 6.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 11
ATTACHMENT 1 SITE MAP ATTACHMENT 2 GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAPS ATTACHMENT 3 HYDROGRAPH ATTACHMENT 4 DETECTED PARAMETER EXCEEDANCES COMPARED TO
GROUNDWATER STANDARDS ATTACHMENT 5 GROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPHS ATTACHMENT 6 HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY ATTACHMENT 7 CORRELATION PLOT CHARTS
2
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
GROUNDWATER QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT 2016-2018
DEP Permit No. 0009560-016-SF-01, -017-SF-T3, -019-SF-T3-MM, -018-WT-02
WACS No. 6660
1.0 PURPOSE Locklear & Associates, Inc. (L&A) prepared this Water Quality Technical (WQT) Report for Leon County Solid Waste Management Facility (Facility) per Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Rule 62-701.510(8)(b) FAC. The Facility is permitted by the FDEP under Permit Nos. 0009560-016-SF-01, -017-SF-T3, -019-SF-T3-MM, -018-WT-02. The previous WQT Report was submitted in October 2015 and covered the July 2013 through July 2015 sampling events. This report summarizes data from the Facility from the First Semiannual Compliance Monitoring Event – 2016 (16S1) through the First Semiannual Compliance Monitoring Event – 2018 (18S1) and conforms with the requirements outlined in Rule 62-701.510(8)(b) FAC. The following is a summary of the rule including the location of the associated information within this report: Tabular displays of any data which shows that a monitoring parameter has been detected
(Attachment 6), including hydrographs for all monitoring wells (Attachment 3). Trend analyses of any monitoring parameters consistently detected. (Section 3.0 and
Attachment 5) Comparison among shallow, middle, and deep zone wells. (Sections 2.0 and 3.0) Comparisons between background water quality and the water quality in compliance wells.
Correlations between related parameters, discussion of erratic or poorly correlated data. (Section 4.0 and Attachment 7)
An interpretation of the groundwater contour maps, including an evaluation of groundwater flow rates. (Section 2.0 and Attachment 2)
An evaluation of the adequacy of the water quality monitoring frequency and sampling locations based on site conditions. (Sections 5.0)
The five sampling events summarized in this report were conducted on the dates listed in Table 1.1. The sampling events 16S1 through 18S1 are referred to as the “report period” throughout this document. All sample collection and laboratory analyses were performed by Test America Laboratories, Inc. of Tallahassee, Florida and Environmental Conservation Laboratory (ENCO), of Orlando, Florida. The groundwater monitoring network is shown in Table 1.2. A current Site Plan is provided in Attachment 1. Surface water and leachate sampling/analysis is not required per the Facility permit.
3
Table 1.1 Summary of Sampling Events during Report Period Sampling Event Sampling Dates
First Semiannual 2016 (16S1) January 26, 27 and 28, 2016
Second Semiannual 2016 (16S2) July 7, 8 and 9, 2016
First Semiannual 2017 (17S1) January 12, 13, 16 and 17, 2017
Second Semiannual 2017 (17S2) July 10, 11 and 12 and August 10, 2017
First Semiannual 2018 (18S1) February 19, 20 and 21, 2018 Table 1.2 Groundwater Monitoring Network
Monitoring Well ID Field Parameters Laboratory Parameters Frequency Well Type
Floridan Aquifer
MW‐AB
pH, Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen,
Specific Conductivity, ORP, Turbidity, and static water level in well before purging
Ammonia, Boron, Chlorides, Iron, Mercury, Nitrate,
Sodium, Strontium, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS),
parameters listed in 40 CFR Part 258 Appendix I
Semiannual Background
MW‐AA, MW‐AC, MW‐QR
Semiannual
Compliance
MW‐G, MW‐H, MW‐I, MW‐J, MW‐L, MW‐M,
MW‐Y
Every Five years
MW‐Y Iron
Semiannual
MW‐G, MW‐I Iron and TDS
MW‐J Thallium and TDS
MW‐L TDS and Vinyl Chloride
MW‐M Iron, TDS and Vinyl Chloride
MW‐A, MW‐C1A, MW‐D, MW‐F, MW‐K, MW‐R,
MW‐TR
Static water level in well before purging
None Water Level
Perched Surficial Groundwater
MW‐8, MW‐21, MW‐36
pH, Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen,
Specific Conductivity, ORP, Turbidity, and static water level in well before purging
Benzene Semiannual Detection
4
2.0 GROUNDWATER FLOW
2.1 Groundwater Contouring
Groundwater contour maps are presented in Attachment 2. The direction of groundwater flow within the Floridan aquifer at the Facility is predominately toward the west with occasional northerly and southerly influences, as illustrated in Table 2.1. The screened intervals of the Floridan aquifer wells were constructed to remain submerged during fluctuations in groundwater elevation. Table 2.1 presents recorded fluctuations of groundwater elevations in the Floridan aquifer. The Floridan hydrograph is presented in Attachment 3. Groundwater elevations of the Floridan aquifer varied from approximately 24.51 feet to 33.47 feet NGVD. Table 2.1 Maximum/Minimum Groundwater Elevations
Monitoring Well
Well Screen Elevation (NGVD)
Groundwater Elevation (NGVD)
Top Bottom Minimum Maximum Floridan aquifer wells
MW-AA -24.73 -34.73 24.51 28.92 MW-AB -10.16 -20.16 26.42 30.44 MW-AC 14.7 4.7 26.67 33.47 MW-A NA NA 24.81 28.94
MW-C1A -90.56 -100.56 25.45 29.66 MW-D 15.56 5.56 25.40 30.60 MW-F -4.01 -14.01 25.67 31.16 MW-G -6.62 -16.62 26.55 30.56 MW-H 7.45 -2.55 26.01 29.94 MW-I NA NA 24.72 29.13 MW-J NA NA 25.00 29.09 MW-K NA NA 24.51 28.92 MW-L NA NA 26.42 30.44 MW-M 21.65 11.65 25.76 30.18
MW-QR 14.15 4.15 24.64 29.08 MW-R -4.93 -14.93 24.80 28.78
MW-TR 33.21 23.21 24.63 28.84 MW-Y 24.49 14.49 24.96 29.24
Table Notes: Elevations are approximate, based upon available well data. Groundwater Elevations in this table are continuous-round measurements.
5
2.2 Groundwater Flow Velocity
The groundwater flow velocity for the Floridan aquifer was calculated using the following assumed values: No site specific data on hydraulic conductivity was available for the facility,
and therefore, the hydraulic conductivity values were assumed based on “Physical & Chemical Hydrogeology” by Domenico, P. and Schwartz, F., which state that hydraulic conductivity in karst and dolomitic limestone settings range from 5x10-7 to 1x10-2 m/s or 0.14 to 2.8x103 feet/day.
No site specific data on porosity was available for the facility, and therefore, the porosity value was assumed based on “Physical & Chemical Hydrogeology” by Domenico, P. and Schwartz, F., which state that porosity in karst and dolomitic limestone settings is approximately 45%.
Horizontal groundwater velocity (v) was calculated using Darcy’s equation for lateral flow:
v = (K/n)I where, v = flow velocity K = hydraulic conductivity n = porosity I = hydraulic gradient Hydraulic gradient is the slope of the groundwater potentiometric surface parallel to flow quantified as the unit-less quotient of the rise divided by the run. Table 2.2 provides hydraulic gradient values for the Facility. Table 2.2
MW‐AB MW‐AA
Period
Groundwater
Elevation (NGVD)
Groundwater
Elevation (NGVD)
Distance between
points (feet)
Hydraulic
Gradient
16S1 26.78 28.66 5507 ‐0.000341384
16S2 28.92 30.44 5507 ‐0.000276012
17S1 27.48 29.22 5507 ‐0.000315962
17S2 27.42 29.18 5507 ‐0.000319593
18S1 24.51 26.42 5507 ‐0.000346831 Average Hydraulic Gradient = 0.000319956
6
The upper and lower lateral groundwater flow velocities based on Darcy’s equation is displayed below: Upper
v = (K/n)Iavg
v = (2.8x103 feet/day / 0.45) 0.000319956
v = 1.99 feet/day or 726 feet/year
Lower
v = (K/n)Iavg
v = (0.14 feet/day / 0.45) 0.000319956
v = 9.95x10-5 feet/day or 3.6x10-2 feet/year This velocity is consistent with historically reported surficial groundwater flow velocities. The 2015 WQTR report average calculated velocities of 1.79 (upper) and 8.82x10-5 (lower) feet/day.
7
3.0 GROUNDWATER QUALITY Detailed groundwater quality data have been submitted with the semiannual groundwater monitoring reports for the report period. Groundwater standards include the Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWS), Secondary Drinking Water Standards (SDWS), and Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTL). Several parameters were reported at or outside groundwater standards during the report period. These parameters include the following:
Field Parameters: pH
Metals: Iron
Mercury
Volatiles: Benzene
Wet Chemistry: Total Dissolved Solids
Attachment 4 presents detected parameter exceedances compared to groundwater standards for each sampling event of the report period. Presented in Attachment 5 are graphs of field and laboratory parameters. Attachment 6 presents a historical data summary. Monitoring wells MW-8, MW-21 and MW-36 are located in a non-continuous, perched zone. Groundwater standard exceedances encountered in these perched wells do not exhibit a hydraulic connection to the Floridan aquifer. Levels of pH in monitoring wells MW-AA, MW-G, MW-8, MW-21 and MW-36 were below or slightly above the Secondary Drinking Water Standard (SDWS) lower limit of 6.5 S.U. during all sampling events of the report period. All other pH values fell between the SDWS of 6.5 to 8.5 S.U. The pH levels during the report period were consistent with historical sampling. Iron concentrations were reported above the SDWS of 300 μg/L in the monitoring wells MW-AA, MW-AC, MW-G, MW-I, MW-QR, and MW-Y, during the report period. Iron concentrations consistently exceeded the SDWS in samples collected from MW-AC and MW-I, however, Iron concentrations reported from both sampling locations experienced moderate decreasing trends during the report period. Iron concentrations during the report period were consistent with historical results. Mercury concentrations were reported above the PDWS of 2μg/L in the monitoring well MW-QR during the 17S1 sampling event. The remaining reported Mercury concentrations did not exceed the PDWS for the report period. Mercury concentration at MW-QR during the 17S1 sampling event is
8
not correlative to historical events and is therefore considered to be erratic. Mercury concentrations during the report period were consistent with historical sampling.
Benzene concentrations were reported slightly above the PDWS of 1μg/L in the monitoring well MW-AA during the first four sampling events of the report period. Benzene concentrations reported for the samples collected in MW-AA experienced a slight decreasing trend during the report period. Benzene concentration reported from the samples collected from MW-8 slightly exceeded the PDWS one time during the report period. The remaining reported Benzene concentrations did not exceed the PDWS for the report period. Remaining Benzene concentrations during the report period were consistent with historical sampling.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations were reported above the SDWS of 500 mg/L monitoring well MW-AA for the first four sampling event during the report period and in monitoring well MW-G during the 17S2 and 18S1 sampling events and MW-QR during the 17S1 sampling event. The remaining reported TDS concentrations did not exceed the SDWS for the report period. TDS concentrations during the report period were consistent with historical sampling.
With the exception of Mercury reported in MW-QR (erratic) and Benzene in MW-AA and MW-8, no additional PDWS were exceeded during the report period.
9
4.0 CORRELATION OF RELATED PARAMETERS The following values were plotted and compared using R-squared analysis where 0.0 indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean and 1.0 indicates that the model explains all of the variability of the response data around its mean:
Specific Conductance – Total Dissolved Solids Benzene – pH Iron – pH
The resulting scatter plot charts are provided in Attachment 7. The plots indicate a strong correlation between Specific Conductance – Total Dissolved Solids (r2 = 0. 82), a weak correlation between Benzene – pH (r2 = 0.22), and a weak correlation between Iron – pH (r2 = 0. 21).
10
5.0 ADEQUACY OF MONITORING NETWORK The groundwater flow direction is predominately toward the west. Monitoring wells are located to the west of the western most disposal cell boundary and are therefore located hydraulically downgradient of the landfill. The current sampling frequency and monitoring well locations appear to be sufficient to adequately monitor the groundwater conditions at the site and no changes are proposed at this time.
11
6.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The groundwater quality data observed during the Report Period is consistent with historical data for the facility. Concentrations of several constituents were sporadically reported above their applicable drinking water standard. With the exception of Mercury reported in MW-QR (erratic) and Benzene in MW-AA and MW-8, no additional PDWS were exceeded during the report period. Iron concentrations above the SDWS were consistent with naturally occurring levels in North Florida. The current groundwater monitoring network meets the objectives of the chapter 62-701.510 FAC. Semiannual monitoring in accordance with the current facility permit is recommended.
ATTACHMENT 1
SITE MAP
OCTOBER 2014
AS SHOWN
REVISION DESCRIPTION BYDATENO. DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
PROJECT NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAWING:
MONITORING
JDL
LBK
SKK
LJB
LEGEND
MAJOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR (5')
MINOR TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR (1')
ZONE OF DISCHARGE
LAKE LAFAYETTE
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
DISPOSAL CELL BOUNDARY
LEACHATE FORCEMAIN
WETLAND LIMITS (SEE NOTE 10)
FENCE
QUARTERLY METHANE MONITORING VENT OR PROBE
QUARTERLY GAS MONITORING SURFACE LOCATION
TEMPORARY METHANE MONITORING VENT OR PROBE
TEMPORARY GAS MONITORING SURFACE LOCATION
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
DETECTION GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
COMPLIANCE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
140
PL
ATTACHMENT 2
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAPS
FIGURE 1
SKK
WW
SKK
WW
LEGEND
01/25/2016
FIGURE 1
AL
WW
WW
WW
LEGEND
07/07/2016
FIGURE 1
AL
WW
WW
WW
LEGEND
1/12/2017
AS SHOWN
REVISION DESCRIPTION
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DIVISION7550 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32311Phone: 850.606.1800
SHEET TITLE:PROJECT TITLE:
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTEMANAGEMENT FACILITY
TALLAHASSEE, LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
BYDATENO. DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
PROJECT NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAWING:FIGURE 1
AL
WW
WW
WW
FLORIDAN AQUIFERPOTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP
2017 SECOND SEMIANNUAL EVENT
LEGEND
ZONE AZONE BZONE C
ZONE D
ZONE E
7/10/2017
AS SHOWN
REVISION DESCRIPTION
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DIVISION7550 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32311Phone: 850.606.1800
SHEET TITLE:PROJECT TITLE:
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTEMANAGEMENT FACILITY
TALLAHASSEE, LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
BYDATENO. DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
PROJECT NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
DRAWING:FIGURE 1
AL
WW
WW
WW
FLORIDAN AQUIFERPOTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP2018 FIRST SEMIANNUAL EVENT
LEGEND
ZONE AZONE BZONE C
ZONE D
ZONE E
2/19/2018
ATTACHMENT 3
HYDROGRAPH
20.00
22.00
24.00
26.00
28.00
30.00
32.00
34.00
36.00
38.00
40.00
1/1/2016 4/1/2016 7/1/2016 10/1/2016 1/1/2017 4/1/2017 7/1/2017 10/1/2017 1/1/2018
GROUNDWATE
R ELEVATION (FT., NGVD)
SAMPLE PERIOD
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY HYDROGRAPH OF FLORIDAN AQUIFER
MW‐AA MW‐AB MW‐AC MW‐A MW‐C1A MW‐D MW‐F MW‐G MW‐H
MW‐I MW‐J MW‐K MW‐L MW‐M MW‐QR MW‐R MW‐TR MW‐Y
ATTACHMENT 4
DETECTED PARAMETER EXCEEDANCES COMPARED TO
GROUNDWATER STANDARDS
LEON COUNTY
SOLID WASTE FACILITY
PARAMETERS EXCEEDING STANDARDS
PARAMETER DateSampled Benzene Iron Mercury pH Total Dissolved Solids
STANDARD ‐ 1 µg/L* 300 µg/L** 2 µg/L* 6.5‐8.5 SU** 500 mg/L**
UNIT MM/DD/YYYY µg/L µg/L µg/L SU mg/L
Background
MW‐AB
16S1 1/27/2016 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
16S2 7/8/2016 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
17S1 1/16/2017 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
17S2 7/11/2017 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
18S1 2/21/2018 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Compliance
MW‐AA
16S1 1/26/2016 1.5 ‐ ‐ 6.44 520
16S2 7/7/2016 2.1 ‐ ‐ 6.2 520
17S1 1/16/2017 1.2 490 ‐ ‐ 560
17S2 7/12/2017 1.1 ‐ ‐ 6.37 510
18S1 2/21/2018 ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.4 ‐
MW‐AC
16S1 1/26/2016 ‐ 300 ‐ ‐ ‐
16S2 7/7/2016 ‐ 310 ‐ ‐ ‐
17S1 1/16/2017 ‐ 420 ‐ ‐ ‐
17S2 8/10/2017 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
18S1 2/21/2018 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
MW‐G
16S1 1/27/2016 NM ‐ NM ‐ ‐
16S2 7/7/2016 NM ‐ NM 6.47 ‐
17S1 1/16/2017 NM 400 NM ‐ ‐
17S2 7/11/2017 NM ‐ NM 6.42 540
18S1 2/20/2018 NM ‐ NM 6.32 540
MW‐I
16S1 1/27/2016 NM 1700 NM ‐ ‐
16S2 7/8/2016 NM 1700 NM ‐ ‐
17S1 1/12/2017 NM 2300 NM ‐ ‐
17S2 7/12/2017 NM 1960 NM ‐ ‐
18S1 2/21/2018 NM 714 NM ‐ ‐
MW‐J
16S1 1/27/2016 NM NM NM ‐ ‐
16S2 7/8/2016 NM NM NM ‐ ‐
17S1 1/17/2017 NM NM NM ‐ ‐
17S2 7/11/2017 NM NM NM ‐ ‐
18S1 2/20/2018 NM NM NM ‐ ‐
MW‐L
16S1 1/26/2016 NM NM NM ‐ ‐
16S2 7/8/2016 NM NM NM ‐ ‐
17S1 1/17/2017 NM NM NM ‐ ‐
17S2 7/12/2017 NM NM NM ‐ ‐
18S1 2/20/2018 NM NM NM ‐ ‐
MW‐M
16S1 1/27/2016 NM ‐ NM ‐ ‐
16S2 7/8/2016 NM ‐ NM ‐ ‐
17S1 1/17/2017 NM ‐ NM ‐ ‐
17S2 7/12/2017 NM ‐ NM ‐ ‐
18S1 2/21/2018 NM ‐ NM ‐ ‐
MW‐QR
16S1 1/27/2016 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
16S2 7/7/2016 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
17S1 1/16/2017 ‐ 460 3.6 ‐ 550
17S2 7/11/2017 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
18S1 2/20/2018 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
MW‐Y
16S1 1/28/2016 NM ‐ NM ‐ NM
16S2 7/9/2016 NM 300 NM ‐ NM
17S1 1/13/2017 NM 430 NM ‐ NM
17S2 7/12/2017 NM 376 NM ‐ NM
18S1 2/19/2018 NM ‐ NM ‐ NM
LEON COUNTY
SOLID WASTE FACILITY
PARAMETERS EXCEEDING STANDARDS
PARAMETER DateSampled Benzene Iron Mercury pH Total Dissolved Solids
STANDARD ‐ 1 µg/L* 300 µg/L** 2 µg/L* 6.5‐8.5 SU** 500 mg/L**
UNIT MM/DD/YYYY µg/L µg/L µg/L SU mg/L
Detection
MW‐8
16S1 1/28/2016 ‐ NM NM 5.6 NM
16S2 7/9/2016 ‐ NM NM 5.84 NM
17S1 1/13/2017 ‐ NM NM 5.63 NM
17S2 7/12/2017 1.1 NM NM 5.23 NM
18S1 2/19/2018 ‐ NM NM 5.26 NM
MW‐21
16S1 1/28/2016 ‐ NM NM 5.29 NM
16S2 7/9/2016 ‐ NM NM 5.86 NM
17S1 1/13/2017 ‐ NM NM 4.95 NM
17S2 7/12/2017 ‐ NM NM 4.52 NM
18S1 2/19/2018 ‐ NM NM 4.92 NM
MW‐36
16S1 1/27/2016 ‐ NM NM 6.08 NM
16S2 7/8/2016 ‐ NM NM 6.19 NM
17S1 1/13/2017 ‐ NM NM 6.17 NM
17S2 7/11/2017 ‐ NM NM 6.16 NM
18S1 2/20/2018 ‐ NM NM 6.12 NM
Legend
* = primary drinking water standard
** = secondary drinking water standard
*** = Chapter 62‐777‐Groundwater Cleanup Target Level (GCTL)
1 = No Standard
‐ = Analysis Result is not at or outside Groundwater Standard (GWS)
NS = Not Sampled
NM = Not Measured
Note: Analysis results which were reported above the laboratory detection limit, but not at or above the GWS are not displayed
ATTACHMENT 5
GROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPHS
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
20
40
60
80
PDWS: 70
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 70
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
20
40
60
80PDWS: 75
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 75
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
GCTL: 6300
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 GCTL: 6300
ACETONE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
PDWS: 10
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 10
ARSENIC
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
PDWS: 2000
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 2000
BARIUM
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
PDWS: 1
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 1
BENZENE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
PDWS: 1
EVENT vs MW-J EVENT vs MW-L EVENT vs MW-M EVENT vs MW-Y EVENT vs MW-8 EVENT vs MW-21 EVENT vs MW-36 Plot 1 PDWS: 1
BENZENE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
GCTL: 630
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 GCTL: 630
BORON
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
PDWS: 5
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 5
CADMIUM
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(m
g/L)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
SDWS: 250
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 SDWS: 250
CHLORIDE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
PDWS: 100
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 100
CHLOROBENZENE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
PDWS: 100
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 100
CHROMIUM
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
20
40
60
80
PDWS: 70
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 70
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
GCTL: 140
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 GCTL: 140
COBALT
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
SDWS: 1000
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 SDWS: 1000
COPPER
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(m
g/L)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(m
g/L)
0
2
4
6
8
10
EVENT vs MW-J EVENT vs MW-L EVENT vs MW-M EVENT vs MW-Y EVENT vs MW-8 EVENT vs MW-21 EVENT vs MW-36
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
SDWS: 300
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 SDWS: 300
IRON
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
100
200
300
400
500
SDWS: 300
EVENT vs MW-J EVENT vs MW-L EVENT vs MW-M EVENT vs MW-Y EVENT vs MW-8 EVENT vs MW-21 EVENT vs MW-36 Plot 1 SDWS: 300
IRON
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
1
2
3
4
PDWS: 2
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 2
MERCURY
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
PDWS: 100
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 100
NICKEL
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(m
g/L)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
PDWS: 70
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 70
NITRATE AS NITROGEN
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(m
g/L)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
PDWS: 1
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 1
NITRATE NITRITE AS NITROGEN
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(m
g/L)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
PDWS: 1
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 1
NITRITE AS NITROGEN
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
mill
iVol
ts
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I
OXIDATION / REDUCTION POTENTIAL
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
mill
iVol
ts
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
EVENT vs MW-J EVENT vs MW-L EVENT vs MW-M EVENT vs MW-Y EVENT vs MW-8 EVENT vs MW-21 EVENT vs MW-36
OXIDATION / REDUCTION POTENTIAL
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
S.U
.
0
2
4
6
8
10
SDWS: 8.5
SDWS: 6.5
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 SDWS: 8.5Plot 1 SDWS: 6.5
PH
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
S.U
.
0
2
4
6
8
10
SDWS: 8.5
SDWS: 6.5
EVENT vs MW-J EVENT vs MW-L EVENT vs MW-M EVENT vs MW-Y EVENT vs MW-8 EVENT vs MW-21 EVENT vs MW-36 Plot 1 SDWS: 8.5Plot 1 SDWS: 6.5
PH
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(m
g/L)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
PDWS: 160
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 160
SODIUM
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
µm
hos/
cm
0
200
400
600
800
1000
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
µm
hos/
cm
0
200
400
600
800
1000
EVENT vs MW-J EVENT vs MW-L EVENT vs MW-M EVENT vs MW-Y EVENT vs MW-8 EVENT vs MW-21 EVENT vs MW-36
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
GCTL: 4200
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 GCTL: 4200
STRONTIUM
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
DE
g. C
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I
TEMPERATURE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
Deg
. C
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
EVENT vs MW-J EVENT vs MW-L EVENT vs MW-M EVENT vs MW-Y EVENT vs MW-8 EVENT vs MW-21 EVENT vs MW-36
TEMPERATURE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
PDWS: 3
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 3
TETRACHLOROETHENE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
PDWS: 2
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 2
THALLIUM
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
PDWS: 3
EVENT vs MW-J EVENT vs MW-L EVENT vs MW-M EVENT vs MW-Y EVENT vs MW-8 EVENT vs MW-21 EVENT vs MW-36 Plot 1 PDWS: 3
THALLIUM
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(m
g/L)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
SDWS: 500
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 SDWS: 500
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(m
g/L)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
SDWS: 500
EVENT vs MW-J EVENT vs MW-L EVENT vs MW-M EVENT vs MW-Y EVENT vs MW-8 EVENT vs MW-21 EVENT vs MW-36 Plot 1 SDWS: 500
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
PDWS: 3
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 3
TRICHLOROETHENE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
NT
U
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I
TURBIDITY
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
NT
U
0
5
10
15
20
25
EVENT vs MW-J EVENT vs MW-L EVENT vs MW-M EVENT vs MW-Y EVENT vs MW-8 EVENT vs MW-21 EVENT vs MW-36
TURBIDITY
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
GCTL: 49
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 GCTL: 49
VANADIUM
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
PDWS: 1
EVENT vs MW-AB EVENT vs MW-AA EVENT vs MW-AC EVENT vs MW-QR EVENT vs MW-G EVENT vs MW-I Plot 1 PDWS: 1
VINYL CHLORIDE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
SAMPLING EVENT
16S1 16S2 17S1 17S2 18S1
CO
NC
EN
TR
AT
ION
(µ
g/L)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
PDWS: 1
EVENT vs MW-J EVENT vs MW-L EVENT vs MW-M EVENT vs MW-Y EVENT vs MW-8 EVENT vs MW-21 EVENT vs MW-36 Plot 1 PDWS: 1
VINYL CHLORIDE
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY GRAPH
ATTACHMENT 6
HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY
LEON COUNTY
SOLID WASTE FACILITY
PARAMETERS AT OR ABOVE DETECTION LIMIT
PARAMETER DateSampled 1,1‐Dichloroethane 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene Acetone Ammonia as N Arsenic Barium Benzene Boron Cadmium Chloride Chlorobenzene Chromium cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene Cobalt Copper Dissolved Oxygen Iron Mercury Nickel
STANDARD ‐ 70 µg/L*** 75 µg/L* 6300 µg/L*** ‐ 10 µg/L* 2000 µg/L* 1 µg/L* 630 µg/L*** 5 µg/L* 250 mg/L** 100 µg/L* 100 µg/L* 70 µg/L* 140 µg/L*** 1000 µg/L** ‐ 300 µg/L** 2 µg/L* 100 µg/L*
UNIT MM/DD/YYYY µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L
Background
MW‐AB
16S1 1/27/2016 <0.38 <0.46 <7 <0.1 <1.5 17 <0.43 84 <0.15 28 <0.26 <1.6 <0.41 0.26 <1.7 0.59 <25 <0.08 3.6
16S2 7/8/2016 <0.38 <0.46 <7 <0.1 <1.5 16 <0.43 74 <0.15 27 <0.26 <1.6 <0.41 <0.12 <1.7 1.67 <25 <0.08 3.2
17S1 1/16/2017 <0.38 <0.46 <7 <0.1 <1.5 19 <0.43 84 <0.15 27 <0.26 12 <0.41 0.61 <1.7 0.12 280 <0.08 19
17S2 7/11/2017 <0.62 <0.76 38 <0.0073 <6.1 <20 <0.71 92.4 <0.9 25 <0.72 <4.5 <0.53 <2.1 <2.2 0.19 164 <0.023 <3.2
18S1 2/21/2018 <0.62 <0.76 <10 <0.0073 <6.1 <20 <0.71 91.4 <0.9 26 <0.72 <4.5 <0.53 <2.1 <2.2 0.15 161 <0.023 4.84
Compliance
MW‐AA
16S1 1/26/2016 0.4 6.7 <7 <0.1 <1.5 20 1.5 <36 0.42 45 3.2 <1.6 2 4 <1.7 0.11 180 <0.08 10
16S2 7/7/2016 <0.38 5.2 <7 <0.1 <1.5 21 2.1 <36 0.46 52 3.6 <1.6 1.5 3.2 2.9 1.12 200 <0.08 13
17S1 1/16/2017 <0.38 6.1 <7 <0.1 <1.5 22 1.2 <36 0.5 42 2.6 32 1.5 3.3 2.9 0.11 490 <0.08 52
17S2 7/12/2017 <0.62 5.6 14 0.027 <6.1 24.7 1.1 29.8 <0.9 38 1.8 <4.5 1.8 2.7 <2.2 0.1 178 <0.023 11.4
18S1 2/21/2018 <0.62 4.9 <10 <0.0073 <6.1 20.3 0.95 25 <0.9 39 1.8 <4.5 1.9 3.28 <2.2 0.19 211 <0.023 10.1
MW‐AC
16S1 1/26/2016 <0.38 <0.46 <7 <0.1 <1.5 31 <0.43 <36 <0.15 6.3 <0.26 <1.6 <0.41 0.27 <1.7 0.3 300 <0.08 6.7
16S2 7/7/2016 <0.38 <0.46 <7 <0.1 <1.5 30 <0.43 <36 <0.15 6.3 <0.26 <1.6 <0.41 0.23 <1.7 0.99 310 <0.08 7.8
17S1 1/16/2017 <0.38 <0.46 <7 <0.1 <1.5 30 <0.43 <36 <0.15 5.9 <0.26 9 <0.41 0.5 <1.7 0.1 420 <0.08 20
17S2 8/10/2017 <0.62 <0.76 11 <0.0073 <6.1 28.9 <0.71 <20 <0.9 5.2 <0.72 <4.5 <0.53 <2.1 <2.2 0.07 200 <0.023 5.31
18S1 2/21/2018 <0.62 <0.76 <10 <0.0073 <6.1 42.2 <0.71 25 <0.9 5.2 <0.72 <4.5 <0.53 <2.1 <2.2 0.2 289 <0.023 5.26
MW‐G
16S1 1/27/2016 0.28 170
16S2 7/7/2016 0.87 160
17S1 1/16/2017 0.28 400
17S2 7/11/2017 0.12 180
18S1 2/20/2018 0.11 137
MW‐I
16S1 1/27/2016 0.1 1700
16S2 7/8/2016 0.38 1700
17S1 1/12/2017 0.29 2300
17S2 7/12/2017 0.45 1960
18S1 2/21/2018 0.47 714
MW‐J
16S1 1/27/2016 0.33
16S2 7/8/2016 1
17S1 1/17/2017 0.33
17S2 7/11/2017 0.28
18S1 2/20/2018 0.32
MW‐L
16S1 1/26/2016 0.44
16S2 7/8/2016 0.7
17S1 1/17/2017 0.12
17S2 7/12/2017 0.17
18S1 2/20/2018 0.14
MW‐M
16S1 1/27/2016 0.25 140
16S2 7/8/2016 0.51 180
17S1 1/17/2017 0.08 210
17S2 7/12/2017 0.52 170
18S1 2/21/2018 0.54 103
MW‐QR
16S1 1/27/2016 <0.38 <0.46 <7 <0.1 <1.5 39 <0.43 <36 <0.15 5.4 <0.26 <1.6 <0.41 0.99 <1.7 1.06 150 0.73 4.4
16S2 7/7/2016 <0.38 <0.46 <7 <0.1 1.7 52 <0.43 <36 <0.15 5.8 <0.26 1.8 <0.41 1.3 <1.7 1.64 190 0.5 9.5
17S1 1/16/2017 <0.38 <0.46 <7 <0.1 <1.5 23 0.9 <36 <0.15 5.7 <0.26 8.2 <0.41 0.53 <1.7 2 460 3.6 14
17S2 7/11/2017 <0.62 <0.76 60 <0.0073 <6.1 31.4 <0.71 30.7 <0.9 4.7 <0.72 <4.5 <0.53 <2.1 <2.2 0.95 223 0.315 4.84
18S1 2/20/2018 <0.62 <0.76 <10 <0.0073 <6.1 26.1 <0.71 24.2 <0.9 4.9 <0.72 <4.5 <0.53 <2.1 <2.2 0.9 203 0.212 6.2
MW‐Y
16S1 1/28/2016 5.25 140
16S2 7/9/2016 7.56 300
17S1 1/13/2017 7.41 430
17S2 7/12/2017 4.73 376
18S1 2/19/2018 3.8 43.2
Detection
MW‐8
16S1 1/28/2016 0.61 1.15
16S2 7/9/2016 <0.43 0.44
17S1 1/13/2017 0.61 0.6
17S2 7/12/2017 1.1 0.18
18S1 2/19/2018 <0.71 0.27
MW‐21
16S1 1/28/2016 0.81 0.68
16S2 7/9/2016 0.58 9.31
17S1 1/13/2017 0.47 0.24
17S2 7/12/2017 <0.71 0.12
18S1 2/19/2018 <0.71 1.38
MW‐36
16S1 1/27/2016 <0.43 0.17
16S2 7/8/2016 <0.43 1.1
17S1 1/13/2017 <0.43 0.16
17S2 7/11/2017 <0.71 0.1
18S1 2/20/2018 <0.71 0.14
LEGEND
* = primary drinking water standard
** = secondary drinking water standard
*** = Chapter 62‐777‐Groundwater Cleanup Target Level (GCTL)
1 = No Standard
‐ = Not analyzed
I = Value is between the Method Detection Level (MDL) and the Reporting Detection Level (RDL)
J = Estimated value
V = Analyte found in associated method blank
Q = Estimated value; analyte analyzed after acceptable holding time
U = Indicates that the compound was analyzed for but not detected
LEON COUNTY
SOLID WASTE FACILITY
PARAMETERS AT OR ABOVE DETECTION LIMIT
PARAMETER DateSampled Nitrate as N Nitrate Nitrite as N Nitrite as N Oxidation/Reduction Potential pH Sodium Specific Conductance Strontium Temperature Tetrachloroethene Thallium Total Dissolved Solids Trichloroethene Turbidity Vanadium Vinyl chloride
STANDARD ‐ 10 mg/L* 1 mg/L* 1 mg/L* ‐ 6.5‐8.5 SU** 160 mg/L* ‐ 4200 µg/L*** ‐ 3 µg/L* 2 µg/L* 500 mg/L** 3 µg/L* ‐ 49 µg/L*** 1 µg/L*
UNIT MM/DD/YYYY mg/L mg/L mg/L millivolts SU mg/L µmhos/cm µg/L Degrees C µg/L µg/L mg/L µg/L NTU µg/L µg/L
Background
MW‐AB
16S1 1/27/2016 0.027 0.027 <0.01 7.15 13 574 90 20.9 <0.74 <0.49 330 <0.48 1 <5.3 <0.5
16S2 7/8/2016 0.084 0.084 <0.01 7.2 12 549 100 22.5 <0.74 <0.49 180 <0.48 1.9 <5.3 <0.5
17S1 1/16/2017 0.019 0.019 <0.01 7.28 15 542 100 20.4 <0.74 <0.49 340 <0.48 19.4 6.4 <0.5
17S2 7/11/2017 <0.052 189 7.05 12.1 605 107 22.1 <0.76 <0.58 320 <0.89 12.6 <2 <0.71
18S1 2/21/2018 <0.052 74.3 6.96 12.9 615 109 21.49 <0.76 <0.58 330 <0.89 27.2 2.87 <0.71
Compliance
MW‐AA
16S1 1/26/2016 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 ‐5.1 6.44 22 899 140 22.4 0.89 <0.49 520 0.69 3.5 <5.3 <0.5
16S2 7/7/2016 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 6.2 26 750 120 23.6 <0.74 <0.49 520 <0.48 1 <5.3 <0.5
17S1 1/16/2017 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 6.57 19 800 150 20.9 0.96 <0.49 560 0.64 4.9 10 <0.5
17S2 7/12/2017 <0.052 57 6.37 19.7 898 162 23.12 <0.76 <0.58 510 <0.89 4.98 <2 <0.71
18S1 2/21/2018 <0.052 16.6 6.4 17.2 872 161 22.77 0.8 <0.58 480 <0.89 3.95 <2 <0.71
MW‐AC
16S1 1/26/2016 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 ‐108.61 6.97 5 425 79 21.5 <0.74 <0.49 240 <0.48 2.1 <5.3 <0.5
16S2 7/7/2016 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 6.94 4.1 410 96 22.2 <0.74 <0.49 240 <0.48 1 <5.3 <0.5
17S1 1/16/2017 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 7.12 4.3 376 78 20.4 <0.74 <0.49 240 <0.48 2.4 <5.3 <0.5
17S2 8/10/2017 <0.052 4.2 6.51 3.36 402 92.6 22.19 <0.76 <0.58 190 <0.89 3.01 <2 <0.71
18S1 2/21/2018 <0.052 ‐52.5 6.69 3.49 413 152 22.51 <0.76 <0.58 220 <0.89 0.73 <2 <0.71
MW‐G
16S1 1/27/2016 ‐104.9 6.62 515 24.2 350 1
16S2 7/7/2016 ‐116.1 6.47 390 25.3 220 1
17S1 1/16/2017 ‐129 6.64 424 22.7 270 1
17S2 7/11/2017 ‐78.7 6.42 946 24.56 540 2.96
18S1 2/20/2018 ‐80 6.32 930 23.51 540 0.56
MW‐I
16S1 1/27/2016 ‐148.3 7.34 421 21.7 250 17.1
16S2 7/8/2016 7.04 463 23.6 340 5
17S1 1/12/2017 ‐61.8 6.67 487 22.2 260 1
17S2 7/12/2017 ‐59.2 6.93 511 23.02 310 1.45
18S1 2/21/2018 ‐4.3 6.94 467 23.54 260 13.7
MW‐J
16S1 1/27/2016 ‐32.1 7.42 471 24.9 <0.49 270 1.2
16S2 7/8/2016 7.31 455 26.6 0.92 330 1
17S1 1/17/2017 68.8 7.38 424 23.8 <0.49 280 2.1
17S2 7/11/2017 23.2 7.06 543 24.78 <0.58 300 0.47
18S1 2/20/2018 33.5 6.76 780 24.1 0.866 430 0.12
MW‐L
16S1 1/26/2016 ‐166.4 7.01 613 23.6 360 1 0.71
16S2 7/8/2016 7.12 483 23.9 310 1 <0.5
17S1 1/17/2017 9.9 7.25 436 22.1 300 2.4 <0.5
17S2 7/12/2017 26.1 6.91 649 23.98 360 0.82 0.92
18S1 2/20/2018 23.1 6.88 654 23.35 380 3.69 0.95
MW‐M
16S1 1/27/2016 ‐131.5 7.31 485 23.5 290 4.3 <0.5
16S2 7/8/2016 7.13 501 25 330 1.1 <0.5
17S1 1/17/2017 ‐129 7.14 487 21.8 330 2.2 <0.5
17S2 7/12/2017 ‐37.8 6.9 538 24.24 340 1.69 <0.71
18S1 2/21/2018 ‐52.5 6.99 545 24.67 290 0.97 <0.71
MW‐QR
16S1 1/27/2016 0.25 0.25 <0.01 ‐35.9 6.96 3.7 670 150 24.4 <0.74 <0.49 400 <0.48 2.8 16 <0.5
16S2 7/7/2016 0.22 0.22 <0.01 6.83 5.1 679 180 24.5 <0.74 <0.49 420 <0.48 2.8 13 <0.5
17S1 1/16/2017 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 6.85 4.2 847 210 22.7 <0.74 <0.49 550 <0.48 1 5.7 <0.5
17S2 7/11/2017 <0.052 34 6.69 3.1 777 178 25.08 <0.76 <0.58 350 <0.89 1.66 5.94 <0.71
18S1 2/20/2018 <0.052 ‐7.9 6.62 3.81 783 170 24.62 <0.76 <0.58 400 <0.89 1.51 8.61 <0.71
MW‐Y
16S1 1/28/2016 253.4 7.83 260 21.1 4.8
16S2 7/9/2016 7.82 238 22.5 14.9
17S1 1/13/2017 7.78 255 22.3 10.6
17S2 7/12/2017 140.8 7.41 277 23.99 8.81
18S1 2/19/2018 55.2 7.5 275 23.9 1.61
Detection
MW‐8
16S1 1/28/2016 43.1 5.6 164 18.5 11.1
16S2 7/9/2016 318.2 5.84 115 24.6 6.7
17S1 1/13/2017 64.4 5.63 225 21.8 16.9
17S2 7/12/2017 43.8 5.23 266 22.81 0.56
18S1 2/19/2018 33.1 5.26 249 22.35 0.88
MW‐21
16S1 1/28/2016 0.8 5.29 110 21.8 5.9
16S2 7/9/2016 83.1 5.86 85 23.4 22.2
17S1 1/13/2017 148.2 4.95 93 22.7 3.6
17S2 7/12/2017 130.4 4.52 108 24.11 5.31
18S1 2/19/2018 60.7 4.92 116 24.18 0.9
MW‐36
16S1 1/27/2016 18.2 6.08 512 23.4 2.8
16S2 7/8/2016 6.19 552 23.6 2.1
17S1 1/13/2017 ‐66.7 6.17 553 20.5 14
17S2 7/11/2017 ‐102.9 6.16 694 23.98 2.06
18S1 2/20/2018 3.81 6.12 652 24.24 5.86
LEGEND
* = primary drinking water standard
** = secondary drinking water standard
*** = Chapter 62‐777‐Groundwater Cleanup Target Level (GCTL)
1 = No Standard
‐ = Not analyzed
I = Value is between the Method Detection Level (MDL) and the Reporting Detection Level (RDL)
J = Estimated value
V = Analyte found in associated method blank
Q = Estimated value; analyte analyzed after acceptable holding time
U = Indicates that the compound was analyzed for but not detected
ATTACHMENT 7
CORRELATION PLOT CHARTS
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CORRELATION
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE (µmhos/cm)
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Tot
al D
isso
lved
Sol
ids
(mg/
L)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Specific Conductance vs Total Dissolved Solids (ALL WELLS)Plot 1 Regr
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE V TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
r ² 0.8234552692
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CORRELATION
pH (S.U.)
0 2 4 6 8
Ben
zene
(µ
g/L)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
pH vs Benzene Plot 1 Regr
BENZENE V PH
r ² 0.2239516474
LEON COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITYGROUNDWATER CORRELATION
pH (S.U.)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Iron
(µ
g/L)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
pH vs Iron Plot 1 Regr
IRON V PH
r ² 0.20895707463