DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
INTO A SANITARY LANDFILL
-------
DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
INTO A SANITARY LANDFILL
This final report (SW~71d) on work performed
under Federal solid waste disposal demonstration grant No. S801582
to the City of Oaeanside t California,
was prepared under the direction of RALPH STONE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1974
-------
This report as submitted by the grantee or contractor has not been
technically reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of EPA, nor does mention of commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-71d) in the solid waste
management series.
-------
FOREWORD
This report describes the results of a three-year demonstration study of the dis-
posal of liquid sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings into solid waste at a sanitary
landfill. Bench-scale laboratory studies were conducted to determine the moisture-
absorbing capacity of typical solid waste constituents and to establish characteristics
of admixture with various sludges. The composition and quantity of solid waste produced
in the City of Oceanside were determined by quarterly waste samplings and waste
collection vehicle weighings.
Pilot plant lysimeters were employed to investigate the effects of sewage and
septic tank sludges on solid waste temperature, decomposition, leachate, settlement,
insects, odor and gas characteristics. Three large field lysimeters were built at the
City of Oceanside, California municipal landfill, each holding one week's production
of all municipal solid waste and sewage sludge. The field test cells were lined with a
10-mil polyethylene membrane to collect the leachate for measuring and sampling.
Full-scale demonstration landfill operations studies were conducted at the City landfills —
initially with limited sludge disposal one day per week, and with 100 percent sludge
disposal later in the study.
The large field lysimeters were monitored for leachate, temperature, gas,
compaction, settlement and waste decomposition (as determined by core sampling).
The full-scale landfill disposal of sludge was monitored for runoff, leachate, equipment
operating efficiency (time and motion studies), odor, vector problems, blowing litter,
and weather conditions (rainfall, temperature, wind and evaporation).
Results of the study indicated that Oceanside solid waste has sufficient ability
to absorb moisture without producing runoff. Full-scale sludge disposal at the Oceanside
landfill produced no leachate and was economically feasible. Benefits of full-scale
disposal included increased landfill compaction, greater density, and reduced blowing
of litter and dust; problems included odors following raw sludge or septic tank pumpings
disposal (not recommended unless special protection measures are provided), and bird
foraging.
The report describes the sanitary landfill operating and design factors for disposing
digested sludge and its effects on the sanitary landfill and environment. The demon-
stration study was supported in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Grant Number S801582.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY xxi
A. Study Background xxi
1. Objectives and Scope xxi
2. Description of the Study Area xx:
B. Sludge Disposal Practices xxi
1. Current Disposal Problems xxi
2. Nationwide Surveys of Sludge Disposal into Landfills Xxii
C. Oceanside Solid Waste and Liquid Sewage Sludge xxi?
Characteristics
1. Solid Waste Characteristics xxii
2. Sewage Sludge Characteristics xxiii
D. Solid Waste Water Absorption Studies xxiii
1. Water Absorption Capacity of Solid Waste xxiii
2. Sludge Retention Capacity of Oceanside Solid Waste xxiv
3. Water-Holding Capacity of Soils xxiv
E. Septic Tank Pumpings Evaluation xxiv
F. Pilot-Scale Simulation of Landfill Conditions xxv
1. Study Design xxv
2. Absorption Test xxvi
3. Leachate Generation xxvi
4. Leachate Characteristics xxvi
5. Gas Generation xxvii
6. Compaction and Settlement xxviii
7. Percolation xxviii
iv
-------
Page
8. Temperature xxviii
9. Odors xxviii
10. Molds and Plant Growths xxix
11 . Insects xxix
12. Leachate Constituents xxix
13. Comparison of Control Drums with Drums xxix
Receiving Sludge
G. Controlled Field Test Cell Simulation of a Sanitary Landfill xxix
1 . Test Cell Design xxix
2. Test Cell Study Results xxx
H. Field Demonstration of Landfill Disposal of Liquid Sludge xxxii
1 . Preliminary Field Tests xxxii
2. Full-Scale Landfill Disposal of Liquid Sewage Sludge xxxiii
3. Landfill Auger Sampling xxxiv
4. Compaction Studies xxxv
5. Time and Motion Studies xxxv
6. Landfill Disposal and Sludge Transport Costs xxxv
I. Economics of Sludge Transportation xxxv
1 . Truck Haul xxxvi
2. Pipeline Transport xxxvi
3. Economic Summary xxxvi
CONCLUSIONS xxxvi i
A. General xxxvii
B. Specific xxxvi ii
RECOMMENDATIONS xlii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Objectives and Scope of the Investigation 1
B. Study Area Description 2
1 . The City of Oceanside 2
2. Sewage Treatment Plants 2
3. Sanitary Landfills 2
II. SLUDGE DISPOSAL PRACTICES 8
A. General Aspect of Sludge Disposal in the United States 8
B. Nationwide Surveys of Sludge Disposal to Landfills 8
v
-------
Page
1. Health Departments Survey 11
2. Detailed Description of Survey of Landfill Managers 14
3. 1962 Survey Comparison 20
III. OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE 21
CHARACTERISTICS
A. Solid Waste Characteristics 21
1. Sampling Methodology 21
2. Waste Characteristics 23
3. Waste Generation 28
B. Characteristics of Sewage Sludge and Septic Tank Pumpings 28
1. Types of Sewage Sludges 28
2. Sewage Sludge Characteristics and Quantities 33
3. Characteristics of Septic Tank Pumpings 43
A. Analysis of a Composite Sewage Sludge Sample 43
for Heavy Metals
IV. SOLID WASTE1 WATER ABSORPTION STUDIES 45
A. Purpose and Scope 45
B. Factors Affecting Absorption 45
C. Laboratory Test Procedures 46
D. Results and Discussion 47
1. Water Absorption by Solid Waste Components 47
2. Water-Holding Capacities of Soil and Related Materials 56
3. Prediction of Sludge Retention Capacity for Oceanside 58
Solid Waste
4. Application of the Laboratory Data to Joint Sludge-Solid 58
Waste Disposal at Oceanside
5. Summary of Moisture Absorption Capacity 64
V. SEPTIC TANK PUMPINGS EVALUATION 66
A. Purpose and Scope 66
B. Pathogenic Organisms in Septic 66
Tank Pumpings
1. Types of Organisms 66
2. Vectors 67
3. Pathogenic Characteristics of Septic Tank 68
Pumpings arid Sewage Sludge
vi
-------
Figure No. Description Poge
Vl-l PILOT TEST DRUM CONFIGURATION 73
VI-2A,B TEST DRUM WEIGHT RATIO OF WATER TO 89,90
SOLIDS ADDITIONS
VI-3 BOD5 LEVELS OF TEST DRUM LEACHATES—DRUMS 91
14 and 15 VS. COMPOSITE TRENDS
VI-4 CORRELATION OF TEST DRUM LEACHATE BOD 92
WITH TURBIDITY 5
VI-5 CONDUCTIVITY OF LEACHATES--COMPOSITE 94
VI-6 CORRELATION OF CONDUCTIVITY WITH TURBIDITY 95
VI-7 PILOT TEST DRUM COMPACTION/SETTLEMENT 118
LOW RATE
VI-8 PILOT TEST DRUM COMPACTION/SETTLEMENT 119
HIGH RATE
VI-9 PILOT TEST DRUM COMPACTION/SETTLEMENT 120
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
VI-10 PILOT TEST DRUM COMPACTION/SETTLEMENT 121
LOW RATE
Vl-l 1 PILOT TEST DRUM COMPACTION/SETTLEMENT 122
LOW RATE
VI-12 LEACHATE FLOW RATES: SOLID WASTE PERMEABILITY 124
VI-13 TEST DRUM 1 TEMPERATURE-TIME CURVE 125
VI— 14 TEST DRUMS 2, 3, 4, 5 TEMPERATURE-TIME CURVE 126
VI-15 TEST DRUMS 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18 TEMPERATURE- 127
TIME CURVE
VI— 76 TEST DRUMS 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 TEMPERATURE- 128
TIME CURVE
xvli
-------
Figure No. Description Page
Vll-l LOCATION OF TEST CELLS 145
VI1—2 CELL DESIGN CONFIGURATION 146
VII-3 TEST CELL MEMBRANE AND LEACHATE COLLECTION 147
INSTALLATIONS
VI1-4 TEST CELL INSTRUMENTATION 158
VII-5 TEST CELLS 1 AND 3 DAILY AND CUMULATIVE 165
RAINFALL
VI1-6 TEST CELL 2 DAILY AND CUMULATIVE RAINFALL 166
VI1-7 TEST CELL 1 DAILY AND CUMULATIVE LEACHATE 168
VI1-8 TEST CELL 3 DAILY AND CUMULATIVE LEACHATE 169
VII-9 TEST CELL 3 CUMULATIVE LEACHATE RESULTING 170
FROM SIMULATED RAINFALL
VII-10 TEST CELL 1 LEACHATE PH 171
VI1-11 TEST CELL 1 LEACHATE BOD5 172
VII —12 TEST CELL 1 LEACHATE ORGANIC NITROGEN 173
VI1-13 TEST CELL 1 LEACHATE CHLORIDES 174
VII-14 TEST CELL 1 LEACHATE TURBIDITY 175
VI1—15 TEST CELL 1 LEACHATE TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS 176
VII —16 TEST CELL 1 LEACHATE CONDUCTIVITY 177
VI1-17 TEST CELL 1 LEACHATE COLIFORM 178
VI1—18 OCEANSIDE TEST CELL 1 TEMPERATURE 190
VI1-19 OCEANSIDE TEST CELL 2 TEMPERATURE 191
VI1-20 OCEANSIDE TEST CELL 3 TEMPERATURE 192
VI1-21 GAS ANALYSIS TEST CELL 1 194
xviii
-------
Figure No. Description Page
VI1-22 GAS ANALYSIS TEST CELL 1 195
VI1-23 GAS ANALYSIS TEST CELL 2 196
VI1-24 GAS ANALYSIS TEST CELL 2 197
VI1-25 GAS ANALYSIS TEST CELL 3 198
VI1-26 GAS ANALYSIS TEST CELL 3 199
VI1-27 OCEANSIDE TEST CELL SETTLEMENT 201
VI1-28 COMPARISON OF GAS COMPOSITION IN 222
OCEANSIDE TEST CELLS WITH NORMAL SOLID WASTE
VI1-29 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INITIAL PEAK TEMPERATURE 223
AND PLACEMENT TEMPERATURE
VII-30 COMPARISON OF TEMPERATURES 224
VII— 31 COMPARISON OF TEMPERATURES 225
VII-32 COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENT—OCEANSIDE 226
CELLS AND NORMAL LANDFILL CELLS
VIII-l SOLID WASTE AND SLUDGE PLACEMENT 233
VI11-2 SCHEMATIC OF FLY EMERGENCE TRAPS 236
VI11—3 SANITARY LANDFILL EQUIPMENT WORK TASKS 268
VIII-4 LIQUID SLUDGE, SOLID WASTE SANITARY 269
LANDFILL MODEL
VI11 —5 SLUDGE TRUCK OPERATING CYCLE IN MINUTES 272
IX-1 POSSIBLE ROUTINGS FOR SLUDGE PIPELINE OR 284
TRUCK HAUL
xix
-------
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph No. Description Page
VI-1 PILOT TEST DRUMS 74
VI-2 TEST DRUM MONITORING EQUIPMENT 82
VIM FIELD TEST CELL PREPARATION 148
VII-2 TEST CELL LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM 149
VII-3 PLACING SOLID WASTE IN TEST CELLS 15?
VIM APPLICATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE TO TEST 152
CELLS
VI1-5 PLACING SETTLEMENT MARKERS, TEMPERATURE 160
AND GAS PROBES
VI1-6 TEST CELL MONITORING APPARATUS 161
VII-7 CORE DRILLING EQUIPMENT 164
VIII-1 INITIAL SLUDGE-SOLID WASTE FIELD TESTS 230
VI11-2 CORE MATERIALS AND GAS PROBE 234
VII1-3 FIELD DEMONSTRATION SLUDGE DISPOSAL IN 238
THE LANDFILL—SLUDGE APPLICATION
METHODOLOGIES
VI11-4 SLUDGE DISPOSAL FIELD OBSERVATIONS 240
VI11-5 SPECIAL TESTS OF SLUDGE ADMIXTURE INTO 241
FILL COVER SOIL FOR D RYING
xx
-------
SUMMARY
A. Study Background
1. Objectives and Scope. This report describes the results of a three-year
investigation of the environmental and economic effects of disposing liquid sewage
sludge and septic tank pumpings into a sanitary landfill. The objectives of the study
were to determine: 1) the capacity of solid waste to assimilate the moisture in liquid
sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings; 2) the significant parameters affecting that
capacity; 3) the optimum means for nuisance-free admixture of liquid sludge with solid
waste in a landfill; 4) the effects of combined liquid sludge-solid waste disposal on the
environment, landfill equipment, operating efficiencies, and personnel performance;
5) the effects of liquid sludge on landfill compaction and solid waste decomposition;
and 6) the most economically feasible methods for dewatering, transporting, and dis-
posing liquid sludge.
The three-year study included laboratory evaluations of water absorption by
solid waste, pilot-scale simulation of landfill conditions, full-scale field test cells
for controlled landfill simulation, full-scale demonstration of liquid sewage sludge
disposal into a sanitary landfill, and characterization of the sewage sludges and solid
wastes generated by the City of Oceanside. A special nationwide survey of the dis-
posal of sewage sLydge and septic tank pumpings into sanitary landfills was made by
contacting responsible State public health authorities and municipal landfill managers.
2. Description of the Study Area. Oceanside is located along the Pacific
Ocean coastline in northern San Diego County. In 1970, the City population was
40,494; it is projected to increase to 75,000 in 1980 and 109,000 in 2000. The
climate is moderate with average temperatures (F) generally ranging from a winter low
in the 50's to a summer high in the 80's, and a mean annual precipitation of about
12 inches.
All the liquid sewage sludge used in the demonstration was derived from the
City of Oceanside's three sewage treatment plants, two of which are activated sludge
plants, and the third a primary plant. Field tests were conducted at the City of Ocean-
side municipal sanitary landfill. Laboratory and pilot-scale studies were conducted at
Los Angeles-based laboratories, using Oceanside liquid sludge samples and solid waste
composition. Prior to September 1972 the Oceanside landfill working face was not
covered daily with soil. Operation as a sanitary landfill, with daily soil cover, com-
menced in September 1972.
B. Sludge Disposal Practices.
1. Current Disposal Problems. Federal regulations (1971) have established
strict limitations on disposal of sewage sludge into water bodies. This is forcing many
municipalities to seek alternative methods for the processing, transport, and ultimate
disposal of sludges. Sludge processing represents from 25 to 50 percent of the total
xxi
-------
capital and operating costs of municipal sewage treatment plants. In many cases,
ultimate sludge disposal requires dewatering, which accounts for a significant fraction
of the total sludge disposal costs. In urban areas, the need for environmentally accept-
able and economically feasible methods of sludge management is acute. The lack of
suitable nearby disposal sites results in additional costs for transport.
The combined disposal of digested liquid sludge with solid wastes into sanitary
landfills appears to have considerable promise. This alternatitive can reduce the num-
ber of waste disposal locations and eliminate costly sludge dewatering.
2. Nationwide Surveys of Sludge Disposal Into Landfills. Nationwide ques-
tionnaire surveys of State Public Health Departments and local landfill managers were
completed in 1971. The objective was to assess the state-of-the-art for sewage sludge
and septic tank sludge disposal into sanitary landfills, as well as to determine existing
problems and authoritative opinions.
Of the 50 State Public Health Departments surveyed, 26 responded and 24
provided answers to most or all of the questions. Landfill disposal of sewage or septic
tank sludge was permitted by State regulations in 80 percent of the responding States.
The Health Departments identified the following problems associated with landfill
sludge disposal: increased leachate production from liquid sludge; odor; adverse public
opinion; equipment damage and compaction difficulties; nuisance and potential spread
of pathogens by vectors; and difficulty in burying sludge. Four of the responding States
indicated no known problems. Respondents' ratings of potential environmental hazards
indicated they anticipated little to moderate hazard from landfill disposal of either type
of sludge; more hazards, however, were expected from septic tank pumpings than from
sewage sludge.
Of 122 responding landfill managers from 475 cities contacted, 30 percent
indicated that sludge disposal was permitted at their landfills. Septic tank sludge
represented less than one-half of one percent of the total sludge quantity of 537.4
million gal per year reported admixed into 24 landfills. Landfill managers also antic-
ipated more problems and hazards with septic tank sludge than with sewage sludge
landfill disposal.
A separate nationwide survey completed by Ralph Stone for the American
Society of Civil Engineers, Sanitary Engineering Division, Solid Waste Research
Committee in 1962 indicated that 19 percent of reporting landfill managers permitted
disposal of sewage and septic tank sludges.
C. Oceanside Solid Waste and
Liquid Sewage Sludge Characteristics
1. Solid Waste Characteristics. A sample of the solid waste produced in the
City of Oceanside was obtained by using random numbers to select one percent each of
the single-family residential, multiple-unit residential, and commercial stops for special
xxii
-------
collection. Samples were taken during each of the four quarters of 1971 and hand"
sorted into the nine standard categories with subcategories for absorptive materials.
The average moisture content for the four quarterly samples was 25.1 percent, dry
weight, and the average organic content was 61.2 percent, dry weight. Of the total
waste sampled, 60.7 percent was classified as moisture-absorbing material and the
remaining 39.3 percent as nonabsorbent.
Once each quarter for six consecutive collection days during 1971, all the
Oceanside Waste Disposal Department collection vehicle loads were weighed. The
average daily solid waste quantity collected was about 85 tons Monday through Friday,
and 25 tons on Saturday. Total solid waste collected during 1971 was estimated to be
24,000 tons. In 1972, a platform scale was installed at the landfill.
Throughout a one-week, six-day test period each month, all vehicles dispos-
ing solid waste into the Oceanside manicipal landfill were counted. Of the total of
3,175 loads counted, 1,153 or 36.2 percent were from private vehicles; 1,229 or 38.7
percent were from the Oceanside Waste Disposal Department; and the remaining vehicles
were from other City Departments. Demolition waste loads totalled 431 or 13.6 percent
of the latter category.
2. Sewage Sludge Characteristics. The wet-weight solids contents of liquid
digested sludge produced at each of the three City of Oceanside municipal treatment
plants was: La Salina Plant, two-stage digester mixed primary and secondary sludge
of 3.9 to 5.4 percent; Buena Vista Plant, one-stage digester mixed primary and second-
ary sludge of 2.3 to 11.2 percent; and San Luis Rey Plant, one-stage digester primary
sludge of 3.3 to 8 percent. During 1971 the total quantities of liquid sludge hauled
for disposal from each plant were: La Salina, 1,000,650 gal; Buena Vista, 738,700
gal; San Luis Rey, 542,000 gal. Total production was thus 2,281,350 gal.
D. Solid Waste Water Absorption Studies
1. Water Absorption Capacity of Solid Waste. Laboratory tests were made to
determine the moisture-absorbing capability of particular components normally found in
solid waste. Triplicate samples of solid waste were weighed, immersed in water for
varying periods, then removed and weighed again. Duplicate samples were weighed,
oven-dried, and reweighed to determine their dry weight. Newsprint, miscellaneous
types of paper, cardboard, grass, leaves, plant trimmings, and food scraps all reached
maximum absorption (saturation) within 80 minutes after water immersion. Wood blocks
did not reach saturation after 200 hrs, but textiles reached saturation within 10 minutes.
The wafer absorption to saturation capacities In percent of dry weight for each waste
category tested were: newsprint, 290; cardboard, 170; miscellaneous paper, 100 to
400; leaves and grass, 60 to 200; tree and shrub prunings, 10 to 100; food waste, 0 to
100; textiles, 100 to 300; and plastics and inorganics, 0. Based on these results, the
expected in-situ moisture absorption capacity of all Oceanside solid waste as-received
at the municipal landfill would range from 60 to 180 percent (0.6 to 1.8 lb of water
per 1.0 lb of dry weight solid waste) on a dry weight solid waste basis. This would be
xxiii
-------
equivalent to 48 to 145 percent (0.48 to 1.45 (b of water per 1.0 lb of solid waste) on
an as-received wet weight solid waste basis.*
2. Sludge Retention Capacity of Oceanside Solid Waste. Initial tests were
conducted in 13 pilot test drums to simulate the capability of solid v/aste of Oceanside
composition to retain liquid sewage sludge. The sludge moisture saturation capacities
of the test drums ranged from 0.43 to 2.1 lb of sludge per 1 .0 lb of solid waste wet
weight, with 10 drums falling within the 1.0 to 1.7 lb range. This range is equivalent
to 0.57 to 2.72 lb per lb on a dry weight basis. The results indicate that the actual
sludge retention capacity of Oceanside solid waste fell in the upper half of the ex-
pected range of absorption.
The ratio of liquid sludge to solid waste production in the City of Oceanside
was found to be in the range of 0.50 to 0.61 lb of liquid sludge to 1.0 lb of solid waste
(dry weight); this would be in the low range of predicted absorption capacity of the
solid waste. Field tests conducted at the Oceanside landfill during 1971 and 1972
with a liquid sludge to solid waste ratio of 0.5 to 0, 61 lb to 1 .0 wet weight produced
no observed leachate over the course of the study, thus indicating complete absorption.
3. Water-Holding Capacity of Soils. Water saturation results primarily from the
mechanism of entrainme.it between solid particles rather than from absorption within
particles. Water absorption tests run on typical fine: sandy loam soil used as cover material
cit the Oceanside landfill indicated an average saturation value of 42 percent, dry weight.
E. Septic Tank Pumpings Evaluation
A literature survey, pilot tests, and a technical evaluation were completed
of the feasibility of disposing septic tank pumpings into a solid waste sanitary landfill.
It was found that enteric "raw sewage type" pathogens were common in septic tank
pumpings. Biological organisms that have been identified include the following:
bacteria—E. coli, shigella, salmonella, fecal streptococci, typhoid and cholera;
viruses—poliomyelitis, coxsackie, infectious hepatitis, influenza, reo, and adeno;
protozoa—Entamoeba histolytica; and helminthiasis and various species of tapeworm.
The common vectors for transmission of the pathogens at landfill sites include:
direct human contact during disposal or working the solid waste; and vermin and in-
sects that mcy transmit pathogens (houseflies, cockroaches and mosquitoes are respons-
ible for transmitting diseases such as amoabic dysentery, cholera, coxsackie, infectious
hepatitis, polio, shigellosis, typhoid and paratyphoid fever, and worm infestations).
Transmission also may occur by drinking polluted surface water and groundwater, and
by direct or indirect contamination of other animal life (sea gulls, rat;;, etc.).
* Absorption capacities given are for absorption of additional moisture above the initial
as-received wet weight moisture content.
xxiv
-------
Although the common sewage sludge digestion process can remove or debilitate
90 to 98 percent of the pathogens, the septic tank process is relatively ineffective.
Results of Oceanside core sample analyses indicate that gas and high temperatures in
sanitary landfills result in an environment sufficiently antagonistic to destroy most
enteric indicator bacteria such as fecal coliform, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and fecal
steptococci. In leachate from Oceanside Cell 1, Fecal coliform were 3,000 MPN
nine days after filling, 300 MPN 21 days after filling and negligible 28 days after
filling. The viability and survival rates for virus ?n landfills are unknown. Several
studies including the aforementioned core sample bacterial analyses indicate that coli-
form bacteria may seldom be found In sanitary landfill soils or in landfilied solid waste
below four-foot depths, and rarely below seven feet. Reports indicate that coliform
entering groundwater granular stratums do not survive filtration beyond a 50-yard
distance from point of entry. E. coli can be removed through filtration through as
little as three feet of loam or other less permeable soils.
Septic tank pumpings can present severe odor problems and fly vector attraction
problems. The 1971 national survey of landfill practices previously-cited indicated
that odors and pathogenic organisms were the major operation concerns. Personnel
health risks can be minimized when disposing septic pumpings into landfills by the
following procedures; providing protective clothing and minimizing exposure of
personnel to iandfill environments; constructing storm drainage, runoff and leachate
underdrain control facilities to isolate the landfill from most water entry, and collect
leachate for return to sewers or other treatment; admixing septic tank pumpings with
solid waste in a ratio (0.5 lb pumpings per 1 .0 lb solid waste dry weight) low enough
to insure complete absorption; and covering at least daily with a minimum of six inches
of moist, well-compacted soil to bury the wastes and control vectors.
F. Pilot-Scale Simulation
°f Landfill Conditions
1 . Study Design. Pilot-scale tests were conducted at Los Angeles-based labora-
tories IjsIngTepTTcatedlolid waste compositions found in Oceanside and the representative
liquid sewage sludges obtained from the three Oceanside sewage treatment plants. Domes-
tic septic tank pumpings were obtained from Los Angeles sources. The pilot tests were
conducted in eighteen 55-gal drums to study, under controlled conditions, the behavior
of various combinations of liquid sewage sludge, septic tank pumpings and solid waste
compositions with respect to: absorptive capacities of solid waste for liquid sludge,
septic tank pumpings and water; characteristics of leachate generated by the various
admixtures; decomposition; and environmental impact in terms of leachate, odor, fly
and insect propagation, and gas generation. The quantity of wet weight solid waste
placed was 100 lbs in Drum 1 ana 80 lbs in Drums 2 through 18. The initial compaction
was applied via layers in 14 drums and once en masse in four drums to simulate two
methods of landfilling. Initiai wet weight waste density in Drum 1 was 22 lb per cu ft;
in Drums 2 through 18 density varied from 12.4 to 22.1 lb per cu ft. Two or the drums
received only water, two were dry controls, and two were subjected to forced aeration
(for five minutes every hour, air was provided at 5 Standard Cubic Feet per Minute (SCFM).
xxv
-------
Witn the exception of the aerated drums, each drum was sealed with an airtight cover,
and all were exposed to the ambient environment in Los Angeles (temperatures of 45 F
to 95 F).
2. Absorption Test. Liquid sewage, septic tank sludges, and water were
added to each drum over a 10-day period until saturation was indicated by the onset
of leaching. Before saturation, the quantity of liquid added to each of 13 drums used
in this test ranged from 0.5 to 2.72 lb liquid per lb of dry weight solid waste with an
average of 1.74 lb per lb. Viscous digested sludge appeared to be absorbed by the
solid waste more easily than water or septic tank sludge.
3. Leachate Generation. After the absorption test, water was added to 16
drums (excluding two dry control drums) at a rate of one gal per working day—daily for
two weeks and then revised to 3 gal every three days, thus maintaining the gallon per
day rate. This rate of water addition simulated 36 in, of cumulative rainfall over 59
days on the surface area of the test drums. The water application rate was then reduced
to 3 gal per week from the 59th day to the sixth month, which represented a rate of 94
ii. per year. After 6 months the water application rate was further reduced to 3 gal per
month, representing a rate of 22 in. per year. The total water applied to each drum
(excluding two dry controls) was 90 inches. The resulting leachates were collected and
the volume determined after each water application. Every two weeks leachate samples
were collected for laboratory analyses (including pH, conductivity, turbidity, and
BOD5) from which 50 ml was accumulated to form a composite for other detailed
analyses (of pH, conductivity, nitrate, chloride, total phosphate, sulfate, fluoride,
organic nitrogen, iron, copper, lead, mercury, chromium and barium).
The total quantity of water added per lb dry weight of solid waste (and dry
sludge solids where applicable) varied from 14 to 20 lb per lb. Two moisture content
determinations were made on each of the test drums one and two months after the sat-
uration tests; three out of 15 drums showed increased moisture contents, and the remainder
decreased or were unchanged. A final moisture content determination two years after
the saturation tests indicated increased moisture content in all but two drums.
4. Leachate Characteristics. Analyses for BOD5 indicated a rapid increase
to peak values within 100 days of sludge/water application and a steady decrease
thereafter up to 260 days. The maximum BOD^ levels were in the range of 350 to
4,400 mg/l. The initial increase in BOD5 may be attributed to rapid breakdown and
entering into solution of complex organics in the solid waste and sludge. The subsequent
decrease in BOD^ may indicate a gradual depletion of readily soluble organics from
bacterial oxidation.
The BOD5 values for toe two forced-aeration drums followed the same increas-
ing value trend as the anaerobic drums, but decreased much more rapidly after peaking.
This was attributed to the more rapid oxidation of organics in the presence of excess
oxygen. The BOD^ values in all drums stabilized below 60 mg/l between 100 and 300
days after filling. No correlation was observed between the cuantity of water added
and BOD_ stabilization; however, it was evident that intermittent wetting and drying
5
-------
with more than 11 lbs of water per lb dry wt of solid wastes over a 300-plus day period
greatly reduced the leachate pollution constituents « 60 mg/l BOD,.).
The color of the leachates initially was black or grey in 12 drums, and yellow
or tea color in three drums. Most leachates were opaque. No distinction in leachate
color was detected between drums receiving only water and those with sludge. The
color changed over time and after 190 to 250 days it was a clear yellow or straw color.
Two grab samples of leachate from the old Oceanside landfill were grey and semi-
opaque in appearance.
Leachate turbidities followed much the same increasing-then-decreasing trend
of the BOD,, values. No correlation was evident between turbidity and BOD,..
Leachate conductivity measurements also exhibited the same increasing-
decreasing historical trend as BOD5 and turbidity. Correlation between conductivity
and turbidity was found to be insignificant.
A comparison of leachates from three sources - the pilot test drums, a full-
scale field test cell (Cell 1) constructed at the new Oceanside landfill and filled with
mixed digested sewage sludges and solid waste, and two grab samples of leachate from
the old landfill indicated the following: the maximum BOD^ value in Cell 1 (19,600
mg/l) during the first 211 days after filling was four times greater than the maximum
test drum leachate BOD5 (4,300 mg/l); the pH of the drums ranged higher (5.0 to 8.6)
than both the landfill leachates (5.1 to 5.2) and the Cell 1 leachate (4.6 to 5.9);
turbidities were in the same general range; conductivities in the test drums were in the
same range during the first 100 days after the drums were filled, but thereafter drum
conductivities were less than one-half the conductivities in the landfill and the Cell 1
leachates; odors were similarly sour and septic up to 100 days after the drums were
filled, after which the drum leachate odors became earthy and weak.
A comparison of "residual" test drum leachate occurring several weeks after
water additions and "fresh" leachate occurring immediately after water addition showed
that "residual" leachates had greater BOD,., turbidity and conductivity, and lower pH
values.
Analyses were made of leachate composites accumulated during 1971, 1972,
and 1973 for C02/chlorides, phosphates, calcium, total nitrogen, nitrates, iron,
copper, lead, zinc, magnesium, chromium, manganese, fluorides, barium, sulfates,
conductivity, pH, and turbidity. The results showed no trends that were attributable
to the type of sludge applied to each drum. Concentrations of lead, chromium, cop-
per and manganese were negligible.
5. Gas Generation. Gas samples taken from each drum every two to four
weeks were analyzed for CO2, O2, N2, and CH4. Due to introduction of excess
air into the space in each drum above the level occupied by the sludge-waste admixture,
the early results were inconclusive. The two forced-aeration drums contained only air,
xxvii
-------
except on two occasions when the blower was inoperable and methane was detected.
Some aerobic decomposition occurred in all the drums which was indicated by the
presence of O2 and generally low concentrations of CH4 in all drums. This resulted
from air entrapment in a void space between the drum covers in 1971, which was only
partially corrected by adding polyethylene seal covers in 1972,
6. Compaction and Settlement. Test drum solid waste was compacted every
two weeks by dropping a 200-lb weight twice from a height of 1 ft above the waste
surface in each drum. All of the drums indicated an Initial rapid settlement during
the first 20 to 50 days after filling, with the exception of the high-density Drum 1.
After 200 days, settlements ranged from 40 to 65 percent of initial volume in all drums
except Drum 1 (30 percent in 200 days and 40 percent at 300 days) and Drum 12 (75
percent). Negligible settlement occurred after 250 days. Drum 1 was initially 32.5
percent greater in density than the other drums, which probably accounted for Its slower
settlement. No significant differences in settlement rate were observed for the two
aeration drums, while the two dry control drums tended to settle faster than several wet
drums. Apparently, settlement was random, excepting Drum 1, indicating that dense
sludge-waste mixtures compact more slowly and to a lesser degree than less dense
mixtures such as the dry controls.
7. Percolation. Percolation tests were performed to determine the time-rate
of leachate volume flow in the test drums. For Drum 1, initial flow rate (0.18 gal per
hr) and total leachate were significantly less than for all other drums. Comparison with
Drum 9 (0.5 gal per hr) and all other drums (1.38 to 1.5 gal per hr or less) indicates
the effect of high sludge-waste densities on inhibiting leachate flow. No cause was
determined for the behavior of Drum 9.
8. Temperature. Temperatures measured 6 in. below the surface of the sludge-
waste mixture in Drums 6 through 18 indicated a rise during the first 90 days after fill-
ing, from a range of 76 F to 84 F, to a peak range of 85 F to 92 F. The temperature
in these drums then decreased steadily thereafter to a range of 45 F to 68 F after 200
days. Temperatures in Drums 1 through 5 (filled 50 to 55 days earlier than the others)
reached the same temperature ranges on the same dates, peaking 155 days after filling
and reaching the lower range 250 days after filling. This indicated that temperatures
in all drums followed ambient air temperature cycles; significant thermophiloc bacterial
effects were not encountered. This was due to a lack of insulation and the small mass
to large surface area ratio of the drums; whereas in a full-scale landfill, there is a
relatively large solid waste mass to small surface area ratio and relatively good
insulation.
9. Odors. Drums filled with solid waste or with water and solid waste rapidly
developed odors characteristic of landfills (decaying garbage). In other drums, a septic
or sulfide odor occurred in intensities related to garbage smells varying from complete
masking in two drums receiving raw primary sludge to partial masking in drums receiv-
ing mixed digested sludges. The drums with raw primary sludge emitted the strongest
septic odors.
xxviii
-------
Odors from all drums were strongest during the first 90 to 110 days after initial
liquid applications and became increasingly similar in type. After 130 to 170 days,
scents in all but one drum changed to a moderate barnyard or compost odor, and after
150 to 205 days, smell: were a negligible compost and earthy-type.
Odors in the drum leachates followed essentially the same trend but were more
rapidly stabilized than the odors in the drum solids.
10. Molds and Plant Growths. Mold and plant growths were observed in all
but three drums from the first month through the twelfth month. No significance could
be attributed to growth in any drum other than an extremely large colony in Drum 1
that covered up to 30 percent of the sludge-waste surface area, compared to a maximum
coverage of less than 5 percent of the surface area at one time in the other drums.
11. Insects. Flies, spiders, ants, and sow bugs were observed; of these, flies
were by far the most numerous, occurring in groups of up to 200 in one drum at a time.
Only small flies commonly found in sewers, septic materials, or decaying organic
matter were observed. Minute black scavengers (Scatopsidae), fungus gnats (Myce-
tophilidae), moth or filter flies (Psychodidae) and Diptera larvae were identified.
The fly population was negligible in 1972 due to the addition of the polyethylene drum
seals which restricted fly travel into and from the wastes in the drums.
12. Leachate Constituents. The quantities of constituents leached from the
drums were determined in terms of lb of constituent per lb of dry weight solid waste
and sludge solids in each drum. Quantities of major constituents leached from the
drums varied as follows in lb per lb: BOD5 - 1.01 to 11.1 (10)"3; magnesium - 1.2 to
3.3 (10)~4; iron - 3.3 to 19.1 (10)*6; zinc - 3.8 to 11.8 (10)-6; sulfate - 0 to 17.3
(10)~4; phosphate - 1.1 to 17.5 (10)""6; and nitrate - 3.9 to 292 (10)~^. No correla-
tion was found between type of material in each drum and quantities of leached
constituents.
13. Comparison of Control Drums with Drums Receiving Sludge. The major
differences between the wet control Drum 17 and other drums receiving sludges were:
the control drum leachate pH range (6.3 to 7.2) was generally higher and narrower
than for drums receiving sludges (sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings); and gas
analyses showed CO2 °nd CH4 concentrations in control drums to be in the low range
of drums with sludges. No differences were observed in temperature or settlement
between drums with sludges and the controls. The major detectable effect of adding
sludges to solid waste in the drums was the production of a more acidic leachate.
G. Controlled Field Test Cell Simulation of a Sanitary Landfill
1. Test Cell Design. During January-February 1972, three test cells were
constructed at the Oceanside landfill and filled to about a 13-ft depth with solid waste
and admixed liquid sewage sludges. A 10-mil polyethylene membrane liner was placed
on the bottom of each cell and covered-with 8 in. of loose sandy soil. A sump with a 1-in.
xxix
-------
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) leachate drain pipe and valve was installed to collect leach-
ate. Differential settlement markers, gas probes at mid-depth and bottom (2-in. PVC
pipe), and temperature probes at the surface, mid-depth, and bottom (1-in. PVC pipe)
were placed in each cell.
Each cell was filled with about one-week's production of liquid sludge and
wet weight solid waste as follows: Cell 1, 45,500 gal of raw primary sludge and 473
tons of solid waste; Cell 2, 38,500 gal of mixed primary and secondary digested sludge
and 394 tons of solid waste; and Cell 3, 56,000 gal of mixed primary and secondary
digested sludge and 486 tons of solid waste. The total in-place combined densities
of sludge solids and solid waste were 876, 902, and 923 lb per cu yd wet weight for
Cells 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
2. Test Cell Study Results
a. Leachates. Prior to November 1972, only Cell 1 had produced leachate.
Most of the Cell 1 leachate (44.8 gallons) was encountered during the first week after
cell filling. Between November 1972 and June 1973, Cell 1 yielded 60 gallons/ Cell
3 produced 2,316 gallons, and Cell 2 remained dry. In July 1973, Cells 1 and 3 were
saturated manually with 13,000 and 15,000 gallons of water, respectively. Subse-
quently, leachate quantity equaled the amount of water applied to the cells.
The Cell 1 leachate analyes indicated a steadily increasing BOD5 level
(5,000 to 30,000 mg/l); a steadily growing pH (4.6 to 5.9 units); rising organic nitro-
gen values (150 to 700 mg/l); and increasing conductivity (3,000 to 14,000 j/mhos).
Chlorides and total dissolved solids reached peak levels near the 400th day (2,300 mg/l
and 34,000 mg/l, respectively), and then tapered off. Test Cell 3 leachate followed
patterns similar to those of Cell 1 leachate. Quaterly composite leachate analyses
indicated little or no manganese, arsenic, or chromium. Lead never exceeded 20 mg/l
and copper remained below 1 mg/l. The pesticide aldrin reached a level of 0.015
mg/l in the initial quarterly composite sample, but was negligible thereafter.
b. Temperatures. Temperatures recorded during the study varied from 64 to
92 F at the bottom (71 F average), 60 to 82 at mid-depth (76 F average), and 62 to 90 F
near the surface (78 F average) in each cell.
c. Gas Analyses. Gas analyses taken at mid-depth and near the bottom of
each cell indicated steadily increasing concentrations of methane during the study in
each cell. Reported methane concentrations varied between 17 and 40 percent at the
bottom of the cells and between 10 and 30 percent at mid-depth in the cells. Read-
ings were taken periodically for H2S; quantities detected in Cells 1 and 3 (1 to 750
mg/l) were significantly greater than in Cell 2 (0 to 25 mg/l).
d. Settlement. Final settlement in the three test cells was 3.0, 2.4, and
3.1 percent per year (based on initial depth) for Cells 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
xxx
-------
e. Core Sampling. Seven core sampling studies were completed during the
overall study. Temperatures, moisture content, and organic content were determined
at two-foot depth intervals in each cell to a 12-foot depth below the surface.
Temperatures of cores from all three cells generally decreased from 98 to 70 F.
Organic and moisture contents of core samples showed no differences between
the three cells. Organic content varied from 13.9 to 62.8 percent dry weight; moisture
content varied from 14.6 to 100.1 percent dry weight.
Moisture saturation tests were run on core samples with the highest and lowest
moisture contents in each cell. The samples varied widely with respect to saturation
values (initial plus added moisture).
The saturated samples noted above were used to generate leachate for BOD5
analysis. The BOD5 values decreased dramatically during the 58 days between the
second and third core sampling (from a range of 170 to 3,070 mg/l, to a range of 28
to 561 mg/l). BOD,. values in subsequently generated leachates remained low.
Core samples taken at 4- and 12-foot depths in sterile bottles on the first core
sampling in July 1972 were analyzed for fecal coliform, fecal streptococci and
Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The results showed some of each bacteria at the 4-foot depth
and none at 12 feet. This is similar to data on coliform bacteria in soil, which re-
portedly do not survive below a soil depth of seven feet.
Odors were determined at each two-foot core sample depth interval. Scents
during the first sampling were strongest In Cell 1, which was relatively sweet; in Cells
2 and 3 odors were more putrid and septic. Odors on subsequent samplings were gen-
erally scur and putrid In all cells, becoming slightly sour or earthy by study completion.
No differences were noted in core sample appearance, color, readability of
print on paper and container labels, or biodegradability between each of the three
test cells or at different depths.
f. Comparison of Sludge Admixed Solid Waste with Normal Solid Waste. A
comparison of data from the Oceanside test cells with landfills in some other Southern
California locations and other field test cells was completed. The Oceanside test cell
leachate pH (4.6 to 5.9 units) was lower than the range of values for landfills (5.6 to
7.8 units). Oceanside Cell 1 leachate BOD5 (19,600 mg/l) was higher than for most
landfills (10,900 mg/l). Temperature and gas composition followed trends at values
similar to those of normal landfills. Settlement rates in the Oceanside test cells
averaged two times greater than normal landfill settlement rates; this was attributed
primarily to the lower original in-place density of the Oceanside test cells (623-640
lb per cu yd versus 800-1,000 lb per cu yd for wet weight solid waste only).
xxx i
-------
H. Field Demonstration of Landfill Disposal of Liquid Sludge
1. Preliminary Field Tests. Initial field demonstration tests were conducted
in special test areas one day per week at the old Oceanside municipal landfill site
from April to November 1971, and at the new landfill site from November 1971 to
February 1972. During the first two testing weeks in 1971, one 1,250-gal tank-truck-
load of liquid sewage sludge was spread onto two truckloads (16,000 lb) of solid waste;
during the second two weeks, 1,750 gal of sludge was applied to three truckloads of
waste; after the first month, 3,500 gal of liquid sludge was spread on six truckloads
of solid waste. During the first phase test period, temperatures ranged from 46 to 92 F,
wind intensity was calm to moderate, and rain occurred on one day when sludge was
disposed.
It was found in the initial demonstration tests that driving a rubber-tired tank-
truck on compacted solid waste was impractical; sea gulls and other birds which normally
foraged on the open landfill face avoided the solid waste where liquid sludge was
admixed; the earthy odor of well-digested sludge was discernible for up to 30 min after
application within 30 ft of the test area; and solid waste absorbed the sludge with
negligible runoff and leachate.
Extended field tests indicated that the CAT 977 and 977 K landfill dozers
could work the sludge-waste admixture more easily than normal waste, due to the
sludge moisture improving consolidation of the sludge-wet solid waste on the landfill
dozer blade. Also, less dust was generated during compaction. Greater track slippage,
however, occurred when working on steep fill slopes (greater than 30 percent slope)
or in areas where wet sludge was pooled.
Even application of liquid sewage sludge was critical in preventing runoff and
avoiding pooling at the toe of the fill slope. Initially, liquid sludge was applied by
gravity feed through a 4-in. pipe extending from the bottom of the tank-truck; this
method proved inadequate,however, due to the force of the concentrated discharge
stream undermining the waste and running off along the bottom of the fill surface.
Solid waste dikes were built on and at the bottom of the fill working face to minimize
sludge drainage. If the liquid sludge was allowed to soak into the waste for at least
one hour, the dozer traction improved and the drier sludge-waste admixture was then
more easily worked with minimum unusual slippage of the dozer.
During the initial 9-month preliminary test period, observations were made of
odor, blowing litter, animals, and flies. Normal landfill odors prevailed. Blowing
litter was reported on only one day, indicating that the applied liquid sludge reduced
litter. Sea gulls, the most abundant wildlife observed at the landfill, avoided the
sludge-covered wastes. Flies from normal solid wastes were observed foraging on
damp sludge-covered wastes. Some sludge runoff occurred on six days, and poor
sludge-waste admixing was noted on two days.
xxxii
-------
2. Full-Scale Landfill Disposal of Liquid Sewage Sludge.
a. Landfill Operations. A full-scale demonstration wherein all liquid sewage
sludge produced in the City of Oceanside was disposed into the solid waste at the land-
fill was initiated in February 1972.
Minor runoff at the toe of the working face due to partially ineffective sludge
admixing techniques was observed. The then-existing liquid sludge disposal schedule
of two days per six-day landfill work week overloaded the solid waste, creating exces-
sive runoff. Revising the sludge admixture schedule to five days per week reduced but
did not fully eliminate minor runoff. Utilization of solid waste dikes to contain the
sludge at the toe of the working face proved unsatisfactory due to dozer problems in
working the pooled sludge-waste admixture. The slope of the working face was re-
duced from 45 to 30 percent, but the sludge tended to flow in rivulets through channels
down the fill slope. Use of a flat test spreading area made it difficult to admix the
sludge evenly by gravity drainage unless the tank-trucks were driven over the flat
waste area. As an alternative, the cover soil was scarified on the flat, filled landfill
lift area, and sludge was discharged into the area. When the old waste fill was
excavated and exposed to allow sludge admixture, severe landfiI' odors escaped. The
surface was, therefore, quickly recovered with soil.
Alternative improved methods were investigated for spreading liquid sludge
from the tank-truck; these included an eight-foot movable boom suspending a four-inch
diameter eight-foot long Flexible hose, and a double-splash plate spreader. The boom
and hose assembly was satisfactory; however, it required the truck driver to manually
manipulate the boom to spread evenly. The moving boom was found to cause a driving
problem. This was changed to the presently employed splash plates which mechanically
cover a 12-foot wide by 6-foot half-circle twice during the spreading procedures.
The sludge truck landfill unloading time was changed to a later hour so that
there would be far more compacted solid waste present. The landfill working face was
also reduced to a 30-ft width, 70- to 80— ft length, and 20— ft depth. The sludge runoff
was then negligible or minimal. Other more costly methods of admixing sludge evenly
to the working face by pumping or mechanical mixing with solid waste were not tested.
Observations of sludge disposal during rainfall periods indicated that if solid
waste is saturated with rain water,sludge will become diluted by the water and some
additional runoff will result. The absorbed rain also reduces the equivalent amount of
liquid sludge that can be admixed or retained by the solid waste; however, during rainy
periods, liquid sludge was satisfactorily disposed into the wet solid waste at reduced
rates in the Oceanside site.
b. General Observations. During a two-month period, one landfill dozer
operator reported strong noxious odors from the solid waste-sewage sludge admixed fill.
Field investigations and gas sampling, however, did not confirm the report. It was
concluded that the dozer operator was exposed to a psychologically unpleasant
xxxiii
-------
environment while eating his lunch at the fill site. The fill operator now leaves the
area for lunch and has continued to work without further complaint.
During warm September weather a complaint about landfill odors was received
from the adjacent elementary school cafeteria. Landfill operations were discontinued
in the canyon area within immediate proximity to the cafeteria. They will not be
initiated in that area while school is in session. Septic, partially digested or raw sew-
age sludges may cause odor through disposal unless immediately covered with soil.
Blowing litter in the landfill was greatly reduced when liquid sludge was
admixed.
Observations of sea gulls showed that they 'nitially avoided solid waste
admixed with digested liquid sludge. After seven months of full-scale sludge disposal,
the sea gulls abandoned their aversion and started foraging in areas with sludge.
Fly emergence studies were performed with sludge admixed solid waste and
non-sludge solid waste test areas beginning in August 1972. No difference in the two
areas' emergence was discernible during the tests. It was observed that flies foraged
and larvae moved to dry areas in the sludge-admixed solid wasre.
Accident and injury records for the landfill operations showed no injuries that
were attributable to liquid sludge disposal.
A review of studies on pathogenic organisms in solid waste indicated fecal
ooliform and fecal streptococci bacteria may be present in large quantities. No illness
has been reported by concerned school authorities, residents, or landfill personnel that
could be attributed to pathogens or vectors from the solid waste or sewage sludge.
3. Landfill Auger Sampling. Auger sampling was done by drilling bore holes ?n
three types of landfill areas: 1) freshly placed sludge-waste up to 2 weeks old; 2)
sludge-waste placed about the same time as the test cells; and 3) solid waste without
sludge placed approximately the same time as the test cells.
Temperatures in fresh sludge-waste core samples averaged 108 and 110 F on
the first two sampling periods; this was much greater than in the older sludge-waste
and solid waste fill areas (79 to 90 F). Steam was observed escaping from the fresh
sludge-waste bore holes. Organic contents did not differ in the three types of fill.
As expected, moisture contents in the pure solid waste fill bore hole were lower than
in the two sludge-solid waste bore holes.
Soil samples taken from the soil bottom below the fill in two holes, and the
bottom of a lift in one hole, indicated low moisture contents well below field capacity.
No leaching was observed in the area of the bore holes and the quality of the
groundwater samples from the test well at the mouth of the landfill Indicated little or no
leachate contamination. Laboratory moisture saturation
xxx iv
-------
tests conducted on core samples with the highest and lowest in-situ moisture contents
indicated that amount of additional moisture absorbed to field capacity (saturation)
was related to neither in-situ moisture or organic content, nor depth.
Analyses of BOD^ from leachates of the laboratory-saturated core samples
showed no differences in trends or values attributable to the different fill solid waste
or liquid sludge-solid waste admixtures. The appearance of the core samples from the
fill area that receivedno sludge was dry and powdery, in comparison with wetter "pasty"
agglomerated material in the sludge-admixed solid waste fill auger samples. The color
of the sludge-admixed waste normal bore samples was usually greyish from the sludge,
while the solid waste fill samples were more brownish. Readability of printed items
was affected by neither fill condition. The state of biodegradation of cored materials
obtained for the various sludge/non-sludge fill conditions did not noticeably differ.
Analyses of gas samples obtained from the bore holes in 1972 indicated possible
trends of concentrations of CC>2 und CH4 in the sludge-solid waste fill over the non-sludge
solid waste fill. Gas samples obtained in 1973 did not bear out any relationships.
4. Compaction Studies. A two-week comparison of solid waste-sludge density
with normal solid waste density was conducted in June 1973. Solid waste admixed
with sludge resulted in 4 percent greater density under controlled conditions. A study
of solid waste-sludge admixture density under normal landfill conditions was performed
in August 1973. Solid waste-sludge as received at the landfill had an in-place density
of 1,119 lbs per cu yd. This extends far into the upper range of landfill compaction
densities.
5. Time and Motion Studies. Comparisons between working solid waste with
and without sludge admixture indicated no differences in time requirement at the normal
sludge to solid waste ratio (0.56 to 0.60 lb sludge per lb dry weight solid waste).
Doubling the sludge to solid waste ratio significantly impaired operations, however,
due to dozer slippage. Working fills in excess of 20 to 30 percent slope resulted in
dozer slippage when sludge was present.
6. Landfill Disposal and Sludge Transport Costs. Sludge disposal at the land-
fill should affect only dozer operations. In 1971 at the old Oceanside landfill, opera-
tional and maintenance costs for the dozers without sludge disposal were $0.72 per ton
of wet weight solid waste. During 1972 at the new landfill, operational costs including
sludge disposal were $0.64 per ton, and in 1973 $0.92 per ton. The costs for 1973
were affected by addition of a second dozer operator to provide soil cover (soil covering
commenced September 1972). The vehicular transport of sludge in 1972 was $25.23
per ton of sludge solids disposed, and in 1973, $31.74 per ton.
I. Economics of Sludge Transportation
The economic analysis is based on hauling liquid sludge from the existing
La Salina Plant and a new San Luis Rey Plant which is scheduled to be on-line in 1974.
xxxv
-------
The new San Luis Rey Plant will be 5 miles from the existing landfill, and the La Salina
Plant is 2 miles away. Assuming a sludge solids content of 3.0 to 5.5 percent wet
weight for each plant, a total sludge quantity of 2,217 tons of dry sludge per year was
projected for 1985.
1. Truck Haul. Three types of trucks were studied for possible truck haul of
liquid sewage sludge: a modified "standard" 3,300 gallon water truck spreader; a
10,000 gallon fuel truck; and a 7,000 gallon vacuum pumper. The average costs for
each truck per ton-mile haul on a dry solids basis and a 10-year useful truck life were
estimated to be $3.95 for the spreader, $1.64 for the refueler, and $2.17 for the
vacuum pumper. These costs apply to a weighted average load haul distance from the
sewage treatment plants to the landfill of 4.38 miles with one hour per trip total for
loading, travel, and unloading.
2. Pipeline Transport. Pipe head-loss and flow requirements indicated an 8-
in. diameter pipe with an estimated useful life of 30 years was needed. The cost per
ton-mile of dry solids was calculated to be $21 .61 for the La Salina pipeline and $4.07
for the new Sen Luis Rey pipeline.
3. Economic Summary. Results suggest that; pipeline transportation of sludge
is decidedly not economical; rail transport is not feasible; and truck sludge transportation
ts both the most economical and most practicable transportation alternative.
xxxyi
-------
CONCLUSIONS
A. General
Three years of field investigation at the Oceanside, California landfill and
three years of laboratory simulation tests have demonstrated the technical, economic,
and environmental feasibility of combined disposal of digested liquid sewage sludge
in a solid waste sanitary landfill. Through use of proper sludge-spreading techniques,
the Oceanside landfill demonstration has shown that solid waste has sufficient absorptive
capability to hold moisture. The total quantity of Oceanside's
sewage sludge production has been satisfactorily disposed to the landfill at reasonable
costs since December 1972, and the landfill solid waste in-situ retained over half its
original available moisture-absorbing capacity. Landfill disposal of sludges from
Oceanside's three local treatment plants was shown to be economically competitive
with other sludge disposal alternatives, while providing the ancillary environmental
benefits of increased landfill compaction, greater density and reduced blowing of
litter and dust. The major environmental problems encountered in full-scale disposal
of sludge to the landfill were noxious odors following disposal of raw sludge or septic
tank pumpings, extensive sea gull foraging and waste scattering, and stormwater runoff
problems associated with grading, all of which can be reduced by proper soil covering,
grading, and other techniques as outlined in this report.
The findings of this demonstration project can be extrapolated to feasibility
evaluations of disposing liquid sewage sludge to landfill sites other than at Oceanside,
California. The exact absorption capacity of a particular solid waste fill can be
established by determining the moisture capacity of local solid waste samples, local
sludge characteristics, and the extent of local rainfall and drainage. New Icndfills
designed for combined sludge disposal should preferably be sited with protective
buffer zones that will minimize adverse landfill impacts such as noise, odor, dust,
vectors, and potential public health problems; if located in a wet climate, it may be
desi rable to provide a leachate collection, recirculation, or disposal system.
Sanitary landfills should not be used for disposal of septic tank pumpings, raw
sludge, or other hazardous wastes unless special operator, equipment, and environmental
protection measures are instituted. Runoff and leachate control facilities to prevent
possible groundwater and surface water contamination should be incorporated at all
landfills receiving liquid sewage sludge to prevent by-passing. At Oceanside, the
following techniques met with success: keeping liquid additions well below the
solid waste absorption capacity; spreading sludge on a working face of less than
thirty degrees slope; providing solid waste/earthen dikes at working face toes, con-
structing engineered storm drain facilities, providing an absorptive solid waste layer
prior to sludge admixture into the landfill; and furrowing the landfill cover soil in
front of and perpendicular to the advancing fill face to confine sludge runoff and
enhance infiltration capability.
xxxvi i
-------
B. Specific
1 . Laboratory moisture absorption tests indicated that solid waste similar in
composition to Oceanside's can absorb 0.6 to 1 .8 lb liquid per lb dry weight solid waste.
2. Oceanside's entire sewage sludge production, consisting of activated and
primary digested liquid sludge, has been successfully disposed to the Oceanside landfill since
December 1972 without approaching the fill solid waste absorption capacity. The
City produces an average of 0.6 lb liquid sludge per lb dry weight solid waste, with a
range of 48 to 75 percent lb per lb. Moisture added to the landfill as a result of rain-
fail (13 inches for 1972 through 1973) was mostly concentrated within the local December
to March rainy seasons and amounted to less than 0.1 lb rain per lb wet weight solid
waste. Heavy rainfalls (as much as 2 inches in one storm) failed to affect absorption
of the liquid sewage sludge by landfill solid waste. Augered landfill samples taken
in 1973 indicated that the solid waste fill material was 60 percent below saturation
capacity, even for locations where sludge admixture had been practiced for as long as
two years. This 60 percent liquid absorption capacity remained available for future
liquid sludge, rainfall, or other moisture addition.
3. Field observations indicated that all sludge produced by Oceanside was
satisfactorily applied and absorbed in the landfill while apparently producing little or no
leachate. Analysis of landfill bottom and intermediate lift cover soil samples obtained from bore
holes indicated that less moisture had entered the bottom soils than the intermediate
soils. The moisture content of both the bottom and intermediate soils (average 14.0
percent dry weight) was higher than the moisture content of the air-dried surface cover
soi I.
4. The application of liquid digested sewage sludge by spreading onto the
compacted landfill working face proved to be a better methodology than admixing solid
waste into a pool of liquid sludge. The landfill dozers experienced no slippage in
working the liquid sludge when it was spread and allowed to dry and infiltrate for a
few minutes over and into the surface of a working face of less than 30 percent slope.
At greater working face slopes and in pooled or fresh liquid sludge, the dozers exper-
ienced some slippage. On an experimental basis, finished, nearly level fill areas
were used as drying beds for liquid sludge. Applying sludge to these areas resulted in
very quick sludge drying, and appears to be a feasible application procedure.
5. Adding sewage sludge to the solid waste landfill resulted in better solid
waste fill compaction and increased fill material density. In a controlled field test,
compcction was approximately 4 percent better following sludge application. Density
of the fill averaged 1 ,120 lb per cu yd, which is well into the upper range of solid
waste-only landfills. (Sewage sludge solids were excluded from the density calculations.)
6. Properly-engineered landfill facilities and use of appropriate working
techniques can control liquid sludge runoff in landfills. For Oceanside, these factors
included: admixing liquid sludge into the solid waste within an absorption ratio range
xxxviii
-------
of 0.46 to 1 .39 lb of liquid sludge per lb of as-received, wet weight solid waste (0.6
to 1 .8 lb per lb, dry weight basis); spreading (and drying for a few minutes) liquid
sludge uniformly over a landfill working face slope of less than 30 percent to avoid
short-circuiting rivulets; constructing earthern solid waste dikes at the toe of the
working face to contain minor sludge and rainfall runoff; furrowing the landfill cover
soil in front of and perpendicular to the advancing fill face to confine sludge runoff
and enhance infiltration capabilities; maintaining storm drain facilities to divert ex-
ternal rainfall runoff away from the sanitary landfill; constructing a conventional dry
solid waste lift as an absorptive layer beneath the landfill prior to admixing liquid
sludge; providing routine daily covering of the solid waste and sewage sludge with
the generally accepted minimum 6 inches of soil; and supplying proper engineering,
planning and maintenance of the considered solid waste management system and the
sewage sludge treatment and disposal system.
7. A comparison of leachates from pilot test drums, field test cells, and the
non-sludge admixed landfill indicated that the sludge-solid waste admixture produced
a more acidic leachate with a higher BOD^ content than leachate produced from solid
waste alone, but that chemical composition did not otherwise significantly differ. No
major differences in temperature, carbon dioxide and methane gas concentrations,
settlement or leachate mineral constituents were noted between sludge-admixed solid
waste and normal solid waste. Intermittent addition of 6.7 to 12.2 lb water per lb dry
weight solid waste to the simulators stabilized the leachate BOD5 and mineral concen-
trations after about 205 days. stabilized at 50 mg/l.
8. Qualitatively, addition of liquid sewage sludge to solid waste in the Ocean-
side landfill was observed to reduce dust and blowing litter as a result of the increased
moisture content of the disposed materials.
9. Qualitative observations of odors resulting from admixed normal "well-
digested" liquid sludge and solid waste indicated a similarity in strength to typical
solid waste landfill odors. The pilot test drums, field test cells, and the demonstration
landfill tests indicated that admixture with well-digested primary and secondary sludges
produced a mild, earthy, non-noxious odor until the absorbed sludge dried, after which
normal landfill odor types prevailed. Undigested raw sewage sludges and septic tanks
pumpings in the pilot test drums, however, produced moderate to strong noxious septic
odors. Such noxious odors can be expected whenever raw sludge is disposed to landfills
in cases of digester upsets, treatment plant strikes, natural catastrophes, etc. The
septic odors can be controlled by immediate cover with six inches of soil or normal
landfill dry solid waste. Even though the Oceanside landfill was located in immediate
proximity to an urbanized area including apartments and two schools, very few com-
plaints concerning odors were received.
xxxix
-------
10. No apparent difference was observed between fly foraging in the admixed
sludge-solid waste and in the dry solid waste fill. Most flies trapped at the fill were
fruit flies, which pose little danger as vectors to public health as compared to houseflies.
Domestic houseflies and fly larvae in solid waste were observed entrapped in and escaping
from the digested liqi'id sludge runoff. The migrating larvae and mature flies came into
direct contact »vith wet sludge. Since wet sludge may contain pathogenic organisms,
the; flies pose a potential sanitation problem unless the sludge and admixed solid waste
fi11 is covered daily with six inches of well-compacted suitable soil.
11 . Large numbers of sea gulls were observed at the landfill after the first two
years of sludge application, posing a potential nuisance to the surrounding environment.
During the first two years, the gulls avoided the sludge-admixed solid waste, preferring
the non-admixed solid waste. Daily covering with six inches of wel I-compacted suitable
soils can reduce gull foraging.
12. The extent of sanitary landfill leachate generation is dependent on the
amount of external water introduced by surface or groundwater drainage, rainfall,
irrigation or other water sources. Collection and treatment of leachate from landfills,
both with and without admixed liquid sludge, can control groundwater and surface water
contamination.
13. Both Oceanside field test data and responses to a 1971 Ralph Stone and
Company, Inc. nationwide survey of State Public Health Officials and local landfill
operating management indicated no reported accidents, health hazards, or illnesses
attributable to landfill sludge disposal; also,no such reports were found in published
literature. The above-mentioned 1971 survey also revealed that no increased disease
outbreaks occurred due to landfill disposal of septic tank pumpings. This should be
expected, since septic tank pumpings are basically the same as raw sewage, containing
common types of pathogenic organisms (bacteria, virus, and parasites).
14. Disposal of septic tank pumpings into a sanitary landfill may be feasible
only under the following special controlled conditions: 1) a six-inch minimum earth
cover is applied immediately after spreading the liquid; 2) proper liquid spreading
techniques are used to control runoff and leachate; 3) protective clothing and face
masks are worn by operating personnel; 4) the disposal site is isolated by sufficient
buffer zones or enclosures from populated areas to positively protect public health from
vectors and to eliminate odors; 5) adequate leachate control facilities are provided.
15. Liquid sewage sludge in Oceanside could be most economically transported
by truck, particularly by "refueler" truck.
16. The cost of full-scale truck transport, unloading, and disposal of liquid
sewage sludge into the Oceanside landfill during 1972 was $25.23 per ton of dry sludge
-------
solids, and in 1973 was $31 .74; this was economically competitive with alternative
liquid digested sludge processing and disposal methods.
17. The cost of solid waste landfill disposal dozer operations during 1972 of
$0.64 per ton solid waste (wet weight) with full-scale disposal of liquid sewage sludge
was not significantly different from the cost in 1971 of $0.72 per ton of solid waste
(wet weight) without sludge. Costs increased to $0.92 per ton in 1973, due to conver-
sion of the Oceanside landfill to a sanitary landfill, entailing increased additional
earth-moving and cover soil placement to provide daily soil cover. However, additional
engineering, personnel training, operation supervision and earth cover requirements
are needed when disposing sewage sludges into a solid waste sanitary landfill and,
hence, an increase in long-term operating costs should be anticipated. The cost
effectiveness of combined (multi-purpose) disposal of both solid waste and sewage
sludges appears to be improved over the duplication of disposal in separate sanitary landfill
and sludge disposal works.
18. Several administrative and institutional difficulties were encountered in
converting the solid waste-only fill to a sludge-solid waste fill. These mainly involved
lack of proper coordination between public and private agencies, psychological mis-
givings expressed by landfill personnel with respect to sludge disposal, and sludge
disposal personnel preferring not to have to work in landfills.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
I . Special studies are needed to determine the populations and the potential for
survival of pathogenic organisms in solid waste, liquid digested sewage sludge, and
septic tank pumpings in a sanitary landfill environment.
2. An assessment of pathogenic organisms such as virus and bacteria in leachate
from landfi I led liquid sewage sludge admixed with solid waste should be conducted to
evaluate public health hazards and possible surface and groundwater contamination.
3. The potential vector public health hazards associated with disposal of digested
liquid sewage sludge into a sanitary landfill needs further evaluation to determine the
incidence of vector contamination by pathogenic organisms (virus, bacteria, and parasites).
4. Comprehensive analyses for toxic heavy metals and other hazardous constituents
in leachate from sludge admixed solid waste should be performed to assess the potential
for surface and groundwater contamination.
5. Further wet climate and irrigation-type demonstration tests are needed to deter-
mine the effectiveness of liquid sludge disposal into a sanitary landfill under varying local
conditions. Long-term monitoring (as much as 20 years) is needed to fully determine
the long-term behavior of liquid sludge admixed with solid waste in a landfill environment.
This monitoring can establish, for instance, the feasibility of reclaiming the Icndfill site
for recreational or other uses. Additional long-term leachate monitoring studies are needed
to fully establish pathogen and toxic material residence times, mobility, and long-term
pollutional potentials.
xlii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of Oceanside demonstration work reported harein was performed under Environ-
mental Protection Agency Granr No. S801582 (formerly 1 G06-EC-00285-01A1) from
the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. The Year 01 work was conducted
under the direction of Mr. Kent Anderson, former Project Officer; Mr. Leonard Lion,
former Project Officer, reviewed the Year 02 and early Year 03 work, and Mr. Dale
Mosher, Project Officer, reviewed the remaining Year 03 work and guided the prepara-
tion of this report.
The Demonstration Grant was awarded to the City of Oceanside, California; Mr. Alton
Ruden, Director of Public Works, served as the Project Director and provided guidance
necessary for the successful completion of this program. Mr. Richard Aldrich, Super-
intendent, Water and Sewage Department, Messrs. James Reid and John Calzada,
Superintendent, and Assistant Superintendent, respectively, Waste Disposal Department,
provided continuing assistance in performing the field work and collecting appropriate
demonstration information.
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. were the project consultants responsible for the detailed
studies described in the report. Supervisory personnel included: Ralph Stone, Technical
Supervisor; Richard Kahle, Project Coordinator; and James Rowlands, Field Engineer.
Other Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. staff assisting in the study were Edward Daley,
J. Rodney Marsh, Paul Mak, Timothy Zimmerlin, Albert Herson, Howard Smith, and
John East.
Valuable assistance in vector control and fly emergency studies was provided by the
following agencies and individuals: State of California Department of Public Health,
Bureau of Vector Control and Solid Waste Management - Mr. Harvey Magy, Southern
California Area Representative; Dr. John Poorbaugh, Jr., Ph. D., Vector Ecologist
and Mr. Don Andres, Senior Sanitary Engineer; San Diego County Department of Public
Health - Mr. Daniel Bergman, Vector Ecologist. Mr. Dennis O'Leary, Executive
Officer,San Diego Region, State Water Quality Control Board, cooperated in author-
izing the leachate and groundwater quality tests. Many other Federal, State, County,
local and private agencies and individuals provided valuable assistance.
xliii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Objectives and Scope of the Investigation
An investigation of the economic and environmental effects of disposing of liquid
sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings into a sanitary landfill has been conducted over
three years. This report presents and discusses the results of the three-year investigation.
The objectives which have been achieved during the study consist of the following:
1. Determination of the capacity of solid waste to assimilate the water ?n
digested liquid sludge and septic tank pumpings.
2. Identification of the parameters affecting the capacity of solid waste to
absorb water from liquid sludge and septic tank pumpings.
3. Determination of the optimum means for nuisance-free admixture of liquid
sewage sludge with solid waste in a sanitary landfill.
4. Investigation and monitoring of sanitary landfill environmental effects follow-
ing combined liquid sludge-solid waste disposal, i.e., temperature, odor,
gas composition, settlement, flies, birds, other vectors, landfill leach ate,
groundwater contamination, and runoff.
5. Definition of the landfill effects of liquid sludge on solid waste compaction,
decomposition rates, blowing dust and paper.
6. Determination of the effects of liquid sludge application on operating
efficiencies of landfill equipment and personnel.
7. Investigation of alternative means for dewatering, handling, and disposal
of liquid sludge and establish cost comparisons.
The three-year demonstration program has consisted of the following areas of
effort: a) establishing the water absorption characteristics of Oceanside sewage sludge
and solid waste; b) pilot-scale landfill simulation experiments; c) large-scale field
experiments under controlled conditions (field test cells); d) full-scale field demon-
stration; and e) special laboratory and/or field studies to eliminate or define sanitary
landfill requirements. Three special studies which were undertaken are: a) laboratory
evaluation of water absorption by solid waste; b) two nationwide postal surveys of land-
fill disposal of municipal sewage and septic tank sludges; and c) a literature search
concerning digested sewage sludge and septic tank pathogens and vectors.
All the solid waste and sewage sludge used in the field demonstration study were
obtained from the City of Oceanside. The full-scale Oceanside field demonstration
disposed of the City's entire generation of liquid digested sludge into the solid waste
at the City landfill.
1
-------
B. Study Area Description
1. The City of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside, California is located
within northern San Diego County, as illustrated in Figure 1-1. The City of Oceanside
had a population of 40,494 in 1970. The City Planning Department has projected a
1980 population of 75,000, and a year 2000 population of 109,000. The year 2000
population is the maximum level for Oceanside in accordance with the proposed land
uses. Residential density averaged 2.98 persons per household in the 1970 census. Of
the total of 14,594 housing units, 9,139 were single dwelling residences, 4,307 were
mulK-unit residences, and 1,111 were mobile homes or trailers. Camp Pendleton, a
major United States Marine Corps Base supporting about 35,000 Marine and Navy
personnel, is located along the northern boundary of the City. Many of the Camp
Pendleton personnel shop and visit in Oceanside.
The major land use categories for November 1967 in the City limits are given in
Table 1-1. The average residential zoning density was about 19 persons per acre in 1970.
Selected Oceanside climatological data for 1971, 1972, and 1973 are given In
Table 1-2. The U. S. Weather station at the nearby Palomar Airport reports a mean
112-year historical precipitation average of about 12 inches annual ly.
2. Sewage Treatment Plants. The City of Oceanside has three existing sewage
treatment plants; two are activated sludge plants named La Salina and Buena Vista.
A third is a primary-type plant named San LuTs Rey. Detailed description of these
sewage plants and a discussion of the quantity and characteristics of the sludge
produced in each plant are presented in Chapter IV. The plant sites are shown in
Figure 1-2.
3. Sanitary Landfills. During the first year of the study, all preliminary
demonstration field tests were made at the old City sanitary landfill (see Figure 1-2)
located southerly of Mission Avenue and easterly of the San Diego Freeway (Interstate
5). The old site was completely filled and a new City sanitary fill site was prepared
including 3 test cells for the second and third year demonstration work. The new site,
shown in Figure 1-2,is in a canyon located northerly of Mission Avenue and easterly of
Cape Glouchester Street. A Marine Corps housing project and primary and elementary
schools are the neighbors on the canyon rim abutting the new site. The Oceanside land-
fill receives primarily commercial and residential waste from within the City. As will be
discussed in detail in Chapter IV, relatively little industrial waste is received at the new
landfill. The local soils are coarse to fine sand over well-consolidated sandstone.
Geology, soil and groundwater conditions are described in Appendix F . Prior to
September 9, 1972, the Oceanside landfill did not receive daily cover soil on the
working face. In order to comply with EPA sanitary landfill requirements, a six-inch
minimum compacted cover soil was applied daily to the landfill working face after
September 9, 1972.
2
-------
SANTA MONICA ,
LOS ANGELES
•««,»»«««. A rW JztS^r " "¦' **
rtrr""rrr rr'n n -V"' }\ ' -.^ I J\, " CtM?*.,^..X .! ?\/£w.
ttOOHOO BtACM
TORRANCE^
Joshua T ne
\AyuLL€^foH{'lK^icii! *ynivER$t
M« '* Ar£&L*^"f
Palms
rniead
B(Mi:mo
4N3M£/M '2
COffOWA
• iiLGNG
I * - J OB4«(Cf ,
O^n/ SANTA \
BEACH
ANA
Seal Beacr
3HCVlt'W
Ramoland ®an ^<,c'
Pjlrr.s
Xatned
NEWPORT
Corona <}«l Ma
•met
. WmcPK'Sto/
'* \$) Mounta
;v^St c
Layuna Bead
Mrtnort; ;/.'$
l»gon» M'Qjui
ill ..iV'iutmar
OPCM L
Desert
Murr iTta
AacheUa
Jfirrmal
„ , ___..n Juan Opi»uano
ana Point <-Cv ^p.^aho BXL.ip^5l/«»nO oi»ach *,
f^?V • S-fiCiO'-* Mu-le^r
meritii
r ^mj-cuin
V Avalon
86) (ill
\ff<.-.Iir.i SU'IO.. r> '.uN%
fjivt,
fei.d'et-"' Fantjroo^
iji'r "5u
nd B«
Meet
Lului'J IM
Tonei hUr'.inc;
loOun An
Aguangj
• MissiO'. Sjn Anions rvloj Coroie» |
• •• ' -5 •"
' ¦¦ en,.; ' w"ne:sr,,ov., <
Mo'tit'i RanC"'t« "¦•'> ^ * I
ESCONDIDO G<\* «»m Sio'f'
OCEAMSIDE
Carls
SM'J
MOO*J/Gwr SM/(
Ltucadul
Eocmifas I
CardHf-by-1he-Sea
Solano Beach
Ruff#oo
Del Mar
Coy«i.i
¦" C)
'.ah tc» *yoie w-mv^ :»«
View ^t>**r 0cT'"J
' >var<
Clbnuo N*1< Mpr • ^
CORONADO
Duliurs
Oa« S
on
*co
-------
TABLE 1-1
MAJOR CLASSES OF LAND USE IN OCEANSIDE (NOVEMBER 1967)
Percentage of
Total city Developed area
Residential
2,131.70
10
38
Industrial
465.54
3
8
Commercial
461 .23
3
8
Hi ghways—streets
1,607.84
7
28
Public & semi-public
1,050.10
5
18
Developed area (subtotal)
5,716.41
28
100
Agriculture
3,447.13
15
Vacant
12,660.58
57
Total area
21,824.12
100
From; Oceanside Planning Department.
4
-------
TABLE I -2
OCEANSIDE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
Month
Temperature (F)
Precipitation (in.)
Total 24 hr max
Avg
max
?.E
< £
Avg
High/low
1971
Jan
64
43
57
78/30
0.39
0.36
Feb
64
44
58
81/35
1 .34
0.68
Mar
64
47
59
74/34
0.10
0.10
Apr
69
49
62
84/42
0.89
0.66
May
66
51
63
78/48
0.69
0.32
June
71
58
68
78/49
0
0
Jul
76
61
71
80/46
0
0
Aug
82
66
77
86/6C
0
0
Sept
78
61
73
85/80
0
0
Oct
74
52
69
98/36
0.67
0.47
Nov
66
46
59
75/41
0.13
0.08
Dec
61
41
54
69/34
3.37
0.81
1971
Total precipitation
—
7.58
1972
Jan
62
41
55
80/35
0
0
Feb
64
41
57
71/37
0.11
0.11
Mar
65
50
59
73/41
0
0
Apr
68
49
63
72/40
0.05
0.03
May
70
54
66
76/47
0.16
0.10
June
73
60
69
77/54
0,20
0.11
July
78
62
73
83/51
0
0
Aug
79
63
75
87/49
0.03
0.03
Sept
77
60
70
82/53
0.17
0.10
Oct
75
55
69
89/47
0.92
0.48
-------
•.)
69
66
65
66
65
69
68
74
74
76
75
74
67
66
TABLE 1-2 (CONT.)
OCEANSIDE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
Temperature (F)
Avg Precipitation (in,)
min Avg High/low Total 24 hr max
46
62
81/36
2.63
0.80
43
58
84/33
1.19
0.36
1972 Total precipitation —
5.46
42
57
74/36
2.19
0.78
45
60
76/35
2.66
0.81
46
59
68/38
2.62
0.68
49
62
79/40
0
0
54
64
73/46
0.03
0.02
60
71
89/55
0
0
62
71
78/48
0
0
62
72
89/56
0
0
58
74
94/43
0
0
54
68
78/49
0
0
47
61
75/36
1.71
0.46
47
69
80/37
0.09
0.08
1973 Total precipitation — 9.30
Oceanside fire station.
6
-------
' ? ~..a i
/'<
•if / •
1st
\j EXISTING r
SAN LUIS R£¥U f
.PLANT N y- •
NEW
LANDFILL AREA
$
t**
f'. /r.. •.
|FW:>7
>v n
IEXISTIN
BUENA VISTA -H
/ / " PLANT
As-
V v* ><***. -J? • ?' -)•
. • "••A'C "•• "H" *•
"Xf^\ --.V • "'••• Ji ;v-
¦:J^- •' :•.:. \/\r
fs/ _. -•
V.J i«>— x\
. a V, ' - ' f ^ i-f-"" \ ) ; ! \
¦)%f£ *¦ 1 u \5
J--;: "• «*» r>t
.j,?/ DIlDLANMltl'
"'" A ^ AREA i-
It I
*¦ J ^ M; !
i'-3, - -i - "¦ i •: • " 1 i»9u
--=^i --
VH f*"-'
' /^MOfiPCEteKipE- pfcj:..:-
A, ^ ¦ -¦ • yw^-* * ii..-£ , zz? f *->• cr^g ¦ t t •• t
\ • : •" i 1 *:T~ : "I :"T-v i I -V» ~JP' y . ~J' " J J"4
' ' "t "W " •*"" I it ! -J -J 'i •; sa'.-.vr, —~% - 4- i- v
? r in ? * f *-¦* -» ; i I ¦ A v\ '^:i-- F-j -4-1- /
~ .1 . r,' **f77 ' '* r " "*1 * ""^y I '-¦ ^-"'ZiL'-
j J' ' i 4> , j . I i -•# T' '~1 ^"" 7 ""' £ ^(,J|Ja| vT lx^|vj^ * e.f». -r~ 'i ~ "l~..
r 4--y & iS&SLhs^---—¦ ----- ¦
. PLANT
*W Ji M'
-frr'X-'
h
JL
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE I - 2
OCEANSIDE MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL SITE
7
-------
II. SLUDGE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
A. General Aspects of Sludge Disposal in the United States
Currently, sludge processing, handling and disposal represent about 25 to 50
percent of the total capital arid operating cost of municipal sewage treatment plants.
Sludge disposal involves the ultimate complex phase of wastewater treatment and
plant management. While sewage sludge has some limited fuel, soil conditioning and
fertilizing value, it is generally a liability at treatment plants due to a lack of markets for these
latter uses. Commercial chemical fertilizers are less expensive to handle; they do
not present potential environmental problems from odors or public health hazards from
pathogenic organisms and vectors associated with poorly digested sewage sludges.
A number of sludge treatment and disposal methods are utilized which include;
anaerobic and aerobic digestion, composting, drying, wet burning, chlorination,
incineration, landfilling or burial, reclamation as a soil conditioner, lagooning, deep
well injection and discharge to water bodies. A study completed in 1968 by
Burd^ summarized the costs for alternative handling and disposal methods for municipal
sewage sludge. These costs are given in Tables ll-l and 11-2. Lagooning and land-
filling were indicated as among the least costly handling and processing methods (see Table
ll-l)» As a means for ultimate disposal, landfilling with dewatered sludge Is more
costly than lagooning, barging to sea, and pipeline to sea (see Table 11-2). In many
cases, ultimate sludge disposal requires pretreatment for dewatering. The cost of de-
watering often accounts for a significant fraction of the total disposal cost.
The Marine Protection and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL 92-532) sets strict require-
ments on the ocean disposal of sewage sludge; the Federal Water Quality Act (PL 92-500)
as amended in 1972, sets strict requirements on pipeline discharges into the ocean.
These regulations may eventually force many municipalities to seek alternative methods
for sludge processing and disposal. The need for environmentally desirable and economic
methods of sludge processing and disposal is particularly acute in some urban areas where
current methods are unacceptable (e.g., elimination of sludge burning due to air
pollution, or removal of sludge discharges from receiving waters and prohibitively high costs
of sludge handling due to the unavailability of suitable nearby disposal sites). One
method of sludge disposal which has received some attention in recent years and which
appears to be of considerable promise is the admixture of liquid digested sludges to
solid waste in a landfill. As will be discussed later, certain advantages are inherent
in this combination approach to the solution of sludge and refuse disposal problems,
which may make the method very appealing to some communities.
B. Nationwide Surveys of Sludge Disposal to Landfills
In 1971, Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. independently undertook a nationwide
survey of State Public Health Departments and local landfill managers to assess the
prevalence of sludge disposal to landfills and explore any problem(s) which may be
associated with this method of sludge disposal. Copies of the questionnaires are
included in Appendix B.
-------
TABLE ll-l
SLUDGE HANDLING AND PROCESSING COSTS (1968)
System
Capital and operating costs
($/dry ton)
Average Range
A .
Thickening
(1) gravity
-
1.50-5
(2) air flotation
-
6 -15
(3) centrifugation+
-
3 -20
B.
Dewatering
(1) vacuum filtration
15
8 -50
(2) centrifugation
12
5 -35
(3) sand bed drying
-
3 -20
c.
Anaerobic digestion
-
4 -18
D.
Elutriation
-
2-5
E.
Lagooning
2
1 - 5
F.
Landfi 1 ling
-
1 - 5#
G.
Pipeline transportation
5
*
H.
Liquid sludge disposal on land
10
4 -30
as a soil conditioner
1.
Heat drying
35
25 -40
J.
Incineration
20
o
-**¦
i
00
K.
Barging to sea
10
4 -25
From: Burd, R. S. A study of sludge handling and disposal. FWPCA
Publication No. AP-20-4, 1968, p. 320.
+ Varies widely depending on the need for chemicals.
^ Long hauls would be higher.
* Moderate distances; cost varies with length.
9
-------
TABLE 11-2
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL COSTS FOR SEWAGE SLUDGE (1968)
System
Capital and operating costs
($/dry ton)
Average
Range
A. Composting
B. Heat drying1**
C. Incineration
(1) wet combustion
(2) multiple hearth and
fluidized bed
D. Landfilling dewatered sludge
E. Disposal as a soil conditioner
w/o heat drying (dewatered)
F. Disposal on land as a liquid
soil conditioner
G. Lagooning
H. Barging to sea
I. Underground disposal
J. Pipeline to sea
Not accurately known
50
42
30
25
25
15
12
12
40-55
10-50
10-50
10-50
8-50
6-25
5-25
Unknown, potentially inexpensive
11
From: Burd, R. S. A study of sludge handling and disposal. FWPCA
Publication No. WP-20-4, 1968, p. 320.
+ Includes cost of preparation, such as dewatering, digestion, etc. given in
Table II -1.
^ Gross cost, does not account for money received from sale of sludge.
10
-------
1. Health Departments Survey. The questionnaire ( see Appendix B) was
designed to survey prevailing nationwide practices and opinions concerning ^.vage sludge
and septic tank sludge landfill disposal. The sanitary engineers/environmental health
officers in the 50 State Departments of Public Health were sent questionnaires. A
total of 26 srates responded; 24 provided answers to all or most questions. The follow-
ing is a summary of the survey results.
a. Sludge Disposal Regulations. Landfill disposal of sewage and/or septic
tank sludge was permitted by 80 percent of reporting states. The responses for
municipal sewage sludge were: permitted, 16; prohibited, 4; and for septic tank sludge:
permitted, 17; prohibited, 4. Most of the states had the same disposal policy for both
types of sludge. One state, however, restricted landfill sludge disposal to municipal
sludge only, and two states limited such disposal to septic tank sludge.
Regulation of landfill disposal of municipal sewage sludge was reported by
10 States; of septic tank sludge, by 11 states. State inspection was reported by six
states; two of these prohibited all sludge disposal, three permitted both municipal
and septic tank sludge disposal, and one of the inspecting states permitted only septic
tank sludge disposal. Several states indicated that municipal sewage sludge accepted
for landfill disposal had to be dried and/or dewatered.
b. Problems Associated with landfill Disposal. Most of the states which
permitted municipal-sewage and/or septic tank sludge disposal to landfill also permitted
landfill disposal of industrial, other liquid, and/or hazardous wastes. It was, therefore,
not always possible to determine which type of sludge was responsible for associated
environmental difficulties. The following list of comments on adverse sludge-related
problems was compiled:
- High water content of sludge makes landfi I ling almost impossible.
~ Adverse public opinion; damage to equipment.
" Increased potential leachate problem.
~ Excessive leachate production; inefficient and sloppy operation; flash
fires; probable groundwater pollution (being investigated on one site).
Increased probability of spread of disease by vectors.
~ Creation of a nuisance because of disposal in an unsafe manner and in
unregulated places.
~ Odor problems when regulations not complied with.
~ Difficulty in compacting liquid wastes prior to daily cover.
~ Difficulty in burying sewage (vacuum filtered) sludge. (Improved mixing
with solid waste not a problem.)
Four states reported no known problems to date; two states indicated a lack of
information; and the remainder either failed to respond to the question, or specified
the problems were caused by other types of liquid/hazardous wastes.
11
-------
c. Recommended or Existing Alternatives to Landfill Disposal. Incineration,
treatment, and recycling (especially as fertilizer by direct land application) were the
most commonly listed alternatives to landfill disposal of municipal sewage/septic tank
sludge. The following are respondents' comments concerning recommended or existing
alternatives:
~ Incinerate sludge; provide tartiary treatment of the liquid from sludge
dewatering.
~ Incineration and pretreatment prior to discharge.
~ Incineration, recycling, or recovery.
~ Incineration, higher degree of neutralization or chemical treatment.
- Combustion where applicable.
~ Recycling, incineration conversion to solids.
- Better treatment plants; recycling or find'ng new uses for the wastes.
- Treatment when available, sludge drying and land disposal, special burial
areas.
- Anaerobic or aerobic digestion or treatment.
- Dispose liquid or dry digested sludge on flat farm land, and plow under.
- Dispose of municipal sewage sludge on farm land.
~ Drying bed, then use as fertilizer (sewage sludge from municipal plants).
~ Ground sludge used for municipal parks, septic tank wastes discharged
to central sewage treatment plants.
~ Land spreading, lagooning, incineration, or "purifying".
~ Deposit in silt trench and allow moisture to leach away into soil. Cover
periodically.
- Sand drying beds or lagoons.
- Lagoons.
- Written permission now required; cease and desist orders on existing sites
with problems; no approval for sites with leachate or potential groundwater
probI ems.
- Methods should be according to conditions.
d. Environmental Impact. Respondents were asked to evaluate on a scale
of 0 (none) to 10 (very great) the severity of hazards and problems anticipated from
landfill disposal of sewage sludge. Table 11-3 summarizes theobtained information.
The median and the mode are values indicating central tendency. The
median is the middle value, or that rating value which divides the ranked data into
two equal parts. The mode is the value of greatest frequency, or that rating value
which received the largest number of responses. The medians were: municipal sewage
sludge, 3; septic tank sludge, 4—indicating respective clusters of consensus at the very
little and very moderate levels of anticipated environmental hazard. The modes were
1 (6 out of 24 responses) for sewage sludge and 4 (7 out of 24 responses) for septic tank
pumpings.
In the no-to-little hazard categories (0 through 3), the number of responses
were: municipal sewage sludge, 13; septic tank sludge, 7. Responses in the moderate
12
-------
TABLE H-3
ANTICIPATED LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDFILL
DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL SEWAGE/SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE
(scale
5 of 0 to 10; 0 = none, 10 = great hazard)
Rating
level
of hazards/problems by number of responses
None Little
Moderate Great
Type of
sewage
0 12 3
Sub-
total
Sub-
4 5 6 7 total 8 9 10
Sub-
total
Total
Municipal sewage
16 2 4
13
1 5 0 4-1/2*10-1/2 1/2* 0 0
1/2
24
Septic tank
0 2 3 2
7
7 4 2 2-1/2* 15-1/2 1-1/2* 0 0
1-1/2
24
*Two respondents gave range of 7-8.
-------
rating range (4 through 7) reversed these proportions: municipal sewage sludge, 10 1/2
responses; septic tank sludge, 15 1/2. The only responses in the cctegory of great
anticipated hazard (8 through 10) were municipal sewage sludge, 1/2, and septic tank
sludge, 1 1/2. (Fractions result from two 7-8 rating responses.)
In general, therefore, the responding state department of health officials
anticipated only little or moderate environmental hazard as the result of landfill
disposal of either type of sludge; more serious difficulties, however, were expected for
septic tank than for municipal sewage sludge.
2. Detailed Description of Survey of Landfill Managers. The postal question-
naire (see Appendix B) was designed to survey prevaiKng practices and opinions concerning the
disposal to sanitary landfills of sewage and septic tank sludge. The questionnaire was dis-
tributed nationwide to the City Engineers or Directors of Public Works of 475
citie;; with minimum populations of 10,000 (19.2 percent coverage). A total of 174
cities and two counties responded; of these, 44 had no operating landfills under their direct
jurisdiction. The questionnaires were therefore answered, in whole or in part, by
officials of 132 jurisdictions. Incomplete responses are responsible for the wide variations
in totals which, for any one question, were usually below the possible maximum.
a. Landfill Sludge Disposal. The majority of 122 landfills reporting on
whether sludge disposal was permitted did not permit disposal of any sludge (sewage/
septic tank/industrial, liquid, or hazardous wastes). The responses were: disposal
permitted, 36 (30 percent); prohibited, 86 (70 percent). Twenty-nine of the landfills which
permitted sludge disposal identified the waste as sewage and/or septic tank sludge: sewage
sludge only, 19; septic tank sludge only, 3; sewage and septic tank sludge, 7.
b. Service Population. The service population distribution for the 29 cities
permitting sewage/septic tank landfill sludge disposal was:
Population Number of Cities
10.000 - 50,000 11
50.001 - 100,000 7
100,001 - 500,000 8
> 500,000 3
Total 4,622,000 29
c. Distance from Nearest Residential Area. Of 27 reporting sewage/septic
tank disposal landfills, 25 were 1/4 mile or more from the nearest residential area. The
most commonly identified distance was 1/2 mile (nine landfills). The two landfills in
close proximity to residential areas were about 200 ft from the nearest housing.
d. Public Versus Private Operation. Of a total of 118 responding landfills,
99 (85 percent) were public, and the remaining 19 (15 percent) were private operations.
Of the 29 landfills permitting sewage/septic tank sludge disposal, 23 (79 percent) were
14
-------
public, 5 (17 percent) were private, and 1 (4 percent) was unidentified.
e. Future landfill Use. The 28 responses received concerning the future
land use of the landfills accepting sewage/septic tank sludge were: park/recreation/
golf course/landscaping, 15; agriculture, 5 (farm/crops, 3, and grazing, 2),*
agriculture or recreation, 1; storage area for digested sludge to be used as soil conditioner,
1; return to landowner, 1; not known, 4; and no future use planned, 1.
f. Type of Landfill Operation. The distribution of responses received from
the 29 landfills permitting sewage/septic tank sludge disposal was: cut and cover, 13;
canyon or ravine, 5; pit or quarry, 3; unidentified, 2; and the remaining 6 were variously
described as sludge harvest, diked flood plain area, spread and dry, diked in marshland,
trench, and area fill. One of the cut and cover operations was identified as an old strip
mine.
g. Size of Landfill. Most of the 18 sites reporting sewage/septic tank sludge
disposal Into landfills were 100 acres or less in area. The area size distribution was:
Acres No. of Landfills
<50 8
51-100 4
101 - 150 0
151 - 200 5
>2,500 1
Total 18
For 21 landfills reporting sewage/septic tank sludge disposal, the distribution
of final depth of fill was:
Final Depth (ft) No. of landfills
<10
5
n
20
7
21
30
5
50
- 100
4
Total
21
h. Quantities of Sewage/Septic Tank Sludge Disposed. Septic tank
pumpings represented less than one-half of one percent of the total sewage sludge
disposed at reporting landfills. Table 11-4 summarizes the data.
i. Sludge Disposal Methods. The following are the responses to the inquiry
concerning the methods of applying sewage/septic tank sludge at landfills:
"Dumped in sand and gravel within open pits previously dug by bulldozer;
pits then filled to control odor and other problems.
15
-------
TABLE 11-4
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF SEWAGE AND SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE DISPOSED
AT REPORTING LANDFILLS
Quantity disposed
Sludge solids content
Type
of
sludge
No. of
report-
ing
land-
fills*
Total
annual
quantity
Avg.
Qnnual
quan-
tity
per
land-
fill
No. of
report-
ing
land-
FM Is* Range Median
1000
gal/ Per-
yr cent
1000
gal/
y
Percent
dry weight
Municipal sewage
Septic tank
16
8
534,945 99.6
2,461 0.4
33,434
308
24 0.5-9/" 8
7 2-85+ 10
Total
537,406 100.0
~
Some landfills allow both municipal and septic tank sludges.
Probably contains appreciable amounts of sand and other inert solids.
Note: Liquid sludge solids are generally in the range of 1 .5 to 6 percent
dry weight. Dried sludge, of course, has far less water.
16
-------
"Dumped at site and leveled.
-Dumped on top of fill and mixed with refuse during compaction.
-Dumped into pit.
-Dewatered by vacuum filtration; moved to landfill, dumped, and immediately
buried.
-Only air-dried digested sludge accepted.
-City landfill disposal of sludge unregulated.
-All sludges incinerated (ashes presumably disposed to landfill).
-Six-percent solids sludge pumped to area, liquid discharged daily to
sloped drying beds; separated clear supernatant decanted to sewer
system; remaining solids drained, dired, and harvested for park
fertilizer use.
"Spread and tilled into the soil.
-Spread on field where no other waste allowed; tilled and mixed with field
dirt.
"Allowed to air-dry, then shredded and used for lawn fertilizer.
j. frivironmental Protection. Table 11-5 summarizes the responses to key
questions related to the existing environmental protection procedures (usi of daily
refuse cover, compaction, etc.) at landfills which accept municipal sewage sludge
and septic tank pumpings.
k. Anticipated Hazards and Problems. All respondents, irrespective of
local sewage sludge disposal practice, were asked to evaluate on a scale of 0 (none)
to 10 (very great) the potential severity of hazards and problems which might result
from landfill disposal of sewage and septic tank sludge. The data is summarized in
Table 11-6.
The median ratings for municipal sewage sludge and septic tank sludge were
2 and 5, respectively. This indicates that the respondents believed that the
municipal sewage sludge (presumably well digested) is considerably less hazardous
than septic tank sludge. The modal values were zero (22 out of 99 responses) and 8
(13 out of 92 responses) for the municipal sewage sludge and septic tank sludge,
respectively. There was a considerable divergence of opinion on hazards of septic
tank sludge; rating values ranging from zero to 10 were reported by 12 of the
respondents. The results thus indicated that septic tank pumpings were considered
potentially more hazardous than municipal sewage sludge.
I . Special Comments. Practical experience with septic tank pumpings has
demonstrated that they are both odoriferous and contain pathogenic type micro-
organisms.^ Nevertheless, the septic tank pumpings may be satisfactorily disposed of
within sanitary landfills if special precautions are taken to assure proper spreading,
absorption into solid waste, soil cover, leachate control and sanitation. Good
sanitation practices would include isolation of operating personnel and vectors from
contact with the pumpings. Isolation of personnel may require restricting their access
to areas where septic tank pumpings are disposed (except for equipment operators),
17
-------
TABLE 11-5
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROCEDURES AT
LANDFILLS ACCEPTING SEWAGE/SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE
^ . No. of
Question Response
Do procedures exist for: respo Description/comment
Yes No
Catching drainage from sludge 13 12
overflow?
Isolating landfill from contact 14 12
with groundwater?
Isolating landfill from surface 15
drainage?
10
Reservoirs; no overflow; mix
sludge with refuse; dikes and
decant beds.
Compact base prior to filling;
trenches lined with clay: clay
liner is used; contained inside
diked area; pumped; lagooned:
seepage to bay.
Storm sewer system around the
site; bury before contact;
berms; dikes and levees; diked;
lagooned; landfill not located
in natural drainage channel;
little surface drainage; only
rainfall enters.
Daily cover of refuse?
Compaction?
22
12
5
10
"One reporting landfill plans to establish procedure in the future.
18
-------
TABLE 11-6
OPINION RATINGS OF ANTICIPATED PROBLEMS/HAZARDS ASSOCIATED
WITH LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE AND SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE
(scale of 0 to 10; 0® none, 10 = very greaf hazard)
Problem/hazard rating value responses in percent
- , None Little Moderate Great Mean Mode
Type of waste 0 1-3 4-7 8-10
Municipal digested sewage 22 39 26 12 2 0*
sludge
Septic tank pumpings 12 21 38 28 5 8+
* Of 99 responses, 22 were at zero.
+ Of 92 responses, 13 were at eight.
-------
wearing face masks and protective clothing. Effective operating supervision is needed
to assure prompt soil cover of the fill, thereby eliminating odor nuisance, protecting
against pathogens and restricting vectors.
The Great Britain Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution presented two re-
ports to Parliament in February 1971 and March 1972 which identified wastes disposed into
landfills in England that were considered "toxic". No mention of sewage sludge as
being toxic or otherwise hazardous was made in either report.
3. 1962 Survey Comparison. A separate survey completed in 1962 by Ralph Stone
for the ASCE^ indicated that 19 percent of reporting landfill operators permitted the
disposal of sewage and septic tank sludges. The lower rate of permitted disposal was
given by respondents as resulting from disposal sites being located too near usable waters.
The risk of contamination from leachate was considered too high for septic tank sludge
disposal into many reporting landfills.
Comparing the results of the 1962 and 1971 Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. surveys,
the percentage of respondents in 1971 that indicated landfill disposal of digested liquid
sewage and septic tank sludges was permitted was 50 percent greater than the number of
respondents indicating such permission in the 1962 survey. This comparison assumes that
the respondents in both surveys were equally representative of all landfill operations.
The cause of any trend could result from increasingly more stringent water quality
standards preventing disposal to water bodies and high costs of alternative sludge disposal
methods. Also many, if not most, of the landfills now probably receive some partially
dried sludges. In regard to the high risk of water contamination, only about 50 percent
of landfills permitting sewage sludge disposal in the 1971 survey had established pro-
cedures to catch drainage from sludge overflow and to isolate the leachate from ground
water contact; 60 percent had procedures for isolating their landfill from surface drainage.
Thus, while protection of receiving waters is of major problematic concern from a public
health and water quality standpoint, operating practices do not appear to fully reflect
this concern.
20
-------
III. OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE
AND SEWAGE SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
A. Solid Waste Characteristics
In order to determine the feasibility of disposing all of the liquid digested
sewage sludge generated in the City of Oceanside into the Oceanside landfill, a
study was undertaken to establish the quantity, general make-up, organic content, and
moisture percentage of the Oceanside solid waste. The description and results of
this study are presented below.
1. Sampling Methodology. The City's Waste Disposal Department collects
once a week from single family and small apartment residential units, and two to
three times per week from large apartment buildings, commercial and industrial sites.
No private collectors operated in the City as of 1972. The collectors completed a
special census to determine the number and type of collection stops during a one-week
period in February 1971. The resulting information concerning the distribution of
collection stops serviced each day of the week and the type of st^ps (residential,
apartment, commercial/industrial) are given in Table 111—1.
A one percent solid waste sample size based on the total number of stops
collected per week was selected; based on a total of 12,430 stops, the one percent
sample size (133 stops) should provide a statistical confidence level of 95 percent at
about 9 percent precision (error). The stops used for sampling solid waste were
selected using random number tables and then counting down the City Sewer
Department billing list and recording the address each time a specified random number
was reached. The number of stops for sampling were stratified by type of stop and
day of the week as shown In Table IIM .
One waste collection truck operated by a two-man crew was accompanied
by a member of the Consultant's staff to test-sample the solid waste. The
vehicle preceded the regular collection trucks each day, Monday through Friday, once
each seasonal quarter of the first year demonstration,to obtain four separate
representative solid waste samplings from the same randomly selected collection
stops. All waste sample vehicles were weighed and then the samples were taken to
the City's landfill for hand sorting into the standard nine major categories defined by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams (OSWMP).Several of the nine major categories were further broken down by
sorting into sub-categories to separate wastes that absorb moisture from those that are
non-absorbent as follows: paper—newsprint,cardboard, and miscellaneous paper;
garden wastes—tree and shrub prunings, leaves ,and grass; plastic, rubber, and
leather—foam materials and solid materials; dirt, ash and sand, which were differ"
entiated from concrete and rock.
21
-------
TABLE lll-l
SOLID WASTE SAMPLING*
1971
Collection stops
(no.)
Sample stow
(no..
week
Day
Res.
Apt.
Com. &
indus.
Total
Res.
Apt.
Com. &
indus.
Total
Mon
1,332
428
540
2,300
14
5
7
26
Tue
1,823
116
367
2,306
19
2
4
25
Wed
1,329
140
586
2,055
15
3
7
25
Thu
1,729
269
364
2,362
18
3
4
25
Fri
2,282
213
442
2,937
23
3
6
32
Sat
64
151
255
470
0
0
0
0
Total
8,559
1,317
2,554
12,430
89
16
28
133
¦k
Sample size is 1 percent of the total number of stops
in the City of Oceanside, California,
22
-------
In addition to sampling wastes quarterly, all of the wastecollection vehicle
loads collected during a one-week period each quarter of the first year demonstration
were weighed prior to unloading at the landfill. One week each month the vehicles
disposing to the City landfill were tabulated daily by type of vehicle and type of solid
waste, A designated landfill equipment operator was trained to perform this latter cat-
egorization. The landfill vehicle tabulation data sheet is shown in Appendix B.
A platform scale was Installed near the landfill entrance in February 1973.
From March 12, 1973 until the end of the study period, each Oceanside Waste Disposal
Department collection vehicle was weighed prior to disposing its solid waste load at
the landfill. The weight of the vehicle was subtracted from the gross weight to deter-
mine the net weight of solid waste. A dally record was kept of the weighed solid waste
received at the landfill by the Oceanside Waste Disposal Department.
2. Woste Characteristics. The solid waste sampling procedure described in the
preceding section yielded the results shown In Table 111-2 for the four sampling periods
of 1971. The percentages in the total column are based on the combined weights of
each component for all four sampling periods.
Moisture analyses of the samples selected as representative of each component
are given in Table Ml—3. It should be kept In mind that these analyses represent the
moisture content of solid waste as received at the landfill site. During the April
sampling period, one day of rainfall occurred as the truck traversed the route
collecting the sample for one day's test sorting. This rainfall is probably
reflected in the notably higher moisture content of papers, textiles, and foam plastics
during the latter period than was found in the other three sampling periods.
The organic content of the various components Is presented in Table Ml—4, and
shows relatively little seasonal variation. Of possible significance may be the greater
organic content of the dirt, ash and sand category In July (summer) which may be
attributed to the greater grass cutting during the warm growing season. Methods used
to determine moisture and organic content are described in Appendix A.
During 1971 the Boys' Club conducted a newspaper drive and the Girl Scouts
sponsored an aluminum can salvage program. A comparison of the City of Oceanside
solid waste composition with that of the City of Los Angeles In Table 111—5 shows less
newsprint, but more metals, for Oceanside. Apparently, the aluminum can salvage
had little effect on metals content In the solid waste. But the newspaper drive, which
was highly publicized and had special collection bins In shopping center parking lots,
did significantly reduce the newsprint content In the solid waste. Other reported solid
waste contents are also described in Table 111-5 for comparison purposes.
During the first year, a portion of the old Oceanside municipal landfill was
excavated as part of a construction project. Several samples of solid waste materials
were obtained and analyzed from the excavation to a depth of 15 to 20 feet. The
-------
TABLE lil-2
COMPOSITION OF OCEANSIDE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
(197TJ
Composition (percent dry weight)
Category of waste
April
July
Oct
Weighted
Dec average*
Newspaper
6.1
4.9
8.6
10.3
7.2
Cardboard (corrugated & solid) 6.3
8.5
9.3
9.8
8.3
Miscellaneous paper
24.4
28.2
17.4
23.8
23.6
Total paper
36.8
41.6
35.2
43.9
39.1
Food waste
9.5
9.5
7.5
9.7
9.2
Glass & ceramics
15.5
9.9
12.1
15.5
13.3
Metals
8.3
8.4
9.6
9.4
8.8
Trees & shrub prunings
Leaves
9.7
6.3
4.8
3.1
6.3
Grass
2.0
7.9
1.8
1.7
3.8
Total garden waste
11.7
14.2
6.6
4.8
10.1
Textiles
1.9
2.7
2.6
2.1
2.3
Total rubber, plastics,
and leather
7.9
2.7
5.7
4.4
5.3
Wood
1.9
1.8
2.9
1.8
2.1
Dirt, ash, & sand
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.5
Concrete & rock
0.1
1.3
0.4
Neg
0.4
Other (unclassifiable)
5.9
5.6+
16.5 +
8.0+
8.9
Grease
0
0.4
0
0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
* Obtained by summing the weight of quarterly samples for each category of waste,
and then calculating the weighted average based on the total 14.5 tons dry weight
of all samples.
+ All material passing through 2-inch sieve.
24
-------
TABLE HI-3
MOISTURE CONTENT OF OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE
0 971)
One week's
average (percent dry weight)
Category of waste
April
July
Oct
Dec
Weighted
average*
Garbage
58.1
79.7
73.2
72.8
70.9
Textiles
24.9
11 .2
19.8
9.9
16.4
Grass
57.1
51 .3
65.6
56.3
57.6
Wood
17.6
11 .1
14.0
15.5
14.6
Newsprint
43.4
27.6
27.3
15.7
28.5
Cardboard
34.4
14.9
26.1
21 .3
24.2
Misc. paper
35.6
17.9
21 .6
17.4
23.1
Prunings, leaves
—
58.7
29.5
42.4
43.5
Foam plastic, rubber
51 .9
4.6
17.8
—
24.8
Hard plastic, rubber
and leather
9.4
4.9
—
10.4
8.2
Dirt, ash, & sand
23.8
30.8
8.4
2.0
16.2
Misc . (2 " sieve)
28.3
26.9
35.0
37.0
31 .8
Total
29.8
26.3
23.4
21 .0
25.1
* Obtained by summing the weight of moisture in each week's samples by
category of waste, and calculating percentages of the total weight of
samples by waste category.
25
-------
TABLE 111-4
SEASONAL EFFECT ON
ORGANIC CONTENT OF OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE
0971)
One week's average (percent dry weight)
Category of waste
April
July
Oct
Dec
Weighted
average*
Garbage
. 87.8
85.7
83.6
74.4
82.9
Textiles
97.2
89.5
86.0
86.2
89.7
Grass
74.8
89.3
81 .0
84.6
82.4
Wood
98.4
90.4
87.5
82.7
89.8
Newsprint
99.2
80.5
92.8
85.7
89.6
Cardboard
94.8
91.3
91 .8
86.8
91 .2
Misc. paper
93.3
88.7
88.4
86.1
89.1
Prunings, leaves
92.6
89.7
88.0
84.5
88.7
Foam plastic, rubber
—
96.8
73.3
98.3
89.5
Hard plastic, rubber
and leather
—
89.5
—
96.0
92.8
Dirt, ash, & sand
4.1
30.5
13.4
8.6
14.2
Misc. (2" sieve)
—
61 .7
31 .3
66.8
53.3
Total
57.3
69.6
55.8
61 .9
61 .2
Obtained by summing the weight of organics in each week's samples by
category of waste, and calculating percentages of the total weight of
samples by waste category.
26
-------
TABLE 111-5
COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES
Percent,
wet weight
#
Category
-f
Santa
Long **
National
of waste
Oceanside*
Los Angeles
Clara
Island
average
Newsprint
7.4
10.7
-
14.0
-
Cardboard
8.2
3.6
-
25.0
-
Miscellaneous paper
23.3
27.0
-
7.0
-
Total paper
38.9
41.3
55.0
46.0
48.0
Food
12.3
5.3
0.0
12.0
19.0
Glass & ceramics
10.6
7.3
0.0
10.0
8.0
Metals
7.1
6.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
Total vegetation (tree
and 12.4
33.1
34.0
10.0
4.0
shrub-prunings, grass
& leaves)
Textiles
2.2
2.0
0.0
5.0
3.0
Hard rubber, leather,
plastics 4.3
-
-
-
-
Foam rubber & plastic
0.2
-
-
-
-
Total rubber, leather, 4.5
2.6
3.0
4.0
4.0
plastic
Wood
1 .7
1.6
0.0
5.0
2.0
Dirt, sand, ash
0.5
0
3.0
Concrete, rock
0.4
0.8
0
0
Total soil, concrete, 0.9
0.8
0.0
0
3.0
Other (2" sieve)
9.4
* Composited from four quarterly samples taken during 1971 .
+Los Angeles, California (wet wt) as received 1/14/71 (88 loads).
I
Santa Clara, California. From:. Underground incineration of solid wastes*
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc., U. S. Public Health Service Grant
No. 1 GO6-EC-00190-01, July 1970.
** Long Island, New York (suburban, similar to Oceanside). Kaiser, Elmer.
Thermal processes for refuse reduction, presented at APWA, Institute for Solid
Wastes, Annual Meeting, Boston, Mass. , Oct. 1-5, 1967.
"^Hickman, Lanier, Jr. Characteristics of municfysa I solid wastes» Scrap Age,
Feb. 1969.
27
-------
samples were analyzed for total solids and organic content. The results are shown in
Table 111-6. A comparison of the materials obtained from the excavation which were
placed in January 1963 with those samples in 1971 shows very little difference in
orgonic content, thus indicating that the decomposition was negligible. The excavated
magazines and newspapers were easily read, and tree, shrub, and grass leaves were
still green. The sampled wastes exhibited negligible degradation afte- almost nine
years of sanitary landfill burial. The opened landfill was extremely odoriferous and
the old waste was quickly reburled and covered with earth,
3. Waste Generation. The quantity of solid waste produced In the City of
Oceanside during four seasons of 1971 is given in Table 111—7. The quantity generated
during June exceeds the average of the quantities for January, March, and October,
possibly due to increased summer tourist population and greater garden and other plant
growth. The reason for variations in daily quantities between each season Is not known.
The solid waste dally average production was about 85 tons Monday through Friday,
and about 25 tons on Saturdays.
The dally and monthly quantities of solid waste received at the new City landfill begin-
ning March 12, 1973 as weighed on the platform scale are given in Table 111—8. As In
1971, more solid waste was produced during the summer months. The solid waste daily
average production in 1973 was 115 tons Monday through Friday and 36 tons on Saturday,
and in 1971, 87 and 26 tons, respectively. This is a 35 percent increase since 1971,
probably reflecting the growth of the Oceanside area during the study period.
A summary of the landfill vehicle counts for 1971 is given in Table 111-9. Loads
of demolition wastes are tabulated separately as these materials were largely from high-
way construction and other special sources. The data for December were taken at the
new City landfill which Initiated operation on November 15, 1971. Private house-
holders are generally not allowed to dispose at the new landfill site; commercial
gardeners and those that deliver cover materials may, however, unload at the fill.
Of the total of 3,175 loads counted during 1971, 1,153 or 36.4 percent were delivered
by private vehicles, and the Oceanside Waste Disposal Department accounted for 38.7
percent of the loads. The remainder of the vehicles were operated by the other City
Departments. The types of solid wastes varied from normal household, commercial and
industrial wastes to black top, dirt, gravel, street sweepings, brush, demolition, stoves,
refrigerators, etc. Of course, the major solid waste volume and weight were delivered
by the large Waste Disposal Department collection vehicles, rather than in the smaller
vehicles of the other disposers.
B. Characteristics of Sewage Sludge and Septic Tank Pumplngs
1. Types of Sewage Sludges. The Oceanside sewage treatment system employs
three separate wastewater treatment works: the La Salina, Buena Vista, and San Luis
Rey Plants.
28
-------
TABLE 111-6
MOISTURE AND VOLATILE SOLIDS CONTENT
OF OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE FROM OLD LANDFILL SITE
(PLACED IN LANDFILL JANUARY 1963; SAMPLED SEPTEMBER 1971)
Category of waste
Content,
Moisture*
percent dry weight
Volatile solids*
Newsprint
47.3
95.2
Cardboard
35.5
84.5
Grass
62.1
83.9
Leaves
61 .7
83.9
Text! les
18.0
82.4
From: Standard Methods, 13th Edition.^
29
-------
TABLE 111-7
TOTAL WET WEIGHT OF SOLID WASTE
PRODUCED IN OCEANSIDE
(1971)
Weight, tons*
Day
January
March
June
October
Average
Monday
104.71
84.54
93.45
104.45
96.79
Tuesday
76.37
87.52
100.45
55.47
79.95
Wednesday
56.81
60.07
82.82
76.88
69.15
Thursday
78.03
84.65
88.83
65.71
79.31
Friday
103.29
99.24
130.62
109.27
110.61
Saturday
25.60
28.31
26.54
21 .95
25.60
Total weight
for the week
444,81
444.33
522.71
433.73
461.41+
* Wet weight as-received.
+ Estimated quantity of waste for 52 weeks is 23,992.8 tons per year.
30
-------
TABLE 111-8
OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE WET WEIGHT
(1973)
Weight, tons*
Month
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Monthly total
Mar
154.98
113.43
112.83
92.56
149.34
28.64
1,800.26
Apr
144.00
99.25
107.00
87.50
144.00
29.00
2,587.00
May
135.39
100.06
105.50
87.59
147.10
27.90
2,707.23
June
148.74
115.51
114.97
93.07
151.56
30.85
2,801.23
July
146.01
113.36
119.13
105.13
135.55
63.02
2,869.04
Aug
145.39
118.29
119.61
97.26
146.29
31.53
2,996.68
Sep
136.18
109.14
114.81
88.49
134.42
25.83
2,461.31
Oct
128.08
96.77
105.59
82.16
132.65
22.28
2,600.51
Nov
125.48
98.19
101.12
78.40
116.34
55.46
2,416.43
Dec
117.76
87.99
91.82
81.61
108.50
47.04
2,215.69
Average
136.99
104.87
106.39
89.45
136.37
36.22
2,545.54
* Wet weight as- received.
Note: Scale operation commenced March 12, 1973.
31
-------
TABLE 111-9
OCEANSIDE LANDFILL VEHICLE LOAD COUNT
(1971)
Week No. of loods by vehicle type
total
(1971)
Auto/trailer/ Truck, 1/4-1 ton
st. wagon pick-up/van
Truck,
over 1 ton
Oceanside
waste disp.
Municipal/
other
Total
February
21
69
40
(49) *
117
14
261
(310)+
March
3
38
25
(4)
136
47
249
(253)
April
14
83
77
(129)
134
28
336
(465)
Mo y
12
81
86
(21)
135
14
328
(349)
June
4
48
74
(127)
91
0
217
(344)
July
7
106
52
(13)
125
1
291
(304)
August
9
83
8
(55)
121
7
228
(283)
October
18
110
74
(6)
126
3
331
(337)
November
8
71
36
(27)
123
12
250
(277)
December
0
91
29
(0)
121
12
253
(253)
Total veh.
loads
96
780
501
(431)
1,229
138
2,744
(3,175)
* Loads of demolition waste.
+ Total including demolition waste.
32
-------
The La Salina Plant has a flow capacity of 5 mgd and provides primary settle-
ment followed by secondary activated sludge treatment. The plant process units consist
of primary clarifiers, aeration tanks, secondary clarifiers, and heated two-stage sludge
digesters. The digesters produce a final sludge with a total solids content varying
between 3.9 to 5.4 percent, wet weight.
The San Luis Rey Plant has a design flow of 1.85 mgd (in 1971 it operated at
around 50 percent of its design capacity). It provides treatment in a grit removal
chamber, primary settling tanks, and a single-stage heated sludge digester. This
plant also serves the limited but significant industrial wastes from plants in the City.
The total solids content of the primary digested sludge varies from 3.3 to 8 percent,
wet weight. The large variations are probably partially due to the variable flows
from the industrial plants. The digested sludge from this plant tends to be more odor-
iferous than the digested activated sludges from the other two plants.
The Buena Vista Plant is the smallest of the three plants with a design flow of
0.5 mgd, and it provides activated sludge treatment and sludge digestion similar to
the La Salina Piant. The treatment process units consist of a combination primary
clarifier-aeration tank (Clarator), a secondary clarifier, and a heated sludge digester.
The total solids content of the single stage digested sludge varies widely from 2.3 to
11.2 percent, wet weight.
Both the old San Luis Rey and Buena Vista Plants are scheduled to be closed
down by 1975 when construction of a new San Luis Rey Plant should be completed to
provide integrated tertiary treatment.
2. Sewage Sludge Characteristics and Quantities. Routine analyses were
performed on sludge samples from all three treatment plants by both the City of Ocean-
side and Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. All of these tests have been plotted to show
trends since the inception of the project. The results of these analyses are discussed
below. All analytical methods used for sludge analyses were in accordance with
Standard Methods, 13th Edition, where applicable (see Appendix A).
The data on total solids and volatile solids for each of the treatment plants
are shown in Figures lll-l through 111-6. The data in these figures indicate a range
of about 2 to 10 percent for over one year operation, with about 30 to 70 percent
volatile solids based on dry weight; there was lesser variation in total solids or volatile
solids content in the La Salina and San Luis Rey Plants' sludges.
The quantities of sewage sludge hauled for disposal from the three municipal
sewage treatment plants are summarized in Table 111-10. The sludge production was
projected based on estimated raw sewage volumes and characteristics for the exist-
ing and planned sewage treatment plants providing activated sludge treatment of the
total wastewater flow with normal sludge digestion efficiency. The projections are
given in Table 111-11.
33
-------
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
VOLATILE SOLIDS
TREATMENT PLANT: IA SAUNA
ANALYSIS BY: o CITY OF OCEANSIDE
• RALPH STONE & CO., INC.
jo
o o • - °~ ^ o0^fQ°2» »%° o,p0^,
•o ofouu • n
o • • crfk ® • x> $ a* 3-*o O"
s°CP° '
30 ofP ' *
O o
°£ •
° • o O • °
—1 —I Q_ I ) O U
~ 3 ui X y w
—» ^ v> O 2 O
00 < 2s
in tS Q_
t. < 5
FIGURE IIH
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
90
80
70
60
50<
40
30
20
10
0
,oo
VOLATILE SOLIDS
TREATMENT PLANT: BUENA VISTA
ANALYSIS BY: o CITY OF OCEANSIDE
» RALPH STONE AND CO., INC.
O r\ ~ ^
° CU*. • °0 05^8 ftOO°
,*°pO 9, oO - • P ° X> J? Ccfk °* OA). • £
% 0°° o^oi6 00° ° £<$>
)° o ° o o0o.
O o • O • •• o
(
o
O „CL
o o o o ° o o
o O o
o O
O •
O O'
~ o
o
?°o\-
3 3
FIGURE 111-2
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
VOLATILE SOLIDS
TREATMENT PLANT: SAN LUIS REY
ANALYSIS BY: o CITY OF ©CEANSIDE
• RALPH STONE AND CO., INC.
o
o o
o
o
On
oO
O O
*o
o
°o°°o
p a
P
o
o •
o
o
2*
o
o
oy o
o o°
o
>
©<
o
o»
o
*o
© ©
3 oo" . 0a°s?
0°-,.^(0 o
• o'
°o
o
o •
o
°a=«
CH»
ocpo
%>
Op#
OO Ch
o
'o
FIGURE 111-3
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
TOTAL SOLIDS
1 4 r
12
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SAUNA
4 CITY OF OCEANSIDE
ANALYSIS BY:
~ RALPH STONE & CO., INC
2 10
o
I 8
I
<
f—
o
* tA
A ^ £ A
- -
^ a
< 2
1 . I J I ' i L.I. I I L
s? 11 =i a § iy
1972
' '
O
?SS<5^?SOZ
.1973.
FIGURE II1-4
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
18
TOTAL SOLIDS
it
* A
A
A
. A
*
* A
OA
m A A*
A
~
A
&
TREATMENT PLANT: BUENA VISTA
A CITY OF OCEANSIDE
A RALPH STONE AND CO.,
ANALYSIS BY:
INC.
Aa
A
a A A „
* A A "*
A
A A i
A
i5> ^
/ *
££a Ak
'-'A
A
2^ A
Aa A
A„ * *
A "
^ A .
A *A
* A aAaa aa A
a ./£*£>* a
a£ > "7
s? < o
< 5 3
J 1 1 I I L
o
-] 971-
|- > U
on
O ~7
' ' ' '
y ca oc at v.
v w < a-
-1972-
> U
O
Z
<
J I I L
oo oc a£
lu «r a.
5 <
> z
< Z> :
s ->
—1973-
» « ' I I
O
a.
~v "J
3 oo
8 §
FIGURE III—5
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
TOTAL SOLIDS
TREATMENT PLANT: SAN LUIS REY
ANALYSIS BY: A CITY OF OCEANSIDE
A RALPH STONE & CO., INC.
t 10
A A A
A
\ 4
**44*
&4.
I »
a* *4 A
* As.
A *
& A
A A
A Aa Aa ^
A A ^ A
tA A A
f. * A
'A A ' At 4
& A
A A
A
A AA
A/
A
A jt
A
a./
a A
&A
*
A
A A & AA A
* A
A
A **
a a A
4i
0
x
A
I I I
J L
,1 L
-L.
' ' ' 1
_L
OC^/f Z
a. 3 3
<£ < —j
-« 0 a.
3 9 gj
—i •< oo
-1971
>7
o y
Z Q
z
<
oc
ca
Z ^ O
3 3 3 ui
1 * jg> T
^ ^ j/5
-1972
O u
X ^
Z o
2- 5r 1 ^ n
-------
TABLE 111-10
SLUDGE HAULED FOR DISPOSAL
Gallons per plant
Month
La Saltna
Buena Vista
San Luis Rey
Total
1971
Jari
133,000
49,000
21,000
203,000
Feb
162,000
52,000
24,000
238,000
Mar
108,000
68,000
35,000
211,000
Apr
63,000
78,200
45,500
186,700
May
56,000
84,000
52,500
192,500
June
59,500
66,500
50,750
176,750
July
63,000
63,000
59,500
185,500
Aug
68,250
70,000
64,750
203,000
Sep
56,000
56,000
63,000
175,000
Oct
81,000
71,500
45,500
198,000
Nov
91,000
59,500
45,500
196,000
Dec
59,500
21,000
35,000
115,500
Total
1,000,250
738,700.
542,000
2,280,950
1972
Jan
91,000
56,000
38,500
185,500
Feb
66,500
101,500
35,000
203,000
Mar
101,500
31,500
38,500
171,500
Apr
178,500
17,500
42,000
238,000
May
210,000
38,500
85,500
334,000
June
188,000
83,500
36,500
308,000
July
234,500
80,500
31,500
346,500
Aug
234,500
77,000
38,500
350,000
Sep
220,500
91,000
56,000
367,500
Oct
102,000
75,500
50,000
227,500
Nov
56,000
77,000
59,500
192,500
Dec
94,500
63,000
38,500
196,000
Total
1,777,500
792,500
550,000
3,120,000
40
-------
TABLE 111-10 (CONT.)
SLUDGE HAULED FOR DISPOSAL
Gallons per plant
Month
La Salina
Buena Vista
San Luis Rey
Total
1973
Jan
89,000
82,000
38,500
209,500
Feb
87,500
45,500
42,000
175,000
Mar
73,500
73,500
17,500
164,500
Apr
66,500
17,500
21,000
105,000
May
143,500
80,500
45,500
269,500
June
142,000
79,000
22,500
243,500
July
175,000
66,500
45,500
287,000
Aug
101,500
63,000
59,500
224,000
Sep
45,000
50,600
29,600
125,200
Oct
64,000
61,500
67,000
192,500
Nov
59,500
59,500
52,500
171,500
Dec
91,000
70,000
63,000
224,000
Total
1,138,000
749,100
504,100
2,391,200
41
-------
TABLE IIH1
PROJECTED TOTAL SLUDGE QUANTITIES
... Year 1 985 Year 2000
ge we weig (1,000 gal/day) (million gal/yr)(l,000 gal/day)(million gal/yr)
Fresh sludge
3.5-4.5 percent solids
60
22.0
80
29.2
Digested sludge
5.0-6.0 percent solids
29
10.6
38
13.9
42
-------
3. Characteristics of Septic Tank Pumpings. The differences and similarities
between septic tank pumpings and digested liquid sewage sludges are of importance
from the standpoint of landfill disposal. Septic tank pumpings may be expected to
show a far wider variability in their composition than digested and municipal sludges.
Septic tank pumpings were used in the present study in connection with the pilot-plant
landfill simulation experiments (see Chapter VI). The pouring and penetrating prop-
erties of these pumpings were noted to be significantly different from those of digested
municipal sewage sludges. One of the spetic tank samples analyzed was thin, having
a BOD5 reading of only 130 mg/l and flow viscosity characteristics essentially the
same as water.^ A thicker sample showed a BOD^ reading of 1,630 mg/l, which would
be fairly low for a municipal sludge, and about 2 percent total solids. Most significant
was the nature of the solids; they were more granular and faster-settling than the
solids of municipal sludge, having negligible effect on the flow characteristics of
the liquid. Conductivities of the particular septic tank pumpings from outlying areas
were 1,900 and 1,200 ^mhos for the thick and thin pumpings, respectively, whereas
the Oceanside sewage sludge was considerably more saline with 3,190 to 4,200 /*mhos.
4. Analysis of a Composite Sewage Sludge Sample for Heavy Metals. A know-
ledge of the concentrations of various trace metals present in sewage sludge is essential
for proper evaluation of the potential for groundwater pollution through leaching or
pollution of surface waters through runoff. Since these analyses were too costly for
numerous individual samples, a composite sample was made by taking 50 ml portions
from all bi-weekly sludge samples received from the three Oceanside treatment plants.
The La Salina Plant produces a larger quantity of sludge than the other two plants.
For this reason, the bi-weekly composites were composed of a 100 ml portion from
La Salina and 50 ml portions from Buena Vista and San Luis Rey. The results of these
analyses for 1971, 1972, and 1973 are presented in Table 111-12.
The concentrations for lead, chromium, and mercury (toxic heavy metals) were
less than 0.1, 0.01, and 0.1 yg/\,respectively. It should be noted that these concentra-
tion levels represent the detection limits of the analytical techniques used and not
the actual concentrations of the heavy metals. It is entirely possible that the actual
concentrations were significantly lower than the indicated detection limits. Heavy
metals in sewage sludges usually originate in industrial wastes discharged into the
municipal sewerage systems. Since industrial wastes do not account for a significant
portion of the total wastewater flow in Oceanside, the sludges from Oceanside plants
would not be expected to contain significant quantities of heavy metals. (Although
sludge from non-industrial urban areas can contain significant amounts of heavy metals,
sludges from municipal plants serving highly industrialized urban centers usually contain
appreciably higher amounts of heavy metals.) Even if a sludge does contain high con-
centrations of heavy metals, not all the heavy metals may be leached out from the land-
fill. Considerable heavy metal content may also be present in normal or industrial solid
waste disposed into a landfill.
43
-------
TABLE 111-12
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SLUDGE COMPOSITE SAMPLES
FROM OCEANSIDE TREATMENTS PLANTS*
Element
Concentration (mg/l)
present
1971
1972
1973
Copper
3.0+
0.23+
+
1.14
Iron
0.16+
1.08+
0.15+
Fluorides
#
1.1
#
2.4
#
0.49
Lead
<0.1+
<0.1 +
<0.1+
Mercury
<0.1 +
<0.1 +
<0.1+
Chromium
<0.01 +
<0.01 +
<0.01+
Chlorides
#
400
#
289
#
298
Hardness as CaCO^
#
344
#
260
#
321
Calcium
138+
CO
+
58+
* Composite was compiled from 100-ml portions taken from bi-weekly samples of
sewage sludge from each of the three Oceanside treatment plants.
Analyses by atomic absorption per Standard Methods, 13th Edition.
3
Analyses as follows per Standard Methods, 13th Edition: fluorides - SPADNS
Method, Sec. 121C, p. 174; chlorides - Argentometric Method, Sec. 112A,
p. 96; calcium carbonate-calculation method, Sec. 122A, p. 179.
44
-------
IV. SOLID WASTE WATER ABSORPTION STUDIES
A. Purpose ond Scope
The wafer retention or field capacity of municipal solid waste in a landfill is
of considerable importance in that it influences the amount of leachate that may result
from a given amcunt of rainfall or other source of water. Sanitary landfills may offer
convenient and environmentally preferable disposal sites for liquid digested sewage sludge,
particularly in dry climates. Some of the major factors to be considered in the design
and operation of a combined sludge-solid wa^te landfill disposal system include: the
quantity and characteristics of solid waste and sewage sludge generated by a community,
the annual rainfall, and the maximum storm intensity. The composition range of
municipal solid waste may be ascertained by standard sampling techniques; the
results of such analyses are available for several communities. Similarly, the tonnage
of solid waste and sewage sludge produced and the pertinent rainfall data can be
determined or estimated for each community. To predict the quantity of sludge lhat
could be applied to a landfill without exceeding its water retention capacity, data
are needed on the absorptive capacities of the various component waste substances.
Since such data have been heretofore lacking, laboratory tests were conducted to
obtain data on absorption for substances commonly found in municipal solid waste.
The physical properties evaluated were the saturation capacity, expressed as grams
of water per gram of dry weight sample material, and the rate of absorption, expressed
as the time required for an immersed sample to approach saturation. As discussed in
subsequent chapters of this report, the laboratory test results were later evaluated in
pilot-scale and field demonstration landfill tests.
B. Factors Affecting Absorption
The absorption of water from liquid sludge by the solid waste is affected by the
physical and chemical (material) properties of both the sludge and the solid waste
components. The important physical properties of a solid waste component are surface
characteristics, shape, and size (dimensions). In general, the saturation capacity is
a property of each solid waste component type, independent of size or shape,
whereas the rate of absorption is affected by the material properties, the internal
structure of the sample particle, and its minimum dimension. In the case of cloth, paper,
and grass, the minimum dimension (i.e., thickness) may be minor for water
passage; therefore, the rate of absorption may be effectively treated as a material
property. For wood or soil, however, the rate at which a sample approaches saturation
varies over a wide range, depending upon the minimum dimensions of the wooden object
or depth and voids in the soil type. In other words, the time required for the center
of a piece of wood or soil sample to approach saturation is roughly proportional to the
minimum distance to be traveled by the water soaking through it, while a sample of
cloth or paper, being of negligible thickness, may become saturated in a reasonably
characteristic time interval with secondary effects due to the sample area. Wetted
materials that are hydroscopic, permeable, and with a large surface area to volume
ratio will reach field capacity more quickly than materials with contrary characteristics.
This distinction should be kept in mind when comparing the water absorption properties of
different constituents.
45
-------
The nature and arrangement of the solid waste components also affect the rates
of travel and absorption of water and the quality of the leachate. A small but unpredict-
able amount of water may be retained through interstitial entrainment of liquid in voids
between particles. The extent of liquid entrainment is a function of the size, shape,
and arrangement of solid waste component particles, and the viscosity of the liquid.
The rate of travel of the liquid through solid waste depends on three factors: the
hydraulic pressure, the size of the voids and length of channels between particles, and
the capillary action. The liquid flows via gravity fairly rapidly through large voids
and thus can by-pass absorption onto surfaces; it also moves by capillary action through
the materials at a slower rate dependent on the intercellular structure of the materials.
When a liquid wets a solid, there generally exists a greater attraction between
the liquid and the solid than between particles of the liquid; e.g., adhesion is stronger
than cohesion. The adhesive attraction of water and liquid sludge for the majority of
of solid waste components provides the capillary mechanism by which these liquids
travel and disperse through a landfill.
C. Laboratory Test Procedures
To determine the field capacity of the municipal solid waste materials for absorption
of water, representative samples of typical solid waste components were immersed separately
in water for varying lengths of time. The following substances were used: pulp and paper
products (toilet tissue, paper towel, newsprint, corrugated cardboard, solid cardboard,
and glossy magazine paper); wood (plywood, sticks and blocks); textile and related
products (cotton, wool, synthetics, hemp, nylon, and leather); vegetation (garden trim-
mings such as live leaves, dead leaves, twigs from branches); and kitchen garbage
(orange, banana and grapefruit peels).
Except for some plant samples which were immersed enclosed in a wire mesh basket,
all test samples were immersed by suspending them from wire hangers into one-liter beakers
filled with water. All tests were performed at ambient temperature (20+ 2 C). For each
material and immersion interval, three separate identical samples were used. The three
samples were immersed in water as received; e.g., the samples were in the wet weight
condition as normally received in a landfill. A fourth sample was dried overnight at 100 C
and weighed to determine initial moisture content and dry weight. The amount of water
absorbed by each test specimen was determined by subtracting the as-received (wet)
weight from the weight after immersion. The moisture absorbed on a dry weight basis was
calculated by dividing the water absorbed by the dry weight of each sample material.
The "after-immersion" weights for the paper samples were determined after the samples
were drip-dried for a sufficient length of time so that no water drop would occur after
one minute. In the case of cloth samples, the specimens were weighed after they were
lightly wrung between rolls to the extent that they slightly wetted the fingers when
touched, but did not drip. Following immersion, the garden trimmings' samples were
shaken and slightly blotted to dry their surfaces before weighing.
46
-------
In the laboratory tests, less-absorbent waste constituents such as rock, concrete,
metal, glass, hard plastic, ceramics, and rubber were not tested for moisture absorp-
tion. Soil (dirt, sand, ashes, etc.),which may be considered an inert material (and
which is used to cover the consecutive strata of solid waste in a landfill), was tested for
its capacity to entrain water in its pore, and for water percolation rates.
The following types of soil and soil-related materials were used in the laboratory
tests: loam, clay (of marine sedimentary origin), Ottawa sand, humus (domestic garden
compost), and charcoal ash (from barbecue charcoal briquettes). The maximum water-
holding capacity of each sample was determined as follows. A small plastic cup con-
taining the sample saturated with water was allowed to stand until the rate of dripping
from an orifice in the bottom became negligible. The moist sample was then weighed,
dried for 24 hrs at 200 F and weighed again. The saturated sample weight loss was re-
ported as a percent of the final (oven-dry) weight.
The soil percolation experiments were conducted on loam and clay only. Prior
tests have been completed with sandy soils which obviously have higher permeability.
(Loam and clay account for typical common soils available at municipal landfill sites.)
The loam samples were pulverized to varying fineness in order to obtain samples having
a wide range of bulk specific gravities. The percolation experiments involved measuring
the time required for downward movement of water through a 7 1/2-inch column of soil,
1-inch in diameter, under a constant head of 2-inches above the top of the column.
The escape of the first drop of water from a screen at the bottom of the column was re-
corded to establish the percolation rate.
D. Results and Discussion
1. Water Absorption by Solid Waste Components. Figures IV-1 through IV-5,
and TaoTe IV— 1 show the laboratory test data for the absorption of water by a variety of
waste components. In these figures, the quantity of water absorbed expressed as percent
of oven-dry weight above the initial as-received wet weight of the samples is plotted as a
function of the immersion time. In cases where the spread in data for several samples was
great, the envelope curves were drawn through the lowest absorption value, thus providing
conservative absorption ranges. As indicated in Figure IV— 1, the rate of absorption of
water and the maximum absorption capacity varied widely with different types of paper
products. For the samples tested, the water absorbed varied from 120 percent for the
glossy magazine paper to more than 700 percent for the toilet tissue. The rate of water
absorption was also higher for the toilet tissue than for any other type of paper tested.
In all cases, however, maximum or equilibrium absorption capacity was attained in less
than 40 minutes. Except for paper towel samples, which showed some variation in their
absorption capacity, the results were consistently reproducible for similar paper products
tested.
47
-------
SYMBOLS
MATERIAL
TOILET TISSUE
(SELDOM FOUND
IN SOLID WASTE)
PAPER TOWEL
NEWSPRINT
CORRUGATED
CARDBOARD
SOLID CARDBOARD
GLOSSY MAGAZINE
PAPER
INITIAL MOISTURE
CONTENT (percent
dry wt)
3.6
4.0
4.7
5.8
5.4
4.2
Water absorbed in addition to as-received
wet weight(initial moisture content).
W
-v"
"V
-A
5 10
20 40
IMMERSION TIME (min)
60 80
FIGURE IV-1
WATER ABSORPTION
OF PAPERS
48
-------
SYMBOLS MATERIAL
~
o
A
V
O
GRASS, 2 DAYS OLD
GRASS, FRESH CUT
BANANA LEAF:
CUT ACROSS VEINS
CUT ALONG VEINS
BIRD-OF-PARADISE
LEAVES
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT
(percent' dry weight)
78
548
135
35
287
* Water absorbed Irs addition to
as-received wet weight (initial
moisture content).
40 60
IMMERSION TIME (min)
FIGURE IV-2
WATER ABSORPTION OF
PLANT TRIMMINGS (GRASS AND
OTHER MONOCOTYLEDONS)
49
-------
75
70 j
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
NOTE; LEGEND
ON NEXT PAGE
* Water absorbed in addition to
as-received wet weight (initiai
moisture content).
~7T
o
IMMERSION TIME (mm)
FIGURE IV-3
WATER ABSORPTION
6F PUNT TRIMMINGS
(WOODY SHRUBS)
50
-------
SYMBOLS MATERIAL
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT
(percent dry weight)
• PRfVET EVERGREEN: 190
NEW GROWTH ONLY
|RANGE of:
BAY TREE: 4
• DEAD LEAVES ONLY
o TWIGS ONLY 35
~ IVY 296
V JUNIPER 96
£ PODOCARPUS ]79
* Water absorbed in addition to as-received wet weight
(initial moisture content).
51
FIGURE IV-3
(CONT.)
-------
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
SYMBOLS
•
MAX
MIN
A
o
MATERIAL
BANANA PEEL
RANGE OF:
ORANGE PEEL
GRAPEFRUIT PEEL
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT
(percent dry weight)
698
* Water absorbed in addition to
as-received wet weight (initial
moisture content).
314
408
&
o
A
K\\
20 40
IMMERSION TIME (min)
60
80
FIGURE IV-4
WATER ABSORPTION OF
KITCHEN GARBAGE
(VEGETABLE)
52
-------
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
O
A
L
SYM. STICKS
O CUT ALONG GRAIN
O CUT ACROSS GRAIN
V PLYWOOD
A PLYWOOD
~ BLOCKS, CUT
ALONG GRAIN
DIMENSIONS
1" x 1" x 4"
1" x 1" x 4"
1/4" x 1-1/2" x 1-1/2"
1/4" x 3" x 3"
2-1/2" x 1-1/2" x 1-1/2'
INITIAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(percent
dry weight)
12.3
11.4
10.8
10.8
14.0
* Water absorbed in addition to as-received
wet weight (initial moisture content).
10 20 30 40 50
100 150
IMMERSION TIME (hr)
200
FIGURE IV-5
WATER ABSORPTION
OF WOOD
$3
-------
TABLE IV-1
MOISTURE ABSORPTION BY TEXTILES AND LEATHER
Water absorbed
Maximum variation
Average*
from average
Item
(percent dry weight)
percent
Cotton (T-shirt)
313
+23
Cotton (towel)
409
+18
Wool
185
+ 3
Acetate or similar synthetic
Wool-like, double-knit
194
+13
Silk-like, light weight
165
+ 8
Hemp rope
129
+40
Nylon rope
41
+14
Leather
42
+15
* Average of three or more replicate measurements. Saturation was
reached in 10 minutes or less; thus no characteristic curve was
generated. Water absorbed in addition to as-received wet weight
(initial moisture content). Initial moisture content of these materials
(less than 3 percent dry weight) was less than the data variation and,
therefore, the average water absorbed is the total absorption capacity.
54
-------
Figures IV-2 and IV-3 present the absorption test results for plant trimmings
(monocotyledons and woody shrubs, respectively). As with the paper products, different
plant materials appear to have a range of capacities for water absorption. For example,
with an immersion time of 40 minutes the quantities of water absorbed were 5, 50 and
100 percent for juniper trimmings, freshly cut grass, and 2-day-old cut grass, respectively.
Cutting along banana leaf veins on one sample produced little difference in absorption
from cutting across the veins,* thus the samples cut across veins were used as representative
of banana leaf. Considering that the lawn clippings are among the most common plant
components in municipal solid waste, and that plant cuttings may account for as much as
35 percent of the residential solid waste, the significance of storage time (drying) in
relation to overall water holding capacity of solid waste becomes apparent. The data
in Figures IV-2 and IV~3 indicate a lack of good reproducibility for experiments with
woody shrub trimmings and 2-day-old cut grass. This lack of reproducibility may be
due (in part) to some degree of non-homogeneity in the drying of the vegetation.
Figure IV~4 indicates a range of water absorption capacities for the common fruit
components of kitchen garbage (banana, orange and grapefruit peels). The water ab-
sorption data for five different wood specimens are presented in Figure IV-5. The data
in this figure indicate that in contrast to plant trimmings and fruit waste (see Figures IV-1
through IV~4),which become saturated with water fairly quickly, an immersion time of
greater than 200 hr was required for the saturation of the wood specimens tested. The
data in Figure IV-5 indicate that on a percent dry-weight basis and for a contact time
less than that required for complete saturation, the quantity of water absorbed by a
piece of wood is affected both by the type and the dimensions of the specimen. For
example, for an immersion time of 50 hr, a 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 x 1/4-in. piece of plywood
holds approximately 46 percent more water per unit dry weight than a 3 x 3 x 1/4-in
plywood specimen. Because of the slow rate of water absorption, the ultimate absorption
capacity of wood will require a considerable number of days' exposure in a combined
liquid sludge-solid waste landfill operation. The water in the liquid sludge added to
fresh lumber waste would tend to percolate down or be absorbed by other more absorbent
components of the solid waste at a faster rate than it could be absorbed by bulky wood
waste components.
Absorption experiments with cotton and wool samples indicated no significant change
in the quantity of water absorbed when the immersion time was increased from 10 to 20
minutes. This indicates that textile materials such as cotton and wool saturate more rapidly
than other waste components. Table IV— 1 presents absorption data (20-minute immersion)
for leather and various textile products tested. Due to the short time (10 minutes) to reach
moisture safuraction for items in Table IV-1, a time-absorption characteristic curve was
not generated. On a dry-weight basis, the quantity of water absorbed ranged from 41
percent for nylon rope to 409 percent for cotton toweling.
The rate of absorption of water by an isotropic water-absorbing substance may be
approximated heuristically by a first-order reaction equation y- ym (I-e-^),where ym =
saturation (maximum) moisture content, y = moisture content at time t, and k is a constant
the magnitude of which is dependent on the type of material, the liquid properties, the
surface area of the material and the grain or fiber direction relative to surface area.
The experimental data presented above for paper products follow a curve characteristically
55
-------
described by the exponential absorption equation. For other wastes tested, however,
the conformity is not very good and this may be attributed to the non-isotropic nature of
the test specimen (e.g., in the case of wood) and to non-homogeneity of the sample
(e.g., in the case of plant trimmings).
2. Water-Holding Capacities of Soil and Related Materials. Table IV-2 presents
data on the water-holding capacities of loam, humus, sand, charcoal ash, and clay.
The samples show minor variation in the three replication runs for each material.
The data in Table IV-2 indicate some of the differences in the water-holding
capacity of various soils. Based on the average values, the water-holding capacity ranged
from 15.7 percent for sand to 94,5 percent for humus; this range may be due to varying
absorption, pore and permeability characteristics. Water-holding or field capacity is
affected by the soil particle size, gradation, chemical composition, and compaction density.
The results of percolation tests (ASTM 2434-68) for fine loam, fine clay, and coarse
clay are presented in Table IV-3. The data in Table IV-3 indicate a significantly larger
percolation rate for the fine loam samples than for either of the clay specimens. The perco-
lation rates ranged from 0.94 to 1.58 inches/minute for loams and from 0.19 to 0.554 inchey'
minute for clay. For each test specimen a rate factor was calculated by dividing the
observed percolation rate by its bulk specific gravity. The rate factor was used to determine
if a correlation existed between bulk specific gravity and percolation rates for a given
soil. Capacity and soil permeability cannot, however, be predicted accurately based only
on specific gravity. Permeability is affected by pore sizes, particle gradation, tempera-
ture and other physical parameters. Table IV-3 presents the range of permeability which
might be expected for various soils. A study^® of the permeability of solid waste resulted
in a permeability of 6 x 10"^ cm/sec for solid waste with a dry weight density of 710
lbs per cubic yard. In Table IV-3, this permeability is about in the middle of the scale.
From the data in Table IV-3, it is apparent that the difference between clay and
loam is significant, but the permeability of either cannot be controlled appreciably by
the degree of compaction, beyond assuring that all large void channels are eliminated.
In-house studies, not presented here, have shown that downward percolation through
lightly compacted solid waste, sand or gravel may easily be more than an order of mag-
nitude greater than the above figures for loam.
The soil cover strata in a landfill would be expected to provide three important
hydrological functions: 1) generous layers of loam or clay would significantly increase
the liquid retention capacity per volume of completed landfill; 2) these layers with even
poor compaction may retard the downward percolation, thereby increasing the time
available to each layer of refuse to absorb the maximum possible amount of liquid; 3)
the solids in sludge, that may flow through the interstices of municipal refuse, would be
effectively stopped by filtration through layers of soil, and reduce the soil permeability
still further by filling the intergranular pores. These phenomena could turn into a liability
under some conditions. For example, if a heavy rain and sludge application occurred on
a sloping landfill face, especially if the cover soil is clay, the relatively impermeable
strata could force lateral or diagonal percolation of thin sludge and rain water to the
bottom of the working face, instead of downward through lower strata of the fill.
56
-------
TABLE IV-2
WATER-HOLDING CAPACITY OF TYPICAL SOILS
Material
Fine, sandy
loam
Natural
humus
Ottawa
sand
Charcoal
ashes
Clay
Organic content
(% dry weight)
4.87
17.65
-
-
5.77
Saturation
moisture content
44.3
104.0
15.3
71.8
31.5
(% dry weight)
40.4
87.6
15.6
71.2
32.5
42.5
92.0
16.1
69.5
31.0
Average
42.3
94.5
15.7
70.8
31.7
TABLE IV-3
SOIL PERMEABILITY AND DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS
(cm per sec - log scale)
to2 101 1.0 ict1 io"2 io~3 io"4 10-5 10"6 icf7 io~8 10"9
l I I I I I I I I I I I
Drainage Good Poor Practically impervious
Clean sands, clean Very fine sands, organic "Impervious" soils,
-------
3. Prediction of Sludge Retention Capacity for Oceanside Solid Waste. Based on
the aforementioned laboratory results for the absorption of water by various solid waste
components, rough estimates may be made of the liquid sludge capacity of municipal
solid wastes of known compositions,
A review of the data in Figures IV—7 through IV-5, and Table IV-1 indicates that
for newsprint, cardboard, miscellaneous paper and textiles the as-received (initial dry
weight) moisture content of the samples was less than the variation in absorption between
samples of the same material. Thus, for the above named solid waste constituents, the
available absorptive capacity is given as equal to the moisture absorption capacity
determined in the laboratory tests. The absorption capacities are summarized In Table IV-4.
The moisture absorbed by grass, plant, leaves, shrubbery, tree prunings and food waste
in the laboratory tests was less than the as-received (Initial) moisture contents of these
materials. This occurred because vegetation and food contain mostly water (up to 90
percent wet weight), in order to arrive at a meaningful estimate of the absorption
capacity of waste vegetation and food in solid waste, it was assumed that the laboratory*,
determined moisture absorption plus an average as-received moisture content would equal
the total moisture holding capacity of vegetation and food waste components. The total
moisture absorption capacity of vegetation and food waste is given in Table IV-4. A
minimum value of zero is given for food waste because It often enters the landfill In a
saturated moisture condition.
The data may be applied to any landfill as illustrated In the following examples.
If the composition of solid waste entering a landfill is known but the moisture content
is unknown, the water absorption capability given in Table IV-4 can be used to estimate
the available moisture absorption capacity. Applying this method to the composition of
solid waste determined for Oceanside in April 1971 (see Table IV-5), the maximum
(180 percent dry weight) and minimum (60 percent dry weight) available absorption
capacities were determined as shown in Figures IV-6 and IV-7.The data In Figures IV-6
and IV-7 assume that no moisture was added to the solid waste; e.g.,that the solid waste
components were In their "natural" as-received condition. Rainfall and soaking with
discarded household liquids would, of course, increase the as-received moisture content
and decrease the available absorptive capacity.
If the moisture content of solid waste as-received at a landfill was known in addition
to the dry weight solid waste composition, the data in Table IV-4 for total moisture holding
capacity would be used to determine the qvallable field moisture absorption capacity.
Thus, In wetter climates (>30 'fhches precipitation per year)* the available flefd capacity
may be less than the water absorption and evaporation capability of a landfill.
4. Application of the Laboratory Test Data to Joint Sludge-Solid Waste Disposal at
Oceanside. The available field moisture absorption capacity of solid waste as-received
at the Oceanside landfill was calculated for the averaged annual solid waste composition
and moisture content (see Tables 111-2 and 111-3). The results are presented in Table IV-6.
The range of fle;d absorptive capacities in Oceanside were estimated as from 60 to 178
58
-------
TABLE IV-4
WATER ABSORPTION RANGES FOR SOLID WASTE COMPONENTS
Moisture content percent dry weight
Water absorption capability Total moisture-holding capacity *
Component Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum
Newsprint +
290
290*
Cardboard (solid and corrugated) +
170
170*
Other miscellaneous paper
400
100
400#
100*
Lawn clippings (grass and leaves)
200
60
370
140
Shrubbery, tree prunings
100
10
250
0
Food waste (kitchen garbage)
100
0
300
0
Textiles (cloth of all types, rope)
300
100
300*
100*
Wood, plastic, glass, metal (all inorganics)
0
0
* Calculated from water absorption plus initial moisture content in as-received samples. Initial moisture
content from Figures IV— 1 through IV—5.
+ Sample variation was negligible.
* Initial moisture contents as-received were less than 6 percent in the laboratory tests; therefore, they were
considered negligible compared to the variation in moisture absorbed.
-------
TABLE IV-5
CITY OF OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
(PERCENT DRY WT BASIS)
Category of waste
One week average
Maximum daily
(April 1971)
(percent dry wt)
(percent of one1
Newsprint
6.73
+106
Cardboard
6.50
- 34
Miscellaneous paper
25.45
+ 84
Total paper
(38.68)*
+ 42
Food waste
11.62
+ 89
Glass & ceramics
11 .97
- 52
Metals
6.40
- 19
Tree and shrub prunings
1 .85
-100
Leaves
10.47
-100
Grass
2.40
+480
Total garden waste
(14.72)*
+100
Textiles
1 .79
+ 45
Tires
3.76
-100
Foam plastic & rubber
0.24
+138
Other rubber & plastic
2.74
+ 38
TotcH rubber & plastic
(6.74)*
+300
Wood
1.69
+131
Dirt, sand, ash
0.44
+ 43
Concrete and rock
0.10
+480
Other (unclassifiable)
5.82
+ 75
Total
100.0
* Sub-totals; not included in total
60
-------
200
Water absorbed in addition to as-received wet
weight (initial moisture content).
TOTAL SOLID WASTE
150
UJ
I—
cn
I
Q
o
to
MISCELLANEOUS PAPERS
100
CO
_l
o
o
UJ
o.
UJ
f—
I
CO
—J
LOAM
SOIL (NOT INCLUDED
IN TOTAL SOLID WASTE)
LAWN CLIPPINGS
NEWSPRINT
FOOD WASTE
CLOTH
LEAVES &PRUNINGS
CONTACT TIME (hr)
FIGURE IV-6
MAXIMUM ABSORPTION OF WATER IN
MUNICIPAL REFUSE (EQUIVALENT DATA ON
SOIL (LOAM) PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON)
61
-------
* Water absorbed in addition to as-received
weight (initial moisture content).
TOTAL SOLID WASTE
MISCELLANEOUS PAPERS
CLAY
SOIL (NOT INCLUDED IN TOTAL
SOLID WASTE)
NEWSPRINT
CARDBOARD
LAWN CLIPPINGS
CLOTH
2 3 4
CONTACT TIME (hr)
FIGURE IV-7
MINIMUM ABSORPTION OF WATER
IN MUNICIPAL REFUSE (EQUIVALENT DATA
FOR SOIL (CLAY) PRESENTED FOR COMPARISON)
62
-------
TABLE iV-6
PREDICTED RANGE OF ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY OF MUNICIPAL REFUSE AS RECEIVED AT OCEANSIDE LANDFILL
Total moisture-holding Available field absorption
capacity as determined
capacity of
Average
Field absorptive
in laboratory
tests*
waste components +
composition '
capacity**
Component
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
(percent)
Maximum Mi
nimum
Newsprint
290
262
7.2
19
Cardboard
170
146
8.3
12
Miscellaneous paper
400
100
397
97
23.6
94
23
Leaves and grass
370
140
312
92
3.8
12
4
Pruntngs
250
10
207
0
6.3
13
0
Garbage (food waste)
300
0
229
0
9.2
21
0
Textiles
300
100
284
84
2.3
7
2
Non-absorbents++
0
0
0
0
39.3
0
0
Total
100.0
178
60
* Oven-dried samples, from Table IV-4, percent dry wt basis.
+ The absorptive capacities determined in laboratory tests reduced by the measured moisture contents from
Oceanside waste samples, percent dry wt basis.
^ Average of year's (four quarters) composition of collected refuse arriving at Oceanside municipal landfill site.
** Pounds water per 100 pounds of average mixed refuse as received at the landfill; derived from product of avail-
able absorptive capacity and average composition for each component.
++ Includes wood (absorption very slow), foam plastic (insignificant quantity), and dirt, sand, and ashes (which
entrain but do not absorb).
-------
percent dry weight basis. The close agreement between the absorptive capacity data in
Table IV-6 (60 to 178 percent) and Figures IV-6 and IV-7 (60 to 180 percent) is attributed
to the Oceanside as-received solid waste moisture content consisting of primarily natural
moisture in the solid waste components. There was little rainfall during the periods
when the Oceanside solid waste samples were takenj thus the only source of moisture
would be from discarded household waste liquids and normal content, as-received.
5. Summary of Moisture Absorption Capacity. The composite curves in Figures
IV-6 and IV-7 (e.g., Total "So!id Waste) indicate the ultimate saturation values that may
be reached if the solid waste layers and associated cover soil layers are sufficiently
compacted so that applied fluids remain in contact with the waste mass for approximately
one hour before excess water drains through to lower strata. If the weight ratio of cover
and admixed soil to waste were known, the ultimate absorption capacity of the soil would
be included with those of waste components in estimating the total capacity for an operating
landfill.
The data in Figures IV-6 and IV-7 and Table IV-6 indicate that 0.6 to 1 .8 lb of
liquid could be added for every 1 .0 lb of dry weight solid waste before complete saturation
is reached. As will be discussed in Chapter VI, subsequent larger-scale water absorption
studies ("drum" tests), conducted in April 1971, Oceanside-type refuse composition in-
dicated an average saturation value of 1 .74 lb of liquid per 1 .0 lb of dry weight solid
waste. For the 13 drums tested , the spread in lb per 1 .0 lb dry weight was from 0.57
to 2.72, with only three points outside the 1 .0-2.2 range and eight points in the 1 .0-
1 .9 range.
The City of Oceanside produces approximately 0.6 lb of sludge for every 1 .00 lb
dry weight of municipal refuse. Theoretically, therefore, the solid wastes generated by
the City should have adequate capacity to absorb all the water in the liquid sludge. This
was verified in a number of field tests at the Oceanside landfill in which sewage sludge
was applied to solid waste at a rate of 0.35-0.6 lb of sludge per 1 .0 lb of solid waste
wet weight. A total of 35 applications were made (one day per week for 35 weeks over a
ten-month period). No leachate was observed during this period. In cases where minor
sludge runoff occurred, it was the result of an inappropriate spreading technique and
the runoff was absorbed into the fill cover.
The above data indicate that the water retention capacity of Oceanside municipal
solid waste falls above the upper half of the range predicted by the sum of the specified
absorptivities of its major identifiable components. The increase in retention capacity
may be attributed to entrainment of some fluid between particles (in addition to the
amount absorbed). The drum having the lowest absorptivity (0.57 lb liquid per 1 .0 lb
solid waste) received very thin (watery) septic tank pumpings. In this particular test,
there were also indications that the applied fluid percolated rapidly through the solid
waste and, hence, there was little absorption time which reduced the amount absorbed.
The high drum absorptivity reading (2.72 lb per 1 .0 lb drum solid waste) occurred with
the thickest sewage sludge. Due to its relatively high viscosity, a thick sludge cannot
percolate through the solid waste particles very rapidly,and hence a higher absorptivity
64
-------
was obtained. The aforementioned water-absorption to solid waste weight ratios indicate
that the retention capacity of a municipal solid waste can be predicted fairly accurately
when the composition of the solid waste and the water-absorption capacities of its com-
ponents are known. The required data can be generated by field sampling and laboratory
tests such as those used in this study.
65
-------
V. SEPTIC TANK PUMPINGS EVALUATION
A. Purpose and Scope
A literature survey and pilot test drum evaluation of septic tank pumpings
admixed with solid wastes was undertaken. Since septic tank pumpings consist of raw
or partially stored sewage, they are known to contain pathogenic organisms. The
study scope was proposed by the E. P. A. Project Officer in lieu of demonstration land-
fill tests to evaluate the potential hazards that might be created if septic tank pumpings
were avoided because of the limited available septic tank pumpings and also concern
about the possible health hazards and noxious odors.
B. Pathogenic Organisms in Septic Tank Pumpings
1. Types of Organisms. The types of pathogenic organisms associated with
municipal sewage, sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings are identical. Septic tank
pumpings are basically raw or partially digested fecal waste and are similar to raw
sewage in pathogenic organism types and populations. However, well digested treat-
ment plant sludges contain far fewer pathogenic organisms than the "raw" sewage and
septic tank pumpings.
The pathogens in human fecal waste and raw sewage have been well-documented.
In a review of the literature, Hanks^ has identified the disease agents associated with
fecal waste, including septic tank pumpings, as follows:
a. Bacterial Infections. Typhoid fever, paratyphoid fevers A and B, cholera,
and shigellosis are enteric bacterial diseases in man. E. coli organisms have sometimes
exhibited pathogenicity, though the nature of the controlling conditions is unclear.
The viability of these bacteria in the environment is summarized as follows:
Shigella can remain viable in tap water for as long as 6 months and in sea water for 2
to 5 months. Shigella can be destroyed by pasteurization and chlorination. The
viability of Salmonella typhi is from 2 to 3 weeks in groundwater, 1 to 2 months for
fecal matter in privies, and at least 3 months in ice or snow. E. coli, salmonella
and shigella can be killed by pasteurization at 66 C for 30 minutes or by chlorination
with 0.5 to 1.0 mg/l concentrations.^
b. Viruses. The major viruses commonly found in human excrement are adeno,
reo, poliomyelitis, coxsackie and infectious hepatitis. Poliomyelitis and coxsackie
are viable in sewage and septic tank pumpings.
66
-------
Most viruses mav be destroyed by extreme temperatures greater than 100 C.
Recently, Shell and Boyd determined in composting dewatered sewage sludge that
poliovirus type 1 was destroyed by temperatures as low as 50 C (122 f), although
admittedly this is just one type of virus. Chlorination can prevent the spread of infectious
hepatitis, and most adfnoviruses and enteroviruses are destroyed after remaining a period
of 10 minues in contact with residual chlorine levels of 0.3 to 0.5 mg/l.
c. Protozoal Infections. The most significant protozoa disease agent is Entamoeba
histolytica which is the only specie found in the United States. Cysts of Entamoeba
histolytica are destroyed by dessication, sunlight and heat (forty-five minues at 45 C).
Thus, it would appear that protozoa would not likely survive in the landfill environment.
d. Helminthiasis, This type of pathogen consists of worm infestations of human
fecal origin. The most common are the tapeworms including Diphyllobothrium latum
(fish tapeworm), Taenia saginata (beef tapeworm), Taenia solium (pork tapeworm) and
Enterolines vermiculoris (pinworm). Also included are the human roundworm (Ascaris
lumbriocoTdes), the whipworm (Trichuris trichiura), and the human hookworms (Necator
americanus and Ancylostoma duodinale).
2. Vectors . Either direct or indirect contact with infected fecal matter must occur
before an infection or disease can Tesult. The four major disease routes are vector-borne,
soil-borne, direct contact,and waterborne; air-borne is a secondary pathway.
A major mode of disease transmission is by direct contact with biological vectors
(houseflies, cockroaches and domestic mosquitoes). The diseases transmitted by these
vectors are amoebic dysentery, cholera, coxsackie (disease), infectious hepatitis, polio-
myelitis, shigellosis, typhoid and paratyphoid fevers,and worm (helminth) infections.
Disease transmission routes related to septic tank pumpings disposal into a landfill
would include: direct contact during disposal or while working solid waste; transmission
by water (surface and groundwater contamination from runoff and leachate); contact by
vectors such as houseflies foraging in infected wastes; and by contamination of other fora-
ging wildlife (birds, dogs, rats, etc.) that could come into contact with humans. The
methods of transmitting coxsackie and polio viruses are not well-defined; viruses have
been found in water and in flies having access to infected feces.^ Also there is data
suggesting polio virus can survive in contaminated water, i.e.,the disease may be water-
borne. Infectious hepatitis is transferred chiefly through direct contact or fecal con-
tamination of water supplies. There is evidence that municipal sewage treatment plcnts
do not effectively remove the hepatitis virus. This is substantiated by higher hepatitis
morbidity in communities where treated sewage is discharged into streams or estuaries.
Hazards may be expected to hold for septic tank pumpings.
The primary route of typhoid propagation is the human typhoid carrier. Typhoid
infected fecal waste has been associated with the direct contamination of well water
by septic tanks and privies as well as other water supplies, and milk or food not properly
protected.
67
-------
Worm infestations of human feces are common. Sewage sludges have been
found to contain eggs of pathogenic helminths. The use of untreated (raw) sewage
as soil conditioners for food crops is not recommended in order to protect against
worm infestations through direct contact.^
3. Pathogenic Characteristics of Septic Tank Pumpings and Sewage Sludge.
Concentrations of pathogenic organisms in septic tank pumpings would be about as great
as in raw sewage due to both the continual daily addition and admixture of fresh raw
sewage, and the low degree of biological treatment in comparison to sewage plant
sludge treatment and digestion. Laboratory analyses have shown that between 90
and 98 percent of coxsackie and polio virus are removed by the activated sludge
process. The primary sedimentation sewage treatment process which is similar to the
septic tank process is relatively ineffective in virus removal.^ The same rate of
removal noted above for virus can also be achieved for pathogenic bacteria by the
activated sludge process.
Chlorination may be used for disinfection to produce a virus - and bacteria-
free sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings. Long-contact periods with high chlorine
residual concentrations are necessary to insure destruction of pathogens.® Heat-dried
sludge has been considered to be free from disease agents.''^
C. Potential Pathogenic Effects of Disposing
Septic Tank Pumpings into Sanitary Landfills.
1. Viability and Survival of Pathogens in Landfills. As previously discussed,
the pathogenic bacteria can be eliminated by pasteurization at 66 C for 30 minutes;
virus destruction requires exposure to temperatures of 50 C or greater. Gotaas,^ ^ and
Golueke and Gotaas have demonstrated that a temperature of 60 C for one hour
should kill all non-spore-bearing pathogens. Gaby^ has shown that a minimum
temperature of 49 C for a period of 4 to 7 days is necessary to kill all pathogenic
bacteria. The upper range of temperatures generally found in sanitary landfills with
and without sewage sludge admixture is 45 C to 65 C. The higher end of the landfill
temperature range in combination with the greatly increased time of exposure to the
high landfill temperatures appears to be sufficient to destroy bacteria. Temperatures
recorded in the controlled field test-cell simulation of a sanitary landfill segment of
this project never exceeded 38 C (see Figures VI1-1 8 to VI1-20), yet when samples
taken after six months from four- and twelve-foot depths in the three Oceanside field
test cells (one of which received raw primary sludge) were analyzed for fecal coliform,
?ecal streptococci and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, at depths of 12 feet (see Table VI1-22)
none of these fecal bacteria were detected.
The viability and survival period of viruses in the landfill environment is generally
unknowri. It appears, however, that landfill temperatures will eliminate some viruses.
Gaby demonstrated that type 2 poliovirus inserted into composting solid waste were
inactivated after 3 to 7 days' exposure to 120 F. Engelbrecht^ mentions a report
where type 1 poliovirus were inactived in less than 10 days after insertion into a
simulated landfill.
68
-------
An average of 5 - 10 million bacteria and fungi, and 740,000 coliform bacteria,
have each been measured in one gram of solid waste. Leachate' analyses from other
studies have shown concentrations as high as 9,500 coliforms per mM'7; coliform counts
(MPN) up to 100,000 per mg have been measured experimentally. 18
E. col? in oven-dry fresh solid waste has been found in densities over 5,000
organisms per gram. This value was reduced to 0-100 organisms per gram after a
three-year storage period. Corresponding values for Streptococcus faecalis were
2,500 and 0-60 organisms per gram of dry solid waste, respectively. Thus, solid
waste and septic tank pumpings are both sources of pathogenic organisms, particularly
during material handling and landfilling processes.
2. Pathogen Transmission . Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. found in pilot test
drums receiving septic tank pumpings that the pumpings settled out to form distinct
separable liquid and solid phases. Also the spread septic tank liquid behaved like
water and rapidly penetrated into the solid waste interstices leaving a layer of solids
on the solid waste surface. The rapid liquid percolation produced instant drainage.
The raw primary sewage sludge applied to field test Cell 1 also produced immediate
leachate drainage; Cell 1 was the only one of three test cells to have minor leachate
drainage (until heavy rainfall when some short-circuiting occurred). It was noted that
the odor, appearance, consistency, viscosity, and low total solids content (2.5 percent)
of the raw primary sludge disposed into Cell 1 were similar to septic tank pumpings
applied to the pilot test Drums 3 and 16 (compare Tables VI-4 and VI1—4). Thus, if
septic tank pumpings were disposed into a sanitary landfill, leachate would more
readily occur unless carefully controlled disposal techniques were used.
Analyses made of Cell 1 leachate indicated an E. col? count of over 3,000
MPN In a sample taken eight days after Cell 1 filling was completed. On leachate
samples taken after 15 days E. col? was 300 MPN, and after 28 days E. Col? counts
were less than 3 MPN. During the summer of 1973, water was applied to Cells 1 and
3. Coliform counts at 510 days after cell filling increased to 2,400 MPN in the first
leachate sample obtained from Cell 1, and then decreased to <3 MPN within six weeks
after water saturation (see Figure VI1-17). It is not known whether the water applied
to the cell surface acquired coliform from the top of the cell or whether coliform
existed throughout the cell. The former explanation appears more reasonable since it
is in agreement with the core sample analysis previously cited (see Table VI1-22)
which showed coliform at the 4-foot depth, but none at 11 to 12 feat.
If is apparent from the pilot test drum and field test Cell I data that a potential
hazard could exist from septic tank pumpings disposal into a sanitary lanJfTII unless
adequate runoff and leachate control facilities are constructed.
3. Leachate Contarr*nat?ci of Ground end S' -fare Wcters. Mc t pathogens
can live from 10 to 80 days in soil, depending on the soil t^oe and its physical condi-
tions. Viruses are usually inactivated in less than 30 days. Mary virises and bacteria
can live up to several months in groundwater or polluted water. Bacteria can migrate
69
-------
horizontally through soil for distances up to 250 feet; however, the/ are virtually
never found below ten feet.20 Viruses are removed by soil much quicker than bacteria
and generally only migrate a few feet at most.20 Clay is the most efficient bacteria-
and virus-removing soil component.20
One study demonstrated that shallow landfills may leach the bulk of pathogen;;
in a relatively short period of time, thereby exceeding the dilution capacity of the
receiving groundwaters.2^ Residence times of 1 - 3 weeks are necessary for pathogen
deactivation and elimination.
4. Odors and Fly Problems. A major nuisance accompanying septic tank pump-
ings (and also anaerobically digested sludge) is odors. Foul septic odors can annoy
residents near landfill:;. Odors attract flies which contact wastes resulting in an in-
creased risk of disease spread by fly transmission. Daily covering of the landfill work-
ing face can control fly and odor problems.22
Fly problems are usually only associated with open dumps or inadequately covered
landfills. Flies may migrate up to five miles from an open dump imposing a disease
threat on residents within the five-mile radius. Disease transmission via rodents and
other biological vectors make open dumps unacceptable from a public health standpoint.
A properly maintained sanitary landfill eliminates rodents and flies by removing their
food and shelter with a compacted soil cover. Six inches or more of compacted earth
will prevent the emergence of flies covered by the soil; in contrast, flies can emerge
through five feet of uncompacred soil.
D. Existing Practices for Disposal of Septic Tank
Pumpings into SanTtary Landfills
At present some communities have reservations about discharging septic sludge
directly into landfills and have passed legislation prohibiting the processing of untreated
sludges at landfills.2^ A 1 968 survey of California disposal sites showed that 37 percent
of the open dumps and 44 percent of the sanitary landfills were operating under ordinances
banning sewage treatment residues.2^
The 1971 national survey completed by Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. (see
Chapter II) indicated disposal of septic tank and liquid sewage sludges was prohibited
by 70 percent of responding landfills. Respondents cited odors and pathogenic organisms
as major hazards.
E. Management of Landfill Hazards from
Septic Tank Pumpings Disposal
The public health hazard from septic tank sludge disposal can be minimized if
a properly located, designed, and operated landfill is employed. Landfills should be
designed to direct runoff away from surface waters,, and to provide protection from
groundwater infiltration. Since pathogens migrate in the direction of water flow,
70
-------
landfill site planning should emphasize avoidance of local water supply contamination.
Mixing liquid sludge with dried sludge can also inhibit the leaching process.^3
Similarly, admixture of liquid sludge and solid waste can deter leaching. Of course,
a fill area may eventually be saturated with sufficient rain or irrigation water to cause
leaching. Thus, to safeguard public health, an impermeable seal or landfill under-
drain system, and facilities for runoff and storm drain are both recommended for con-
trolling and collecting leachate. The collected leachate may then be treated in-situ
(by oxidation) or returned to available nearby sewers.
The ratio of septic tank pumpings to solid waste may be reduced below the
minimum expected moisture absorption ratio of the local solid waste (0.6 dry weight
basis for the City of Oceanside) to increase the probability of complete absorption
without runoff or leaching. Other techniques include reducing the slope of the land-
fill working face, constructing soil dikes at the toe of the working face and uniform
spreading of soptic tank pumpings onto the surface of solid waste fill. Continuous fresh
earth cover of the liquid pumpings, admixed to the solid waste must be carefully
applied with a minimum daily final cover of six inches of clean compacted earth to
control odor, pathogen and vector problems.
F. Summary
Given the results of the previous discussions, it appears that the major identi-
fiable health hazard associated with disposal of septic tank pumpings into a sanitary
landfill will occur during the disposal operation. This will result due to the following:
existing pathogenic organisms will be at their peak, virulent populations; the fresh
septic tank pumpings will be exposed and, therefore, readily accessible to flies, other
insects, birds and vermin such as rats; the landfill operating personnel will be in closest
contact with the septic tank pumpings; and the potential for runoff due to short-circuiting
through landfifled solid waste interstitial passages will exist. The potential health
hazards will decrease and eventually become negligible with increasing time after
disposal. If the landfill operating techniques, protective clothing, runoff and leachate
control facilities described in the preceding section are utilized, landfill disposal of
septic tank pumpings could be feasible.
71
-------
VI. PILOT-SCALE SIMULATION OF LANDFILL CONDITIONS
A. Purpose and Scope
The objectives of the pilot tests were to simulate, under controlled conditions,
the behavior of a representative mass of municipal solid waste in a landfill to which
liquid sewage sludge and water are applied to: a) determine the quantity of sewage
sludge, water, and septic tank pumpings that can be absorbed by solid waste;
b) assess the environmental effects that might result from such sludge disposal; and
c) evaluate the potential for groundwater pollution from leachates.
The constant control parameters were the amount and composition of solid waste
and the compactive force applied to each solid waste mass. The variable parameters were
the kind, amount, and sequence of liquids applied, and the sequence of compaction. The
measured variables of primary interest were the time-variation of BOD5 value of the
leachates and the rate of subsidence. Other measured variables were the rate of
leachate emission, temperature, gas composition, and chemical properties of the
leachates, including conductivity, pH, turbidity, and total nitrogen. Qualitative
observations were made for odor, color of leachates, apparent degree of
decomposition of solid wastes, population and types of insects, and microorganism
growths.
Based on the premise that the tests adequately simulated the operation of a
landfill, the resulting data provided an indication of the results to be expected from
the joint solid waste-sludge landfill disposal operation.
B. Description of the Study
1 . Pilot Test Facilities Configuration. The pilot test facilities were
installed at the Los Angeles, California, home office of the Consultant, Ralph Stone
and Company, Inc. (In regard to temperature and rainfall, the weather in Los
Angeles is very similar to that in Oceanside.) The pilot test facilities consisted of
eighteen 55-gallon drums,as illustrated in Figure Vl-l . Seven of the drums were
35 in. in height, whereas the remaining eleven drums were 33s in. in height.
Each drum was provided with a leachate drain and a gas sample port. Two drums
were aerated intermittently through an air supply port located on the top of the
drums (see Figure Vl-l). The leachate drain hole in each aerated drum remained
open throughout the test period to provide an air exit after passage through the
solid waste. Anaerobic conditions were attempted in the remaining 16 drums by
providing a polyethylene air barrier and sealing the drum lids. (See Photograph
Vl-lc and Figure Vl-l .)
2. Solid Waste Characteristics. The drums were filled with solid waste of
a composition approximating that of Oceanside, California (as established by hand
sorting of statistically valid samples). The actual composition of the wastes placed
72
-------
—AIR SUPPLY PORT
(2 DRUMS) 1-1/4" DIA.
AIR-TIGHT SEAL
GAS SAMPLE PORT
1/4" DIA,
LEACHATE DRAiN
HOLE - 1/4" DIA.
22-1/2" DIA.
NOTE: DRUMS OF TWO HEIGHTS
WERE USED - 7 DRUMS AT
35", 11 AT 33-1/2"
(STEEL DRUMS WERE
ASPHALT COATED)
FIGURE VI-1
PILOT TEST DRUM
CONFIGURATION
73
-------
PILOT DRUM FILLED WITH
SOLID WASTE.
b. ADMIXING SEWAGE SLUDGE
INTO PILOT DRUM.
c. POLYETHYLENE MEMBRANE AIR
(OXYGEN) BARRIER TO SIMULATE
ANAEROBIC LANDFILL CONDITIONS.
PHOTOGRAPH Vl-l
PILOT TEST DRUMS
74
-------
in each drum, plus the Oceanside standard sample composition, is given in Table VI—T .
Of course, there was minor variance within each of the categories of Table VI—1 of the
drum materials filled on different dates. Efforts were made, however, to insure maximum
random conformity within each waste category from the variety of materials available
at the time. (See Photograph Vl-la.)
The weighed quantities of each component were placed in each drum by hand,
taking reasonable care to avoid excessive concentrations of any one component in a
single location. No effort was made to achieve completely random mixing, such as
by tumbling in a large container. Instead, it was attempted to duplicate visually the
appearance of waste materials lying in a landfill.
3. Filling and Compaction Procedures. The purpose of the first test (Drum No. 1^
was to establish the maximum amount of sludge that can be absorbed by a known quantity
and composition of solid waste. In the pilot plant the sequence of solid waste and sludge
additions, mixing, and compacting was intended to simulate landfill operating con-
ditions. Half of the total charge of 100 lb of solid waste was first placed in the drum,
compacted, and then sludge was added. The mass was then stirred several times to
promote complete admixture, and compacted a second time. Small amounts (about 10
lbs) of solid waste were applied daily until 100 lbs were in the test drum. Liquid sewage
sludge was admixed daily with the solid waste, and added after 10 lbs of solid waste
was in the drum, until leachate started to drip from the bottom drain, at which time it
was assumed that saturation conditions were reached. Due to the high viscosity of
applied sludge and careful arrangement of solid waste in an attempt to prevent channeling,it was
assumed that the leachate represented the excess liquid sludge that percolated through
the saturated mass of refuse. Due to the method of filling (compaction), Drum No. 1
initially contained 100 lb (wet weight) of solid waste at about 22 Ib/cu ft wet density
(594 Ib/cu yd). All other drums contained 80 lb of solid waste, each at initial wet
densities ranging from 12.4 to 22.1 Ib/cu ft (see Table VI-2). (See Photograph VI-lb.)
The initial compaction for Drums 2 through 5 consisted of dropping a 200—lb
weight two times, from approximately 1 ft above the solid waste surface. Drums
6 through 18 were subjected to continuous manual tamping of solid waste layers with
a shovel during packing. This resulted in a more thorough and uniform compaction
throughout the waste charge. The difference in initial compaction procedures simulated
two sets of landfill conditions: a) compaction of each fill layer (Drums 6-18); and b)
compaction of a complete fill (Drums 2-5). The variation in initial density of waste
material in the drums is given in Table VI-2.
4. Liquid Application. Liquids were applied to all but one (Drum No. 18) of the
18 drums as shown in Table VI —3. Raw sludge, digested primary and activated sludges,
mixed sludge, septic tank pumpings, and water were used in these tests to achieve
saturation during either primary or secondary application as indicated in Table VI-3.
The term " Initial Application" in Table VI-3 refers to a first phase of the liquid
addition, in which sludge was poured into the newly filled drums of solid waste
in the amounts indicated. The ratio of 0.61 lb of liquid sludge per pound of
solid waste (wet wt)used in most drums reflects the higher ratio of sewage sludge
75
-------
TABLE VI-1
COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE IN TEST DRUMS
Composition (percent wet wt)
Oceanside
Drum number waste
Constituent
1
2
3
4
5
6 through 18
standard*
Newsprint
13.1
8.8
11.3
12.3
12.9
7.5
6.73
Cardboard
5.4
2.5
0.1
3.9
5.1
7.5
6.50
Misc. paper^
22.8
21.3
19.7
23.8
18.4
25.0
25.45
Total paper
41.3
32.6
31.1
40.0
36.4
40.0
38.68
Prunings
21.0
2.5
4.0
4.5
4.2
1.9
1.85
Leaves & grass
13.4
29.8
21.3
22.5
28.2
13.1
12.87
Total yard waste
34.4
32.3
25.3
27.0
32.4
15.0
14.72
Food waste
0
18.8
12.5
8.8
9.1
12.5
11.62
Cans & bottles
0
16.3
16.7
9.6
9.2
18.8
18.37
Wood
1.9
2.5
2.5
4.7
3.5
2.5
1.69
Cloth
0.5
0
3.2
1.8
0
2.5
1.79
Gravel ^
11.3
0
0
0
Trace
2.5
0.10
Film or foam plastic
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
6.73
Miscellaneous**
10.6
7.5
8.7
8.1
9.4
6.2
6.30
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
*Typical municipal solid waste of Oceanside, California , based on April 1971 hand sorting of statistically valid
+ Not included in totals. representative samples .
#
Visually conspicuous, but of insignificant weight.
** Mostly dirt in test drums, and unclassifiables in standard.
-------
TABLE VI-2
INITIAL DENSITY OF SOLID
WASTE IN TEST DRUMS*
Drum
number
Wet wt of solid
waste (lb)
Initial
(Ib/cu ft)
wet density
(Ib/cu yd)
1
100
22.0
594
2
80
13.5
365
3
11
14.6
394
4
IJ
13.0
351
5
II
14.1
381
6
II
15.6
421
7
12.4
335
8
II
14.1
381
9
II
20.3
548
10
II
17.4
470
11
It
15.2
410
12
II
12.8
346
13
II
14.9
402
14
fl
20.3
548
15
II
16.6
448
16
tl
22.1
597
17
II
16.6
448
18
II
15.9
429
*Before admixture of liquid.
77
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
TABLE VI—3
APPLICATION OF SLUDGE AND WATER TO TEST DRUMS
Initial application
Second application
Sludge Water
Saturated with mixed municipal sludges, digested
activated sludge (La Salina) and digested primary
sludge (San Luis Rey). Ratio*: 1 .64.
Water only.
Domestic septic tank pumpings.
Ratio-' 0.61 .
La Salina
Dry control with single water application.
Mixed digested sludges (La Salina, San Luis Rey).
Ratio: 0.61.
Left dry
La Salina
Digested activated sludge (La Salina).
Ratio: 0.61.
La Salina
Digested activated sludge (La Salina).
Ratio: 0.61 .
Saturated with thinner digested activated
sludge (La Salina). Ratio: 1 .16.
Saturated with thicker digested activated
sludge (La Salina). Ratio: 2.1 0«
Raw primary sludge (San Luis Rey).
Ratio: 0.61.
La Salina
San Luis Rey
(raw)
X
Raw primary sludge (San Luis Rey).
Ratio: 0.61.
X
Digested primary sludge (San Luis Rey).
Ratio: 0.61.
San Luis Rey
(digested)
78
-------
TABLE VI-3 (CONT.)
Drum
no.
Initial application
Second application
Sludge Water
13
Digested primary sludge (San Luis Rey).
Ratio: 0.61.
X
14
Digested activated sludge; drum aerated
(La Salina).
Ratio: 0.61.
La Salina
15
Digested activated sludge; drum aerated
(La Salina).
Ratio: 0.61.
X
16
Domestic septic tank pumpings.
Ratio: 0.61.
Septic tank
pumpings
17
Water only.
X
18
Dry control.
Left dry
* Ratio = lb liquid per lb dry wt solid waste in each drum.
79
-------
to municipal solid waste generated by the community of Oceanside over recent years.
These drums thus simulate the absorptive capacity that would be required for sludge
disposal for the City of Oceanside.
Drums in which the solid waste was brought to field capacity with liquid sludge
simulated appropriate sanitary landfill conditions. Field capacity refers to the
maximum amount of liquid (sludge or water) that
the contents of the drums could absorb without producing leachate, as evidenced by
prolonged slow dripping from the leachate drain hole in the bottom. In several cases,
it was observed that rapid "run-through" (runoff) of applied liquid occurred due to
short-circuiting through voids and channeling along the drum walls prior to reaching the
0.61 ratio. In these cases, the effluent was caught and poured back in the
drum until the leakage ceased. In cases where the leachate flow decreased to a slow drip
that lasted for over 16 hours, the contents were assumed to have reached field capacity.
During the "primary water application" program, Drums 1, 8 and 9 were selected for
field capacity tests with liquid sewage sludge.
After "primary water applications," initial determinations were made of subsidence
under compaction, quality of leachate (where leachates were formed), temperature rise,
and attractiveness to flies and other vectors. A program of "secondary water applications"
was then started. Secondary liquid sludge and water applications were made to the drums
at a rate of 1 gal per day, 5 days per week, until each pilot drum was saturated, after
which only water was applied to each drum at approximately the same rate for a total of 59
working days. The total quantity of water added (59 gallons per drum) is equivalent to
36 in. of cumulative rair.fall on the surface area of the test drums. An annual rainfall
of 36 in. is equal to a maximum rainfall condition for the City of Oceanside. However,
since one year of "rainfall" was applied during a period of only 59 days, the experiment
may be regarded as a simulation of a very wet period.
Initially, the addition of water at a rate of 1 gal/day consisted of actual addition
of 1 gal of water to each drum, except 4 and 18 (dry controls), once every working day.
This procedure, however, was found somewhat time-consuming and hence was modified
to involve addition of 2 or 3 gallons of water at one time every 2 or 3 days. Thus, an
"average" rate of 1 gal/day was maintained throughout the period of "heavy rainfall"
simulation.
To simulate an intermediate rainfall, the rate of water addition was later reduced
to three gallons once every week for a total quantity of 21.6 inches. The rate of water
addition was continued until January 1972, since which time the rate has been further
reduced to simulate light rainfall, 3 gal once a month for a total of about 21.6 In. of
rainfall per year.
Since the contents of most of the drums were at or near saturation at all times
(generally as a result of secondary applications), the liquid would drip continuously
when the drain holes were left open. This created some anaerobic odor nuisance
in the immediate vicinity, as well as major losses of leachate due to
80
-------
overflowing and evaporation from leachate collection pans. Thus, about 60 days
after beginning of the study, the leachate drain holes were kept corked, except when
leachates were collected. As a result, most of the drums accumulated a gallon or less
of free leachate in their bottoms.
5. Forced Aeration Conditions. Two of the test drums, 14 and 15, were
provided with forced aeration from a blower. The hoses entered via connections
through the lids of the drums (see Figure VI—1); these lids were provided with gaskets
in insure an airtight seal. Unlike the other drums, the gas sampling holes on these
two drums were left uncorked, allowing the air from the blower to percolate
downward through the solid waste and out the holes. The leachate drains were
initially kept corked, as with the other drums, and then opened to allow the air to
flow through the bottom of the waste charge. The blower was activated by a timer,
which operated it for 5 min each hour, at a divided flow providing approximately
5 SCFM to each drum. This aeration sequence was believed adequate to prevent
any significant accumulation of carbon dioxide or methane, thus maintaining
aerobic conditions while not causing excessive drying.
6. Monitoring Program. The following is a brief description of sample
collection and monitoring procedures employed in connection with the drum tests.
a. Leachate Col lection and Analysis. In general, the leachates obtained
from each drum were of two types: an occasional residual leachate accumulated in
the interim between water additions, and a drainage leachate obtained during the
first 24 hr after liquid addition. These leachates were collected and their
respective volumes were measured. After adding liquids, the leachates were also
analyzed for biological oxygen demand (BOD5), pH, conductivity, and turbidity.
For each drum, a composite leachate sample was collected by accumulating some
of the individual leachate samples. The composite samples were analyzed for pH,
conductivity, nitrate, chloride, total phosphate, sulfate, fluoride, organic nitrogen
(Kjeldahl), iron, copper, lead, mercury, chromium, and barium. With some
exceptions (see Appendix A),all analytical procedures were in accordance with
Standard Methods. (See Photograph VI-2a for leachate collection method.)
b. Sludge Analysis. The sludge used in each application to a drum was a
composite of several samples, collected over a period of up to a month. Each
composite sludge was analyzed for BOD5, pH, organic nitrogen, total volatile
acids, total organic content, total phosphate, and conductivity. In addition to
these composites of individual sludge types, a mixed composite sample was
accumulated of digested sludge samples obtained every two weeks from the three
treatment plants at Oceanside. This composite sample consisted of some samples
taken in the proportion of 2:1:1 from biweekly collected digested sludge samples
from La Salina, Buena Vista, and San Luis Rey treatment plants, respectively. The
proportion was approximately the relative quantities of digested sludges generated by
each plant. The mixed composite sample was analyzed for copper, lead, mercury,
chromium, iron, barium, calcium, total hardness, and chloride.
81
-------
a. DRUM LEACHATE MEASUREMENT
AND SAMPLING.
b. METHANE/EXPLOSIVE GAS
TEST EQUIPMENT.
c. HYPODERMIC GAS SAMPLER.
PHOTOGRAPH VI-2
TEST DRUM
MONITORING EQUIPMENT
82
-------
c. Gas Sampling. At various intervals during the period of study, samples
of gas were drawn from an intermediate point (see Figure VI-1) within the mass of
solid waste in each drum and analyzed by gas chromatography (using a Varian
Aerograph Model A 90 P3) for carbon dioxide, methane, oxygen, and nitrogen.
Both holes were kept plugged with corks except when gas or leachate samples were
being drawn. All gas samples were taken at times just prior to removing the drum
lids (for liquid addition) or drain hole corks (for leachate collection). The gas
sampling technique involved the insertion of a 12 —in. long hypodermic needle into the
refuse via the gas sample port with provision for an airtight seal. A polyethylene
bag was placed inside the barrel over the solid waste in order to further minimize
air movement. The gas samples may thus be presumed representative of the gases
present in the interstitial cavities in the lower portion of each drum, plus any of the
head space gases that may have been pulled down through open channels during the
drawing of the sample, but relatively free of air that may have entered during
placement of the sample hose. (See Photograph Vl-2b and c for gas sampling methods.)
d. Vectors and Microorganisms. Qualitative visual observations were made
of the presence of insects and breeding colonies in the various drums. In some, the
major species of the insects present were also identified.
e. Temperature Measurements. Temperature was measured prior to water
application/leachate sampling. Temperatures measured were those of ambient air,
air inside a special empty drum, and the solid waste. Solid waste temperatures were
obtained by implanting a Weston Model 2265 (0 to 120 F scale) bimetal element
thermometer with an 8-in. stem into the top center of the waste mass.
f. Settlement Analysis. Settlement was determined by dropping a 200— Ib
weight twice from a height of 1 ft, then measuring the distance of the waste surface
below a reference point at the top of the drum with a ruler.
g. Odor Tests. Each time the drums were opened, an observer noted the
strength and type of odor detected.
h. Check on Moisture Content. Moisture content in the drums was checked
once within the first 20 to 127 days, once within 79 to 155 days after filling
with solid waste, and monthly after one year since filling. Three methods were used
for the determination of moisture content. The first method consisted of weighing the
drums before and after each liquid addition and dividing the difference by the weight
of the solid waste initially placed in the drums. The second method was based on the
difference in weight between the total amount of liquid added and the total amount of
leachate obtained. The third method consisted of determining the dry and wet weights
of the representative waste samples from each drum.
i. Sample Handling. Gas samples were analyzed immediately after they were
obtained. Drum leachate samples were stored in a refrigerator immediately after they
were obtained and were analyzed within a week. Leachate composite samples were stored at
83
-------
ambient temperature (70 F). Because of the long storage period or the composite samples,
nitrates and chloride (from chlorine in the water added initially) analyses may tend to
be slightly high and other constituents may tend to be slightly low (due to adsorbtion
onto the surface of the sample bottle).
C. Results and Discussion
1 . Liquid Application and Leachate Flow. The characteristics of sewage sludge
and septic tank pumpings applied to the pilot test drums are shown in Table VI-4. Table
VI-5 presents the pounds of liquid applied per 100 lb dry weight solid waste to reach
saturation in each drum. Except for the high dry weight values of 213, 272 , 201 and
204, the drum saturation values are in close agreement with the laboratory test results
which predicted a range of 60 to 180 lb liquid per 100 lb dry weight solid waste based
on both April 1971 Oceanside solid waste composition and annual data given in Tables
IV-5 and IV-6, respectively. The drum field capacity moisture contents were clustered
in the high end of the predicted absorption range; this was attributed to superior en-
trainment due to good distribution of the added water.
The ratio of the lb water per lb dry weight of solid waste and sewage sludge solids
added to each of the 16 wet drums is shown in Figure VI-2. The rapid initial rise
represents the high rate of water application during the first six months (3-gal per day),
after which applications of 3-gal per month were made.
Table VI-6 presents actual water contents of the drums as found by weighing on a
300—Ib capacity scale on three different occasions. The data in this table indicate
that with the exception of only a few drums, there was a reduction in the water content
of the drums during the period between the first two water determinations, The third
water determination conversely indicated an increase in the water content of the drums.
This was attributed to a decrease in the size of the voids in the solid waste. Less
channeling was able to occur and more water was therefore trapped in the voids.
Comparison of the data in Table VI-6 with the data in Table VI-5 indicates that, with
the exception of Drum 16, the actual water content of the waste in each drurr was
considerably less than the field capacity value. Also, compaction and biodegration
'¦ended to reduce the number and size of voids in the solid waste. Increases in drum
temperature and humidity may also have reduced the effective field capacity.
2. Leachate Characteristics.
a. BODij Content. The data on changes in the BOD5 content of "he fresh lea:hate
are presented in Appendix D 'o- e individual drur.. Unles:. othcrwis* stated, the
leachates referred to in t~is sectUn are the "fresh" Irachates rrom *he d urns. Fresh
leachate is the leachate obtained within the first hour after each addition of water.
"Residual" leachate is the leached removed pri^r to 'each we'er a^ditin that had
accumulated between water additions.
Figure VI —3 is a composite plot containing the BOD5 values for all the drums. The
three curves in this figure represent the maximum, the minimum, crid the arithmetic aver-
age (20-day increments) of all the data points. The data in Figure VI-3 indicate that
84
-------
Page
C. Potential Pathogenic Effects of Disposing Septic Tank 68
Pumpings Into Sanitary Landfills
1. Viability and Survival of Pathogens in Landfills 68
2. Pathogen Transmission 69
3. Leachate Contamination of Ground and Surface Waters 69
4. Odors and Fly Problems 70
D. Existing Practices for Disposal of Septic Tank Pumpings 70
Into Sanitary Landfills
E. Management of Landfill Hazards From Septic Tank Pumpings 70
Disposal
F. Summary 71
VI. PILOT-SCALE SIMULATION OF LANDFILL CONDITIONS 72
A. Purpose and Scope 72
B. Description of the Study 72
1. Pilot Test Facilities Configuration 72
2. Solid Waste Characteristics 72
3. Filling and Compaction Procedures 75
4. Liquid Application 75
5. Forced Aeration Conditions 81
6. Monitoring Program 81
C. Results and Discussion 84
1. Liquid Application and Leachate Flow 84
2. Leachate Characteristics 84
3. Gas Generation 104
4. Compaction 104
5. Temperature 123
6. Qualitative and Other Miscellaneous Observations
7. Production of Leachate Constituents 1^0
8. Comparative Summary of Test Drum Parameters 1^8
VII. SIMULATION OF SANITARY LANDFILL IN FIELD TEST CELLS 144
A. Purpose 144
B. Method of Study 144
* •
VII
-------
Page
1. Site Location 144
2. Cell Design Configuration 144
3. Filling of the Test Cells 150
4. Monitoring of the Test Cells 150
5. Core Sampling and Testing 162
C. Results and Discussion 163
1. Leachates 163
2. Temperature 179
3. Gas Analyses 193
4. Settlement 193
5. Core Sampling 193
6. Comparison of Sludge Admixed Solid Waste 216
with Normal Solid Waste
VIII. FIELD DEMONSTRATION OF LANDFILL OPERATIONS 228
AND LIQUID SLUDGE DISPOSAL
A. Purpose 228
B. Method of Study 228
1. Landfill Site 228
2. Parameters Evaluated 228
3. Filling and Spreading Operations 231
4. Core Sampling 232
5. Vector Studies 232
C. Results and Discussion 235
1. Initial Trial Run at the Old Landfill 235
2. "Extended" Field Tests 237
3. Full-Scale Demonstration at the New Landfill 239
4. Auger Sampling 249
5. Compaction Studies 265
6. Time and Motion Studies 267
7. Landfilling Costs 273
8. Sludge Disposal Costs 277
9. Summary 277
IX. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SLUDGE PROCESSING AND 283
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
A. Analytical Approaches 283
B. Cost Analysis for the City of Oceanside 286
viii
-------
Page
REFERENCES 292
BIBLIOGRAPHY 295
APPENDICES 300
A SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL AND LABORATORY TEST 300
PROGRAMS
B DATA SHEETS 313
C ANALYSES OF SEWAGE SLUDGES FROM OCEANSIDE, 331
CALIFORNIA
D LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF LEACHATES FROM PILOT 347
SCALE TEST DRUMS
E FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL 388
F OCEANSIDE LANDFILL SITE GEOLOGY AND 412
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
G ENGLISH-METRIC EQUIVALENTS 418
Ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Description Page
I-1 MAJOR CLASSES OF LAND USE IN OCEANSIDE 4
1-2 OCEANSIDE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA 5
II-7 SLUDGE HANDLING AND PROCESSING COSTS 9
11-2 ULTIMATE DISPOSAL COSTS FOR SEWAGE SLUDGE 10
11-3 ANTICIPATED LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 13
AND PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDFILL DISPOSAL
OF MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE
11-4 ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF SEWAGE AND SEPTIC 16
TANK SLUDGE DISPOSED AT REPORTING LANDFILLS
11-5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROCEDURES AT is
LANDFILLS ACCEPTING SEWAGE/SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE
II-6 OPINION RATINGS OF ANTICIPATED PROBLEMS/ 19
HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF
SEWAGE AND SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE
III-T SOLID WASTE SAMPLING 22
1-2 COMPOSITION OF OCEANSIDE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 24
11-3 MOISTURE CONTENT OF OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE 25
11-4 SEASONAL EFFECT ON ORGANIC CONTENT OF 26
OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE
-5 COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES 27
||-6 MOISTURE AND VOLATILE SOLIDS CONTENT OF 29
OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE FROM OLD LANDFILL SITE
1-7 TOTAL WET WEIGHT OF SOLID WASTE PRODUCED 30
IN OCEANSIDE
-------
Toble No. Description Page
111-8 OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE WET WEIGHT 31
111 —9 OCEANSIDE LANDFILL VEHICLE LOAD COUNT 32
111-10 SLUDGE HAULED FOR DISPOSAL 40
111-11 PROJECTED TOTAL SLUDGE QUANTITIES 42
III-12 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SLUDGE COMPOSITE 44
SAMPLES FROM OCEANSIDE TREATMENT PLANTS
IV-1 MOISTURE ABSORPTION BY TEXTILES AND LEATHER 54
IV-2 WATER-HOLDING CAPACITY OF TYPICAL SOILS 57
IV-3 SOIL PERMEABILITY AND DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS 57
IV-4 WATER ABSORPTION RANGES FOR SOLID WASTE 59
COMPONENTS
IV-5 CITY OF OCEANSIDE SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION 60
IV-6 PREDICTED RANGE OF ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY OF 63
MUNICIPAL REFUSE AS RECEIVED AT OCEANSIDE
LANDFILL
VI-1 COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE IN TEST DRUMS 76
VI-2 INITIAL DENSITY OF SOLID WASTE IN TEST DRUMS 77
VI-3 APPLICATION OF SLUDGE AND WATER TO TEST DRUMS 78
VI-4 CHARACTERISTICS OF SEWAGE SLUDGE AND SEPTIC 86
TANK PUMPINGS APPLIED TO PILOT TEST DRUMS
VI-5 MOISTURE ABSORPTION TO SATURATE SOLID WASTE 87
SAMPLES
VI-6 TEST DRUM WATER CONTENT DETERMI NATIONS 88
VI-7 COMPARISON OF NATURAL AND SIMULATED 97
LEACHATES
VI-8 COMPARISON OF NATURAL AND SIMULATED LEACHATES 98
xi
-------
Table No. Description Page
VI-9 COMPARISON OF FRESH AND RESIDUAL TEST DRUM 99
LEACHATES
VI-10 ANALYSES FOR SPECIFIC SOLUBLE COMPONENTS 100
VI-11 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF LEACHATE COMPOSITES 101
VI—12 HEAVY METAL ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE COMPOSITES 105
VI—13 COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS 108
VI—14 TOTAL METALS IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES COMPOSITE 131
SAMPLES FOR ENTIRE STUDY
VI—15 TOTAL CONSTITUENTS IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES 132
COMPOSITE SAMPLES
VI—16 TOTAL METALS IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES COMPOSITE 135
SAMPLES
VI-17 TOTAL BOD5 IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES COMPOSITE 139
SAMPLES FOR ENTIRE STUDY
V1—18 GROUP COMPARISONS OF BOD5 IN TEST DRUM 140
LEACHATE COMPOSITES
VI-19 QUANTITY OF WATER ADDED TO DRUMS TO COMPLETE 141
BIO-OXIDATION
VII-l SOLID WASTE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE PLACED IN 153
TEST CELL 1
VI1-2 SOLID WASTE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE PLACED IN 154
TEST CELL 2
VII-3 SOLID WASTE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE PLACED IN 155
TEST CELL 3
VII-4 ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE SAMPLES OF SLUDGES 156
APPLIED TO TEST CELLS
VI1-5 TEST CELL IN-PLACE WASTE/SLUDGE DENSITIES 157
VI1-6 FIELD TEST CELL MONITORING SCHEDULE 159
xi i
-------
Table No. Descriptionn Page
VI1-7 CELL 1 COMPREHENSIVE QUARTERLY LEACHATE 180
ANALYSIS
VII—8 CELLS 1 AND 3 LEACHATE ANALYSES 184
VI1-9 OCEANSIDE TEST CELL TEMPERATURE RECORD 186
VII-10 TEST CELL HYDROGEN SULFIDE CONCENTRATIONS 200
VI1-11 TEST CELL 1 BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE 203
VI1—12 TEST CELL 2 BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE 204
VI1—13 TEST CELL 3 BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE 205
VII—14 TEST CELL 1 CORE SAMPLE ORGANIC CONTENT 206
VI1—15 TEST CELL 2 CORE SAMPLE ORGANIC CONTENT 207
VI1-16 TEST CELL 3 CORE SAMPLE ORGANIC CONTENT 208
VI1-17 TEST CELL 1 CORE SAMPLE MOISTURE CONTENT 209
VI1—18 TEST CELL 2 CORE SAMPLE MOISTURE CONTENT 210
VII-19 TEST CELL 3 CORE SAMPLE MOISTURE CONTENT 211
VI1-20 MOISTURE ABSORPTION CAPACITY OF SELECTED 212
CORE SAMPLES
VII-21 BOD5 LEACHATES FROM SELECTED TEST CORE 213
SAMPLES
VI1-22 SUMMARY OF BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF 215
TEST CELL SAMPLES
VII-23 SUMMARY OF LANDFILL LEACHATE CHARACTER- 218
ISTICS
VIII-1 LANDFILL OPERATIONS MONITORING SCHEDULE 229
VI11-2 LANDFILL OPERATING PERSONNEL INJURIES 247
xi i i
-------
Table No.
Description
Page
VI11-3 LANDFILL BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE- - 251
FRESH SLUDGE-WASTE FILL
VII1-4 LANDFILL BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE-- 252
SLUDGE-WASTE FILLED MARCH 1972
Vlll-5 LANDFILL BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE- - 253
SOLID WASTE FILLED JANUARY 1972
VI11 -6 LANDFILL BORE HOLE ORGANIC CONTENT-- 254
FRESH SLUDGE-WASTE FILL
VI11—7 LANDFILL BORE HOLE ORGANIC CONTENT-- 255
SLUDGE-WASTE FILLED MARCH 1972
VI11-8 LANDFILL BORE HOLE ORGANIC CONTENT-- 256
SOLID WASTE FILLED JANUARY 1972
VI11-9 LANDFILL BORE HOLE MOISTURE CONTENT— 257
FRESH SLUDGE-WASTE
VIII-10 LANDFILL BORE HOLE MOISTURE CONTENT— 258
SLUDGE-WASTE FILLED MARCH 1972
Vlll-ll LANDFILL BORE HOLE MOISTURE CONTENT— 259
SOLID WASTE FILLED JANUARY 1972
V111 —12 MOISTURE ABSORPTION CAPACITY OF SELECTED 261
CORE SAMPLES
VII1—13 BOD5 OF LEACHATES FROM SELECTED LANDFILL 263
CORE SAMPLES
VI11—14 LANDFILL BORE HOLE GAS ANALYSES 266
VI11-15 MEASURED OPERATING TIMES IN HUNDREDTHS OF 270
MINUTES UNDER FOUR CONDITIONS TABULATED
SEPARATELY FOR TWO DRIVERS
VI11-16 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR 274
DOZERS WD-A AND WD-C IN 1971
xi v
-------
Table No. Description Page
VI11—17 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR 275
DOZERS WD-A AND WD-C IN 1972
VI11—18 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR 276
DOZERS WD-A AND WD-C in 1973
VI11-19 LABOR AND CAPITAL EXPENSES FOR SLUDGE TRUCK 278
OPERATIONS IN 1972
VI11-20 LABOR AND CAPITAL EXPENSES FOR SLUDGE TRUCK 280
OPERATIONS IN 1973
VIII-21 SUMMATION OF LABOR AND CAPITAL EXPENSES FOR 281
• SLUDGE TRUCK OPERATIONS
IX-1 PRESENT AND FUTURE PRODUCTION OF LIQUID 285
DIGESTED SLUDGE IN OCEANSIDE
# IX—2 COST OF TRUCKING SLUDGE--OCEANSIDE 287
IX—3 COSTS OF PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION—OCEANSIDE 289
xv
-------
Figure No.
1-1
1-2
lll-l
III- 2
111-3
111-4
111—5
III-6
IV-1
IV-2
IV-3
IV-4
IV-5
IV-6
IV-7
LIST OF FIGURES
Description Page
STUDY AREA LOCATION 3
OCEANSIDE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL SITE 7
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES FROM OCEANSIDE, 34
CALIFORNIA
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES FROM OCEANSIDE, 35
CALIFORNIA
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES FROM OCEANSIDE, 36
CALIFORNIA
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES FROM OCEANSIDE, 37
CALIFORNIA
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES FROM OCEANSIDE, 38
CALIFORNIA
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES FROM OCEANSIDE, 39
CALIFORNIA
WATER ABSORPTION OF PAPERS 48
WATER ABSORPTION OF PLA NT TRIMMINGS (GRASS 49
AND OTHER MONOCOTYLEDONS)
WATER ABSORPTION OF PLANT TRIMMINGS (WOODY 50
SHRUBS)
WATER ABSORPTION OF KITCHEN GARBAGE (VEGETABLE) 52
WATER ABSORPTION <$F WOOD 53
MAXIMUM ABSORPTION OF WATER IN MUNICIPAL 61
REFUSE (EQUIVALENT DATA ON SOIL (LOAM) PRESENTED
FOR COMPARISON)
MINIMUM ABSORPTION OF WATER IN MUNICIPAL REFUSE 62
(EQUIVALENT DATA FOR SOIL (CLAY) PRESENTED FOR
COMPARISON)
xvi
-------
the BOD5 increased to a peak sometime within the first 100 days of sludge application,
and gradually decreased to become asymptotic thereafter. The initial increase in BOD^
may be attributed to the breakdown and solubilization of complex organics in the solid
waste and sludge. The liquid appplications to drums were started between April 16 and
July 17, 1971, with the majority of them (Drums 6 through 15, and 17) started in mid-
June. The hot summer temperature thus might have contributed to some extent to the
observed high initial 8OD5 levels. The subsequent decrease in BOD5 may represent
a gradual depletion of the more readily soluble organics due to bacterial oxidation.
Figure VI-3 indicates the leachate BOD5 trends of Drums 14 and 15 with the com-
posite BOD5 trend for all the drums. Drums 14 and 15 were the only two test drums
which had been provided with forced aeration. Figure VI-3 indicates that after reaching
maximum values, the BODc Tor Drums 14 and 15 dropped off initially at a faster rate
than for most other drums,^ and then fell near the average for all drums. This would be
expected since oxidction of organics generally proceeds at a faster rate under aerobic
than anaerobic oxidation.
b. Color. The color observed in the leachates was initially black in seven drums,
grey in five drums, and yellow or tea color in three drums. Most of the leachates were
opaque in appearance. No relation was observed between the type of liquid applied
and color; for example, leachates from drums which received water only were also black.
The color changed with time to green, olive and yellow, to a straw color, and after
190 to 250 days, the colors were generally yellow or straw, clear or brownish.
During the final year of the study, the leachate was a grayish yellow when first
collected, but after exposure to air, the color slowly changed to a brownish yellow.
A similar color change was observed for the Oceanside test cell leachate, though these
latter colors were much darker. Following extensive dilution of the test cell leachate
and concentration of the drum leachate, the colors were observed to be the same. This
lead to the conclusion that the color change is due to the same chemical reaction in the
test cell leachate and the test drum leachate. This reaction is most likely an oxidation
reaction, possibly a change in oxidation state of one or more of the dissolved metal
ions. This reaction would not change the chemical analysis performed on the leachate.
c. Turbidity. The results of turbidity measurements on leachate samples are pre-
sented in Appendix D. In general, the changes in turbidity with time followed a pattern
much similar to that of the BOD5. To explore any correlation which may exist between
the BOD5 and turbidity of a leachate, the turbidity and BOD5 values were plotted on
log-log paper. The results presented in Figure VI-4 indicate some correlation between
the two variables. Although the mean BOD5 affected the Johnson turbidity ynits (JTU),
the low coefficient of correlation indicates wide variation of BOD5 about the mean value.
This, as expected, indicates that BOD5 (including dissolved materials) is a poor measure
of the turbidity values. This is not surprising, since turbidity is a light-scattering phenomenon
whose value is affected by the size, shape, and concentration of the particulate matter,
whereas BOD^ is only a measure of the biodegradable constituents (dissolved or particulate
matter) of the waste sample. Hence, inorganic particulate matter such as silt and iron oxide
which contribute to turbidity do not exert BOD5 demand. Similarly, soluble organic or
reduced inorganic compounds which constitute BOD5 do not register as turbidity.
85
-------
TABLE VI-4
CHARACTERISTICS OF SEWAGE SLUDGE AND
SEPTIC TANK PUMPINGS APPLIED TO PILOT TEST DRUMS
Sample
Drum
application
Conduc-
tivity
BOD5
(ppm)
Total
solids
Total
organ ics
(% dry wt)
Total
n i trogen
(%)
Total
phosphate
Total
vol. acids
by source
Primary
Secondary (/jmnas)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
Mixed sludges
1
*
2
5
3800
3050
no
La Salina:
Digested
activated
sludge
6
7
8
9
6
7
8
3800
3200
1.4
60,7
1.68
370
216
14
15
14
4200
4.5
53.2
1.77
80
46
San Luis Rey;
Primary raw
10
11
10
4000
-
1.2
61.6
-
-
-
Digested
primary
12
13
12
3190
3.4
45.3
"
Septic tank
pumpings:
Thick
3
1900
1630
2.0
40.5
Thin
16
16
1200
130
-
-
-
-
-
*
Indicates not applicable or analyses not completed.
-------
TABLE VI-5
MOISTURE A3SORPTION TO SATURATE
SOLID WASTE SAMPLES
Drum no.
.Moisture <35 %
Dry wt
sample wr
Wet wt
1
213
164
6
188
145
7
188
145
8
151
116
9
272
210
10
188
145
11
201
155
12
92
71
13
161
124
14
204
158
15
169
130
16
57
43
17
175
135
Avg
174 dry wt
134 wet wt
Sam'ples from test drums at field capacity.
87
-------
TABLE VI-6
TEST DRUM WATER CONTENT DETERMINATIONS
Days since filling:
Drum no.
Wt
Drum water weight
% of initial
wet wt of *
solid waste
Wt
155
% of initial
wet wt of ^
solid waste
Wt
953
% of initial
wet wt of *
solid waste
1
103
103
91
86
101
101
2
65
81
57
72
58
73
3
63
79
63
79
89
111
4
+
—
23
29
60
75
5
102
128
94
117
59
74
6
60
76
54
67
58
73
7
20
29
36
45
57
71
8
33
42
25
33
65
81
9
62
77
45
56
77
96
10
47
59
50
62
81
101
11
—
—
41
51
82
101
12
30
38
24
30
71
89
13
20
26
18
23
60
75
14
46
58
23
29
22
28
15
—
—
20
25
39
49
16
33
41
34
42
73
91
17
32
40
30
37
75
94
18
-0.4
0
3
4
51
64
* initial wet weight of solid waste placed in drums was: Drum 1-100 lb; Drums
2 through 1 8 - 80 lb.
Not weighed.
88
-------
25
20 -
15 _
10.
5 _
0
25f
20-
15-
10-
5-
0
DRUM
1415 16 17
A » D A
A A
> > *)A
100
200
300
400
500
600 700 800
DRUM
10 11 12 13
A • ~ A
900
jj£ gg a 2?
ft
a
as ®
a
a!
0» 7
100
200 300 400 500 600
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
700
800
900
FIGURE VI-2A
TEST DRUM WEIGHT
kATIO OF WATER TO SOLIDS
ADDITIONS
-------
DRUM
Z?
o =
h" W
rv O
UJ #
i_ a,
c
UJ o
> ©
lm~
5 §
3 ~o
2 ^
3 8
U m-
oo °
5 s
3
a: x
Q -o
h— _D
oo r-
O
*
25
20
15
10
5
0
25
20
15
10
5
0
A*2*
*
J*
100
6
A
fl3
A
I3 I1
& A
7 8 9
• ~ A
%k
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
DRUM
o a.
* &
-L
°A
A
s
a
*C1
A
s
12 3 5
A * Q A
S ? S
X
100
200
300 400 500 600
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
700
800
900
900
FIGURE VI-2B
TEST DRUM WEIGHT
RATIO OF WATER TO SOLIDS
ADDITIONS
-------
000
000
000
000
000
500
400
300
200
100
50
40
30
20
10
/
o o •
\
,o
/
OoO
o°
O
OO
\
\
°%°
qO o
o°
OO Q
O
o
oo
\
0 \
\
o o
°
°
°o 00
0
o
*
o
O O °Q o
. o *v
X
X,
\
o c°o°0 0
o
o oo
o
\ o o
ARITHMETIC AVERAGE BY
20 DAY INCREMENTS
MAX. & MIN.
DRUMS 14 AND 15
INCLUDES ALL DRUMS
EXCEPT DRY CONTROL
DRUMS 4 AND 18
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
c
o
o o
Oo
* o
o
o
o
o •
o
o
JSL.
Q I
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
DAYS SINCE FIRST LIQUID
APPLICATION
FIGURE VI-3
BOD5 LEVELS OF TEST DRUM
LEACHATES—DRUMS 14 AND 15
VS. COMPOSITE TRENDS
-------
5,000 •
4,000 -
3,000 -
OO
2,000
1,000
OO
500
400
GD
300
O OO
% 200
Oo
100
O O OCO
CD
RESULTING EQUATION OF LINEAR
REGRESSION: (BODc) = 56 + 0.4 (JTU)
COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION: 0.14
10
20 30 40 50
100
200 300 400 500
1,000
TURBIDITY (JTU)
FIGURE VI-4
CORRELATION OF TEST DRUM
LEACHATE BOD5 WITH TURBIDITY
92
-------
d. Electrical Conductance (Conductivity). Electrical ccnductance is a
measure of the capacity of a liquid to conduct electrical current. It is affected by
the nature and concentration of charged species (mainly dissolved inorganic salts) in
solution. A correlation exists between electrical conductivity and total dissolved
solids of a liquid sample.
The dissolved inorganic content of solid waste leachates is important from the
standpoint of its potential effect on groundwater quality. When leachates containing
high salts content gain entrance to the groundwater, they may cause an appreciable
increase in the salinity of the groundwater and/or impart other undesirable properties
to it.
The data on the conductivity of the leachate samples are presented in Appendix
D. Figure VI-5 is a composite plot of conductivity values for Drums 6 through 17. A
composite curve for Drums 2, 3 and 5 (see Appendix D) indicate similar peaks and
asymptotically decreasing volues for conductivity. They occur within roughly similar
periods about 120 days after filling versus about 70 days,as shown in Figure VI-5.
Drums 2, 3 and 5 were filled about 50 days earlier than the other drums, which accounts
for the different periods of sampling since filling to reach peak values. Drum 1 behaved
differently in that its peak conductivity value occurred 30 days after filling^which was
90 days prior to peaks on all other drums. The data in this figure and those
presented in Appendix D indicate that the variation of conductivity with time is very
similar to those of BOD5 and turbidity, i.e., rising to a maximum within the first
100 days, decreasing and then becoming fairly constant. As with BOD5 and turbidity,
the pattern of change in conductivity may reflect variations in the rate of biodegrada-
tion and solubilization of the organic waste material. The conductivity data also
indicate that, under the conditions of the experiments, the quality of the leachate
was relatively insensitive to the kind and amount of liquid originally applied to the
drums.
The second small peak occurring around 140 days on Figure VI-5 corresponded
to a two-week period of increasing ambient air temperatures (see Figures VI— 13 through
VI—16). This indicates the temperature-dependence of the biological activity in the
test drums.
In an exploratory effort to investigate any correlation which may exist between
the conductivity and turbidity of a leachate sample, the conductivity values for the
leachate samples were plotted against the corresponding turbidities on an arithmetic
paper. The results presented in Figure VI-6 do not appear to indicate any simple
direct correlation between the two vaiiables. This is understandable, since turbidity
is a measure of particulate matter in water whereas conductivity merely reflects the
concentration of the charged species.
e. pH. The pH of the leachates is plotted individually for each drum in
Appendix D. In general, the changes in pH were fairly small and the pH values
were all in the 5 to 8 range. In most cases, the pH dropped initially, reaching a
minimum value within the first 100 days. The decrease in pH is probably due to the
93
-------
5,000
DRUM NO.: 6 THROUGH 17
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
A
500-
0
X
X
X
X
X
DAYS SINCE INITIAL SLUDGE APPLICATION F 'CURE VI-5
CONDUCTIVITY OF LEACHATES—
COMPOSITE
-------
5,000
4,000
E 3,000
~~
=> 2,000
1,000
100
200
300
400
TURBIDITY (JTU)
FIGURE VI-6
CORRELATION OF CONDUCTIVITY
WITH TURBIDITY
95
-------
formation of acidic end-products resulting from the anaerobic biodegradation of organic
wastes. Following the initial drop, the pH gradually increased, reaching values in the
6.2 to 7.2 range after 250 days. The increase in pH may reflect a slowdown in the rate
of biodegradation of organics or reflect growth of methane producing bacteria which
oxidize organic acids.
f. Comparison of Test Drum Leachate Characteristics with Landfill and Test Cell
Leachates. Tables VI-7 and VI-8 present comparisons of test drum, test cell and land-
fill leachate characteristics for different ages of solid waste fill. Where ranges of values
are given they represent maximum and minimum values for different samples (test cell
and landfill) and different test drums. The data in Tables VI-7 and VI-8 indicate that
the test cell leachates were significantly stronger in BOD^ and conductivity than the
test drum and landfill leachates. The high BOD5, high conductivity, low pH, and foul
odor of the test cell leachate are indications that extensive warer to organic contact
existed during or prior to the time of drainage and sampling. The dala indicafe that the
leached soluble organics in the test cells were significantly greater than in the test
drums during comparable time periods after filling. The low test drum BOD5 range is
attributed to the high rate of water application (12 to 15 lb water per lb dry wt solid
waste) compared to the test cells which received 0.45 lb liquid per lb dry wt solid
waste upon being filled. The test drum water, having less contact time than liquid
in the test cells, apparently produced a diluted leachate and thus lower BOD5.
g. Characteristics of "Fresh" and "Residual" Leachates. As it was described above
in Section C.2., tv/o types of leachates were obtained from each test drum: the
"residual" (old) leachate collected at the bottom of drums due to the preceding liquid
addition, and the "fresh" (new) leachate resulting immediately following each water
addition. The first analysesof residual leachate were made in April, 1972. TableVI-9
presents typical data on quantity and quality of the residual and fresh leachates for
sampling runs in 1972 and 1973. Additional residual leachate analyses are plotted in
Appendix D with the fresh leachates. In the 1972 sampling the old leachates appear
to contain more turbidity and show higher conductivity and lower pH levels, but the
BOD5 data do not indicate any consistent pattern. The 1973 samplings of turbidity,
conductivity, and pH levels follow the same expected patterns as the 1972 samplings,
whereas the 1973 BOD5 residual leachates appear greater than for corresponding fresh
leachates. Based on BOD5 and turbidity results, the residual leachate appears to have
higher content of dissolved organic material than the fresh leachate. This may be due
to the significantly longer solid-liquid contact time for the old leachate.
h. Specific Dissolved Salts. On several occasions during the initial period of
the study, spot checks were made on free carbon dioxide, chloride, phosphate, calcium
and nitrogen content of the leachates. The results are presented in Table VI-10. A
running composite was kept of some portions of all leachate samples obtained from each
drum. After the December sampling in each of the three study years, the composite
samples were similarly analyzed. These results are given in Table Vl-ll .
The data in Tables VI-10 and Vl-ll indicate no significant differences between the
leachates from the various drums, thus confirming the general conclusion presented earlier
that, in the drum tests, the leachate characteristics did not appear to be materially
96
-------
TABLE Vl-7
COMPARISON OF NATURAL AND SIMULATED LEACHATES
Field test
cell 1,
Pilot test drums,
Old Oceanside
Measured
days since filling
days since filling
landfill
variable
1st 57
365
658
1st 50
365
65S
BOD
(mg/I)
5,450- 11,850 2 4,800
20,500
60 - 4,300
0-200
0-664
250 - 380
Turbidity
(JTU)
53 - 210
54
59
40 - 510
0-100
7-255
#
Conductivity
( pi mhos)
2,250 - 4,400
3,500
8,370
1,400 - 5,000
0-1,300 384-3,955 4,700 - 4,800
pH (units)
4.6 - 5.5
5.5
4.85
5.0- 8.6
5.0-7,8
4.9-7.1
5.1 - 5.2
Odor
Very sour
Sour
Very sour
Septic sulfide
Earthy
Earthy
Sour
* Grab samples of lea
the top of the fi 11.
chate taken from small pools
in cover soil
on the side of the completed landfill
about 20 feet below
^ Not enough sample volume to complete
ana 1 yses
•
-------
TABLE VI-8
COMPARISON OF NATURAL AND SIMULATED LEACHATES
Field test
cell 3,
Pilot test drums,
Old Oceanside
Measured
variable
days since filling
days since
filling
landfill
280
645
280
645
>365*
BOD5
(mg/l)
11,100
17,000
2-1330
0-664
250-380
Turbidity
(JTU)
#
59
33-215
7-255
#
Conductivity
( >n mhos)
#
7,850
510-2,000
384-3,955
4,700-4,800
pH (units)
5.6
4.8
6.00-6.94
4.9-7.1
5.1-5.2
Odor
Sour
Very sour
Earthy
Earthy
Sour
* Grab samples of leachate taken from small pools in the cover soil on the side of the completed landfill about 20 ft
below the top of the fill.
' Not enough sample volume to complete analyses.
-------
TABLE VI-9
COMPARISON OF FRESH AND RESIDUAL TEST DRUM LEACHATES
(1973)
Residual leachate* Fresh leachate"1"
Drum
no.
Qty
(gal)
Turbidity
(JTU)
Conduc-
tivity
( n mhos)
PH
(units)
BOD5
(mg/l)
Qty
(gal)
Turbidity
(JTU)
Conduct-
ivity
(//mhos)
PH BOD5
(units) (mg/i;
1
0
—
—
—
—
0
—
—
—
2
0.2
48
552
6.45
100
2.4
17
466
7.05
78
3
0.4
210
1,068
6.52
0
2.5
7
357
6.82
0
5
0.6
200
1,080
6.40
0
2.0
9
483
6.72
0
6
0
—
—
—
—
2.3
10
397
7.05
22
7
0.6
15
732
6.61
10
.8
5
345
7.00
117
8
0.6
210
1,068
6.15
200
i .3
27
391
6.05
22
9
0.1
205
1,212
6.12
0
Negl
•k it
7.35
—
10
0.5
150
816
6.20
40
1 .9
22
334
6.60
0
11
0.3
185
1,536
6.42
15
2.8
5
368
6.81
0
12
0.5
150
1,452
5.55
130
.5
130
541
5.82
340
13
0.1
240
1,128
6.58
0
.1
73
621
6.80
20
14
0
—
—
—
—
2.4
5
564
6.75
0
15
1 .3
140
742
6.42
60
2.4
6
368
7.05
0
16
0.6
170
744
6.45
50
2.1
9
385
6.98
10
17
0.3
155
1,178
6.18
0
2.0
24
500
6.55
10
* Samples of May 1, 1973 leachate remaining from last 3-gallon water application 52
days earlier, on March 10, 1973.
+ Leachate occurring within about 5 hour of water application, May 1, 1973.
** Quantity of leachate enough for analyses, but insignificant in gallons.
99
I
-------
TABLE VI-10
ANALYSES FOR SPECIFIC SOLUBLE COMPONENTS*
Drum Dissolved Total # Organic $
no. C02+ Chloride4" Phosphate4" Calcium nitrogen4" Nitrate nitrogen
1
30
130
5
257
26.3
1 .94
1 .73
2
75
270
4
329
16.9
1 .73
-
3
210
185
3
312
53.0
1 .94
0.45
5
105
200
4
178
61 .6
0.45
0.91
6
340
267
5
164
-
0.69
-
7
45
293
4
297
30.8
1 .25
0.45
8
255
221
5
209
81 .2
1 .25
1 .25
9
60
86
4
304
52.6
0.91
0.69
10
90
205
3
369
54.2
0.69
0.45
11
210
167
4
226
-
1.60
1.25
12
565
258
4
259
-
1 .14
-
13
90
245
3
230
14.8
1 .60
1 .60
14
240
262
3
208
31 .4
1 .60
1 .25
15
330
336
5
329
44.3
0.69
0.45
16
120
145
4
262
22.0
1 .25
-
17
225
190
4
176
17.8
1 .94
1 .94
U
*AII values in mg/l. Samples taken on dates as follows: + 9/1 0/71; 9/14/71;
and $9/24/71 .
100
-------
TABLE Vl-ll
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF LEACHATE COMPOSITES*
(1971)
Drum
no.
F
Fe
so4
PO4
CI
Ca
NO3 Conductivity
Total
organic
nitrogen pH
Turbidity
1
0.10
0.12
100
1.0
225
74
0.30
1650
34
6.80
5
2
0.75
0.17
170
1.0
205
46
0.60
1150
45
7.35
14
3
0.50
0.21
42
0.80
200
81
0.90
1250
56
7.35
26
5
0.10
0.12
50
0.70
195
107
28.0
1300
62
7.00
18
6
0.35
0.10
96
0.45
140
116
0.70
1050
73
7.80
16
7
0.40
0.21
72
0.50
200
68
0.19
1400
72
7.90
24
3
0.50
0.21
86
0.45
190
78
0.83
1350
79
7.15
6
9
0.75
0.17
55
0.20
190
149
23.2
1350
17
7.15
13
10
0.67
0.21
56
1.00
220
129
2.00
1400
95
6.90
7
11
0.90
0.15
28
1.20
107
111
1.04
100
15
7.50
10
12
0.75
0.20
40
0.80
192
76
2.25
1500
60
7.85
45
13
1.00
0.12
34
0.80
182
111
1.37
1300
26
8.10
22
14
0.70
0.10
48
1.00
180
166
3.00
1150
31
7.40
8
15
0.65
0.23
78
1.00
110
57
1.16
875
46
7.80
9
16
0.50
0.25
72
0.50
190
73
20.0
1450
50
7.55
24
17
0.40
0.21
58
0.70
140
106
16.6
1250
41
7.05
25
*AII values in mg/l; except pH (units); conductivity ( ^mhos/cm) , and turbidity (JTU).
-------
TABLE Vl-U (CON.T.)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF LEACHATE COMPOSITES*
(1972)
Total
Drum inorganic
no. SO4 PO4 CI Ca NO3 Conductivity nitrogen pH Turbidity
1
87
1.7
280
50
1 .34
1,200
25.3
7.73
4
2
40
1.3
388
7
1.08
950
31.8
7.41
30
3
38
1 .5
156
35
2.38
880
11.1
7.42
9
5
46
1 .0
196
36
1 .32.
920
4.5
7.77
6
6
37
0.70
316
18
4.38
910
15.0
7.80
10
7
35
0.60
299
26
1.12
820
6.7
7.80
6
8
39
0.44
266
29
1 .88
770
18.3
7.37
6
9
80
1 .5
440
23
1.04
1,200
7.8
7.68
7
10
32
0.28
333
24
3.40
800
8.7
7.18
21
n
25
0*48
585
7
2.42
1,000
8.9
7.69
12
12
45
0.36
470
50
0,20
1,200
17.3
6.92
49
13
28
0.46
182
54
1 .92
960
8.9
7.20
11
14
98
0.44
270
32
1 .04
1,100
24.6
7.00
4
15
55
0.58
241
26
2.74
1,000
5.8
7.12
6
16
25
0.40
410
3
1 .84
1,000
6.8
7.79
17
17
15
0.50
416
4
1.38
1,200
5.8
7.78
20
•k
All values in mg/l; except pH (units), conductivity ( fi mhos/cm), and turbidity (JTU).
-------
TABLE Vt-U (CONT.)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF LEACHATE COMPOSITES*
(1973)
Drum
no.
SO4
PO4
CI
Ca
NO3
Total
inorganic
Conductivity nitrogen
pH
Turbidity
1
30
0.7
330
23.2
3.5
655
18.3
7.40
13.0
2
23
0.8
167
7.4
2.1
482
21.5
7.10
16.0
3
0.0
0.0
310
18.6
3.0
645
10.3
7.25
5.0
5
20
0.0
330
16.8
1 „5
690
1.3
6.30
7.0
6
6
0.0
256
7.4
10.2
377
17.2
7.05
4.25
7
0.0
0.3
278
21.8
3.5
475
1.1
6.80
5.0
8
11
0.0
330
21.8
3.2
495
9.7
7.30
10.0
9
0.0
1.0
278
26.7
0.5
655
5.4
7.10
6.0
10
0.0
0.0
330
13.0
7.0
470
4.3
7.90
10.0
11
0.0
0.0
AAA
1 V 1
9.0
4.6
655
7.8
8.15
6.0
12
0.0
0.0
388
9.0
1.0
530
15.1
7.45
6.5
13
4
0.2
388
13.8
30.5
570
1.0
7.95
6.0
14
94
0.3
555
17.0
1 .0
635
15.6
7.25
3.2
15
38
0.0
326
10.6
2.5
492
1.5
7.90
7.2
16
1.5
0.0
287
5.8
3.2
520
4.1
8.20
7.1
17
0.0
0.4
403
21 .8
0.8
617
0.9
8.20
16.0
*
Ail values in mg/l; except pH (units), conductivity ( fi mhos/cm), and turbidity (JTU).
-------
affected by the kind and amount of the liquid applied to the solid waste. Some diff-
erences which have been observed may in fact be related, at least partially, to
differences which may have existed in the makeup of the solid waste placed in each
drum. The fact that the nitrate (nitrogen oxide) values are significantly lower than the
total organic nitrogen values suggests that eirher the oxidation of nitrogenous compounds which
usually follows oxidation of carbonaceous material had not been advanced to any
appreciable extent, or anaerobiosis had further reduced any nitrates to nitrogen gas.
Analyses were also completed for heavy metals on each of the three yearly com-
posites. The results aie given in fable VI —12 . Concentrations of lead, chromium,
copper and manganese were all below 1 mg/l, or negligible. Concentrations of zinc
and iron were generally slightly higher in the 1972 and 1973 composites, while mag-
nesium was slightly lower in 1972, and higher in 1973. Apparently some zinc coatings
on metcls in the waste and sonie corrosion of the sreel drums affected the leachate
concern rations for zinc and iron.
3. Gas Generation. Table VI—13 presents the lesults of gas analyses for the 18
test drums. The gas analyses were variable, both from drum to drum and within the
same drum as time progressed. The variability in gas sample compositions resulted from
the existence of a comparatively large air space above the surface of the solid waste
in each drum, as well as the necessity of exposing each drum to the atmosphere during
compaction, water addition, and other periodic monitoring work. Each time this was
performed, fresh air was introduced and methane and carbon dioxide were diffused.
It was also suspected that the gas sampling sidewal! ports may not have been airtight,
and some air may have been drawn along the sidewal I gap and perhaps from the air
mixture above the solid waste surface.
Two methods were adopted in June 1972 in an attempt to achieve airtight conditions.
Rubber septums were placed over the gas sample ports and samples were drawn using a
12-inch long hypodermic needle that was inserted into the middle of the solid waste mass.
Also, polyethylene bag covers were loosely placed over the tops of the solid waste mass
and sealed at the drum lid to minimize the drum air pocket. The gas analyses after
June 1972 show increases in methane in Drums 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 17. Air
contamination still remained a problem in the drums due to the need to remwe the
polyethylene bag seals to apply water. The drums other than those aforementioned had
greater aeration occurring probably due to sealing failures; slight leaks car cause sig-
nificant aeration in small test containers. Special high vacuum seals must be used to
avoid air leaks if natural landfill conditions are to be simulated. No simple explanation
is available for the wide variation in methane concentrations.
4. Compaction. The solid waste material in the drums was compacted prior to each
water application to simulate the preload found at full-scale landfills from cover soil and
vehicular travel. The compaction method utilized for all drums was the one described in
Section B.3. for drums 2 through 5. The degree of settlement after compaction, expressed
as a percent reduction in the depth of solid waste plotted against days since filling, is
presented in Figures VI-7 through VI—11 . These results indicate no relationship between
settlement rates with or without forced aeration,
104
-------
TABLE VI - 12
HEAVY METAL ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE COMPOSITES
(1971)
Concentration, mg /I
Drum
no.
Pb
Cr
Mg
Cu
Mn
Zn
1
<0.1
< 0.03
15.0
0.05
< o.uz
0.6
2
<0.1
< 0.03
11 .7
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.5
3
<0.1
< 0.03
12.2
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.2
5
< 0.1
< 0.03
14.6
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.3
t
< 0.1
< 0.03
11 .9
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.6
7
< 0.1
<0.03
14.2
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.2
8
< 0.1
< 0.03
14.2
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.2
9
< 0.1
< 0.03
15.0
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.3
10
0.4
< 0.03
14.2
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.4
11
<0.1
<0.03
15.4
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.3
12
<0.1
<0.03
6.0
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.5
13
< 0.1
< 0.03
13.6
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.2
14
< 0.1
< 0.03
12.2
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.2
15
<0.1
< 0.03
6.2
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.3
16
0.4
< 0.03
12.1
0.10
< 0.02
0.5
17
< 0.1
< 0.03
11.5
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.3
105
-------
TABLE VI - 12 (CONT.)
HEAVY METAL ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE COMPOSITES
(1972)
Concentration, mg /I
Drum Fe Pb Cr Mg Cu Mn Zn
no.
1
2.2
0.6
<0.03
12.00
0.10
<0.02
0.8
2
25.0
<0.1
<0.03
5.00
0.0 5
0.10
0.9
3
2.2
< 0.1
<0.03
6.00
<0.01
<0.02
0.3
5
2.2
0.4
<0.03
8.50
< 0.01
<0.02
0.8
6
1 .8
0.2
<0.03
13.40
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.3
7
2.4
0.4
<0.03
6.80
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.2
8
2.0
0.4
<0.03
6.20
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.3
9
3.0
< 0.1
<0.03
14.10
< 0.01
0.10
0.5
10
1.8
< 0.1
<0.03
3.80
0.05
<0.02
0.2
11
8.2
< 0.1
<0.03
15.00
0.05
<0.02
0.3
12
2.2
< 0.1
<0.03
12.80
< 0.01
0.20
1.8
13
2.0
0.2
<0.03
6.80
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.3
14
2.2
< 0.1
<0.03
9.00
<0.01
0.20
1 .8
15
2.2
< 0.1
<0.03
1 .10
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.3
16
4.4
0.6
<0.03
10.00
< 0.01
<0.02
1.6
17
2.2
0.4
<0.03
11 .70
<0.01
< 0.02
0.5
106
-------
TABLE VI-12 (CONT.)
HEAVY METAL ANALYSIS OF LEACHATE COMPOSITES
(1973)
Concentration, mg/1
Drum
no.
Fe
Pb
Cr
Mg
Cu
Mn
Zn
1
5 .0
<0.1
<0.03
54.0
0.13
<0.02
0.6
2
5.0
<0.1
<0.03
19.0
0.25
<0.02
0.8
3
0.8
<0.1
<0.03
49.0
<0.01
<0.02
1 .1
5
1 .3
<0.1
<0.03
65.0
<0.01
<0.02
1 .7
6
<0.1
<0.1
<0.03
10,0
<0.01
<0.02
0.9
7
0.7
<0.1
<0.03
22.5
0.13
<0.02
0.1
8
1 .6
<0.1
<0.03
17.0
0.13
<0.02
1 .1
9
1.6
<0.1
<0.03
65.0
0.13
<0.02
<0.1
10
<0.1
<0.1
<0.03
11 .5
0.25
<0.02
1 .3
11
<0.1
<0.1
<0.03
47.0
0.25
<0.02
1 .2
12
1 .6
<0.1
<0.03
81.0
0.13
<0.02
0.9
13
0.8
<0.1
<0.03
74.0
<0.01
<0.02
1 .2
14
<0.1
<0.1
<0.03
31 .0
<0.01
<0.02
2.1
15
<0.1
<0.1
<0.03
15.0
0.25
<0.02
1 .8
16
0.8
<0.1
<0.03
21 .0
0.13
<0.02
<0.1
17
0.5
<0.1
<0.03
74,0
0.37
<0.02
—
107
-------
TABLE VI—13
COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS
Gos composition (percent by volume)
Gos composition (percent by volume)
Drum
no.
Date
Day
1971
8/6
8/i
8/26
9/14
11/17
12/29
1972
1719
6/28
8/14
9/18
10/20
11/22
12/20
1973
27T
6/28
8/29
10/16
122
127
142
161
224
265
286
447
513
548
580
613
641
684
831
893
941
COn O,
N,
CH
Drum
no.
CO,
O.
N.
Date Day
0
42.5
32.2
7.9
2.3
9.0
12.1
12.0
8.8
12.0
3.4
18.3
16.6
20.5
24.8
1 .8
20.4
18.1
3.8
4.6
0.5
20.0
14.1
14.5
0.3
6.0
6.5
8.6
1 .4
3.9
0.8
0.8
19.1
1 .0
82.1
25.9
44.6
59.2
77.7
60.9
62.7
87.7
85.2
81.3
85.0
47.5
56.6
59.3
43.2
78.2
71 .3
0
27.8
18.6
32.4
0
16.0
10.7
0
0
0.2
3.0
32 «8
22.9
19.4
31.2
0.9
7.3
J
1971
~W5 98 0 21.0 79.0
8/11 103 0.4 20.6 79.0
8/26 118 0.1 20.9 79.0
9/14 137 0 19.9 80.1
11/17 200 1.8 20.1 78.1
12/29 224 0 18.1 31.9
1972
6/28 Inaccurate - Air leak into drum.
9/18 488
10/20 520
11 /22 533
12/20 581
1973
TJT 624
6/28 771
8/29 833
10/16 881
30
1 .8
2.1
0
1 .2
1 .7
0
0
14.4
19.6
19.3
21 .1
18.2
13.1
25.8
21 .9
82.6
78.6
78.6
78.9
80.6
85.1
74.2
78.1
CH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE VI-13 (CONT.)
COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS
Drum
no.
Gas composition (percent by volume)
Gos composition (percait by volume)
CO
N
CH
Drum
CO,
O,
CH.
Date
Day *
2
2
2
4
no. Dats
Day *
2
2
2
4
1971
1971
8/6
98
0
21.0
79.0
0
4 ** 8/6
95
0
20.0
80.0
0
8/11
103
0
21.0
79.0
0
8/11
100
0
21.4
78.6
0
8/26
118
19.0
4.2
76.8
0
8/26
115
8.2
16.2
76.6
0
9/14
137
25.5
3.3
71.2
0
9/14
137
21.5
10.5
60.2
7.8
11/17
200
5.6
17.0
77.4
0
11/17
200
5.9
16.5
77.6
0
12/29
239
2.8
17.6
79.6
0
12/29
241
5.2
18.0
76.8
0
1972
1972
1/19
260
4.6
16.8
78.6
0
1/19
262
5.2
16.3
78.1
0.4
6/28
421
9.5
7.6
82.9
0
6/28
423
2.2
13.1
84.7
0
8/14
468
17.3
0.3
82.4
0
8/14
470
2.9
17.1
80.0
0
9/18
499
14.6
4.2
81.2
0
9/18
501
6.5
12.4
81.1
0
10/20
531
0
20.9
79.1
0
10/20
533
0
20.9
79.1
0
11/22
564
5.9
12.4
81 .7
0
11/22
566
2.5
17.8
79.7
0
12/20
592
5.2
13.0
81 .4
0.4
12/20
594
5.7
15.1
79.2
0
1973
1973
T/T
635
2.6
17.4
80.0
0
"27T
637
0.8
11 .0
88.2
0
6/28
782
2.0
6.8
91 .0
0.2
6/28
784
2.2
17.4
80.4
0
8/29
844
0.7
15.7
82.8
0.8
8/29
846
4.8
12.9
82.3
0
10/16
892
2.5
17.3
80.2
0
10/16
894
4.2
18.5
77.3
0
-------
TABLE VI—13 (CONT.)
COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS
Gas composition (percent by volume)
Gas composition
(percent by volume)
Drum CO. O N,- CH Drum
CO, O
N CH
r% ¦ r\ J, dm Mm 4m '
no. Date Day * no.
Date Day * £
2 4
1971 „ 1971
8/11
103
6.8
15.7
77.5
0
6 8/6
52
31.2
2.6
59.5 6.7
8/26
?!8
7.4
17.6
75.0
0
8/11
57
12.0
12.0
76.0 0
9/14
137
9.8
8.0
82.2
0
8/26
73
10.2
11.5
78.3 0
11/17
200
6.9
14.9
78.2
0
9/14
92
9.3
14.7
76.0 0
12/29
239
7.7
17.0
74.9
0.4
11/17
155
12.2
10.3
77,5 0
1972
12/29
196
3.0
18.0
79.0 0
l/l9
260
7.6
14.0
78.4
0
19 72
1/19
217
12.6
9.2
78.2 0
6/28
421
4.5
9.2
86.3
0
6/28
378
Inaccurate
-Air leak into drum.
8/14
468
11.2
7.3
81.5
0
8/14
425
11.2
7.3
81.5 0
9/18
499
9.5
9.1
81.4
0
9/18
456
8.5
11.3
80.2 0
10/20
531
3.8
15.2
81.0
0
10/20
488
3.4
11.6
85.0 0
11/22
564
3.1
16.7
80.2
0
11/22
521
2.3
18.2
79.5 0
12/20
592
2.8
16.2
81 .0
0
12/20
549
2.5
18.0
79.5 0
1973
1973
2/1
635
2.7
18.4
78.9
0
2/1
592
2.4
19.5
78.1 0
6/58
782
12.6
6.5
20.6
60.3
6/28
739
2.7
12.8
84.5 0
8/59
844
0
24.4
75.6
0
8/29
801
3.1
13.9
83.0 0
10/16
892
0
16.9
83.1
0
10/16
849
2.2
16.9
80.9 0
-------
TABLE VI-13 (CONT.)
COMPOSITION OF TEST SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS
Gas composition (percent by volume)
Drum
no.
Date
Day
CO,
o.
N.
CH
Gas composition (percent by volume!
Drum
no.
CO,
O,
N,
CH.
Date Day
1971
"§75*
8/11
8/26
9/14
11/17
12/29
1972
17l9
6/28
8/18
9/18
10/20
11/22
12/50
1973
~W
6/28
8/29
10/16
51
56
72
93
155
195
216
377
428
459
491
524
552
595
742
804
852
3.5 17.8 78,7
0
2.7
11.5
4.7
5.8
20.7
20.3
11.5
17.2
14.5
79.3
77.0
77.0
78.1
79.7
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
78.6 0
6.8 14.6
Inaccurate - Air leak into drum.
5.2 12.2 82.6 0
81.6
2,8
1 .8
1.3
2.1
2,3
4.3
0.5
0
15.7
15.9
18.1
19.6
80.6
78.3
17.7 80.0
16.1 79.6
19.9 79.6
22.8 77.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1971
~87Tl 51 0 21.0 79.0 0
8/26 66 3.4 19.4 77.2 0
9/14 85 0 21.1 78.9 0
11/17 148 13.0 10.2 74.8 2.0
1972
1/19 211 12.3 9.4 77.1 1.2
6/28 372 19.3
8/18
9/18
10/20
11/52
12/20
1973
27T
6/28
8/29
10/16
423
454
486
519
547
590
737
799
847
24.5
22.7
14.7
12.0
16.4
21.8
3.3
25.8
17.2
0.1
0.1
1.9
4.4
11 .3
3.1
5.0
3.6
1.7
3.7
66.2 14.4
55.4
60.6
51.2
61.6
41.0
34.7
43.2
12.1
66,6
20.0
14.8
24.7
15.1
39.5
38.5
49.9
60.4
12.5
-------
TABLE VI —13 (CONT.)
COMPOSITION OF TEST SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS
Gas composition (percent by volume)
Gas composition (percent by volume)
Drum
no.
Date
CO,
O,
N.
CH,
Doy
Drum
no.
CO,
o.
N.
Date Day
CH
1971
~8/Tl 51
8/26 66
9/14 85
11/17 148
12/29 178
1972
1/19" 199
6/28 360
8/18 411
9/18 442
10/20 474
11/22 507
12/20 535
1973
T 578
;/28 725
8/29 787
10/16 835
7.2
31.2
7.5
3.5
4.1
3.6
27.2
48.8
33.4
11 .4
4.2
10.8
17.0
4.7
17.2
19.3
17.8
17.9
1.0
0.3
0
11 .9
27.1
12.2
75.8
54.0
75.3
75.8
77.4
76.5
24.5
41.5
26.4
75.4
58.1
71.5
0
10.1
0
1.3
0.7
2.0
47.4
9.4
40.2
1 .3
10.6
5.4
21 .5 1 .2 18.3 59.0
52.9 1.5 6.4 39.2
18.1 10.1 30.3 41.5
6.8 10.8 82.4 0
10
1971
"876"
8/11
8/26
9/14
11/17
1972
56
61
76
95
158
221
382
433
464
496
529
1/19
6/28
8/18
9/18
10/20
11/22
12/20 557
1973
"T7T 600
6/28 747
8/29 809
10/16 857
29.6
12.8
25.1
25.9
13.3
9.8
12.4
20.3
23.1
12.0
17.4
16.6
19.2
10.5
14.2
12.8
3.4
12.4
2.4
2.1
10.4
12.7
1.1
1.0
0.4
10.5
4.6
2.4
0.8
5.3
7.4
8.1
65.8
74.8
72.5
72.0
76.3
77.5
85.9
76.2
74.8
54.0
75.5
74.1
63 .5
84.2
78.4
79.1
1.2
0
0
0
0
0
0.6
2.5
1 ~r
I . /
23.5
2.5
6.9
16.9
0
0
0
-------
TABLE VI-13 (CONT.)
COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS
Gas composition (percent by volume) Gas composition (percent by volume)
Drum C02 02 N2 CH4 Drum CO„ 0„ CH
no. Date Day * no. Date Day *
CO
2 2 2 4
1971 1971
11 8/6 56 0 20.8 79.2 0 12 8/11 61 0 21.8 78.2 0
8/11 61 1.7 22.6 75.7 0 8/26 76 20.0 6.0 74.0 0
8/26 76 19.0 9.0 72.0 0 9/14 95 13.5 9.5 77.0 0
9/14 95 3.9 18.9 77.2 0 11/17 158 5.5 16.1 78.4 0
11/17 158 5.4 16.6 78.0 0 1972
12/29 200 5.6 18.9 75.5 0 17T? 179 3.5 18.1 78.4 0
1972
1/19 221 8.2 14.1 77.7 0
6/29 383 4.3 12.0 83.7 0 6/29 341 20.2 1.8 41.6 36.4
8/18 433 20.0 0.4 79.0 0.6 8/18 391 15.8 0.5 83.7 0
9/18 464 18.5 0.9 80.6 0 9/18 421 40.0 2.7 17.0 40.3
10/20 496 5.1 18.1 72.2 4.6 10/20 453 0 6 20.5 77.5 1.4
11/27 544 6.5 11.6 79.1 2.7 11/27 491 12.7 4.3 47.8 35.2
12/20 572 6.9 9.8 80.8 2.5 12/20 519 1.2 20.2 77.4 1.2
1973 1973
2/1 615 10.9 5.1 82.8 1.2 ~2/f 562 1.2 20.2 77.4 1.2
6/28 762 22.6 0.5 18.6 58.3 7/9 720 5.2 12.0 82.8 0
8/29 824 11.6 11 .9 57.8 18.7 8/29 771 31 .5 10.5 12.4 45.6
10/16 872 10.7 4.3 59.1 25.9 10/16 819 11 .3 13.4 55.9 19.4
-------
TABLE VH3 (CONT.)
COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS
Drum
no.
Gas composition (percent by volume)
N
CH
Gas composition (percent by volume)
CO.
Date
Day *
2
2
2
4
no. Date
Day *
2
2
2
4
1971
1971
8/6
56
4.0
19.2
76.8
0
14++ 8/6
46
27,2
12.0
48.4
12.4
8/11
61
3.7
19.4
76.9
0
8/11
51
5.0
17.2
77.8
0
8/26
76
8.2
16.2
76.6
0
8/26
66
8.0
18.8
67.7
5.3
9/14
95
26.5
3.0
70.5
0
9/14
75
0
20.9
79.1
0
11/17
158
5.2
16.0
77.9
0.9
11/17
148
0
19.0
81.0
0
12/29
200
5.2
15.2
79.0
0.6
1972
l/l9
221
3.8
17.6
76.4
2.2
1972
6/29
383
26.3
0.3
47.8
25.6
6/29
310
0
21.1
78.9
0
8/18
433
25.8
0.1
36.1
38.0
8/18
423
2.4
16.7
80.9
0
9/18
464
39.1
0.1
10.0
50.8
9/18
454
0
20.3
JQ "J
0
10/20
496
7.0
10.5
82.5
0
10/20
486
0
19.7
80.3
0
11/27
534
15.9
1.2
31 .1
51 .9
11/27
524
0
21 .5
78.5
0
12/20
562
. 8.4
11 .3
62.0
18.3
12/20
552
0
22.0
78.0
0
1973
1973
2/1
605
18.0
1.5
10.3
70.2
2/1
595
0
18.4
81 .6
0
6/28
752
20.5
0.2
8.8
70.5
6/28
742
0
19.0
80.8
C.2
8/29
814
4.0
16.6
78.7
0.7
8/29
804
0
19.4
80.6
0
10/16
862
5.2
9.2
65.9
19.7
10/16
852
0
20.4
79.6
0
13
##
##
-------
TABLE VI-13 (CONT.)
COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS
Gas composition (percent by volume) Gas composition (percent by volume)
Drum CO O N CH, Drum
no. Date Day * no.
++ 12Z1
15 8/11 51 0 20.0 80.0 0 16
8/26 66 18.0 11.0 66.0 5.0
9/14 75 0 18.5 81.5 0
11/17 148 0 18.9 81.1 0
12/29 180 0 20.0 80.0 0
1972
"6/59 342 0 20.8 79.2 0
8/14 409 3.2 16.1 80.7 0
9/18 434 0 20.4 79.6 0
10/20 466 0 21.5 78.5 0
11/27 504 0 20.9 79.1 0
12/20 532 0 20.8 79.2 0
1973
T7T 575 0 19.2 80.8 0
6/28 722 0 13.2 86.8 0
8/29 784 0 21 .4 78.6 0
10/16 832 0 21 .1 78.9 0
Date
Day *
2
2
2
4
1971
8/11
28
8.2
10.6
76.8
4.4
8/26
43
0
20.8
79.2
0
9/14
62
3.5
17.3
79.2
0
11/17
125
6.2
15.9
77.9
0
12/29
165
4.5
17.2
78.3
0
1972
17T9
186
10.4
12.1
77.5
0
6/29
348
4.8
10.0
85.2
0
8/18
398
12.4
1.5
86.1
0
9/18
429
10.3
8,2
81.5
0
10/20
461
1.5
19.6
77.0
1 .9
11/27
499
0
21 .5
78.5
0
12/20
527
5.4
12.7
81.8
0
1973
2/1
570
6.0
18.0
76.0
0
6/28
717
2.9
7.4
89.7
0
8/29
779
6.4
13.7
71 .0
8.9
10/16
827
3.7
11 .0
85.3
0
-------
TABLE VI-13 (CONT.)
COMPOSITION OF GAS SAMPLES FROM TEST DRUMS
Gas composition {percent by volume) Gas composition (percent by volume)
Drum CO„ O N CH Drum CO O N CH
no. Date Day * no. Date Day *
— - 1971
17 IpT 50 0 19.2 80.8 0 18 ~§7Tl 63 12.0 12.0 76.0 0
8/11 55 0 20.7 79.3 0 8/26 78 25.5 1.5 73.0 0
8/26 70 0.5 15.1 84.4 0 9/14 97 27.7 1.8 70.5 0
9/14 89 0 20.0 80.0 0 11/17 160 8.5 14.1 77.4 0
11/17 152 2.1 19.6 78.3 0 12/29 202 5.4 15.2 79.4 0
12/29 194 1.7 19.7 78.6 0 1972
1972 1/19 223 8.8 14.0 77.2 0
"6729 354 6.7 10.1 83.2 0 6/29 385 11.2 6.4 82.4 0
8/14 423 40.7 0.2 30.8 28.3 8/14 431 15.8 0.5 83.7 0
9/18 458 30.0 3.3 47.5 19.2 9/18 466 19.7 0.4 79.9 0
10/20 490 27.4 6.6 28.3 37.7 1 0/20 498 0.7 1 8.8 80.5 0
11/27 52 8 5.0 1 3.7 77.6 3.7 11/27 536 5.7 11 .7 82 . 6 0
12/20 556 5.2 14.2 73.9 6.7 12/20 564 6.4 16.8 75.1 1 .7
1973 ^ 973
T7T 599 25.9 1.5 5.1 67.5 ~S/T 607 8.5 8.0 82.1 1 .4
6/28 746 7.5 1 .8 32.0 58.7 6/28 754 5.2 1 3.1 78.4 3.3
8/29 808 3.2 17.6 78.5 0.7 8/29 816 10.1 10.5 79.0 0.4
10/16 856 5.3 13.3 81.4 0 1 0/16 864 7.6 8.4 84.0 0
-------
TABLE VI -13 (CONT.)
*
Days since Initial sludge, septic tank pumpings or water application,
4-
Solid waste and sludge mixture; older, denser, and more compact than other drums.
#
These drums suspected of air leakage.
* *
Dry control drum. No liquids applied.
-f—f-
Forced aeration, through drum from top to bottom. Blower operating cycle five minutes every two hours.
Aeration blower temporarily out of operation at this time.
-------
DRUM
X
¦4~
Q_
-------
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
DRUM
i i l l l I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1——1 J
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950
TIME (days) FIGURE VI-8
PILOT TEST DRUM
COMPACTION/SETTLEMENT
HIGH RATE
-------
DRUM CONDITION
DENSE
DRY CONTROL
FORCED AERATION
.C
Q-
0>
"O
15
o
c
0)
Q-
(—
Z
UJ
lu
_i
I—
l—¦
LU
CO
80-
90-
TIME (days)
FIGURE VI-9
PILOT TEST DRUM
COMPACTION/SETTLEMENT
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
-------
.t: 30
_ 40
DRUM
18
7
4
I
-L
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950
TIME (days) FIGURE VI-10
PILOT TEST DRUM
COMPACTION/SETTLEMENT
LOW RATE
-------
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
> I i i i i l I I i i I I I I I I I l
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950
t|ME(Days) FIGURE Vl-ll
PILOT TEST DRUM
COMPACTION/SETTLEMENT
LOW RATE
-------
nor any relationship between settlement rates in the dry control drums and settlement
rates in those drums receiving liquid applications. Factors possibly related to the size,
shape, and arrangement of the larger objects used to make up the solid waste in the
drums could have altered settlement. Even though the material initially placed in the
drums was carefully selected with respect to composition, quantity and kinds of objects,
the relatively small volume of the drums when compared to the size of the solid waste
objects precluded attainment of the same degree of "relative homogeneity" which
would be expected in a full-scale landfill. In an actual landfill, the dimensions of
any single solid waste object are much smaller than the vertical and horizontal di-
mensions of the landfill, and consequently compaction characteristics are more uniform
than those that could be obtained in the test drums. Nevertheless, the pilot plant
settlement curves still exhibit the same general form as those of actual landfills (see
test cell settlement, Chapter VII).
In conjunction wirh the compaction measurements, some tests for permeability were
conducted in December 1 971, March 1972, and from July through September 1972.
Three gallons of water were applied over the surface area to each drum in about 5
seconds, and the resulting leachate collected and analyzed. The results of these
tests are presented in Figure VI—12. These results should be compared with Table VI-2.
As expected, Drums 1 and 9, which had high initial densities, showed far lower per-
meabilities than any of the other drums. In the case of Drum 12, the low observed
permeability,despite its low density, may be attributed to a relatively impervious
zone in the vicinity of the drain hole. Drums 14 and 16 may have had high permea-
bilities, despite their high densities, because of channeling of moisture.
5. Temperature. Plots of temperature measurements are presented in Figures VI—13
through VI-16. TFe data are grouped by similarity and presented as envelopes, which
are compared with ambient temperatures taken at the same hours as the drum temperatures.
In general, the variations in temperature closely follow that of ambient air. Some of
the variation between drums is attributed to the fraction of the day during which diff-
erent drums were shaded by the building, and the extent to which some drums were
shielded from the wind by the building and by each other. Some of the temperature
increment above ambient air temperature in the drums may be attributed to solar heat-
ing of the air contained in the drums above the surface of the solid waste.
The test drums are not thermally analogous to any landfill conditions because of
their high surface-area-to-volume ratio and the short (I—ft) minimum path for heat
conduction to the outside. The same solid waste and sludge buried in a landfill would
be better insulated and less affected by sun, wind, or ambient air temperatures. At
the same time, the heal generated by bacterial degradation of the organic matter in
the solid waste material would not be conducted away so quickly, and higher internal
landfill temperatures than those measured from the drums would result.
6. Qualitative and Other Miscellaneous Observations. When the drums were
periodically opened for compaction and water addition, they were inspected for odor,
insects, and mold growths. The results are summarized as follows.
123
-------
DRUM NO. SYMBOL
ALL OTHERS E
EXCEPT DRY
CONTROL
DRUMS 4 AND 18
o
<5
a
UJ
t—
U
lu
o
u
LU
h—
<
X
%
UJ
-i
<
b—
O
h-
60 90 120 150
MINUTES SINCE WATER APPLICATION
FIGURE VI-12
LEACHATE FLOW RATES
SOLID WASTE PERMEABILITY
124
-------
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
*
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
DRUM TEMPERATURE
J I I I I 1 . I I ' . i I I —I I L
120 1B0 240
300 360 420
480 540 600
660 720 780
840 900 960
DAYS SINCE FILLING WITH WASTE
JUL-
OCT-
JAN-
APR-
JUL-
CO-
JAN-
APR-
JUL-
OCT-
SEP
DEC
MAR
JUN
SEP
DEC
MAR
JUN
SEP
DEC
FIGURE VI—13
TEST DRUM 1
TEMPERATURE-TIME CURVE
-------
yj
aL
UJ
a.
5
tSD
O
no
105
100
95
90
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
•DRUM TEMPERATURE
90 150 • 210
270 330 390
I 450 510 570 ! 630 690 750
810 870 930
DAYS SINCE FILLING WITH WASTE
JUL-
(XT-
JAN-
APR-
JUL-
OCT- JAN-
APR-
JUL-
OCT-
SEP
DEC
MAR
JUN
SEP
DEC 1 MAR
JUN
SEP
DEC.
FIGURE VI-14
TEST DRUMS 2, 3. 4, 5
TEMPERATURE-TIME CURVE
-------
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
— AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
DRUM TEMPERATURE
50 110 170
230 290 350 | 410 470 5301 590 650 710
770 830 890
DAYS SINCE FILLING WITH WASTE
JUL-
CO-
JAN-
APR-
JUL-
OCT- I JAN-
APR-
JUL-
CO-
SEP
DEC
MAR
JUN
SEP
DEC 1 MAR
JUN
SEP
DEC
FIGURE VI-15
TEST DRUMS 7,8,9,14,15,17,18
TEMPERATURE-TIME CURVE
-------
Oi
3
a.
5
N3
CO
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
•DRUM TEMPERATURE
is 1*15 170 I 230
290 350 J 410 470 530 J 590 650
DAYS SINCE FILLING WITH WASTE
JUL-
SEP
OCT-
DEC
JAN-
MAR
APR-
JUN
JUL-
OCT-
SEP
DEC
JAN-
MAR
710
APR-
JUN
770 830 890
JUL-
SEP
OCT-
DEC
FIGURE VI- 16
TEST DRUMS 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16
TEMPERATURE-TIME CURVE
-------
a. Odor. Odors followed a predictable pattern and were generally consistent
with odors produced by full-scale landfills. Drums filled only with solid waste rapidly
developed the smell characteristic of landfills. The odor lessened as drying occurred
in the two dry control drums, and intensified in the drum to which water was added.
In the other drums, this odor was added to, but not masked by, the septic-sulfide
smell of the sludges appplied to them. The strongest and most noxious initial odors
were from the two drums to which raw primary sewage sludge was applied. This scent
was detectable as a separate component and was sufficiently strong to mask the landfill
odor from these two drums.
During the first 100 days after initial sludge or water applications, the odors from
all the drums remained relatively intense. After 130 to 170 days, however, the smell
from all but one drum was greatly reduced and not overly unpleasant. After 150-205
days, all the drum seents were considerably weak and of an earthy-type similar to wet
leaves or dirt. The smells stayed essentially the same for the remainder of the test
which continued for over 800 days.
The leachate odors generally paralleled those from the drums, although their
evolution to the ultimate weak odor progressed slightly faster. By test completion,
the smell of the leachates collected from all except one drum was quite weak, in
contrast to the leachate odor of the sample obtained from the Oceanside municipal
landfill. These leachates had a putrid scent that was stronger, more sour, and much
more displeasing than the odor of the drum leachates.
b. Molds and Plant Growths. Molds were the first surface growth observed on
the solid waste; they occurred in Drum 1 (saturated mixed sludges) within the first
month after applying sewage sludge. The molds developed a bright red color and
grew profusely over a two-week period until they covered about 30 percent of the
surface area of the waste in the drum. The mold color changed to grey and the mold
diminished until a second cycle of growth started at the end of the third month. The
color became white and the mold surface growth continued in Drum 1 until the end
of the seventh month after which no growths were observed through month 12. No
mold growths were observed at any time in Drums 4 (dry control), and Drums 6 and 7
(digested La Salina sewage sludge). Molds were observed in the other drums on one
or at most two occasions during the first 11 months. After the first year, few molds
were observed in any of the drums.
Small plant growths were observed in Drums 3, 8, 11 , 13, and 16 on one occasion
each during the first 11 months, and in Drum 8 on two occasions. Only small sprouts
developed less than 1/16 inch in height.
c. Flies, Ants and Other Insects. Flies, spiders, ants, and a few other insects
were observed on the pilot drum surfaces at various times. Most of the observations
were made during the first twelve months. Thereafter, fewer insects were observed.
Flies were by far the most numerous insects and were observed in every drum. The
flies observed were small and resembled fruit flies; 24 specimens were obtained and
129
-------
*
identified as follows:
Family SCATOPSIDAE, The Minute Black Scavengers, seven specimens:
Small, shiny, black flies. Breed in decaying vegetable and animal matter and excre-
ment. They often breed in sewers and privies and frequently become very numerous in
houses, where they cause more anxiety than harm."
Family MYCETOPHILIDAE, The Fungus Gnats, nine specimens:
"Moderately small, brown, elongated coxae (basal segment of leg)." Breed in "soil,
wood, fungi, probably feeding on fungus growth." "Adults are found in moist places,
especially about decaying wood. . .moist humus and prefers dark places." Often a
pest in houses after fertilizing lawns.
Family PSYCHODIDAE, The Moth Fly or Filter Fly, seven specimens:
Smallest of specimens submitted. Light brown. "Thickly haired small flies, wings
covered with hairs on sides and folds web-like over the back." The presence of adults
in homes indicates breeding in drain pipes or nearby septic condition.
Larva Diptera; Suborder Cyclorrahapha, 1 specimen:
Division—Schizophora; Section—Acalyptrate; probably a member of the Family Droso-
phididae.
7. Production of Leachate Constituents. The quantities of leachate constituents
that leached from the pilot test drums per lb of dry solid waste and sludge solids are
listed in Tables VI —14 through VI —16. Table VI-14 presents the amounts of magnesium,
iron, and zinc in the leachate composites for the entire study. As was mentioned pre-
viously, it is believed the iron and zinc analyses were affected by corrosion of the
test drums. The largest magnesium production occurred in Drum 17, the wet control drum.
Table VI—15 presents the amounts of sulfate, phosphate, nitrate, chloride, calcium,
and organic nitrogen (Kjeldahl) in the drums during each year of the study. Drum 2 had
a large amount of sulfate in 1971 . Most of the drums were leaching little or no sulfate
by 1973. Drums 2 and 10 had the highest phosphate readings in 1971 . Phosphate was
also being leached in very small quantities by 1973. Drums 5 and 9 exhibited extremely
large nitrate concentrations in 1971 . Nitrate was still abundantly present in 1973
leachates. Chloride was present in all drum leachates in approximately the same
quantity, but chloride levels were much lower in 1973. Both calcium and organic
nitrogen were much higher in 1972 than in 1971 and were negligible by 1973. Drum 2
was high in organic nitrogen, while Drums 12 and 13 were high in calcium. With the
exception of three high constituent readings in Drum 2, the no sludge added to the solid
waste test drums showed leachate constituent concentrations similar to the leachate of
drums which received sludge added to the solid waste.
*The identification of flies was made by Mr. Harvey I. Magy, Southern California Area
Representative, California State Department of Public Health, Bureau of Vector Control
and Solid Waste Management, Los Angeles, California. Quotations were taken from
Curran, C.H., The Families and Genera of North American Diptera, Ballan Press,
New York, 1934.
130
-------
TABLE VI—14
TOTAL METALS IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES
COMPOSITE SAMPLES FOR ENTIRE STUDY
Quantity, lbs constituents per lb dry wt solid waste*
Days
Equiv.
Mg 6
Fe
Zn
Drum
after filling
rainfall, in.
x 10"6
x 10 6
x 10"
1
951
84.3
171
5.49
6.50
2
930
81 .3
174
19.14
7.87
3
930
86.0
242
6.79
4.74
5
930
80.1
267
6.25
7.04
6
892
80.1
168
3.33
9.06
7
888
86.0
237
6.37
4.64
8
887
86.6
229
8.47
5.92
9
886
87.2
210
6.34
3.75
10
892
81.6
185
4.58
7.26
n
888
86.0
299
14.21
5.72
12
887
86.6
232
7.83
6.65
13
886
86.0
282
5.15
4.66
14
892
81.3
191
3.74
8.31
15
888
86.6
124
5.61
10.30
16
887
82.5
195
10.75
11.81
17
886
86.0
327
6.73
7.35
*
Includes sludge solids where applicable.
131
-------
TABLE VI-15
TOTAL CONSTITUENTS IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES
COMPOSITE SAMPLES
0 971)
Quantity, lbs constituents per lb dry wt solid waste
Drum
Days
after filling
Equivalent
rainfall, in.
S°4z
x 10"6
P<\
x 10~6
no3
x 10-6
Cl_6
x 10
C°6
x 10"6
Ki N
x 10"6
1
260
52.4
633
8.80
1.92
1860
440
299
2
234
49.4
1540
11.20
5.82
2140
246
503
3
234
54.1
171
9.75
10.00
2270
695
683
5
234
48.2
224
7.13
285.00
1850
845
632
6
191
48.2
727
5.82
7.25
1460
983
780
7
189
54.1
531
6.05
1.33
2250
290
870
8
185
54.7
707
5.49
9.14
2090
658
963
9
185
55.3
326
2.42
280.00
2070
151
206
10
195
49.7
311
11.10
21.30
2280
107
105
11
195
54.1
~0
1.45
1.16
1000
105
182
12
195
54.7
145
0.97
2.62
2150
63
726
13
194
54.1
714
0.95
1.53
2000
104
310
14
193
49.4
206
1 .03
3.00
1710
146
319
15
198
54.7
595
1.19
1.29
1040
39
547
16
170
50.6
506
0.57
22.90
2020
56
575
17
189
54.1
269
0.86
19.1
1550
101
505
Includes sludge solids where applicable.
-------
TABLE VI-15 (CONT.)
TOTAL CONSTITUENTS IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES
COMPOSITE SAMPLES
(1972)
Quantity, lbs constituents per
lb dry wt sol
id waste"1"
Drum
Days
after filling
Equivalent
rainfall, in.
accumulative
so4
x 10"5
P°46
x 10" 6
N03
x 10" 6
CI
x lO"1
Ca
6 x 10"6
Kj N
x 10~6
1
556
75.5
42
.82
.65
130
2430
1240
2
535
72.5
142
4.61
3.85
1380
2490
11300
3
535
77.2
135
5.36
—
560
12400
3960
5
535
72.3
171
3.71
4.90
730
13400
1670
6
497
72.3
113
2.16
13.4
970
5520
4590
7
493
77.2
136
2.36
4.36
1160
10100
2610
8
492
77.8
99
1 .12
.048
680
7410
4690
9
491
78.4
226
4.32
2.94
1250
6510
2210
10
497
72.5
115
1 .02
12.2
1200
8640
3140
11
493
77.2
106
2.04
10.2
2470
2960
3760
12
492
77.8
151
1 .20
.66
1570
16700
5800
13
491
77.2
101
1 .64
6.92
660
19400
3910
14
497
72.5
278
1 .25
2.95
770
907
6980
15
493
77.8
164
1 .73
8.21
720
7800
1730
16
492
73.7
104
1 .67
7.62
1690
1240
2810
17
491
77.2
42
1 .39
3.89
1170
1130
1640
* All drums received 22 in. of equivalent rainfall in 1972.
+ Includes sludge solids where applicable.
-------
TABLE VI—15 (CONT.)
TOTAL CONSTITUENTS IN TEST DRUM LE AC HATES
COMPOSITE SAMPLES
(1973)
Quantity, lbs constituents per lb dry wt solid waste+
Equivalent
Drum
Days
after filling
ra!nfall,in.
accumulative
SO4
x 10-6
x 10~6
n°3
X 10-®
0
1
0
U
X
Ca
x 10""6
X 10
1
951
84.3
14.4
.311
1 .47
156
10.7
8.4
2
930
81.3
48.7
1 .72
4.48
357
16.2
45,5
3
930
86.0
0
0
5.13
529
32.1
17.6
5
930
80.1
31.7
0
2.40
528
25.6
2.1
6
892
80.1
33.2
0
21 .77
554
15.8
36.4
7
888
86.0
0
.702
8.35
671
52.7
2.6
8
887
86.6
30.2
0
8.73
906
58.8
27,0
9
886
87.2
0
.109
.047
31
3.1
0.5
10
892
81.6
0
0
13.37
635
25.4
8.3
11
888
86.0
0
0
8.85
848
17.6
14.9
12
887
86.6
0
0
1.76
68
15.7
26.7
13
886
86.0
6.3
.314
46.77
597
20.4
1.6
14
892
81.3
158
.518
1.66
936
28.2
26.7
15
888
86.6
85.3
0
5.64
729
23.2
3.4
16
887
82.5
3.2
0
6.13
550
11.3
7.8
17
886
86.0
0
.860
1 .72
860
47.1
19.4
*AII drums received 8.8 in, equivalent rainfall in 1973.
"includes sludge solids where applicable.
-------
TABLE VI-16
TOTAL METALS IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES
COMPOSITE SAMPLES
(1971)
Quantity, lbs constituents per lb dry wt solid waste*
Drum
Days
after filling
Equivalent
rainfall, in.
Mg
x 10
Fe
x 10~6
Zn
x 10~6
Cu6
x 10
Ba_6
x 10
xfO
1
260
52.4
132
0.615
5.28
14.1
1230
1.68
2
234
49.4
131
1.34
5.94
18.5
1680
~ 0
3
234
54.1
149
1.95
2.44
22.6
2140
~ 0
5
234
48.2
149
0.71
3.06
19.9
1630
~ o
6
191
48.2
127
0.53
5.88
16.0
1600
~ 0
7
189
54.1
172
1.92
2.42
18.1
2060
~ o
8
185
54.7
173
1.95
2.44
19.5
1650
~ 0
9
185
55.3
182
1.45
3.02
18.1
1940
2.3
10
195
49.7
157
1.78
4.44
17.8
1780
1.22
11
195
54.1
186
1.21
3.02
17.0
1820
4.12
12
195
54.7
72
1.81
2.42
13.9
1630
2.30
13
194
54.1
161
0.83
2.38
19.0
1670
5.24
14
193
49.4
125
0.51
2.06
17.0
1550
1.44
15
198
54.7
73
2.16
2.98
26.8
1670
1.18
16
170
50.6
139
2.30
5.75
23.6
1900
~ 0
17
189
54.1
147
1.97
3.69
24.0
2150
~ 0
Includes sludge solids where applicable.
-------
TABLE Vi-16 (CONT.)
TOTAL METALS IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES
COMPOSITE SAMPLES
(1972)
Quantify, lbs constituent's per lb dry wt solid waste*
Drum
Days
after filling
Equivalent
rainfall,in.
accumulative*
X
O
o*
Fe
x 10~6
Zn
x 10"6
xlS"*
x 10 6
1
556
75.5
5.9
1 .07
.39
0.05
3
2
535
72.5
17.8
89.12
3.04
0.18
11
3
535
77.2
21 .4
7.85
.89
0
22
5
535
72.3
31 .7
8.17
2.99
0
4
6
497
72.3
41 .2
5.55
.92
0
22
7
493
77.2
26.3
9.30
.77
0
8
8
492
77.8
15,9
5.12
.77
0
16
9
491
78.4
39.6
8.44
1 .26
0
25
10
497
72.5
13.7
6.48
.72
0.18
14
11
493
77.2
63.5
34.72
1 .06
0.21
21
12
492
77.8
43.0
7.39
5.90
0
17
13
491
77.2
24.2
7.13
1 .07
0
22
14
497
72.5
25.6
6.98
4.98
0
12
15
493
77.8
.3.3
6.64
.91
0
18
16
492
73.7
41 .4
18.20
6.42
0
25
17
491
77.2
33.0
6.23
1 .50
0
11
"Includes sludge solids where applicable.
+AII drums received 22 in. equivalent rainfall in 1972.
-------
TABLE VI-16 (CONT.)
TOTAL METALS IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES
COMPOSITE SAMPLES
(1973)
Quantity, lbs constituents per lb dry wt solid waste
Drum
Days
after filling
i-tjuj vuitsru
rainfall, in.
accumulative
Mg
x 10"6
Fe6
x 10 6
Zn
x 10~6
Cu
x 10"6
Ba
x 10~6
F
x 10*6
1
951
84.3
25
2.3
.26
0.06
0
0
2
930
81.3
41
10.6
1.7
0.53
9
—
3
930
86.0
83
1.4
1.9
0
5
1 .7
5
930
80.1
104
2 J
2.7
0
2
.08
6
892
80.1
20
0
1 .9
0
2
0
7
888
86.0
54
1.7
.24
3.09
10
0
8
887
86.6
46
4.4
3.0
3.52
8
0
9
886
87.2
6
.17
.01
0
0
0
10
892
81 .6
22
.17
2.5
4.79
10
0
11
888
86.0
89
.18
2.3
4.80
10
.04
12
887
86.6
140
2.8
1 .5
2.29
5
0
13
886
86.0
110
1 .2
1 .8
0
3
0
14
892
81.3
52
.16
3.5
0
3
0
15
888
86.6
34
.23
4.1
5.64
9
0
16
887
82.5
40
1 .5
.11
2.49
4
0
17
886
86.0
160
1 .1
—
7.91
2
0
* — ^ ¦ ¦
hAll drums received 8.8 in. equivalent rainfall in 1973,
-------
Table VI—16 presents total metals in the leachates for each individual study year.
Copper, barium, and fluoride were much lower in 1973 than in 1971, whereas mag-
nesium decreased only slightly.
The BOD^ of the leachates is presented in Tables VI—17 and VI —18. From Table
VI—17 it is evident that Drum 10 had the highest BOD5 value; Drum 8 was also relatively
high. Table VI—18 presents the average BOD5 for each group of drums. The drums
which received raw sludge had the highest BOD^ in their leachaies. Drums receiving
digested sludge and domestic septic tank pumpings exhibited the least BOD5.
Table VI—19 shows the cumulative quantity of water and time required for the BOD5
values of the leachates to reach a negligible value (60 mg/l). Drum 12 necessitated
a relatively large amount of water as well as a long period of time. Drum 16, which
received septic tank pumpings, required the least amount of time for BOD5 to reach
60 mg/l and smallest water addition. The aerated drums (14 and 15) necessitated a
relatively short time period and small addition of water. This is to be expected, since
aerobic decomposition of solid waste is a faster process than anaerobic decomposition.
Drum 17, the wet control, also reached negligible BOD5 values in a relatively short
amount of time. A comparison of Tables VI—19 and VI—17 indicates that the large
majority of BOD5 was leached in the period of time prior to achievement of negligible
BOD5 values. Data in Appendix D indicate the apparently increased concentrations
of BOD5. This is due to the decreased amount of water applied to the test drums, re-
sulting in less dilution of soluble organics and thus their higher concentrations.
8. Comparative Summary of Test Drum Parameters. The following discussion
summarizes the results obtained by comparing the three control drums with the drums
receiving sewage sludge or septic tank pumpings. The control drums and their conditions
were as follows:
a. Absorption Capacity and Leachate Generation. Control Drum 17 absorbed 1 .75
lbs water per lb dry wt solid waste before saturation. This absorption capacity for water
is near the average value obtained for those drums receiving septic tank pumpings and
liquid sewage sludge. It appears, therefore, that watei absorption capacity is a valid
measure of liquid sewage sludge absorption capacity for solid waste. Also, test drum
water retention (see Table VI-6) indicates that Drum 17 retained about the average for
drums receiving sludge and septic tank pumpings. Hence, sludge solids do not appear
to affect the moisture-holding capacity of solid waste, and so their addition to a solid
waste landfill should not by itself cause an increase in the leachate quantity generated.
b. Leachate Characteristics. The BOD5 of the leachate from control Drum 17
followed the general trend indicated by the average value line shown in Figure VI-3.
The maximum BOD5 value for Drum 17 occurred 40 days after initial water application;
Drum No.
Condition
4
17
18
Dry control with single water application
Water applied - no sludge
Dry control - no water applied
138
-------
TABLE VI—17
TOTAL BOD5 IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES
COMPOSITE SAMPLES FOR ENTIRE STUDY
Drum
Days
after filling
Equivalent
rainfall,in.
Quantity, lbs BOD5 x 10'
per lb dry wt solid waste
1
951
84,3
2.71
2
930
81 .3
4.04
3
930
86.0
3.18
5
930
80.1
2.07
6
892
80.1
4.88
7
888
86.0
3.86
8
887
86.6
11 .16
9
886
87.2
8.54
10
892
81.6
11.89
11
888
86.0
7.40
12
887
86.6
3.13
13
886
86.0
9.65
14
892
81 .3
5.38
15
888
86.6
9.55
16
887
82.5
5.40
17
886
86.0
8.80
~
Includes sludge solids where applicable.
139
-------
TABLE VI—18
GROUP COMPARISONS OF BOD5
IN TEST DRUM IE AC HATE COMPOSITES
Group
Drum
• fovg • BOP$ *
in Id per Id dry wt solid waste
Wet control - no sludge
17
8.80
Saturated with sludge
1,8,9
7.47
Domestic septic tank pumpings
3,16
4.29
Digested sludge applied
5,6,7,12,13
4.72
Raw sludge applied
10,11
9.65
Primary sludge applied
10,11,12,13
8.02
Activated sludge applied
6,7,8,9
7.11
140
-------
TABLE VI—7 9
QUANTITY OF WATER ADDED TO DRUMS
TO COMPLETE BIO-OXIDATION
Days to Equivalent
Drum
BOD5 <, 60 mg/l
rainfall
1
265
52.4
2
183
35.8
3
198
41 .6
5
218
41.1
6
175
41.1
7
188
51 .8
8
169
47.6
9
155
58.2
10
306
40.5
11
171
45.8
12
221
58.4
13
165
52.2
14
138
35.1
15
124
35.7
16
109
31.0
17
153
38.1
~
Water addition, Quantity ,lbs
lbs water per lb dry BOD^ x 10~^ per
wt solid waste"1" lb dry wt solid waste"1"
8.3
2.66
7.7
3.37
8.9
2.95
8.3
1 .55
8.7
4.16
11 .0
3.3C
10.1
9.24
12.1
6.88
8.6
11 .1
9.8
6.37
12.2
1 .01
10.9
8.25
7.0
4.31
7.4
9.21
6.7
3.75
8.2
7.80
Fresh and residual leachate BOD5 were added in weighted proportion to the volumetric
quantity of each obtained from the test drums.
Includes sludge solids where applicable.
141
-------
this coincided in time with the BOD5 peaks for drums receiving sludge and septic tank
pumpings. Table VI—T 9 indicates that the amount of BOD5 removed from the water
control drum (Drum 17) per lb dry wt solid waste was over twice the BOD^ quantity
removed from the drums receiving sludge and domestic septic tank pumpings. The dry
sludge solids weight added to Drums 3 and 7 is insufficient to account for the greater
quantity of BOD5 removed from Drum 17. This means there was a greater concentration
of biodegradable matter in the leachate collected from Drum 17 than from Drums 3 or 7,
suggesting that biological degradation was more complete in the drums to which sludge
or septic tank pumpings were applied than in the drum receiving water only.
There are two possible explanations for this phenomenon. The analyses of gas samples
taken from Drums 3, 7, and 17 over the course of the test (see Table VI—73) suggest
that, in general, Drum 17 was more airtight than Drums 3 or 7, and therefore usually
contained less oxygen. If conditions in Drums 3 and 7 were partially aerobic, then
biological degradation would occur slightly faster and more completely than in Drum 17.
The alternative possibility is that adding sewage sludge or septic tank pumpings to solid
waste material adds nutrients not usually available in solid waste (e.g., nitrates),
thereby promoting more complete biodegradation.
The pH for Drum 17 leachate ranged between 5.9 and 7.2 units (1.3 unit range),
whereas the pH in other drums ranged from 5.0 to 8.6 units > 3.6 unit range). Drum
17 pH showed the smallest variation and the second highest average value. This indi-
cates that addition of sewage sludge to solid waste material in a landfill may produce a
more acidic leachate and leachate which varies over a wider range of acidic values
than would be expected for a normal solid waste landfill. The same result was observed
when comparing leachates secured from the old Oceanside landfill (pH 5.1-5.2) with
samples obtained from test Cell 1 (pH 4.6 to 5.9 - see Table VI-7). All natural landfill
leachates, however, were more acidic than those collected from the test drums. This
probably reflects the highly anaerobic natural landfill conditions and the lack of
leachate dilution, whereas the test drums were all aerated to some extent.
Turbidity, conductivity, total dissolved salts, and color of Drum 17 leachate showed
no variations from the trends observed for the leachates from other drums.
c. Gas Generation. Gas sampling, due to drum sealing failures, was too inaccurate
for displaying any significant differences between drums.
d. Settlement. Settlement rates of the three control drums did not vary from the
rates observed for the majority of drums receiving sludge.
e. Other Observations. Temperature, odor, and growth of mold, fungi, and plants
in the control drums all followed the same trends observed for the other drums. However,
Drum 17 consistently contained the greatest number of flies. It is hypothesized that
flies preferred Drum 17 due to the presence of food particles that were not contaminated
142
-------
with sewage sludge.
f. Summary. Tha major effects, derivable from the present study, of disposing
sewage sludge or domestic septic tank pumpings into solid waste consist of the following:
a decrease in pH of the leachate generated; a possible decrement in leachate BOD5
through supplying additional nutrients helpful in completing biological activity.
143
-------
VII. SIMULATION OF SANITARY LANDFiLL IN FIELD TEST CELLS
A. Purpose
In order to evaluate the disposal of liquid sludge to a landfill under large-scale
controlled conditions, three test cells (described below) were constructed in the City
of Oceanside at the new municipal landfill site. These test cells were built so that
they permit evaluation of such parameters as landfill settlement, waste decomposition,
gas generation, leachate flow, equipment operation, odor development, and attraction
of vermin, birds, etc. The test cells have been under observation since filling in
February 1972. This chapter describes the test cells and discusses the monitoring
results.
B. Method of Study
I . Site Location. The three test cells were constructed adjacent to the new
municipal sanitary landfill site that opened November 15, 1971 . The landfill site
plan noting location of the three test cells is shown on Figure VI1-1 . The test cells
are about 50 feet north of the landfill access road on the rim of the fill canyon. The
cells are within observation range of the landfill operator (80 feet) and yet distant
enough from the landfill access road traffic so as to remain undisturbed by daily
activities. The land area underlying the three test cells is stable and the surrounding
surface area has a one to two percent grade sloping away from the test cells, thus
minimizing the effects of external drainage. The site is in an exposed position to
wind and other normal local weather conditions. It is accessible for routine monitoring.
2. Cell Design Configuration. Figure VI1-2 presents the approximate dimen-
sions of the three test cells. The cells (numbered 1,2, and 3) are located adjacent
to each other so as to utilize a common berm between them. Each cell holds solid
waste and sewage sludge in volumes equal to the total quantities of each produced
in the City during a one-week period. Each cell bottom and side wall is lined with
a continuous 10-mil polyethylene membrane with an 8-inch sandy soil overlay to pro-
tect the membrane from damage during waste filling. The membrane and cell construc-
tion details are shown in Figure VII —3 and Photograph VI1-1 . A porous sump is installed
to accumulate the leachate. The collected leachate is removed through a 1-inch
diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) drain pipe which extends through the wall of the
test cell and is equipped with a valve at its outer end. Air cannot enter through the
drain. A concrete valve box is installed over each leachate drain valve to prevent
disturbance of the equipment. The leachate collection system is shown in Photograph
VI1-2.
144
-------
FIGURE VI1-1
LOCATION OF TEST CELLS
145
-------
PLAN VIEW
o
CO
m
oo
HORIZONTAL LAYERS
** J13-'
RAMPED LAYERS
SOLID WASTE-
SLUDGE FILL
SECTION A-A
HORIZONTAL LAYERS
mmfr
V EXISTING GRADE
CELL 3
MIXED PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY DIGESTED
SLUDGE (LA SALINA,
BUENA VISTA, AND SAN
LUIS REY PLANTS)
CELL 2
MIXED PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY DIGESTED
SLUDGE (LA SALINA,
BUENA VISTA, AND SAN
LUIS REY PLANTS)
CELL 1
RAW PRIMARY
SLUDGE (SAN
LUIS REY PLANT)
NO SCALE. LINEAR DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND VARY ± 5
FEET BETWEEN CELLS.
NOTE: FOR DETAILS OF CELL STRUCTURE SEE FIGURE VII-3.
FIGURE VII-2
CELL DESIGN CONFIGURATION
146
-------
TEST CELL PROFILE
,EARTH BERM
%
SOIL
COVER
SOLID WASTE-
SLUDGE FILL
111 r t r t~i ii 11 i i 11 i 11 ii 11111 n i
8" CLEAN SANDY SOIt
10-M1L POLYETHYLENE
MEMBRANE
2" CLEAN SOIL
IMPERVIOUS
BACKFILL
NATURAL
GROUND
LEACH COLLECTION
SUMP WITH RIVERBED
GRAVEL FILL
EARTH
BERM
NATURAL
ROUND
BOX &
vVALVE
LE AC HATE
DRAINS 1 "-DIAMETER PVC
PIPE
SEALED JOINT BETWEEN
PIPE AND MEMBRANE
LANDFILL CANYON WALL-
SOLID WASTE-
SLUDGE FILL
10-M1L POLYETHYLENE
MEMBRANE
SECTION A-A
NO SCALE.
NOTE: FORCELL DIMENSIONS, SEE FIGURE VII-2.
FIGURE Vll-3
TEST CELL MEMBRANE
AND LEACHATE
COLLECTION INSTALLATIONS
147
-------
PLACEMENT OF TEST CELL 10-MIL
POLYETHYLENE MEMBRANE LINER.
b. PROTECTIVE SOIL COVER FOR
MEMBRANE LINER.
c. FINISHED GRADED TEST CELL.
PHOTOGRAPH VI1-1
FIELD TEST
CELL PREPARATION
148
-------
a. LEACHATE COLLECTION SUMP
c. LEACHATE SAMPLE DRAIN PIPE
AND VALVE.
* <> I'
m
b. LEACHATE DRAIN INSTALLATION,
PHOTOGRAPH VII-2
TEST CELL LEACHATE
COLLECTION SYSTEM
149
-------
3. Filling of i"he Test Cells. Each cell was filled with solid waste arid sewage
sludge over a period of seven day? (Cell 1: February 9-15, 1972; Cell 2: February 3-9,
1 972; Cell 3: January 26-February 2, 1972). As shown in Figure VII-2, Cell 1 was
filled in horizontal layers with the application of raw primary sludge from San Luis Rey
Plant. Cell 2 was filled in ramped layers and Cell 3 was built up in horizontal layers
each with the application of mixed primary-secondary digested sludge from the three
treatment plants. The test cell filling sequence is illustrated in Photograph VI1-3.
The sewage sludge was admixed evenly by pumping into each cell in the ratio of one
3,500-gallon truck load for every seven solid waste collection truck loads. This one-
to-seven truck load ratio is equivalent to the 1971 ratio of generation of sewage sludge
to solid waste in the City of Oceanside. Two methods of sludge application are shown
in Photograph VIM. The actual quantities of solid waste and sludge placed in each
cell are given in Tables Vll-T, VII-2, and VI1-3. The solid waste loads deposited in
Cell 3 were all weighed, and the number of full truck loads deposited in Cells 1 and 2
were counted during the filling. The average weight per load deposited in Cell 3 was
used to estimate the total solid waste placed in Cells 1 and 2. The filling of each cell
was completed under continuous supervision to assure proper admixture of liquid sewage
sludge. The average sludge to solid waste ratio was. 0.6 lb per 1 .0 lb (dry wt).
During filling of each cell representative daily samples of sewage sludge and solid
waste were taken. A composite sludge sample was made by combining 100-ml portions
of separate sludge samples in the ratio of the number of loads from the individual sludge
source deposited into each cell. Table VI1-4 presents partial analysis of the composite
sludge samples. Random grab samples of the solid waste deposited in each cell were also
taken daily. These samples were sorted into standard categories to determine their com-
positions. The samples were tested for moisture and organic content. Table VI1-5 pre-
sents data on the in-place volumes of the waste and initial densities of the solid waste
and combined sludge-solid waste for each cell.
4. Monitoring of the Test Cells. The monitoring program for the test cells included
the following: a) measurement of ambient temperature; b) measurement of all tempera-
tures at three different depths (near surface, mid-depth, and bottom—see Figure VI1-4);
c) analysis of gas samples from the cell bottom and from a depth of about 6 to 7| ft;
d) leachate characterization; e) settlement measurements; and f) analysis of periodic
core samples from each cell. The frequency of each measurement and the agency respon-
sible for each test are listed in Table VI1-6. The placement of monitoring probes is
shown in Photograph VII-5. The following is g brief description of each measurement.
j. Cell Temperature. Measurement of test cell temperatures is accomplished by
lowering a glass test tube filled with water to the bottom of each temperature probe by
means of a string. When the water tempera lure reaches a constant value, it is recorded
as the cell temperature at that particular depth. (Fifteen years prior experience with all
types of devices monitoring solid waste landfills has indicated that sophisticated measuring
devices such as thermocouples and thermisters failed eventually in the highly corrosive
landfill environment.) Temperature probes are shown in Photograph VI1—6.
150
-------
&
V
-1>
r-l
Jrt*
COLLECTION TRUCK UNLOADING
WASTE AT START OF FILLING.
b. COMPACTING WASTE .
PLACING SOIL COVER ON TEST CELL.
PHOTOGRAPH VII-3
PLACING SOLID WASTE
IN TEST CELLS
151
-------
;t , % >
a. SPREADING PUMPED SLUDGE FROM
A DOZER BLADE.
4r
b. SPREADING PUMPED SLUDGE BY
MANUAL TIE-LINE.
PHOTOGRAPH VIM
APPLICATION OF SEWAGE
SLUDGE TO TEST CELLS
152
-------
TABLE VI1-1
SOLID WASTE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE PWCED
IN TEST CELL 1
Waste Percent dry wt
category
Composition*
Moisture
Organics
Newsprint
17.7
10.4
98.0
Cardboard
4.7
6.7
98.3
Misc. paper
24.9
15.6
92.5
Food
2.5
233.0
91.0
Glass
5.0
-
-
Metals
7.9
-
-
Tree & shrub prunings
11.5
-
-
Texti les
3.9
4.9
90.0
Plastic, solid
6.4
3.5
98.5
Plastic, soft
0.3
0.0
97.5
Wood
0.9
-
-
Fines, pass a 2" sieve
14.3
11.4
50.2
Total
100.0
13.9
64.5
Sewage sludge applied: 45,500 gallons of ra<^ primary Ratio of liquid sludge
from San Luis Rey Plant to solid waste: 0.46
lb/lb dry wt solid waste
S *Total solid waste: 473 tons.
Note: Total dry weight of solids - 412 tons; solid waste - 407 tons;
dry sludge solids ~ 5 tons.
153
-------
TABLE VI1-2
SOLID WASTE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE PLACED
IN TEST CELL 2
Waste Percent dry wt
category
Composition*
Moisture
Organics
Newsprint
11.1
16.0
88.0
Cardboard
4.7
15.1
90.5
Misc. paper
37.9
12.5
87.5
Food
0.8
352.0
88.2
Giass
9.4
-
-
Metals
9.3
-
-
Leaves
1.1
309.0
90.2
Textiles
1.5
14.4
97.6
Plastic, solid
2.2
1.0
99.2
Plastic, soft
0.1
0.0
96.3
Fines, pass a 2"
sieve
21.9
56.8
67.2
Total
100.0
26.4
64.3
Sewage sludge a
treatment plant:
pplied fnom
La Salina 17,500gallons
Buena Vista 14,000 gallons
San Luis Rey 7,000 gallons
Total 38,500 gallons
Ratio of sludge
to solid waste:
0.55 lb/lb dry wt
solid waste
*Total solid waste: 394 tons.
Note: Total dry weight of solids - 299 tons; solid waste - 290 tons;
dry sludge solids - 9 tons.
154
-------
TABLE VII-3
SOLID WASTE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE PLACED
IN TEST CELL 3
Waste Percent dry wt
category
Composition *
Moisture
Organ ics
Newsprint
15.3
1.1
85.6
Cardboard
3.7
15.2
87.8
Misc. paper
23.4
15.0
91.0
Food
1.2
632.0
87.0
Glass
7.2
-
-
Metals
7.8
-
-
Tree & shrub prunings
3.4
640.0
88.8
Grass
0.9
116.5
70.6
Textiles
2.1
2.3
94.5
Plastic, solid
4.0
1.8
99.0
Plastic, soft
0.1
4.7
98.1
Fines, pass a 2" sieve
30.8
10.2
26.7
Total
100.0
37.9
56.6
Sewage sludge applied from
La Salina
31,500 gallons
Ratio of sludge
treatment plant:
Buena Vista
7,000 gallons
to solid waste:
San Luis Rey
17,500 gallons
0,77 lb/lb dry wt
solid waste
Total
56,000 gallons
* Total solid waste: 486 tons.
Note: Total dry weight of solids ~ 312 tons; solid waste - 302 tons;
dry sludge solids - 10 tons.
155
-------
TABLE VII-4
ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE SAMPLES OF SLUDGES APPLIED TO TEST CELLS*
Test cell
1
2
3
pH (unitii)
6.70
6.80
6.85
Conductivity
(micromhos/cm)
1200
1950
2300
Total solids (% wet wt)
2.48
5.45
4.42
Total organics (% dry wt)
69.7
47.8
45.2
Chloride (jng/l)
220
350
385
Phosphate (mg/l)
400
85
94
BOD5 (mg/l)
7220
1900
4300
Organic nitrogen
(% dry wt)
2.2
1.06
1.20
* Analyses made on composite sample representative of all sludge
added to a single test cell.
156
-------
TABLE VI1-5
TEST CELL IN-PLACE WASTE/SLUDGE DENSITIES
Test cell
Mecsurement
1
2
3
Cell volume (cu yd)*
1,512
1,231
1,560
Density solid waste
(lb/cu yd)
626
640
623
Density solid waste and
sewage sludge
(lb/cu yd)
876
902
923
* Excludes earth cover.
157
-------
DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT
MARKER
SETTLEMENT MARKER
GAS PROBES
SOLID WASTE-
SLUDGE FILL
SAND
10-MIL
POLYETHYLENE
MEMBRANE
TEMPERATURE PROBES
BENCH MARK
1 .5 FT
yTOP OF
WASTE
1" 0PE
PIPE
1" SOIL
COVER
2 0 PVC PIPE
ENDS PERFOR-
ATED
W/
TEST CELL CROSS SECTION (SCHEMATIC)
NO SCALE
1 " 0 LEAC HATE
DRAIN
NOTE: INSTRUMENTATION FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD YEAR LANDFILL
OPERATION TESTS.
FIGURE VII-4
TEST CELL
INSTRUMENTATION
158
-------
TABLE VI1-6
FIELD TZST CELL MONITORING SCHEDULE
Monitoring parameter Frequency
Temperature
Gas sampling and analysis
Leachate - quantity
Standard analyses
Special analysis
Composite
Settlement measurements
Core samples of solid waste
Daily - 1st month
Weekly - 2nd month and after
Weekly - 1st quarter
Monthly - thereafter
Weekly (or after rainfall)
Weekly - 1 st month
Monthly - thereafter
Quarterly composite
Bi-yearly
Monthly
Quarterly
Performed by
Waste Disposal Department*
Ralph Stone & Company, Inc.
Sewer Department*
Sewer Department*
Sewer Department*
Ralph Stone & Company, Inc.
Waste Disposal Department*
Ralph Stone & Company, Inc.
~
City of Oceanside municipal departments.
159
-------
PLACING CELL MONITORING
PROBES.
b. CELL MONITORING PROBES
IN-PUCE.
FINISHED CELL WITH MONITORING
PROBES AND BENCH MARK.
PHOTOGRAPH VI1-5
PLACING SETTLEMENT
MARKERS, TEMPERATURE
AND GAS PROBES
160
-------
11
a. MID-DEPTH SETTLEMENT BENCH
MARK PWTE.
b. GAS AND TEMPERATURE PROBE
SENSOR ENDS.
c. GAS SAMPLING FOR METHANE. d. GAS SAMPLING FOR GAS
ANALYSIS.
PHOTOGRAPH VI1-6
TEST CELL
MONITORING APPARATUS
161
-------
b. Gas Sampling and Analysis. The gas sampling procedure used was that
developed by Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. in previous landfill studies. Basically,
the procedure consists of evacuating a 250- or 500-ml sample bottle and connecting
it to the test cell gas sample probe and utilizing a hand-operated suction-pressure
pump. The actual equipment sequence is as follows:
gas sample moisture vacuum-pressure gas sample
probe trap pump bottle
Prior to sample taking, the valved probe is opened, then the probe and clean evacuated
bottle is purged by passing approximately 2,500 ml of sample gas through. The bottle
is then pressurized by additional pumping. Special methane and sulfide field tests
were also run in-situ. The gas probes and gas sampling bottle are then resealed;
Photograph VII-6 illustrates the sampling apparatus.
The gas samples were analysed for COj/ Oj/ Nj# CH ., and CO on a Varian
Aerograph Model A90-P3 Gas ChromatograpK in the Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
laboratory.
c. Leachate Characterization. The leachate sampling was as follows. When
a leachate drainage pipe was found to contain leachate, the leachate valve was opened
until the leachate ceased running out and began slow dripping. The leachate quantity
was measured in a calibrated bucket, then mixed thoroughly, and a one-quart sample
was taken for chemical analysis. The refrigerated weekly/monthly samples were tested
for BOD-, total dissolved solids, coliform (MPN), chlorides, nitrogen, and conductivity.
The quarterly leachate samples were given a comprehensive analysis (see Table VII —7).
Composite samples accumulated from 100-ml portions of the weekly/monthly samples from
each test cell were tested for calcium, sodium, magnesium, potassium, iron, fluoride,
total dissolved solids, and pesticides/herbicides.
d. Settlement Measurements. Monthly surface and differential settlement
measurements were made for each test cell. The test cell bench mark elevations
were determined immediately after filling for base points; the bench mark elevations
were then checked relative to the natural ground reference bench mark using standard
surveying equipment. The bench mark plate is shown in Photograph VII —6.
5, Core Sampling and Testing. Bore hole drillings were completed quarterly
at each test cell to obtain core samples of the soil and sludge-solid waste admixturec
Care was taken to avoid drilling and puncturing the cell membrane. Core samples
were taken of surface soils, and sludge-solid waste at two-foot intervals to a depth of
10 feet below the waste fill surface (about 12 feet below the cover soil surface).
The bore holes were drilled a minimum of 10 feet distance from the gas and temperature
probes in each test cell. Starting in the easterly quadrants, holes were drilled about
10 feet apart in successive quarters proceeding in a clockwise direction around the probes.
162
-------
A 12-inch auger drill brf mounred on a 40-foot Texoma Drill Rig was used to drill
the bore holes. The drilling equipment is illustrated in Photograph VI1-7.
Soil, sludge/waste admixed, and solid waste samples were taken in one-quart sealed
mason sample jars and returned to the Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. laboratory to de-
termine moisture and organic content, and the remaining moisture absorption capacity.
The first quarterly core samples at the 2- and 10-foot depths into the waste were taken in
sterile mason jars for subsequent analyses for fecal coliform, fecal streptococci and
Psuedomonas aeruginosa. Analytical methods used to determine the bacterial content
of the core samples are described in Appendix A.
During sampling at 2-foot depth intervals, observations were made of weather, air
temperature, waste temperature, odor, color, readability, appearance and biodegrada-
bility. A copy of the core sample data sheet is included in Appendix B, and sample
observation procedures are described in Appendix A.
Core samples from each hole with the highest and lowest moisture contents were
selected for saturation and leaching tests. The saturation and leaching methods are
described in Appendix A.
C. Results and Discussion
The field test cells were placed in operation in February 1972 and have been con-
tinuously monitored at least once each week.
1 . Leachates. During the period from February 1972 through Juna 1973,
cumulative rainfall in Oceanside was 12.9 inches onto each cell. Total rainfall onto
each cell calculated from surface areas was: Cells 1 and 3 - 55,566 gallons; Cell 2 -
51,262 gallons. These quantities are not adjusted for drainage off of the cells (little
drainage occurred since most of the cell surface area will not drain). Similarly, there
is no correction for evapotranspiration (there is insignificant plant growth on the cells)
or evaporation of surface water. Daily and cumulative rainfall onto Cells 1 and 3 are
given in Figure VII —5, and onto Cell 2 in Figure VII —6. Cells 1 and 3 have the same
surface area and therefore receive equal rainfall. Cell 2 has a smaller surface area and
therefore receives less volume of rainfall.
In addition to rainfall, the following quantities of water in the liquid sludge were
applied to each cell during filling: Cell 1 - 44,370 gallons; Cell 2 - 36,400 gallons;
and Cell 3 - 53,530 gallons.
Total water into each cell (sludge liquid plus rainfall) from February 1972 through
June 1973 was: Cell 1 - 99,936 gallons; Cell 2 - 87,662 gallons; and Cell 3 - 109,096
gallons.
The calculated ratio of lb water (sludge plus rainfall) to lb dry weight solid waste
and dry sludge solids in each cell through June 1973 were: Cell 1 - 1.01; Cell 2 -
1.22; and Cell 3 - 1 .46., All were within the laboratory-estimated saturation range
of 0,6 to 1.8 lb per lb for the solid waste, dry weight.
163
-------
*
*
i
I
*1
a. DRILL RIG,
b. AUGER BIT - 12-INCH
DIAMETER.
c. MEASURING TEMPERATURE AND
SAMPLING CORED MATERIAL.
PHOTOGRAPH VII-7
CORE DRILLING EQUIPMENT
164
-------
DATE FILLED:
CELL 1 2/15/72
CELL 3 2/2/72
t DAILY RAINFALL QUANTITY IN GALLONS
CUMULATIVE RAINFALL QUANTITY IN GALLONS
t INDICATES TRACE OF RAIN
NOTE: RAINFALL IN INCHES CONVERTED TO GALLONS
FALLING ON CELL SURFACE AREAS OF 6,800 SQ FT
0—200
"350 400 450 500"
DAYS SINCE 2/2/72
I Lt L_
550 600 650
n8C
A 70
-460
450
H 40
H 30 -
H 20 =
10
0
700
FIGURE VI1—5
TEST CELLS 1 AND 3
DAILY AND CUMULATIVE RAINFALL
-------
5 r
DATE FILLED:
2/9/72
~ DAILY RAINFALL QUANTITY IN GALLONS
CUMULATIVE RAINFALL QUANTITY IN GALLONS
t INDICATES TRACE OF RAIN
NOTE: RAINFALL IN INCHES CONVERTED TO GALLONS
FALLING ON CELL SURFACE AREA OF 6.375 SQ FT
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
DAYS SINCE 2/2/72
80
70
60
n
c
5
c
S
50 <
- 40
O
5
- 30 r
o
o
o
CQ
a
20 =
- 10
550 600 650 700
FIGURE VI1-6
TEST CELL 2
DAILY AND CUMULATIVE RAINFALL
-------
The daily and cumulative quantities of ieachate obtained from Cells 1 and 3
are given in Figures VI1-7 and VII—8, respectively. No ieachate was obtained from
Cell 2. Leachate has been obtained from Cell 1 since the cell was filled. The raw
primary sludge applied to Cell 1 had relatively non-viscous, fast settling solids (non-
homogenous). This permits the liquid to separate from the solid fraction and percolate
through the solid waste. The observation that the test cell with the raw primary sludge
tended to produce more leachate than the cells with admixed secondary digested
sludges is in agreement with the results of pilot drum tests (see Chapter VI). The total
quantity of leachate obtained from Cell 1 through July 23, 1973 was 86.2 gallons,
which is negligible when compared with the 45,500 gallons of raw primary sludge put
into Cell 1.
The first leachate was obtained from Cell 3 after 2.63 inches of rainfall dur-
ing the period November 8 through 18, 1972. A to+al of 2,197 gallons of leachate
were obtained from Cell 3 through July 23, 1973. Since no change in leachate pro-
duction was observed during the same period in Calls 1 or 2, a short-circuit in Cell 3
was suspected. It was observed that the surface of CeI' 3 had setrled to form a shallow
bowl. An eight-inch deep, two-by-two-foot depression was found near the Cell 3 gas
and temperature probes through which the storm drainage short-circuiting was thought
to have occurred. The depression was subsequently filled with compacted soil and this
eliminated the short-circuiting.
Near the end of July 1973, a program to simulate intense rainfall conditions
began. Cells 1 and 3 were saturated with water on July 23 and 24. The amount of
water necessary for saturation of each cell was determined from laboratory studies of
the most recent core drilling; Cell 1 solid waste required 0.137 lbs of water per lb dry
weight solid waste, and Cell 3 solid waste required 0.22 lbs of water per lb dry weight
solid waste. A 3/4-inch hose delivering 40 gpm was used to apply 13,000 gallons of
water to Cell 1 and 15,000 galions of water to Cell 3.
The leachate production of both cells increased considerably upon saturation,
as is illustrated in Figures VI1-7 and VII-8. (The saturation date was the 527th day for
Cell 1, and the 540th day for Cell 3.) Following saturation, the cells produced
leachate in quantities approximately equal to the amount of water applied. Applying
5,000 gallons of water to Cell 1 on November 6, 1973 resulted in over 3,500 gallons
of leachate on November 8 and an additional 800 gallons of leachate during the rest
of November. (Rainfall during November 1973 was 1.71 inches.) Cell 3 received
3,000 gallons of water twice per month from August 28 to November 5, for a total of
18,000 gallons of water. A total of 17,855 gallons of leachate was produced between
August 28 and November 27. For Cell 3, leachate and simulated rainfall after satura-
tion are shown in Figure VI1-9.
The analyses of the weekly/monthly leachate samples from Cell 1 are given in
Figures VI1-10 through VII— 17. Except for the sample collected on day 43, all leachate
samples were fairly similar in physical and chemical characteristics. The day 43 sample
had a straw color, and had higher total dissolved sal#s and conductivity, and a lower
turbidity content. No explanation is available for the atypical characteristics of this
sample.
167
-------
DATE FILLED:
2/15/72
v DAILY LEACHATE QUANTITY
CUMULATIVE LEACHATE QUANTITY
t INDICATES TRACES OF LEACHATES
13,500 GALLONS ON 636th DAY
V
- 2,000
V V V
V?
VW V V
V V
-1L.
t r
t t tl t ~ I
I
_L2 Ivfvtt j
8,000
n
c
2:
c
£
<
m
o
200 ^
z
100
CO
Q_
O*
3
50 100 150 200
250 300 350 400 450
DAYS SINCE 2/15/72
20
10
500 550 600 650
FIGURE VI1-7
TEST CELL 1
DAILY AND CUMULATIVE LEACHATE
-------
25
DATE FILLED:
2/2/72
* DAILY LEACHATE QUANTITY
- CUMULATIVE LEACHATE QUANTITY
~ INDICATES TRACE OF LEACHATES
A A
_L
r>
rif tf iAt tt
_l
_L
50 100 150
200 250 300 350 400
DAYS SINCE 2/2/72
450 500 550 ' 600 650 700
FIGURE VI1-8
TEST CELL 3
DAILY AND CUMULATIVE LEACHATE
-------
DATE FILLED: 2/1/12
SIMULATED RAINFALL
LEACHATE SINCE SATURATION4"
r
1
i
n
_L
_L
JL
_L
_L
J
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
DAYS SINCE 7/24/73
Natural rainfall during this period
insignificant.
'"CelI saturated on July 24, 1973.
FIGURE VI1-9
CUMULATIVE LEACHATE RESULTING FROM
SIMULATED RAINFALL
170
-------
DATE FILLED:
2/15/72
NOTE: ANALYSES PERFORMED BY
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
VI
X
Q-
© 0 © ©
© ©
© © ©
©
•©
100
©
0 © © ©
X
A
©
©
200 300 400
DAYS SINCE FILLING
500
©
600
©
©
700
FIGURE VII-10
TEST CELL 1
LEACHATE PH
-------
30 h
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
>n 14
5 12
o
10
8
6
4
2
o
-<8
cP
0
o
sO
o
o
100
200
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
DATE FILLED; 2/15/72
NOTE: ANALYSES PERFORMED BY
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
i i i i i
300 400 500 600 700
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE Vli-11
TEST CELL 1
LEACHATE BOD,
-------
w
E
o
o
O
O
ac
tr
Z
u
z
•<
o
oc
o
DATE FILLED:
2/15/72
NOTE: ANALYSES PERFORMED BY
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
°%oo
100
200 300 400
DAYS SINCE FILLING
500
600
700
FIGURE VI1—12
TEST CELL 1
LEACHATE ORGANIC NITROGEN
-------
2,500
— 2,000
J-
OO
UJ
s
Q£
o
—I
5 1,500
O
o
o
DATE FILLED:
2/15/72
NOTE: ANALYSES PERFORMED BY
CITY OF OCEAN SIDE
o
o
o
O o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O O
o
1,000
0
100
200
300 400
days since filling
500
600 700
FIGURE VII-13
TEST CELL 1
LEACHATE CHLORIDES
-------
©
200 r
150-0©
^ °
9 100 ^
50 - ©
y i . . I .... —L , 1
0 100 200 300 400
DAYS SINCE FILLING
DATE FILLED:
2/15/72
NOTE: ANALYSES PERFORMED BY
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
©
©
500
600
700
FIGURE VII—14
TEST CELL 1
LEACHATE TURBIDITY
-------
34
33
32
31 -
30 ¦
29 -
28 ¦
27 ¦
26 ¦
25 ¦
24 -
23 ¦
22 "
21 -
20 -
19 -
18 -
17 •
16 -
T
0
o
o
o
o
0
©
©
NOTE: ANALYSES PERFORMED BY
CITY OF OCEANS1DE
DATE FILLED:
2/15/72
©
©
© ©
©
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VI1—15
TEST CELL 1
LEACHATE TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
-------
16
VJ
14
-
i—
>
t—
u
3
Q
z
o
u
8
DATE FILLED: 2/15/72
NOTE: ANALYSES PERFORMED BY
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
°0
O
100
200
o
o
o
300
DAYS SINCE FILLING
W
O
600
700
FIGURE VI1-16
TEST CELL 1
LEACHATE CONDUCTIVITY
-------
3fr
5 i
o
u
0.3
.003
©
DATE FILLED:
2/15/72
NOTE: ANALYSES PERFORMED BY
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
©
O
- © © © © © © 0©0©
i i i i i i i
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VI1-17
TEST CELL I
LEACHATE COLIFORM
-------
The data in Figure VII — 10 indicate an acidic pH for all leachate samples.
The acidic pH may be attributed to the anaerobic decomposition of the sludge and
solid waste organic acids. The data also indicate that after the third sample a small
but noticeable rise in pH occurred. Figure VII— 11 indicates initial BOD- levels of
5,000-6,000 mg/l. After the second sample, however, the BOD^ rose to a level of
19,600 mg/l. A relatively low level of initial BOD_ and a subsequent rise in BOD_
has also been observed in the pilot drum tests (see Chapter VI). The initial low BOD^
levels may correspond to an "acclimation" period during which the proper biological
community becomes established. After the biological organism acclimates (the growth/
"lag" phase), the degradation of organics proceeds at a faster rate and, hence, more
nutrients and microorganisms enter into solution in the leachate, producing a rise in
the leachate BODc levels.
o
Organic Kjeldahl nitrogen levels given in Figure VI1 — 12 show an initial level
trend followed by a rise corresponding to the BOD_ increase. Chlorides (see Figure
VI1 — 12) have remained fairly constant between 1,T60 and 1,630 mg/l with a slightly
increasing trend with time. Analyses vary for turbidity, total dissolved salts, and
conductivity (see Figures VII — 13 to VII-16); they show no consistent trends. Analyses
for coliform (see Figure VI1 — 17) showed an initial MPN greater than 3,000, with sub-
sequent MPN less than 3, with one exception on the 518th day, occurring after the
initial water application. The applied water apparently carried coliform from the cell
surface or periphery/39 or alternatively was simply a bad sample.
Table VII —7 presents the comprehensive analyses for quarterly leachate samples
for Cells 1 and 3. Of particular interest is the very low concentration of heavy metals.
In many cases, these metals were in such low concentrations that they could not be
detected by the analytical techniques used. The pesticide aldrin that had been detec-
ted in April 1972 subsequently reduced in levels and eventually became undetectable.
The large amounts of leachate generated in 1973 required more frequent
analyses. The results of these analyses are presented in Table VII —8. The erratic
nature of the data is attributable to the varying amounts of water received, resulting
in dilution of many samples.
2. Temperature. A summary of temperature data collected at three different
depths within each cell is given in Table VII —9. The temperature trends are plotted in
Figures VII —18 to VII-20.
The average temperatures and maximum variations from the average in each
test cell since filling through November 28, 1972 were as follows:
Temperature (F)
Depth, ft
Cell \
Cell 2
Cell 3
Avg Max var
Avg
Max var
Avg
Max var
7-8
80 -12
77
-13
76
-20
8-10.5
76 +6
76
-10
77
-17
15-17.8
71 -6
70
-6
73
+19
179
-------
TABLE VII-7
CELL 1 COMPREHENSIVE QUARTERLY LEACHATE ANALYSES
(APRIL 1972)
Concentration
Concentration
Constituent
(mg/l)+
Constituent
(mg/l)+
Cations:
Metals:
Calcium
1,380
Boron
17
Magnesium
425
Iron
4.7
Sodium
1,320
Manganese
0
Potassium
700
Hexavalent chromium
Arsenic
<0.05
0
Anions:
Lead
<0.05
Hydroxide
0
Copper
<0.05
Carbonate
0
Bicarbonate
6,771
Others:
Sulfate
1,047
Phenols
0.01
Chloride
1,600
Silica
93
Nitrate, NO3
3.2
Ortho phosphate
0.37
Nitrate, N
0.71
Oxygen consumed
Herbicide
25,000
Total alkalinity (CaC03)
5,550
None
Total hardness (CaC03)
5,200
Pesticide - aldrin
0.015
Dissolved solids
17,956
pH (units)
6.1
Conductivity (^mhos/cm )
18,000
*Composite sample taken April 6, 1972. Analyses performed by Environmental
Engineering Laboratory, San Diego, California at the request of the City of Oceanside.
Metals analyses were done by atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
Except where noted.
180
-------
TABLE VII—7 (CONT.) *
CELL 1 COMPREHENSIVE QUARTERLY LEACHATE ANALYSES
(APRIL 1973)
Concentration
Concentration
Constituent
(mg/l)+
Constituent
-------
TABLE VI1-7 (CONT.)
CELL 1 COMPREHENSIVE QUARTERLY LEACHATE ANALYSES*
(JULY 1973)
Constituent
Concentration
(mg/l)+
Constituent
Concentration
(mg/l)+
Cations:
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Anions:
Hydroxide
Carbonate
Bicarbonate
Sulfate
Ch loride
Nitrate, NO3
Floride
Chlorinated hydrocarbons
pH (units)
1,888
748
1,275
630
0
0
10,248
967
1,377
13
1.2
Not detected
5.2
Metals:
Boron 11
Iron 113
Manganese 0
Total chromium 0..10
Arsenic <0.10
Lead 0.20
Copper 0,81
Others:
Phenols 0.15
Silica 60
Orthophosphate 4.9
Nitrate, N 2.9
Total alkalinity (CaCOg) 8,400
Total hardness (CaCOg) 7,800
Dissolved solids 10,650
Conductivity (// mhos/cm) 22,700
Composite sample taken July 31, 1973. Analyses performed by Environmental
Engineering Laboratory, San Diego, California at the request of the City of
Oceanside. Metals analyses were done by atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
Except where noted.
182
-------
TABLE VII-7 (CONT.)
CELL 3 COMPREHENSIVE QUARTERLY LEACHATE ANALYSES*
(JULY 1973)
Constituent
Concentration
(mg/l)+
Constituent
Concentration
(mg/l)+
Cations:
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Anions:
Hydroxide
Carbonate
Bicarbonate
Sulfate
Chloride
Nitrate, NO3
Fluoride
Chlorinated hydrocarbons
pH (units)
1,400
583
1,260
375
0
0
8,015
689
1,400
3.8
1.1
Not detected
5.4
Metals:
Boron
Iron
Manganese
Total chromium
Arsenic
Lead
Copper
Others:
Phenols
Silica
Orthophosphate
Nitrate, N
Total alkalinity (CaCOg)
Total hardness (CaCOg)
Dissolved solids
Conductivity (£ mhos/cm)
7.0
107
0
0.08
<0.01
0.18
0.79
0.059
40
0.72
0.85
6,570
5,900
16,896
18,200
Composite sample taken July 31, 1973. Analyses performed by Environmental
Engineering Laboratory, San Diego, California at the request of the City of
Oceanside. Metals analyses were done by atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
Except where noted.
183
-------
TABLE VI1-8
CELL 1 LEACHATE ANALYSES*
(1973)
Date of analysis and days since filling*
Analysis
(Mar 14)
(Apr 11)
(July 24)
(Aug 8)
(Sep 26)
(Nov 21)
393
421
525
540
589
645
Color
Dark
Dark
Dark
Dark gray-
Dark gray-
Dark
brown-
gray
gray.
green,
green ,
a^y-
gray
opaque
opaque
opaque
green
pH (units)
5.20
5.29
4.8
5.15
5.0
4.80
Conductivity (^ mhos)
3,850
4,150
11,400
14,300
13,900
7,850
Turbidity (JTU)
54
19
21
38
17
59
BOD5 (mg/l)
15,500
9,200
12,050
12,500
34,800
17,000
Chlorides (mg/l)
5,944.3
3,854.5
1,344
1,973
1,540
1,200
Organic nitrogen (mg/l)
585.5
597.2
819
700
787
734
* Analyses performed by Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
Cell 1 completed filling February 15, 1972.
-------
TABLE VI1-8 (CONT.)
CELL 3 LEACHATE ANALYSES*
(1973)
Date of analysis and days s?nee filling
Analysis (July 25) (Aug 8) (Sep 26) (Nov 21)
539 553 602 658
Color
Dark gray-
Dark gray-
Dark
Dark
green ,
green,
gray-
gray-
opaque
opaque
green
green
pH (units)
4.9
5.15
4.80
4,
Conductivity (fj. mhos)
9,900
10,400
9,100
7,850
Turbidity (JTU)
45
50
30
59
BOD5 (rng/l)
18,400
10,900
28,700
17,000
Chlorides (mg/l)
566
1,589
921
1,200
Organic nitrogen (mg/l)
985
736
650
734
* Analyses performed by Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
Cell 3 completed filling February 2, 1972.
-------
TABLE VI1-9
OCEANSIDE TEST CELL TEMPERATURE RECORD
Temperature (F) by day since filling
Date
Ambient
Days
since
filling
Cell
1 -
depth
Days
since
filling
Cell 2 -
depth
Days
since
filling
Cell 3-
depth
max/min
7'-8"
10»-
¦6" 15'-2"
7'-0"
9,-5"
17'-9"
6'-0"
8*—4
" 15'-,
1972
"2/23
64/50
8
79
74
66
14
70
75
64
21
78
80
66
2/24
59/45
9
80
76
68
15
78
77
_
22
81
84
66
2/25
60/41
10
80
74
65
16
70
77
-
23
80
84
66
2/28
58/47
13
82
76
65
19
72
76
64
26
80
80
-
2/29
65/51
14
82
76
66
20
74
78
68
27
80
84
66
3/7
61/52
21
82
76
67
27
74
78
70
34
79
83
68
3/14
62/54
23
83
76
66
34
74
78
66
41
80
82
67
3/21
68/55
35
84
78
68
41
76
78
72
48
79
82
68
3/30
67/42
44
82
78
68
50
78
78
69
57
81
82
69
4/4
70/53
49
82
76
68
55
78
78
70
62
80
84
69
4/11
68/49
56
83
76
68
62
80
78
70
69
86
84
68
4/18
63/52
63
82
76
68
69
78
78
70
76
82
84
70
4/25
68/51
70
82
76
68
76
78
78
70
83
82
82
70
5/2
71/54
77
82
76
69
83
80
78
72
90
82
82
70
5/9
71/52
84
82
76
68
90
80
78
72
97
82
82
70
5/16
71/58
91
82
76
69
97
80
78
68
104
84
82
72
5/23
71/52
98
83
76
70
104
80
78
68
111
84
83
71
5/30
76/60
105
84
76
70
111
82
80
69
118
86
84
72
6/6
73/63
112
84
76
70
118
82
80
69
125
86
84
72
6/13
74/61
119
84
76
70
125
82
—
70
132
86
80
72
6/20
75/62
126
84
76
70
132
82
80
70
139
86
84
72
6/27
74/56
133
84
76
70
139
82
—'•
70
146
88
86
74
7/5
75/56
141
85
78
70
147
84
80
70
154
88
86
74
7/11
77/61
147
84
78
70
153
84
80
70
160
88
86
74
7/18
80/67
154
86
78
72
160
85
80
70
167
90
88
74
-------
'-5
74
76
76
76
78
76
74
74
74
74
78
92
79
74
74
74
70
68
70
70
70
72
72
TABLE VI1-9 (CONT.)
OCEANS1DE TEST CELL TEMPERATURE RECORD
Temperature (r) by day since tilling
Days Days Days
since Cell 1 - depth since Cell 2 - depth since
.
Iling
7,-8"
10'-6"
15'-2"
filling
7'-0"
9'—5"
1 17'-9"
fillin.
161
86
78
72
167
86
80
70
174
168
86
78
72
174
86
82
70
181
175
88
80
72
181
88
82
72
188
182
88
78
72
188
88
82
72
195
189
88
78
72
195
88
82
72
202
196
88
78
72
202
88
82
72
209
203
88
78
72
209
88
82
72
216
210
84
80
74
216
83
83
73
223
217
88
80
72
223
83
82
73
230
224
86
80
72
230
84
82
72
237
231
84
80
74
237
84
82
74
244
238
90
82
72
244
84
84
72
251
245
88
80
72
251
84
82
72
258
252
86
80
74
258
82
80
72
265
259
86
80
74
265
82
80
72
272
266
84
80
74
272
80
82
73
279
273
84
80
74
279
78
80
72
286
280
82
80
74
286
76
80
72
293
287
80
80
74
293
74
78
72
300
294
80
&0
74
300
72
78
72
307
301
78
78
74
307
68
76
72
314
309
78
72
74
315
68
76
72
322
315
76
78
74
321
68
76
72
328
-------
TABLE VI1-9 (CONT.)
OCEANSIDE TEST CELL TEMPERATURE RECORD
Temperature (F) by day since filling
Days Days Days
Ambient
since
Cell 1 - depth
since
Cell 2 -
depth
since
Cell 3 - depth
Date
max/min
fi lling
7'—8
" 10'-6"
15'-2"
filling
7'-0"
9'-5"
17,-9"
fil ling
6'-
0" 8'-4" 15
¦-5"
197?
W
67/40
322
74
76
74
328
68
72
72
335
66
64
72
1/10
59/47
330
72
76
74
336
66
72
72
343
63
64
72
1/16
61/54
336
72
76
74
342
66
72
72
349
66
66
72
1/23
70/40
343
70
76
74
349
64
70
72
356
62
60
72
2/6
65/51
357
70
74
74
363
64
68
72
370
64
64
72
2/13
64/46
364
70
74
74
370
64
68
70
377
64
64
72
2/20
76/41
371
70
74
76
377
64
68
72
384
65
66
72
2/27
67/49
378
70
74
74
384
64
70
72
391
66
66
72
3/6
64/48
385
70
72
72
391
64
68
72
398
66
66
72
3/13
63/45
392
68
72
73
398
64
68
72
405
66
66
74
3/20
61/47
399
70
72
73
405
64
68
72
412
64
66
72
3/27
58/50
406
70
72
72
412
64
66
72
A1?
66
66
72
4/3
74/42
413
70
72
72
419
64
66
72
426
66
66
74
4/10
73/47
420
70
72
72
426
64
66
72
433
68
66
75
4/15
—
427
70
72
72
433
64
66
72
440
68
68
74
5/1
67/50
434
70
72
72
440
68
66
—
447
68
68
72
5/8
66/46
441
70
72
72
447
—
66
72
454
70
68
72
5/15
70/57
448
70
72
72
454
—
68
72
461
72
70
72
5/23
70/54
456
70
72
72
462
—
67
72
469
72
70
73
5/29
—
462
70
72
72
468
—
68
72
475
72
70
72
6/6
69/58
470
74
72
72
476
75
70
—
483
72
70
74
6/12
73/63
476
78
73
72
482
—
70
72
489
72
72
74
6/19
79/61
483
78
74
72
489
78
72
72
496
74
72
74
6/26
75/61
490
80
74
72
496
80
72
72
503
76
74
73
-------
TABLE VI1-9 (CONT.)
OCEANSIDE TEST CELL TEMPERATURE RECORD
Temperature (F) by day since filling
Date
Ambient
max/min
Days
since
filling
Cell 1 - depth
Days
since
filling
Cell 2 -
depth
Days
since
filling
Cell 3
- depth
7'—8
10 -6 rs
2"
7-0
9'-3
" 17'-9"
6'-0" 8
'-4" IV'
-5"
7/3
—
497
82
74
72
503
82
74
72
510
80
78
73
7/10
71/62
504
82
74
72
510
82
74
72
517
80
80
73
7/17
75/63
511
82
76
72
517
82
76
72
524
78
80
73
7/31
78/63
525
84
78
72
531
82
78
72
538
80
80
74
8/7
76/59
532
84
78
70
538
84
78
72
545
80
80
74
8/14
76/63
539
82
78
70
545
84
78
72
552
78
80
74
8/21
78/65
546
82
78
72
550
84
78
72
557
80
80
74
9/4
73/63
560
80
80
70
566
84
78
72
573
82
78
72
9/11
75/64
567
82
80
72
573
84
80
72
580
78
80
72
9/18
73/57
574
82
80
74
580
84
80
72
587
78
78
74
10/9
74/56
595
80
78
74
601
82
80
72
608
76
76
74
-------
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
CELL DEPTH SYMBOL
I
1
1
V:>.
""N/"
so ioo m 200 m §oo iso 400 450 500 550 m m 700
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VII-18
OCEANS! DETEST
CELL 1 TEMPERATURE
-------
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
CELL DEPTH SYMBOL
2 7'-0"
2 9'-5"
2 17'-9"
_i i i i i i i i i 1 i —i 1 1
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VI1-19
OCEANSIDE TEST
CELL 2 TEMPERATURE
-------
130
120
110
100
^ 90
U-
LU
Q£
2 80
2
UJ
| 70
UJ
I—
60
50
40
30
CELL DEPTH SYMBOL
3 6'-0"
3 8'-4"
3 15'-5"
3b—rod—rsfc—20b 256—3do 35b 400—450—500—550—600—650—700
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VI1-20
OCEANSIDE TEST
CELL 3 TEMPERATURE
-------
In all three cells, the temperatures at the 7- to 8-foot depth tended to follow
ambient temperatures. Temperatures at the 8- to 10-foot depth in Ceil 3 also followed
ambient temperatures. In Cells 1 and 2, temperatures at the 8- to 10-foot depth
followed a pattern similar to that of the test drums: below ambient temperature in
summer and above that in winter. In each cell, the 15- to 18-foot depth temperatures
rose to a relatively low temperature and remained there, exhibiting little variation
from ambient temperatures. Cell 3 showed large temperature variations. The most
notable period of variation occurred in November 1972 (day 250 plus) when 2.63 in.
of rainfall short-circuited through Cell 3 in the vicinity of the temperature probes.
3. Gas Analyses. Gas analysis results are presented in Figures VIl—21
through VI1-26. The methane concentrations at mid-depth and bottom probes in all
the cells show generally increasing trends. Oxygen and carbon dioxide show generally
decreasing trends, once the carbon dioxide peak is reached. Carbon dioxide content
in Cell 2 differs from trends in Cells 1 and 3 in that the CO2 level did not drop to a
low of two percent after the initial peak. The reason for this is unknown. The low
two percent CO2 readings in Cells 1 and 3 were probably erroneous gas samples.
Data collected prior to May 1972 were considered less accurate than subsequent data
due to problems in field sampling procedures. These problems were minimized after
the end of May 1972 by replacing plastic tape gas probe seals with airtight screw
plastic caps and plastic valves to eliminate air contamination.
Reports were received from personnel taking temperature measurements that
odors were emitted from the temperature probes when opened. Several tests were made
for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas in June and July 1972. Hydrogen sulfide was detected
in the concentrations on days since filling as shown in Table VII — 10.
The H2S concentration in Cell 1 was initially greater than found in Cells
2 and 3, probably as a result of the raw primary sludge admixed in Cell 1. The HLS
odor was not detectable when the gas and temperature probes were sealed. Some nne
cracks 1/8 in. by 6 in. were observed in the cell soil cover during June 1972, but no
odors were detected escaping through these cracks.
4. Settlement. Settlement curves are given for the three test cells in
Figure VI1—27. Though the initial settlement rates varied considerably, the settlement
rates were similar by the end of the third year. The wide variations in settlement be-
tween the cells is probably due to the variable compaction during placement and the
rainfall infiltration; the in-place initial densities (see Table VII-5) do not indicate
overall variations in cell densities sufficient to account for the settlement difference.
The total settlement for the study period was: Cell 1 - 3.8 percent; Cell 2 - 3.2
percent; and Cell 3 - 3.9 percent.
5. Core Sampling. The results of the seven quarterly test cell core samplings
are discussed in the following paragraphs. The cell corings were delayed due to un-
foreseen funding and scheduling factors.
193
-------
DEPTH, 7'—7"
t
ii
* U
t I \ I \
I 1 ]l
I I ih.
1/
\
A -C02
Q C>2
~ cn4
^ (EXCLUDES N2)
CELL FILLED;
2/15/72
t
/
^i9£
/
v
/
l 1
N \A/
H D
_Lo
as—
300 400 500
DAYS SINCE FILLING
700
FIGURE VII -21
GAS ANALYSIS
TEST CELL 1
194
-------
DEPTH,15' - 3"
ft
' kliA
i \i &
A —
O —
~ -•
co0
°22
ch4
(EXCLUDES N2)
CELL FILLED:
2/15/72
*
I 4
I / x
I I
I I
1/
1
\
\
\
'
I
A
/ \
\
A"'
'•A
, A
^ I
300 400 500
DAYS SINCE FILLING
600
700
FIGURE VI1-22
GAS ANALYSIS
TEST CELL 1
195
-------
90
80
$
A
DEPTH,6' - 8"
A CO,
o o '
~ CH4
(EXCLUDES N2)
CELL FILLED:
2/9/72
^ 60
D
_i
o
>
CO
u
LU
Q_
40
20
\
\
f\
/
A
\
/ ^
4^ / \
r*
\
4
\ '
\ i
i i
\ i
> i
i
*—¦-W
\
' \
' \
I \
I \
I \
\
\
A
Nb0'^'xEK'"-Q
.^b-b
o
300 400 500
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VII-23
GAS ANALYSIS
TEST CELL 2
196
-------
DEPTH, 15'-l 1
CO9
92
ch4
(EXCLUDES N2)
CELL FILLED :
2/9/72
UJ
D
—I
o
>
&
h-
z
LU
UJ
700
500
600
400
200
300
100
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VI1-24
GAS ANALYSIS
TEST CELL 2
197
-------
90_ t
3
z>
O
>
>-
co
U
OS
A
O
DEPTH, 6,-0"
CO2
o2
CH4
(EXCLUDES N2)
CELL FILLED:
2/2/72
M
4 ¦
l-Sj^
300 400 500
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VI1-25
GAS ANALYSIS
TEST CELL 3
198
-------
DEPTH, 15'—5
~ —
ch4
(EXCLUDES N2)
CELL FILLED:
2/2/72
UJ
o
>
>-
CO
I—
z
LU
UJ
Q.
100
400
DAYS SINCE FILLING
200
300
500
600
700
FIGURE VII—26
GAS ANALYSIS
TEST CELL 3
199
-------
TABLE Vll-10
TEST CELL HYDROGEN SULFIDE CONCENTRATIONS*
Days since
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
filling
Mid-depth
Bottom
Mid-depth
Bottom
Mid-depth
Bottom
135- 148
25
750
25
10
5
1
141 - 154
5
9
5
5
5
8
155 - 168
10
100
8
8
5
5
334 - 347
5
20
0
0
50
60
354 - 367
6
30
2
1
50
25
375 - 388
10
40
3
0
25
40
473 - 486
5
22
4
2
20
30
487 - 500
9
22
3
2
22
22
509 - 522
3
25
4
<4
40
12
0
S8
1
i-x
30
70
6
Trace
60
50
610 - 623
40
7
3
Trace
100
700
667 - 680
Yes+
No
No
No
Yes+
Yes +
* Values in ppm.
+ Odor detected; meter not used.
200
-------
0
2
3
4
INITIAL
DEPTH,FT
SYMBOL FILLED
CELL
5
2/15/72
2/9/72
2/2/72
6
m—
7
8
9
10
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
0
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VI1-27
OCEANSIDE TEST CELL
SETTLEMENT
-------
a. Temperature Profiles. The temperature profiles by depth and ambient air
temperatures are given in Tables VII— 11 through VII— 13 for Cells 1 through 3, respect-
ively. The low ambient air temperature for the first sampling is due to the fact that
the drilling was done in the morning; the later two drillings were performed in the
afternoon when higher air temperatures prevailed. The average temperature in each
cell tended to follow ambient temperatures in the upper two feet of the cell fill; they
generally increased with depth. The average temperatures for all depths in each cell
were: Cell 1 - 82 F; Cell 2-81 F; and Cell 3 - 79 F. The highest temperatures
recorded were in Cell 1 at the first sampling; temperatures above 100 F were encountered.
Cell 1 received raw primary sludge, which may have undergone more active bio-
degradation than the digested sludges applied to Cells 2 and 3.
b. Organic Content. Organic analyses by depth are given in Tables VI1—14
through VII— 16. No trend is visible; thus variations in organic contents of the solid
waste-sludge are attributable to random factors. Of interest, however, is the cover
soil organic content which increased significantly during the course of the study in
Cells 1 and 2. Cell 3 cover soil organics increased at first, then dropped off. The
original cover soil was clean, inert fill with minimum organic content. Apparently the
presence of landfill gases provided nutrients for various organisms. Various yellow and
reddish organisms were observed in proximity to soil cover cracks. The identity of the
organisms was not established. Growth of various plants occurred on the cells' surfaces
which may also have contributed to the organic content of the soil.
c. Moisture Content. Moisture content of corings from the three test cells
are given in Tables VI1—17 through VII— 19. The cover soil moisture content is rainfall
dependent; lower in summer months (first, fourth, and fifth samplings) and higher in
the rainy season. Generally the moisture was greater in the lower part of the fill than
on top.
d. Moisture Absorption. Special laboratory tests to determine remaining
moisture capacities were done on core samples from each cell having the highest and
lowest moisture contents and a representative organic contents. The results, given
in Table VI1—20, include the initial as-received sample moisture content, the moisture
added to reach saturation, and the total moisture content at saturation. The data is
given in percent, which is convertible to lb water per lb dry weight solid waste when
divided by 100. The additional moisture absorbed was below the laboratory estimate
of 60 percent minimum as-received absorptive capacity for 88 percent of the samples.
The final saturation values are within the 60 to 180 percent saturation range estimated
from the laboratory moisture absorption studies for 53 percent of the samples. The
samples below this range had considerably lower as-received moisture contents than
all the other samples tested. Apparently the material in these samples consisted of
less absorbent solid waste constituents.
e. Core Sample Leachate BOD5. The samples used in the moisture saturation
tests described above were also used to generate leachate for BOD^ analysis. The
BOD5 for the leachates is given in Table VI1-21. The BOD^ values dropped consider-
ably during the study period, with only two samples in the latter part of the study
significantly high in BOD^.
202
-------
TABLE VI1-11
TEST CELL 1 BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE
Depth,
ft below
Temperature (F)
Days since filling was
completed *
soil surface
162
230
288
473
547
610
667
Ambient air
75
81
74
69
86
75
67
Soil 0
2
Solid waste- ^
sludge
90
94
82
87
59
73
78
81
75
77
76
72
79
82
62
66
70
6
102
84
82
77
74
80
71
8
104
84
84
85
80
80
78
10
89
75
83
83
80
81
77
12
103
83
83
82
—
—
—
Average +
98
83
81
81
77
79
74
* Cell filling completed February 15, 1972.
+ Average for solid waste-sludge.
-------
TABLE VI!-12
TEST CELL 2 BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE
Depth,
Temperature (F)
ft below
Days
since filling was
completed *
soil surface
168
236
294
4 79
553
616
667
Ambient air
75
80
76
70
84
70
69
Soil 0
86
82
67
72
80
77
65
2
90
81
83
64
Solid waste- ^
90
84
77
sludge
80
82
83
72
6
90
83
__
74
80
83
72
8
92
82
81
78
81
80
80
10
82
81
85
78
80
82
80
12
84
86
79
73
—
—
—
Average +
88
83
80
76
81
81
76
* Cell filling completed February 9, 1972.
+ Average for solid waste-sludge.
-------
TABLE VII-13
TEST CELL 3 BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE
Depth,
ft below
Days
Temperature (F)
since filling was
completed *
soil surface
175
243
301
486
560
623
667
Ambient air
78
83
78
70
80
71
74
Soil 0
72
82
67
80
—
69
62
2
84
78
74
62
Solid waste- ^
sludge
85
84
76
78
77
81
67
6
90
85
82
75
70
82
68
8
89
88
87
82
72
82
70
10
87
86
85
74
73
82
75
12
93
80
83
76
—
—
—
Average +
89
84
83
77.5
74
78
70
* Cell filling completed February 2, 1972.
+ Average for solid waste-sludge.
-------
TABLE VII- 14
TEST CELL 1 CORE SAMPLE ORGANIC CONTENT
Sample depth
ft below
soil surface
9
Organic content, percent dry wt
Davs since fi 1 Una was completed *
162
230
288
473
547
610
667
Soil 0
1.7
1.7
3.6
4.2
3.5
3.6
4.6
2
56.1
58.5
20.5
Solid waste- A
sludge 4
38.0
32.6
75.2
34.0
25.5
14.6
12.4
6
41.9
6.7
59.2
6.2
61.5
71.8
8.1
8
18.4
44.7
55.8
23.8
23.1
22.6
16.4
10
44.2
30.7
5.5
20.0
26.4
50.5
54.1
12
20.4
37.7
34.3
4.7
—
—
—
Average +
32.6
30.5
46.0
17.7
38.5
39.9
22.8
* Cell filling completed February 15, 1972.
+ Average for solid waste-sludge.
-------
TABLE VII-15
TEST CELL 2 CORE SAMPLE ORGANIC CONTENT
Sample depth,
ft below
Organic content, percent dry wt
Days since fil lin.q was completed *
soil surface
168
236
294
479
553
606
673
Soil 0
2
1.2
1.2
3.0
3.1
3.8
19.8
2,2
29.5
2.6
13.0
Solid waste- ^
sludge
6
33.5
29.3
22.0
48.0
26.3
66.9
28.1
14.3
13.5
52.3
40.5
15.8
5.4
8
57.5
19.1
40.5
22.9
30.1
74.6
18.2
10
36.6
66.5
22.4
34.3
19.8
69.6
16.0
12
30.3
53.4
68.2
8.8
—
—
—
Average +
37.4
41.8
39.4
32.2
19.5
59.3
13.9
* Cell filling completed February 9, 1972.
¦f*
Average for solid waste-sludge.
-------
TABLE VI1-16
TEST CELL 3 CORE SAMPLE ORGANIC CONTENT
Sample depth, Organic content, percent dry wt
ft below Days since filling was completed *
soil
surface
175
243
301
486
560
623
680
Soi 1
Solid waste -
sludge
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1.8
22.8
28.6
34.0
27.2
38.9
1.8
76.0
21.0
61.3
65.2
56.5
4.0
65.7
46.8
86.8
63.6
51.1
2.8
37.1
22.8
62.5
66.4
16.4
2.2
1.6
28.9
85.4
18.8
30.8
1.8
69.5
25.9
62.4
86.0
22.5
1.9
9.5
44.9
35.7
25.9
47.7
Average +
30.3
56.0
62.8
41-0
33.0
49.2
38.6
* Cell filling completed February 2, 1972.
Average for solid waste "kludge.
-------
TABLE VII—17
TEST CELL 1 CORE SAMPLE MOISTURE CONTENT
Sample depth, Moisture content, percent dry wt
ft below Days since filling was completed *
soil surface
162
230
288
473
547
610
667
Soil 0
7.6
7.6
9.5
3.2
11.3
16.3
19.1
2
73.2
82.1
25.2
Solid waste- ^
sludge
16.1
33.1
44.0
30.9
66.1
45.1
21.6
6
19.2
15.0
46.0
18.1
182.0
58.5
18.2
8
13.5
56.8
39.5
32.2
30.0
46.6
28.7
10
28.4
46.8
70.5
64.1
49.4
128.4
110.0
12
34.5
28.1
62.5
15.9
—
—
—
Average
22.3
35.9
52.5
32.0
80.0
69.7
44.6
* Cell filling completed February 15, 1972.
Average for solid waste's I udge.
-------
TABLE VII-18
TEST CELL 2 CORE SAMPLE MOISTURE CONTENT
Sample depth,
Moisture content
, percent dry wt
ft below
Days since filling
was completed *
soil surface
168
236
294
m
553
616
673
Soil 0
3,8
3.8
11.7
3.1
2.7
7.2
8.6
2
17.5
40.7
16.0
Solid waste" 4
67.1
33.6
24.5
60.2
19.2
21.9
15.0
sludge ^
38.0
42.1
42.8
16.6
38.1
8.4
8
24.2
17.8
44.0
31.9
53.8
60.6
23.5
10
68.3
47.9
50.5
43.2
24.3
73.4
11.3
12
69.0
27.0
58.7
18.4
—
—
—
Average +
53.3
33.6
44.4
39.0
26.0
48.5
14.6
* Cell filling completed February 9, 1972.
+
Average for solid waste-sludge.
-------
TABLE VII-19
TEST CELL 3 CORE SAMPLE MOISTURE CONTENT
Sample depth
ft below
soil surface
f
Moisture content, percent dry wt
Days since fillinn was completed *
175
243
301
486
560
623
680
Soil 0
9.8
9.8
12.9
6.2
4.7
13.9
12.1
, _ 2
11.6
85.3
18.5
Solid waste" .
sludge 4
25.0
13.6
61.5
43.1
35.8
24.7
103.8
6
46.3
43.3
46.0
26.4
99.8
230.0
60.1
8
70.5
36.3
66.3
87.6
42.8
44.7
42.7
10
92.1
52.5
32.2
115.5
55.0
101.0
86.9
12
94.3
49.6
69.5
30.9
—
—
—
Average+
65.6
39.1
55.1
60.7
49.0
100.1
73.4
* Cell filling completed February 2, 1972.
Average for solid waste~sludge.
-------
TABLE VI1-20
MOISTURE ABSORPTION CAPACITY OF SELECTED CORE SAMPLES
Moisture content, percent dry wt*
Days since filling completed/depth, ft
230
288
473 547 610 667
Cell 1
4 8
6 8
10 6 10 12 6 8 4 10 CS1" 6
10
Sample moisture
15.0 46.8
39.5 70.5
62.5 18.1 64.1 15.9 182.0 30.0 45.1 128.4 19.1 18.2
110.0
content
Additional moisture
9.2 54.7
30.6 11.8
51.7 6.1 21.3 35.4 277.8 73.1 77.0 56.1 19.2 22.5
40.7
absorbed
Total moisture
24.2 101.5
70.1 82.3 114.2 24.2 85.4 51.3 459.8 103.1 122.0 186.0 38.3 40.7
139.1
at saturation
236
294
479 553 616 673
Cell 2
6 8
3.5 10
4 8 12 6 8 4 CST 6 8
Sample moisture
17.8 47.9
24.5 58.7
60.2 31.9 18.4 16.6 53.8 21.9 8.6 23.4 24.3
content
Additional moisture
21.2 39.2
26.7 50.4
65.2 45.3 42.3 102.8 95.5 80.5 8.4 13.9 22.3
absorbed
Total moisture
39.0 87.1
51.2 109.1
125.4 77.2 60.7 119.4 149.3 102.0 23.5 14.137.6
at saturation
243
301
486 560 680
Cell 3
6 8
8 9
6 10 12 2 6 CS+ 2 4
Sample moisture 36.3 52.5 32.2 69.5 26.4 115.5 30.9 11.6 99.8 12.1 18.5 103.8
content
Additional moisture 15.0 51.3 23.2 27.8 23.4 18.0 6.8 13.9 253.9 26.6 20.1 41.0
absorbed
Total moisture 51.3 104.8 55.4 97,3 49.8 133.5 37.7 25.5 253.7 38.7 38.6 144.8
at saturation
* Percent dry wt is equivalent to lb of water per 100 lb of dry wt solid, waste. + CS =
cover soi I.
-------
TABLE VI1-21
BOD5 OF LE AC HATES FROM SELECTED TEST CELL CORE SAMPLES*
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Days
since
filling
Depth,
ft
BOD ,
mg/r
Days
since
filling
Depth,
ft
BOD ,
mg/r
Days
since
filling
Depth,
ft
BOD
mg/r
230
4
680
236
6
660
243
6
170
8
1,170
8
4,250
8
3,070
288
6
106
294
3,5
28
301
8
138
8
133
10
92
9
67
10
561
473
6
380
479
4
380
486
6
110
10
300
8
505
10
196
12
330
12
540
12
140
547
6
594
553
6
407
560
2
181
8
165
8
495
6
715
610 4 10
10 0
* Samples used to determine moisture absorption were leached to obtain about 157 ml
of leachate for 80D_ analysis.
5
213
-------
f. Bacteriological Analysis. During the July 2, 1972 core sampling, core
samples at the 4- and 10-foot depths were taken in sterile containers using aseptic
collection techniques. Analyses made in duplicate for fecal coliform, fecal streptococci
and Pseudomonas aeruginosa on these samples are presented in Table VI1-22. The
analyses detected fecal coliform and Pseudomonas at 4-foot depths, and none at 12-foot
depths. No fecal streptococci were detected at either depth. One hypothesis for the
difference in results between the 4- and 12-foot depths is that the test cell environment
at 4 feet may be aerobic, and at 12 feet anaerobic. The absence of fecal streptococci
may be due to a lack of fecal material in the samples or a shorter survival time (samp-
ling occurred 5.5 months after sludge and solid waste placement). Also,the core samples
were extracted for analysis in liquid form; the sample extract appearance for 4-foot
depths was earthy yellow, and blackish grey for 12-foot depths.
26
These results are similar to Findings in another report on bacteria survival
in soil. Coliform bacteria were reported to be seldom found below 4-foot depths in
soil, and were never found below 7 feet.
g. Odor. Odor was determined in terms of strength and type at each 2-foot
core sample depth. Odors were generally strong to moderate on the first core sampling
(July 1972), and then became moderate to weak on the two subsequent core samplings.
Odor in Cell 1 was predominantly strong, and was stronger than for Cells 2 and 3 on
the first sampling. This was attributed to the more odoriferous raw primary sludge
placed in Cell 1. No difference in odor strength was detected on subsequent samplings.
The type of odor predominating during the first borings was a strong, sweet,
septic condition in Cell 1 and putrid, pig pen, or normal landfill in Cells 2 and 3.
Odors in the next two samplings were identified as strong sour smells in all cells. In
subsequent samplings, earthy and slight sour odors predominated.
h. Core Sample Appearance. Appearance of samples was observed to be
agglomerated when highly moist and when mixed with large quantities of sludge.
When dry, the samples were loose. During the first year, the agglomerated material
required a screwdriver or similar probe to remove strongly adhering samples from the
large 12-inch diameter auger drill bit. The majority of the samples were moderately
to highly agglomerated in all three cells each time they were sampled. Occassionally,
lumps of moist sludge were identified in the solid waste. During the second year of
core sampling, the solid waste ranged between dry and slightly moist; it was also
quite loose. Following the application of large quantities of water to Cells I and 3
in accordance with the simulated rainfall study, solid waste in these cells became
very moist and agglomerated. Cell 2 solid waste remained dry and loose until the
first rainfall.
i. Color. Colors in metals, plastic, rubber, glass, ceramics, leather, tex-
tiles and wood were similar to those originally disposed except that they were obviously
dirty. Paper appeared unchanged in all three cells during the first sampling, but was
faded or bleached white in Cells 1 and 2 in subsequent samplings. In Cell 3, paper
214
-------
TABLE VII—22
SUMMARY OF BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF TEST CELL SAMPLES
Somple
Psevdomongs
Test cell
Depth,
plate count
Fecal coliform
oeruainosa
Fecal streptococci
of sample
BH* no.
ft
Replicate
per gram
MPN/g
%
MPN/g %
MPN/g
%
extract
1
A
A
3.0 x
106
3.3 x 10*
.011
40 a 0
<0.2
0
Earthy
1
4
B
2.0 x
10
3.3 x 10
.017
70 ~0
<0.2
0
yellow
1
1 9
A
1.4 x
105
<0.2
0
<0.2 0
<0.2
0
Blackish-
1
1 Z
B
1.3 x
105
<0.2
0
<0.2 0
<0.2
0
gray
O
A
A
2.0 x
107
9.2 x 10*
0.46
2.4 x IO!? .012
<0.2
0
Earthy
z
4
B
1.8 x
10
5.4 x 10
0.3
2.4 x 10 .013
<0.2
0
yel low
o
11
A
1.3 x
106
<0.2
0
<0.2 0
<0.2
0
Blackish-
1 1
B
1.4 x
io6
<0.2
0
<0.2 0
<0.2
0
gray
o
4
A
7.5 x
106
4.6 x IO5
.0061
3.3 x 10^ .0044
<0.2
0
Earthy
o
B
8.0 x
io6
4.6 x 10
.0058
3.3 x 10 . 0041
<0.2
0
yel low
o
1 9
A
4.0 x
106
<0.2
0
<0.2 0
<0.2
0
Blackish-
o
1 Z
B
3.0 x
10°
<0.2
0
<0.2 0
<0.2
0
gray
Note: Any piece of paper in all samples shredded into tiny fibers of cellulose upon manual
shaking in dilution bottles.
* BH = bore hole.
-------
was yellowish in the last sampling. Grass, leaves, tree and shrub prunings decompo-
sition rates varied considerably between samples; there was no consistent pattern.
Vegetation colors observed included light to dark green, faded green, faded yellow,
yellowish-green, yellowish-brown, brown, and black.
j. Readability. The core samples were observed to see if printed paper and
container labels were readable. In general, newsprint and paper printing, glass, metal,
and plastic labels were readable. Wet paper with printing tended to be blurred. No
variations between cells or depth were detected.
k. Biodegradation. During the first sampling, the sample materials were
observed to be none or slightly degraded. In subsequent samplings, the core materials
were observed to be none to moderately degraded. Food wastes were detected in about
10 percent of the samples, and consisted of fruit peelings and isolated fragments. The
peelings were not noticeably degraded.
6. Comparison of Sludge-Admixed Solid Waste with Normal Solid Waste.
The three field test cells (lysimeters) at Oceanside closely simulate conditions in a
landfill. Other studies on large test cells under conditions comparable in scope and
data collected were conducted by Ralph Stone and Robert C. Merz during 1964-1966
at the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's Spadra Landfill in Walnut, California.^
Three test cells were initially constructed, one of which simulated golf course irriga-
tion, the second simulated heavy (Seattle, Washington) rainfalls, and the third was
aerated. The Spadra cells were larger in size (19-foot depth of solid waste, two-foot
soil cover, and 70-foot by 130-foot in surface area) than the Oceanside cells. They
were in a similar climate, and therefore suitable for comparison with Oceanside test
cell data. Data from the two anaerobic Spadra cells will be used for comparison.
28
A study by Fungaroli on landfill leachate pollution of subsurface water con-
sisted of monitoring a laboratory lysimeter and landfill test plot in Pennsylvania during
the period 1966 through 1968. The landfill test plot contained eight feet of solid
waste, a two-foot soil cover, and was 50 feet by 50 feet in surface area (similar in
size to the Oceanside cells). This test plot provides comparative data for different
(Pennsylvania) climatic conditions.
Data from other landfills studied by Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. will also
be cited for comparison.
a. Leachate Generation. The quantity of leachate obtained from the Ocean-
side test cells and estimated quantity of rain into the cells was shown in Figures VI1—5
through VI1-8. The insignificant amount of leachate obtained during the first 300 days
since filling is similar to results reported by Fungaroli. During the first 400 days, he
obtained 17 gallons of leachate which was significantly less than the 383 gallons of
water added to his lysimeter. The initial moisture content of Fungaroli's lysimeter
was 26.6 percent wet weight (36.2 percent dry weight), which was in the range for
the three Oceanside field test cells. The leachate obtained from Oceanside test
216
-------
cells as a percentage of total moisture (solid waste moisture plus liquid in the sludge)
was for Cell 1 - 0.07 percent, for Cell 3-1.9 percent, and for Cell 2 - zero. This
is less than the 4.4 percent leachate recovered from water added to solid waste by
Fungaroli. The ratios of weight of water added to dry weight of solid waste were:
Fungaroli - 2.9; Cell 1 - 0.45; and Cell 3 - 0.71. This accounts for the greater per-
centage of leachate obtained by Fungaroli. Fungaroli attributed leachate production
to the following landfill behavior characteristics.
1. Leachate from Solid Waste ~ The source is moist organic matter and
other liquids in the waste released by decomposition and compaction.
2. Leachate from Channeling - Water running through interstitial channels
thus short-circuiting the absorption mechanism.
3. Differential Advancement of the Wetting Front - The more absorptive
areas of solid waste become saturated with moisture and then leachate
may develop before the entire waste fill is saturated.
4. Saturated Wetting Front - When the entire waste fill reaches field
moisture saturation capacity, water application and leachate quantities
then become nearly equal.
It was probable that leachate from the Oceanside Cell 1 resulted from a com-
bination of sludge-waste initial moisture and sludge channeling, and that leachate
from Cell 3 resulted from subsequent differential settlement enabling rainfall drainage
channeling to occur.
The leachate production from sludge admixed solid waste does not appear to
differ in mechanism or quantity from that of normal solid waste leachate without sludge.
b. Leachate Characteristics. The range of landfill leachate characteristics
reported from 11 landfills and lysimeters in California are given in Table VI1—23. The
climatic conditions and solid waste characteristics of the landfills in Table VI1—23 are
somewhat similar to those in Oceanside and will therefore serve as the primary basis
for assessing the effects of sludge admixture. The Sonoma cells in Table V11—23 re-
ceived high quantities of water and septic tank pumpings, and therefore should behave
similar to the Oceanside test cells.
The range of pH values for landfill leachates given in Table VI1-23 (excluding
Sonoma) is 5.6 to 7.8, and for Oceanside Cells 1 and 3 the leachate pH ranged from
4.6 to 5.9. The Sonoma cells leachate pH value was also low (4.6 to 6.5). It appears
that admixing sewage sludge (and septic tank pumpings) into solid waste can produce
a more acidic leachate. The ages of the fills which data in Table VI1-23 cover varies
considerably from the age of the Oceanside test cells. Fungaroli reported lysimeter
leachate studies at Drexel University with a fill age similar to Hie Oceanside cells.
He obtained leachate pH values in the range 5.1 to 7.1. This agrees with the above
217
-------
TABLE VI1—23
SUMMARY OF LANDFILL LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS
Landfill site
D. Scholl Puente Canyon
Riverside Canyon, i„„jf:il+
Leachate Landfill Landfill Landfill
component's (2-13-62) (3-5-62)
pH (units)
5.60-7.63
7.1-7.8
6.0
7.2
BOD5
81 -33,100
97-1200
2200
9200
Nitrogen - Kjeldahl
2.4-550
Copper
3.3-24
TDS
1452-2664
18,154
12,530
Alkalinity (CaC03)
730-9500
1259-2516
3260
5730
Calcium
115-2570
95-567
1340
560
Chloride
96-2350
67-344
1100
1330
Hardness (CaCOg)
650-8120
1085-2075
5600
3260
Iron - total
6.5-305
5.4-260
135
150
Lead
3.3-5.0
.125
Magnesium
64-410
30-265
547
455
Manganese
200-1400
18
13
Nitrogen - NO3
0-4.0
4.5
Potassium
28-1860
6.5-13
340
700
Sodium
85-1805
87-115
620
810
Sulfate
39-730
1.0-40
1370
Total phosphate
.16-29
Zinc
20-1000
20
Note: All figures in mg/l unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE VI1-23 (CONT.)
SUMMARY OF LANDFILL LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS
Landfill site
Leachate Mission Carbon Central Disposal Site, Sonoma, California**
components Landfil I . Range of
wwii i|^wi i v i 11 a
3-18-68
3-24-71 Cell B
Cell C
Cell D
Cell E
va1ues
pH (units)
5.75
7.4
4.2-4.5
4.9-5.2
4.6-5.2
5.8-6.5
4.2-7.8
BOD 5
10,900
908
13,500-32,400
14,700-28,200
19,800-33,600
1020-1730
908-33,600
Nitrogen - Kjeldahl
104
92.4
20-170
174-800
182-864
350-558
2.4-864
Chloride
660
2355
998-1800
530-1200
920-1210
170-210
67-2350
TDS
44,900
13,409
15,970-42,270
9180-19,336
14,196-21,010
2186-2948
1452-44,900
Alkalinity (CaC03)
9860
8677
0-2360
0-5480
3050-5950
626-704
0-9860
Calcium
7200
216
200-2950
700-1600
900-1800
170-200
81-2950
Copper
3.6
0-0.6
0-0.4
.45
0-24
Hardness (CaC03)
22,800
8930
650-22,800
Iron - total
2820
4.75
4.75-2820
Lead
3.0
0-0.8
0-2.0
2.0
0-5
Magnesium
15,600
8714
320-924
200-760
360-600
120-150
30-15,600
Manganese
13-1,400
Nitrogen - NO3
2.5-66
1.8-4.6
1.90-6.34
.87-1 .0
0-66
Potassium
68
440
1500
560-845
727-910
24
6.5-1860
Sodium
767
1160
1325
550-950
860-1020
115
85-1805
Sulfate
1190
19
340-880
794-1040
1-1370
Total phosphate
.24
.65
0-83
9.8-41.9
17.8-79.2
.35-2.3
0-83
Zinc
140
22-42
30-95
.15
0.15-1000
Note: All figures in mg/l unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE VII—23 (CONT.)
SUMMARY OF LANDFILL LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS
* Report on the investigation of leaching of a sanitary landfill, State Water Pollution Control Board, Sacramento,
California, Publication No. 10, 1954. (Robert C. Merz, Ralph Stone, et. al.)
+ Sanitary landfill studies, Appendix A. Summary of Selected Previous Investigations, State of California,
Department of Water Resources, Bulletin No. 147-5, July 1969.
* T. M. Melchtry. Leachate control systems. Paper presented at the Los Angeles Regional Forum on Solid Wate
Management, May 25, 1971.
** Test cells demonstration grant. EPA Grant No. 1-G06-EC-00351 -01 AL, Central Disposal Site, Sonoma County,
California. Current report,
to
o
-------
higher pH values for normal landfills. The pilot test drum leachate analyses (see
Chapter VI.C.7) agree with these results.
The range of BOD5 values for leachate from normal landfills given in Table
VI1-23, except for the high range at Riverside, is significantly lower than the Ocean-
side Cells 1 and 3 and the Sonoma cells.
The quarterly comprehensive analyses of leachate from Oceanside Ceils 1 and
3 were given in Table VI1—7. The Oceanside cell analyses show values of copper, iron
(total), lead, and manganese generally well below the lower limits of the data ranges
for landfills shown in Table VII-23. Values of other leachate components showed no
discernible difference.
c. Gas Composition. A comparison of gas composition in the Oceanside test
cells with gas compositions reported by Merz and Stone is given in Figure VII-28.
The CO2 trends are quite similar, but CH4 concentrations in the Oceanside test cells
are lower than concentrations reported by Merz and Stone. The gas concentrations in
the Oceanside test cells appear to follow typical trends for normal landfills. Fungaroli
obtained similar patterns, but significantly lower concentrations; CO2 increased to 45
percent at the lysimeter bottom and to 75 percent at mid-depth within 40 days after
filling, and then decreased to 15 and 30 percent, respectively. Fungaroli obtained
little Chfy, generally less than one percent by volume.
d. Temperature. Initial peak temperatures in landfills have been shown to
be a Irnear function of the solid waste (and weather) temperature at the time of place-
ment of the solid waste. This relationship, as illustrated by Farquhar, is given in
Figure VI1-29, which shows the Oceanside test cells and the Spadra (California) cells.
The three Oceanside test cells fit the landfill temperature curve well, thus indicating
that the liquid sewage sludge did not significantly affect the peak temperature behavior.
Comparisons of temperature trends in the Oceanside test cells with the Merz and Stone
Spadra cells are given in Figures VI1—30 and VII—31. The temperature trends from the
Oceanside cells are converging with the trends reported by Merz and Stone.
e. Settlement. A comparison of surface settlement trends as a percentage of
initial depth is given in Figure VI1-32 for the Oceanside and Spadra test cells. Settle-
ment rates in the Oceanside cells were greater than in the Spadra cell during the first
100 days after filling. These different initial settlement rates are attributable to the
original differences in the density of the Oceanside cells (623 to 640 lb per cu yd) and
the Spadra cell (1,200 lb per cu yd). The total settlement during the study period for
the Oceanside and Spadra cells were all within the range of 2 to 4 percent of initial
depth. A review of landfill settlement at Coyote Canyon landfill in Orange County,
California (about 30 miles north of Oceanside) indicated average annual settlements
of 1.0 to 1.1 percent. Compaction density at Coyote Canyon is reported to be 1,200
lb per cu yd, which is identical to the Spadra cell. The Spadra cell received water at
a rate triple the normal rainfall experienced at Coyote Canyon; thus the higher settle-
ment at Spadra resulted.
221
-------
100
80
v\
\ X
\
\
is 60
40
<
O 20
/
/
/
CELL DEPTH GAS SYMBOL
\
\
A * 13 CO
A * 13 ci-r
1,2,3** 15'-3" to lS'-ll" COT,
1,2,3** 15'-3" to 15'-ir CH^
* Merz and Stone
** Composite of Oceanside
_v\ Test Cells 1, 2 and 3
^ A
I I I 1
400 500 600 700
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VII-28
COMPARISON OF GAS
COMPOSITION IN OCEANSIDE
TEST CELLS WITH NORMAL SOLID WASTE
-------
Q£
D
140
130
120
110
100
90
% 80
$ 70
O-
60
50
40
30
DATA SOURCE
QUASIM
BELUCHE
CALIFORNIA
MANCHESTER ¦
ROVERS AND
FARQUHAR V
OCEANSIDE:
CELL 1 •
CELL 2 O
CELL 3 O
_L
I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PLACEMENT TEMPERATURE (F)
80 90
100
FROM: Farquhar, G. University of Waterloo,Department of Civil
frigineering, Waterloo, Canada, presented at Engineering
Foundation Conference, 1972.
FIGURE VI1-29
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INITIAL
PEAK TEMPERATURE AND
PLACEMENT TEMPERATURE
223
-------
DEPTH SYMBOL CELL DEPTH SYMBOL
fO
N>
10'-6"
15'-2"
2
2
3
3
9'-5"
17'-9"
8'-4"
15'-5"
* Cell A - Merz and Stone
< 70 ~
5
100 150
250 300 350 400 450
DAYS SINCE FILLING
500
600 650 700
FIGURE Vllr30
COMPARISON OF
TEMPERATURES
-------
130
120
110
100
90
ce.
D
<> 80
ILI
a.
i 70
60
50
40
30
~k>—nio—i5o 206
CEIL DEPTH SYMBOL
B* io
B* 16
1 10'-6"
1 15'-2"
CELL
DEPTH SYMBOL
2
9'-5"
2
17'-9"
3
8'-4"
3
15._5..
250 300 350 400 450 500 53) 600 650 700
DAYS SINCE FILLING
FIGURE VII-31
COMPARISON OF
TEMPERATURES
-------
(S3
hO
O
Q.
0)
T>
4
c
®
u
l_
0)
Q.
Z
LLI
5
fc
CO
6
7
8
CELL
1*
2*
3*
A+
A+
*
+
INITIAL
DEPTH, FT SYMBOL
13 •
12 *
13
21
10
Oceanside test cells.
Merz and Stone; Spadra test cell,
9
10
_L
100
200 300 400
DAYS SINCE FILLING
500
600
700
FIGURE VII-32
COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENT —
OCEANSIDE TEST CELLS AND NORMAL
LANDFILL CELLS
-------
f. Microorganisms. There appears to be little or no difference between the
pathogenic bacteria content of normal landfill solid waste and sludge-admixed solid
waste. Since normal landfill solid waste is contaminated with fecal material (e.g.,
from disposable diapers, pet and other animal excrement, dead animals, etc.), no
major difference in pathogenic bacteria types would be expected. The decrease in
fecal organisms with depth and time is a common characteristic, possibly caused by
temperature, anaerobiosis, or both. In short, sewage sludge-admixed solid waste is
no more hazardous regarding pathogen content than normal landfill solid waste.
g. Summary. The significant differences noted between sludge admixed with
solid waste (Oceanside cells) and normal landfills were that sludge-admixed waste had
lower leachate pH, higher leachate BOD,, values and higher Kjeldahl organic nitrogen.
The higher BOD^ values of Oceanside test cell leachate could be attributable to a
high soluble organic content in the liquid sewage sludges admixed into the test cell
solid waste. These sludge organics would be readily soluble in rainfall or other liquid
passing through the fill. The higher Kjeldahl organic nitrogen in the Oceanside cell
leachate obviously resulted from the high concentration of nitrogen compounds in the
sludge.
The lack of significant differences in temperature, settlement and gas com-
position between sludge-admixed solid waste and normal landfill solid waste indicates
that the effects of the sludge on these parameters are minimal.
227
-------
VIII. FIELD DEMONSTRATION OF LANDFILL
OPERATIONS A ND LIQUID SLUDGE DISPOSA L
A. Purpose
The disposal of liquid digested sewage sludge into a sanitary landfill may
not only create certain environmental difficulties but it may also present certain
operational opportunities and challenges. Operational aspects to be considered are
related to equipment, personnel, landfilling methods, soil cover techniques, compaction,
drainage, leachate discharge, gas generation, etc. Landfill environmental nuisances
which must be controlled include odors, litter, dust, flies (and other insect vectors),
birds, rats (and other vermin), and fires.
The operational aspects of sludge disposal into a sanitary landfill were
evaluated in special demonstration field studies conducted at the Oceanside landfills.
The results obtained and the problems observed to date are presented and discussed
in the following text. Site geology, soil and groundwater conditions are described
in Appendix F .
B. Method of Study
1. Landfill Site. The preliminary landfill studies were conducted in a
selected area at the old Oceanside sanitary landfill. These preliminary studies
with liquid sludge were initiated in May 1971 and were continued through November
15 at which time the City closed its old landfill site and opened a new landfill site.
The field study was interrupted for three weeks until sufficient deposited solid waste
spreading area became available at the new landfill site. In February 1972 (at the
start of the second year demonstration program), the City commenced disposing of
all digested liquid sewage sludge generated at its three treatment plants into the
municipal landfill. This full-scale demonstration operation permitted a comprehensive
evaluation of the practical aspects of liquid sludge-solid waste landfill disposal.
2. Parameters Evaluated. The parameters evaluated in the field tests
included: sludge and solid waste composition; sludge application techniques; solid
waste fill/sludge admixture; personnel; equipment operation and maintenance;
odors; gas emissions; blowing of litter and dust; presence of flies, birds, rats, and
other vectors; and waste bio-degradation. Table VIII-1 is a summary of the landfill
operation monitoring. The landfill monitoring data sheets are shown in Appendix B.
A brief description of the various tasks performed through June 1972 is presented.
A sample of seagulls at the landfill is shown in Photograph Vlll-la.
The sludge application methods evaluated included the use of different
spreading techniques, application of different weight ratios of sludge to solid waste,
228
-------
TABLE VI11-1
LANDFILL OPERATIONS MONITORING SCHEDULE
Task
Frequency Performed by
Performance:
Time and motion studies
Analysis of sludge application
effects
Landfill equipment O & M (time)
Environmental effects:
Blowing litter and dust,
odor, flies, vermin, birds
Operating hazards
Waste core samples
(moisture content,
decomposition)
Sludge application studies:
Spreading sludge with and without
soil and refuse cover
Spreading sludge on compacted/
uncompacted waste
Evaluations of different methods of
sludge application (pumping,
gravity feed, single nozzle
hose, splash plates, etc.)
Temperature, gas sampling (h^S)
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Daily
Weekly
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
Waste Disposal Department*
Waste Disposal Department*
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
Quarterly Ralph Stone and Company, Inc,
Continuously Waste Disposal and Sewer Depts*
during the year
Continuously Waste Disposal and Sewer Depts*
during the year
Continuously Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
during the year
Periodically Sewer Departmentland Ralph
during land- Stone and Company, Inc.
fill stud ies
City of Oceanside municipal departments.
229
-------
J'*
o. SEA GULLS FORAGING ON
SLUDGE-FREE SOLID WASTE.
b. TRUCK APPLYING LIQUID SLUDGE
TO FLAT TEST AREA. NOTE
SPREADING PLATES.
c, DOZER MOVING SLUDGE-WASTE
ADMIXTURE.
PHOTOGRAPH Vlll-l
INITIAL SLUDGE-
SOLID WASTE FIELD TESTS
230
-------
and deposition of various thicknesses of sludge on different solid waste landfill surfaces.
Relatively simple, inexpensive methods for spreading trucked sludge over solid waste
were demonstrated using direct discharge from the transportation truck. These were:
gravity flow from a single 4~in. diameter pipe; gravity flow from similar piping using
single and double splash plates; mechanical pumping through a standard fire hose to
improve distribution;and gravity flow from a 4-in. diameter flexible hose mounted on
an 8-foot boom.
The effect of fill construction on sludge handling capacity was evaluated
through: a) application of liquid sludge to uncompacted and compacted waste, and
completed landfill b) varying the slope of the fill surface from 1:2 to level;
and c) building up the waste and earth cover into dikes to pool the sludge so that the
solid waste could be directly discharged into the sludge pool. The effects of excessive
moisture were determined by conducting operating tests during rainfalls.
Landfill equipment studies involved reviewing the records for operation and
maintenance of the landfill tractor dozers. The City of Oceanside Waste Disposal
Department operates two tractor dozers with straight buckets at its landfill, a CAT 977
and a 977 K. The 977 K serves as a backup. Random time and motion studies were
conducted to determine the efficiency of the dozer in working the solid waste-sludge
mixture under various disposal methods used. The major operating parameters
considered were traction and load moving capability on the waste fill surface.
Samples of equipment data sheets used in the field are presented in Appendix B.
In addition to monitoring dozers, tests were made to evaluate the driving performance
of a rubber-tired sludge tank truck while spreading sludge on the fill surface. In order
to determine the effects of admixing sludge into solid waste on personnel health and
safety, records of illness and accidents from the City of Oceanside were analyzed.
3. Filling and Spreading Operations. The demonstration operations at the
old landfill consisted of an initial trial run and a subsequent "extended" operation.
In the trial run, three truck loads of solid waste (about 25,000 lb) were unloaded in a
flat section at the foot of the landfill working face. The wastes were worked by a
CAT 977 K tractor dozer to a 1.5 fo
-------
end of the test program in January 1972, During this period, only one day of rainfall
occurred when liquid sludge was disposed.
Initially, 1,250 gallons of sludge and two truck loads (32 cu yd capacity) of solid
waste were applied to the test site once every week. After an additional two weeks,
the weekly demonstration quantities were increased to 1,750 gallons of sludge and
three truck loads of solid waste. These quantities were further increased to 3,500
gallons of sludge and six truck loads of solid waste per week.
Figure VI11—1 schematically describes the solid waste placement and sludge application.
The solid waste was unloaded at the top of the fill slope, pushed onto the face of the
slope, and worked by the dozer to a depth of about 2 ft. A variation of this procedure
was also tested. It consisted of pushing the waste onto the slope without working to
compact it. In all cases, the sludge was applied evenly across the top of the slope.
A daily soil cover of about 6 in. was applied to the fill slope and a 1 - to 2—ft soil cover
was provided at the top of the slope on the flat portion of the fill lift.
During the full-scale operation at the new landfill site, sludge handling was initially
on a two-day per week basis (Monday and Thursday). This was later increased first to
three days per week (Monday, Wednesday and Friday), and then to five days per week.
During the test period, the temperature ranged from 60 F to 78 F, the wind intensity
varied from "calm" to "moderate," and showers occurred on four days. Other information
pertaining to the operation at the new landfill is discussed below in connection with the
results.
4. Core Sampling. Quarterly bore hole drilling was completed at the existing
Oceanside demonstration landfill in areas representing three conditions: 1) the current
working face with fresh admixed sludge-solid waste; 2) an older fill area that had re-
ceived admixed sludge-solid waste; and 3) an older area that had received only solid
waste. For the latter two fill conditions, areas were selected that were filled at about
the same time as the three test cells. Each time drilling was conducted, bore holes
for the latter two landfill conditions were drilled in the same place to obtain continuous
data. Bore holes were drilled to a depth of 20 feet or to the bottom of the fill wherever
feasible. Samples were taken at two-foot depth intervals. The drilling equipment,
sampling methodology, sample analyses and coring observations were done as described
in Section VII. B. 5. and Appendix A. Prior to backfilling the bore holes with the
waste material removed, 10-foot long 0.25-inch I. D. polyethylene gas sample probes
were placed into the holes as shown in Photograph VI11-2 c.
5. Vector Studies. Special studies of fly emergence were begun in August 1972.
Dr. John H. Poorbaugh, Jr., Ph. D., Vector Control Specialist of the State of California
Department of Public Health, Bureau of Vector Control and Solid Waste Management,
assisted in providing guidelines by which to conduct the fly emergence studies.
Mr. Harvey I. Magy, Southern California Region, of the same State Department,
also assisted in the fly test program and provided 14 modified eye-gnat emergence traps
232
-------
EQUIPMENT YARD
SOL1D WASTE SAMPLE
(3 TRUCK LOADS)
SLUDGE
APPLICATION
PLAN
12—ft- LIFT
2' THICK WASTE
APPLY THE SEWAGE SLUDGE ACROSS THE TOP OF THE WASTE SURFACE.
WORK THE WASTE UNTIL IT IS 2 FT THICK ON THE SLOPE AS SHOWN.
FIGURE VIIH
SOLID WASTE AND
SLUDGE PLACEMENT
233
-------
% ^
r*v
\
1**^. -'um^v9w
.nOk i¦ sv- v.wSt
* • !*&% *bir'l:.?.%'
^ « i,. •¦ - r «
a. CORED SLUDGE-AA/ASTE ADMIXED
FILL MATERIAL.
* - t
*£
TiflrMi,
c. PLACING GAS PROBE
IN BORE HOLE.
•S* ¦ ^ ^
*'J' 4:.'
. . i. k-
b. CORED SOLID WASTE FILL MATERIAL
(NO SLUDGE).
PHOTOGRAPH VIII-2
CORE MATERIALS AND
GAS PROBE
234
-------
to conduct the study. Mr. Daniel Bergman, Vector Ecologist with the San Diego
County Department of Public Health/assisted in setting up the fly emergence test plots
and traps, and helped monitor and identify flies on the first two tests completed in
August and September 1972. The routine monthly tests were conducted by Ralph Stone
and Company, Inc. and Oceanside Waste Disposal Department personnel thereafter.
To conduct the studies, two separate test plots were prepared each month,
approximately 15 feet by 15 feet in area,with a three-foot depth of solid waste. One
area received digested liquid sewage sludge, while the second area contained only solid
waste. A six-to twelve-inch moist cover soil layer was applied and compacted as is
done on the regular landfill. Four fly emergence traps, each three feet by three feet
wide and one foot high, were placed three to five feet apart on each of the two test
plots (eight traps total). A schematic of the fly emergence traps is shown in Figure
VI11—2. The emerging flies were attracted to the light in the glass jar in which they
were trapped and collected daily, counted and identified by species. Flies entering
the jar were prevented from leaving by the screen. A tightly packed two-inch seal
of soil was placed along the bottom edges of each trap to prevent light entrance and
fly escape. Emergence tests were conducted for two-week periods to cover the maximum
possible time for egg hatching, larvae stages and emergence as adult flies.
C. Results and Discussion
1. Initial Trial Run at the Old Landfill. The following are highlights of
the results of the initial trial run at the old landfill:
a. It was impractical to drive a heavy rubber-tired tank truck over newly
deposited solid wastes to distribute sewage sludge. The truck had difficulty
traversing the waste and broke a rear axle on its third pass. It was towed through the
waste thereafter by the CAT 977 K until it unloaded the 1,250 gallons of sludge. A
total of two passes was made in each of three paths across the waste.
b. It was observed that approximately 50 sea gulls were feeding on the
exposed solid waste prior to applying the sludge. After application none of the sea
gulls would feed on nor traverse the wastes coated with digested dewage sludge. Some
sparrows approached the sludge but did not appear to feed in the sludge admixture.
c. The earthy odor of well-digested sewage sludge was observed during
sludge disposal and for approximately 30 minutes thereafter within 30 feet of the area.
When the liquid soaked into the solid waste and the sludge surface dried, the odor was
reduced unfll it was noticeable only when standing next to the waste. The normal
solid waste landfill pig-pen odor was apparently masked by the earthy odor of the
digested sludge.
d. The test area was subsequently worked into the face of the regular land-
fill by pushing and working up the slope of the fill face.
235
-------
r''i
-3'
CANVAS
COVER
O
BLACK-PAINTED
CANVAS COVER
2-INCH
PACKED "
SOIL SEAL
SCREEN
1-QUART
FLY TRAP
BOTTLE
FIGURE VI11-2
SCHEMATIC OF FLY
EMERGENCE TRAPS
236
-------
e. When the test waste~sludge mixture was removed from the test area it
was observed that about 70 percent of the surface area was dry. Very little sludge
bypass drainage or run-through had occurred.
2. "Extended" Field Tests. The results of the extended demonstration tests
are presented below in summary form.
a. Equipment Operation. The CAT 977 K Dozer landfill equipment operator
reported it appeared easier to work the solid waste~liquid sludge mixture than regular
waste. It compacted better and gave off less dust. Some slippage of the dozer tracks
occurred occasionally when working on the slope face in areas where sludge pools had
formed.
b. Sludge Disposal. It was difficult to achieve uniform liquid sludge
spreading from the single 4-in. gravity-feed tank truck discharge pipe. The
concentrated high velocity flow discharge tended to channelize the solid waste,and
the sludge bypassed along to the bottom of the new lift-old lift interface/creating
minor runoff. A new splash plate assembly was ordered for the large 3,500 gallon
tank truck/but it did not arrive until full-scale sludge disposal was under way. At
times as much as 50 or 60 gallons of sludge bypass runoff was observed from one
3,500 gallon tank-truck sludge load. The runoff was contained by earthen dikes along
the foot of the new fill face. (See Photograph VIH-3 a.)
In order to prevent runoff, solid waste dikes were formed on the sloped base
of the working face of the fill. The dikes proved effective if the sludge was worked
into the solid waste by the tractor dozer to achieve suitable admixture and compaction.
Additional solid waste was admixed into the sludge pools behind the dikes. It was
found difficult to work the solid waste immediately with pooled sludge due to poor
dozer traction. After the liquid sludge soaked into the solid waste for about one hour,
however, it was easily worked.
After spreading the liquid sludge, steam was observed in an uncovered area
one to two feet below the landfill surface. Routine observations were made once a
week for 33 days during the seven-month preliminary field demonstrations. The
landfill operator's observations are tabulated in Appendix E and summarized below.
c. Odor. Earthy sewage sludge odors were noted 5 days (17 percent);
normal landfill odors, 13 days (43 percent); and no odors, 12 days (40 percent) of the
time.
d. Blowing Litter. Windy days in Oceanside are rare. Blowing litter was
reported during only one day (3 percent of the observed period) in the landfill site.
It occurred during a day when a moderate wind was blowing. The sludge which covered
the surface of the test area apparently held the waste down. Water truck irrigation
was used to restrain litter from blowing in the regular landfill area. It appears that the
sludge can provide an effective control for blowing litter in the working landfill face,
but not for the truck roadway and dumping access areas.
237
-------
a. GRAVITY SLUDGE DISCHARGE
b. GRAVITY SLUDGE DISCHARGE
THROUGH A FLEXIBLE HOSE.
c. SOLID WASTE DIKES FOR
SLUDGE CONTAINMENT.
PHOTOGRAPH VIII-3
FIELD DEMONSTRATION
SLUDGE DISPOSAL IN THE LANDFILL—
SLUDGE APPLICATION METHODOLOGIES
238
-------
e. Animals and Flies. Sea gulls were the most abundant animals observed
foraging in the solid waste. They were observed in the sludge test area on five occas-
ions, but only on wastes that were not coated with sludge. A few small birds were
noted in the sludged area on two days and lizards on one day. Flies were always
present in the sludge-solid waste admixtures.
f. Sludge Spreading. Poor spreading and solid waste admixing were noted
on two days (6 percent) and some sludge runoff occurred on six days (18 percent of
the observations over the seven-month period).
3. Full-Scale Demonstration at the New Landfill. The major problems
encountered in the full-scale demonstration wherein all of the City's liquid digested
sludge was disposed into the available solid waste were those of sludge admixture and
operator acceptance. The field observation data is included in Appendix E and
summarized below.
a. Sludge Runoff. Initially when the sludge was hauled and spread on a
two-days per week basis, some appreciable runoff occurred. Significantly smaller
quantities of runoff, however, resu Ited when better admixture was provided by a
5-days per week sludge spreading schedule. The use of solid waste diking to
prevent sludge runoff was tested. The effort, however, did not prove completely
satisfactory since it was difficult to work the pooled sludge-solid waste mixture
until most of the liquid had been absorbed by the solid waste. When the runoff
volume was large (50 to 100 gallons) an earth d-ike was maintained below the foot
of the new fill face slope to contain runoff and allow it to be absorbed into the
older lift. (See Photographs Vlll-3c, and VI11—4 a, b, and c.)
A third approach to the problem of runoff control which was investigated in
June 1972 was that of reducing the slope of the fill working face. It appeared,
however, very difficult to get adequate spreading of the sludge onto a flat surface
with gravity discharge unless the truck is actually driven over the fill surface. This
is not practical with normal truck equipment and, hence, provides an added cost. A
modification of the flat-spreading approach which was also tested (and found undesirable)
consisted of digging trenches through the soil cover on top of the completed fill lift.
The sludge was discharged into these trenches, and the trenches were subsequently
ripped through to allow for sludge spreading. This procedure, however, resulted in a
severe odor nuisance and complaints were received from a school 300 feet away. Direct
liquid sludge spreading on the flat surface of a completed fill using small berms worked
well with a 3- to 6~in. depth sludge application drying in a day or less. (See
Photograph VI11—5.) Pumping through movable pipes would be a superior way of spread-
ing sludge on flat or other surfaces. However, it costs more than gravity feed. Costs
for sludge pumping are incorporated into the truck transportation costs described in
Chapter IX.
239
-------
LANDFILL FACE SLUDGE-
SPREADING FLOW PATTERN.
b.
SLUDGE RUNOFF.
FLIES AND FLY MAGGOTS d. SLUDGE-SOLID WASTE
ENTRAPPED IN SLUDGE RUNOFF. ACCUMULATION IN DOZER
TRACK DRIVE.
PHOTOGRAPH VIII-4
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
240
-------
DOZER RIPPING LANDFILL LIFT
COVER SOIL PRIOR TO SLUDGE
APPLICATION.
b. SLUDGE APPLIED TO COVER SOIL
OF UNDFILL LIFT.
LIQUID SLUDGE ON LANDFILL LIFT d. DRIED SLUDGE ON LANDFILL LIFT
COVER SOIL. COVER SOIL,
PHOTOGRAPH VII1-5
SPECIAL TESTS OF SLUDGE
ADMIXTURE INTO FILL COVER
SOIL FOR DRYING
241
-------
During July and August of 1972, an eight-foot truck boom suspending a four-
inch diameter eight-foot long flexible hose was used to spread sludge by gravity feed.
Although the spreading was improved over single nozzle discharge, hcndling the hose
was found to be troublesome due to sludge spillage. Also, sludge odor emanated from
the hose after disposal. During 10 days of observation in July 1972, runoff occurred
on seven days in quantities of 20 gallons or less.
In September 1972 and thereafter, a double splash-plate assembly was used
for gravity spreading of sludge. The double splash-plate distributed sludge over an
estimated area about 12 feet wide and six feet deep. The double spla:;h-plate assembly
was superior in spreading sludge more uniformly over the surface of the working face
of the solid waste fill. The truck had to be moved a minimum of three times across
the top of the working face to avoid channeling and resultant runoff when using the
double splash-plates.
Prior to September 1972, when cover soil was not placed on the working face
at the end of each day,the sludge truck began disposal at about 6 A.M. With the
initiation of daily cover soil placement on the working face in September 1972, there
was no longer any exposed solid waste to admix with the sludge until the first load of
solid waste was disposed. This resulted in a change in the sludge dispDsal schedule.
During operation without daily soil cover no external environmental problems with
odor or public health were encountered, although a large fly population was observed.
Initially, the sludge disposal truck operated from 5:30 A.M. to about 1 P.M.
It was found that all of the sludge was disposed onto one-third to one-half the daily
solid waste quantities. Daily solid waste disposal began primarily after 10 A.M. and
continued up to 7 P.M. On the revised sludge disposal schedule, sludge was taken to
the landfill after 10 A.M. after the first several loads of solid waste were disposed.
A reduction in sludge runoff was noted in that runoff quantities generally never exceed-
ed 50 gallons.
Other steps taken to minimize sludge runoff, control vectors and conserve
cover soil included the following: 1) providing better solid waste compaction?
2) reducing the width of the landfill working face by up to one-third. The working
face was normally 150 to 200 feet wide on a side; this was reduced to about a 30-foot
width, 70- to 80- foot length and 12- to 15-foot lift. The resultant proportionally thicker
and denser solid waste layers provided additional absorptive capacity and better dozer
footing conditions. Sludge runoff has been negligible with the smaller working face.
Four tank-truck loads of sludge (14,000 gallons) can be readily disposed daily without
significant runoff if scheduled for unloading in proportion (about 0.6 lb sludge per lb
solid waste) to solid waste deliveries. The few gallons of sludge runoff at the toe of
the working face, if present, are easily covered with refuse or dirt as part of the normal
sanitary landfill activity. Since the working face is on a prior lift,for runoff into
ground or surface water to occur, liquid must pass through the absorbent solid waste
in lower lifts. A working face slope of from 25 to 30 percent was considered best for
minimizing runoff and providing suitable dozer traction.
242
-------
b. Sludge Disposal During Rainfall. Observations were made on two days of rain-
fall. On November 7, 1972 , 0.21 inches of rain fell at the Oceanside landfill. Sludge
was deposited on the uncovered face of solid waste which had been thoroughly wetted
by the rainfall. Within a couple of minutes after sluge unloading began (800 gallons
unloaded), some sludge runoff was observed at the toe of the working face. Sludge
unloading was suspended and the truck moved to a newly started working face to un-
load the remaining 2700 gallons. No runoff occurred from the new working face.
On December 4, 1972 , 0.36 inches of rain fell. The landfill was inspected for
runoff. It was observed that rainfall drainage from two storm drain pipes, one from the
adjacent elementary school and another from the adjacent junior high school track field,
flowed uncontrolled over the landfill access roads and onto the fill working face. It is
not uncommon to have a "design" storm in the semi-arid Oceanside area which floods
out the normally dry San Luis Rey River. The point of this discussion is that even though
the Oceanside annual rainfall is relatively low (12 in./year), the individual storm
intensity periods may be excessive and, hence, a very fair test of the sludge absorption
problems during wet weather was obtained. Corrective action was subsequently taken
by grading to re-route the runoff along earthen channels paralleling the edge of the
canyon and away from the landfill. Three loads of sludge were disposed on December 4.
Some runoff was observed along the toe of the working face toward the end of the third
unloading operation. The runoff consisted of a diluted mixture of sludge and rain water.
Obviously, if the solid waste fill is brought to field capacity with enough rainfall
the liquid sludge runs off more easily. Since runoff did not occur on December 4, 1972
until the third load of sludge, it appears that the solid waste must be saturated to near
its moisture absorption capacity before runoff results.
A number of solid waste disposal trucks became stuck in mud on the landfill unload-
ing area during heavy rain, but no problems occurred with the sludge truck.
c. Odors. Daily surveillance for odor during the period from May 1 through July 31,
1972 indicated the in-situ presence of normal refuse odors for 36 percent of the time
and the presence of earthy digested sludge odor for 19 percent of the time. No specific
odors were identified during the remaining 45 percent of the observations (see Appendix
E for data). During 1973, odor surveillance conducted while sludge disposal was taking
place indicated an earthy odor 90 percent of the time. During a warm period in the
last week of October 1972, the landfill working face was in a position about 80 feet
directly below the adjacent Mission Elementary School cafeteria. A complaint was
received by the Oceanside Public Works Director from the school authorities that a
"musty odor of old unwashed dirty clothes" pervaded the cafeteria. The landfill working
face was promptly moved to another section of the canyon site; no other public com-
plaints have been received before or afterwards. The area below the school cafeteria
was filled with solid waste thereafter only when school was not in session. Observations
by the Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. Field Engineer verified the existence of a strong
"pig pen" type of odor from restaurant garbage, etc. at the landfill when the complaint
was received.
243
-------
d. Operator Problems. During April and May 1972 (second and third months of
the demonstration) the dozer operator continually reported strong noxious odors being
emitted from the sludge-admixed fill. These reports were investigated by the Consultant's
Field Engineer and other staff personnel who conducted qualitative and quantitative tests.
Hydrogen sulfide field tests were made, and gas samples were collected for analysis by
gas chromatography. The field tests and gas chromalographic analysis; for hydrogen sul-
fide proved negative. It is possible that the odors noted by the dozer operator may have
been from a load(s) of partially digested sludge which had been inadvertently disposed.
Also, the operator routinely ate his lunch directly in the fill face area and he was advised
to eat away from the fill. The dozer operator was examined by medical doctors and found
to be healthy. The operator was offered the opportunity to transfer his work and be a
truck driver in the refuse collection system. He has elected to continue to operate the
dozer tractor full time on the demonstration landfill. The experience with the dozer
operator illustrates a key factor in liquid sludge disposal into a sanitary landfill. Special
training and further incentives may be required to obtain employee acceptance of work-
ing with sludge in the proper manner.
e. Blowing of Litter. From May 1 to July 31, 1972 small amounts of blowing
litter were reported at the landfill on three days (7 percent of the observations). Blow-
ing litter was not reported for 1973 observations. Water was applied to the fill working
face and over unloaded solid waste primarily when sludge was not being spread. Water
application during full-scale sludge disposal in 1972 averaged 8,318 gallons per week
(34.7 tons per week), or 1,540 gallons per day (6.4 tons per day based on 5.4 days per
week). Water application in 1971 prior to sludge disposal into the landfill averaged
22,360 gallons per week, which indicated a 63 percent reduction in the amount of water
used in conjunction with full-scale sludge disposal. Water application rates showed no
relationship to weather. Sludge was deemed unacceptable for controlling litter and dust
on the access road and solid waste unloading areas. Thus, some use of water is necessary
on these latter areas, especially toward the end of the working day after the daily sludge
quantity is disposed.
f. Observations of Birds and Animals. Sea gulls were the most common animal
life observed at the landfill, being sighted on 16 observation days (36 percent); up to
100 gulls were observed on two occasions. Pigeons, blackbirds, sparrows, rabbits, rats
and squirrels were also occasionally sighted; up to 30 pigeons and a like number of crows
were observed on separate days. The birds and other animal life initially avoided for-
aging on solid waste areas covered with wet sewage sludge. It was observed after about
seven months of full-scale sludge disposal (about mid-September 1972) that sea gulls and
other birds had adapted and were foraging in the wet sludge-waste admixture after the
dozer had worked the waste. While foraging, the birds appeared to avoid the particles
of waste that were completely covered with wet sludge. After working the refuse, the
dozer exposed underlying solid waste that was not covered with wet sludge, thus provid-
ing the birds with unoffensive foraging areas. On one occasion, four sea gulls were
observed walking in pooled sludge. The sea gulls by December 1972 had overcome their
initial aversion to foraging in the wet sewage sludge. Thereafter hundreds of sea gulls
were commonplace at the landfill.
244
-------
g. Fly Studies. Flies are not usually associated with digested wet sewage sludge
perse, but it was observed that they will forage in solid waste wetted with sludge. (See
Photograph VI11—4 c which illustrates flies and maggots entrapped in sludge runoff.)
Observations indicate that houseflies and their larvae do not prefer sludge, but they for-
age in it and thereby are exposed. Counts of the density of flies in the sludge-solid
waste fill indicated densities of five to ten flies per square foot. Since the entire land-
fill was used for sludge disposal, data on solid waste fill was not obtained.
Special inquiries indicate that no increase in flies was observed or reported from
the adjacent school or residential housing projects. No migration of flies was observed.
It is known that houseflies are attracted by the odors of food, and in this case the land-
fill appeared to maintain their attention. Blowflies and houseflies are reportedly wide-
ranging (1/2 to 6 miles) and, therefore, the potential for migration may exist if there is
a lack of suitable food items at the landfill. Daily compacted earth cover ;s needed to
maintain sanitary landfill conditions.
Flies were collected for identification on three occasions. In August 1972 flies
were collected over a 14-day period in fly emergence traps placed on top of covered
solid waste. These flies were identified by State of California Department of Public
Health Ecologists to be: Cochliomyia macellaria, three specimens; Phoenicia sericata,
five specimens; Phoenicia cuprino, 10 specimens; Ophyra leucostoma, two specimens;
and Sepsidae, one specimen. In June 1973 flies were collected on the fill face in a
sludge-solid waste area and in an area with solid waste only. These flies were identified
by the same personnel to be: Phoenicia sericata, 32 specimens; Cochliomyia macellaria,
12 specimens; Musca domestica, 14 specimens; and other species, 13 specimens on the
solid waste fill face. Also Phaenicia sericata, 33 specimens; Musca domestica, 12
specimens; Chrysomyza demandata, 5 specimens; and other species, 1 specimen on the
sludge-solid waste fill face.
Flies collected in traps placed on covered solid waste for two tests performed In
June and August 1973 were identified as: Phaenic ia sericata, 54 specimens; Musca
domestica, 3 specimens; Haematobia irritans, 3 specimens; Muscina stabulars, 4
specimens; Drosophila immigrans, 6 specimens; Ophyra leucostoma, 2 specimens; and
Chrysomyza demandata, 2 specimens.
These species observed at the landfill were different from the flies found in the
test drums (see Chapter VI). No large domestic houseflies were found in the test drums,
only varieties of small flies the size of gnats.
The August 1972 fly collection was the first of seven fly emergence studies.
In theory, a six-inch layer of well-compacted soil will prevent fly emergence from
solid waste fill without regard to the composition of the waste fill (in this case, ad-
mixture with wet sewage sludge). The efficacy of the cover, however, may vary with
local soil type, compaction technique and soil moisture content.^' The large number
of flies which emerged on the August 1972 test was not anticipated. No provision was
made to kill flies when they entered the collection jars, nor were they collected daily.
245
-------
It was suspected that ants may have removed flies that died in the collection jars, and
that flies escaped through the disturbed dirt seals. As a result of the above, there are
no quantitative results for the first emergence test.
Additional fly emergence tests conducted in November and December 1972 with
eight to twelve inches of cover soil resulted in no fly emergence. It was observed that
fly larvae were in the solid waste disposed during these tests, although the fly population
at the landfill was several orders of magnitude less than during the August-September
1972 tests (the peak fly season). The lack of emergence was attributed to a combination
of better compacted soil cover, and a more hostile (cooler) landfill environment that
was less conducive to propagation of fly larvae and adults.
Four more fly emergence tests were conducted during 1973. In the June test,
solid waste and sludge covered with soil produced 30 emergent flies, while soil-covered
solid waste only yielded 16 flies. In August, both types of test cells produced 31
emergent flies. The final two tests of 1973 were control tests. In October, uncovered
solid waste admixed with sludge yielded 116 flies, but soil-covered sludge-solid waste
produced no emergent flies. In November and early December, a test was run in which
uncovered solid waste was compared with uncovered sludge-solid waste; the test cells
produced 122 and 60 emergent flies, respectively.
Based on the emergence tests results, the following speculative conclusions may
be drawn:
1. Six to eight inches of sand assoil cover will reduce, but not eliminate, fly
emergence.
2. The cover soil available at the site (coarse to fine sand) is a rather poor bar-
rier. During the peak fly season, emergence occurred despite six to eight
inches of compacted soil.
3. Climaticconditions affect fly emergence by affecting the number of existing
flies (i.e., fly seasons). Soil cover which may be ineffective in August may
be effective in October due to the smaller number of flies in October.
4. Sewage sludge admixed with solid waste has no detectable influence on fly
propagation and emergence.
h. Landfill Accidents. A summary of observed accidents and injuries incurred
by Waste Disposal Department personnel and others at the Oceanside landfill is given
in Table VI11—2. It is apparent from the nature and causes of injuries; that none were
attributable to the disposal of sewage sludge.
i. Disinfection. ^ Sewage sludge can be disinfected by storage as well as by
various physical, chemical and biological processes. Heating, chemical addition, and
drying of raw sludge can also provide disinfection. Pathogenic organisms include
246
-------
TABLE VI11-2
LANDFILL OPERATING PERSONNEL INJURIES
Date Nature of injury
1969
Oct Sprained right arm and shoulder.
1970
Aug Twisted right ankle.
Oct Stepped on nail (left foot).
Oct Injured right knee.
Oct Sprained ankle.
1971
Jan Sprained knee.
Apr Blow on side of head (right).
(Sludge disposal initiated.)
Nov Pulled muscle of left shoulder.
Nov Twisted right knee.
Dec Injured back of right hand.
1972
Apr Pain in lower abdomen (right).
May Mashed little finger (left).
July Sprained right thumb.
Aug Chest.
Cause of injury
Stepped on end of can in a trash pile
and other end of can tripped him.
Stepped on ridge at landfill and
twisted ankle.
Guiding truck back to dump
and stepped on nail.
After washing dozer he started to
climb on, slipped on step/hitting
knee on tracks.
Sprained ankle getting off dozer.
Sprained knee getting on and off dozer.
Hit on side of head with lever of rear
truck door when opening it.
Pulling cables and wires from
dozer tracks..
While doing some plumbing, wrench
slipped and he fell on knee, twisting it.
Injured hand while closing gate at end
of day.
Hit himself on right lower abdomen
with lever of tailgate on dump truck.
Caught little finger between throttle
lever and spring on dozer (he was being
trained on dozer).
Opening door of truck, lever hit thumb,
injuring it.
Pressure caused door to hit him in chest
while opening back door of truck.
247
-------
TABLE VI11—2 (CONT.)
LANDFILL OPERATING PERSONNEL INJURIES
Cause of injury
While operating dozer ran over some
steel cable and piece of cable hit
him on left hand.
Cleaning out track and stepped on
nail.
Left his post at gate and climbed on
dozer to see operator service it.
Slipped off track bruising left lgg.
(Sludge not noted as cause or slip.*
Date
Nature of injury
1972
Aug Bruised 2 fingers (left hand).
Aug Stepped on nail (right foot).
Oct Bruised skin (left leg).
248
-------
bacteria, viruses, protozoa, worms, and other microorganisms. (The following para-
graph is quoted from Reference 1.)
"A study of the survival of E. col? in digested primary sludge showed that they
survived for 7 weeks at 37 C and for 2 weeks at 22 C. The coliform organisms appar-
ently disappeared because of competition from other microorganisms better adapted to
the digestion environment.^ Disease organisms such as typhoid-dysentery bacilli,
polio virus, anthrax, ova of parasitic worms, and brucella have been throught to have
a rapid mortality rate due to their sensitivity to the unacceptable digestion environment.
One study where raw and digested sludge was exposed to 55Cfor two hours resulted in
100 percent destruction or inactivation of Ascaris lumbricoides ova. Keller reported
that thermophilic digestion destroyed all ova of parasitic worms and cysts of amoebae
parasitic to man in 24 hours.^2"
Studies completed to determine pathogenic bacteria counts present in solid waste
without sewage sludge have indicated that bacteria populations vary widely between
samples. Total viable coliform densitites ranged from 3.4 (10)5 to 5.1 (10)7 organisms
per gram of solid waste, and fecal coliform in the same samples ranged from 1.5 (10)^
to 8.1 (10)^ organisms per gram in samples from eight solid waste disposal systems studied
by Environmental Protection Agency personnel. The presence of fecal coliform groups
in large numbers indicates extensive normal contamination of solid waste by fecal matter
of either human or animal origin.33
While the existence of pathogenic bacteria in solid waste is generally known,
the exposure of landfill personnel to the pathogens has not been quantified. It is not
known if pathogenic bacteria or viral densitites in Oceanside municipal solid waste are
in the range of the high densities noted above. In the absence of quantitative data,
an indicator of hazard may be illnesses incurred by landfill operating personnel due to
exposure to solid waste-borne pathogens.
No illnesses of landfill personnel have been attributed to the landfill disposal
of sewage sludge and solid waste throughout the study. No illnesses were reported in
the literature or in the Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. nationwide survey on sludge
disposal into landfills.
4. Auger Sampling. The results of bore samplings completed quarterly begin-
ning July 1972 are discussed in the following paragraphs. Each auger sampling
program provided one bore hole each in: freshly placed sludge-solid waste up to
14 days old; sludge-solid waste placed within one month of the test cell completion;
and solid waste only placed within one month of test cell completion.
249
-------
a. Temperature Profiles. The temperature profiles by depth :rom the cover soil
surface are given in Tables VI11—3 through VI11-5. The average temperatures in the
freshly placed sludge-solid waste bore hole were significantly higher than in the other
bore holes. Steam was observed escaping from the bore holes in freshly placed fill
during the first two drillings. Average temperatures in the older fill without sludge
(see Table VIII-5) were higher than in older fill with sludge (see Tabi'e VI11—4). One
explanation for this may be that the higher moisture (see Tables VI11—9 through Vlll-l 1)
in the fill with sludge tended to keep temperatures lower. In Table VIII-5, during the
November 1972 drilling, the first 12 feet of fill was newly filled with sludge; the 12-
to 20-foot depths were old fill without sludge. The old fill had a higher average
temperature than the newer fill above. Under each waste-fill condition, it is evident
from Tables VI11—3 through VIII-5 that ambient temperatures had influenced the fill
temperatures down to a depth of four to six feet. Even so, the average temperature in
the two bore holes in the older fill did not decrease with ambient temperature.
b. Organic Content. The organic contents by depth are given in Tables VI11—6
through VI11-8. The average organic contents are very similar for all three bore holes.
No trends were evident over time or by depth in the fill material.
The organic content of the cover soil was apparently rainfall dependent. The
higher organic contents were detected in the winter months; summer months produced
lower organic contents.
Soil samples from the landfill bottom and an intermediate lift (see Tables VIII-6
to VI1-8) indicate organic contents significantly greater than found in the respective
cover soils. Also, bottom soil organic content (see Table VIII-8, day 263 at the 12-
foot depth) showed this same characteristic. This could have resulted from leaching
of organic materials from the overlaying sludge-waste fill, or sludge runoff during
landfilling.
c. Moisture Content. Moisture contents in the bore samples are given in Tables
VI11—9 through Vlll-l 1. The average moisture content in old sludge-solid waste fill had
the greatest average moisture content. Old solid waste fill had the lowest average
moisture content. No consistent trend in moisture content by depth was evident.
Moisture contents in the cover soils increased as a result of rainfall in the week
prior to sampling in November 1972. Moisture contents in bottom soil and intermediate
lift soil were well below moisture saturation levels for fine sandy soil:; of 42.3 percent
dry weight (see Table IV-2). Bottom soil in fresh sludge-waste had a maximum moisture
content of 28.4 percent in the November 1972 borings. Since this occurred one week
aft_r 2.63 inches of a.infa'1 fell, ar.d the average moisture content for the bore hole was
higher than during previous sampling in fresh sludge-waste, it appear;; that rain water
infiltration occurred. Since the bottom soil was not saturated in any of the above cases,
it also appears that water has not infiltrated to the bottom to any significant extent,
further suggesting that leachate has been at most minimal.
250
-------
TABLE VI11—3
LANDFILL BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE - FRESH SLUDGE-
WASTE FILL (0-2 WEEKS OLD)
emperature (F)
Depth,
Days since
landfi 1 ling completed *
ft below
Jul 72
Oct 72
Nov 72
Jun 73
Aug 73
Oct 73
Dec 73
soil surface
0-7
0-7
14
7-14
0-4
0-7
0-7
Ambient afr
8!
77
80
66
71
—
54
0
74
54
Soil 0
89
86
68
87
82
78
62
Solid waste- ,
i , 4
103
88
68
82
85
84
63
sludge
6
116
104
72
90
84
86
72
8
122
109
77
86
81
85
69
10
104
108
80
90
84
90
68
12
119
114
79
81
BOF #
84
70
14
124
112
BOF *
86
89
16
109
115
83
87
18
118
113
85
90
20
116
109
BOF *
89
22
116
111
89
25
109
Average"1"
115
108
75
86
83.5
86
68
¦ , '¦ ¦ ¦ f
* Approximate number of days. + Average for solid waste-sludge. BOF = bottom of fill.
-------
TABLE VI11-4
LANDFILL BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE - SLUDGE-WASTE
FILLED MARCH 1972
Temperature (F)
Depth,
ft below
soil surface
Jul 72
140
Oct 72
208
Days since landfilling completed *
Nov 72 June 73 Aug 73
276 461 535
Oct 73
598
Dec 73
654
Ambient air
77
72
66
65
70
—
67
Soil °
Solid waste- ^
sludge
6
88
92
89
71
86
84
59
62
69
Tl
72
79
79
74
80
90
89
70
74
77
80
55
67
78
76
Q>
-f 78
8
78
88
81
74
98
81
10
82
87
86
81
100
78
o 90
12
71
86
89
75
85
79
Z
94
14
74
88
92
90
92
16
74
81
BOF *
73
95
78 #
90
18
20
75
BOF *
79
73
76
83
94
95
BOF
88
88
22
24
85
#
BOF
27
80 -
bof'
Average +
79
82
79
78
92
78
86
* Approximate numbe
r of days.
+ Average for solid waste-sludge.
# BOF =
bottom of fill.
-------
TABLE VIII-5
LANDFILL BORE HOLE TEMPERATURE PROFILE - SOLID WASTE FILLED
JANUARY 1972
Temperature (F)
Depth,
Days since
landfilling completed *
ft below
Jul 72
Oct 72
Nov 72
Jun 73
Aug 73
Oct 73
Dec 73
soil surface
195
263
321
506
530
743
699
Ambient air
78
74
80
63
70
—
67
Soil
Solid waste
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
24
84
2
2 71
%n ' 9
89
86
1 76
©
90
82
f 87
96
86
; as
0
95
80
Z 87
77
BOF #
91
106
83
BOF *
74
74
74
77
73
67
74
72
BOF1
92
94
Refusal
80
70
62
82
64
77
83
73
80
86
78
79
87
79
80
88
88
80
89
84
79
90
89
82
93
94
80
90
82
79
~«++
82
80
BOF '
86
80
87
84
Average
92
85/90
73
*
+
Approxi mate number of days. # gOF = bottom of R11.
Average for .olid waste-sludge. .. s|od9
-------
TABLE V111—6
LANDFILL BORE HOLE ORGANIC CONTENT - FRESH SLUDGE-WASTE
FILL (0-2 WEEKS OLD)
Organic content, percent dry wt
Sample depth, Days since landfiI ling completed *
ft below
soil surface
Jul 72
0-7
Oct 72
0-7
Nov 72
14
Jun 73
7-14
Aug 73
0-4
Oct 73
0-7
Dec 73
0-7
0
Soil 9
Solid waste - ^
sludge
6
2.0
29.4
36.3
2.0
63.0
56.1
5.9
50.7
56.2
3.8
26.7
9.8
2.0
29.3
13.8
2.1
44.8
23.6
26.7
2.9
14.2
15.4
30.2
8
50.0
59.7
32.5
44.3
20.6
22.2
28.6
10
45.6
21.5
33.8
31.7
20.8
25.5
51.0
12
16.2
50.3
40.9
6.3
2.5
26.9
30.9
14
16
26.2
34.7
63.4
18.4
7.4 **
BOF *
20.9
3.5
54.1
25.5
29.6
23.1
18
28.9
55.8
1.3
37.8
19.1
20
26.5
60.0
41.3
14.6
22
25
26.9
31.7
27.0
2 jj**
tjur
Average +
32.1
46.0
36.9
18.1
17.4
31.5
26.9
* Approximate number of days.
#BOF =
bottom of fill.
**
1
Bottom soil under fill.
+ Average for solid waste-sludge.
-------
TABLE VIII-7
LANDFILL BORE HOLE ORGANIC CONTENT - SLUDGE-WASTE
FILLED MARCH 1972
Organic content, percent dry wt
Sample depth,
ft below
soil surface
140
208
Days since landfill
276
ing completed
461
*
535
598
654
Soil
Solid waste-
sludge
0
4
6
3.2
30.5
23.8
3.2
6.9
19.2
2.4
44.2
13.8
2.2
65.9
20.8
13.2
54.0
52.8
2.2
30.0
37.5
71.8
2.7
14.8
9.6
13.4
8
25.0
19.4
50.3
10.5
16.0
38.7
21.7
10
27.0
30.4
48.0
59.0
23.5
45.2
3.5
12
25.3
30.1
55.7
27.3
48.3
23.4
28.9
14
18.3
45.6
13.3
5.5
43.5
2 4++
M
37.3
U
29.3
36.8
BOF *
21.9
BOF *
32.1
18
20
38.2
BOF *
8.0
a.]**
17.9
30.2
37.4
20.2
22.1
13.4
24
29.7
10.2
27
6.0
Average+
27.2
22.5
37.6
27.3
32.8
43.3
20.2
* Approximate number of days.
+ Average for solid waste-sludge.
^BOF
= bottom of fi 11.
^ Bottom
soil under fill
1.
-------
TABLE V!l!-8
LANDFILL BORE HOLE ORGANIC CONTENT - SOLID WASTE
FILLED JANUARY 1972
Sample depth,
ft below
soil surface
Organic content, percent dry wt
195
Days since landfilling completed*
263 321 506 580
643
699
Soil
Solid waste-
sludge
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1.9
43.2
42.6
36.2
39.9
31.5
30.7
31.1
BOF #
1.9
45.6
33.7
20.7
7.3
7.3"
BOF
3.7
0)
8 58.8
£ 56.7
o>
J 79.6
CO
29.7
19.1
8.7'
40.4
42.5
Refusal
2.6
19.4
26.1
19.6
11.6
5.9
3.0
1.35
4.0
61.5
55.7
48.7
22.9
35.1
53.2
54.8
61.1
66.5
2.8
8.9
33.7
15.9
38.3
63.8
5.2**
7.0**
4.1**
40.6
35.4
2.3
11.0
5.1
17.6
27.4
14.3
6.7
Average
+
36.4
22.9
56'2/27.7##
14.3
43.0
38.0
14.2
Jl | |
* Approximate number of days. BOF = bottom of fill. Bottom soil under fill.
Average for solid waste-sludge. Soil-intermediate lift cover soil. Sludge waste %/waste on ly %.
-------
TABLE VIII-9
LANDFILL BORE HOLE MOISTURE CONTENT - FRESH SLUDGE"WASTE
FILL (0-2 WEEKS OLD)
Moisture content/ percent dry wt
Sample depth, Days since landfilling completed *
ft below
soil surface
Jul 72
0-7
Oct 72
0-7
Nov 72
14
Jun 73
7-14
Aua 73
0-4
Oct 73
0-7
Dec 73
0-7
0
Soil 9
6.1
6.1
14.5
3.1
6.6
12^:4
2y
Solid waste- ^
sludge
6
36.4
26.9
9.9
55.6
46.7
52.7
45.3
29.9
20.8
15.0
91.0
23.1
28.5
46.9
8
20.3
48.6
68.1
113.7
19.1
39.0
48.0
10
14.3
25.8
52.1
55.6
14.8
44.8
79.1
12
25.3
47.3
35.0
10.7
4.8
27.0
55.6
14
59.2
33.3
28.4 **
39.8
55.5
37.5
16
55.7
32.6
BOF *
11.9
67.4
25.2
18
70.6
39.1
4.4
86.0
20.8
20
65.5
27.0
57.4
27.6
22
25
63.1
24.5
22.2
7.6**
BOF #
Average +
43.7
33.3
47.2
38.9
14.9
54.6
41.0
ju
* Approximate number of days. BOF = bottom of fill.
Average for solid waste-sludge. Bottom soil under fill.
-------
TABLE VIII-10
LANDFILL BORE HOLE MOISTURE CONTENT - SLUDGE-V/ASTE
FILLED MARCH 1972
Moisture content,
percent dry wt
Sample
depth,
Days since 1
andfilling com
pleted *
ft below
soil surface
140
208
276
461
535
598
654
Soil
0
7.1
7.1
15.3
8.1
21.5
6.4
7.0
2
89.5
35.1
Solid waste-
4
36.8
13.9
90.4
142.0
53.9
67.1
11.4
sludge
6
67.2
16.8
25.9
92.4
62.8
88.6
14.6
8
67.9
16.1
75.3
22.7
15.9
97.1
33.7
10
55.5
28.4
62.2
80.1
40.5
110.0
5.7
12
93.6
19.9
59.4
46.2
48.6
69.8
46.3
14
59.9
34.8
98.8
12.3
21.8
12.2+f
32.4
16
56.3
37.5
BOF *
26.4
BOF *
28.5
18
25.1
22.4
43.1
67.7
26.2
20
BOF *
14.5
51.1
43.6
24.5
24
39.8
22.4
27
8.5
Average*
57.8
22.7
68.7
53.8
40.4
86.5
24.8
* Approximate number of days. BOF = bottom of fill.
+ Average for solid waste-sludge. ++ Bottom soil under fill.
-------
TABLE VI11-11
LANDFILL BORE HOLE MOISTURE CONTENT - SOLID WASTE
FILLED JANUARY 1972
Moisture content, percent dry wt
Sample depth, Days since landfllling completed *
ft below
soil surface
195
263
321
506
580
643
699
0
Soil 2
6.2
6.2
7.8
-------
d. Moisture Absorption. Moisture absorption capacities remaining in auger
samples having the highest and lowest in-situ moisture content, and representative of
the range of organic contents, are given in Table VI11-12. The data in Table VI11-12
are given in percent dry weight which is convertible to pounds of water per pound of
solid waste by dividing by 100. The additional absorption capacity remaining in solid
waste samples collected during the summer was greater than for samples taken in the
rainy season. The data appear to be random with regard to moisture contents, material,
and depth of the sample. This was most likely due to the variability in the organic
composition of solid waste in the core samples.
The additional moisture absorbed varied from a low of 0.104 lb water per lb
of solid waste (dry wt) to a high of 2.43 lb per lb. These values fall outside the labora-
tory predicted range of 0.6 to 1 .8 per lb (dry weight).
e. Bore Sample Leachate BOD5. The samples used to determine the moisture
absorption capacities in Table VI11-12 were used to generate leachal-e for the BOD5
analyses presented in Table VII1-13. The BOD5 values apparently vary according to
the type of organic material and bacteria present, but are not correlated with organic
content (see Tables VI11-6 through VI11 —8).
f. Odor. Odors were determined during drilling in terms of strength and type
at each two-foot sample depth interval. Odors were generally moderate to strong in
fresh sludge fill, and weak to moderate in old fill with and without sludge. Odors in
both the old fill areas generally became weaker with increasing fill age (on each sub-
sequent sampling).
The most prevalent type of odor detected was classified as sour, the second most
common was sweet and the third major odor was of normal landfill. The landfill odor
was predominant in the area without sludge, as might be expected.
g. Appearance. In general, the material in fill with sludge was partially or
highly agglomerated and required a screwdriver or other sharp probe to dislodge samples
from the auger drill bit. The fill material that did not receive sludge was found to be
loose and powdery; waste constituents were easily separated and identified. The
agglomeration in bore holes with sludge appeared to result from the sludge which was
slightly to moderately moist and tended to form a pasty bond with soil and waste particles.
Occasionally, random lumps of moist black sludge were encountered.
h. Color. The color of materials in freshly placed fill was perhaps dirty, but
natural (as-received). The colors of textiles, plastic, rubber, leather, wood, metal,
glass and ceramics were natural, i.e., unaffected by the landfill environment. Food
and paper at times appeared bleached or otherwise altered in color In the fill with sludge.
Grass, leaves,and tree and shrub prunings were often bleached or more intense in color.
Since these color charges often occur when vegetation is stored other than in a landfill,
it is not certain what changes in vegetation could be attributed to the landfill.
260
-------
TABLE VIII-12
MOISTURE ABSORPTION CAPACITY OF SELECTED CORE SAMPLES
Moisture content, percent dry wt
Days since landfilling completed/depth, ft
Fresh sludge-waste
0-7
0-7
14
4
8
14
16
20
4
6
22
6
12
Sample moisture
26.9
14.3
55.7
70.6
63.1
9.9
55.6
24.5
68.1
28.4
content
Additional moisture
55.9
71.4
75.1
65.5
90.6
64.3
32.5
15.9
27.3
30.7
absorbed
Total moisture
82.8
85.7
130.8
136.1
123.7
74.2
88.1
40.4
95.4
69.1
at saturation
Sludge-waste -
140
208
276
old fill
4
10
12
18
4
10
16
4
12
Sample moisture
36.8
55.5
93.6
25.1
13.9
28.4
37.5
25.9
98.8
content
Additional moisture
95.8
60.0
70.7
56.8
30.5
27.1
23.1
10.4
36.7
absorbed
Total moisture
132.6
115.5
164.3
81.9
44.4
56.0
60.6
36.3
135.0
at saturation
Solid waste only
195
263
321
4
8
12
4
10
6
8
12
Sample moisture
42.0
23.3
15.3
30.4
6.6
54.1
7.6
31.7
content
Additional moisture 136.9
81.4
145.0
20.4
35.3
21.2
29.1
28.9
absorbed
Total moisture
178.9
104.7
160.3
50.8
41.8
75.3
36.8
60.6
at saturation
-------
TABLE VI11-12 (CONT.)
MOISTURE ABSORPTION CAPACITY OF SELECTED CORE SAMPLES
Moisture content/ percent dry wt
Days since landfilling completed/depth, ft
Fresh sludge-waste
7-14
0.4
0-7
0-7
8
12
13
4
10
IS*
2
6
CS+ 4
8
Sample moisture
113.7
10.7
4.4
20.8
14.8
4.8
122
.0 23.1
6.6 8.2
28.8
content
Additional moisture
55.6
10.1
15.8
113.6
92.0
22.1
135.0 78.0
24.2 16.5
24.9
absorbed
Total moisture
169.3
20.8
20.2
134.4
106.8
27.9
258
.0 102.0
30.8 24.7
53.7
at saturation
S1 udge-waste -
461
535
598
655
old fill
4
15 27 8
18
BS#
CS+
4
10 BS
CS+ 10
18
Sample moisture
142.0
12.3 8.
,5 15.9
67.7
22.4
6.43
67.1
110.0 12.2
8.9 79.1
20.8
content
Additional moisture
47.1
11.5 30.9 67.8
105.3
25.4
30.2
147.0
187.0 11.0
26.3 41.1
32.2
absorbed
Total moisture
189.1
23.8 39.4 83.7
173.0
47.8
36.5
213.0
298.0 23.2
35.2 120.2
53.0
at saturation
Solid waste only
506
580
643
700
8
12 14
4
10
IS"
BS#
CS+
2 8
16 CS+ 10
12
Sample moisture
45.6
28.7 74.
,3 166.0
21.5
7.1
18.2
8.3
7.1 50.7
8.3 7.0 5.7
46.3
content
Additional moisture
15.4
17.0 32.4 243.5
132.6
7.1
34.9
60.2 151.0 229.0
18.7 24.3 34.9
26.2
absorbed
Total moisture
6.5
25.6 32.
,1 409.5
154.1
14.2
53.1
67.5 158.0 276.0
26.9 31.3 40.6
72.5
at saturation
* ± n
IS = intermediate cover soil. CS = cover soil. BS = bottom soil.
-------
TABLE VIII-13
BOD OF LEACHATES FROM SELECTED LANDFILL
CORE SAMPLES
Fresh sludge-waste
Sludge-waste -
old fill
Solid waste only
Days
Sample
Days
Sample
Days
Sample
since
depth,
BOD ,
since
depth,
BOD
since
depth,
BOD ,
landfl 1 led
ft
mg/l
landfi 1 led ft
mg/l
landfi lied
ft
mg/r
0-7
4
498
140
4
37 #
195
4
407
8
173
10
207
8
283
14
253
12
234
12
253
16
70 *
18
215
20
399+
0-7
4
620
208
4
450
263
4
380
6
500
10
300
10
750
22
600
16
900
14
6
133
276
4
116
321
6
28
12
68
12
31
8
106
12 49
* Sample had weak odor. Material consisted of paper, grass and twigs.
+Sample had strong, sweet odor. Contained large amount of sludge end mixed dirt,
#
Sample was dry and had negligible odor.
-------
TABLE VI11-13 (CONT.)
BOD OF LEACHATES FROM SELECTED LANDFILL
5 CORE SAMPLES
Fresh sludge-
•waste
S1 udg«
;-waste -
old fill
Solid waste only
Days
Sample
Days
Sample
Days
Sample
since
depth,
BOD ,
since
depth,
BOD_,
since
depth,
Dr"\r\
bvvD
landfilled
ft
mg/1
landfilled
ft
mg/l
landfilled ft
mg/l5
7-14
8
713
461
4
410
506
8
373
12
200
15
40
12
10
18
495
27
140
14
0
0-4
4
129
535
8
72
580
4
5
10
26
10
72
18
57
0-7
6
185
598
CS*
95
643
CS*
0
10
100
BS+
175
BS+
40
*CS = cover soil,
+BS = bottom soil.
-------
i. Readability. The readability of printed matter (newsprint, paper container
labels, can labels, glass labels, etc.) was not significantly altered. In some cases,
newsprint and paper print were blurred due to moisture.
]. Biodegradation. No evidence of biodegradation nor oxidation was observed
for textiles, plastic, leather, wood, metal, glass and ceramics. Newsprint, cardboard
and miscellaneous paper exhibited a slight to moderate decrease in strength when pulled
by hand. Grass, leaves, and tree and shrub prunings showed slight to moderate biode-
gradation. Food was seldom found and was deteriorated when observed. No observable
difference was detected in biodegradation between bore holes with different fill materials.
k. Gas Analyses. Analyses of gas samples taken from landfill bore holes (until
the probes were destroyed during filling) are given in Table VI11 — 14. The November
1972 fresh sludge-waste fill showed the greatest production of CO«. The probe was
inserted at the fill working face and was destroyed prior to the next sampling period.
The gas analyses from the 1973 borings show higher concentrations of CH, than the
1972 borings.
5. Compaction Studies. A special field test was conducted to compare compac-
tion of combined solid waste-liquid sludge mixture with normal solid waste. Two test
cell areas were designated in two small, narrow canyons in the northeast corner of the
Oceanside landfill. For a one-week period these test cells received the full load of
solid waste collected by Oceanside. During one test, the cells received solid waste
only (June 26 to July 2, 1973), and during a second test, the cells received solid waste
admixed with sludge (June 18 to June 25, 1973) at a ratio of 0.3 lb liquid sludge per
lb solid waste (wet wt). In both cells, each truckload of solid waste received four
passes from the 977K track dozer to provide uniform compaction.
The solid waste admixed with sludge had a density of 884 Ib/cu yd compared to
849 for solid waste only, which is 4 percent better compaction. This figure is based on
a correction for the cover soil volume. Prior to the cover soil correction, the solid
waste admixed with sludge indicated a 16 percent improved compaction (753 Ib/cu yd
versus 657 Ib/cu yd). This is because the solid waste-sludge cell received much less
cover soil (358 cubic yards versus 290 cubic yards). Possibly the solid waste-sludge cell
had fewer voids in thesolid waste due to reduction in paper wet strength. Less cover
soil would, therefore, be required since less soil would seep into the voids. Hence, the
16 percent improved compaction value may yield a better indication of the effect of the
liquid sewage sludge.
The above study was conducted under controlled conditions; only solid waste
collected by City of Oceanside waste disposal vehicles was disposed to the test cells.
Also, bulldozer operations were controlled to provide uniform compaction in the cells.
These controls probably affected the final compaction achieved in the test cells.
Therefore, the compaction attained in the test cells is not indicative of normal com-
paction achieved at the landfill.
265
-------
TABLE VI11—14
LANDFILL BORE HOLE GAS ANALYSES
Concentration, percent by volume*
Fresh sludge-waste fill
Old
sludge-waste fill
Old solid waste fill
Days
Days
Days
since
since
since
Date
sampled
placing
fill
C°2 °2 N2 CH4
plac ing
fill*4"
CO O
2 2
n2 ch4
placing
f!ll+
C°2 °2
n2 ch4
1972
7-26#
0-7
75.6 1.6 6.9 15.0
140
42.2 6.6
49.0 2.2
195
28.6 4.6
66.4 0.4
8-11
Probe destroyed
156
63.4 4.8
28.6 3.2
211
45.1 0.8
53.2 0.9
8-18
163
70.7 0.6
20.4 8.3
218
44.6 1.6
52.2 1.6
9-1
177
66.5 2.5
23.6 7.4
232
50.2 2.0
43.2 4.6
9-15
191
70.2 0.4
17.4 12.0
246
52.0 2.9
34.1 11.0
10-2
208
70.3 0.0
13.7 16.0
263
Probe destroyed
10-27
233
57.1 4.4
19.4 19.1
1973
1-13
56.6
4.4
22.1
16.8
313
368
56.4
1.9
15.6
26.2
2-2
48.5
8.2
28.5
14.8
380
385
55.0
7.0
20.4
17.6
2-23
69.6
2,1
4.3
24.0
351
404
58.0
3.6
16.7
21.7
6-11
459
66.0
2.0
10.0
22.0
6-15
463
68.0
1.3
4.4
26.3
10-16
0-7
57.1
2.2
17.2
23.5
586
49.9
0.8
5.6
/
641
ac\ i
0.8
K 7
«/• /
43.8
12-12
0-14
76.6
0.3
20.4
1.5
643
32.1
3.4
23.1
21.5
698
31.8
2.1
16.5
25.5
* All samples taken from a depth of 10 feet below the cover soil surface.
+ Estimated.
^ Probes placed July 26, 1972.
-------
A second study was conducted to determine more normal landfill compaction.
The landfill was operated under normal conditions without restrictions on solid waste
received or bulldozer operations. The two northeast canyons received all incoming
solid waste for one month (August 6 to September 7, 1973). The incoming solid waste
was recorded on a load count data sheet (see Appendix B). A form known as tractor
operations data (also included in Appendix B) was employed for recording the amount
of cover soil used. The volume of utilized cover soil was subtracted from the total
volume filled. During the study, 85 truckloads of debris (mostly cement) were received
from the demolition of a commercial clothes-cleaning establishment. The volume dis-
placed by these 85 truckloads of debris (approximately 1,000 cubic yards) was subtracted
from the total volume filled to avoid the abnormal effect that the high-density material
would have had on the study results. The sludge solids resulting from an admixture ratio
of 0.3 lb liquid sludge per lb solid waste (wet wt) were included in the calculation.
The resulting compaction under these conditions was 1,119 lbs per cubic yard. This
figure extends well into the upper range of landfill compaction densities.
6. Time and Motion Studies. Studies were conducted evaluating the observable
differences between normal solid waste landfilling and landfilling which Involved ad-
mixing sludge with the solid waste. These studies measured the rate of working refuse
with dozers; evaluated the operating cycle of sludge trucks; and measured the average
period collection trucks had to wait before dumping.
The time measurements for these studies required definition of a set of measurable
operations. Figure VI11—3 presents operating cycles for the equipment studied. Figure
VI11—4 shows the interdependence of equipment in the processing of liquid sludge, solid
waste, and cover soil. The measured tasks referred to in the following results are all
measured within these networks.
a. Dozers. Sludge admixing affects dozer operations on the working face in
a number of ways. For example, traction is decreased by the presence of water and
the lubricating quality of sludge; refuse workability is improved by soaking; and nega-
tive attitudes of drivers toward working with solid waste-sludge admixtures reduced
driver efficiency. Time observations measured the net result of these and other factors
without identifying individual changes.
Stopwatch measurements of "moving," "returning," "spreading," and "compact-
ing" operations for 1972 and 1973 are the statistical bases for Table VI11—15. The table
includes total observation time, sample size, mean duration, standard deviation, and
a time index for each operation under seven distinct conditions of drivers and refuse.
Each time index is the ratio of total observation time for an operation to total time
observed for "moving" (under the same conditions); this index closely follows the
working time spent per refuse unit weight. Changes in mean duration and time index
should indicate any changes in operating times.
In the model, spreading and compacting refer to dozer time on the slope of the
working face. Spreading occurs when the blade is down on refuse, and compacting
267
-------
TANK-TRUCKS
COLLECTION TRUCKS
Trans| ,rn
Empty LS
Collect H
Wait
~T~
Dump
Return
DOZERS
Move/Return
Spread/Compact
I
TraV
Excavate
Return
Dump
Spread Soi
r /
Grade
Push Trucks (as requi
Compact
Operations affected by admixing sludge and solid waste,
FIGURE VI11-3
SANITARY LANDFILL
EQUIPMENT WORK TASKS
268
-------
LIQUID
SLUDGE
SOLID WASTE
COVER SOIL
Spread/Soak
t
Soak
Return
Co fleet
|
Transport Return
i
Special Processing
Fill LS
T t , Return
Transport
Dump So
Spread Soi
Move/Return^
i
Grade
Compact
Sp read/Compac t.
Travel
Push Trucks
Empty LS
FIGURE VI11—4
LIQUID SLUDGE, SOLID WASTE
SANITARY LANDFILL MODEL
269
-------
TABLE VIII—15
MEASURED OPERATING TIMES IN HUNDREDTHS OF MINUTES
UNDER FOUR CONDITIONS TABULATED SEPARATELY FOR TWO DRIVERS
Operation"
Spreading/
Condition Returning Moving Spreading Compacting compacting
ABABABABB
N
9,043
5,850
7,187
3,879
4,023
2,059
6,648
4,821
6,880
272
258
254
205
180
105
189
128
128
Dry
X
33
23
28
19
22
20
35
38
54
s.d.
18
13
14
9
12
9
24
58
-
Index
1.26
1.51
1
1
0.56
0.53
0.93
1.24
1.77
N
3,635
265
2,906
202
1,052
319
2,339
555
874
125
15
99
13
56
14
66
14
14
Wet
X
29
18
29
16
19
23
35
40
62
s.d.
16
8
12
7
8
6
24
34
-
Index
1.25
1.31
1
1
0.36
1.58
0.81
2.75
4.33
N
5,095
3,067
3,879
1,633
979
457
1,875
2,950
3,407
Sludge
165
120
138
73
53
33
59
56
56
(0.5-0.6 lb
X
31
26
28
22
18
14
32
53
61
sludge per lb
s.d.
13
16
13
10
10
7
24
58
-
sol id waste)
Index
1.31
1.88
1
1
0.25
0.28
0.48
1.81
2.09
Double sludge
(1.0-1.2 lb
2>j
N
884
39
527
31
1,163+
19
siudge per ib
solid waste)
X
s.d.
Index
23
14
1.68
17
6
1
*
•ft
61
47
2.21
Note: X)x; = sum of all observed times,* N = sample size; X = sample mean; s.d. = standard deviation; Index = ratio of
corresponding operation's total time to total time for "moving. "
* Spreading and compacting were combined on these data sheets,
+ Observed slipping and failure to climb some areas of the slope.
-------
when the blade is up in the air. Moving and returning refer to time spent above the
slope on the level top of the lift. Moving occurs when the dozer blade pushes refuse
from dump-piles over onto the sloped face, and returning when the dozer is on the level
top with the blade up, heading back to move more refuse. Admixing sludge with solid
waste does not affect moving or returning operations, since the dozer is located away
from the sludge. Under constant working-face conditions, both moving and returning
operating times are assumed to be constant per unit weight of refuse.
Once every week for about two hours, a member of the Ralph Stone and Company,
Inc. staff recorded all dozer activities, one dozer at a time. About half the recorded
data are useless since they reflect changed factors other than drivers, sludge, or wetness.
The number of measurements is listed for each of the twenty-six categories.
The results in Table VI11— 15 are ambiguous, since the effects of water and
sludge vary by driver. Using mean duration or time index the same changes occur.
Generally driver A speeded up under wet or sludge-admixed conditions, while driver
B slowed down. The below conclusions may be derived from Table VI11—15.
1. Uhder double-admixed conditions (1.0 to 1.2 lb sludge per lb solid waste),
the index of time spent working refuse increased significantly. With a 20
to 30 degree slope, double admixture increased time working a unit refuse
weight by over 40 percent.
2. One driver definitely increased his working rate and the second driver slowed
down. This difference between the men appears valid because data here are
complete and accurate enough to draw trend distinctions. The difference in
performance is partly due to physiological and human performance factors
and to a small sample for driver B.
3. Under single-admixed ratios (between 0.5 and 0.6 lb sludge per lb solid
waste), no decrease in physical operations has been observed over two years.
Apparently wetness improves refuse workability. After a half-hour soaking
period, sludge-admixed refuse is significantly easier to work, with less time
needed per weight of refuse.
b. Tank-Trucks. The operating sequence of sludge trucks is presented in Figure
VI11—5. This expands the operations shown in Figure VI11—4 into sub-operations. Only
tasks dependent on the truck itself were measured for standard times. Transportation,
return, and waiting times are largely a function of local conditions and hence were not
measured.
The sludge trucks require a tank, drain valve, and dispersed apparatus. Only the
dispersal apparatus merits detailing. Gravity flow and pumping are the two methods
which can be used for sludge moving. Gravity has proven to be inexpensive, simple,
reliable, and sufficiently fast for this purpose. Pumps increase flow, especially near
the end of conveyance when force of gravity drops, but require investment and
271
-------
LEGEND
m = mean time
n = std. dev. time
Fill Sludge Truck
Transport
Return
Wait
Shut-down
m 0.31
n 0.30
Position Truck
m 2.23
6.2
Reposition Truck
m 1.32
n 0.73
Set-up
m 0.44
n 0.17
Reset-up
m 0.27
n 0.06
Spread Sludge
m 8.94
Prepare to Depart
m 0.68
n 0.62
ZZTL
m 14.17
FIGURE VI11-5
SLUDGE TRUCK OPERATING
CYCLE IN MINUTES
272
-------
SLUDGE COSTS- " S0VL"3S" ,Tw° 'echnTqoes exfet for
t aMnpTT t e. Flexible hoses are useful for a wide
¦LANDFILL nq 273-PQ1 >• ...in .. *r*
py ±/o operator can direct the flow onto specific
is undesired. However, odor and
ad use. Fixed nozzles entail fast, easy
mit working slope conditions suitable for
ivolved are controlling short-circuiting
s the sludge truck wheels. Present de-
ishplates to the rear axle; a suggested
J assume that all sludge flows down
»els causes dumping trucks to become
ed at Oceanside; the sludge truck operator
reflect typical performance and as such
:t on collection trucks of admixing sludge
e (see Figure Vlll-3)as a result of a
. Ihfortunately, this increase in waiting
e there was little traffic and the sludge
* truck arrivals were anticipated.
1 be treated as any other truck in the queue
: determined by using a standard queuing
3 function of the ratio of average dumping
etween arrivals ( P, in minutes per truck),
ition of a few more sludge loads will not
ig times will not be measurably affected.
ompares three sets of dozer cost data: 1)
King; 2) part of 1972 with sludge admixture
and non-sanitary ianui>i..ny, , , 1973 with sludge admixture and sanitary
landfilling. The costs employed are from Oceanside official records. Dozer operating
and maintenance costs are used, while other costs arising from fee collection, etc.
are not included in this calculation. Tables VIII-16, VI11—17, and VI11—18 present
the data.
The dozer costs per as-received ton are $0.72 for non-sanitary landfilling, $0.64
for sludge*admixed non-sanitary landfilling, and $0.92 for sludge-admixed sanitary land-
filling. Sanitary landfilling involves daily use of about six inches of soil covering the
day's new refuse. At Oceanside this required use of a second full-time dozer operator;
the increased 1973 cost reflects the additional earth moving and cover soil placement.
The data shows sludge admixture alone does not increase landfilling costs. The
accuracy is not sufficiently reliable to demonstrate that admixing sludge lowers costs;
273
-------
TABLE VII hi 6
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR DOZERS WD-A AND WD-C IN 1971
Operating
Maintenance
+
Period
labor
labor
Diesel
1 fuel
Oil
Parts
Subtotal
Total
(hrs) ($)*
($)
(gal)
(5)
(qts)
($)
($)
($)
($)
Jan
# #
128.57
779
101.27
0
0
22.95
2S2.79
#
Feb
205.29
690
89.70
220
41.30
7.64
343.93
Mar
271.61
665
86.45
440
65.86
15.07
438.99
Apr
372.58
588
76.44
220
29.75
10.11
488.88
May
532.25
775
100.75
440
82.58
401.59
1,117.17
June
153.56
735
95.55
0
0
6.76
255.87
July
210.68
825
107.25
220
41.29
51.23
410.45
Aug
274.80
965
125.45
0
0
50.96
451.21
Sep
305.42
730
94.90
220
41.29
329.14
770.75
Oct
266.02
850
110.50
2
0.36
495.45
872.33
Nov
294.87
712
93.60
227
42.55
51.53
482.55
Dec
400.42
650
84.50
19
3.42
55.26
543.60
1971
2,576 10,819.20
3,416.07
8,964 1
,166.36
2,008
348.40
1,497.69
6,428.52
17,247.73
/ton
wet wt**
0.107 0.451
0.142
0.374
0.049
0.084
0.015
0.062
0.268
0.719
* At 4.20 per hour as the average hourly wage. One full-time operator.
+ Excludes "operating labor"; sum of costs directly connected with dozer maintenance and fuel.
^ Unavailable by months.
** Based on 23,993 tons wet wt hauled (i.e., 1,999.4 tons/month).
-------
TABLE VIII-17
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR DOZERS WD-A AND WD-C IN 1972
(FEBRUARY TO SEPTEMBER)
Operating Maintenance
Period
labor
labor
Diesel fuel
Oil
Parts
Subtotal+
Total
(hrs)
($)*
($)
(gal)
($)
(qts)
($)
($)
($)
($)
Feb
201
844.20
203.21
880
114.40
83
14.94
111.41
443.96
1,288.16
Mar
209
877.80
183.92
546
71.00
0
0
1,149.75
1,404.67
2,282.47
Apr
257
1,079.40
192.46
640
83.20
0
0
33.30
308.96
1,388.36
May
173
726.60
627.81
536
69.63
0
0
275.15
972.59
1,699.19
lunA
«OP fin
O i
545
83.85
0
0
89.86
317.57
1,216.37
July
278
1,167.60
135.80
645
83.85
226
42.37
42.04
304.06
1,471.66
Aug
189
793.80
355.50
891
115.77
0
0
81.73
533.00
1,326.80
Sep
206
865.20
191.88
107
13.91
110
20.64
29.45
255.88
1,121.08
Feb to Sep
1,727
7,253.40
2,014.44
4,890
635.61
419
77.95
1,812.69
4,540.69
11,794.09
/ton
wet wt
0.0933
0.392
0.109
0.264
0.0343
0.0226
0.0042
0.0979
0.245
0.637
* At 4.20 per hour as the average hourly wage. One full-time operator.
+ Excludes "operating labor"; sum of costs directly connected with dozer maintenance and fuel.
Based on the average of 1971 and 1973 solid wastes, or approximately 18,520 tons wet wt hauled (i.e., 2,315.5
tons/month).
-------
TABLE VI11—1 8
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR DOZERS WD-A AND WD-C IN 1973
(APRIL TO DECEMBER)
Operating Maintenance
+ Total
Period
labor
labor
Diesel
fuel
Oi
1
Parts
Subtotal
(hrs)
<*)"
($)
(gal)
($)
(qts)
($)
($)
($)
($)
Apr
448
1,881.60
76.16
1,047
157.00
0
0.0
33.67
266.83
2,148.43
May
429
1,801.80
207.82
867
130.00
0
0.0
299.42
567.24
2,369.04
June
445.5
1,871 .10
153.49
888
133.17
0
0.0
75.92
362.58
2,233.68
July
430
1,806.00
264.85
1,016
132.01
440
126.18
84.41
607.45
2,413.45
Aug
534.5
2,244.90
311.93
1,005
130.65
0
0.0
274.30
716.88
2,961.78
Sep
423
1,776.60
143.57
1,157
150.41
0
0.0
18.57
312.55
2,089.15
Oct
502
2,108.40
177.91
1,357
239.61
0
0.0
771 .12
1,188.64
3,297.04
Nov
424.5
1 ,782.90
160.67
974
165.65
0
0.0
280.53
606.85
2,389.75
Dec
388
1,629.60
122.02
789
134.10
360
61 .94
8.96
327.02
1,956.62
Apr to
Dec
4,024.5
16,902.90 1
,618.42
9,100 1
,372.60
800
188.12
1,776.90
4,956.04
21,858.94
/ton ^
wet wt
0.170
0.714
0.068
0.384
0.058
0.034
0.008
0.075
0.209
0.923
At 4.20 per hour as the average hourly wage , Two full-time operators.
Excludes "operating labor"; sum of costs directly connected with dozer maintenance and fuel.
Based on 23,685 tons wet wt hauled (i.e., 2,631 .7 tons/month).
Note: The April to December period is presented because the actual weighed quantity of solid waste was available for these
months. A scale was installed at the Oceanside municipal landfill in mid-March 1973.
-------
however, intensive, stop-watch time measurements as previously-described showed that
one operator compacts waste significantly faster following sludge admixture.
8. Sludge Disposal Costs. For truck hauling,sludge disposal costs arise from
labor and capital expenses of buying, operating, and maintaining a sludge truck.
Oceanside has two tank-trucks used for sludge disposal, but one is small and used
only when the larger SD-240 is under repair. The SD-240 is sufficiently large for
Oceanside's sludge hauling; hence costs of the SD-190 will be ignored in the following
cost analysis.
Tables VI11—19 and Vlll-20 list all costs associated with the large 3,500-gal
SD-240; these cost data are from the City of Oceanside accounting rec®rds. The
"equipment rental" column follows the City's accounting method, resulting in very
inflated capital recovery payments. To present an accurate amortization figure, the
purchase price of $12,247.20 for the truck is amortized over 10 years at 6 percent
annually, yielding $139 per month in payments. This significantly reduces amortiza-
tion cost, with reduced total cost as shown in Table Vlll-20. The summary costs pre-
sented in Table VIII-21 are a more realistic estimate of truck-hauling disposal costs.
These costs illustrate the effect of inflation from 1972 to 1973. The January
1972 datawereexcluded because sludge hauling started during this month; hence larger
costs were incurred, as seen in total costs. No major changes occurred in routes or
procedures during this time, so these costs reflect expected costs under conditions
similar to Oceanside: warm, dry climate; approximately 2.5-tnile hauls; 3 to 1 0 per-
centsolids content; and gravity feed drain.
9. Summary. Since large quantities of sewage sludge are used throughout the
country as a soil conditioner, numerous people are exposed to it. Much of this sludge
is known to contain some raw waste material and pathogens. There is no record of
disease transmission to humans as a result of sludge treatment plant activities and use
of sludge as a fertilizer. Burd^ points out that this may be due to existing health
department regulations and operator precautions. There does not appear to be an urgent
problem regarding disinfection.
The preliminary field demonstration results presented in this chapter indicate
that the joint disposal of Oceanside's digested sewage sludge and solid waste into a
sanitary landfill can be accomplished successfully without major operational cost in-
creases or difficulties. From the standpoint of landfill operation, the addition of
digested sewage sludge to refuse could be beneficial in at least three respects. First,
the refuse-sludge mixture could be better compacted by heavy equipment than the solid
waste alone. Second, the presence of sludge essentially prevents blowing of litter which
normally occurs in a refuse landfill and which may otherwise be controlled by water addi-
tion. Third, digested sludge may possibly provide a deterrent to rodents which ordinarily
abound in a refuse landfill. The demonstration work at Oceanside has indicated the need for
improved sludge-spreading techniques.
277
-------
TABLE VIII-19
LABOR AND CAPITAL EXPENSES FOR
SLUDGE TRUCK OPERATIONS IN 1972
Operating
Mainten-
Equipment
Total
Period
labor
ance labor
rental
Fuel
Oil
Parts
Mi leage
sludqe
($)
($)
hrs+
Cost ($)
gal
Cost ($)
qrt Cost ($)
($)
(mil)
(gai)
Jan
131,50
71.22
32.00
256
5*\62
0 0.00
0.00
21,000
Feb
524.01
30.48
127.50
1,020
254*
55,56
4 0.72
3.21
203,000
Mar
302.06
19. 14
73.50
588
121*
26.58
2 0.36
0.00
171,500
Apr
340.96
20.40
83.00
664
276*
60.41
7 1.26
203.38
238,000
May**
516.89
203.4*
126.00
1,008
273*
59.71
5 0.90
380.74
311,500
June**
491.11
118.73
119.50
956
205*
44.83
5 0.90
21.15
231,000
July
617.44
150.06
136.00
1,088
352*
77.00
6 1.08
107.71
346,500
Aug
624.25
173.52
133.75
1,070
371*
81.16
0 0.00
52.39
350,000
Sep
729.30
18.16
127.00
1,016
248
54.14
4 0.72
35.70
367,500
~*
Oct
817.28
135.53
107.50
860
198
43.49
4 0.72
956.81
140,000
Nov
585.42
0.00
81.00
648
214
46.88
0 0.00
170.44
192,500
Dee
528.67
60.98
75.50
604
175
37.17
0 0.00
0.00
196,000
1972
6,208.89
1,001.66
1,222.25
9,778
2,937
641.75
37 6.66
1,931.53
19,568.49
2,768,500
Total
(2,955,500)
Exc1ud-
6,077.39
930.44
1,190.25
9,522
2,687
586.93
37 6.66
1,931.53
19,054.95
2,747,500
ing Jan
(2,934,500)
1972
Cost/
1,000 ga
J 2-24
0.362
3.
53
0.232
0.0024
0.698
7.07
Cost/ton
* 14.04
2.270
22.
12
1.460
0.0150
4.380
44.30
Exclud-
ing Jan
Cost/
1,000 gal 2.21
0.339
3.47
0.214
0.0024
0.703
6.94
Cost/ton
13.85
2.120
21.
74
1.340
0.0150
4.400
43.48
-------
TABLE VIII—19 (CONT.)
LABOR AND CAPITAL EXPENSES FOR
SLUDGE TRUCK OPERATIONS IN 1972
* Estimated using 0,219 dollars per gallon.
Based on a rental rate of approximately $8.00 per hour,
§
Based on an average solids content of 3.8 percent with 8.4 lbs per gallon liquid.
** City of Oceanside used two sludge trucks, SD-240 and SD-190; however, sludge data from only the SD-24Q Is used.
Total sludge hauled by both trucks.
N>
XI
NO
-------
TABLE VIIh20
LABOR AND CAPITAL EXPENSES FOR
SLUDGE TRUCK OPERATIONS IN 1973
Operating
Mainten-
Equipment
Total
Period
labor
ance labor
rental
Fuel
Oil
Parts
Mi leage
Sludge
($)
($)
hrs+
Cost ($)
gal
Cost {$)
qrt Cost ($)
($)
(mil)
(gal)
Jan**
576.71
168.73
87.5
700
247
51.89
28
5.04
154.48
196
199,500
Feb
477.22
18.16
75.5
604
198
39.86
0.00
57.75
270
175,000
Mar
484.90
21.07
82.0
656
267*
56.10
0.00
0.00
164,500
Apr
354.70
57.71
51.5
412
183*
40.07
0.00
203.62
105,000
May
582.69
96.54
105.0
840
292*
63.96
19
3.42
31.39
269,500
June**
695.14
0.00
120.5
964
204*
44.71
4
0.76
0.00
196,000
July
788.58
44.70
124.0
992
201
48.75
8
1.52
142.78
287,000
Aug
585.26
197.50
95.0
760
32
7.78
3
0.57
113.21
224,000
Sep**
367.48
392.21
56.5
452
15
3.65
0.00
1,090.85
0
Oct**
703.87
239.05
99.5
796
122
30.05
0.00
231.11
115
52,500
Nov
494.73
24.18
67.0
536
260
61.44
4
0.76
0.00
419
171,500
Dec
579.50
241.72
86.5
692
282
66.60
26
4.94
542.38
523
234,000
1973
6,690.78
1,501.57
1,050.5
8,404
2,303
514.86
84
17.01
2,567.57
19,695.79
2,068,500
Total
(2,391,200)++
1973
Cost/
1,000 ga
1 3.23
0.726
4.06
0.249
0.0082
1.24
9.52
Cost/ton'
f 16.39
3.68
20.58
.....
1.
260
0.0420
6.29
48.23
* Estimated using 0.219 dollars per gallon (except for August where 0.243 Is used).
+ Based on a rental rate of approximately $8.00 per hour.
#
Based on an average solids content of 4.7 percent with 8.4 lbs per gallon liquid.
** City of Oceansfde used two sludge trucks, SD-240 and SD-190; however,sludge data from only the SD-240 Is used.
++ Total sludge hauled by both trucks.
-------
TABLE VI11—21
SUMMATION OF LABOR AND CAPITAL EXPENSES
FOR SLUDGE TRUCK OPERATIONS
Opera trig
Maintenance
Equipment
Total
Total
Period labor
labor
rental
Fuel
Oil
Parts
cost
sludge
($)
(SO
($)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
gal (ton)
1972
Total 6,208.89
1,001.66
1,668.00
641.75
6.66
1,931.53
11,458.49
2,768,500
Cost/
1,000 gal 2.24
0.362
0.602
0.232
0.0024
0.698
4.14
Cost/ton 14.04
2.27
3.77
1.46
0.015
4.38
25.93
(441.9)
1972
(except Jan)
Total 6,077.39
930.44
1,529.00
586.93
6.66
1,931.53
11,061.95
2,747,500
Cost/
1,000 gal 2.21
0.339
0.557
0.214
0.0024
0.703
4.03
Cost/ton 13.85
2.12
3.49
1.34
0.015
4.40
25.23
(438.5)
1973
Total 6,690.78
1,501.57
1,668.00
514.86
17.01
2,567.57
12,959.79
2,068,500
Cost/
1,000 gal 3.23
0.726
0.806
0.249
0.0082
1.24
6.27
Cost/ton 16.39
3.68
4.09
1.26
0.042
6.29
31.74
(408.3)
Based on $12,247.20 amortized over 10 years at 6 percent annually.
-------
Mitigation measures for undesirable aspects of disposing of liquid sewage sludge
into landfills were discovered. When undigested or partially digested liquid sewage
sludge was disposed into the landfill, severe odor problems resulted. By immediately
covering the non-digested sludge with solid waste and a minimum six inches of cover
soil, the odors can be controlled. It was discovered that suitable soil cover prevented
fly emergence. Landfill temperatures sufficiently high to kill many viruses and pathogens
were observed for solid waste fill seven'days old.
282
-------
IX. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SLUDGE PROCESSING
AND TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
Liquid sludge handling and disposal into a landfill consists of two steps: trans-
portation from the sewage treatment plant to the landfill, and spreading the sludge onto
the solid waste fill. The sludge transportation method will depend on whether the sludge
is liquid, dewatered or dried prior to disposal. Thus, the feasible "transportation methods
consist of: pipeline, tank-truck and rail tank car for liquid sludge; dump truck and
rail hopper car for dewatered sludge. The costs for handling dewatered sludge include
the cost of dewatering.
The cost anal/sis is developed for the City of Oceanside and in general terms
for application in other locales. The two feasible alternatives for Oceanside based on
the existing sewage treatment plant and landfill location are via pipeline or truck
transportation.
A. Analytical Approaches
1. Oceanside Conditions. Figure IX-1 shows the location of the existing
landfill, and the four existing sewage treatment plants. The new sewage treatment
plant will replace the Buena Vista and San Luis Rey plants in the fall of 1974, thus
leaving two plants, the other being La Salina. The sludge from the two plants will be
transported to the new landfill until its estimated completion after 10 years. A new
landfill will have to be used after the existing landfill is completed. A useful landfill
life of 10 years will be used in the analysis. The most direct potential truck routes are
shown in Figure IX-1. Since existing City rights-of-way follow the same routes,
it was assumed that a pipeline will also follow these routes to avoid additional costs.
It was also assumed that a new landfill site will be required within 10 years, thus
the rerouting of 75 percent of the pipeline will be assumed for costing over a 30-year
period. Since no railroad tracks are near the landfill, the sludge quantities are
relatively small and the landfill is a short distance from the treatment plants, rail haul
is not considered feasible. The two Oceanside treatment plants process sludge by
aerobic (new plant) and anaerobic (La Salina plant) digestion. Data on present
(1972-74) and projected (1985) sludge quantities from each plant are given in Table IX-1
along with information on sludge solids content and transportation distances.
2. General Cost Conditions. The method of costing the Oceanside sludge
operations was based on standard engineering cost analyses. Costs must be determined
independently for a given locale according to local conditions. The least costly method,
whether it be truck haul, pipeline or combined dewatering and truck haul, must be
determined on a case-fey-case basis.
The data available to most municipal officials consist of the following: quantity
of sludge produced; sludge solids content; distance from sewage treatment plants to landfill
sites; and sludge processing and disposal costs.
283
-------
LEGEND
® EXISTING SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
MAJOR ROAD
..PROPOSED ROUTE OF TRUCK
HAUL OR PIPELINES
NEW SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
WINDMILL LAKE
WHELAN LAKE
SAN LUIS REY ®
EXISTING LANDFILL
OLD
LANDFILL
/wW BUENA
VISTA)
5000
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE IX-1
POSSIBLE ROUTINGS FOR SLUDGE
PIPELINE OR TRUCK HAUL
284
-------
TABLE tX-1
PRESENT AND FUTURE PRODUCTION OF
LIQUID DIGESTED SLUDGE IN OCEANSIDE
Item
San Luis Rey
and
La Sallna Plant Buena Vista New plant Total
1972-1973
Million gallons/year
Percent solids:
Average
Range
Projected, 1985
Million gallons/year
Percent solids:
Average
Range
Tons/"year solids
Gallons/day liquid
Approximate miles to
landfill site
Ton-miles/ year
(dry weight basis)
1.303
4.5
3.8-5.6
2.2 +
4.5
416
8,460**
2
554
1.292
5.0
0.8-11.1
0
0
8.4
5.5
1,940**
32,300+"
5
9,700
2.595
4.75
0.8-11.1
10.6
5.3
5.0-6.0
2,356
40,720
4.38
10,254
¦++
From: Reference 7.
4*
Present capacity, increased by 15%, rounded off.
#
By difference.
** Based on average % solids and assumed liquid weight of 8.4 lbs/gal.
++
Based on 5 days/week, 52 weeks/year.
285
-------
B, Cost Analysis for the City of Oceanside
The cost analysis is for the existing liquid digested sludge produced at the new
and the existing La Salina sewage treatment plants. Thus, tank-truck and pipeline
transportation of the liquid sludge are evaluated. Rail haul is uneconomical for the
small quantities of sludge produced at Oceanside, plus the cost of constructing a
railroad spur to the landfill and new treatment plant would be high.
1. Truck Transportation of Liquid Sludge. Three types of tank-trucks were
considered in the economic analysis. These are "spreader" "refijeler", and "vacuum
pumper". The first two types of trucks are manufactured by the Vendoro Company
(Los Angeles, California) which produces a wide variety of vehicles for hauling water
and fuel. The "spreader" model is a standard water truck whereas the "refueler" is a
fuel truck. Both of these vehicles have to be slightly modified for sludge trucking.
The modification would consist of replacing the standard water or jet fuel pump with a
heavy-duty sludge pump, and providing multiple spreading nozzles. The costs of spread-
ing nozzles and pumps (or elimination of pumps, if gravity loading and discharge are
employed) are small compared to the total cost and, hence, were disregarded in this
preliminary economic analysis. Currently, there are some 3,000 "vacuum pumper"
trucks in operation across the nation, with approximately 150 in Los Angeles County,
California, alone.^ These trucks are commonly used to haul liquid industrial waste
residues.
Table IX-2 presents a summary of estimated sludge hauling costs for the three
types of trucks considered. A hauling time of 1 hr was assumed (10 min each for
loading and unloading, and 40 min for an average round-trip from either the La Salina
or the new San Luis Rey Treatment Plant to the new landfill). As indicated in Table IX-2,
the total estimated annual capital and operating costs for sludge transportation with
"spreader", "refueler", and "vacuum pumper" trucks are about $40,900, $16,900, and
$22,400, respectively. The use of a refueler truck thus appears to be economically
most advantageous.
2. Pipelines. Table IX-3 presents a summary of the estimated costs for liquid
sludge transportation by pipelines. Due to the smaller flow from the La Salina Plant,
the cost of the 2-mi pipeline from this plant has been considered separately from that
of the 5-mi line from the new plant.
The following assumptions were made;
a) The pipeline follows the same route as the truck hauls (see Figure IX— 1).
b) The pipeline will be 8 inches in diameter.
c) The entire daily sludge production will be pumped to the landfill over a
sufficiently short period of time (less than 10 percent of the time) so that
adequate flow velocities can be maintained to avoid deposition of sludge
solids in the pipeline.
286
-------
TABLE IX-2
COST OF TRUCKING SLUDGE - OCEANSIDE
(1985)
Item
Spreader *
Refueler *
Vacuum pumper+
Capacity (gallons^
3,300
10,000
7,000
Cost range ($1,000):
Truck
18-25
-
-
Tank & modification
10
-
-
Total
28-35
50
40-50
High average
32
50
45
Loads/Jay
La Sallna (8,460
gallons/day)
3-
1
2-
New plant (32,300
gallons/day)
11"
3|
5-
Total
14-
4-j
7-
No. of trucks required
2
£
1
Annual costs ($1,000)
Depreciation (10-year
life at 6 percent)
8.7
6.8 *
6.1
Fuel & maintenance **
8.2
f
4.1
4.3
Driver's salary & fringe,
& overhead(5)
24.0
6.0#
12.0
Total annual cost
40.9
16.9
22.4
287
-------
TABLE IX-2 (CONT.)
COST OF TRUCKING SLUDGE - OCEANSIDE
(1985)
Item
Spreader *
Refueler*
Vacuum pumper +
Average cost/ton, $ per
ton of liquid hauled
0,92
0.38
0,50
Average cost/ton. $ per
ton of dry solids
17.36
7.17
9.51
Average cost/ ton -mile,
dry basis ***
3.95
1.64
2.17
* Characteristic truck data from Klein products.
+ From Reference 7,
It is assumed that the total depreciation on the truck will be charged to the sludge
hauling operation, while the driver's salary will only apply for the half of the time
that the truck is used to haul sludge.
** Average of 1972 and 1973 maintenance and fuel costs of $3,581.60 and
$4,601.01 for a 3,500 gallon truck. Since gravity feed was used, pumps will
Increase annual costs.
** Basis: $l0/000/man-year + 20% fringe and overhead.
^ Basis: 44,520 tons/year of liquid sludge and 2,356 tons/year of dry solids.
*** Weighted average haul of 416 tons x 2 miles and 1,940 torn- x 5 miles is 4.38
miles.
288
-------
TABLE IX—3
COSTS OF PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION - OCEANSIDE
Item
La Salina
New plant
Distance from landfill (miles)
2
5
Annual sludge production:
Million gallons
Tons (liquid)
Tons (solids only)
2.2
9,240
416
8.4
44,540
1,940
Cost of pipeline ($)
Cost of pumping station ($)
105,600
50,000
264,000
50,000
Total
155,600
314,000
Annual depreciation cost ($):
Pipeline (10-year useful life at 6 percent)
14,350
35,870
Pump station (30-year useful life
at 6 percent)
3,630
3,630
Total annual cost
17,980
39,500
Cost per ton ($)
Liquid sludge basis
Dry solids basis
1.95
43.22
1.12
20.36
Cost per ton-mile ($), dry solids basis
21.61
4.07
289
-------
d) Sludges from the La Salina and the new plant will contain about 3.0 and
5.5 percent solids, respectively.
e) The pumping station would have a useful operating life of 30 years. The
landfill useful life, however, is only 10 years. Thus, the pipeline would
only be used for 10 years after which it would be abandoned. The pumping
stations would be used for the full 30 years because a pipeline to a new
landfill would still be connected to the existing pumps.
f) The maintenance cost for the pipeline would be negligible. The maintenance
cost for the pumps was included in the treatment cost at the sewage treatment
plants.
g) The pipeline and the pumping station first costs were about $10 per running
foot and $50,000,respectively.
h) Sludge would be applied directly to the solid waste without storage at the
landfill.
The data in Table IX—3 indicate that the sludge transportation by pipelines
would cost $4.07 and $21 .61 per ton of dry solids per mile for the new plant and La
Salina, respectively. Comparison of these values with the corresponding estimates
for truck transportation ($1.64-$3.95 per ton of dry solids per mile) indicates that
the pipeline is decidedly not economical.
It should be emphasized that the economic analysis presented here is only
preliminary and was based on a large number of assumptions, the validity of which
have not been fully established. For example, sludge transportation cost is affected
significantly by the sludge solids content and at the present time the solids content of
the sludge which will result from the operation in the new plant is not specifically
known. It is estimated that an increase in the sludge solids content from 5.5 to 8 percent
would reduce the transportation cost (by either trucking or pipeline) by approximately
32 percent.
In recent years several studies have been reported in the literature on sludge
transportation costs. One study^ reports a long-term pipeline transportation cost of
$3 to $7 per ton of dry solids of which $1 to $2 is charged to operation and maintenance.
This study assumes pipe lengths of 4 to 17 miles and diameters of 8 to 24 inches. A
study of sludge transportation in the Chicago area^ indicates cost of $37.50 and $6.80
per ton of dry solids for truck hauling and pipeline, respectively. The Chicago study
was based on employing 14- and 24-in. pipelines flowing at their optimum capacity
for 95 percent of the time. Although the sludge quantities and conditions assumed in
these studies are significantly different from those used in the preliminary analysis for
Oceanside, the reported data are generally in reasonable agreement with those for
Oceanside (especially the pipeline transportation costs).
37
A more recent survey of 68 communities in northwestern Ohio concerned
direct land application of sewage sludge. Fourteen of these communities utilize City-
owned vehicles (mostly tank-trucks with a 1,000-5,000 gallon capacity) to directly
apply sludge to the land. One Cleveland treatment plant pays $5.85 per wet ton of
290
-------
sludge to a private contractor to haul vacuum-filtered sludge (about 80 percent water)
a distance of 100 miles. Average disposal costs to the 68 communities, for direct land
application of one ton of sewage sludge, including transportation, were: vacuum filtra-
tion and centrifuging, $34.41; direct land application by hauling contract, $31 .93;
drying beds, $14.34; and direct land application by City-owned trucks, $7.73.
In conclusion, the preliminary economic analysis reported here for Oceanside
indicates that pipelines are not economically justified for transportation of sludge.
As conditions change with time, further analysis should precede the final selection of an
appropriate sludge transportation system for Oceanside.
291
-------
REFERENCES*
I . Burd, R. S. A study of sludge handling and disposal. FWPCA Publication No.
WP-20-4, 1968.
2. Black, R. J. Combined disposal of sewage sludge and refuse. The American City,
77:139, August 1962.
3. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th ed., Washington,
D.C. AWWA, APHA, WPCF, 1971 .
4. Hanks, Thrift G. Solid waste/disease relationships; a literature survey, U.S. Public
Health Service Publication No. 999-UIH-6. £ incinnati, Solid Wastes Program,
1967. p. 50-51 .
5. Smith, D. T., N. F. Conant and H. P. Willett, Zinsser Microbiology. New York,
Appleton-Century Crofts, 1968.
6. Hanks, op.cit. p.51, 73-74.
7. Regional wastewater management systems for the Chicago metropolitan area. Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. 1972.'
8. Brezenski, F. T., R. Russomanno and P. De Falco, Jr. The occurrence of salmonella
and shigella in post-chlorinated and non-chlorinated sewage effluents and re-
ceiving waters, 1965.
9. Klein, Louis. River Pollution; III. Control. Washington, Butterworths, 1966.
10. Anderson, Myron S. Fertilizing characteristics of sewage sludge. Sewage and
Industrial Wastes, 41 (6): 678-682, June 1959.
II . Gotaas, H„ B. Composting; sanitary disposal and reclamation of organic wastes.
World Health Organization Monograph Series 31, World Health Organization,
Geneva, 1956.
12. Golueke, C. G. and H. B. Gotaas, Public health aspects of waste disposal by
composting. American Journal of Public Health, 44:339-348, 1954.
13. Gaby, W. L. Evaluation of health hazards associated with solic; waste sewage sludge
mixtures. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-03-0128, 1973.
14. Ibid, p. 41 .
15. Engelbrecht, R. S. Pathogenic microorganisms in sanitary landfills: source, survival
and movement. Diaper Research Committee, Tissue Division, American Paper
Institute, Nov. 1972.
292
*Not verified by OSWMP
-------
REFERENCES (CONT.)
16. Stone R. and R. Gupta. Aerobic and anaerobic landfill stabilization process.
Journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Sanitary Engineering
Division, 96 (SA6): 1939, Dec. 1970.
17. Lanoni, A. E. Ground water pollution from sanitary landfills and refuse dump
grounds. Research Report 69, Department of Natural Resources, State of
Wisconsin, Madison, 1971.
18. Quasim, S. and J. C. Burchinal. Leaching from simulated landfills. Journal
of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 42(3): 371, March 1970.
19. Cook, H. A., D. L. Cromwell and H. A. Wilson. Microorganisms in household
refuse and seepage water from sanitary landfills. Proceedings West Virginia
Academy of Science, 39: 107, 1967.
20. Engelbrecht, op.cit.,p. 49-60.
21 . Quasim, op.cit. p. 379.
22. Anderson, op.cit. p. 30.
23. Anonymous. Rules and regulations for administration of the Pennsylvania Solid Waste
Management Act, adopted by the Pennsylvania State Health Department.
24. Status of Solid Waste Management. (1), Interim Report, California State Department
of Public Health, Sept. 1968.
25. Andersen, R. L.,et. al. Utilization of municipal wastewater sludge. Journal of
the Water Pollution Control Federation, 29, 1971 .
26. American Public Works Association. Municipal refuse disposal. Public Administra-
tion Service, Chicago, 1970.
27. Merz, R. and R. Stone. Factors controlling utilization of a sanitary landfill site.
U.S. Public Health Service/Univ. of Southern California, U.S.P.H.S. Project
No. EF-00160-05, Final Report, Jan. 1, 1964 to Dec. 31, 1965. U.S.P.H.S.
Project No. EF-00160-03, Final Report, May 1, 1960 to May 31, 1964.
28. Fungaroli, A.A. Pollution of subsurface water by sanitary landfills. Vol. 1. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Report No. SW-12g, 1971 .
29. Black, R.J. and A.M. Barnes. Effect of earth cover on fly emergence from sanitary
landfills. Public Works, 89(2): 91-4, 1958.
293
-------
REFERENCES (CONT.)
30. Fuller, J. E. and W. Litsky. E. coli In digested sludge. Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, 22 (7):853-859, 1930:
31. Keller, P. Sterilization of sewage sludges. Public Health. (So. Africa), 15 (1):
11, 1951.
32. Keller, P. The influence of heat treatment on the ova of Ascaris lumbricoides
in sewage. Journal and Proc. Institute Sewage Purif., Part 1, p. 100,1 951 .
33. Petersen, M. L. Pathogens associated with solid waste processing. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Publication No. SW-49r, p. 11, 1971 .
34. Stone, R. Sanitary landfill disposal of chemical and petroleum wastes. In: Pro-
ceedings; A. I. Ch. E. Symposium, March 4, 1971 .
35. Land reclamation project. DO-U1-000803, Interim Report. (Cincinnati),
U.S.P.H.S. Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
36. Shell, G. L. and J. L. Boyd. Composting dewatered sewage sludge. U.S. Dept.of
Health, Education, and Welfare/Public Health Service, Report SW-12c, 1969.
37. Manson, R. J. and C. F. Merritt. Land application of liquid municipal wastewater
sludges. Paper presented at Water Pollution Control Federation Conference.
Cleveland, Ohio, 1973.
38. Terzaghi, K. and R.B. Peck. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1948.
39. Blannon, J.C. and M.L. Peterson. Survival of fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci
in a sanitary landfill. In: News of Environmental Research in Cincinnati:
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
April 12, 1974.
294
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY*
American Public Works Association. Municipal refuse disposal. Public Administration
Service, Chicago, III., 1970.
Anderson, A. Mercury in decayed sludge. Chemical Abstracts, 69:45867, 1968.
Anderson, M.S. Sewage sludge for soil improvement. USDA Circular, 972:27, 1955.
Anon. Increased income from sludge spraying. Water and Waste Treatment Journal,
12:32, 1968.
Bacon, V.W. and Dalton, F.E. Professionalism and water pollution control at Chicago.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 40(9): 1586, Sept. 1968.
Bechtel Corporation. I, The waste management concept; II, Criteria for waste manage-
ment; III, Technical aspects of pipelining of waste materials. FWPCA Waste
Management Study, 1969.
Brisbin, S.G. Flow of concentrated raw sewage sludges in pipes. Journal of the
Sanitary Eng. Piv. Proceedings, ASCE, Paper 1274, 83 (SA 3), June 1957.
Bucksteeg, W. Disposal of inorganic contaminants: requirements and their fulfillment.
Chemical Abstracts, 68:33010, 1968.
Canham, R.A. Comminuted solids inclusion with spray irrigated canning waste. Sewage
and Industrial Wastes, 30(5): 1028-1049, Aug. 1958.
Caron, A.L. and Blosser, R. O. Recent progress in land disposal of pulp and paper mill
effluents. TAPPI, 48(5):43A-46A, May 1965.
*
Carpenter, W. L. and Grossman, J. Relationship of flow characteristics to changes in
sludge consistency. TAPPI, 53:64, 1970.
Cheng, D.C.H. The flow of non-Newtonian slurries and suspensions in pipeline systems.
Filtration & Separation, 7:434, 1970.
Chou, T. L. Resistance of sewage sludge to flow in pipes. Journal of the Sanitary Eng.
Div. Proceedings, ASCE, Paper 1780, 84(SA 5), Sept. 1958.
Clarke, N. A. and Kohler, P. W. The inactivation of purified coxsackie virus in water
by chlorine. American Journal of Hygiene, 59: 119-127, 1954.
Continued study of wastewater reclamation utilization. Pub. No. 15, California State
Water Pollution Control Board, 1956.
*Not verified by 0SWMP
295
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (CCNT.)
Cotton, P. A survey of some sewage treatment and allied problems at Norwich. Water
Pollution Control, 68:627, 1969.
Cummins, R. L. Effects of land disposal of solid wastes on water quality. Report
SW-2ts, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center
for Urban and Industrial Health, Solid Wastes Program, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1968.
Dalton, F. E., Stein, J.E. and Lynam, B.T. Land reclamation—a complete solution
of the sludge and solids disposal problem. Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, 40(5):789-804, 1968.
Dodson, R.E. and Stone, R. Advances in sludge disposal. Journal of the Sanitary
Engineering Division, ASCE, 88(SA 4): 71-72, July 1962.
Dotson, G. K. Sludge disposal by landspreading. Summary Outline, personal communi-
cation, 1971 .
Dotson, G. K., Dean, R. B., Cooke, W. B. and Kennar, B„A. Land spreading, a
conserving and non-polluting method of disposing of oily wastes. Presented at the
5th International Water Pollution Research Conference, July-August 1971 .
Evans, J.O. Ultimate sludge disposal and soil improvement. Water and Wastes Engr.,
5(6): 45, 1969.
Ewing, B.B. and Dick, R.I. Disposal of sludge on land. In Water Quality Improvement
by Physical and Chemical Processes. E. F. Gloyna and W.W. Eckenfelder, Jr.
(eds.), 394, 1970.
FisichelIi, A.P. Raw sludge pumping - problems and interdisciplinary solutions. Journal
of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 42:1916, 1970.
Fleming, J.R. Sludge utilization and disposal. Proceedings of the 8th So. Municipal arid
Industrial Waste Conf., 198-218, 1959.
Gothard, S.A. Garbage processing in Jersey, British Isles. Compost Science, spring 1961 .
Habs, H. Should sewage sludge be treated hygienically? Water Pollution Abstracts,
43:1770, 1970.
Hajek, B.F. Chemical interactions of wastewater in a soil environment. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation* 41:1775, 1969.
296
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (CONT.)
Hinesly, T.D. and Sosewitz, B. Digested sludge disposal on crop land. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation/ 41:822, 1969.
Hornig, G. Sludge transportation. Wasserwirtsch - Wassertech, 3:98, 1968.
Huebner, R. J., et. al. Rickettsiapox: a newly recognized rickettsial disease (IV).
Public Health Reports, 61 (47): 1677, 1672, Nov. 1946.
Jansson, S. L. On the humus properties of organic manures. I. Actual Humus Properties.
Lantbrukshogskolans Annaler, 26:51, 1969.
Jansson, S. L. On the humus properties of organic manures. II. Potential Humus
Properties. Lantbrukshogskolans Annaler, 26:135, 1969.
Krupsku, M. K. and Gasan, P. A. Prevention of filtration of industrial wastewaters
from settlers by the method of coagulation colmatage. Chemical Abstracts,
68:6061, 1968.
Kumke, G. W., Hall, J. F. and Oeben, R. W. Conversion to activated sludge at
Union Carbide's Institute plant. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation,
40(8): 1408, Aug. 1968.
Lunt, H.A. Digested sewage sludge for soil improvement. Bulletin 622. Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1959.
MacLaren, J.W. Evaluation of sludge treatment and disposal. Canadian Municipal
Utilities, 23-33, 51-59, May 1961.
Markel, W. The flow characteristics of sewage sludge and other thick materials.
Physics, 5:355, Nov. 1934.
Nusbaum, I. and Cook, L., Jr. Making topsoil with wet sludge. Waste Engineering/
438-440, Aug. 1960.
Premi, P. R. and Cornfield, A. H. Incubation study of nitrification of digested sewage
sludge added to soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1:1, 1969.
Raynes, B. C. Economic transport of digested sludge slurries. Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 42:1379, 1970.
Riddel I, M.D.R. and Cormack, J. W. Selection of disposal methods for wastewater
treatment plants. Proc. 10th San. Eng. Conf., 65(115):131, 1968.
297
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (CONT.)
Rose, B. A. Sanitary district puts sludge to work in land reclamation. Water and
Sewage Works, 115:393, 1968.
Rudolfs, W. and West, L. E. Properties of sludge which affect its discharge through
24-inch pipe. Sewage Works Journal, 12(1):60, 1940.
Scanlon, A. J. Utilization of sewage sludge from the produce of topsoil. Sewage and
Industrial Wastes, 29(8):944-950, Aug. 1957.
Scott, R. H. Disposal of high organic content wastes on land. Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 34(9):932-950, 1962.
Sharp, A. N. Discussion of trade effluent disposal by long-distance pressure pipeline
system. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, 45:701, 1970.
Sironen, E. R. and Lee, D. Sludge density control by ultrasonics. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation, 42:298, 1970.
Smith, James E., Jr. Ultimate disposal of sludges. Technical Seminar Workshop on
Advanced Waste Treatment, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Feb. 9-10, 1971 .
Sparr, Anton E. Pumping sludge long distances. Alexander Potter Associates, 1971 .
Survey of design trends and developments for small sewage treatment plants in past
decade, Editors, Wastes Engineering, 520-523, Oct. 1962.
Szues, J. Use of radioisotopes for determination of the sludge level. Chemical Abstracts,
72(14):70395t, 1970.
Third report on the sludge of wastewater reclamation and utilization,r Pub. No. 18,
California State Water Pollution Control Board, 1957.
Thomas, R. E. and Bendixen, T. W. Degradation of wastewater organlcs in soil.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 4] :808, 1969.
Tigges, R. The disposal of sludges from neutralization and detoxification plants in the
urban area of Dusseldorf-Mettmann. Water Pollution Abstracts, 41 (4):649, 1968.
Troemper, A. P. Discussion of how serious is the problem. Proc. 10th San. Eng. Conf.,
Univ. of Illinois Bulletin, 65, 115, 7, 1968.
Viitasalo, I. Plant experiments with sewage sludge from Helsingfors. Chemical Abstracts,
71 (22):1 04965a, 1969.
298
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (CONT.)
Wirts, J.J. Pipeline transportation end disposal of digested sludge. Sewage and
Industrial Wastes Journal, 28(2):121/ 1956.
Wirts, J.J. Sludge pumping through long force mains. Water and Sewage Works,
95(10):345/ 1948.
Wolfe, J. R. Factors affecting sludge force mains. Sewage and Industrial Wastes Journal,
22:1, 1950.
299
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL AND LACORATORY TEST PROGRAMS
300
-------
TABLE A
A NA LYTICA L METHODS
Parameter
Analytical Method (or instrument)
Reference* (page)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD)
pH Value
Specific Conductance
Turbidity
Metals
Arsenic
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Zinc
Manometric BOD,
Dichromate Reflux
Glass Electrode Method - Analytical
Measurements Model 700
Conductivity Bridge Method -
Yellow Springs Instrument
Model 31
Nephelometric Method -
Hach Turbidimeter - Model 2100
Atomic Absorption
Spectroscopy - Perkin-Elmer Model 290 B
Hach Manometric
BOD Apparatus
Hach Chemical Co.
(p. 495)
(p. 276)
(p.323)
(p.349)
Analytical Methods
for Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometry
Perkin-Elmer Corp.
1968
(also p.211 Standard Methods)
-------
TABLE A (CONT.)
ANALYTICAL METHODS
Parameter
Analytical Method (or instrument)
Reference* (page)
Barium
Turbidlmetric Method -
Hach DR-Colorimeter
Hach Colorimeter
Methods Manual
Hach Chemical Co.
1971
Nitrate
Brucine Method
(p. 461)
Phosphate (Total)
Stannous Chloride Method
(p. 530)
Sulfate
Turfcidimetric Method
(p. 334)
Chloride
Argentometric Method
(p. 96)
Total Nitrogen (Organic)
Kjeldahl Method
(p. 244)
Total Dissolved Solids
Filtrable Residue, Difference Method
(p. 539)
Total Solids %
Total Residue (%)
(p. 540)
Total Organics
Volatile Residue {%)
(p. 540)
Total Volatile Acids
Column - Partition
Chromatographic Method
(p. 577
Total Coiiforms
Standard Total Coliform- MPN Tests
(p. 664)
Fecal Coiiforms
Fecal Coliform MPN Procedure
(p. 669)
Fecal Streptococci
Multiple Tube Technic
(p. 689)
H2S - Gas
Mine Safety Appliances -
Universal Testing Kit #83500 with detector
tubes for H^S *87414
Mine Safety Appliances Co.
-------
TABLE A (CONT.)
ANALYTICAL METHODS
Parameter
Analytical Method (or instrument)
Reference *(page)
Gas: CO,
CH4
o2
n2
Hardness
Fluoride
CO„
Nitrogen (Ammonia)
Gas Chromatographic Method - (p. 546)
Varfan Aerograph
Model A90P3
EDTA Titrimetrlc Method (p. 179)
SPA DNS Method (p. 174)
Nomographic Determination of Free Carbon (p. 86)
Dioxide and theThree Forms of Alkalinity
Nesslerization Method (p. 226)
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition, Washington, D .C., APHA, AWWA,
WPCF, 1971 .
-------
TEST PROCEDURE FOR
MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION
Samples are received in plastic bags with ties to seal airtight.
1. Remove bag tie and tag and obtain weight of sample and bag.
2. If sample is tightly packed, loosen to facilitate drying.
3. Place bag with sample in oven and dry at 102 C for approximately 24 hours.
4. Remove bag from oven and place in dessicator to cool.
5. After bag and sample have cooled (about 30 minutes), remove from dessicator
and obtain weight of the dried sample and bag.
6. Remove sample from bag making sure all of sample is removed.
Save sample to determine organic content.
7. Determine tare weight of bag.
8. Calculate moisture content using the following formulas:
Moisture content, percent by dry weight=
(tare + wet sample) - (tare + dry sample)
(tare + dry sample) - (tare)
x 100
Moisture content, percent by wet weight=
(tare + wet sample) - (tare + dry sample)
(tare + wet sample) - (tare)
x 100
304
-------
CITY OF OCEANSID^/E. P. A. BORE HOLE DRILLING PROGRAM
INSTRUCTIONS
A. Drilling Instructions
1. Drill Site Location. Three sites will be selected on the landfill to include the
following conditions: 1) freshly placed sludge-solid waste, 0 to 2 weeks old; 2)
older sludgersolid waste placed about the same time as the test cells; and 3) old solid
waste without sludge placed about the same time as the test cells. Condition 1) will be
on the top of the current working face; conditions 2) and 3) will be selected on the
first drilling period and first drilling period and drilling will be done in the same area
in subsequent quarterly drilling periods.
One hole in each test cell to be drilled at least 15 feet from the gas and temperature
probes. Bore holes to be drilled in a clockwise direction each time starting on the west
side of the probes.
a. Test Cells. Drill to a 12-foot depth (10-foot depth excluding soil cover) to stay at
least 3 feet above the bottom of each test cell.
b. Landfi 11. Locate the drill at least 15 feet from nearest canyon wall where feasible.
Drill to a 20-foot depth into the waste fill or until either refusal or the bottom of the fill
is encountered.
2. Drill Rig. A 12-inch auger drill bit on a 40-foot rig.
3. If obstacles are encountered while drilling in any hole, move the drill rig 5 to 10
feet and drill again.
B. Core Sampling Observations
1. Temperature. Insert thermometer into fresh waste on auger bit at two-foot intervals
as bit is withdrawn in two-foot increments.
2. Odor. . Describe odor at two-foot intervals as:
a. Strength. Strong, medium, weak, none.
b. Type. Earthy, pig pen, sweet, grassy, sour.
3. Color. Describe components natural if no change has occurred or as they appear
if changed (faded, bleached, brightened, dulled, etc.).
4. Readability. Describe if newsprint, paper labels, etc. are readable, blurred, or
unreadable.
305
-------
5. Biodegradabllity. Note components'(cans, glass, grass, newsprint, polyethylene,
sticks, etc.) degradabllity.
6. Appearance. Describe If waste components are dry, moist, powdery and crumbling,
compact and agglomerated.
7. Samples. Fill a 1-quart sample bottle with representative wastes at two-foot
intervals and check off on data sheet.
C. Backfilling
Backfill the core holes with the solid waste and soil removed from the same hole. If
additional backfill material Is needed, use solid waste from the existing fill face.
Cover the hole with the original cover soil.
D. Core Sample Removal
The procedure to be followed is to drill into the solid waste a distance of 2 feet and
remove the bit for sampling and observation of the material as described under item B
above. Clean off the drill bit and drill into the waste and remove the drill for sampling,
etc. Mark the auger drill bit with emery cloth at 2-foot Intervals (allow for soil cover)
so that drill depth can be measured.
E. Gas Detection Tests
Gas detection tests for hydrogen sulfide and methane are at the 10-foot depth
in the test cell bore holes and the 20-foot depth in the landfill bore holes. A plastic
tube with a permeable material on one end is lowered to the bottom of the hole
and the hydrogen sulfide and methane tests made as done on the test cells.
306
-------
ANALYSIS OF TEST CELL BORE HOLE SAMPLES FOR BACTERIA
COLIFORM (E. COLI), FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS, PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA
Preparation of Sample for Bacteria I Analysis:
Thirty grams of solid sample were withdrawn from the jar aseptically and added to a
sterile 500-ml capacity bottle containing 270 ml of 0.067M cold phosphate buffer,
pH 7.2. Contents of the bottle were mixed thoroughly by vigorous shaking of the
bottle 50 times. The suspension was then filtered through a fourlayered sterile
cheese cloth into another sterile empty bottle. This filtrate was used to prepare a series
of decimal dilutions.
Preparation of Decimal Dilutions:
The filtered suspension prepared as noted above was diluted 1:10. Ten ml of this
suspension was transferred to a dilution bottle containing 90 ml of phosphate buffer.
The bottle was stoppered and shaken vigorously 25 times. This gave a 1:100 dilution.
Further dilutions were made in a similar fashion up to 1: 1,000,000 by transferring
10-ml portions into 90 ml sterile phosphate buffer for each subsequent dilution. These
dilutions were used to inoculate a series of selected culture media for detecting various
specific microorganisms as well as standard bacterial plate counts.
Bacterial Count by Pour Plate:
Each dilution bottle containing an appropriate dilution of the test sample was shaken
vigorously 25 times and l~ml portions were pipetted into each of the appropriately
marked duplicate Petri plates. Fifteen ml of molten agar (Difco) prepared in accordance
with Standard Methods was held at 45 C. The test sample was added to the agar in the
Petri plate and mixed thoroughly with the agar by rotating and tilting the plate. The
plates were allowed to solidify soon after mixing and incubated at 35 + 0.5 C for
24 hours in an inverted position.
The bacterial colonies developed after incubation were counted and the bacterial
content for each sample was computed from the plates containing 20 to 300 colonies.
The colony count was computed per gram of the sample (wet weight).
Determination of Total Coliform Group by MPN Method:
Presumptive Test:
One~ml portions of each decimal dilutions of each sample were inoculated into 5 lac-
tose broth tubes in identical fermentation m^dia (10 rgl medium per tube).
The range of decimal dilutions used was 10 to 10 for each test sample. The
fermentation tubes were incubated at 35 + 0.5 C for 24 hours and examined for the
presence of gas. If no gas was present the tubes were incubated for another 24-hour
period. Tubes showing the presence of gas were recorded as being positive in the
307
-------
presumptive test.
Confirmed Test:
All tubes showing a positive presumptive test were submitted to a confirmation test.
For this purpose a loopful (3 mm in diameter)of the culture in the presumptive
fermentation tube was transferred to another fermentation tube containing brilliant
green lactose bile broth. These tubes were marked appropriately and incubated at
35 + 0.5 C. They were examined periodically for the production of gas. Tubes which
did not show any gas production after 48 hours of incubation were considered negative
(i.e.,coliform were absent) and discarded.
Completed Test:
All brilliant green lactose bile fermentation tubes giving positive reactions within
48 hours were submitted to the confirmation test. A loopful of the culture from the
confirmed test tube was streaked onto an appropriately marked eosin nethylene blue agar
(Levine) plate soon after the production of gas. The plates were incubated in an
inverted position for 24 hours at 35 + 0.5 C and examined for the presence of typical
colonies showing a green metallic sheen; atypical colonies were transferred out from
the plate and inoculated into appropriately marked lactose broth fermentation tubes
and nutrient agar slants. The tubes and the agar slants were incubated at 35 + 0.5 C
for 24 to 48 hours. Gram-stained smears were prepared from the agar slants if any
amount of gas was produced in the corresponding lactose broth fermentation tubes.
If no gas was produced in lactose broth fermentation tubes after 48 hours of
incubation,the coliform group was considered to be absent in those tubes and no gram-
stained smears were prepared from corresponding tubes. The gram-stcnned smears
prepared from the agar slants were examined in oil immersion under ci suitable microscope
for the presence or absence of spores. If the smear contained gram negative rods and
no spores the test was considered to be completed, i.e.,positively present coliform
in the tube. If spores or gram positive rods were found on the smear the test was
considered to be negative, i.e.,absence of coliform bacteria in the lube. If both
gram positive and gram negative rods and/or spores were found on the smear the test
was considered indecisive and the procedure beginning from eosin methylene blue agar
(Levine) plate was repeated.
Differential Test:
A small portion from the; bacteria! growth on nutrient agar slant whose smear showed
only gram negative rods was inoculated into appropriately marked tubes in duplicate
containing 5 ml of buffered glucose broth and incubated at 35 + 0.5 C for 3 to 5 days.
After incubation one of the duplicated tubes was treated with 5 drops of methyl red
indicator solution (0.1 gram methyl red in 300 ml of 95% ethyl alcohol and diluted to
500 ml with distilled water). Development of a red color was considered as methyl
red positive and development of yellow color was considered as methyl red negative.
308
-------
Sample
j + 24
Lactose broth fermentation tube, 35-0.5 C for in hrs
I 48
Idi
Gas produced.
Brilliant green lactose bile broth,
24 to 48 hrs at 35±0.5 C
1
No gas produced;
coliform absent.
No gas;
coliform absent.
~GaTproduced.
1
Eosin methylene blufe agar plate, 35-0.5 C for 24 hrs
Typ
. f
ical
colonies
Atypical colonies
Negative colonies;
coliform absent.
Nutrient agar slant,
35-0.5 C for 24 to 48 hrs
Gram stain
Lactose broth fermentation tube,
35^0.5 C for 24 to 48 hrs
Gram negative rods;
coliform present
positively. Both
gram positive and
negative—go to
eosin methylene
blue agar plate.
fl
No gram Jiegative
rods but spores or
gram positive rods
present; coliform
absent.
Gas produced;
examine the
slants by gram
stain.
No gas; coliform
absent; discard
agar slant.
Buffered glucos^ broth
r
MR +1 E. coli
VP - I or intermediates present
Aerobacter aerogenes present
From: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
13th Edition, AWWA, WPCF, et.al, 1971.
FIGURE 1
BACTERIAL ANA LYSIS
FLOW SHEET
309
-------
The other duplicate tube of the buffered glucose broth was incubated for 3 days and
tested by the Voges - Proskauer test by adding 3 ml of fresh a -naphthol solution
(5g in TOO ml absolute ethanol) and 1.0 ml of 40% KOH solution and incubating at
room temperature for 2 to 4 hours. Development of a pink to crimson color in the
culture indicated positive V-P test; otherwise the test was considered as negative.
A combination of positive methyl red (MR) and negative V-P tests indicated the presence
of E. coli and/or its intermediates in the tube. (The flow sheet is shown in Figure 1,)
Quantitative Analysis for Pseudomonas Aeruginosa:
Presumptive Test:
Onetnl portions from each decimal dilutions of each sample were inoculated into
duplicate sets of 5 tubes of asparagine enrichment broth. The tubes were incubated at
35 + 0.5 C for 48 hours. The tubes were examined for development of turbidity and/
or green or blue"green color. The tubes showing such characteristics were considered
as positive presumptive. The negative presumptive tubes were discarded.
Confirmation Test:
The asparagine enrichment tubes, which gave positive presumptive tests, were used to
inoculate appropriately marked acetamide broth tubes. The acetamide broth tubes
were incubated at 35 + 0.5 C for 48 hours. Development of violet color in the medium
indicated a positive confirmed test for Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Completed Test:
Culture from positive acetamide broth (confirmation test) tubes was streaked onto
appropriately marked "TECH" agar plates for isolated colonies. The plates were
incubated at 35 + 0.5 C for 24 hours. Development of diffusible blue-green color
indicated the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Gram-stained smears were
prepared from one of these colonies and viewed in oil immersion under microscope for
the presence of gram negative rods to further confirm the presence of Pseudomonas
aeruginosa.
Quantitative Analysis for Fecal Streptococci:
Presumptive Test:
One-ml portions of each decimal dilutions were inoculated into a series of appropriately
marked azide dextrose broth tubes containing 10 ml of the medium. The tubes were
incubated for 24 to 48 hours at 35 + 0.5 C and examined for growth indicated by
turbidity.
310
-------
Confirmation Test:
Two drops of culture from all positive presumptive test tubes was inoculated into
appropriately marked tubes containing 10 ml of ethyl violet azide broth using sterile
Pasteur pipets. The tubes were incubated at 35 + 0.5 C for 24 hours and examined
for the formation of a purple button at the bottom (positive confirmation test). If
tubes showed a negative confirmation test at this point, they were inoculated with
two additional drops of culture from positive presumptive test tubes, which were
always saved. The confirmed test tubes were incubated again at 35 + 0.5 C for 24
hours and examined for positive or negative reactions.
Completed Test:
Tubes of brain heart infusion broth supplemented with 6.5% sodium chloride were
inoculated with three loopfuls of culture from positive presumptive tubes corresponding
to positively confirmed test tubes. The completed test tubes were incubated at
35 + 0.5 C for 48 hours and examined for growth. Turbidity in 6.5% NaCI broth
constituted a completed test.
As a check, grarrTstained smears were prepared from 6.5% NaCI broth and viewed
under a microscope.
3H
-------
CORE SAMPLE MOISTURE SATURATION
AND LEACHATE GENERATION METHODOLOGY
1. After determination of moisture and organic content in the core samples was
completed, the core samples in each bore hole having the highest and lowest
moisture contents were selected for saturation and leaching tests.
2. A representative sub-sample of materials in each selected core sample was
obtained and weighed.
3. The weighed sub-sample was packed into a 2-inch diameter transparent polyethylene
column on top of a 1/8-inch square mesh screen support. The column system was
capped at the top and bottom to close the system. A 1/16-inch I. D. glass drain
tube was installed through the bottom cap. A 200-ml buret with a stop-cock
control was positioned above the column with its nozzle extending through the
top cap. A 200-ml graduated flask was placed below the column with the glass
column drain tube passing through a rubber stopper in the top of the flask.
4. The buret was filled with 200 ml of distilled water and the stop-cock was opened
to allow the water to drip into the column onto the packed solid waste material.
The optimum rate of water application was determined in preliminary tests to be
about 400 ml per hour. Additional distilled water was added to the buret in
100-ml portions as required to maintain a minimum of 50 ml head in the buret.
Water addition required about 30 to 50 minutes to reach saturation.. Saturation was
indicated when prolonged dripping of water from the bottom of the sample began as
determined by observation. The volume of water added to saturation (less any
leachate) was determined to calculate the percent dry weight of water absorbed.
5. The water application was continued after saturation until at least 157 ml of
leachate was collected in the 100-ml flask.
6. The 157 ml of leachate was used to determine BOD5 on the HACH Manometric
BOD5 apparatus.
312
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA SHEETS
313
-------
WASTE SAMPLE WEIGHTS, LB
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
(WASTE CATEGORIES)
OBSERVER
DATE
1 . Paper
2.
3.
4.
5. Garden
6.
7, Plastic
Rubber
Leather
8.
9.
Other
Newsprint
Cardboard
(Solid and
Corrugated)
Misc. Paper
Food
Glass,
Ceramic
IO
O
4-
Q)
5
Tree & Shrub
Prunnings
Leaves
.
Grass
Textiles
Plastic, Rubber
Leather - Solid
Plastic, Rubber-
Foam
Wood
«o
<:
ci J?
Concrete, Rock
2 Inch Sieve
314
-------
Date:
Observer:
Title:
LANDFILL VEHICLE COUNT TALLY SHEET
Type and Size of Vehicle
Vehicles
Type of Waste Load
Auto/
Station
Wagon
Pick-up
Truck Van
1/4-1 ton
Truck
Over
1 ton
Waste Collection \
Domestic
Household
Industrial
List Wastes &
Comments
Private/
Industrial
Oceanside
Municipal
Other
Municipal
Biter check (v/) or volume in cu yd if known. Check ^/) appropriate column(s).
-------
OCEANSIDE TEST CELL TEMPERATURE RECORD
Date
Temperature, Deg F
Ambient
Cell No, 1
Cell No. 2
Cell No. 3
S>
M-D I
B '
S
M-D
B
S
M-D
6
•
i
^ S = surface probe temp; M-D = mid-depth probe temp; and B ~ bottom probe temp.
316
-------
MONTHLY OCEANSIDE TEST CELL LEACHATE SAMPLING1
Date
Sample No.
Quantity
(gal)
BOD
(mg/l)
CI
(mg/l)
TDS
(mg/l)
N
(mg/l)
Col 5 form
(MPN)
EC
(fj mhos)
1 Return each data sheet with the listed samples.
317
-------
UNOFILL EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS
Observer CITY OF OCEANSIDE Driver
Date Dozer
Time
Weather
Equipment Time/Task, Min. ( /100)
Flies,
Rats,
Birds
Temp.
°F
Con-
dition *
Non-pro-
ductive
Working
Refuse
Placing
Soil Cover
Moving
Earth
Travel
*Descr!be weather as- (a) sunny; (b) cloudy; (c) rain; (d) wet ground (not raining).
+lnclude equipment maintenance, coffee/lunch breaks, breakdown/stuck, talk, etc.
318
-------
Date
Weather
EPA GRANT NO. S-801582
LOAD COUNT DATA SHEET
Page_
Observer
of
Time
Street
Sweeper
% Full
Type of Vehicle
Pick Up
1/4 to 1 ton
% Full
Truck
Over 1 ton
% Full
Waste
Disposal
WD No.
Other
Spec i fy
u
5.
o
u ,
cu. yd,
Total
Vehicle
Wt., Lbs.
Buck-
et
Loads
Soil,
No.
c
a
-o
M
4)
OtL
Type of Load
D
"O
c
°6
1/t
c 0)
v> 4)
CO
Ci
Comments
a>
-C
+-
o
Note: Capacity not needed for WD vehicles. Give capacity and percent full (estimate) for other vehicles, weight
is not required. Give load type for all open vehicles.
-------
EPA/CITY OF OCEANS IDE
Observer Page of
TRACTOR OPERATIONS DATA
Date
Cat'
Hours Used
977
Buckets of Soil
for Cover
Cat c.
Hours Used
?77K
Buckets of Soil
for Cover
Comments
320
-------
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Date
Solid
Waste,
Lb
Sewage
Sludge,
Gal
Weather
Odor,
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Bi rds, Rats, Other, No.
Comments
Temp
°F
Wind
Condition
Test Area
Regular
Landfi 11
+Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High.
Enter - Sunny, Cloudy, Overcast, Showers, or Rain.
-------
Page of
Date/time ^ CORE SAMPLE DATA SHEET Observer
Temp. Vfeather Bore hole no. Depth (ft)
Check-off when taken; Photo ( ) Sample ( ) (Take at bottom of 10 or 20 ft hole: CH4(mg/i) H^S (mg/l)'
Waste material
category
Temp.
(F)
Odor
Color
Readability
Appearance
Biodegradability
Newsprint
Miscellaneous
paper
Cardboard
Food
Textiles
Grass
Leaves
Tree & shrub
prunings
Plastic, rubber
Leather
Wood
Metal
Glass & ceramics
Dirt, ash, sand
Sewage sludge
Comments
Continue on back
-------
DS-1: SLUDGE APPLICATION DATA - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL Observer
Date
&
time
Loads disposed, no.
Weather
Sludge disposal
Describe method of sludge and
solid waste placement, and condition
of sludge when observed (wet, dry)
Est. qty, gallons
Solid
waste
by type*
Sludge
load by
type+
Temp.
°F
Wind^
Con-
dition**
Runoff
Leachate
(sample when
observed)
*
Type of load: for WD (Waste disposal collection trucks) enter "WD-no. loads". For other loads indicate "Type-no. loads"
Indicate type of sludge as: SLR-no.(galIons/load); and for Buena Vista (BV) and La Salina (LS) note primary digested
(PD), primary raw (PR) or secondary digested (SD) sludge. Example* LS - 3 (3,500) (SD).
if
Biter - calm, low, moderate or high. **Enter - sunny, cloudy, overcast, showers or rain.
-------
DS-2: ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATIONS - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL Observer
Date
&
time
Sludge test area: ft x ft
(No sludge) Regular landfill area: ft x ft
Blowing
litter,
no. items*
Animals and insects, no/PA+
Odo*
Blowing
litter
no. items*
Animals and insects, no/PA+
Odor^
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others.!
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others.1
.. . ¦
~
Estimate the number of items travelling in the wind. Do not include items waving or flapping in the wind which are
held down at one end.
Count the number of birds and animals on the waste fill and estimate the total area in square feet (feet). The
sludge test area size shall include all solid waste fill surface which is covered with sludge or was mixed with sludge at the
time of observation. PA = populated area where 80 percent or more of the observed population is foraging.
if
Estimate the area covered by flies and the number of flies, maggots.
Earthy, pig pen, sweet, etc.; none, medium, strong, etc.
1 Indicate rats, cats, dogs or other unusual animal or insect or event.
-------
DS-3: LANDFILL EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS n .
Date/tay C,TY OF OCEANS,DE Dozer"
Clock
Time
[wait)
Temp
(deg F)
Con-
dition*
Task time, min/lOO
Refuse condition, describe
Equipment
Apply
water*''
Unload
sludge
Nonpro-
ductive
Travel
Moving
refuse
Working
refuse
Moving
soil
Placing
soil cover
As received, dry or wet;
(sludge admixed, dry or wet)
*Describe weather as: sunny; cloudy; showers; rain, overcast; wet ground.
Nonproductive equipment time includes any time dozer motor is running, but dozer is not moving
such as: equipment, repair,stuck, driver doing other tasks.
#
Note if dozer driver (D) or handyman (H) is watering refuse.
-------
CONFIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE NATIONWIDE SURVEY
OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL TO SANITARY LANDFILLS
We are conducting special studies on disposal of sludges and hazardous wastes.
Please complete and return to: Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. Phone:
10954 Santa Monica Boulevard (213) 478-1501
Los Angeles, California 90025
For your cooperation in completing this questionnaire, you will receive a summary of
the national results.
Landfill Location(s) Operator (name)
Check one: ( ) Public ( ) Private Approx.population served
Add ress
1. Are any sludges, liquid wastes, or hazardous wastes disposed to the landfill?
( ) Yes (Please complete all questions.) ( ) No (Please complete questions
2, 6, 7, and 8.)
2. Is disposal of sludge, liquid wastes, or hazardous wastes to landfills regulated or
inspected? ( ) Locally; ( ) State (Please enclose regulations); ( ) Unregulated;
( ) Seasonal; ( ) Routinely Performed
Comments:
3. Please estimate the following quantities:
Type
of
Sludge
Quantity
Disposed
(gal/yr)
Rate of
Disposal
(gal/yr)
Sludge Solids
Content
(%, dry weight)
Solid Waste
Disposed
(tons/yr)
Municipal Sewage Sludge
Septic Tank Pumpings
Industrial* Sludge/Liquid Waste
[Hazardous Waste *
* Identify types, quantities of waste, and disposal locations, for radioactive, pesticides/
herbicide chemicals, industrial acids and chemicals, hospital, explosives, combustibles
in the space at the bottom of this page.
4. Please describe the method for applying sludge to the landfill on the back of this
questionnaire.
5. Do procedures exist for the following (describe where applicable):
a. Catching drainage from sludge overflow ( ) Yes ( ) No
b. Compaction ( ) Yes ( ) No __
c. Isolating landfill from contact with groundwater
d. Isolating landfill from surface drainage
6. Type of landfill operation:
Cut and Cover ( ) Other type Remaining Capacity in Fill (%)
Canyon or ravine ( ) Fi II site area (acres) Avg. Annual Rainfal I (in.)
Pit or Quarry ( ) Fill final depth (avg. ft.)
326
-------
6. (Cont.)
Is refuse covered daily? ( ) Yes Depth of Cover (ft) ( ) No
Do regulations exist on types of solid wastes accepted for landfill disposal?
( ) Yes (enclose copy) ( ) No
Is waste weighed as received at the landfill? ( ) Yes ( ) No
Approximate daily tonnage
Has the landfill caused local water pollution problems? ( ) Yes ( ) No
Commen ts:
Have tests for leachate drainage from the landfill been made? ( ) Yes ( ) No
Describe quantity (gpd):
7. Landfill use:
a. Is the landfill open to the public: ( ) Yes ( ) No b. How close is the
nearest residential area c. What is the planned use for the landfill site
after filling is completed?
8. Landfill Operation Opinion Question
NOTE: If sludge ]s_ disposed to your landfill, rate the effects as requested. If
sludge is not disposed to your landfill, give your opinion of the effects you would
expect if it was disposed. Your opinion is being solicited to learn the prevailing
attitudes of landfill operators in the 50 states as a whole.
a. Environmental Impact of Hazardous Waste Disposal
Please rate, in your opinion, the seriousness of problems and hazards associated with
handling, transporting, and disposing of the following waste materials:
Type of Waste Material
Anticipated tnvironmental Problem/
Hazard in Transportation and
Disposal Via Landfill
None Little
Moderate
Great
0
1 '
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a. Municipal Sewage Sludge
b. Septic Tank Sludge
c. Radioactive Waste
d. Pesticide/Herbicide, etc.
e. Indus. Petro,chemicals
f. Hospital Waste
g. Combustibles
h. Explosives
327
-------
b. Anticipated Sanitary Landfill Effect
Please rate municipal sludge, septic tank sludge, and other liquid and hazardous
waste disposal to sanitary landfill relative to sanitary landfilling without disposal
of these materials for each of the following conditions'
Landfill Conditions/Factors
Rating
Much Slightly
Worse Worse
Same
Slightly
Improved
Greatly
Improved
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
+ 1
+2
+3
+4
+5
Fires
Settlement
Ease of Equipment Operation
Ease of Compaction
Compaction Density
Operating Cost
Blowing Dust and Litter
Leachate Quantity
Ground Water Quality
Local Surface Water Pollution
Flies
Vermin
Birds
Gas Production
Odors
Fill Operator Health & Safety
Public Attitudes
Thank you very much for your assistance. Please use File No. 219-0
the space below for additional comments. Attach
available reports when returning questionnaire.
328
-------
CONFIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE SURVEY OF FIFTY STATES ON DISPOSAL OF
SLUDGE, LIQUID OR HAZARDOUS WASTES TO SANITARY LANDFILLS
Please complete and return to: Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. Phone:
10954 Santa Monica Boulevard (213) 478-1501
Los Angeles, California 90025
We are conducting special studies on disposal of sludge and hazardous wastes to land-
fills. The study objectives include determining public health policy on handling and
disposing of sewage sludge, septic tank pumpings, and industrial sludge, liquid and
hazardous wastes. Your response to this questionnaire would, therefore, be most
helpful. In return for your cooperation, a summary of the questionnaire results will be
mailed to your agency upon completion of the study.
Name of State
Optional: Name Title Address
1. Does your state permit ( ) regulate ( ) inspect ( ) or prohibit ( ) disposal of the
following liquid wastes to landfills:
Municipal Sewage Sludge Industrial Sludge/Liquid Waste *
Septic Tank Pumping Hazardous Waste*
2. Estimate number of landfill sites disposing of sludge, liquid and hazardous waste*:
3. What problems, if any, have occurred in your state because of disposing any of the
waste listed in item 1 into landfills?
4. Recommended or existing alternative sludge/liquid waste disposal methods
5. Confidential Personal Opinion Question
NOTE: Only your personal opinion is being solicited. ALL REPLIES TO THE
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL. Only summary results
will be published. It is understood that your rating will be a subjective, educated
guess. We are primarily interested in learning the prevailing attitudes of knowledge-
able Public Health/Sanitary Engineers in the 50 States as a whole.
a. Environmental Impact of Hazardous Waste Disposal
Please rate, in your opinion, the degree of problems and hazards associated with
handling and disposing of the following waste materials:
329
-------
Type of Waste Material
Anticipated fcnvironmental Hroblems/Hazard
None Little
Moderate
Great
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a. Municipal Sewage Sludge
b. Septic Tank Sludge
c. Radioactive Waste
d. Pesticide/Herbicide
Chemicals
e. Industrial Acids,
Chemicals, etc.
f. Hospital Waste
g. Combustibles
h. Explosives
* Identify types: radioactive, pesticides, herbicides, chemicals, industrial acids,
hospital, explosives, or combustibles.
Anticipated Sanitary Landfill Effect
Please rate, in your opinion, the effects of disposing domestic sewage sludge, septic
tank pumpings, industrial sludges*, liquid and hazardous* waste to landfills on each
of the listed landfill factors.
Sanitary Landfill
Conditions/Factors
Anticipated Effects of Sludge,Etc. Disposal
Much Slightly
Worse Worse
No
Change
Slightly
mp roved
Greatly
Improved
-5
-4
-3
-2
0
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
Leachate Quantity
Ground Water Quality
Local Surface Water Pollution
Gas Production
Odors
Flies
Vermin
Birds
Fill Operator Health & Safety
Public Attitudes
Aquatic Life (fish)
* We will appreciate receiving a copy of your applicable State, Health and Safety Code
Regulations regarding sanitary landfills, sewage sludge, septic tank and hazardous waste
disposal. Thank you very much for your assistance.
330
-------
APPENDIX C
ANALYSES OF SEWAGE SLUDGES FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
331
-------
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SAUNA
ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE & CO., INC.
~
~
* A
~ A
~ A
~ A
~ A
~
~ A
J I I I L
I I I t t I I » I t I I I
' ' ' '
c*
Q_
>: z
- - ^ Q- U O U
3 3 9 uj X ^ "J
1971
1972
- - s § y
—1 < I/O O Z o
< LU
CO ; z o
£ 2 5
3 3 ^
1973
< k 8 z
FIGURE CI
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
TREATMENT PLANT: BUENA VISTA
ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE AND COMPANY, INC.
£>Z=!OS;r;>u
< < 3 => ID $ ^ O g
1971-
z « >-z=josir, >u
* —> <; O 2
¦1972
¦y CO Q£ Q£>--7_l /KQ_|— >.
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
TREATMENT PLANT: SAN LUIS REY
~ ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE AND
COMPANY, INC.
~
~
~ A
AAA A A A
~ *
~ A
A A
A
A A
J i i
Q£>_7__l/hCL.|— > (J
<
-1971
O
Z
<
m oe.
az
a.
<
Z
OQ-
UJ
_3
<
h > u
W /-s LU
O ¥ Q
ZCQ
|||
< u.
> 7 -1 n >
-------
8.or
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
x ^
Ol
OJ _
8 7*5
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SALINA
O CITY OF OCEANSIDE
ANALYSIS BY:
• RALPH STONE & CO., INC.
° o°oo
„ ,<00 o 00
3° "g^o0 O oo o
° ° o OO
O O O C> O
o o o
o o
oo
O OO 000_ryY*rm OO O
O o ooo Ooo o OO c^°°°^o c«^pq-p
o o oo oco
o00 ° o o ooo
O OO O OOOO
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
• • •• • • •
• • ••
••
• • •
• •
• •
J 1 1 1 1—i i i i ,.i i i i i i i i i i i i ' ' ' i i ,i i i
(X. >. -y_ —i /I) a. I— > (J
£ < 3 ^ ^ u n ^
~z 60
LU
< LI-
§ £ £ z ^ o 2; C > y
1 < 1
ZOO Qi D£. >- -y
LU << Q_ *—
< U- 5 <
_ /i) Q- (— >
a- fc D y UJ u r\
-J Z> uo X 0
-> < ° Z
1971-
1972-
1973
PROP^ff^Sf^LUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
TREATMENT PLANT: BUENA VISTA
r ANALYSIS BY* O CITYOF OCEANSfDE
• RALPH STONE & CO., INC,
o
r\ O O Ci ® O
° o ° °
o
.. Oo°oooocP OO OO %3G 0oo°c?00 oo
0^ocoocxfeaP o OO oo ° 0<^°oa 00 ooG° ®
Q O O OOOOOO o uxr «ED
O O O O
o o o OO o o
o o
„ O o o_oo
o O O O o
00
o
o
• • •
• •
>• •
• •
0
J I.I ..1 I L
D- 0 o M
i D D 3 UJ X 7 ^
^ 2 —> —1
" < of < Z
< UJ ^ ^
—> U- ^ <
0 ^
D D 5 141
—1 —) < i/»
>1
o
z
1973
FIGURE C5
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
X
CL
8
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
00 o
o
erfQD°o(jP<5D o o °o o
oo o o oco ocq
oo o
o
o o oo°
TREATMENT PLANT: SAN LUIS REY
akja,YSK ay. ° CITY OF OCEANSIDE
* RALPH STONE & CO., INC.
°o
o O o
¦jO OOCOOOO o o„ oo 000
oo o o
O OCOCO
O o °
o
o u0
0°°0 0o°° 00
o
00
O O 0°00<5o0
O ^o0 0
O O
o
•
• •
• ••
• " •
• ••• •• ••
• •
• • *
• •
• •
J I 1 L
J I I 1 I I I L
J L
gf>Z=i0£;h>U
2 -»•?"» o § Q
<
-1971
< IX-
m oc ac v "7" —' fh 0- I— "v c »
3 - 3 - o § o
1972
J L
J I 1 1 L
ZS5£>-Z=iO fh h >
u_
D w ^ o
< o
-1973-
FIGURE C6
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
I
800 r
INDICATES RANGE OF
VOLATILE ACIDS
ACCORDING TO CITY OF
OCEANSIDE ANALYSES
700
600
TREATMENT PIANT: LA SAUNA
ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE AND CO., INC
O)
J- 500
a
¥ 400
300
O
>
200
A A
A
A A * *
A
A A A
A *
aa a
I
100
A A
J I L
1
J 1 ' ¦ ' ' I I t I I I I
A A
a A AA A
J I C I I ' ' I 1 L
2? >" Z
• i i
5 ° £
O z o
ZCQ Od ^ V 7
11 1
5
<33
o
1972
a.
— lu
3 t/}
<
> U
O LU
^ Q
-7 m on a: y- -7
UJ --«• « - ¦£-
< U-
UJ t D
" 5
8 9
FIGURE C7
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
280 r
240
o>
E
<~>
Q
U
<
3
o
>
200
160
120
80
40
a
AA A
A
-A
AA
A A
A
A
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SAUNA
ANALYSIS BY: CITY OF OCEANSIDE
A A A
A AA A ^ A A AA ^
A A A A . A &
AAA A AA .A A
A A
^A
^ A "A
AAAAA A
A ^ A
AA <
AA
A
A A
AA
A
A
A A
A
A
A A A
A A A A
A AA
AAa A
A AA
0
FIGURE C8
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
5,000
1,000
500
100
50
20
TREATMENT PLANT: BUENA VISTA
ANALYSIS BY: CITY OF OCEANSIDE
A
~
~
~ A
- AAA
A ~~
aa a a a
A A
aaaA
• ~
A A
~
~
A
A A
~ A
A AA
A
AA A
A
A
A
A A
ii
A A A
A A
A ^A A
A A A
A
£ > Z
=f 0 g] {-. > u
3 2 3 K u o g
¦ < o z c
1971 »-
-7 CO Q£ Q£ >-
tu < a. ^
S ^ ^
I 3
a_
LU (J
CO
!-: > U
O
O
Z _
< u-
CQ Q£
o
1972
£ < 1 = 3
< ^ R "• <
1973
a- 1- >
K ^ O
FIGURE C9
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
a
u
<
tLi
s
o
>
100
50
10
TREATMENT PLANT: SAN LUIS REY
ANALYSIS BY: CITY OF OCEANSIDE
*•
•• •
— •
• •
• • * •• * *
*••• 9 • % *•
» • • •
• » • •
• •
• * •
• •• •
• •
•• ••
t
• •• • •
• ••
J L.
0
_L
O. t-
^ ^ D n w U
X.
> u
O
x
Zoo oc q: >-
"J tj
3 X hi n
j .rf KJ ~7
1972
X O Q
ZCD Of OC V 7
11 I Q. O ~-
O. I— >
K u o
o Z
1973
FIGURE C10
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SALINA
ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE AND COMPANY, INC.
• * •
*. *
••
• * *
FIGURE Cll
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
9
TREATMENT PLANT: BUENA VISTA
ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE AND COMPANY, INC.
CO
27
O
i 6
51
>- e
« 4
D
z
o q
U
• •
• •
it •• • *
.• •
•• ••
> 7
o- C s;
< ^ 2
—l /h O-
3 X J" U
•Hk mmtf Wj A
U
<
-1971
ZQ3 Q£ Q£ V "7
uj a. - 4r
<. u. 3
5 <
1972 —
a. i- > u
w u n w
^ G
o z
I ' I 1_
Zcq o£ ac >- -7 -j ,t\ a. t~ ">
uj
-------
9r
8-
7-
m .
'o 6
1
£
51
>-
4-
U
3
Q
z
o
u
2-
TREATMENT PLANT: SAN LUIS REY
ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE AND COMPANY, INC.
•*
• •
• ~
QSS_ 7 J m fl. I- > n
o
-2(/,rsx Q
Q- H— >
v uj g x .r,
o z
"1971
1972
Zeaaca£>.-7-}(i\a-t— >
* ^ i ^ W -y
1973 »-
FIGURE C13
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SAUNA
ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE & CO., INC.
• •• .•••*•
< ? =- ^ O.
I- > <1
^ —i —i <( i/i O Z O
1971
FIGURE C14
PROPERTIES OF SLUDGES
FROM OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
11'
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
• 21
TREATMENT PLANT: LA SALINA
ANALYSIS BY: RALPH STONE & CO., INC.
5 1 sSzS
m 1071 ^
-------
APPENDIX D
LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF LEACHATES
FROM PILOT SCALE TEST DRUMS
347
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
START DATE 5/3/71
FRESH •
RESIDUAL O
500
400
300
200
100
50
40
30
20
0
,1
100
200
300
500
600
o y (m
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(MIXED MUNICIPAL DIGESTED SLUDGE—SATURATED)
_i j 1—
700T1 800
2 YEARS)
900
FIGURE D1
LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 1
-------
CO
*o
O)
-------
4,000
3,000 (- START DATE 5/3/71
2,000
1,000
500
400
f 300
10 200
~
n't
FRESH •
RESIDUAL ~
~
100- • ~ ~
~
50 - # ^ D
40
30
20
~
—j 1 m—i —£pi——ft m • ~ ¦ 1. «-
100 200 300(1 YEAR) 500 600 700(2 YtARsf00
900
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(SEPTIC TANK PUMPINGS—0.61)
FIGURE D3
LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 3
-------
4,000 r
3,000 -
2,000 -
X
O)
e
Q
O
CO
1,000
500
400
300
200
100
501-
40
30
20
JD
0
if
START DATE 5/3/71
FRESH
RESIDUAL
O
O
o
o
oo
o
o
9 # o
o o
i , ' O# >' ^ • # > pt i
3OO0 YEaV00 !°° 605 7°V?EARS?°°
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(MIXED DIGESTED SLUDGE—0.61)
FIGURE D4
LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 5
-------
CO
ft
03
in
D
o
CO
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
300
200
100
50
40
30
20
100
200
START DATE 6/15/71
FRESH
RESIDUAL
O
O
%
oo
WW00 500 " 600 70(Mearsf°
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(DIGESTED AC SLUDGE—0.61)
FIGURE D5
LEACHATE BOD- VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 6
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
300
200
100
50
40
30
20
om
100
200
START DATE 6/16/71
FRESH •
RESIDUAL O
O
o
o
o
0O
o
o
o
o
o §
QQ I—*-• 1 •—2 1
X, 400 500 600 700- A.
3°0(1 ye/r)400 500 600 700(2^EARSp 900
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(DIGESTED AC SLUDGE—0.61)
FIGURE D6
LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 7
-------
START DATE 6/21/71
FRESH •
RESIDUAL O
O
o
o
o
m O
° o o° o °
o
o
11 YEAR)
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(DIGESTED AC SLUDGE—SATURATED)
O
•0©-J • 1 1 1 , i 1
300,, |^400 500 600 700(2 ^EARS?00
FIGURE D7
LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 8
-------
,000
,000
,000
,000
i
500 ¦
400 ¦
300 -
200 -
100 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
START DATE 6/21/71
FRESH •
RESIDUAL O
O O
oo
o •
100
o
O 0
i i i O * i —^ i
200 30^ y^400 500 600 70^2VeAr|00 900
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(DIGESTED AC SLUDGE—SATURATED)
FIGURE D8
LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 9
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
START DATE 6/11/71
FRESH •
RESIDUAL
O
CO
J,
U->
Q
O
CQ
CJ
Ol
O
500
400
300
200
100
50
40
30
20
oo
8
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ot.
100
200
€p4(^
(1 YEAR)
500
600
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(RAW PRIMARY SLUDGE—0.61)
-I m
f 800
YEARS)
900
FIGURE D9
LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 10
-------
START DATE 6/11/71
FRESH •
RESIDUAL O
OO
G
O
o
o °
o o °
o
o
QQ I 0 ' 0 S #—i J 1# K 1
300 ,, 500 600 700^ *YEARS^00 900
(1 YE
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(RAW PRIMARY SLUDGE—0.61)
FIGURE D10
LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 11
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500 r
400
300
200
100
50
40
30
20
OH
~
~ Q
~
~
~
~
100
200
300,,
f?400"
500
600
(1 YEAR)
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(DIGESTED PRIMARY SLUDGE--0.61)
START DATE 6/12/71
FRESH
RESIDUAL
~
~ D
700
(2
VearsP
~
-Q-
900
FIGURE Dll
LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 12
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
3000
ra
gj >o
Oi Q
K3 Q
CQ
200
100
50
40
30
20
START DATE 6/14/71
FRESH
RESIDUAL
~
~
mo
~
~
~
¦ ~
•B nr~) 1—m u ^ B B1 cm i
300(1 YE/Jr?00 500 600 700(2 YEARS?00 900
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(DIGESTED PRIMARY SLUDGE—0.61)
FIGURE D12
LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 13
-------
4,000 r
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
300
o 200
2
100
50
40
30
20
oH
START DATE 6/21/71
FRESH
RESIDUAL
~
100
200
30d ?5S)41
500
600 700^ ^ARS?00
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(DIGESTED AC SLUDGE—0.61 AERATED)
FIGURE D13
LEACHATE BOD5 VS
DRUM NO. 14
TIME
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
START DATE 6/21/71
FRESH
RESIDUAL
~
500
400
300
200
100
o
~
50
40
30
20
oH
~
~
100
200
•"H"—""OTTO
300/, writ*
i nH
400
500
11 YEAR)
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(DIGESTED AC SLUDGE—0.61 AERATED)
~
m " 700J, Vears5»o 900
FIGURE D14
LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 15
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
_ 500
K 400
o>
300
200
100
50
40
30
20
0t I L-
100 200
START DATE 6/14/71
FRESH
RESIDUAL
~
~
~
~
~
~
CD
~
n
m ' mm m ¦ C
30()l YEAli 400 700(2 IeARS?0*
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(SEPTIC TANK PUMPINGS—0.61)
FIGURE D15
LEACHATE BOD5 VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 16
-------
4,000
3,000
2,000 -
START DATE 6/17/71
FRESH
1,000
RESIDUAL
500
400
300
200
100
50
40
30
20
~
~
~
~
~
~
O
~
~
~
~
oH
100
MO 3OO0"ea^4OO
500
¦*"&ir
DAYS FROM FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
(WATER ONLY)
700c
FIGURE D16
LEACHATE BOD* VS. TIME
DRUM NO. 17
-------
^9
• 1
O
o
DRUM NO. 1 3
START DATE 4/6 5/3/71
FRESH ¦ •
RESIDUAL ~ o
o fi
o " °
•o o o 8
o
0 50—1
-------
800
700
600
S 500
CO
Ch
Cn
>
400
g
co
% 300
200
100
0
>¦
in —i
ODq
DO
50 100 150 200
VI
- JL
8
1
o
o
DRUM NO.
START DATE
FRESH
RESIDUAL
o
~
1
o
0
1
5 2
5/3/71
~
~
o
«
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
650 700 750 800 850
FIGURE D18
TURBIDITY OF LEACHATES
-------
DRUM NO. 6 7
START DATE 6/15 6/16
FRESH a •
RESIDUAL o o
600 -
a
• 2 ° <* ~ . o
• mm _ • _ O _ * o
I t • ; J O|O0 il« fi § 2 4
¦ * ' o im* D m ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ 1 .> i r Jf
50 1 00 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D19
TURBIDITY OF LEACHATES
-------
•••
!•*
• 9
_L» BDO I. 0 L.
DRUM NO. 8 9
START DATE 6/21 6/2)
FRESH ¦ •
RESIDUAL d o
o
° _ D
¦ 0 ° Hi
° 4
• 2 o cb o
o
¦ o
I
~
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D20
TURBIDITY OF LEACHATES
-------
CO
o
00
800
700
600
^ 500
—)
>*
t 400
o
CO
az
300
200
100
0
~
o
~
o
o
o
• *» * " * ¦'
' »
o
~
1 Q
O
8 D
B
o
DRUM NO. 10 11
START DATE 6/116/11
FRESH ¦ •
RESIDUAL
8
o
~
B
D
O
~
S
o
a
-ift-
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D21
TURBIDITY OF LEACHATES
-------
° 1,160
o
a
o
» I . • * 3
DRUM NO. 12 13
START DATE 6/11 6/14
FRESH ¦ •
RESIDUAL ~ 0
o ~
O ° O ° ° ~ °B
O A S ° ^ ~ ° ° P
~ o
O —
CM
» Hg ' I 1 1 L.
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D22
TURBIDITY OF LEACHATES
-------
800
700
600
DRUM NO. 14 15
START DATE 6/21 6/71
FRESH ¦ •
RESIDUAL
~
500
400
300
200
100
0
¦
¦ •
jl
V v
o
50 100 150
l ft 1
10* 35^405 ^ sif &l)0 * 6ho *76(3 'JSQ SSl) %0
200 250 301
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D23
TURBIDITY OF LEACHATES
-------
DRUM NO. 16 17
START DATE 6/14 6/17
800 r FRESH
RESIDUAL o
700
600
500
400
300
• •
o
200 I- • ~
«
100 1-
¦ ¦ ¦ 1 2
1 • ' 1 | 1 'bo' 1 ' ' i *
o
~
dJo
a
8
o
o
~ o
•
0
¦
a
•
•o
¦
¦
¦
1
o
• e
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D24
TURBIDITY OF LEACHATES
-------
~
%¦ D "
- ~
¦*" mrk
V 77
~
DRUM NO. 1 2
START DATE 4/6 5/3
FRESH ¦ ~
RESIDUAL ~ v
¦
¦ ¦ o ¦
T . » * B O * U
T >
~ ¦
* ? * S 5 ~
~
~
~
~
li * w# p i ti—gwi v Iff oft i v m iii) i i n i
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DRUM NO. 3 5
START DATE 5/3 5/3
FRESH ¦ *
RESIDUAL ~ *
V
s y v # g
~
1 I 1 J I I 1 . -J L L I _1 J I 1 J L —I
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D25
pH OF LEAC HATES
-------
DRUM NO.
START DATE
FRESH
RESIDUAL
6 7
6/15 6/16
a
~
v
X
CL
~
~ ~
* *
~
#
~
v
~
¦
V
n v
If
iv 8
9
V
~
m?
"50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
CJ
XI
w
8
x 7 -
Q-
"550 600 &50 760
DRUM NO.
START DATE
FRESH
RESIDUAL
7k S60 850 900
6/21 6/21
¦ ~
O V
~ ~
y:
o
I, &.
a d
~
g„,v„„„,g.
Z. S 1,
_L
Lfe
Q
B..1
II 5ZO
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D26
pH OF LEACHATES
-------
10
x fl
CL O
7
6
x
a.
6
5
A A
* A *
15 _
A
A
A
~
~
A A
O
~
A
o
DRUM NO.
START DATE
FRESH
RESIDUAL
10
6/11
11
6/11
a
A
A
*A
B
A
*A
o
A
¦
O
%
A
A
1
O
t
A
O
J L
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DRUM NO.
12
13
START DATE
6/11
6/14
FRESH
¦
A
RESIDUAL
o
A
A *
I .. ¦ T
A
~
~A
A
A A
¦
~
x
_kl_
rDA
o
' D A 1
A
A
A
~
A
£
Q
A
A
A
A
X
X
X
4
¦
ig
-I
50 1 00 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D27
pH OF LEACHATES
-------
DRUM NO. 14 15
V v V
1 * 1 * 1 A i fij
START DATE
6/21
6/21
FRESH
¦
•
RESIDUAL
o
A
•
•
8 IT
i
2
i
1 • B
9 ¦ V
V
1 1 1
s
1
•
¦
¦
•
1 1
500
550,
600 650 700
750
800 850
DRUM NO.
16
17
START DATE
6/14
6/17
FRESH
¦
•
RESIDUAL
o
A
¦ B
%
%
1
•
1
¦ i a
8 oa
¦D
%
¦ ¦
•
7
61-
5
Ul L
50 1 00 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D28
pH OF LEACHATES
-------
DRUM NO.
1
2
3
5
START DATE
4/6
5/3
5/3
5/3
FRESH
¦
•
M
•
RESIDUAL
~
o
&
o
f
t
o
S
* "fc*
% "
o
o
4 *
o
¦ °
T «•
: ~
_L
© •
* f
A
o
£
e
j
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D29
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
IN LEACHATES
-------
DRUM NO.
START DATE
FRESH
RESIDUAL
6 7
6/15 6/16
¦ •
~ o
9 16
6/21 7/14
* 0
A
A •
¦
~i
A * 4 A
to
O rt o
* ¦ _ _ O A _ 0
• ° • * » * r *
—' i i 1 > ii 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 i i i
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D30
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
IN LEACHATES
-------
o
o
u
DRUM NO. 12 8
START DATE 6/11 6/21
FRESH ° •
RESIDUAL o ¦
o
~ ¦
,o #o 0 o
•o o q ooaae qq_ • °
fie
-ee-
D O Q
¦
O
— n ^ m
O »w •
» « ' * L.
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D31
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
IN LEACHATES
-------
o
_c
E
3.
S2 .£
_j >
< ^
uo o
3
O -o
LU C
> °
_J °
o tE
1/5 *.
* o
~
¦
50 100 150
DRUM NO. 11 13 17
START DATE 6/11 6/11 6/17
FRESH o • A
RESIDUAL o ¦ ~
% 8
o
A°
o-
o
AO
~
*1
o
-1_
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
650 700 750 800 850
FIGURE D32
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
IN LEACHATES
-------
GJ
00
o
_c
e
=t
c
>-
u
"O
c
o
a
+-
c
0$
on
-J
<
(/)
Q
yj
>
_i
o
tn
m
5 >
<
5
3
CT
»
U
o
Z
£
ft
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
DRUM NO 10 14 15
START DATE 6/U 6/21 6/21
FRESH v • o
RESIDUAL * m a
•A
O &
A
1,000
O ^
A
O*
-L.
O
i
5*
*1
'ff *
°v* ~'
fc7
~
~
~
Qf
ST
o?
~
•v
©
50 100 150 200
a—i—a ofipi %3
250 300 350 ~ 400 " 450 500 550 600
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
~
-i
o
~
—L
650 700 750 800 850
FIGURE D33
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
IN LEACHATES
-------
DRUM NO. 11,13,17
6, 7, 9, 16
FRESH LEACHATES
• •
• •
• •
t
/ • • *
.
. .
• •
sv.
••
CL I*;' • *.*!* ,
ft 1 * • H ! ••••.
* . * * t \ h * •
« i * 5 >
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D34
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
(COMPOSITE) IN LEACHATES
-------
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
DRUM NO.
START DATE
2, 3, 5
5/3/71
• #
• •
• •
: *
*
m
50 100 150
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D35
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
(COMPOSITE) IN LEACHATES
-------
GJ
00
CO
<
Q
LU
>
I
o
on
—
a
<
t—
O
o
_c
£
=t
,£
p-
>
u
D
"O
C
o
u
c
-------
DRUM NO. 8, 10, 12, 14
8,000
o
-C
E
7,000
t3 :>
< o
Q 1
^ O
> u
o
l/>
*5
cr
v
U
o
Z
E
CL
Cl
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000-
CL
••
••
. **
'~.•i
• •
v
/
•i
• •
u
_L
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D37
TOTAL DISSOLVED SALTS
(COMPOSITE) IN LEACHATES
-------
DRUM NO. 1,2,3,5,6,
7,11,13
~' : ; ?*fc. 1 •*
• •
• •
• ••
• •
"so Too 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
• ••
• .
DRUM NO. 10,12
• •
• a • . • • •
• * • • *
* • • • . • •
• % •
50 1 00 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D38
pH OF LEACHATES—COMPOSITES
-------
DRUM NO. 14,15
/
• •
• •
f I ii * i * i
50
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DRUM NO. 8,9,11,16,17
:.
-• . ..
• V .r/dg-.. «•:.
•••• . I ••
• • • ••• •
• • •
•• • .•
• • •
_J 1 I I I 1—£ I tf i ¦ I I I ' » ¦ I ' '
50 1 00 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DAYS SINCE FIRST SLUDGE APPLICATION
FIGURE D39
pH OF LEACHATES—COMPOSITES
-------
TABLE D1
TOTAL METALS IN TEST DRUM LEACHATES--
COMPOSITE SAMPLES DURING 1972
4r
Quontity, lbs metols per lb dry wt solid waste
Drum no.
Days since
filling*
%5
x 10
An
x 10"7
Fe
x 10-6
1
267-450
1.44
9.60
2.58
2
241-424
0.15
2.25
7.20
3
241-424
0.96
4.00
3.44
5
241-424
1.36
12.80
3,44
6
198-381
2.14
4.80
2.80
7
196-379
1.09
3.20
2.75
8
192-375
0.99
4.80
3.12
9
192-375
2.24
7.20
4.72
10
192-375
0.61
3.20
2.80
11
192-375
2.40
4.00
13.00
12
201-384
1.92
2.73
3.22
13
201-384
1.09
4.80
3.12
14
200-383
1.35
27.50
3.22
15
192-373
1.65
4.50
3.22
16
177-360
1.60
24.70
6.95
17#
196-379
1.99
9.00
3.66
Includes sludge solids where applicable.
+The amount of equivalent annual rainfall on all the drums during this time period
was 11,9 inches.
M
Water only — this is representative of ordinary landfills.
387
-------
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
388
-------
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Solid
Sewage
Weathe
r
Bi rds, Ra ts, Ot her, No.
1971
Waste,
Sludge,
Temp
~
Odor,
Blowing
Regular
Date
Lb
Gal
°F
Wind
Condition
Describe
Litter
Test Area
Landfill
Comments
6/25
CONSUL"
ANT
701
Low
Overcast
Septic,
At regular
None
birds
Sludge ran into
96 cu yd
1 ,750
sulfide
landfi 11
fill OK.
7/13
3 loads
5,250
83
Calm
Sunny
No
None
small birds
small birds
After 1 5 days
uncovered test
area begins to
give odors. Can't
identify otherthar
decaying garbage.
7/20
3 loads
1 ,750
80
Calm
Overcast
Yes,garbag<
None
6 seagulls
None
Sludge is not be-
ing spread evenly
over trash.
7/20
CONSUL
ANT
70
Easterly
Cool
Slight
None or
flies walk-
Counted at least
#
96 cu yd
1,750
breeze
very little
ing on refus<
j
50 flies. Sludge
and sludge
nan down incline
in rivulets and
settled in pools
at base.
Sludge & solid
waste already
placed.
7/27
3 loads
1,750
84
Calm
Sunny
No
None
None
None
Sludge spread
better this time.
No runoff.
+Enter - Cairn, Low, Moderate, or High.
Enter - Sunny, Cloud/, Overcast, Showers, or Rain.
-------
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Solid
Sewage
Weather
Bi rds, Rats, Ot her, No.
1971
Waste,
Sludge,
Temp
it
Odor,
Blowing
Regular
)ate
Lb
Gal
°F
Wind
Condition
Describe
Litter
Test Area
Landfi 11
Comments
7/27
CONSUL
TANT
96 cu yd
1,750
70
Moderate
Overcast
Downwind
No
None
50 birds
Ran sludge out in
sulfide,
3 locations from 2
septic
pipes at rear of
tank. Some poo let
in refuse; most
percolated in very
fast. Cat operator
says bottom layer
holds better; top
layer runs off
faster; lower plat-
form holds sludge
best. Also thinks
less pressure in 2
openings than
before with 1 openr
ing in tank.
8/3
3 loads
1 ,.750
88
Calm
Sunny
Slight
None
None
seagulls,
Test area does not
sewage odoi
smaii birds
seem to attract
anything but flies.
8/10
3 loads
1,750
86
Calm
Sunny
Negligible
None
None
None
8/10
CONSUL
TANT
88
Moderate
Sunny
No
No
6 seagulls
6 seagulls
Slight leachate.
8/17
3 loads
1,750
73
Moderate
Overcast
Negligible
Some plastic
None
birds
Out of room at
bags
Brooks St. land-
fill. Dumped*
*
+Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High.
Enter - Sunn/, Cloud/, Overcast, Showers, or Rain.
-------
appendix e
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
1971
Date
8/23
8/24
8/30
8/31
9/7
9/13
9/21
9/21
Solid
Waste,
Lb
CONSUL
96 cu yd
3 loads
CONSU IfTANT
1,700
6 loads
6 loads
Cancellec
6 loads
CONSU UT
7 trucks
Sewage
Sludge,
Gal
ANT
1,750
1,750
3,500
3,500
this week -
3,500
ANT
3,500
80
92
85
87
87
Weather
Temp
°F
78
75
Wind
Westerly
low
Calm
Westerly
low
Cal
m
Calm
dozer b roke dowr
Calm
Low
Condition
Sunny
Overcast
Sunny
Sunny
Sunny
Cool
Overcast
Odor,
Describe
Digested
sludge
Negligible
Slight
Negligible
None
None
Slight
Blowing
Litter
None
None
No
None
None
None
No
Birds, Rats, Other, No,
Test Area
flies
None
None
None
flies
flies before
sludge
applied
Regular
Landfill
1 seagull
few birds
seagulls
birds
None
None
None
Comments
These loads at
new landfill off
Mission Drive .
Leachate from
refuse.
Birds have not yet
located new site.
No upper level
leachate. Water
below landfill
was clear.
Location-West
bank. Cannot
get to East wall
of canyon yet.
Everything quiet
today. Sludge was
emptied before
trash was spread.
Quiet.
Dumped Tuesday
morning.
Thousands of flies,
+Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High.
Enter - Sunny, Cloudy, Overcast, Showers, or Rain.
-------
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Solid
Sewage
Weathe
r
Bi rds, Rats, Ot her, No.
1971
Date
Waste,
Lb
Sludge,
Gal
Temp
°F
Wind
Condition +
Odor i
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Test Area
Regular
Landfill
Comments
Green blow flies
and Icrgs 1" hcusf
fly_type were on
the solid waste,
with or without
sludge on its sur-
face . ri ieb uiui i'i
discriminate
between sludge
and regular waste.
9/28
Cancel le
i this week
- dozer
>roke dow
n.
10/4
6 loads
3,500
86
Calm
Sunny
None
None
flies,
1izards
seagulls
None.
10/12
6 loads
3,500
81
Calm
Cloudy
Negligible
No
None
seagulls
10/19
6 loads
3,500
74
Calm
Sunny
Negligible
No
None
seagu!! s &
other birds
TL:„ .
I 1 t 1 1 1 J 1 f IVIJ
of runoff,3250 gal
10/26
6 loads
3,500
63
Moderate
Sunny
None
No
None
seagulls &
other birds
r\ 1 | 1 1 1
regular lanarm
blowing litter.
11/2
6 .loads
3,500
63
Moderate
Sunny
Slight sew-
age odor for
15 minutes
None
None
seagulls &
other birds
Some litter blow-
ing at regular
landfill.
11/9
6 loads
35,000
64
Calm
Sunny
No
None
None
birds
- .. . 1
*"
.Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High.
Enter - Sunny, Cloudy, Overcast, Showers, or Rain.
-------
appendix e
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
1971
Date
11/16
11/2;
11/3(
12/7
12/14
12/21
12/21
Solid
Waste,
Lb
6 loads
6 loads
6 loads
6 loads
6 loads
6 loads
CONSULTANT
Normal
Sewage
Sludge,
Gal
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
3,500
Weather
Temp
°F
70
68
64
63
64
55
60
Wind
Low
Low
Calm
Calm
Low
Calm
Calm
Condition
Sunny
Sunny
Sunny
Sunny
Sunny
Overcast
Overcast
Odor,
Describe
No
No
None
No
No
No
Musty, iighl
Blowing
Litter
None
None
None
None
None
None
No
Bi rds, Rats, Ot her, No,
Test Area
None
None
None
seagulls
seagulls
seagulls
No
Regular
Landf i 11
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Comments
Old landfill
closed 11-13-71;
all dumping at
new locaticn.
Used shot gun wit!
bird-cfispersing
shells.
Just a few sea-
gulls. Do not
settle down as
they did at old
fill site, but fly
high and land
when area is un-
occupied by men
and equipment.
Sludge was
unloaded at 1 spot
only and flooded
2/3 down face of
Fill; went below
refuse and exited
onto canyon floor
( 200 gals *).
.Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High.
Enter - Sunny, Cloudy, Overcast, Showers, or Rain .
-------
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Date
Solid
Waste,
Lb
Sewage
Sludge,
Gal
Weather
Temp
°F
Wind
Condition
Odor,
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Birds, Rats, Other, No
Test Area
Regular
Landfill
Comments
12/28
1972
1/4
1/11
1/18
1/25
2/1
2/15
6 loads
6 loads
6 loads
6 loads
6 loads
Ai I sludge
Al I test c
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
being dumf
lis filled w
54
55
62
46
52
ed on tc
ith trash
Calm
Low
Calm
Calm
Calm
p in test
and s
ludc e
Rain
Sunny
Sunny
Overcast
Sunny
eel Is (7 to 1
and coverec
No
Very slight
No
No
None
few birds
No No None
No No seagulls
No No
r|atio)
. Sludge ndw being durrjped with tra
Sludge not being
spread over trash
Poor coverage.
ih in botton
of canyon.
+Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High.
Enter - Sunny# Cloudy, Overcast, Showers, or Rain .
-------
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Solid
Sewage
Weather
Bi rds, Rats, Ot her, No.
1972
Date
Waste,
Lb
Sludge,
Gal
Temp
°F
Wind*
Condition +
Odor >
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Test Area
Regular
Landfill
Comments
5/1
(truck avg
ton/eq
33 loads
(10,500
small trucl<;
8,500
Hazy
Normal
No
seagulls
flies,
blackbird,
seagulls
5/2
22 loads
5/3
22 loads
7,500
70
Slight
Good
Normal
trash smell
No
seagulls
seagulls,
blackbird
5/4
22 loads
10,000
78
None
Overcast
No
seagulls
seagulls,
blackbird
5/5
33 loads
21,000
(big truck)
76
seagulls,
pigeons
5/8
5/8
25 loads
CONSUL
10,500
ANT
60
67
Slight
Low
Clear
Cloudy
Normal
None
No
No
30 seagulls f
20 crows,
25 pigeons,
I squirrel,
1 00 bi rds
seagulls,
squirrels
Morning sludge
dumped on top of
fill soil from Sat.
Birds avoid sludge'
covered areas.
1 jack rabbit, 4
squirrels not in
test area.
5/9
20 loads
17,500
62
Slight
Clear
Normal
No
seagulls
squirrels,
seagulls
No litter when use
water.
5/10
20 loads
14,000
None
Cloudy
No
seagulls,
blackbird
Soto on dozer for
a few days.
*
+£nter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High.
Enter - Sunn/, Cloudy, Overcast, Showers, or Rain.
-------
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Solid
Sewage
Weathe
r
Bi rds, Rats, Ot her, No
1972
Date
Waste,
Lb
Sludge,
Gal
Temp
°F
Wind*
Condition +
Odor,
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Test Area
Regular
Landfi 11
Comments
5/11
5/11
22 loads
CONSUL
14,000
ANT
63
75
None
Low to
moderate
Sunny
Normal
No
None,using
water
seagulls
100 seagul Is
chipmunk,
30 pigeons,
20misc birds
seagulls
/
Using water on
litter.
2 walking on sludg«
5/12
33 loads
10,500
64
Cloudy
Normal
No
seagulls,
5/15
30 loads
63
Calm
Sunny
Normal
None
None
None
At 10:30 a.m.
quiet and calm.
5/16
20 loads
21,000
64
Calm
Sunny
Normal
None
None
seagulls
5/17
5/17
22 loads
CONSUL
21,000
"ANT
63
68
Moderate
Low
Overcast
Sunny
Norma 1
trash smell
Normal
No
None
None
seagulls,
blackbird
A couple sludge
loads brought a.m
No sludge visible
on face of refuse.
Small amount
visible on plateau
below face in two
streamers. Took
5/18
20 loads
17,500
62
Calm
Sunny
Normal
No
None
squirrel,
seagulls
photos.
5/19
31 loads
17,500
60
Moderate
Showers
Normal
No
birds
seagulls
T
+Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High.
Enter - Sunny, Cloudy, Overcast, Showers, or Rain.
-------
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Solid
Sewage
Weathe
r
Bi rds, Rats, Ot her, No.
1972
Date
Waste,
Lb
Sludge,
Gal
Temp
°F
Wind*
Condition+
Odor,
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Test Area
Regular
Landfill
Comments
5/22
33 loads
17,500
60
Low
Showers
Normal
A little
seagulls
seagulls
Some litter becausi
of wind.
5/23
20 loads
21,000
63
Calm
Overcast
Normal
trash odor
No
seagulls
birds, flies,
seagulls
5/24
20 loads
31,500
65
Low
Sunny
Normal
No
seagulls
seagulls
5/25
5/26
21 loads
33 loads
10,500
21,000
62
Moderate
Overcast
Sewer and
trash odor
Some
None
blackbirds,
seagulls
Litter because of
wind coming up
canyon.
5/29
8 loads
None
65
Calm
Sunny
Normal
sewer odor
None
None
seagulls,
squirrel,
blackbirds
Only 4 trucks as
holiday .
5/30
20 loads
24,500
Sunny
None
seagulls,
squirrel,
birds
5/31
22 loads
7,000
68
Calm
Sunny
6/1
30 loads
67
Moderate
Cloudy,
sunny
Sewer odor
None
birds
seagulls,
flies,
squirrels
Biding.this lift
ana Wi II nave
trouble v/Jien start
the next level.
6/2
30 loads
63
Trash and
sewer odor
None
birds
seagulls
seagulls,
squirrels,
birds
*
+Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High.
Enter - Sunn/, Cloud/, Overcast, Showers, or Rain.
-------
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Solid
Sewage
Weathe
r
Bi rds, Rats, Ot her, No.
1972
Date
Waste,
Lb
Sludge,
Gal
Temp
°F
Wind
Condition
Odor >
Describe
Blowing
Litter
Test Area
Regular
Landfill
Comments
6/3
40 loads
None
66
Moderate
Overcast,
hazy
Normal
None
seagulls,
birds
seagulls,
birds
Make up day for
hoiiday-trash only
6/5
30 loads
69
Moderate
Cloudy
Normal
None
seagulls,
squirrels
6/6
20 loads
63
Moderate
Overcast,
rain
Normal
None
birds,
seagulls
Some litter. Short
of help to clean up
6 n
22 loads
62
Moderate
Showers
Sewer odor
None
squirrel,
birds,
seagulls
+Enter - Calm, Low, Moderate, or High.
Enter - Sunny, Cloudy, Overcast, Showers, or Rain.
-------
DS-1: SLUDGE APPLICATION DATA - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Observer -,'m
Loads disposed, no.
Weather
Sludge disposal
Est, qty, gallons
Date
&
time
Solid
waste
by type*
bludge
load by
type+
Temp.
°F
Wind^
Con-
dition**
Describe method of sludge and
solid waste placement, and condition
of sludge when observed (wet, dry)
Runoff
Leachate
(sample when
observed)
7/17
WD-6
Other- 1
1-LS(2500)
79
Low
Sunny
Truck, gravity feed; single hose w/flat
head; truck no motion; wet; slope 45%
approximate. Sludge worked in after
spreading by use of tractor.
0
7/18
7/19
—
:
:
—
(No report) no sludge -
/K1 > truck broke down
(No report)
7/20
0915
WD-3
Other - 3
2-LS(3500)
2-BV(3500)
77
Low
Cloudy
0
1330
WD-7
Other - 8
2-LS(3500)
81
Low
Sunny
5
7/21
0930
WD-2
4-LS(3500)
75
Low
Cloudy
20
Type of load: for WD (Waste disposal collection trucks) enter "WD-no. loads". For other loads indicate "Type-no. loads"
Indicate type of sludge as: SLR-no.(galIons/load); and for Buena Vista (BV) and La Salina (LS) note primary digested
(PD), primary raw (PR) or secondary digested (SD) sludge. Example; 3-LS (3,500) (SD).
§
Biter - calm, low, moderate or high. **Enter - sunny, cloudy, overcast, showers or rain.
-------
DS-1: SLUDGE APPLICATION DATA - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL Observer Reid
Loads disposed, no.
Weather
Sludge disposal
Est. qty, gallons
Date
&
time
Solid
waste
by type*
Sludge
load by
type+
Temp.
°F
Wind*
Con-
dition**
Describe method of sludge and
solid waste placement, and condition
of sludge when observed (wet, dry)
Runoff
Leachate
(sample when
observed)
7/21
1230
WD-6
Other-4
4-LS(3500)
6-BV(3500)
81
Low
Sunny
10
7/2 4
1230
WD-4
Other-3
4-LS(3500)
2-BV(3500)
89
Mod
Sunny
20
7/25
0850
WD-2
Other—1
4-LS(3500>
2-SLR(3330)
80
Low
Overcast
10
7/25
7/26
1100
WD-3
Other-3
4-LS(3500)
2-BV(3500)
80
Low
Sunny
20
7/26
1300
WD-6
Other-4
81
Low
Sunny
0
7/27
1100
WD-3
Other-2
4-LS
2-SLR
82
Low
Sunny
0
1400
WD-7
Other-4
2-SLR
84
Low
Sunny
5
*
Type of load: for WD (Waste disposal collection trucks) enter "WD-no. loads". For other loads indicate "Type-no, loads"
indicate type of sludge as: SLR-no.(gaI Ions/load); and for Buena Vista (BV) and La Salina (LS) note primary digested
(PD), primary raw (PR) or secondary digested (SD) sludge. Example: 3-LS '3,500) (S D),
Enter - calm, low, moderate or high, **oiter - sunny, cloudy/ overcast, showers or rain.
-------
DS-1: SLUDGE APPLICATION DATA - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Observer Jim Reid
Date
&
time
Loads disposed, no.
Weather
Sludge disposal
Describe method of sludge and
solid waste placement, and condition
of sludge when observed (wet, dry)
Est. qty, gallons
Solid
waste
by type*
Sludge
load by
type+
Temp.
oc r
r
Wind^
Con-
dition**
Runoff
Leachate
(sample wher
observed)
7/28
WD-1
4- LS(3500)
85
Low
Sunny
0900
Other - 3
2-BV(3500)
1400
WD-4
87
Low
Sunny
7/31
WD-3
1000
Other - 2
Type of load: for WD (Waste disposal collection trucks) enter "WD-no.loads". For other loads indicate "Type-no, loads"
Indicate type of sludge as: SLR-no.(gal Ions/load); arid for Buena Vista (BV) and La Salina (LS) note primary digested
(PD), primary raw (PR) or secondary digested (SD) sludge. Example; 3-LS (3,500) (S D).
§
Enter - calm, low, moderate or high. **Enter - sunny, cloudy, overcast, showers or rain.
-------
DS-1: SLUDGE APPLICATION DATA - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Observer Jim Reid
Loads disposed, no.
Weather
Sludge disposal
Est, qty, gallons
Date
&
time
Solid
waste
by type*
Sludge
load by
type+
Temp.
°F
Wind#
Con-
dition**
Describe method of sludge and
solid waste placement, and condition
of sludge when observed (wet, dry)
Runoff
Leachate
(sample when
observed)
12/11
0800
1400
WD-0
WD-6
O-SLR
3 - 2-LS
1 -SLR
(3500)
68
72
Mod
Calm
Cloudy
Sunny
Dry —
Dispersed through fixed nozzle; track
moves 3 positions to cover area while ur>
loading.
0
12/12
1315
WD-8
2-LS
(3500)
65
Low
Sunny
0
12/13
0950
WD-2
Other-2
0
60
Calm
Sunny
0
12/14
1300
WD -7
Other-2
2-BV(350C
PR
66
Calm
Sunny
12/15
1130
WD-3
Other-3
2-SLR
1 -BV
1 -LS
73
Calm
Sunny
12/16
0930
WD-2
Other-1
0
70
Calm
Sunny
Type of load: for WD (Waste disposal collection trucks) enter "WD-no. loads". For other loads indicate "Type-no. loads"
+lndicate type of sludge as: SLR-no.(gaHons/load); and for Buena Vista (BV) and La Salina (LS) note primary digested
(PD), primary raw (PR) or secondary digested (SD) sludge. Example: LS - 3 (3,500) (SD).
Biter - calm, low, moderate or high. **Biter - sunny, cloudy, overcast, showers or rain.
-------
DS-1: SLUDGE APPLICATION DATA - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Observer Jim Reid
Date
&
time
Loads disposed, no.
Weather
Sludge disposal
Est. qty, gallons
Solid
waste
by type*
Sludge
load by
type+
Temp.
°F
Wind^
Con-
dition**
Describe method of sludge and
solid waste placement, and condition
of sludge when observed (wet, dry)
Runoff
Leachate
(sample wher
observed)
12/18
12/19
0936
WD-4
2-BV
67
Calm
Sunny
Dispersed through fized nozzle with
truck moving to three positions to cover
entire area.
0
12/20
1411
WD-8
Other-1
3-BV
3-LS
72
Calm
Sunny
12/21
900
WD-4
Other-3
—
75
Calm
Sunny
12/22
1330
WD-6
Other-3
2-BV
2-LS
76
Calm
Sunny
12/23
•
*
Type of load: for WD (Waste disposal collection trucks) enter "WD-no. loads". For other loads Indicate "Type-no. loads"
Indicate type of sludge as: SLR-no.(gal Ions/load); and for Buena Vista (BV) and La Salino (LS) note primary digested
(PD),^ primary raw (PR) or secondary digested (SD) sludge. Example? LS - 3 (3,500) (SD).
Enter - calm, low, moderate or high, **5iter - sunny, cloudy, overcast, showers or rain.
-------
DS-1: SLUDGE APPLICATION DATA - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Observer Jim Rowlands
Loads disposed, no.
Weather
Sludge disposal
Est. qty, gallons
Date
Solid
Sludge
Describe method of sludge and
Leachate
&
waste
load by
Temp.
Wind#
Con-
solid waste placement, and condition
(sample when
time
by type*
!ype+
o
F
dition**
of sludge when observed (wet, dry)
Runoff
observed)
1-2-73
—
—
—
—
—
1-4-73
—
3-LS
50
Calm
Overcast,
Solid waste in dry-10' high x 40' wide
250
1515
1 -BV
very light
x 80' long. Fourth load of sludge de-
showers
posited by spreader plates across face;
runoff started on 2nd load. All sludge
still wet.
1-9-73
1100
—
1 -BV
55
Low
Showers
Sludge wet and pooled at top of face.
0
1200
WD-5
1 -BV
55
Low
Cloudy
Same as above.
10
1315
—
—
—
Low
Cloudy
Runoff in tight to base.
50
1445
—
1 -LS
—
Low
Cloudy
—
50
No increase
1535
—
1 -LS
—
Low
Cloudy
No new runoff.
50
No increase
1 -10-75
WD-10±
2-LS
58
Low
Cloudy
Refuse and wet sludge mixed; some
100
1415
pooled sludge.
Type of load: for WD (Waste disposal collection trucks) enter "WD-no. loads". For other loads indicate "Type-no, ioads"
indicate type of sludge as: SLR-no.(ga I Ions/load); and for Buena Vista (BV) and La Salina (LS) note primary digested
(PD), primary raw (PR) or secondary digested (SD) sludge. Example: LS - 3 (3,500) (SD).
Enter - calm, low, moderate or high. **&>ter - sunny, cloudy, overcast, showers or rain.
-------
DS-1: SLUDGE APPLICATION DATA - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Observer J'm Re id
Loads disposed, no.
Weather
Sludge disposal
Est. qty, gallons
Date
&
time
Solid
waste
by type*
Sludge
load by
type+
Temp.
Op r
Wind#
Con-
dition**
Describe method of sludge and
solid waste placement, and condition
of sludge when observed (wet, dry)
Runoff
Leachate
(sample wher
observed)
1/^73
111!
1/9/73
WD-8
Other-4
0
68
Calm
Sunny
Dispersed through double nozzle fixed
level and moving truck to alternate
positions.
I/1CV7:
1300
WD-6
Other-6
2-BV
72
Calm
Sunny
1/11/^3
1330
WD-8
Other-10
2-LS
2-BV
72
Calm
Sunny
IA2/72
1100
WD-6
0
80.
Calm
Sunny
1A 5/7:
1230
WD-5
Other-2
0
68
Calm
Cloudy
1/16^3
1310
WD-8
Other-6
2-BV
68
Calm
Cloudy,
drizzle
1/17/73
— mm
——
— —
— —
Type of load: for WD (Waste disposal collection trucks) enter "WD-no. loads". For other loads Indicate "Type-no. loads",
+lndlcate type of sludge as: SLR-no.(gallons/load); and for Buena Vista (BV) and La Salina (LS) note primary digested
(PD), primary raw (PR) or secondary digested (SD) sludge. Example* LS - 3 (3,500) (S D).
#
Biter - calm, low, moderate or high. **Ehter - sunny, cloudy, overcast, showers or rain.
-------
DS-2: ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATIONS - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL Observer jjm Re;d
Date
&
time
Sludge test area: 150 ft x 200 ft
(No sludge) Regular landfill area: 200 ft x 200 ft
Blowing
litter,
no. items*
PA = 30,000 ft
Animals and insects,
l
no/PA+
Odor^
Blowing
litter
no. items*
Anima
Is and insects,
no/PA+
Odor^
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others.1
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others!
7/17
0
0
0
100
None
Earthy
0
0/
0/
100/9
1100
40.000
W
ft.2
7/18
No sludge
disposed.
ft.2
ft.2
7/19
7/20
0
0
0
100
None
None
7/20
0
0
0
100
None
None
7/21
0
2
0
None
None
0930
7/21
0
2
0
100
None
None
1230
7/24
0
0
0
0
None
None
^Estimate the number of items travelling In the wind. Do not include items waving or flapping in the wind which are
held down at one end,
+
Count the number of birds and animals on the waste fill and estimate the total area in square feet (feet). The
sludge test area size shall include all stolid waste fill surface which is covered with sludge or was mixed with sludge at the
time of observation, PA = populated area where 80 percent or more of the observed population Is foraging.
#
Estimate the area covered by flies and the number of flies, maggots.
* Earthy, pig pen, sweet, etc.; none, medium, strong, etc.
] Indicate rats, cats, dogs or other unusual animal or insect or event.
-------
DS-2: ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATIONS - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL Observer jjm Reid
SI
udge test area.- 200 ft" x 200 ft
(No sludge) Regular
landfill area:
ft X
ft
Date
&
Blowing
litter,
PA = 40,000 ft .2
Animals and insects,
no/PA+
Blowinq
litter
Animals and insects,
no/PA+
time
no. items*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others!
Odor*
no. items*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others!
Odor*
7/15
0850
0
0
0
50/9
0
None
7/25
7/26
0
0
0
0
None
7/17
1100
0
0
0
50/9
None
1400
7/28
0900
1400
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
20/5
None
None
7/31
1000
0
0
2
100/9
Earthy
* Estimate the number of items travelling in the wind. Do not include items waving or flapping in the wind which are
held down at one end.
Count the number of birds and animals on the waste fill and estimate the total area in square feet (feet). The
sludge test area size shall include all solid waste fill surface which is covered with sludge or was mixed with sludge at the
time of observation. PA = populated area where 80 percent or more of the observed population is foraging.
Estimate the area covered by flies and the number of flies, maggots.
^ Earthy, pig pen, sweet, etc.; none, medium, strong, etc.
] Indicate rats, cats, dogs or other unusual animal or insect or event.
-------
DS-2: ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATIONS - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL Observer Jim Reid
SI
udge test area:
ftx
ft
(No sludge) Regular landfill area:
ft X
ft
Date
&
Blowing
litter,
Animals and insects,
no/PA+
Blowing
litter
Antmc
Is and Insects,
no/PA+
time
no. items*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Othersl
Odo*
no. Items*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others!
Odor*
12/11
0800
0
0
0
0
0
None
1400
0
0
0
0
50
Mediurr
12/12
1315
0
8
0
0
50
Earthy
12/13
0950
0
6
0
0
0
None
12/14
1300
0
12
0
0
0
None
12/15
1130
0
100 seagult
25 pigeon!
20 other
,0
~
0
0
Pig pen
12/16
0930
0
5
0
0
0
Earthy
~
Estimate the number of items travelling In the wind. Do not include items waving or flapping in the wind which are
held down at one end.
-f-
Count the number of birds and animals on the waste fill and estimate the total area in square feet (feet). The
sludge test area size shall include all solid waste fill surface which is covered with sludge or was mixed with sludge at the
time of observation, PA = populated area where 80 percent or more of the observed population Is foraging.
#
Estimate the area covered by flies and the number of flies, maggots.
^ Earthy, pig pen, sweet, etc.; none, medium, strong, etc.
J Indicate rats, cats, dogs or other unusual animal or insect or event.
-------
DS-2: ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATIONS - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL Observer J'" Reid
Sludge test area:
ft X
ft
(No sludge
) Regular
landfill area:
ft X
ft
Date
&
Blowing
litter,
Animals and insects,
no/PA+
Blowing
1 i tter
Animals an
d insects,
no/PA+
time
no. items*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others)
Odor^
no. items*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others.1
Odor*
12/18
—
—
--
—
—
—
12/19
0930
0
5
0
0
0
Earthy
12/20
1400
0
0
0
0
0
Earthy
12/21
0900
0
12 seagulh
0
0
0
Earthy
12/22
0
8 pigeons
0
0
0
Pig pen
12/23
0
0
0
0
0
Earthy
ic
Estimate the number of Items travelling in the wind. Do not include items waving or flapping in the wind which are
held down at one end.
Count the number of birds and animals on the waste fill and estimate the total area in square feet (feet). The
sludge test area size shall include all solid waste fill surface which is covered with sludge or was mixed with sludge at the
time of observation. PA = populated area where 80 percent or more of the observed population is foraging.
Estimate the area covered by flies and the number of flies, maggots.
"^Earthy, pig pen, sweet, etc.; none, medium, strong, etc.
] Indicate rats, cats, dogs or other unusual animal or insect or event.
-------
DS-2: ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATIONS - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL Observer Jim Rowlands
Sludge test area:
ft X
ft
(No sludge
) Regular landfill area:
ft X
ft
Date
&
Blowing
litter,
Animals and insects,
no/PA+
Blowing
litter
Animals and insects,
1
+
time
no. items*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others.'
Odor*
no. items*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others.1
Odor*
1/4/73
1515
0
0/3200
(200 circl-
0
0
0
Med.
earthy
1 M<
1045
0
ing over-
head)
0/2100
0
0
0
Med.
earthy
1A <¥7
1400
3 0
0/2450
0
0
0
Med.
earthy
*
Estimate the number of items travelling in the wind. Do not include items waving or flapping in the wind which are
held down at one end.
Count the number of birds and animals on the waste fill and estimate the total area in square feet (feet). The
sludge test area size shall include all solid waste fill surface which is covered with sludge or was mixed with sludge at the
time of observation. PA = populated area where 80 percent or more of the observed population is foraging,
#
Estimate the area covered by flies and the number of flies, maggots.
^ Earth/, pig pen, sweet, etc.; none, medium, strong, etc,
1 Indicate rats, cats, dogs or other unusual animal or insect or event.
-------
DS-2: ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATIONS - FIELD TEST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL Observer Jim Reid
Sludge test area;
ft X
ft
(No sludge) Regular landfill area:
ft X
ft
Date
&
Blowing
litter,
Animals and insects,
no/PA+
Blowing
litter
Animals and insects,
no/PA+
time
no. items*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others.'
Odor*
no. items*
Birds
Rats
Flies
Others.1
Odor*
1/8^3
1100
0
200 seagulh
0
0
—
Pigpen
1/9/73
—
—
—
—
—
—
1/lQ#3
1300
0
0
00
0
0
Earthy
1/11/53
1330
0
0
0
0
0
Earthy
\/\2/7i
1100
0
10
0
0
0
Earthy
1/1503
1230
0
10
0
0
0
Earthy
1/1^3
1350
\A7ft:
0
60
0
0
0
Sweet
*
Estimate the number of Items travelling In the wind. Do not include items waving or flapping in the wind which are
held down at one end,
*4*
Count the number of birds and animals on the waste fill and estimate the total area in square feet (feet). The
sludge test area size shall include all solid waste fill surface which is covered with sludge or was mixed with sludge at the
time of observation. PA = populated area where 80 percent or more of the observed population Is foraging,
#
Estimate the area covered by flies and the number of flies, maggots.
^ Earthy, pig pen, sweet, etc.; none, medium, strong, etc.
] Indicate rats, cats, dogs or other unusual animal or insect or event.
-------
APPENDIX F
OCEANSIDE LANDFILL SITE GEOLOGY
AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
412
-------
APPENDIX F
Oceanside Demonstration Landfill Site Geology
The canyon designated for landfill is underlain by resistant, impermeable bedrock
with a layer of fine alluvial deposits of relatively low permeability and undetermined
thickness lining the canyon floor. Underground seepage may occur in the bedrock along
bedding planes which slope to the southwest (see sketch on Figure F 1), or through the
fine alluvium. Marine terrace deposits along the top of the canyon walls are permeable.
Landfill cover soils are coarse to fine sand cut primarily from loose areas of the
landfill canyon walls. Additional cover soils are imported. Sieve analysssof cover
soil samples from the three test cells and the landfill given in Figures F 2 and F 3
indicate that the soils are coarse to fine sand.
No landslide, mud flow, other mass movements or soil creep were evident at the
landfill site. The canyon walls consist of well-consolidated sandstone in the upper-
canyon areas, some of which has been difficult to remove for use as landfill cover soil.
Groundwater
No natural groundwater spring or seepage was observed in the landfill canyon.
A test well installed approximately two-thirds of the distance from the upper canyon
wall to the downstream San Luis Rey River basin (see Figure F 1) indicated a groundwater
level of 14 to 17 feet below the surface. Analyses of well water samples are given in
Table F 1 . The well water quality is not suitable for human or animal consumption due
to the presence of coliform. Also, the dissolved solids and sulfate concentrations exceeded
drinking water standards in the 1972 sample. The coliform presence may be due to well
contamination rather than being from seepage of bacteria into the groundwater aquifer
by percolation.
413
-------
! v.^oaV.^\v-01 ¦
BM 62
DEL MAjt
Reservoir
^¦4iMa£«s9BrvvB«flr^a-
**».H5*BSBfcPOHS*raiMU
\ (¦¦¦iiBr/'itksnsv.tfastieasf'
Beacon
landfill well
v - " i^'O
C*:nte<
DDING
PLANE
!$££'{*> 'A * - :Thca,erVr* -SvW^
SECTIO
• Drive-1 ri?
• ;\^ A
•A V\ W ->'¦%. \
\ -\
* L... am-vj*/ j:.. "•jx sr.
L Wi\
0 1000 2000 3000
SCALE IN FEET
\ n V ^cn*v • /'! j * Cceanj'de-Carlsbad ' . ^ j[
W V ,/"""
i \ i Cpuntry Clut)
\\ .( \
\*q\ /'/ v
*-i \J !
wm
FINE ALLUVIUM fcjjjHMARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS { . j SAN ONOFRE BRECCIA
FIGURE F 1
GEOLOGIC MAP
OF LANDFILL SITE*
-------
GRAIN SIZE ACCUMULATION CURVE
M.l.T.
CLASS
SAND
COARSE
MED
HNf
COARSE MEg
SILT
HNE
CLAY
COARSE MED IttNE
10
1.0
0.1 0.01
DIAMETER (mm)
0.001
0.0001
FIGURE F2
FIELD TEST CELL
COVER SOIL COMPOSITE
SAMPLE
-------
GRAIN size accumulation curve
SAND
M.l.T.
CLASS
CLAY
COARSE
MED
FINE COARSE MED
FINE COARSE
MED FINE
100
£U
0.01
0.001
0.0001
DIAMETER (mm)
FIGURE F 3
LANDFILL COVER SOIL
COMPOSITE SAMPLE
-------
TABLE F 1
OCEANSIDE LANDFILL WELL WATER ANALYSES
Constituents *
Sample date
3/1/72
Sample date
8/29/73
pH
7.6
7.6
Coliform
43
+
Total solids
740
+
Suspended solids
14
+
Dissolved solids
726
+
Volatile suspended solids
14
+
Calcium
104
160
Sodium
102
112
Ammonia (NH^)
0.61
0
Carbonate (CO^)
0
0
Bicarbonate ( HCO^)
37
390
Sulfate (SO^)
429
67
Chloride
80
+
Fluoride
0.04
+
Total phosphate
1.9
2.0
Nitrite
0.008
0.05
Nitrate
0.01
1 .2
Ammonia (N)
0.47
0
Total alkalinity (CaCO^)
412
320
Total hardness (CaCO^)
298
510
*A11 analyses are In units of mg/l except pH (units) and coliform
(MPN/100 ml).
+ Insufficient sample amount to perform analysis.
417
-------
APPENDIX G
ENGLISH-METRIC EQUIVALENTS
1 = 28.32 liter
1 gallon = 3.785 liter
1 pound = 0.4536 kilogram
1 ton = 907.2 kilogram
1 ounce = 28.35 gram
1 inch = 2.54 centimeter
1 foot = 0.3048 meter
1 acre = 4,047 m2
1 ft2 = 929 cm2
1 gal/min = 0.06309 liter/sec
1 ft^/min = 0.4719 liter/sec
°C = 5/9 (°F - 32)
via 1061
418
------- |