United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water &
Waste Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
SW - 190c
October 1980
Solid Waste
v>EPA
Decomposition of Residential
and Light Commercial
Solid Waste
in Test Lysimeters
-------
Prepublication issue for EPA libraries
and State Solid Waste Management Agencies
DECOMPOSITION
OF RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE
IN TEST LYSIMETERS
This report (SW-190c) describes work performed
for the Office of Solid Waste under contract number 68-03-0315
and is reproduced as received from the contractor.
The findings should be attributed to the contractor
and not to the Office of Solid Waste.
Copies will be available from the
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA. 22161
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1980
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Solid Waste, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention
of trade names or commerical products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
The monitoring of eight large test lysimeter cells has given
information about the decomposition of, and leachate and gas produc-
tion from, shredded and unprocessed refuse. Six of the cells were
originally 4 to 5 feet deep and held 100 tons each of residential-
light commercial municipal solid waste. Two cells were originally
8 to 10 feet deep and held 200 tons each. All cells were exposed to
the climate at Madison, Wisconsin, for 5 to 7 years.
Cell monitoring was designed to indicate changes in leachate
Quantity and composition and gas composition, as a result of:
(l) shredding or not shredding the waste, (2) covering or not
covering the waste with soil, (3) increasing the depth of a lift
from 4 feet to 8 feet, and (4) building an 8-foot layer in a land-
fill in one or two lifts.
The volumetric rate of leachate production of all of the cells
was found to vary seasonally and according to weather events. There
appeared to be a direct correlation between leachate quantity and
quality.
Increased peak concentrations of contaminants in leachate were
common with shredded refuse, in comparison with unprocessed refuse.
The effect of soil cover on the cells was to prolong the period of
production of leachate high in contaminant concentrations. The cells
left uncovered produced initially a highly contaminated leachate,
followed by rapid stabilization to consistently low concentrations of
contaminants.
Adding a new lift of refuse to cells which were already five
years old indicated that partially decomposed solid waste has an
ability to treat leachate as it passes through. The 8-foot deep
cells constructed in one lift produced higher leachate concentrations
and took substantially more time to stabilize than the comparable
4-foot cells.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract 68-03-0315
by R.K. Ham of the University of Wisconsin at Madison under the partial
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report
covers the period June, 1970 to August, 1977, and work was completed
as of August, 1978.
m
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract i1'1
Figures v
Tables vi
Appendix Tables yj
Acknowledgement vi"1
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations 6
4. Lysimeter Design, Construction, and
Monitoring Procedures 7
5. Results and Discussion of Results 13
Water balance 13
Precipitation 14
Runoff 14
Leachate 19
Overall water balance 20
Summary on water balance 22
Leachate quality 22
Interrelationships between curves
and initial discussion of
cells 1-4 23
COD concentration 30
Specific conductance 33
pH 33
Other leachate quality parameters 36
Summary on leachate quality 36
Production of contaminants in leachate 40
Gas composition 44
Oxygen 44
C02 .' . . . 48
CH4 49
Summary on gas composition 51
Refuse temperature 51
Refuse moisture content '.'.'.'.'.'.'. 55
Settlement !!!.'.' 55
Physical appearance of refuse after
decomposition 57
References 57
Appendix 59
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Plan view of test cell facility 8
2 Cross section of test cell 9
3 Test cell being filled with unprocessed solid waste ... n
4 Cumulative precipitation 15
5 Runoff volume 16
6 Leachate volume 17
7 Cell 1 leachate volume - COD concentration - pH 24
8 Cell 2 leachate volume - COD concentration - pH 25
9 Cell 3 leachate volume - COD concentration - pH 26
10 Cell 4 leachate volume - COD concentration - pH 27
11 Leachate COD concentration 31
12 Leachate specific conductance 34
13 Leachate pH 35
14 COD production 41
15 02 concentration 45
16 C0? concentration 46
17 CH4 concentration 47
18 Average refuse temperature 52
19 Refuse near the surface of cell 4 five
years after cell construction 58
-------
Number
1
2
3
4
TABLES
Page.
Water Budget 18
Average Concentrations for Specific
Leachate Tests 37
Production of COD - Summary of Data 42
Cumulative Settlement 56
APPENDIX TABLES
Number
A-l Precipitation Data and Chronology of
Cell Construction 60
A-2 Runoff Volume 62
A-3 Leachate Volume 64
A-4 Leachate COD Concentration 66
A-5 Leachate Specific Conductance 68
A-6 Leachate pH 70
A-7 Leachate Calcium Hardness Concentration 72
A-8 Leachate Total Hardness Concentration 74
A-9 Leachate Alkalinity 76
A-10 Leachate Chloride Concentration 78
A-ll Leachate Total Iron Concentration 80
A-12 Leachate Ammonia -NConcentration 82
A-l3 Leachate Organic -N Concentration 84
A-l4 Leachate Ammonium -N Concentration 86
A-15 Leachate Nitrate -N Plus Nitrite
-N Concentration 88
A-l6 Leachate Total Phosphate Concentration 90
A-l7 Leachate Soluble Phosphate Concentration 92
A-18 Average Leachate COD Production 94
A-l9 Oxygen Concentration 96
A-20 Carbon Dioxide Concentration 98
A-21 Methane Concentration 100
A-22 Average Refuse Temperature 102
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This project was initiated under EPA demonstration project grant
3-G06-EC-00000-0051, as part of the demonstration and evaluation of
shredding municipally-generated solid wastes and landfilling the result-
ing material without daily cover soil. This project ended in 1973,
whereupon, by prior agreement, lysimeter evaluations were continued
under a separate EPA contract, number 68-03-0315. Numerous EPA personnel
have been project officers, or have been otherwise close to the project
over its existence. Of these, David Arella, Roger Graham, Truett
DeGeare, and Toby Goodrich should be acknowledged for their input at
critical phases of the project.
Many students have been involved with construction and maintenance
of the test cells, collecting field data, performing chemical analyses,
keeping records, interpreting data. Charles R. Anderson, Robert
Karnauskas, and Todd Bookter are three students who are specially recog-
nized for the importance of their association with the project.
The excellent cooperation of the City of Madison, and Gary Boley,
in particular, in providing the expertise, men, and equipment necessary
to do cell construction and major maintenance work is acknowledged.
The Oscar Mayer Company provided the land, original sludge drying beds.,
and storage space for field equipment.
Finally, the Engineering Experiment Station of the University of
Wisconsin and the City of Madison are acknowledged for their support of
the later stages of the project. Without this support, data regarding
the second lifts of cells 3 and 4, and confirmation of trends with the
deep cells would not have been obtained.
Vll
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This study began as one part of the large project carried out at
Madison, Wisconsin, to demonstrate and evaluate the shredding of resi-
dential-light commercial solid wastes and the landfilling of the result-
ing material without daily cover. This original project was the joint
effort of the City of Madison, The University of Wisconsin, The Heil
Company of Milwaukee, and the U.S. E.P.A. (originally through the P.H.S.).
Of major concern in the landfilling of shredded solid wastes without daily
cover soil was the impact such practice would have on decomposition pat-
terns of the landfill, and in particular leachate composition and amount,
and gas production. Consequently, three decomposition studies were car-
ried out as part of the demonstration program.
The first study utilized large piles of refuse placed over periods
ranging from several weeks to months, which had plastic sheets under
portions of each test landfill to collect leachate. Both shredded waste
without soil cover and unprocessed waste with soil cover (sanitary land-
fill) test piles were built. The result was rather accurate evidence of
the decomposition patterns of each type of landfill, but because of the
lack of control in these large-scale tests, water balances, gas produc-
tion, and leachate contaminant production information could not be
obtained, and the effects of shredding the waste and soil cover could
not be separated.
The second study used 600 pound samples of shredded and unprocessed
solid wastes and subjected them to accelerated decomposition in separate
rooms, each with a controlled environment. The result was interesting
with respect to water movement and patterns of leachate composition, but
decomposition patterns were incomplete as methane production was minor.
The third study was designed to provide information about decomposi-
tion changes occurring both as a result of shredding and using soil cover,
separately. Test cells or lysimeters were carefully designed and operated
to provide such information.
The first two studies were completed and reported in reference (1).
The third study was of particular importance because of the design and
degree of control used to assure proper comparison of test results, and
so it was extended to provide more test cells as a check on the effects
of shredding and cover and also to give information on the effect of
depth of waste on decomposition. The third study was incomplete at the
conclusion of the original shredding demonstration program. It was con-
tinued through a direct contract from EPA to The University of Wisconsin.
This report is the final report covering both the design, construction,
and initial monitoring of the test cells, as reported in detail in
reference (1), as well as subsequent monitoring as performed under the
contract.
-------
The eight test cells or lysimeters were large enough to allow full-
scale landfill equipment to be used, to minimize edge effects, and to
be able to consider the waste in each cell as being representative (i.e.,
particle sizes were much less than lysimeter sizes). The first four test
cells were constructed in September of 1970 and consisted of unprocessed
refuse with soil cover, and shredded refuse with cover, without cover,
and covered six months after refuse placement, respectively. The four
remaining cells were constructed in August of 1972 and consisted of
unprocessed refuse both without cover and with shredded refuse as the
only cover, plus two cells twice as deep as the other six cells, contain-
ing shredded refuse without cover and unprocessed refuse with soil cover,
respectively. Finally, in July, 1975, two of the first set of four cells
received second lifts of solid waste, bringing their total fresh refuse
height to that of the two deep cells, to allow determination of whether
leachate generated by overlying lifts of solid wastes was treated or
attenuated by underlying layers of relatively decomposed or stabilized
waste.
It should be noted that the last one and one-half years, of data, which.
were critical in documenting the later stages of the effect of depth,
and the attenuation of leachate from upper lifts, were made possible by
the Engineering Experiment Station of The University of Wisconsin, The
City of Madison, and numerous others who helped in a variety of ways to
continue the monitoring effort beyond that made possible by the E.P.A.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions have been reached, subject to the condi-
tions and limitations of this study.
(1) The water budget was affected by the presence or lack of soil cover,
with the presence of cover increasing the runoff from an average of
3.3% for all cells without cover to 8.8% for all covered cells over
the entire period of monitoring. The presence of cover decreased
evapotranspiration from an average of 82.0% for all cells without
cover to 72.3% for the covered cells. The effect on leachate pro-
duction was mixed.
(2) Shredding of the solid waste had little or no effect on the water
budgets of the covered cells, but shredding resulted in less
evapotranspiration and more leachate production for the cells with
no soil cover.
(3) The amount of runoff from all cells without soil cover was small,
averaging 3.3% of precipitation, but did increase with time as the
cell surfaces became vegetated and decomposed to a more soil-like
consistency.
(4) In comparing the water budgets of unprocessed solid waste covered
with soil and shredded waste without cover (i.e., sanitary landfill
and "milIfill", respectively), the shredded waste without cover
produced approximately the same percentage of rainfall as leachate
as the covered unprocessed cells, as a result of the decreased
amounts of runoff being compensated by increased evapotranspiration.
(5) Soil cover either directly or indirectly served to keep the solid
waste cooler as indicated by waste and leachate temperatures.
(6) Soil cover greatly affected the decomposition of both shredded and
unprocessed solid wastes. With both kinds of waste, the immediate
application of soil cover resulted in steady, but highly contam-
inated, leachate production over much of the 5- to 7-year period;
whereas, the absence of cover resulted in rapid decomposition to
produce a very highly contaminated leachate for a relatively short
period, followed by a sharp dropoff to leachate of relatively low
contaminant concentrations. The time required to "stabilization"
of the shallow (4 foot) cells, as indicated by consistently low COD
concentrations, was roughly 3 years for the covered cells and one
year for the cells without soil cover, irrespective of whether the
solid waste was shredded. The deep cells (8 feet) showed the same
effect of cover, but over longer time periods, with the cell without
cover slowly stabilizing over the entire five years of monitoring,
but not yet reaching stable, low COD concentrations, and the cell
with cover not yet showing signs of stabilization at the conclusion
of the five-year monitoring period.
-------
(7) Shredded solid waste decomposed more quickly than did unprocessed
waste as indicated by higher initial temperatures, a more contam-
inated leachate during comparable stages of decomposition, and the
more rapid onset of methane production. This was probably a result
of increased particle surface area, homogenization of the waste,
and more uniform movement of moisture.
(8) A clear relation existed between climatic events and leachate pro-
duction and quality. Freezing conditions or dry spells led to low
levels of leachate production and to decreased contamination levels
of whatever leachate was produced. Conversely, spring thaws or^
large amounts of rainfall gave rise to increased leachate quantities
and higher contaminant concentrations. Prolonged wet or dry periods
Ted to prolonged changes in leachate production and quality; short
term climatic events led to short term changes. Rapid leachate move-
ment apparently rinsed matter out of the cells and/or upset whatever
degree of decomposition process stability had been achieved, result-
ing in increased leachate contaminant concentrations.
(9) Covering shredded solid waste with soil after six months temporarily
increased contaminant concentrations in the leachate by physically
squeezing matter out of the waste during the application of cover.
Being without cover for six months was, however, sufficient to cause
this cell to assume the general decomposition patterns of uncovered
solid waste, in that it reached stable conditions quickly, produc-
ing relatively dilute leachate consistently, comparable to the cells
which were never covered. This data indicates that it was advanta-
geous, as far as limiting contamination by leachate is concerned, to
allow shredded refuse to decompose for six months before covering it
with soil.
(10) The effect of doubling the depth of solid waste was to extend by a
considerable amount the time span required for similar discernable
decomposition patterns to occur. For the shredded cells without
cover, the time required to reach consistantly low COD concentra-
tions was approximately one year for the shallow cells and at least
five years for the deep cell. For the unprocessed refuse cells
covered immediately, approximately 5 years was necessary for the
shallow cell to become stable, whereas the deep cell indicated no
sign of stabilization after five years. Doubling the solid waste
depth more than doubled concentrations during comparable periods
of decomposition of the major leachate contaminants.
(11) The lower lifts of partially stabilized solid waste in cells 3 and
4 were able to significantly reduce leachate contaminant production
from upper lifts by treating or attenuating leachate from the upper
lifts. The upper lifts were added to these cells five years after
placement of the lower lifts. For shredded solid waste without
soil cover, the lower lift apparently decreased the leachate COD
produced over one and one-half years by the upper lift from 311 kg
COD to 109 kg COD, for a reduction of 65%. With shredded waste
covered immediately, cell 2 produced 353 kg COD over the first one
and one-half years. The amount of COD released from cell 3 for
one and one-half years after the second lift was added was 7.1 kg,
for a reduction in COD of 98%. The first lift of cell 3 could not
-------
be used as a basis for comparison because it was left without cover
for six months. Both lower lifts were producing minor amounts of
COD at the time the second lifts were added.
(12) The two cells with unprocessed refuse but without cover soil (one
without any cover at all and the other with shredded refuse as
cover) had the lowest leachate contaminant concentrations and
methane gas concentrations of all the test cells, which might be
considered favorable in some landfill situations. However, serious
aesthetic and possibly health problems were associated with these
cells. In both cases they experienced odor, fly, and rodent prob-
lems. The uncovered cell was visually unacceptable. This study
indicated that the use of shredded refuse as cover over unprocessed
refuse is dangerous, but such practice may eventually prove to be
acceptable by using a thick layer of shredded refuse as cover which
is carefully controlled and monitored.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
u-
There are many aspects of this research which suggest further study,
but the most obvious suggestions are as follows:
(1) The effect of depth of a landfill on decomposition processes in
general and leachate quality in particular needs complete, long-
term study. Only two depths were examined here, both selected to
be shallow compared to full-scale landfill ing practice in order to
obtain results in a reasonable time. Additional depths need to be
examined over periods sufficient to reach steady, low-level degrees
of leachate contamination.
(2) There is probably an optimum time interval between placement of
successive lifts which would minimize leachate contamination both
for shredded and unprocessed solid waste. This should be investi-
gated so that landfill lifts can be sequenced in order to minimize
adverse leachate effects.
(3) The concept of lack of cover soil changing decomposition patterns
of a lift, so as to reduce greatly the period over which highly
contaminated leachate is produced, can be of great practical sig-
nificance. Additional work needs to be done to determine whether
an optimum waiting period until application of cover exists, and
whether cover soil and additional lifts of solid waste act simi-
larly in this regard.
-------
SECTION 4
LYSIMETER DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND MONITORING PROCEDURES
The recent and popular method of processing refuse by shredding or
milling is said to promote high quality landfill operations and make the
landfill more acceptable to the public. Shredded refuse is reported to
not require daily soil cover. This study was undertaken to examine
changes in the decomposition processes and the products of decomposition
resulting from use of various options of landfill design or operation.
The original objective was to compare shredded and unprocessed refuse
both with and without soil cover with respect to products of decomposi-
tion. The study was expanded later to look also at the long-term
effects of landfill depth, the use of shredded refuse to cover unpro-
cessed refuse, and the attenuation of leachate by previously deposited
and relatively decomposed lifts of shredded refuse.
Eight test cells were constructed to evaluate different landfill
conditions, as shown in plan view in Figure 1. The size of the cells
was selected to be large enough to provide reasonably uniform refuse
composition, large enough to be worked by regular landfill machinery
following normal procedures, and large enough to develop representative
water flow patterns within the refuse. Each cell was 30 * 60 ft (10 x
20 m) in surface area. Six cells were nominally 4 ft (1.3 m) deep and
had 100 tons (91 metric tons) of refuse each. Two additional cells were
nominally 10 ft (3.3. m) deep and had 215 tons (196 metric tons) of ref-
use each. Because of the sloping of the tops and bottoms of all cells,
an exact depth is difficult to define. The actual solid waste depth
varied initially from 3 to 5 feet inthe 4-foot cells, and from approxi-
mately 7 to 10 feet in the deep cells. Settlement and periodic rework-
ing of cell surfaces to maintain runoff characteristics further compli-
cates a strict definition of cell depths. Accordingly, the cells will
be referred to as 4 or 8 foot deep, or shallow or deep, for the remain-
der of this report.
Cement walled, abandoned sludge drying beds, each 60 by 60 feet,
were used. A cross section view of two adjacent cells, using one drying
bed, is shown in Figure 2. All cells were constructed below grade and
had three walls made of cement and a fourth of wood which divided each
drying bed into two test cells. The cement walls in the 4-foot cells
were vertical; whereas, the 8-foot cells had 5-foot vertical cement
walls over a 45° sloped bottom, constructed by contouring the cell bot-
toms to give the additional depth. The bottoms of all cells were graded
at approximately 3% to carry leachate to a central collection reservoir.
The bottom of each cell consisted of graded, compacted sand, covered
with 4 inches of crushed stone and a 1 in. (2.5 cm) bituminous layer.
Over the bituminous layer a 6 mil polyethylene sheet was placed, followed
by a 4-inch (10 cm) thick layer of crushed, coarse granite to act as a
leachate carrying layer. The granite was tested specifically to be sure
it would not affect leachate quality. Cell surfaces were sloped at
approximately 3% to one side where runoff was collected by a rain gutter
arrangement for runoff volume measurement. Because both the top surface
grade and the bottom surfaces of all cells were graded away from the
-------
CONCRETE
WALL
CO
PLYWOOD WALL
CELL I
UNPROCESSE
(COVERED)
CELL 2
SHREDDED
(COVERED)
CELL 3
SHREDDED
(COVERED)
IN 6
MONTHS)
CELL 4
SHREDDED
(NOT
COVERED)
CELL 7
SHREDDED, DEEP
(NOT COVERED)
\
J
CELL 8
UNPROCESSED,
DEEP
(COVERED)
GUTTERS
ALONG CONCRETE
WALLS
NPROCESSED
NOT
COVERED)
UNPROCESSE
(COVERED)
WITH
SHREDDED
500 GAL STOCK
TANK
'50 GAL. BARRELS
FIGURE I PLAN VIEW OF TEST CELL FACILITY
-------
DIVISION OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CITY OF MADISON , WISCONSIN
DRAWN BY: JAMES K GREY
10-23-70
3O' J
30'
PLYWOOD WALL"^
5 HOUSE DRAIN
GUTTER TO
RUNOFF COL-
LECTION TANKS
J
CONCRETE
WALL
1* EPOXY PANT
I COATED
va> li2*^sw'«c2TO;KH?3*?,'nvS?lf-J
CRUSHED GRANITE (4"THICK)
6 MILL POLYETHYLENE
3/4'CRUSHED STONE (4" THICK)
TYPICAL LYSIMETER BED CROSS-SECTION
LEACHATE COLLECTOR
ALL BLACK TOP SURFACES
SLOPED TO COLLECTOR
Figure 2. Cross section of test cell
-------
wooden partition, this fourth wall of each cell served only to separate
the waste in each cell and to maintain each cell's integrity. Minimal
or no water or leachate flow occurred across the wood partitions. Addi-
tional details of construction are provided in reference (1).
The cells were divided into two sets. The cells comprising the
first set were numbered as cells 1 through 4 and were constructed in
September, 1970. Cells 5 through 8 were the second set of cells and
were constructed in August, 1972. Each set of cells was constructed
simultaneously with residential and light commercial refuse to^promote
equal composition. City collection trucks known to be collecting only
from residential-light commercial (i.e., an occasional small neighbor-
hood store) areas were diverted at random to the cells or shredder dur-
/ing construction. The time of year was chosen specifically to be rea-
sonably representative of the entire year's refuse composition. Six
inches (approximately 75 tons) of compacted sandy-silt soil was used
for each covered cell. The refuse was placed and compacted with regular
sanitary landfill machinery by an experienced operator who was brought
in for this purpose from the city's sanitary landfill site (see Figure 3).
The operator was instructed to use normal machine time, compaction effort,
and layer thickness, as far as he could, in working the refuse.
The cells were numbered as follows. Cells 1 through 6 were 4 feet
deep.
Cell 1: unprocessed refuse, covered immediately,
Cell 2: shredded, covered immediately,
Cell 3: shredded, covered after 6 months,
Cell 4: shredded, not covered,
Cell 5: unprocessed refuse covered with shredded refuse
(66 tons unprocessed and 30 tons shredded (60 and 27 metric
tons)),
Cell 6: unprocessed, not covered (screened for the first
year to reduce insect, rodent, and aesthetic problems),
Cell 7: 8 ft. deep, shredded, not covered,
Cell 8: 8 ft. deep, unprocessed, covered immediately.
In July of 1975, cells 3 and 4 received an additional 4 feet of
shredded refuse each (100 tons). The monitoring data had been indicat-
ing that these two cells were stable, so any changes in decomposition
patterns occurring after July, 1975, should be the result of the addi-
tional lifts. The second lift of cell 3 was covered with soil; whereas,
cell 4 was not covered. The second lifts were compacted and sloped as
were the first lifts to the runoff collection gutters. Because of the
prior amount of settling of the first lifts, almost three sides of each
of the second lifts remained below the concrete walls. Plywood sheets
were adequate to contain the refuse on the fourth sides.
Data collected each month included precipitation, runoff, and leach-
ate volumes to allow determination of the water budget, and gas composi-
tion, refuse temperature, and various leachate composition tests to monitor
the decomposition and contaminant production processes. Settlement and
moisture content measurements were also taken. Leachate quality tests
consisted of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), specific conductance, pH,
calcium hardness, total hardness, alkalinity, chloride, iron, ammonia
nitrogen, organic nitrogen, total ammonium nitrogen, nitrate plus nitrate
nitrogen, and total and soluble phosphate.
10
-------
Figure 3. Test cell being filled with unprocessed solid waste.
-------
All chemical tests were run on settled samples (30 min. settling)
of leachate in accordance with "Standard Methods" (2), as discussed in
more detail in reference (1). Settled samples were found to be necessary
to avoid random variations resulting from sample particulate contents
which were, in turn, dependent on hose location during sampling. Samples
for analysis were taken from approximately the mid-point as leachate col-
lected in the reservoirs in each cell was pumped out at least monthly for
quantity determination. Liquid volumes were determined by pumping leach-
ate or runoff into large calibrated tanks, and precipitation data was
obtained from a U.S. Weather Bureau Station located in the immediate
vicinity. Gas analysis was done with a Fisher Gas Partitioner, Model
25V. Gases were sampled by suction through the bottom portion of gal-
vanized steel pails, perforated to allow gas flow, and inverted and
placed in the refuse. This system collapsed or plugged occasionally,
especially in the deep cells as upper layers of refuse settled. Re-
placement probes were constructed of 1-inch steel pipe, threaded to a
conically-shaped steel driving point which was drilled out to allow
gas collection radially. Gases were sucked through the holes in the
driving point, through copper tubing attached directly to the point
and running the length of the pipe and into the suction collection
vessel system- Gases were collected in 250 ml glass gas sampling
flasks connected via rubber tubing to the pail or point in the landfill.
Suction was provided by an electric vacuum pump, protected by a trap
flask, and operated with a portable generator. Initial testing and
periodic verification determined that 45 seconds at a vacuum of 5 psi
was adequate to purge the system, as discussed in reference (1). This
testing involved the filling of multiple flasks after purge times rang-
ing from 0 to 120 seconds and noting the time necessary to safely purge
air from the system.
Refuse temperature and moisture content was measured with Model MC360
Standard Moisture Cells, and read with a model MC300A soil moisture ohmeter,
both manufactured by Soiltest, Inc., of Baraboo, Wisconsin. Moisture
determination is based on the resistance between two metal plates in the
probe. Temperatures were obtained by use of a thermocouple incorporated
in each probe.
The most pertinent data is presented in two forms: graphical and
tabular. One can identify trends and patterns of the various cells better
by viewing the graphs. The tables are given to provide accurate, detailed
results.
Since the two sets of cells were constructed during different years,
one has to be careful in comparing cells 1 through 4 to cells 5 through 8,
because they have been subjected to somewhat different weather conditions
during the years of monitoring. This potential error becomes progressively
less important as the years of monitoring increase.
12
-------
SECTION 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
WATER BALANCE
Special care was taken in construction to insure that no water
could leak through the bottom or sides of each cell. Thus, all pre-
cipitation had to run off the sloped surface of each cell, infiltrate
into the surface of the cell and percolate downward, or evapotranspirate.
Water which infiltrates into a cell will raise the moisture content
gradually of each layer of solid waste until the waste is at field capacity,
at which point additional infiltration will result in water leaving that
layer and flowing downward to the next layer, etc. This process continues
until the entire cell is at field capacity and produces leachate regularly.
Water leaving a volume of solid waste in this fashion is called leachate.
Theoretically, no leachate would be collected from a solid waste mass (or
lysimeter cell) until all of the waste is at field capacity.
There are complications in this simplified concept of water flow in
solid waste, such as non-uniform wetting characteristics of different
wastes, the rapid flow of water through voids in the solid waste (chan-
neling), and the effect of capillary action. This is true especially
during the early stages after waste placement before field capacity and
stable conditions are achieved. However, the long-term flow can be
described simply by the following equation:
Precipitation = runoff + evapotranspiration + leachate.
Complications due to non-uniform solid waste wetting characteristics
and channeling give rise to non-uniform movement of the moisture front
downward through the solid waste, resulting in steadily increasing amounts
of leachate collected at the bottom as more and more of the solid waste
reaches field capacity. Once field capacity is achieved, leachate is
produced routinely and will be a function of incident precipitation and
surface drying conditions, varying in amount according to precipitation
after some lag period. Channeling would be expected to reduce water-
solid waste contact, thereby resulting in lower leaching contaminant
concentrations through lack of contact. Conversely, channeling can
increase concentrations temporarily through a flushing action, depending
on the situation. Complications in the simple water flow model due to
capillary action arise when capillary forces move water against the
forces of gravity. In the case of these test cells, such action would
tend to hold more moisture than normal in the upper portions of the
landfill, thereby increasing evapotranspiration. The use of the crushed
stone underdrain to facilitate leachate flow to the collection reservoir
would tend to accentuate this effect; whereas, the use of moderately-
permeable cover soil (sandy-silt) and deeper cells would tend to reduce
the effect of capillary action, in not releasing moisture to lower layers
of less capillary pull (moisture tension), on the water balance.
13
-------
Precipitation
Cumulative precipitation from the beginning of the experiment
through June, 1977, is given in Figure 4 (also Table A-l). Two scales
are presented in Figure 4. The outer scale is for cells 1 through 4
which were constructed in mid-September, 1970. The inner scale is for
cells 5 through 8 which were constructed in mid-August, 1972. Of
importance is increased precipitation amounts for the latter part of
September, 1970, when cells 1 through 4 were being constructed and,
also, for the latter part of August, 1972, when cells 5 through 8
were being constructed. Note that the spring months of March to May
typically have a high amount of rainfall. Of significance, also, is
the unusually large amount of precipitation in the spring of 1973,
and the spring and summer of 1975. Rainfall, in the spring of 1973 was
especially heavy and had a major impact on the data, as will be
observed later. Note, also, the lack of precipitation in 1976.
Runoff
Theoretically, the flow of water should be controlled by the surface
characteristics of each cell. The cells which were covered should have
similar water flows and the cells which were not covered would be expected
to act alike, but quite differently from the covered cells. The runoff
and leachate volume data, Figures 5 and 6 (Table A-2) and (Table A-3),
respectively, show such a result. (Note that a tabular presentation of
the data, expressed as percentages of precipitation resulting in leach-
ate, runoff, and evapotranspiration (by difference) will be presented
in Table 1 for each cell for each year. This table will be discussed
after the general discussion of Figures 5 and 6.)
Figure 5 and Table A-2 indicate that the rate of runoff was affected
primarily by whether cover was or was not applied to the cells. The major
fluctuations in the amount of runoff for individual cells were due to
freezing conditions in the winter, thawing conditions in spring, and
periods of more or less precipitation. The intensity and duration of
precipitation were factors influencing the routing of precipitation
to runoff and, in turn, the amount infiltrated into the cells. Runoff
was observed immediately from the covered cells and continued at about
the same rate over most of the testing period. The cells without cover
exhibited a lag period after construction before runoff was produced,
during which cell surfaces were being wetted. They also displayed a
low but slowly increasing rate of runoff over the first several years.
The covered cells did not exhibit any such trend with time. After a
period of about four years, the covered and uncovered cells had similar
runoff rates. This was probably due to the surface characteristics of
the shredded uncovered cells which changed from that of absorptive
shredded paper initially to a soil-like material as decomposition took
place. The occurrence of volunteer vegetation on the cells caused both
the covered and uncovered cells to have low runoff rates and, also,
helped camouflage any differences in soil/refuse surface characteristics
with time.
14
-------
550-
500-
FIG. 4
CUMULATIVE PRECIPITATION ( cm )
15
-------
M
C
rt
in
3
o
rt
ra
-o
ui
h_
01
o
z
DC
*MAY BE UNRELIABLE
ADDITIONAL REFUSE
ADDED
ADDITIONAL REFUSE ADDED
OJAJOJAJOJAJOJ AJOJAJOJAJQ A
1974 | 1975
FIG.5
RUNOFF VOLUME ( liters/day )
-------
**474 677**
t*
* MAY BE UNRELIABLE
** UNRELIABLE - VALUE INDICATED
IS TOO HIGH
CELL 3 COVEREC
No. 3
ADDITIONAL REFUSE ADDED
ADDITIONAL REFUSE ADDED
OJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJ AJOJA
FIG.6
LEACHATE VOLUME ( liters/day )
17
-------
Table 1. Water Budget
Gate-
Period gory
1970a 1
2
3
1971 1
2
1972b
1973
Includ.
March-
May
-excl .
March-
May
1974
1975°
1976d
19776
TOTAL
incl .
1973
Mar -May
-excl .
1973
Mar. -May
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Cell 1
2.4
5.0
92.6
14.7
12.6
72.7
4.6
26.5
68.9
5.8
46.5
47.7
8.1
30.6
61.3
6.7
21.8
71.5
4.3
11.8
83.9
5.1
18.8
76.1
6.5
22.9
70.6
6.9
19.0
74.1
Cell 2
1.7
5.2
93.1
14.4
15.6
70.7
7.2
26.9
65.9
6.6
33.9
59.5
7.8
32.1
60.1
7.5
24.8
67.7
4.8
17.1
78.1
2.3
27.6
70.1
7.1
23.2
69.7
7.3
22.1
70.6
Cell 3
0.0
2.1
97.9
9.0
21.2
69.8
7.1
24.9
68.0
6.2
24.8
69.0
8.6
24.6
66.8
8.3
15.7
76.0
8.2
10.8
81.0
15.8
14.7
69.5
8.8
7.6
83.6
8.2
17.2
74.6
8.6
16.6
74.8
Cell 4
0.0
2.3
97.7
0.3
21.8
77.9
2.7
29.3
68.0
3.2
25.0
71.8
3.4
25.9
70.7
3.1
15.0
81.9
3.6
8.5
87.9
4.9
16.4
78.7
3.2
10.1
86.7
2.8
17.8
79.4
2.8
17.4
79.8
Cell 5
2.0
3.4
94.6
3.1
23.4
73.5
3.3
24.6
72.1
2.9
19.6
77.5
3.6
5.4
91.0
4.0
6.4
89.6
3.1
13.8
83.1
3.2
12.8
84.0
^ **
Cell 6
2.2
3.3
94.5
3.3
13.9
82.8
5.0
16.7
78.3
3.8
8.7
87.5
3.9
2.6
93.5
4.3
3.4
92.3
3.6
7.3
89.1
3.9
6.9
89.2
f\ -I -| "T
Cell 7
1.8
0.8
97.4
4.9
28.5
66.6
5.7
16.3
78.0
3.2
24.2
72.6
2.7
17.0
80.3
3.2
36.4
60.4
2.9
37.9
59.2
3.3
24.2
72.5
3.2
22.0
74 R
p_ -in Q
Le I I o
7.1
0.1
92.8
11.4
17.2
71.4
16.2
7.9
75.9
16.3
20.2
63.5
12.5
16.3
71.2
8.5
34.0
57.5
8.0
25.8
66.2
11.7
19.1
69.2
12.4
18.0
69.6
a) September to December.
b) August to December for Cells 4-8.
c) New lifts added to Cells 3 & 4.
d) January to May for Cells 1-2;
January to June for Cells 5-6.
e) January to June.
1) Runoff.
2) Leachate.
3) Evapotranspiration (or, initially, water uptake).
18
-------
Cell 3 acted similar to cell 4 until it was covered 6 months after
construction, after which it became more like cells 1 and 2. Using
shredded refuse as cover over unprocessed refuse (cell 5) gave similar
runoff rate results as unprocessed refuse without cover (cell 6). Of
interest is that when additional refuse was added to cells 3 and 4 in
July, 1975, cell 3 showed an increase in runoff but cell 4 did not,
indicating again that cover controls runoff rates. Runoff rates appear
to be independent of depth and whether the refuse was shredded or unpro-
cessed, and depend primarily on surface characteristics.
As noted in Figure 5 (Table A-2), the readings recorded for March
through May of 1973 are not realistic. The exceptionally heavy rainfall
during this period destroyed the tank system used for runoff collection,
washed out portions of the cells's surfaces, and was, thereby* channeled
back into the cells to be measured as leachate. An extensive rewornng
of the runoff collection system followed this period, and subsequent
data is valid. The actual runoff for the data points marked with a
star was, therefore, higher than the values shown. A similar problem
also occurred for cells 4, 5, and 6 in April and May, 1974, and also
for cell 2 in February, 1976, when the gutter was broken, resulting in
runoff probably flowing into the leachate system and giving low runoff
values. It should be noted that considerable effort is necessary, and
was expended, to maintain the condition of the cell surfaces and gutter/
collection tank system. Washouts of soil cover, cave-ins of collection
tank pits, settling of gutters, etc., occurred periodically, and unavoid-
ably affected some of the data. On the other hand, such failures were
normally repaired quickly, depending on the availability of equipment
and personnel on short notice, so the data is felt to be valid except
for the periods noted.
Leachate
The leachate production rates (Figure 6, Table A-3) appear to be
very seasonal. They reached peak values in late spring or early summer
and approached zero during the late fall and winter months. The peak
values can be attributed to spring thaws and the large amounts of rain-
fall generally occurring at this time. During the winter months, the
cells still produced some leachate but at a very reduced rate.' This
can be explained by the fact that the surfaces of the cells were frozen,
thereby inhibiting flow of water into the cells to produce leachate.
Warmth of the cells, especially during the earlier years, led to some
melting at the surfaces throughout the winter.
In looking at all the cells, it appears that approximately 5 to 6
months were typically required before a significant amount of leachate
was produced. Even though refuse moisture content was measured for the
incoming refuse during construction, the fact that both periods of
construction happened to be periods of unusually high rainfaill means
that the moisture content at the beginning of monitoring may have been
close to field capacity. Also, because of difficulties associated with
winter freezing conditions, it is difficult to determine infiltration
and, therefore, water uptake by the cells in order to reach field capacity
For these reasons, no calculations will be made here attempting to compare
the predicted onset of regular leachate production (using refuse tonnage,
moisture content, field capacity, and precipitation data) with leachate
volume data. Such calculations are presented for related portions of the
initial demonstration project in reference (1).
19
-------
The curves for the volume of leachate for cells 1 and 2 are very
similar throughout the testing period. Cell 1 appears to have a
slightly greater tendency to fluctuate in leachate volume than cell 2.
Cell 4 had a greater leachate production than cell 2 for the first few
years, after which the cells reversed, with cell 2 producing leachate
at a greater rate. The leachate production rate for cell 3 tends to be
somewhere in between that for cells 1 and 2 except for the extraordinary
amount of leachate squeezed out of this cell by heavy machinery when
cover was applied after six months. The first point of each curve for
cells 1 to 4 is abnormally high because of rains while the cells were
under construction.
The additional refuse added to cells 3 and 4 in July, 1975, resulted
in somewhat decreased amounts of leachate produced as the new refuse took
up moisture. The high value for cell 4 in July, 1975, was due to leach-
ate being squeezed out of the cell by heavy machinery used to place the
additional waste.' This effect was not as noticeable in cell 3, probably
because of the effect of the cover originally applied to the first 4
feet of refuse 6 months after its construction.
Cell 5 appears, after a couple of years, to be tapering off to low
leachate production rates. This is due in part to lower amounts of pre-
cipitation during this period and to the increasing importance of surface
vegetation. This cell compares well with cell 4 which also had a shredded
refuse surface without cover soil.
Cell 6 (unprocessed refuse without soil cover) shows a constant low
leachate production rate throughout the monitoring period. One might
have expected more leachate from this cell than the others because of
rapid channeling; however, apparently because of good compaction and the
high potential for evaporation, this cell actually exhibited the lowest
rate of leachate production of all the cells.
The two deep cells (cells 7 and 8) tended to produce leachate at
greater rates and fluctuated more than the other cells. The reason for
this is not known, but differences related to capillary action, density,
smoothness of cell surfaces, and settlement to allow ponding on the
surfaces could be responsible.
Points marked with one or two stars in Figure 6 deserve special
mention. Because of problems discussed previously during periods of
high rainfall (in the section on runoff), the values shown for leach-
ate volume are probably too high. This is especially true for the
points marked with two stars. Any runoff circumventing the runoff
collection system or passing through breaks in washouts in the cell
surfaces would be measured as leachate.
Overall Water Balance
Water balances are indicated for the cells in Table 1 in such a
way that trends from year to year as well as overall summaries for the
monitoring period can be observed. Because of errors introduced in
the spring of 1973, the data is presented in a way both to include and
exclude this period. Note that all the cells had high amounts of
20
-------
apparent evapotranspiration and low amounts of runoff and leachate for
the first four to five months. This is due to the fact that the cells
had yet to achieve field capacity and most of the moisture was being
absorbed by the refuse and any soil cover. Since evapotranspiration
was calculated by difference, moisture uptake is included in the evapo-
transpiration figures. Also, those cells without cover had reduced
runoff and increased evaporation at first due to the relatively loose
and undecomposed refuse at the surface during this period.
Table 1 indicates once again that the covered cells had a higher
percent runoff in comparison with the uncovered cells. Cell 3, which
was leveled, covered with soil, and compacted again six months after
initial placement, exhibited the highest percent runoff of the 4 ft cells.
By being leveled again after six months, the problem of ponding due to
settlement of the cell's surface was reduced. The cells without soil
cover show a higher percent evapotranspiration than the comparable
covered cells (cells 4, 5, and 6 vs 1, 2, and 3; also cells 7 vs 8).
As pointed out previously, the presence of refuse in general, but paper
particles in particular, on the surfaces of the uncovered cells appar-
ently promoted evaporation. Also, it was noted that vegetation (volun-
teer) appeared more quickly, and seemed more dense, with the uncovered
cells. This would increase transpiration in later years over the
covered cells.
Cell 8 had the highest percent runoff of all the cells. This is
because this cell was covered and because it was constructed in the
second set, so experience gained in constructing cells 1 to 4 resulted
in a smoother, more correctly sloped surface. Aside from this fact,
the water balances for the two 8 ft cells (7 and 8) are reasonably
close to their 4 ft counterparts, cells 4 and 1, respectively, until
cell 1 was discontinued or the new lift was added to cell 4.
The increased amount of runoff obtained by applying soil cover was
compensated in part by the decreased amount of evapotranspiration ob-
tained by the use of cover, resulting in a mixed effect on the volume of
leachate produced. In general, the cells without cover produced more
leachate for the first year or two, but gradually produced less as a
result of aging effects, resulting in less leachate during the later
years. Using results from comparable cell pairs over the entire moni-
toring period, the effect of lack of soil cover on shredded refuse with
the shallow cells was to decrease the amount of leachate by 23% (cells 2
and 4) but for the deep cells it was to increase leachate by 27% (cells 7
and 8). With shallow unprocessed refuse, the absence of cover decreased
leachate production by 68% (cells 1 and 6). Comparing all covered cells
(1, 2, 3, 8) and all cells without cover (4, 5, 6, 7), the covered cells
produced 20.6% of the incident precipitation as leachate, while the cells
without cover produced only 15.8%, both figures resulting from the entire
period of monitoring. At first glance it appears that soil cover actually
promoted leachate production, but this statement must be tempered by aging
effects, and in this case by the results from the deep cells.
21
-------
The water balance results for the covered cells in Table 1 are
reasonable in comparison with published water balance data. Runoff
coefficients for flat (0 to 5% slope) sandy loam with vegetation are
quoted as 0.10 in reference (3), increasing to 0.30 for a clay and
silt loam. Overall figures for the percentage of precipitation mea-
sured as runoff for the covered cells over the entire period of mon-
itoring averaged 8.8%, including periods of freezing conditions. The
agreement is satisfactory, considering the fact that the actual cover
material is thought to have been somewhat finer than sandy loam, and
that freezing conditions were included in the overall figures. The
same reference indicates a general range in water consumption of 22
to 60 inches per year for "meadow grass", which is probably compar-
able to the mixed spontaneous vegetation arising on the cell surfaces.
The average evapotranspiration rate for all cells over the entire
period of monitoring was 23.5 inches per year.
Summary on Hater Balance
In summary, it was the top surface of each cell which played a
major role in determining the water balance for that cell. There was
a direct relationship between whether or not a cell was covered and
the percent of precipitation becoming runoff or evapotranspiration,
where cover increased runoff, but decreased evapotranspiration by
approximately the same amount. The percentage of precipitation becom-
ing leachate also appears to have been related to the presence of
cover, but the relationship is not that clear. Thus, for example,
the unprocessed refuse cells with soil cover had approximately the
same amount of leachate as the shredded refuse cells without cover,
but the former had more runoff and less evapotranspiration than the
latter, especially during the first few years of monitoring. As
vegetation grew, and the refuse decomposed, the water balances for
the shredded uncovered cells became similar to those of the unprocessed
covered cells.
LEACHATE QUALITY
Many leachate analyses were performed on a routine basis for this
project. In setting up a list of such analyses, it is natural to make
a comprehensive list, multiplying the cost and labor requirements in
the process. At the outset of this project, it was decided to limit
the number of analyses to those felt to be most important in themselves,
or most indicative of a class of substances which would be too time con-
suming to monitor separately. Of the analyses run routinely, three will
be considered in some detail in this section. The COD will be used as
an indicator of the organic content of leachate, the specific conductance
as an indicator of the dissolved inorganic matter, and the pH will be
considered primarily as it relates to the decomposition process. The
other results will be deemphasized for this discussion, but will be
presented in full for information purposes.
22
-------
It is important to note that all leachate samples were allowed to
settle prior to analysis to avoid variations in quality due to sampling,
and to approximate more closely the quality of leachate leaving a land-
fill where some filtering of solid matter would take place. A build-up
of solids in the leachate collection reservoir led to variable amounts
of solid matter in the samples depending on how the sampling hose happened
to lay in the reservoir. Even though the reservoirs had provision for
flushing of solids, a settling procedure in the laboratory was felt to be
necessary to even the effect of variable solids contents in samples.
Interrelationships Between Curves and
Initial Discussion of Cells 1-4
Prior to presentation and discussion of detailed leachate quality
data, and discussion of changes in leachate quality as functions of
shredding, covering, depth, and second lifts, it is useful to consider
interrelationships between leachate volume and indicators of leachate
quality. It is also useful to initiate discussion of the effects of
shredding and soil cover by direct reference to these interrelationships
and key data curves. To facilitate discussion of such interrelationships,
Figures 7 through 10, combine the leachate volume, COD concentration, and
pH data for cells 1 through 4, respectively. It would have aided the dis-
cussion to have included specific conductance data on these figures,
also, but this would have made the figures too complex for easy reference.
It is suggested that the reader refer to Figure 12 (to be presented
later) if it is desired to refer to specific conductance curves in the
discussion to follow. The fact that the shapes of the specific conduc-
tance curves are similar to those of the COD concentration curves will
make direct comparison unnecessary for most readers at this time.
It is appropriate to first consider theoretical reasons for the
relationships observed between the COD, specific conductance, and pH
curves. The curve shapes correspond to a degradation seauence in which
aerobic microorganisms initiate decomposition, producing C02, heat,
and some products of decomposition. These products of decomposition
are for the most part held within the refuse, for the refuse has gen-
erally not yet reached field capacity. As oxygen is exhausted, the
first stage of anaerobic decomposition becomes dominant, in which
facultative anaerobic microorganisms decompose organic matter to C02
and other products of decomposition, which include organic acids. The
result is leachate of low pH containing large amounts of partially
degraded organic matter. The COD rises, the pH falls, and in the pro-
cess, inorganic matter is dissolved and the specific conductance is
increased. When proper conditions exist, including no oxygen, reason-
able pH levels, strongly reducing redox potential, reasonable tempera-
ture, adequate substrate and nutrients, lack of toxic substances, etc.,
second-stage anaerobic decomposition begins in which organic matter is
more completely degraded to CH4 and C02 and possibly some refractory
organic compounds. This is accompanied by an increase in pH as organic
acids are utilized, a reduction in specific conductance due to the pH
change, and a decrease in COD as CH4 is formed.
23
-------
CO
CO
o
UJ
X
a.
u
z
CO
UJ
-------
o
ro
en
* MAY BE UNRELIABLE
LEACHATE VOLUME
Ul
X
u
UJ
0 J AJ OJ AJOJAJOJ AJ OJAJOJAJOJ AJ
I 1971 I 1972 I 1973 I 1974 ! 1975 I 1976 I 1977
FIG. 8 CELL 2 LEACHATE VOLUME-COD CONCENTRATION - pH
(SHREDDED, COVERED IMMEDIATELY)
-------
o
z
ro
01
LEACHATE VOLUME
ADDITIONAL REFUSE
FIG. 9 CELL 3 LEACHATE VOLUME-COD CONCENTRATION- pH
(SHREDDED, COVERED AFTER 6 MONTHS, NEW LIFT OF SHREDDED, COVERED IMMEDIATELY)
-------
o
X- MAY BE UNRELIABLE
r\>
CO
CO
o
oe
0.
uj
o
CO
UJ
C9
<
K
UJ
O
^
to
K
111
UJ
5
UJ
I
UJ
400,
300_
200_
I00_
LEACHATE VOLUME
ADDITIONAL REFUSE
OJ AJ OJAJOJ A J OJ AJ 0 J AJOJ A J 0 J A J
o
u.
o
to
o
z
<
CO
3
o
I
30 --
i-
4
Ct
I-
z
UJ
o
o
o
Q
O
O
FIG. 10 CELL 4 LEACHATE VOLUME-COD CONCENTRATION - pH
(SHREDDED, NOT COVERED; NEW LIFT OF SHREDDED,NOT COVERED)
-------
In addition to biological decomposition with its sequential stages
of development, physical and chemical mechanisms also give rise to
refuse decomposition and leachate contamination. Whereas the release
of organic substances in leachate is generally thought to be a function
of biological processes for the most part, inorganics are leached pre-
dominantly by physical and chemical processes. Physical leaching is
the rinsing of matter from refuse by the physical movement of water.
Chemical leaching is primarily the dissolution of matter by leachate.
Chemical leaching becomes more important at lower (acidic) pH levels;
hence, the relationship between pH and specific conductance curves is
indicated. Large changes in leachate flow, as during very wet periods,
can upset any of the biological processes but can also result in increased
physical leaching, increasing both organic and inorganic concentrations
in leachate.
Except for the leachate volume curves in Figures 7-10, which are
quite similar to each other in keeping with the earlier discussion on
water balances, it is clear that two distinct patterns of decomposition
occurred with these four cells. Cells 1 and 2, which were covered
immediately after waste placement, exhibited acidic but generally rising
leachate pH levels and high COD concentrations over the first three
years. This was followed by a transition period of perhaps one year
and then two years of generally neutral pH and low COD concentrations.
In contrast, cell 4 (not covered), and to a lesser extent cell 3
(covered after six months), experienced a short period of approximately
one year during which acidic pH levels and high COD concentrations were
produced, followed by a transition period of one year. The transition
period gave way to a three-year period characterized by the production
of leachate of basically neutral pH and low COD concentrations which
was ended when additional refuse was added. Apparently, the immediate
application of cover soil upon completion of waste placement in cells 1
and 2 resulted in a longer period of highly contaminated leachate pro-
duction before what will be termed "stabilization" occurred.* Con-
versely, the lack of soil cover in cell 4 resulted in a short period
of active leaching followed quickly by attainment of low levels of
leachate strength, or stabilization.
The observation that the presence or lack of soil cover was the
determining factor is borne out by the decomposition pattern of cell 3,
which was covered after six months. Its general pattern is between
those of the covered and uncovered cells, as might be expected. Appar-
ently, the fact that this cell was not covered initially somehow set
the decomposition pattern to be more like the uncovered cell 4 in that
it approached stabilization quickly, as did cell 4. Cell 3, however,
never exhibited the steady low COD concentrations and neutral pH levels
of cell 4. Even 4 and 5 years after covering, cell 3 had a tendency
*For the purposes of this report, stabilization will refer to a
steady state of decomposition during which leachate of minimal contami-
nant concentrations is produced except for short term pulses resulting
from an occasional major climatic event, such as a major rainfall, etc
This term does not imply that the solid waste is stabilized or inert,
but that the degree of waste stabilization and the maturity of the
decomposition processes are such that relatively uncontaminated leach-
ate is produced.
28
-------
to react to climatic events with elevated COD concentrations and acidic
pH levels, as did the covered cells 1 and 2, but the curve fluctuations
were not as dramatic as with cells 1 and 2. Cell 4, on the other hand,
showed clearly an ability to withstand climatic events such as seasonal
changes and heavy rainfalls with minimal departure from the low COD
concentrations and neutral pH levels which characterized the leachate it
produced during this period.
Initial indications of the effect of shredding the solid waste on
leachate composition are obtained by comparing the COD and pH curves of
cells 1 and 2, Figures 7 and 8. It is observed that the curve shapes
are similar, but that the shredded solid waste cell, number 2, exhibited
more acidic pH levels and higher COD concentrations than cell 1. The
shredding process, which increases particle surface area and homogenizes
the waste, apparently resulted in a more highly contaminated leachate,
which was generally approximately double the COD concentrations of the
unprocessed cell. In considering all three of the shredded solid waste
cells, 2 through 4, the typical COD concentrations achieved during the
periods of most activity are generally in the 25,000 mg/1 range, which
was considerably higher than the 10,000 mg/1 range typical of cell 1
during its period of active COD production. It is concluded that the
presence of soil cover prolongs the period of production of highly con-
taminated leachate, and that shredding of the waste increases the con-
centration of the leachate produced during this period.
In comparing the leachate volume with the COD, specific conductance,
and pH curves, it appears that leachate quality was related to leachate
flow, where changes in leachate flow were followed quickly by changes in
leachate quality. Thus, an increase in flow resulted in increased levels
of contaminants in the leachate. In the late fall and winter, when pre-
cipitation was frozen and remained on the cell surfaces, high pH and low
COD and specific conductance levels were common. Heavy rains in the
spring and summer, and spring thaws caused high leachate flow rates,
and low pH and high COD and specific conductance levels were observed.
This phenomenon can be explained by oxygen being carried by heavy
infiltration into the cells, temporarily disrupting methane production,
or by the physical movement or flushing of partially degraded organic
and inorganic matter by the rapid flow of water, thereby reducing the
opportunity for treatment of materials present in the leachate. The
effect of large amounts of rainfall is particularly noticeable in the
spring of 1973 in the pH, COD, and specific conductance curves of cells
1 and 2. Cells 3 and 4 were sufficiently stabilized by this time to handle
the rainfall with little effect on leachate composition.
It should be noted that just because leachate strength is relatively
low for a "stabilized" cell, the refuse cannot be considered stabilized
or inert. Apparently, a leaching-leachate treatment equilibrium is
established during which the rate of leaching or addition of new organic
matter to leachate passing through a refuse mass is balanced by the rate
of decomposition of such matter. The concept of leachate treatment is
borne out by data from the last two years of monitoring cells 3 and 4,
for example, in which treatment or attentuation of leachate arising from
new upper or second lifts by passage through the older, apparently well-
stabilized lower lifts was observed. The lower lifts acted as trickling
29
-------
filters, able to treat or attenuate organic matter (COD) but not inorganic
matter (specific conductance). This will be discussed in more detail
later. The disruption of any leaching-leachate treatment equilibrium is
one of the mechanisms by which leachate flow rate can affect leachate
quality.
COD Concentration
The concentrations of COD for all eight cells are given graphically
in Figure 11 and numerically in Table A-4. There appears to be a tendency
on the part of all cells to produce higher COD concentrations during the
later winter or spring. As discussed previously, this is a result of
more water movement at such times due to winter thaws and spring rains,
and to upsets in any biological equilibria established by water flow or
temperature changes during these periods. The results from all eight
cells support the conclusion reached in the previous section that shredded
refuse produced leachate with higher peak COD concentrations than unpro-
cessed refuse. In general, the 4-foot shredded refuse cells (2, 3, and 4)
had peak COD concentrations of approximately 30,000 mg/1. The unprocessed
refuse cells (1 and 6) had variable peak COD levels, where cell 1 peaked at
approximately 15,000 mg/1 and cell 6 had a one-sample peak of close to
30,000 mg/1 but otherwise had considerably lower levels. Cell 5, with
one-third shredded and two-thirds unprocessed refuse, had generally higher
COD levels compared with cell 6 (unprocessed), and closely approximated
cell 4 (shredded). Comparing peak COD levels of the two 8-foot deep cells,
the shredded refuse cell 7 had a peak of 70,000 mg/1, while the unprocessed
refuse cell 8 had peaks of approximately 30,000 and more mg/1. The trend
is clearly for shredded refuse to produce leachate of approximately double
the peak COD concentrations of comparable unprocessed refuse cells.
The effect of soil cover is observed by comparing cells 2 and 4
(shredded refuse) and 1 and .6 (unprocessed refuse). The application of
soil cover increased markedly the period over which elevated COD concen-
trations in the leachate were produced. The difference became particu-
larly obvious as the ages of the cells increased up to the time general
stabilization occurred. Cell 3, to which soil cover was applied 6 months
after construction, appears to correspond more to cell 4 which was never
covered than to cell 2 which was covered immediately.
The uncovered cells (cells 4, 5, and 6) show high COD concentration
values soon after the onset of leachate production, followed by rapid
stabilization of the refuse or modification of leachate quality so as to
reduce the COD to consistently low levels. The period of active leaching
was less than a year in each case, excluding short periods of elevated
but decreasing COD concentrations during subsequent years. The covered
cells (cells 1 and 2, excluding cell 3 which was dovered after six
months) produced fluctuating COD concentrations which declined slowly
over a period of 3 to 4 years to low, but not consistently low, levels
30
-------
No I
OJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJA
FIG.
LEACHATE COD CONCENTRATION ( thousands of mg/l)
31
-------
The same effect of covering may be observed in the deep cells,
7 and 8. The covered cell 8 has a curve which remains at the same
general level of approximately 30,000 mg/1 for the last four and one-
half years of monitoring, and as of the close of the project showed
no clear indication of reducing to a lower level. In contrast, cell 7
reduced steadily from the peak COD level of 70,000 mg/1 over the period
of monitoring. At the end of the project the trend was continuing, and
the level had reached 10,000 mg/1. It is clear from the COD data from
all of the test cells that the effect of covering refuse immediately was
to prolong the period of elevated COD concentrations in the leachate for
the two depths tested, for both shredded and unprocessed refuse.
COD concentration was a function of depth, as can be observed by
comparing cells 4 and 7 for shredded uncovered and cells 1 and 8 for
unprocessed covered refuse. In both cases, the 8-foot cells exhibited
more than double the typical COD concentrations of comparable 4-foot
cells. Further, the period of elevated COD concentration was extended
considerably with the deeper cells. The change in both the typical
peak COD concentrations and the period over which such concentrations
are produced appears to be more of a geometric function with depth than
a linear one. This is based on limited data because only two depths
were constructed; however, the fact that both sets of cells showed the
same effect of depth lends weight to the observation.
The effect of adding a second Ijft identical to the ..first is
observed in cells 3 and 4. The COD curves for both cells had stabilized
at low levels by the time another 100 tons (91 metric tons) of shredded
refuse was added, so any change in the curves can be attributed to the
addition of the new lifts. The second lift of cell 3 was covered with
soil; that of cell 4 was not. The COD concentration rose sharply in
cell 4 after the new lifts were added in July of 1975. The peak COD
level was approximately 14,000 mg/1 which was considerably lower than
the peak level of approximately 30,000 mg/1 noted for the original
lift. Also, the period during which elevated COD levels were produced
was considerably shorter than that recorded for the first lift. Addi-
tional refuse was also added to cell 3 at the same time, but the result-
ing COD data show no major effects of the second lift over the monitor-
ing period, with the curve remaining at low levels and having only minor
rises during the last winter/early spring. It appears from the data
that in both cells the lower, original lift was able to somehow treat
or attenuate the leachate arising from the new lift. Apparently, the
intermediate layer of cover soil in cell 3 improved the treatment
ability fo the first lift of cell 3 over that of the first lift of cell 4.
The soil could have been treating leachate itself, distributing or chang-
ing the leachate flow so the underlying refuse could better treat the
leachate, or it may have previously affected the decomposition pattern
in the first lift of refuse so it was better able to treat the leachate.
Attenuation of leachate by soil is a known fact and is thought to explain
at least part of the data observed here.
32
-------
Specific Conductance
Specific conductance data is given in Figure 12 (Table A-5). The
general comments made for the COD curves apply to the specific conduc-
tance curves as well, although the curve fluctuations with climatic
events and the differences between curves attributable to differences in
cell construction are not as sharply defined. This may be expected,
since specific conductance values of zero are unattainable, thereby
compressing changes at the lower end.
In general, the effects of shredding and covering were not as
great as with COD:, nor was the effect of depth. The major departure
from COD curve trends occurred when the second lift of refuse was added
to cells 3 and 4. The effect on the specific conductance curves is
more pronounced in the case of cell 4, suggesting that attentuation of
inorganics in leachate by refuse is not accomplished as readily as is
the treatment of organic matter. Apparently, the intermediate layer of
soil in cell 3 was particularly important for its ability to attentuate
inorganic matter (specific conductance).
As observed previously, the pH curves shown as Figure 13 (see
also, Table A-6), vary as the inverse of the COD and specific conduc-
tance curves. The shredded refuse cells produced slightly lower (more
acidic) minimum pH levels than the unprocessed refuse cells, which was
probably a result of the more rapid initial decomposition with shredded
refuse. The effect of soil cover was to prolong the production of low
pH levels.
Of special interest is the sharp rise in pH in the fall of 1976.
The only common factor shared by all the cells that could account for
this was the extreme lack of precipitation in 1976. Two mechanisms by
which these changes might be explained are as follows. First, as C02
is produced and rises upward to escape, some of it dissolves as it
encounters water, making the cells more acidic. As the cells dried out
during 1976, more C02 escaped to the atmosphere, increasing the pH of
whatever precipitation flowed into the body of the cell. The second
possibility is that as the cells became drier, the microorganisms became
less active which, in turn, reduced the amount of acidic materials (C02
and volatile acids) produced. This could have caused the cells to lose
some of their acidity. It is possible that the first mechanism, namely
the dissolution of C02 in cell moisture to lower general pH levels of
leachate, also explains the effect of soil cover in reducing pH levels
below those of the uncovered cells. Soil cover can retain moisture
and impair free venting of C02 to the atmosphere, thereby leading to
more intimate CO^-water contact and the observed effect on pH.
33
-------
OJ AJ OJAJOJ AJOJAJOJ AJOJ'AJQJA
1976
FIG.12
LEACHATE SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE ( thousands of micromhos/cm)
34
-------
7.0
6.0
70
6.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
8.0
7.0
6.0-
No. I
No. 2
No. 3
V
I
LU
u
No. 4
6.0
5.0 LL
OJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJA
| 1971 | 1972 | 1973 I 1974 | "75 | 1976 |
FIG.I3 LEACHATE pH
35
-------
Other Leachate Quality Parameters
Table 2 provides summaries of the other leachate quality data,
and Tables A-7 through A-17 provide specific results. Note that these
averages are simple arithmetic averages and are not weighted according
to leachate production. These data generally correspond to the curves
and discussion presented for COD, specific conductance, and pH. In par-
ticular, chloride concentrations follow the specific conductance curve
shaoes. Multivalent ion concentrations follow the specific conductance
curves also but are modified by pH level changes as well. The major dif-
ferences are the large decreases in phosphorus and nitrogen with time
for all cells except cell 8, which was previously noted to have been the
most actively leaching cell at the conclusion of monitoring. The reduc-
tion of nitrate-nitrite nitrogen to other forms followed the expected loss
of oxygen soon after placement of each cell. The reapparance of these
oxidized nitrogen forms later relates to increased availability of oxygen
as the refuse stabilized, at least periodically, and exhibited an oxygen
demand lower than the oxygen supply. This is probably a good indicator
of the degree of biological stabilization of a cell, although any observa-
tions must be tempered by the effect of differences in oxygen access in
the present set of cells (e.g., cell 6 in particular).
Shredding in itself increased the iron content of leachate. This is
undoubtedly related to the increased exposure of iron to leachate by
removal of paint from cans, etc., during shredding. The covering of
shredded refuse with soil promoted a more acidic pH, a higher organic
content, and, therefore, a higher iron concentration in the leachate.
The effect of organics was to form complexes, holding iron in solution,
while the effect of the acidic pH was to increase directly the solubil-
ity of iron.
Table 2 also provides leachate volume data for the periods corre-
sponding to the average concentrations for each parameter. If desired,
multiplying the average concentration of a parameter of interest by the
volume of leachate produced for that period will give release or produc-
tion figures for that parameter for the various cells. Note that the
result is close to being exact, but is not strictly correct because of
the way the averages were calculated.
Summary on Leachate Quality
In summarizing leachate quality data, the effect of shredding appears
to be that of reducing particle size and mixing the refuse, thereby
increasing the exposure of more of the refuse mass to active leaching
or decomposition. The result was more rapid decomposition, as shown
by higher COD and specific conductance, and lower pH levels during
the period of elevated leachate strength. The effect of cover was to
lengthen the period of elevated leachate concentrations. This effect
is more difficult to explain, but one possible explanation is that the
presence of cover may have caused more dissolution of C02 in infiltrat-*
ing precipitation. This would have reduced the activity of ChU formers
which are progressively less able to function as the pH drops below 6 '
to 6.5. The result would have been a relative lack of methane formation
36
-------
Component
Table 2. Average Concentrations for Specific
Leachate tests (Over Period Shown)
Cell 1970a 1971 1972b 1973 1974 1975 1976C 1977C
Calcium Hardness
(mg/1 CaCOj
O
Total Hardness
(mg/1 CaCOj
3
Alkalinity
(mg/1 CaCO,)
o
Chloride
(mg/1 Cl)
Iron
(mg/1 Fe)
}
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
908
4264
2680
1518
1636
5568
3932
2372
2009
5134
3855
2451
440
644
1056
725
70
296
138
116
813
3298
2784
1955
1335
4375
4141
3432
2037
4496
5444
5401
392
658
1146
1310
85
430
384
164
803
2122
832
627
1877
1297
8981
3188
1377
2948
1632
1414
3460
2119
12673
5088
2651
3954
3140
2724
6892
3980
10980
1558
552
707
735
580
1417
1166
2387
447
120
381
138
94
92
94
719
71
873
2156
689
508
1377
697
6098
2298
1426
3271
1305
968
2508
1427
9013
3521
2332
4579
2260
1384
5076
3580
9741
4686
405
706
386
143
1140
938
1587
817
175
581
99
64
109
29
739
275
568
920
599
760
843
414
4584
2599
940
1443
1014
1096
1406
745
5902
3911
1451
2289
1355
844
2158
1222
5425
5135
199
279
150
52
393
297
486
848
125
192
101
68
83
31
1092
434
501
791
616
691
857
503
3992
2618
848
1213
1027
1014
1216
830
5196
4187
1148
1700
1153
785
784
540
4806
5003
149
145
125
53
176
215
339
903
93
183
90
79
54
10
1130
487
862
996
758
2374
818
693
3653
3691
1436
1542
1272
4403
1219
1160
6783
7360
865
1105
1240
3909
551
346
4197
6164
173
135
219
1470
149
145
545
1171
150
216
55
92
21
14
1543
688
998
1997
1840
2866
1301
3846
3652
5108
971
2961
2138
4310
138
1185
222
750
122
66
288
320
September to December.
August to December for Cells 4-8.
cJanuary to May for Cells 1-2; January to June for Cells 5-6
January to June,
37
-------
Component
Table 2. (Continued)
Cell 19709 1971 1972b 1973 1974 1975 1976° 1977C
Ammonia-N
(mg/1 N)
Organic-N
(mg/1 N)
Ammonium-N
(mg/1 N)
Nitrate-N plus
Nitrite-N
(mg/1 N)
Total Phosphate
(mg/1 POJ
*T
Soluble Phosphate
(mg/1 POJ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
207
322
249
121
69
124
166
73
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
49.8
49.0
51.0
31.8
7.2
11.0
4.3
4.2
221
271
374
407
40
112
144
107
264
348
550
547
13.0
11.3
32.3
31.7
28.0
31.2
20.0
16.2
12.5
17.7
7.0
5.9
253
275
190
154
909
622
966
292
41
65
39
29
167
174
978
94
311
262
147
86
897
629
746
312 .
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
6.4
1.6
12.7
2.2
12.7
6.7
4.2
3.9
34.2
106.2
103.2
89.7
1.6
1.9
0.6
0.7
4.0
32.6
27.2
11.4
210
335
125
44
580
340
716
581
51
118
30
20
127
66
647
245
210
339
138
47
605
353
734
587
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.7
1.2
1.7
0.1
0.1
7.8
8.3
4.2
3.5
21.1
38.5
44.8
51.8
1.1
4.3
0.5
0.3
5.6
14.4
30.5
34.2
86
144
52
20
173
42
337
617
18
32
19
11
29
19
183
286
98
151
58
26
183
53
355
669
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
4.0
3.9
2.8
2.6
4.5
8.6
22.9
22.0
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
1.3
9.8
13.9
69
59
58
34
34
3
173
602
14
19
18
14
12
18
115
222
75
74
66
40
41
12
206
651
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
1.5
35.6
0.8
1.5
3.5
2.9
3.4
3.2
2.6
5.1
29.8
23.3
1.1
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.6
11.8
9.5
32
24
66
482
14
4
108
668
14
13
12
76
15
16
57
245
40
26
65
436
18
7
186
807
1.4
0.1
1.5
18.2
13.8
65.9
8.3
12.2
2.2
2.2
1.9
6.6
1.9
4.4
22.9
20.0
0.2
0.4
0.2
1.3
0.2
1.3
3.5
4.9
42
312
64
609
12
69
36
198
41
297
61
606
0.3
14.9
5.4
3.5
1.1
6.4
7.4
14.7
0.5
1.3
1.2
5.6
*No data.
(See footnote, previous page.)
38
-------
Component
Cell
Table 2. (Concluded)
1970s 1971 1972b 1973 1974 1975 1976° 197Vd
Leachate Volume
(liters)
including March-
May, 1973
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2256 14536 35325
2313 18087 35905
920 24556 33228
1026 25271 39005
2146
2116
488
61
69296
50596
36968
37332
35401
20933
43055
26010
33660
38308
24310
23178
30552
13578
37680
31487
17182
24878
15660
12329
7957
3736
24919
23897
10940
16084
12817
14332
3929
2086
33081
30828
4289
5652
21297
14502
*(See footnote, previous page.)
39
-------
continued acidic pH levels, and elevated COD and specific conductance
(as affected by pH) levels. The CH4 concentration data, to be pre-
sented later, will be seen to conform to this explanation.
Increased depth of refuse placed at one time increased the con-
centrations of contaminants in leachate and prolonged the period of
production. In comparing the results from cell 7 (8 ft refuse, one
lift) and cell 4 (same amount of refuse, 2 lifts), both shredded refuse
without cover, it is possible that the amount ot material present in
the leachate in cell 7 was simply too much (too acidic, probably) to
allow active methane formation. Thus, it may have been the cumulative
amount of actively decomposing material present in deeper cells land-
filled at one time which prevented maturation or stabilization of the
decomposition processes taking place in the refuse.
PRODUCTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN LEACHATE
The concentrations of the various contaminants are not as important
as the amounts of each contaminant in affecting ground or surface wate'r
quality. In Figure 14 (Table A-18), the leachate production rates and
COD concentrations are combined to give the COD production rates as the
average grams of COD produced per day since the last sampling. As men-
tioned previously, Table 2 can be used to calculate similar production
figures on a yearly basis for other leachate parameters.
The COD production rate is observed to be very seasonal", with peaks
in the late spring, similar to the leachate production rate. Shredding
appears to promote a higher production of COD when compared with other-
wise similar unprocessed refuse cells. The uncovered cells peaked with
respect to COD production within a year and tapered down to very low COD
production rates except for cell 7, the deep cell without cover. Cell 7
is declining in its COD production rate over time, but not at such a
rapid rate. This is apparently due to the influence of depth as dis-
cussed previously. The covered cells seem to have fluctuated more in
COD production rates than the uncovered cells. This is especially
true after the first year. The deep cells (cells 7 and 8) had very
high COD production rates and fluctuated widely over the testing period.
This is due to the strong influence of the high COD concentrations of
the deep cells.
In Table 3, the leachate volume and COD concentration data are
combined to give the kilograms of COD produced by each cell over the
specified periods of time. Because of the water balance problems from
March through May of 1973, as discussed earlier, the data in Table 3
is presented in such a way as to both include and exclude this period.
Cells 1 through 6 have all declined sharply with respect to COD produc-
tion, but the rate of decline varies from cell to cell. Cell 4 had a
significant increase in COD production after additional refuse was
added to it in 1975. However, cell 3 did not exhibit such a change
under similar circumstances. Cells 7 and 8 show very high production
of COD for the entire reporting period.
40
-------
No. I
M
C
u
C
'!/>
o
o
-o
C
M
n
O
a
o
oc
a.
a
o
u
OJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJ
| 1971 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1975 | 1976 |
FIG. 14 COD PRODUCTION (g.COD / day average since last sampling)
41
-------
Table 3. Production of CODSummary of Data
(Total Production of COD during period in kg)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7,, Cell 8
1970a
1971
1972b
1973
incl
March-
May
excl
March-
May
1974
1975
1976C
1977d
TOTAL
incl
March-
May
1973
excl
March-
May
1973
22.1 34.6
116.8 318.7
199.7 394.3
594.3 854.6
75.6 264.4
61.8 95.7
12.0 77.1
7.5 28.0
COD PRODUCED
1014.2 1803.0
495.5 1212.8
13.8
503.0
116.9
86,0
19.2
23.9
13.1
5.7
1.4
756. 7e
689. le
8.0
302.6
89.0 56.0
24.6 455.3
10.2 187.2
7.0 55.2
4.6 4.3
89.8 1.1
19.3
435. 8e 571.9
421.4s 303.8
50.7 26.8 0.7
65.9 2240.1 752.6
33.1 668.7 182.3
8.0 1091.2 969.7
1.7 626.1 657.8
0.9 674.8 852.9
201.3 415.3
127.2 4860.3 3649.0
94.4 3288.9 3078.7
a) September to December
-b) August to December for Cells 5-8.
c) January to May for Cells 1-2; January to June for Cells 5-6.
d) January to June.
e) Excludes period beyond December 1975, after which effect of second lift
was observed. From January 1976 to end of project, these cells produced-
7.1 kg COD for Cell 3; 109.1 kg COD for Cell 4.
42
-------
Comparing cells 1 and 2, and also cells 6 and 4, in Table 3, the
shredded refuse cells had greater total COD produced over the reporting
period than the comparable cells containing unprocessed refuse. The
effect of cover is observed by comparing cells 2 and 4, and 1 and 6.
Cell 2, which was covered immediately, produced much more total COD
than cell 4, which was left uncovered. Similarly, cell 1 produced
much more COD than cell 6, showing the same effect of cover with
unprocessed refuse. The total COD produced by cell 3, which was
covered after six months, is between the values obtained for cells
2 and 4 but closer to that of cell 4. Once again, the special impor-
tance of cover during the first six months after cell construction is
noted.
Cell 6 produced much less COD than cell 5 which, in turn, was
similar in production to cell 4. Thus, the effect of the rather minor
amount of shredded refuse (30%) on the COD production of unprocessed
refuse was significant.
Cells 7 and 8 produced large amounts of COD, with cell 7 being
the more active of the two as of the end of monitoring. It is noted,
however, that given continued monitoring, the curve trends suggest that
eventually the total production of the two cells will be similar and
that later, cell 8 will have exhibited a greater cumulative COD produc-
tion than cell 7. This would be in keeping with results from the 4 ft
cells which are relatively complete. Clearly, the effect of depth was
to produce more COD even on a COD produced per ton refuse placed basis,
both for cells 7 and 8.
The effect of adding a second lift to cells 3 and 4 was to increase
the COD production, but in amounts far less than that produced by the
original layers of refuse or by one 8-foot layer. In comparing total
COD production from cells 3, 4, and 7, all of which were 8 ft deeo and
had 200 tons of shredded refuse, cell 3 produced 757 kg COD, cell 4,
436, a-nd cell 7, 4860. Clearly, constructing one 8 ft deep layer (cell 7)
was much worse as far as COD production is concerned than constructing
to the same total fresh refuse depth in two lifts.
The attenuation achieved by the first lifts can be computed. The
first lift of cell 4 produced 311 kg COD over the first one and one-half
years, whereas, the second lift resulted in a production of 109 kg COD.
The two figures apply to the same time span after lift placement, and
since the first lift was producing negligible amounts of COD prior to
placement of the second lift, the second figure relates only to the
effect of adding the second lift. The reduction of COD by 65% through
the action of the first lift in attenuating or acting on leachate pro-
duced in the upper or second lift is worth noting, as is the reduction
in total COD production for the entire 200 tons or 8 ft of refuse of
91% by filling to such a depth in two lifts instead of one lift, letting
the first lift stabilize prior to adding the second.
The soil layer between lifts apparently provided additional COD
removal or attenuation capacity beyond that of just shredded solid waste.
Without a soil layer, cell 4 COD production from the first lift of 311 kg
was reduced to 109. For shredded refuse covered immediately, cell 2 pro-
43
-------
duced 353 kg COD which would represent the first lift results had cell 3
been covered immediately. Production from the second lift of cell 3 was
only 7.1 kg COD, for a reduction of 98% through the action of the first
lift with its soil cover in attenuating COD produced from the second lift.
It appears that construction of shredded refuse landfills in thin lifts,
specifically not using cover immediatley on at least the first lift but
adding it prior to construction of the second lift, and allowing the
first lift to stabilize prior to subsequent filling, should be further
investigated.
It is difficult to justify looking at either the production figures,
including March-May, 1973, or specifically to exclude that period of
very heavy rainfall. The proper figures are probably somewhere between
the two, forlarger amounts of rain are normal during the spring, yet
not as much as occurred in 1973. It is interesting to note the effect
of the heavy rains on the cells, however. Cells 3, 4 and 6 (but espe-
cially cells 4 and 6, both uncovered) were fairly stable at this time
and were able to tolerate the heavy rains with little effect on COD
production. In contrast, cells 1, 2, 7, and 8 were not so stable
and had been producing significant amounts of COD prior to the heavy
rains. Mhen the heavy rains came, these cells further indicated their
instability by producing greatly increased amounts of COD. This was
especially true of cell 1. It may be that during the stage of decom-
position in which significant amounts of contaminants in leachates are
produced, refuse is particularly susceptible to upset through changes
such as increased infiltrations rates. Certainly, the ability to with-
stand large amounts of rainfall without producing large amounts of COD
is desirable. This may prove to be of significant value in landfill
design in years to come, and be one particularly interesting character-
istic of shredded refuse without daily soil cover.
Production figures for various other species determined in the
leachate can be calculated, if desired, from data given in Table 2.
Typically, the comments regarding COD production apply to the other
species as well.
GAS COMPOSITION
Gas composition data is presented in Figures 15, 16, and 17 (Tables
A-19, 20, and 21) as the averages of the compositions observed at 2 and 4
ft depths in the 4 ft cells and 3, 5, and 7 ft depths in the deep cell.
Oxygen
Oxygen was depleted rapidly in all cells and remained at low levels
for most of the reporting period. Major exceptions to this occurred
during periods of heavy infiltration (large rainfalls such as March-
April, 1973, or thawing conditions), when oxygen was evidently carried
into the cells by water flow, and during cold weather when increased
oxygen solubility in water and/or decreased biological activity led to
increased oxygen concentrations.
44
-------
0>
E
_s
o
>
s!
u
o
o
o
UJ
o
X
o
ADDITIONAL REFUSE
ADDED
J A J 0 J AJOJAJOJ A J 0 J A JOJAJOJA
I 1971 I 1973 I 1973 I 1974 I 1975 I 1976 I
FIG. 15 02 CONCENTRATION (% volume)
45
-------
UJ
r
_i
o
o
<
oc
o
u
UJ
Q
X
O
o
o
CO
DC
OJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJO
I
FIG. 16 C02 CONCENTRATION (% VOLUME)
J A
I97S
1976
46
-------
ADDITIONAL REFUSE
ADDED
ADDITIONAL REFUSE
ADDED
OJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJA
I 1971 I 1972 I 1973 I 1974 I 1975 I 1976 I
FIG. 17 CH4 CONCENTRATION (% volume)
47
-------
Oxygen seems to have been present at higher concentrations in the
cells to which cover was not applied. It is likely that cover soil
reduced the access of oxygen to inner portions of the cells. It would
be expected that layers of refuse could act as cover, also, in this
regard. Thus, oxygen levels should have been lower in the deeper cells
than in the 4 ft ones, since values shown are averages over depth. Low
oxygen levels did not occur with cells 7 and 8 until 1975. Problems^
developed with the gas probes in the deep cells which were not experienced
at the shallower probe depths of the other cells. The weight of the
deeper cells apparently crushed or blocked the deeper probes, especially
during settling some time after probe placement. Thus, until 1975, when
new probes were successfully installed, oxygen existed in these cells,
certainly at the more shallow depths but not at the average concentra-
tions indicated over the entire cell volume. The fact that C02 and
methane were measured periodically in the deep cells prior to 1975
indicated the presence of these gases, but probably not at the concen-
trations indicated. Gas analyses after 1975 are thought to be valid.
Results from extra probes added prior to 1975, periodic low 02 and some
C02 and CH4 measurement, and the desire to not disrupt the cells by new
probe placement led to continued use of the original probes for the
first two and one-half years.
Indications of the change in gas composition with depth could have
been presented by providing all of the gas data in this report instead
of just the average values for all depths sampled. This data would have
indicated in general a decrease in oxygen and an increase in methane,
when present, with depth of sampling. This data is not included, however,
because of its volume and because the effect of depth is predictable.
Oxygen is seen to have been measured frequently in small amounts
since the beginning of monitoring. It is likely that small levels are
insignificant, and that oxygen was introduced during sampling and
analysis. Theoretically, oxygen and methane could not occur together,
because the manufacture of methane takes place only in the absence of
oxygen. In many cases, however, replicate samplings, or comparison
with the known nitrogen/oxygen ratio of air leakage, indicated that
oxygen and methane did, in fact, co-exist, at least periodically. It
is likely that pockets of anaerobic conditions led to localized methane
production even though other portions of the refuse mass had small
amounts of oxygen because of infiltration of oxygen through voids or
transport of oxygen via incoming moisture. These pockets of anaerobic
activity apparently grow and retreat, depending on the local situation,
becoming predominant during periods when a refuse mass can be classified
as predominately undergoing methane formation.
CO?
The C02 levels were fairly constant for cells 1, 2, and 3. Cell 4
shows more variation in C02 concentration and generally lower concentra-
tions than cells 1, 2, and 3. Cells 5 and 6 had very little C02, espe- '
cially after the first year. Apparently, the lack of cover soil typi-
cally reduced the C02 content in cells 4, 5, and 6. This was probably
due to the relative ease of gas venting in the absence of cover soil.
48
-------
Cell 7 had a fairly constant and higher C02 level in comparison
with cell 8. It is likely that the upper layers of refuse in cell 7
acted like cover soil in reducing venting and elevating the C02 con-
centrations, and the higher concentrations of cell 7 are indicative
of more microbiological activity in that cell compared to cell 8.
Cell 8 had a low C02 concentration for two to three years after which
it rose to generally higher and somewhat constant C02 levels. The
change in typical concentrations occurring early in 1975 is attributed to
the better sampling devices installed and made operable at that time.
It is interesting that none of the cells exhibited CC"2 concen-
trations of 45 to 50%, which are common in full-scale sanitary land-
fills. It is possible that the relatively shallow depths of these
cells allowed venting of C02 produced and also led to increased disso-
lution of C02- The amount of moisture available to dissolve CC"2 per
unit of weight of refuse was considerably larger than in most operating
landfills.
There is a general tendency for C02 concentrations to decrease
when oxygen contents increase. This may be a result of disruption of
anaerobic microorganisms by oxygen, which in turn upsets the stability
of predominant decomposition processes, decreasing the production of
CO;?. Another possibility may be the dissolution of C02 by water,
bringing 02 into the cells during wet or thawing periods. There may
also be a temperature effect in the winter when biological activity
would be reduced.
It is generally difficult to place much significance on C02 gas
concentration data alone, because a concentration measured at a point
is the combined result of biological C02 production, gaseous C02 trans-
port out of the refuse mass, and solubility of C02 in available moisture.
C02 is readily soluble in water, so one might expect decreased concentra-
tions in the gas when large amounts of water are flowing through a refuse
volume. By comparing C02 concentration results to precipitation, leachate
volume, or any of the leachate quality parameters previously shown to be
related to leachate flow (as COD), it is noted that increased leachate
flow rates are normally accompanied by decreased C02 concentrations.
CH4
Methane production, indicating anaerobic conditions somewhere within
a cell, is seen to have occurred more quickly and resulted in higher con-
centrations within the shredded cells (cells 1 (unprocessed) vs 2, 3, and
4; cells 6 (unprocessed) vs 5 (two-thirds unprocessed, one-third shredded);
and cells 8 (unprocessed) vs 7- Undoubtedly, the mixing and reduction in
particle size which took place during shredding led to rapid oxygen utiliza-
tion and depletion, leading eventually to methane production. A comparison
of cells 5 and 6 is particularly interesting in this regard for even
though cell 5 contained only one-third shredded refuse, and this material
was at the surface of the cell, cell 5 had more CH..
49
-------
The covered shredded cells (2 and 3) had the highest methane con-
centrations, probably because the cover limited the outflow of methane
and inflow of oxygen and nitrogen. The 4 ft uncovered shredded cells
(4 and probably 5) produced some methane quickly, after which their
methane concentrations were uneven or sporadic. Fluctuations during
the later period were probably due to periodic increases in oxygen
availability or CH4 production with precipitation events and seasonal.
temperature changes. The lower CH4 concentrations observed during the
last four years are probably a result of increased 02 availability
brought about by prior utilization of the readily decomposible fractions
of the refuse.
The unprocessed refuse cells (cells 1, 6, and 8, and to some extent,
5) produced very low methane concentrations throughout the period of
monitoring.
The effect of depth on the methane formation decomposition patterns
of a cell is readily observed by comparing cells 7 and 8 with their
shallower countercells. In keeping with leachate quality data, the deep
cells did not produce CH4 until much later than comparable 4 ft cells
(cells 7 and 8, deep, vs 4 and 1, shallow). The prolonged .period of
high COD and acidic pH levels in the leachate from the deep cells corre-
spond to a lack of CH4 present in the gas.
The effect of cover was a combination of increasing CH4 concentra-
tions by reducing free venting to the atmosphere of whatever gas was
generated, and reducing Clfy production rates through mechanisms discussed
previously with regard to pH and COD changes in leachate quality with time.
It is impossible to determine the true effect of cover soil in CH4 produc-
tion because no gas production data could be gathered from these test cells.
Consequently, changes in CH4 concentration cannot be strictly related to
CH4 production, and the true effect of cover on CH4 production can only
be discussed in general terms by interpretating all of the available data
for each cell as a basis for discussion.
The effect of adding a second lift to cells 3 and 4 was to increase
the CH4 concentration in cell 4 and to decrease it in cell 3. With cell
4, the second lift provided new substrate for CH4 production and acted
as cover soil in retarding venting of that CH4. The result was relatively
high CH4 concentrations after the second lift was added. In the case of
cell 3, the Clfy concentrations decreased when the second lift was added.
The reason for this effect is not known, for the pH levels and low COD
production rates during this period suggest that anaerobic fermentation
is occurring, and that CH4 production could be expected. The CH4 con-
centration was rising at the conclusion of monitoring, so perhaps the
period of low CH4 concentration after the second lift was added was a
transitional or lag period similar to that experienced initially by all
of the cells which were covered immediately. The CH4 concentration
curve for cell 3 after the second lift was added does look like the early
portions of the curve for cell 2 (covered immediately, as was the second
lift of cell 3). The major difference is that high pH levels and sub-
stantial COD concentrations typified the leachate from cell 2 during the
period of low CH4 concentrations, which was not the case for the second
lift of cell 3.
50
-------
Periods of peak CH4 concentrations generally occur during the
summer with all cells. This may be due to precipitation rates, but
undoubtedly also relates to the warmer temperatures during the summer
which are more conducive to methane formation.
Summary on Gas Composition
One has to be extremely careful in interpreting the gas composition
data. The values obtained can be a result of production of C02 or CH4,
gaseous transport of C02 and CH4 outward or oxygen and nitrogen inward,
or solubility effects. There is no way to distinguish one from the
other in this situation. It may be possible at a later date to develop
diffusion coefficients, using nitrogen as a basis since it is not in-
volved in the decomposition processes, to give insight into the effect
of diffusion on the resulting gas compositions.
In summarizing the effects observed in all of the gas data, appar-
ently the effect of cover soil is to increase the concentration of
methane, decrease oxygen content, and to postpone active methane produc-
tion to a later date. Part of the effect of cover is certainly a result
of reduction in venting of decomposition gases outward and oxygen inward,
but part of it is also likely a change in the decomposition processes
within the refuse to postpone rapid methane formation. The methane curves
relate well to the leachate quality curves, underscoring the lack of
methane formation under acidic conditions, and the reduction in COD when
significant methane formation occurs. Additional discussion in this area
was given in discussion of leachate quality data.
Shredding promoted higher methane concentrations and the production
of methane quickly after cell construction. This is a result of mixing
and particle size reduction, as discussed earlier. The deep cells had
little or no methane formation until much later in comparison with their
respective shallow cells. This also corresponds with leachate quality
data and indicates the substantial effect of depth in slowing or retard-
ing the formation of methane with the attendant beneficial improvement
of leachate quality. The placement of new lifts of refuse on cells 3 and
4 resulted in temporary increases in oxygen followed by substantial
increases in methane and, to a lesser extent, C02 concentrations. This
was a result of oxygen emplaced with the refuse, upsets in the decomposi-
tion processes taking place in the lower lifts after the second lifts
were placed, and the readily decomposed matter landfilled with the second
lifts.
REFUSE TEMPERATURE
Average refuse temperatures are given in Figure 18. These values
were computed by averaging all temperatures measured by three sets of
probes, each set consisting of three probes, located approximately one-
half, two and 3 and one-half ft below the surfaces of the 4 ft cells.
Four sets of probes were located at the 1, 3, 5, and 7 ft depths in the
8 ft cells. Probes were placed in triplicate to allow averaging of
readings and so that clearly erroneous readings could be justifiably
omitted.
51
-------
40
30
20
10
LU
DC
oc
in
a.
5 £
3
LL
V 40
o
ec
>30
20
10
No. 4
ADDITIONAL REFUSE ADDED
OJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJA
I 1971 I 1972 I 1973 I 1974 I 1975 F 1976 I
FIG. 18 WERAGE REFUSE TEMPERATURE
52
-------
NO. 5
NO. 6
OJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJA
I 1971 I 1972 I 1973 I 1974 I 1975 I 1976 I
FIG. I8(cont.) AVERAGE REFUSE TEMPERATURE
53
-------
Seasonable variations in average temperatures are evident with all
eight cells, with lows somewhere in the 30 to 50°F range during winter,
and highs in the 60 to 90°F range in the summer. The range for theQ
yearly low to the yearly high average temperatures was typically 30 F
for the 4 ft cells, and 20 to 25°F for the 8 ft cells. The additional
depth dampened the effect of seasonal temperature changes on the aver-
age refuse temperature within the cells, as would be expected.
For the 4 ft cells, the effects of cover soil and shredding were
noticeable. Comparing cells 1 and 2 and cells 6 and 4 (2 and 4 were
shredded), it appears that the shredded refuse cell temperatures were
typically 5°F cooler without cover and 10°F cooler with cover soil than
their unprocessed refuse counterparts. These same four cells also
indicate the effect of cover soil to be that of lowering the temperatures
during the first two or so years, but increasing the temperatures after
this time by limiting the decline in temperatures as a cell ages. The
net effect of both unprocessed refuse and lack of soil cover resulted
in cell 6 having high temperatures initially, but dropping off rapidly
with time as the refuse decomposed.
Shredded refuse without cover quickly produced the highest temper-
atures observed, 115°F, soon after placement. Oxygen trapped in the
refuse during construction triggered rapid but temporary aerobic decom-
position with the attendant heat production. The lack of cover appar-
ently allowed greater access of oxygen to the decomposing refuse, while
shredding promoted decomposition and, therefore, greater heat production.
The insulating effect to be expected with soil cover apparently did not
retard heat loss suffuciently to overcome the slower rate of heat pro-
duction accompanying the presence of soil cover. Note that the effect
of covering cell 3 after six months was to reduce almost immediately the
peak temperatures attained during the summer by 5 to 15°F. The effect
of adding a second lift was to increase the temperatures markedly of
cell 4. Hith cell 3 which was covered, the effect was to even out the
seasonal temperature fluctuations without changing the yearly averages.
The 8 ft cells, numbers 7 and 8, exhibited high temperatures
initially, but the temperatures dropped off rapidly as the oxygen avail-
able initially was depleted. The effect of soil cover was compensated
by the effect of shredding, and the cells experienced virtually identical
temperatures throughout the period of monitoring.
The temperature profiles with depth are available from the raw data,
but are not presented in this report because of the amount of data and
the overriding significance of the average temperatures as presented in
Figure 18. The temperature profiles of cells 1 through 4 over the first
two and one-half years are presented in reference (1) and, as expected,
the probes closer to the surfaces of the cells exhibited a wider seasonal
temperature change than the lower probes. The result was a seasonal
reversal of the temperature profile, with generally increasing tempera-
tures withcepth below the cell surfaces in the winter, and decreasing
temperatures with depth in the summer.
54
-------
REFUSE MOISTURE CONTENT
The temperature-moisture probes used for moisture content and
temperature measurements were adapted from the soil testing field.
Of particular importance in making this adapatation was use of a
moisture content calibration procedure using leachate as the liquid
to vary the probe reading. Also important during calibration was
placing each probe in a container packed tightly with shredded refuse.
This was necessary because probe readings are a function of liquid com-
position and physical pressure applied to the probe.
In order to improve reliability, the probes were placed in tripli-
cate at each desired depth and were wrapped in asbestos prior to place-
ment. Even with these improvements, however, the probes were increasingly
insensitive to moisture changes at higher moisture contents and often
proved to be insensitive to moisture content changes at levels less than
field capacity, and so were used primarily to indicate only the initial
movement of the moisture front to predict the onset of leachate produc-
tion. This use of the probes for this purpose was discussed in refer-
ence (1) and will not be repeated here.
SETTLEMENT
Settlement data for the various cells is presented in Table 4.
Surface settlement of each of the cells relative to fixed bench marks
was monitored periodically since refuse placement. Settlement was mea-
sured as the mean change in elevation of five monitoring plates per-
manently emplaced at specific locations across the surface of each cell
from their original elevations. Each plate was approximately one-half
square foot (500 cm^) in area and was placed originally approximately
six inches (15 cm) below the refuse surface. Vertical sections of pipe
welded to each plate were used to measure elevation changes.
There appears to be some seasonal fluctuation in settlement data,
and in some cases the settlement values are negative. This was probably
due to expansion from freezing. The unprocessed refuse cells settled
an average of 38% more than the shredded refuse cells (cell 1 (unprocessed)
vs 2, 34%; cell 6 (unprocessed) vs cell 4, 41%), using July 2, 1975 data
as a basis. The cells which were covered immediately settled substan-
tially less than the cells without cover, with an average reduction of
62% (cell 1 (uncovered) vs cell 6, 63%; cell 2 (covered) vs cell 4, 61%),
also using July 2, 1975 as a basis. Cell 6, which contained unprocessed
refuse and had no cover soil, had the highest settlement rate of all
eight cells.
The bottom half of the walls of the deep cells were slanted toward
the center, unlike the shallow cell walls which were vertical the entire
depth. Cells 7 and 8 show less settlement than their counterparts, cells
4 and 1, respectively, due probably to some bridging of the refuse on
these sloped sides, and also to the fact that these cells were still
decomposing actively at the conclusion of the project.
55
-------
Table 4. Cumulative Settlement (Centimeters)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
1970
Oct. 19
Oct. 26
Nov. 4
Nov. 9
Nov. 30
1971
Feb. 11
April 22
June 23
July 20
Aug. 25
Sept. 21
Nov. 9
Dec. 2
1972
March 23
June 7
Sept. 1
Dec. 4
1973
March 6
April 3
May 31
Sept. 7
1974
Jan. 24
March 6
June 28
Nov. 15
1975
Feb. 28
May 14
July 2
1976
Feb. 28
Sept. 26
1977
March 25
0.0
0.0
-0.3
0.0
-0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.5
2.7
3.0
3.4
3.4
4.0
3.7
4.3
4.9
5.2
5.5
7.0
6.7
7.6
8.2
7.6
0.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.6
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.2
3.7
3.4
3.0
3.0
3.7
3.7
3.4
3.7
4.0
4.3
5.5
4.6
5.8
6.1
4.9
0.0
0.9
1.5
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
2.4
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.1
0.3
4.9
4.9
4.6
5.2
5.2
5.5
5.8
6.7
7.6
7.9
10.7
10.7
10.7
12.2
**
2.7
4.6
0.0
1.2
2.1
0.3
0.0
0.6
0.9
1.5
2.7
1.8
2.4
2.7
3.0
0.0
5.8
6.4
7.0
7.3
7.9
7.6
8.5
9.8
10.1
10.7
13.1
13.4
14.3
15.5
**
2.4
3.7
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.9
1.5
4.0
4.0
4.9
6.4
7.3
0.0
1.8
3.7
*
4.9
7.6
10.1
11.0
13.1
17.4
19.5
19.2
21.9
21.9
0.0
0.3
0.0
1.2
0.0
2.1
1.2
1.8
3.0
4.9
4.0
5.5
6.4
5.2
7.3
7.9
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
-1.2
0.6
-0.6
0.0
1.2
2.4
0.9
3.0
3.7
1.2
3.0
3,4
*No data.
** Refuse added.
56
-------
PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF REFUSE AFTER DECOMPOSITION
Figure 19 is a photograph of the surface of cell 4, which con-
sisted of shredded refuse and was not covered, just before the second
lift was added. A spade had been used to dig a hole a few inches deep
in order to see what was immediately beneath the surface. The refuse
had been exposed to weathering and decomposition for five years at the
time the picture was taken. Putrescible organic matter is decomposed
to the extent it is unrecognizable, leaving items such as metals, glass,
stones, and plastics clearly evident. Metals were heavily oxidized.
Light gauge ferrous objects were rusty and brittle and often required
some thought to identify.
The vegetation, which grew on its own without seeding or any other
human action, is obvious in the picture. The vegetation appeared healthy.
with extensive root development. Predominant types of vegetation changed
on a given cell as it aged and also changed depending on whether a cell
was covered or not. In general, vegetation was more dense, grew more
vigorously, reached greater height, and grew sooner after cell construc-
tion when no cover was applied. Of the cells without cover, shredded
refuse appeared to promote more vigorous growth of vegetation than
unprocessed refuse.
Figure 19 provides graphic evidence of the change with time in
surface characteristics of the cells without soil cover, giving rise to
increasing amounts of runoff as these cells aged. It is clear why,
after several years, the water budgets for the cells without cover
approached those of the covered cells, as discussed earlier.
REFERENCES
1. Reinhardt, J.J. and R.K. Ham, Solid Waste Milling and Disposal on
Land Without Cover, Vol. II, EPA Report SW-62d.2, available as NTIS
report PB-234 931, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, VA, 22151 (1974)
2. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
Amer. Public Health Assoc., Amer. Water Works Assoc., and Water
Polln. Control Fed., available at Amer. Public Health Assoc.,
1015 18th St., N.W., Wash., D.C. 20036, 14th Ed. (1975).
3. Salvato, J.A., Wilkie, W.G., and B.E. Mead, "Sanitary Landfill-
Leaching Prevention and Control," Journ. Water Polln. Control Fed.,
43, 10, 2084-2100 (Oct., 1971).
57
-------
tn
GO
Figure 19. Refuse near the surface of cell 4 five years after cell construction
-------
APPENDIX
59
-------
Table A-l, Precipitation Data and Chronology of Cell Construction
Precip (
S *4.
0 2.
N 1.
n 2.
r--
01
r
CM
cn
i
oo
1
en
r~
Tot
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
n
Tot
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A **(5.50)
S
0
N
D
Tot
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Tot
1.
2.
1.
2.
0.
2.
1.
3.
1.
1.
3.
3.
0.
0.
2.
2.
2.
1.
3.
7.
5.
2.
0.
1.
1.
1.
5.
7.
5.
0.
2.
2.
3.
2.
1.
1.
81
65
06
12
48
59
52
42
98
27
65
96
87
30
48
64
40
42
23
02
83
65
49
47
26
42
86
91
54
20
04
11
27
81
68
53
59
30
48
98
in) Precip (cm)
*12.
6.
2.
5.
27.
3.
6.
3.
6.
2.
5.
4.
10.
4.
3.
8.
9.
69.
1.
1.
5.
5.
7.
4.
8.
**(13.97) 18.
13.
6.
2.
4.
78.
3.
3.
12.
18.
13.
2.
6.
6.
9.
5.
3.
5.
90.
22
73
69
38
02
76
58
86
15
49
77
19
06
75
30
84
25
00
02
07
66
13
19
19
86
97
36
15
18
85
63
91
05
80
06
39
06
81
43
12
84
76
03
26
60
Accum
P rec i p
(cm)l-4
*12.
18.
21.
27.
30.
37.
41.
47.
49.
55.
59.
69.
74.
77.
86.
96.
97.
98.
103.
108.
116.
120.
129.
148.
161.
167.
169.
174.
178.
181.
194.
212.
225.
227.
234.
241.
250.
256.
259.
264.
22
95
64
02
78
36
22
37
86
63
82
88
63
93
77
02
04
11
77
90
09
28
14 .
11
47
62
80
65
56
61
41
47
86
92
73
16
28
12
88
91
Accum
Precip
(cm) 5-8
**13.
27.
33.
35.
40.
44.
47.
60.
78.
91.
93.
100.
107.
116.
121.
125.
130.
C<
r
97
33
48
66
51
42
47
27
33
72
78
59
02
14
98
74
77
Chronology
Cells 1-4 constructed
mid-September 1970
Cells 5-8 construct-
ed mid-August 1972
-------
Table A~l. Precipitation Data and Chronology of Cell Construction
(Continued)
Chronology
J
F
M
A
M
J
«* ,
r^ J
- A
S
0
N
D
Tot
J
F
M
A
M
j
in °
cr> "
- A
S
0
N
n
\j
Tot
J
F
M
A
M
J
^D 1
i^. t|
2 A
s
j
n
v/
N
11
D
Tot
j
U
F
i
^ M
r^ I"
f** n
en rt
*~ M
it
J
Tot
Precip (in)
2.45
1.17
3.43
4.24
5.77
3.86
2.69
4.60
1.08
3.18
1.79
1.80
0.98
1.54
3.09
4.19
4.57
4.30
6.05
5.25
0.84
0.64
2.79
0.29
0.56
1.72
4.75
4.80
1.95
1.38
1.46
1.99
0.50
1.49
0.11
0.37
0.53
1.44
3.03
2.59
2.52
2.63
Precip (cm)
6.22
2.97
8.71
10.77
14.66
9.80
6.83
11.68
2.74
8.08
4.55
4.57
91.58
2.49
3.91
7.85
10.64
11.61
10.92
15.37
13.34
2.13
1.63
7.09
0.74
87.72
1.42
4.37
12.06
12.19
4.95
3.51
3.71
5.05
1.27
3.78
0.28
0.94
53.53
1.35
3.66
7.70
6.58
6.40
6.68
32.37
Accum
Precip
(cm) 1-4
271.13
274.10
282.81
293.58
308.24
318.04
324.87
336.55
339.29
347.37
351.92
356.49
358.98
362.89
370.74
381.38
392.99
403.91
419.28
432.62
434.75
436.38
443.47
444.21
445.63
450.00
462.06
474.25
479.20
482.71
486.42
491.47
492.74
496.52
496.80
497.74
499.09
502.75
510.45
517.03
523.43
530.11
Accum
Precip
(cm) 5-8
136.99
139.96
148.67
159.44
174.10
183.90
190.73
202.41
205.15
213.23
217.78
222.35
224.84
228.75
236.60
247.24
258.85
269.77
285.14 Ne
298.48
300.61
302.24
309 . 33
310.07
311.49
315.86
327.92
340.11
345.06 Ce
348.57 Ce
352.28
357.33
358.60
362.38
362.66
363.60
364.95
368.61
376.31
382.89
389.29
395.97
New lift of refuse
to cells 3 & 4
Cells 1&2 terminated
Cells 5&6 terminated
*September rainfall after cells 1-4 constructed
**August rainfall after cells 5-8 constructed
61
-------
Table A-2. Runoff Volume (liters/day average since previous sampling)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
- J
r-» i
CTl U
- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
K J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
(. j
M
A
M
ro i
r- J
en A
1-7 A
D
Ave. incl+
Ave. exc1+
0.0
24.7
7.9
Q.Q
8.2
0.0
121.3
66.5
13.9
7.3
122.5
0.0
162.2
27.5
1.4
0.0
77.2
50.0
0.0
82.2
0.0
26.9
7.2
9.7
0.0
47.5
26.2
0.0
4.2
0.0
17.0
135.2
16.7
59.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.9
22.5
31.4
3.8
15.6
0.0
24.9
26.6
0.0
19.5
2.0
Q.Q
5.4
0.0
118.9
64.8
5.0
2.5
126.8
0.0
162.9
26.9
1.2
0.0
78.6
49.0
0.0
80.6
0.0
51.2
9.7
9.5
0.0
67.4
92.5
1.1
0.0
Q.Q
26.0
106.7
28.5
105.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.8
16.4
37.2
5.5
13.0
Q.Q
27.8
25.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
2.4
0.5
70.5
0.0
157.5
35.2
1.1
0.0
78. 8
28.9
0.0
81.0
0.0
34.1
6.9
10.4
10.5
76.1
90.2
0.7
0.0
Q.Q
25.8
143.0
33.4
64.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.9
13.1
35.1
6.4
13.8
o.n
26.7
28.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1Q.9
0.9
0.0
20.3
0.0
4.5
1.0
1.8
3.8
30.3
52.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.5
26.8
0.0
60.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
9.4
24.1
5.5
22.3
o.n
13.0
10.5
0.0
24.6
0.0
1.1
0.0
5.1
15.6
1.5
68.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.3
9.3
10.3
16.4
0.0
18.6
12.7
9.3
0.0
27-1
0.0
0.7
0.0
5.6
n.o
20.5
26.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.3
12.2
19.4
26.3
0.0
37.2
13.1
14.5
0.0
21.3
0.0
2.6
0.0
4.8
18.2
24.0
92.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
68.1
6.4
12.5
11.4
0.0
10. 1
20.3
16.7
0.0
79.3
0.0
14.7
0.0
18.8
69.4
0.0
128.2^
o.op
O.OJ
J
10. e
91.0
45.6
48.4
89.6
0 0
\J \J
29.3
42.7
42.7
62
-------
Table A-2. Runoff Volume (liters/day average since previous sampling)
(Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7
Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
j
- J
2 A
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
£ J
<* A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
£ J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
£ M
£ A
M
j
Ave
124.5
58.5
27.6
16.0
47.7
24.5
9.5
11.0
0.0
12.3
15.8
0.0
29.0
6.3
0.0
70.6
15.6
9.5
23.9
17.6
14.6
6.5
13.5
24.3
8.2
17.6
1.8
31.9
38.3
20.7
7.0
19.9
163.9
47.7
22.6
10.8
69.4
30.7
7.1
10.6
0.0
13.7
18.9
o.o
33.0
18.6
0.0
56.5
27.9
10.2
26.9
36.8
11.1
7.3
11.6
14.7
1.1
18.6
1.8
x 11.4
10.8
15.0
3.8
8.6
167.0
89.4
39.7
17.7
45.8
21.3
6.7
10.2
0.0
15.1
13.6
0.0
35.5
6.6
0.0
68.4
24.8
10.7
21.7
**18.6
78.3
18.7
53.0
109.2
8.7
34.9
1.8
71.2
61.6
109.0
68.0
2.7
51.0
99.6
3.2
14.1
0.0
0.0
40.2
0.0
59.7
28.1
11,3
38.3
26.6
27.3
28.8
14.7
20.4
X13.6
X25.0
13.8
10.3
9.3
0.0
13.7
10.2
Q.Q
13.3
3.5
b *
b *
a!7.0
8.2
27.7
**18.9
11.1
7.4
14.5
27.7
12.7
14.9
1.8
38.0
42.6
17.1
7.2
1.2
6.3
22.9
3.2
12.7
0.0
0.0
12.8
0.0
13.2
19.9
5.6
12.3
7.0
9.7
5.3
8.8
11.6
X20.2
X29.8
19.5
3.5
12.3
5.5
12.2
5.9
13. 7
12.4
5.3
1.1
7.0
23.1
8.5
14.9
20.3
23.3
9.2
11.4
17.0
22 . 7
13.6
8.7
3.5
40.6
17.9
3.0
4.3
13.0
10.2
15.8
29.5
X31.7
X26.2
9.5
4.3
15.7
8.3
13.8
8.4
18. n
16.0
10.1
1.1
11.2
22.3
6.9
19.3
26.7
17.2
7.6
12.2
23.4
?6.D
15.3
7.6
3.5
37.9
19.0
7.6
8.7
14.0
14.5
4.3
11.1
23.7
37.5
22.3
5.7
9.8
1.2
7-1
5.9
15. R
13.2
3.0
1.4
5.8
16.4
7.3
14.1
20.3
10.3
3.1
8.2
12.4
?1 4.
10.3
9.1
3.5
29.1
15.6
5.0
3.1
3.0
12.2
2.4
11.8
0.0
o.n
7.9
0.0
8.0
15.6
6.7
13.0
g 5
8.6
142.7
4.3
102.2
124.6
126.9
66.2
20.4
45.3
5.2
18.0
15.0
fifl.l
60.9
75.2
12.2
b *
a!33.2
27.8
32.3
63.2
25.7
8.3
13.5
22.6
?8 7
40.2
8.7
40.3
66.9
32.1
7.0
6.3
20.6
62.5
6.1
14.9
0.0
n.n
22.1
0,0
81.3
23.0
10.9
23,8
14 7
25.6
* No data available
** New lift added
x high value, gutter broken, runoff probably in
leachate system
a total since previous successful sampling
b pump breakdown
63
-------
Table A-3. Leachate Volume (liters/day average since previous sampling)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
r- J
en J
r- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
£ J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
{M
A
J
!-~~ U
£ A
S
0
N
D
Ave. incl+
Ave. excl+
127.9
9.6
3.8
1.4
35.7
28.0
84.3
81.3
50.6
13.1
30.4
9.8
33.8
12.3
61.9
62.6
23.1
22.2
152.6
112.6
142.1
62.2
27.6
25.5
134.3
178.1
136.0
49.1
77.9
93.4
268.5
126.0
473.5
676.8
335.3
92.4
83.6
79.6
65.0
52.0
50.9
48 7
196.0
96.3
128.4
10.0
6.8
0.0
36.3
30.6
106.4
133.6
29.6
12.9
15.1
12.1
53.4
17.9
70.7
88.6
37.7
50.7
30.5
38.1
135.7
155.1
75.4
29.1
23.7
154.5
159.0
138.1
84.5
103.9
94.0
148.1
126.0
251.2
279.4
335.3
128.9
104.1
65.5
37.9
55.2
99.0
121.8
146.0
98.5
28.1
4.6
0.0
16.9
38.1
114.6
190.7
74.0
31.7
79.0
29.6
66.7
38.4
58.9
60.8
30.1
"T7T7
36.0
31.8
94.5
133.5
75.8
42.7
56.4
161.2
153.7
104.6
55.1
100.1
87.1
130.1
85.1
147.3
226.9
214.6
97.0
78.4
64.2
69.5
39.3
60.9
56.5
105.8
75.7
30.0
4.9
11.9
8.3
13.8
26.4
93.4
94.3
79.9
48.5
59.9
61.3
85.2
35.2
98.0
114.5
51.9
/U./
37.9
40.4
119.1
159.0
125.3
82.9
54.0
167.9
170.3
109.8
70.9
95.9
102.8
129.0
126.2
147.0
231.9
168.0
94.3
57.8
51.3
83.3
48.7
73.3
58.0
105.7
80.2
0.
0.
30.
44.
8.
16.
65.
92.
134.
161.
190.
148.
112.
48.
21.
74.
39.
89.
98.
76.
0
0
3
7
5
7
6
6
5
6
1
0
3
5
1
6
7
4
2
9
0
11
0
38
8
.0
.6
.0
.8
.5
0.
0.
28.
1.
1.
0
0
7
6
2
TTF ~5TT
57
65
77
63
91
74
76
38
37
48
27
36
~57
51
.4
.8
.6
.3
.7
.9
.1
.0
.7
.0
.4
.7
* /
.3
35.
61.
192.
439.
301.
131.
11.
19.
19.
52.
0.
70,
III.
44.
6
1
5
2
4
8
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
4
0.0
0.0
1.9
1.0
0.0
0.6
11.1
17.5
82. 7} ,
264. 7/1
280. Oj
87.8
31.2
19.7
9.0
17.6
0.0
15.4
69.7
23.3
64
-------
Table A-3. Leachate Volume (liters/day average since previous sampling (Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
^ J
CT> ^
- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
10 J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
£ J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
£ M
^ A
M
J
Ave
101.1
124.9
270.8
120.3
274.5
128.7
19.5
21.5
9.9
14.0
39.0
18.8
95.2
8.6
27.3
120.8
192.5
48.7
25.6
65.7
18.5
11.6
8.3
42.0
?0. 5
49.2
7.0
86.4
113.7
128.3
19.3
70.9
143.2
133.1
193.2
132.1
168.5
159.3
94.1
61.5
18.4
30.1
96.1
45.7
106.3
24.6
27.3
157.4
135.7
70.1
107.3
118.8
69.9
15.4
10.8
40.4
48.8
68.9
15.4
161.0
145.7
113.2
110.6
109.2
96.0
83.0
140.1
64.8
110.6
84.6
38.1
33.4
12.7
14.3
44.1
108.1
69.2
16.0
27.3
109.8
123.1
17.4
58.8
**62.9
40.2
17.2
14.0
41.4
n. Q
44.0
0.0
75.6
88.0
73.4
68.0
16.4
52.1
32.2
14.5
5.8
3.2
n fi
v ^ v
35.8
0.0
19.5
27.0
34,4
26.2
29.9
T2T8"
100.2
107.4
187.9
x 71.4
X121.0
82.1
26.0
26.2
3.6
9.5
20.9
27.7
65.3
0.0
b *
b *
a 48.1
12.0
53.0
**146.9
29.3
15.4
2.5
21.7
0.0
32.9
10.0
22.6
80.6
53.7
155.6
42.0
51.3
33.6
10.9
8.8
2.3
n o
u . o
39.3
0.0
2.9
27.0
16.5
66.2
65.0
29.6
70.7
113.2
132.8
x 89.0
x229.3
174.7
59.2
39.7
8.8
31.0
27.4
43.8
8b.O
16.1
7-1
13.3
49.7
60.6
82.9
7.1
20.5
12.8
6.2
5.7
11.9
24.5
7.6
0.4
31.4
48.0
21.8
11.6
20.1
23.0
43.3
40.2
x 70.0
x 86.1
74.7
35.0
32.0
7.9
24.7
10.1
11.6
38.2
11.4
14.2
8.5
8.1
30.3
23:7
8.0
4.2
16.6
4.1
9.9
9.7
12.4
5.2
0.4
20.8
16.3
12.0
11.1
TT70~
84.8
157.9
114.2
221.6
250.6
240.9
59.3
34.0
6.5
35.4
30.9
51.9
IO/.3
52.6
9.1
28.3
195.6
105.5
41.4
153.2
17.7
74.5
32.9
28.8
48.8
65.7
32.6
28.5
145.2
184.8
173.4
87.1
94.1
101.7
61.3
51.2
33.9
23 8
t-*J \J
18.8
71.2
163.5
161.1
131.9
132.0
113.1
43.4
64.9
76.4
199.7
253.5
122.6
37.1
37.3
11.7
44.1
52.1
62.1
83.7
51.2
0.0
b *
a 130.5
123.7
99.6
159.1
b *
a 34.3
28.3
20.5
6.1
65.3
33.1
22.7
240.9
251.8
184.6
60.7
49.6
38.5
22.7
16.1
12.0
n i
11*1
78.6
6.9
60.1
155.2
128.0
63.9
49.3
-TTT
* No data available
** New lift added
x high value, gutter broken, runoff probably in
leachate system
a total since previous successful sampling
b pump breakdown
65
-------
Table A-4. Leachate COD Concentration (mg/£)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
,_ J
r~- 1
cr,
-------
Table A-4. Leachate COD Concentration (mg/£) (Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7
*No data available
**New lift added
Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
j
**" i
"^ j
CM U
- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
O*» A
"" s
o
N
n
\j
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
£} A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
^ M
r»- "I
2 A
'M
J
Ave
473
1226
3399
1888
2316
730
244
293
270
328
824
310
1025
251
171
1065
1014
310
296
302
242
233
239
361
238
394
127
173
979
826
323
486
1458
2355
792
7973
4800
2197
518
644
544
540
807
507
1928
361
324
8040
6179
6092
515
429
401
385
384
562
515
2016
311
463
2466
2000
2512
1550
678
1136
2213
1667
1036
462
362
307
298
285
317
309
756
290
235
421
2001
1207
270
** 510
483
486
329
328
*
596
*
264
837
494
351
257
314
306
157
357
260
*
360
*
296
252
362
280
343
307
239
316
378
364
293
286
162
218
149
181
136
155
240
147
*
354
321
258
236
** 445
376
466
440
431
*
347
159
1586
13747
9499
7142
2241
1391
1430
2051
2268
2265
1811
3799
1707
1625
2500
10728
2427
2981
3661
840
2557
2733
2167
2812
961
482
467
324
319
269
460
1199
294
234
231
1165
258
278
339
301
295
196
161
201
329
160
277
245
249
612
241
297
476
560
552
626
976
480
378
443
321
382
378
379
496
381
333
561
645
560
543
460
308
347
442
315
387
440
322
597
291
418
394
503
421
34216
35720
2^418
33263
27256
26058
23243
24653
26014
26931
25085
25459
27943
27330
29201
29710
26776
25816
22424
24192
25339
19067
23629
21282
21844
24718
21657
20605
20313
24109
22057
20146
18983
12863
20249
23181
19010
1993
18764
2300
10607
10840
10243
8416
8202
8435
13254
25568
27149
38478
28904
32429
28799
34354
29220
30778
28917
33456
29276
30063
*
27425
26776
29543
25732
28728
28632
25596
28932
26759
25316
27591
30374
14793
26888
27117
28919
26340
28639
30688
28476
36364
36234
37560
29366
34260
36287
25896
30764
27238
23847
29715
67
-------
Table-A-5. Leachate Specific Conductance (@ 25°C, Micromhos/cm)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
S
0
N
n
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
r- J
* A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
evj -I
r»- J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
£ J
2 A
S
0
N
D
5650
4080
4470
4400
4650
5050
4800
7150
6600
5600
5570
5050
3280
3690
3210
3340
6280
4968
6320
2090
3300
6687
7650
6717
5200
6360
6480
7900
6880
4390
5831
3730
4850
8130
6850
6740
6470
5930
3800
3080
4080
4000
3600
7600
9700
12400
10600
10075
11150
11200
9350
10700
12150
11900
11650
5690
5440
4780
4900
12100
9251
11400
1975
4900
10972
13025
11868
6310
8200
7500
9200
8520
5600
8289
4170
4380
12070
10140
13600
14050
12450
9300
4300
6400
7980
7280
9630
10100
*
6320
8683
10250
15400
13500
15650
15900
15900
11680
6250
7000
7020
4920
9670
11095
7760
4960
6000
11211
9384
9394
5780
5920
4990
4890
5700
5130
6760
4440
4480
5990
4860
5220
6400
6300
4920
2580
3660
3200
3150
6700
7050
2320
6000
5518
9655
14400
12400
15000
14000
13050
11650
8480
10000
9600
9400
9180
11401
9280
5550
6000
8830
7120
6640
5730
5100
4770
3480
3290
3380
5764
2860
3160
2500
2050
2700
3220
3200
2730
3520
2570
2510
2420
465
*
16900
18300
17750
13354
17800
15800
12250
11980
10020
11150
9700
10250
8530
8380
6730
7500
3510
11480
*
14080
12040
10278
10285
11300
10900
7840
6900
8870
7650
7600
6300
7280
5700
4790
*
18100
22800
22000
22600
21375
15450
17100
16100
18200
18600
23800
16900
17500
15200
14800
*
14800
*
5180
4600
6370
*
5383
5480
6300
8980
13830
12350
15400
12470
11600
9000
9440
*
12800
Ave
5105
8843
4600
2787
10841
7951
17132
10695
68
-------
Table A-5. Leachate Specific Conductance (@ 25°C, micromhos/cm)(Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
j
- J
- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
j
1C J
CTi A
~ e
o
\J
N
11
n
Lf
Ave
.1
u
F
1
A
n
M
n
r »
J
Ave
1850
2180
3400
3520
4290
3600
3600
2680
3600
3340
3050
3100
3184
2400
2800
1800
2580
2700
2430
2640
2410
2510
2610
2520
2563
2497
3135
2690
2790
2400
2430
2689
3630
2950
5520
6550
6100
5150
5080
4580
4580
3670
3780
3330
4577
2370
2470
3130
4450
5000
3010
2700
3060
2780
2910
2640
3399
3160
3135
2680
2700
2690
2900
2821
2120
2180
2630
3100
3250
3040
3350
2600
3000
3500
2370
2320
2788
2120
2775
2400
3030
2720
2310
** 2480
2540
2410
2490
2400
*
2516
*
2720
3290
3480
3180
3440
2570
1900
2100
2100
2700
*
2748
*
3100
3000
3000
2200
2620
2784
2080
1750
1490
1920
1900
2000
1850
2180
2750
3150
2780
2200
2171
2250
*
2560
2880
1600
1780
** 1750
1800
1690
1840
2130
*
2028
2464
5620
12000
12400
14980
12240
11200
9700
14200
14200
9400
9800
10684
9000
7100
6100
11400
9200
12500
9217
6800
6620
6000
5330
5200
4950
5400
4600
4140
4080
4290
3040
5038
2680
3300
3690
3480
2120
2390
4640
4620
2300
3330
2890
3060
3208
2849
2968
1950
2190
1890
1910
2293
4300
3950
3360
3100
2830
3300
3550
3140
3000
3150
3000
2380
3255
2400
2850
2600
2620
2450
2290
4180
3890
2250
2290
3280
2880
2832
2761
3125
2520
1730
1420
1640
2199
13030
13000
10450
12000
12100
10600
10075
10150
10225
10400
9300
8500
10819
9450
9400
10150
10700
9750
8430
9610
8050
7900
8190
8300
8500
9036
8910
8758
7800
9550
7810
7385
6680
6300
4100
4100
3700
3500
6549
3500
3900
3400
3700
2500
3700
3450
5720
10200
10350
13200
12700
12350
12050
13900
11400
11700
11190
12200
11413
11250
*
10750
12200
12000
10750
12420
16000
14200
11210
11900
11780
12224
13915
7885
11750
12200
10380
11915
11200
13200
12300
12300
13500
13400
11995
13400
7900
7100
12500
8500
10200
8300
*No data available
**New lift added
69
-------
Table A-6. Leachate pH
Cell 1
Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
_ J
f** i
en
-------
Table A-6. Leachate pH (Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
. J
*t u
£ J
CT> "
- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
£ J
* A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
VD 1
r-. «J
£ A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
£ M
* A
M
j
Ave
6.58
6.39
6.46
6.60
6.62
6.60
6.73
6.72
7.15
6.70
6.84
6.80
6.68
6.62
6.58
6.66
6.73
6.69
6.67
6.62
6.71
6.77
6.71
6.50
7.33
6.72
6.79
6.79
6.90
6.72
7.11
6.86
6.60
6.32
6.24
6.50
6.60
6.70
6.87
6.84
7.11
6.88
6.82
6.73
6.68
6.55
6.58
6.25
6.31
6.43
6.72
6.60
6.82
6.71
6.70
6.53
7.05
6.60
6.82
7.11
6.53
6.60
6.83
6.78
6.53
6.42
6.50
6.68
6.65
6.59
6.71
6.79
7.11
6.65
6.71
6.78
6.68
6.61
6.60
6.68
6.51
6.58
6.71
** 6.65
6.72
6.79
6.71
6.72
*
6.66
*
7.00
7.04
6.99
7.29
6.70
6.75
6.91
7-12
8.29
7.93
*
7.20
*
7.87
7.81
7.58
7.81
7.70
7.75
6.64
6.60
6.60
6.50
6.57
6.64
6.69
6.66
7.10
6.61
6.67
6.85
6.68
6.85
*
6.60
6.82
6.74
6.71
** 6.71
6.66
6.72
6.62
7.00
*
6.74
7.09
7.21
6.72
7.00
7.51
7.39
7.48
7.71
7.80
7.80
8.11
8.04
7.49
8.11
8.12
7.92
7.84
8.58
8.05
8.10
7.05
6.91
6.79
6.72
6.63
6.83
6.89
6.90
6.71
6.58
6.60
7.08
6.81
7.11
6.85
6.58
6.91
6.81
6.88
6.65
6.72
7.02
6.70
6.90
6.92
6.84
7.82
7.42
7.50
7.41
7.52
7.11
7.46
7.27
7.30
6.98
6.91
6.95
6.80
6.90
6.99
6.94
6.88
7.19
7.14
7.02
7.37
7.23
7.30
7.32
7.18
7.23
7.20
7.24
7.40
7.79
7.03
7.51
7.32
7.92
7.94
7.69
7.42
7.63
7.38
7.66
5.03
5.03
5.07
5.11
5.10
5.09
5.03
5.12
5.14
5.20
5.13
5.08
5.09
5.09
5.09
5.11
5.13
5.05
5.09
5.15
5.15
5.20
5.12
5.25
5.17
5.13
5.25
5.30
5.38
5.25
5.22
5.26
5.29
5.45
7.39
7.39
7.59
7.59
6.03
7.60
7.20
6.19
7.52
7.37
7.60
7.25
5.21
5.25
5.30
5.27
5.37
5.50
5.38
5.41
5.43
5.43
5.42
5.30
5.36
5.29
*
5.30
5.35
5.38
5.40
5.45
5.13
5.41
5.21
5.41
5.42
5.34
5.32
5.49
5.43
5.38
5.45
5.46
5.51
5.60
7.08
7.08
5.55
5.53
5.74
5.58
5.74
5.60
5.54
5.51
5.12
5.52
*No data available
**New lift added
71
-------
Table A-7. Leachate Calcium Hardness Concentration (mg
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
. J
; J
' A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
,1
! J
! A
S
0
N
D
Ave
.]
F
M
A
M
vl
,1
1 A'
S
n
N
D
Ave
984
598
855
1197
908
928
775
1350
1250
950
750
750
500
600
450
450
1000
813
1000
280
500
1015
1144
859
590
939
928
1170
695
520
803
508
704
1657
1334
1440
1064
780
499
514
626
837
511
873
2480
3220
5130
6228
4264
4375
4400
4000
3875
4800
4000
3600
1900
1700
1500
1425
4000
3298
3800
470
1200
3318
3570
3496
1410
1962
1725
2338
1129
1049
2122
868
907
4230
3460
4521
4170
2971
808
544
556
1648
1184
2156
2910
3078
*
2052
2680
1863
5200
5000
5200
4800
4200
2600
700
700
800
650
1700
2784
700
800
1000
2561
1087
300
389
665
480
644
560
800
832
625
637
1263
1156
895
569
520
423
444
434
741
562
689
1970
2052
513
1539
1518
1755
4200
3800
4400
3600
2400
700
500
500
600
400
600
1955
450
700
800
1717
756
350
424
473
382
468
463
537
627
471
522
515
446
478
490
444
429
615
505
640
546
508
152
*
3384
3450
521
1877
2921
2343
P.335
1955
1675
1219
789
613
516
803
447
909
1377
317
1595
*
2150
1126
1297
1015
463
992
793
682
831
834
553
521
687
538
460
697
*
7680
10060
9628
8555
8981
2445
5465
5891
6901
8129
8603
6553
5855
5845
5820
*
5576
6098
*
800
7715
1050
*
3188
825
943
1629
3789
2888
3965
2538
2060
1766
1874
*
3000
2298
72
-------
Table A-7.
Cell 1
J
F
M
\ *
A
M
J
oJ J
*- A
s
o
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
J£> J
r-- u
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
*i
M
j
w
*^3 1
r^ ^*
CT> A
p *»
o
N
o
Ave
j
\J
F
I
^ M
h»* I"
O> A
i~- *
J
U
Ave
319
400
707
674
721
576
596
439
590
689
572
528
568
512
796
448
550
450
419
425
433
523
436
501
516
501
1032
999
720
897
660
862
Leachate
Cell 2
704
755
1528
1894
1286
927
709
647
508
523
769
786
920
633
560
922
1169
1495
681
627
712
597
577
709
814
791
1030
1074
833
1085
958
996
"
Calcium Hardness Concentration (mg CaCO^/A) (Continued)
Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
508
539
664
745
636
543
526
414
454
1063
606
492
599
470
998
970
834
639
509
** 416
462
405
525
548
*
616
*
630
891
1038
780
646
555
432
566
702
1339
*
758
*
1543
1522
941
431
552
998
664
512
410
470
444
464
489
647
1107
1497
1441
973
760
1156
*
1276
1232
525
530
** 383
363
302
436
706
*
691
965
1391
3768
4460 .
2483
3506
1905
845
2488
1926
2288
2464
2374
2214
1619
2133
2731
1911
1372
1997
747
865
904
916
713
735
594
521
738
1323
1418
641
843
565
1145
1308
642
329
456
468
499
500
1451
1417
1503
857
1277
1154
638
894
403
543
818
431
470
369
400
336
445
403
329
412
604
402
371
414
380
606
395
328
324
346
406
476
496
471
972
839
503
775
1000
829
598
477
479
693
4930
5413
4659
5313
4636
4660
4275
4094
4284
4511
4068
4166
4584
4196
4482
4771
4117
3925
3460
3774
3683
3774
4294
3643
3785
3992
3822
4132
3927
8373
5716
3700
2178
2527
2909
2266
2268
2017
3653
2357
1332
1817
1766
1828
1940
1840
1165
2265
2449
3375
2528
3101
2563
2873
2554
2827
2482
3008
2599
2633
*
2444
2457
2658
2508
2657
2444
2981
2619
2772
2621
2618
3015
2260
3910
6264
4550
4426
3141
3167
2716
3116
3752
3976
3691
4537
1541
2756
3190
2869
2301
2866
*No data available
**New lift added
73
-------
Table A-8. Leachate Total Hardness Concentration (mg CaCO-A)
3
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
' A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
i J
: A
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
: o
! A
S
0
N
D
Ave
1669
1112
1710
2052
1636
1594
1375
2250
2000
1500
1300
1200
800
900
700
800
1600
1335
1600
465
783
1767
1891
1453
1095
1579
1532
1927
1431
1003
1377
896
1203
2396
2091
2197
1732
1279
921
888
1092
1446
977
1426
3420
4916
6156
7780
5568
6050
6150
5500
5000
5800
5200
4800
2400
2200
2000
2000
5400
4375
4800
620
1600
4510
4846
4556
2002
2778
2430
3382
2239
1617
2948
1317
1381
5815
4826
6237
6141
4401
1849
1171
1351
2567
2197
3271
4100
4617
*
3078
3932
3189
7600
7000
7000
6800
6000
3600
1400
1400
1500
1200
3000
4141
1700
1400
1900
3956
2210
1389
709
1365
993
1188
1256
1513
1632
1284
1267
2187
1766
1553
1445
1186
868
867
1029
1178
1025
1305
2650
3078
1026
2736
2372
3289
6100
5600
6200
5400
4200
1900
1600
1600
1800
1550
1950
3432
1650
1275
1900
2969
1787
1179
1018
1124
977
932
1008
1151
1414
1018
1056
984
793
973
1056
822
822
956
1050
1069
1019
968
225
*
5483
5772
2358
3460
5173
3995
3659
3192
2812
2096
1715
1453
1229
1688
1190
1895
2508
528
2474
*
3380
2095
2119
2115
1651
1997
1451
1307
1440
1576
1185
1092
1240
1055
1016
1427
*
10850
14010
13735
12096
12673
7017
8039
8619
9818
11628
12600
9412
8069
7941
8164
*
7840
9013
f!'
*
1240
12210
1813
*
5088
1426
1526
2588
5657
4365
5611
3872
3228
2893
2965
*
*4602
3521
74
-------
Table A-8. Leachate Total Hardness Concentration (mg CaC03/£)(Continued)
Cell 1 cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7
Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
""* J
- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
1C J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
^O 1
i>» u
£ A
S
0
N
0
Ave
J
F
£: M
Pv 1
e* n
p n
M
i i
j
Ave
574
690
1198
1134
1204
942
978
719
891
1067
983
899
940
935
1248
744
921
846
743
814
673
810
773
825
845
848
1835
1412
1424
1154
1357
1436
1117
1096
2348
2721
1943
1487
1268
1062
890
903
1347
1129
1443
1011
910
1429
1857
2153
1058
926
1022
850
861
1029
1452
1213
1671
1497
1392
1744
1407
1542
900
921
1105
1203
1101
970
989
767
842
1516
967
887
1014
877
1426
1435
1295
1047
899
** 811
788
894
869
954
*
1027
*
1053
1609
1610
1237
1353
1494
809
904
972
1676
*
1272
*
1826
1762
1218
675
1025
1301
1137
835
701
822
749
740
730
947
1396
1914
1817
1360
1096
1464
*
1773
1783
820
828
** 656
580
536
709
990
*
1014
1311
2087
6335
8660
5333
5248
3551
2705
3682
3880
4600
5449
4403
5202
3611
3469
4631
2964
3198
3846
1419
1730
1676
1561
1253
1278
1065
882
1159
1689
2061
1100
1406
880
1609
1731
1113
604
807
876
862
708
1892
1761
1749
1216
1601
1525
1072
1110
949
1057
1219
825
812
751
696
645
768
706
565
734
1046
683
707
745
647
984
682
578
584
675
725
725
755
868
1489
1248
830
1212
1453
1289
992
889
1126
1160
6851
6983
5646
6898
5990
5865
5309
5212
5788
5945
4978
5358
5902
5075
6303
5848
5091
5748
4906
5002
4585
5124
4740
4729
5195
5196
5956
7034
7491
16772
11341
8287
4377
4595
4668
3454
3539
3885
6783
4309
4352
3604
3396
2757
3491
3652
1719
3458
3513
5143
3983
4772
3825
4409
3821
4114
3439
4736
3911
4730
*
3706
3912
4391
3798
4405
3558
5055
3947
4416
4142
4187
5022
4657
6716
15256
14196
7621
5018
4961
5000
5426
6156
8291
7360
7752
3714
4349
5268
5211
4355
5108
*No data available
**New lift added
75
-------
Table A-9. Leachate Alkalinity (mg Ca CCL/A)
O
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
_ J
^ A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
K J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
E J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
1925
1606
1966
2538
2009
2274
1793
3221
2859
2368
2350
2100
1284
1525
1177
931
2565
2037
2756
673
1242
3081
3013
2576
4489
2855
2642
2793
3600
2095
2651
1641
2435
3978
3016
3139
2738
2519
1776
1323
2128
1519
1769
2332
2960
4405
6184
6988
5134
5724
5184
4966
4851
5544
5603
5562
2558
2996
2568
2568
5830
4496
5724
763
2000
5187
5412
5202
4259
3861
3236
4704
4416
2683
3954
2017
2139
6853
5616
7457
7689
5969
4125
2214
3450
3680
3738
4579
3920
4557
*
3089
3855
4676
7803
8258
7508
7623
7832
5562
2996
3317
2836
2408
4505
5444
3710
1431
2632
5130
4015
3926
4276
2656
2219
2318
2870
2499
3140
2206
2219
2985
2228
2500
3219
2877
2204
1711
2041
1157
1769
2260
2430
3454
1230
2689
2451
4206
7182
7190
7046
6583
6266
5334
4387
4574
3210
4280
4558
5401
4558
1086
2697
4040
3257
2955
4242
2343
2257
1755
1762
1740
2724
1467
1722
1385
1060
1364
1748
1546
1342
1165
1596
948
1265
1384
273
*
9089
9384
8820
6892
8036
6958
5745
5147
4773
4853
4398
4483
4819
5325
2662
3709
5076
-
577
4219
*
6027
5096
3980
5586
4774
4865
3118
2898
3859
3419
3051
3675
4219
1422
2070
3580
*
941
15195
14259
13524
10980
7571
9267
9044
9810
12358
13507
9846
8116
11644
7461
*
8525
9741
*
188
1862
2623
*
1558
1911
2414
3696
6208
5469
6455
4881
4356
5550
4126
*
*6484
4686
76
-------
Table A-9. Leachate Alkalinity (mg CaCCLA) (Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
«=r J
en ^
- A
s
0
N
n
u
Ave
j
F
M
i i
A
n
M
1 1
J
U
un J
r-. "
CT> A
c
o
n
\j
Ave
j
w
F
M
I |
A
n
M
j
u
en A
f **
C
O
n
U
Ave
i
u
C
r
Oi A
r r\
J
u
Ave
863
1004
1397
1586
Mil
1648
1832
1307
1346
1115
1845
1691
1451
1290
590
1123
1415
1261
1027
1376
1218
1362
1037
808
1265
1148
410
338
1234
1107
1236
865
1826
1465
2794
3235
2485
2331
2537
2243
2306
2026
2358
1858
2289
1581
1273
1981
2579
2700
1296
1427
1596
1644
1523
973
1829
1700
953
704
1063
1327
1480
1105
1078
1126
1451
1534
1468
1481
1691
1320
1564
871
1295
1384
1355
1350
453
833
1706
1471
1120
** 1236
1277
1362
988
883
*
1153
*
1306
1573
1700
1471
1372
1334
1046
891
891
816
*
1240
*
653
744
1325
1064
1068
971
877
909
828
1096
979
1056
1000
987
666
500
654
577
844
453
*
526
679
873
860
** 959
915
1021
790
774
*
785
755
1552
5609
6377
5849
5750
4947
4393
3586
3856
2388
1847
3909
1693
509
Mil
5280
3802
4704
2961
3407
3476
3307
2904
2112
2318
2472
1922
1320
526
525
1602
2158
1110
452
251
1608
873
1176
*
1360
940
349
214
291
784
233
182
526
626
799
940
551
1610
1731
1582
1582
1082
1442
1468
1166
1166
513
705
615
1222
410
368
445
582
704
768
*
782
564
622
494
202
540
277
365
321
362
351
401
346
6483
6399
5549
6469
5242
4121
4352
5162
5215
5702
5407
4997
5425
4946
5800
5820
5465
4778
4440
*
4856
4300
4398
3786
4282
4806
4433
4729
6144
6350
4889
4288
3568
3890
3011
3011
3471
2582
4197
2504
1958
2119
2225
1811
2208
2138
2114
4172
5218
6311
4726
5331
4841
6125
5497
5958
5279
6048
5135
5492
*
5028
5181
5053
4824
*
5016
5196
4701
4526
5010
5003
77^14
3358
6909
6650
5827
5394
5038
5341
6797
6797
7254
6894
6164
6906
3314
3686
6580
2150
3224
4310
*No data available
**New lift added
77
-------
Table A-10. Leachate Chloride Concentration (mg/£)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
_ J
& 0
" A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
K J
£ A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
E J
2 A
S
0
N
D
515
330
288
625
440
332
322
712
562
425
475
372
198
200
229
282
593
~392~
570
181
258
589
650
923
499
472
548
834
709
389
552
364
402
700
523
504
478
402
302
188
322
330
345
530
666
1005
375
644
613
906
850
938
925
900
769
273
250
229
330
916
658
829
142
405
881
914
1394
446
542
587
974
902
470
707
354
343
984
764
1087
1052
852
780
294
651
662
654
834
960
*
1375
1056
1052
1626
1700
1700
1400
1550
992
595
700
782
552
1105
1146
1010
453
550
1003
984
1503
591
513
479
575
663
498
735
465
459
519
350
430
639
440
350
248
304
206
227
605
600
132
1562
725
1210
1613
1550
1562
1300
1425
1364
1017
1150
1105
1320
1105
1310
1140
486
580
735
685
942
585
446
432
342
307
278
580
216
240
143
89
80
195
127
142
117
171
132
63
5
*
1685
1974
2003
1417
2095
1698
1225
1203
1002
1371
881
813
862
944
825
755
566
1247
*
1592
1258
1166
1534
1636
1228
913
945
1157
686
644
670
655
643
551
*
2073
2448
2578
2449
2387
1393
1542
1510
1697
2100
3270
1410
1068
1117
1328
*
1027
*
442
365
534
*
447
417
483
787
1164
970
1527
778
571
576
669
*
T045
Ave 405 706 386 143 1140 938 1587 817
78
-------
Table A-10. Leachate Chloride Concentration (mg/£) (Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7
*No data available
**New lift added.
Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
j
* -,
o^ J
- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
j
O> A
"~ <
o
N
ii
n
\j
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
j
w
£ J
a\ n
f~m f\
s
o
V
N
M
D
Ave
j
u
F
I
iv. M
2 A
M
J
Ave
129
152
261
247
217
198
208
164
178
183
239
212
199
204
145
108
158
155
177
45
147
147
168
168
169
149
192
154
156
203
161
173
263
162
298
474
337
330
352
283
230
154
270
190
279
129
56
103
154
243
217
58
215
133
165
109
160
145
107
59
114
210
183
135
133
115
140
232
173
179
217
124
162
124
105
96
150
135
90
78
103
108
98
** 69
233
143
131
189
*
125
*
214
326
336
256
221
173
173
178
131
173
*
219
*
82
80
171
176
183
138
.69
69
47
75
38
70
72
27
59
26
43
27
52
12
*
70
42
25
70
** 4
68
26
73
138
*
53
203
647
1378
2187
1963
1638
1650
1671
2171
1352
1176
1604
1470
1044
1035
1060
1025
1164
1784
1185
731
630
526
462
341
331
335
320
245
228
262
307
393
249
223
216
194
144
136
204
173
197
144
114
112
176
125
147
81
202
204
135
149
552
406
388
293
219
229
266
275
161
230
284
262
297
262
284
247
277
214
175
225
197
181
193
157
165
215
155
172
137
148
135
121
145
844
843
584
726
538
398
233
310
466
372
263
257
486
640
^'00
182
365
273
25
397
427
360
223
606
171
339
295
267
97
1144
635
638
1385
490
734
162
538
155
545
102
393
439
127
106
166
222
408
724
824
1164
969
966
746
991
892
776
778
936
848
1088
*
476
755
719
517
999
760
1426
1499
1056
634
903
920
449
810
2480
1402
814
1700
1109
1134
988
933
1310
1171
946
601
642
851
647
810
750
79
-------
Table A-ll. Leachate Total Iron Concentration (mq/£)
Cell 1
Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
,- 0
S J
^ A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
C\J
t>- v
<* A
i r\
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
ro i
r»» J
fTl fi
£- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
*
69
*
71
70
54
55
93
90
95
72
109
119
104
49
44
134
85
134
42
153
125
112
89
82
164
197
172
63
108
120
113 '
105
346
375
405
211
166
55
80
69
80
100
175
*
266
*
326
296
303
414
408
420
523
476
620
465
275
232
333
695
430'
635
46
171
417
573
590
362
550
396
465
116
249
381
205
152
1195
1198
1577
1329
763
65
65
31
287
109
581
*
234
*
43
138
304
619
668
695
750
865
368
44
20
13
62
194
384
33
77
266
488
147
41
32
70
70
105
39
292
138
112
102
284
269
126
29
29
24
29
5
91
85
99
*
125
*
106
116
164
350
281
426
315
235
42
31
4
44
27
45
164
13
25
189
337
99
51
33
38
38
73
46
189
94
76
72
98
102
100
58
40
32
44
39
50
54
64
6
*
74
156
130
92
99
128
177
170
181
121
73
43
8
48
192
66
109
15
150
*
179
34
94
17
33
26
38
48
28
53
17
16
27
8
33
29
*
520
805
830
720
719
444
564
630
693
938
1057
768
637
640
788
*
968
739
*
53
68
93
*
71
55
55
102
300
286
434
378
317
312
380
*
406
275
80
-------
Table A-ll. Leachate Total Iron Concentration (mg/£)(Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7
*No data available
**New lift added
Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
j
^ J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
tc J
01 A
S
0
N
n
u
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
^0 1
r^ v
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
£ M
5 A
M
J
Ave
106
94
164
237
271
156
84
65
55
108
105
56
T25"
56
56
156
147
92
98
147
92
75
67
59
72
93
50
200
192
198
111
150
116
200
658
532
356
152
37
41
31
37
74
70
T92
86
81
483
607
473
97
75
74
49
44
99
28
183
116
201
316
292
156
216
109
157
242
172
143
77
37
37
24
105
58
54
TOT
46
66
102
280
129
71
** 54
70
46
68
53
*
90
*
42
83
54
84
59
63
43
51
37
34
*
55
*
128
253
63
91
76
122
66
55
77
93
75
133
45
53
18
88
77
34
68
50
*
48
45
63
213
** 101
89
72
71
41
*
79
54
38
397
236
136
47
18
23
24
69
31
30
92
69
23
15
194
56
36
66
53
84
104
102
132
109
57
25
42
112
121
54
~8~3~
17
17
34
90
24
77
34
95
42
46
154
16
54
12
5
8
17
47
38
21
35
47
44
38
43
55
26
13
11
31
20
14
IT
8
4
6
11
5
14
8
16
4
39
6
5
10
6
52
4
4
6
13
14
973
940
793
840
808
851
3169
849
854
922
1017
1094
T09T
955
1230
1157
988
929
1142
1228
500
1262
1291
1316
1567
1130
1372
2787
5420
1381
1259
1272
1655
1355
1083
428
239
269
1543
128
312
735
269
180
105
288
156
263
232
314
311
403
440
478
909
498
578
622
"434"
459
*
430
419
283
419
525
562
516
540
580
624
487
703
374
1072
456
1237
458
443
838
718
670
624
662
688
400
318
158
343
270
431
320
81
-------
Table A-12. Leachate Ammonia-N Concentration (mg N/£)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
. J
; J
' A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
! J
! A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
'A
S
0
N
D
Ave
186
172
200
271
207
216
214
316
293
228
240
215
154
168
151
147
309
221
295
67
144
268
293
231
203
258
295
427
348
212
253
147
208
387
256
315
318
275
162
100
162
98
94
210
187
240
386
476
322
368
307
254
306
354
362
333
162
137
130
119
418
271
390
47
164
327
353
379
222
222
218
351
397
228
275
137
135
363
295
450
501
471
461
244
368
308
292
335
205
336
*
206
249
337
500
483
505
522
556
388
246
274
263
145
267
374
214
112
154
305
271
305
225
173
136
111
164
105
190
81
84
139
74
136
276
278
191
128
38
32
48
125
132
176
35
141
121
234
474
526
530
484
455
413
368
411
373
3:07
309
407
316
149
119
220
177
182
306
138
132
58
46
11
154
28
24
25
15
61
68
87
64
38
74
24
26
44
82
6
*
1073
1217
1340
909
1036
914
694
634
551
582
580
567
488
401
215
303
580
69
638
*
1036
745
622
703
429
622
323
269
387
346
262
217
321
99
96
340
*
676
1055
1013
1118
966
629
770
664
706
818
935
703
643
695
663
*
647
716
*
279
237
361
*
292
290
353
497
582
639
735
687
657
535
- 618
*
794
581
-------
Table A-12. Leachate Ammonia-N Concentration (mg N/*-) (Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
J
F
M
-A
M
j
^ J
* A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
te J
CT» A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
VD i
^ A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
i^ M
2 A\
MJ
J
Ave
31
35
81
88
92
95
119
98
132
91
88
81
86
64
62
32
44
59
67
67
74
99
no
93
56
69
39
16
37
29
38
32
120
65
100
172
131
132
189
206
221
202
124
69
144
54
55
33
42
58
60
55
81
95
120
88
63
59
45
16
14
12
31
24
16
12
20
44
36
54
88
72
87
68
74
51
52
54
47
29
26
32
54
** 68
76
90
94
69
*
58
*
72
56
70
72
82
72
82
64
52
33
*
66
*
15
12
60
60
62
42
10
8
9
21
14
29
28
30
34
30
24
7
20
10
*
5
9
5
15
** 42
64
67
72
50
*
34
30
57
455
595
721
760
637
600
644
640
324
327
482
250
24
127
453
453
563
312
272
283
258
226
176
171
220
157
138
59
58
54
173
22
13
12
52
22
35
63
69
56
42
10
18
34
12
6
6
16
16
31
14
62
72
49
73
40
67
69
38
9
13
8
7
42
4
6
2
3
2
0
0
2
0
10
5
2
3
5
12
2
1
1
0
4
509
515
351
480
337
295
239
240
307
300
249
221
337
236
263
227
258
218
164
154
159
92
74
60
174
173
164
68
164
118
118
95
104
82
92
94
99
96
108
86
67
52
49
49
80
64
324
614
634
825
601
630
651
739
669
700
651
361
617
703
*
665
647
646
646
698
648
625
339
290
717
602
790
179
696
655
655
490
637
622
764
833
804
891
668
948
506
517
554
554
573
609
*No data available
**New lift added
83
-------
Table A-13. Leachate Organic-N Concentration (mg N/£)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
fv.
CM
en
CO
r~-
CTi
s
0
N
D
kve
J
F
V\
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
bve
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
s
0
N
D
f(ve
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
133
46
46
51
69
37
56
88
68
30
38
25
18
21
39
24
39
40
39
21
24
46
46
39
18
22
42
94
60
37
41
42
28
128
81
84
51
34
69
18
22
36
22
130
70
132
162
124
96
202
228
168
135
135
97
44
32
24
24
161
112
109
20
35
105
104
82
29
60
54
81
56
44
65
31
29
278
196
295
216
118
70
38
39
59
46
282
112
*
105
166
82
448
281
303
160
194
61
40
32
44
22
56
144
42
22
32
58
44
51
23
42
36
41
33
46
39
32
29
49
34
31
46
38
25
23
6
27
15
112
60
18
102
73
100
342
167
154
*
92
67
57
53
44
53
46
107
39
26
35
41
37
33
23
27
27
25
20
13
29
22
20
31
20
36
16
16
14
19
17
17
12
3
*
217
239
210
167
226
223
266
183
100
102
100
91
66
71
39
62
87
201
*
242
168
174
145
91
116
86
51
56
60
42
38
50
20
34
*
898
919
1061
1034
978
526
616
786
802
1013
1140
727
518
355
290
*
343
*
103
81
99
*
94
115
99
264
459
252
285
199
185
144
304
« *
389
l\ve 51 118 30 20 127 66 647 245
84
-------
Table A-13. Leachate Organic-N Concentration (mcj N/£)(Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
j
j
A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
' A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
! J
! A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
: M
' A^
' MJ
J
Ave
9
15
25
18
21
16
21
18
20
15
24
19
18
15
15
16
24
14
13
17
10
8
15
18
9
14
10
9
15
15
23
T4
14
24
34
42
38
33
38
35
37
32
32
25
32
18
16
24
25
26
18
15
15
14
24
22
16
19
13
8
14
14
V7
13
14
19
22
23
23
19
19
15
16
16
19
21
19
16
15
21
17
19
11
** 24
21
18
19
20
*
T8
*
12
14
15
17
17
15
0
5
12
18
*
12
*
13
10
11
11
14
12
15
11
13
12
11
10
12
11
11
8
10
11
11
8
*
16
13
13
5
** 19
14
15
18
20
*
T4
8
33
82
103
123
116
114
92
36
115
47
48
76
36
41
58
81
81
117
69
37
38
26
30
31
33
33
30
35
14
16
21
29
14
13
11
18
13
10
18
20
2
11
9
10
12
9
9
20
20
20
11
15
24
26
21
21
23
20
21
20
6
16
15
17
19
16
14
28
28
25
22
19
15
4
23
14
14
18
13
28
9
12
12
li
16
281
280
191
253
179
168
126
132
167
157
126
139
T83"
166
169
203
151
146
97
115
113
37
52
38
93
115
80
33
89
72
72
54
48
43
35
58
60
40
57
31
29
42
34
34
48
36
114
246
271
434
334
392
284
331
278
284
282
181
286
314
*
259
248
309
233
211
241
200
no
92
223
222
266
45
314
258
258
316
267
224
222
248
249
274
245
252
115
231
208
208
172
198
*No data available
**New lift added
85
-------
Table A-14. Leachate Ammonium-N Concentration (mg
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
r- 0
* A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
^. A
s
o
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
CO ,
i^s. u
2 A
S
0
N
D
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
324
228
240
*
*
*
*
*
*
264
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
283
292
404
370
208
311
157
205
370
257
305
326
269
166
113
161
94
97
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
328
354
362
*
*
*
*
*
*
348
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
261
223
193
416
219
262
133
138
358
297
451
515
474
468
258
370
312
290
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
560
522
568
*
*
*
*
*
*
550
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
194
138
118
175
112
147
85
87
142
79
133
281
269
202
135
161
31
56
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
590
584
468
*
*
*
*
*
*
547
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
158
132
58
55
27
86
21
27
30
23
32
65
83
70
45
77
62
32
*
*
1090
1245
357
897
1055
911
674
598
548
576
588
588
672
525
234
290
*
628
*
1055
204
629
671
441
591
320
258
397
358
270
284
431
109
105
*
640
999
1034
310
746
644
744
647
681
822
938
699
651
924
*
692
628
*
274
241
422
*
312
288
357
471
587
656
747
667
604
714
*
596
773
Ave 210 339 138 47 605 353 734 587
86
-------
Table A-14. Leachate Ammonium-N Concentration (mg N/S,)(Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7
Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
- J
«3"
£ J
°^ n
'- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
tn j
r-. u
o> A
^~
s
o
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
£ J
r^s **
* A
P*» * »
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
E M
£ A
M
J
Ave
40
46
91
94
65
101
129
100
136
208
86
86
98
72
64
34
48
68
67
81
87
105
114
92
66
75
27
67
35
28
42
40
129
76
114
180
144
144
194
201
222
215
115
79
151
57
57
41
48
61
60
67
94
120
121
92
73
74
35
27
15
15
39
26
24
23
23
50
43
65
93
79
93
72
72
65
58
65
43
41
27
34
54
** 108
94
105
87
63
*
66
*
78
57
75
75
81
80
67
54
54
32
*
65
*
15
12
59
56
64
41
16
15
15
29
22
36
36
36
36
29
22
14
26
14
*
7
14
14
13
** 47
81
83
74
49
*
40
17
78
457
236
691
689
589
595
637
637
299
302
436
238
26
131
434
394
558
297
257
286
274
250
180
202
231
172
144
72
72
61
183
36
14
20
61
34
40
59
114
54
35
7
21
41
18
4
8
16
21
40
18
72
79
56
89
43
72
72
50
50
22
14
14
53
14
14
14
7
7
13
7
7
7
41
7
0
12
10
16
0
0
0
14
7
547
508
386
499
346
317
245
273
316
316
258
244
355
273
273
285
272
231
161
188
155
148
140
166
183
206
170
40
78
218
581
66
76
644
101
101
62
92
186
93
66
59
26
34
87
61
338
620
676
869
620
678
663
732
674
718
646
789
669
703
*
652
679
625
578
672
605
632
612
719
689
651
729
84
350
747
3180
389
617
346
825
825
735
861
807
933
500
504
592
570
538
606
*No data available
**New lift added
87
-------
Table A-15. Leachate Nitrate-N Plus Nitrite-N Concentration (mg
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
_ J
CTl J
^ A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
K J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
R J
2 A
S
0
N
D
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
31.0
8.0
0.0
*
*
*
*
*
*
13.0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3.9
1.3
1.1
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
22.0
12.0
0.0
*
*
*
*
*
*
11.3
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.0
*
*
*
55.0
30.0
12.0
*
*
*
*
*
*
32.3
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
*
*
*
60.0
22.0
13.0
*
*
*
*
*
*
31.7
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
2.5
0.0
3.9
0.0
*
*
9.6
5.5
4.0
6.4
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.9
0.0
*
4.8
*
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.8
5.6
*
3.8
19.0
28.0
0.0
12.7
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
0.0 *
*
1.5
3.5
1.5
*
2.2
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
0.0
Ave 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.7 1.2 1.7 0.1 0.1
88
-------
Table A-15. Leachate Mitrate-N Plus Nitrite-N Concentration (mg N/£)(Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7
*No data available
**New lift added
Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
f- J
01 u
- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
rC J
CT. A
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
j
<£> J
r^» ^
^ A
"~ s
o
N
D
Ave
5
F
i
2 A
M
J
Ave
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
1.6
0.5
1.7
2.3
0.0
0.0
2.8
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
1.2
0.5
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
** 0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
3.3
*
0.4
*
0.8
0.4
0.0
6.8
0.4
0.0
5.6
0.4
0.4
0.0
*
1.5
*
0.0
0.2
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.9
0.5
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
** 0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
4.9
*
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
135.0
0.0
0.0
44.0
11.9
11.9
3.9
7.9
18.2
4.0
24.4
54.5
6.6
0.0
0.0
14.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
4.9
4.0
2.9
3.3
1.5
2.9
56.6
19.2
2.8
0.8
0.3
13.8
6.1
2.8
6.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
4.3
27.0
8.7
20.0
22.7
4.5
0.4
32.0
2.0
152.0
153.0
35.6
98.4
47.4
136.0
51.0
32.8
30.0
65.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.8
0.8
0.0
0.0
9.5
4.9
8.6
0.0
56.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
7.9
8.3
8.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.5
0.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
12.2
0.0
2.5
0.8
1.5
0.0
3.2
0.0
4.7
6.6
0.0
0.0
116.0
8.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
12.2
12.1
0.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
89
-------
Table A-16. Leachate Total Phosphate Concentration (mg PO.A)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
r- J
o^ J
^ A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
£ J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
£ J
2 A
S
0
N
D
72.0
62.0
32.0
33.0
49.8
28.0
46.0
46.0
36.0
30.0
24.0
31.0
20.0
27.0
11.0
22.0
15.0
28.0
28.0
4.6
12.3
12.2
10.9
10.9
13.5
13.0
11.4
11.0
19.3
5.5
12.7
5.8
6.0
8.4
6.4
4.0
4.7
5.0
40.0
4.5
2.3
5.4
1.7
58.0
38.0
38.0
62.0
49.0
22.0
78.0
128.0
31.0
39.0
18.0
16.0
12.0
11.0
4.4
2.6
13.0
31.2
10.7
4.8
4.4
7.6
7.5
5.0
6.0
9.6
8.2
6.5
6.9
2.9
6.7
3.3
3.0
31.0
17.7
10.3
8.6
6.1
5.4
6.1
3.5
3.9
0.7
86.0
34.0
*
33.0
51.0
11.5
80.0
65.0
20.0
15.0
14.0
7.0
6.2
4.6
7.1
2.2
7.2
20.0
8:4
2.8
4.1
3.3
4.3
5.0
3.0
3.9
3.4
3.5
3.3
4.8
4.2
3.8
3.0
4.9
4.7
3.0
4.8
5.1
6.0
3.8
3.7
5.0
2.2
51.0
45.0
7.0
24.0
31.8
19.0
71.0
30.0
11.0
10.0
8.0
14.0
7.2
7.2
4.5
7.0
5,0
16.2
6.8
3.9
3.8
2.6
4.5
3.4
3.2
5.0
5.2
2.4
2.6
3.0
3.9
3.5
2.3
5.3
4.3
2.4
3.0
4.1
4.0
3.3
4.1
3.4
2.4
2.8
*
48.0
41.0
45.0
34.2
27.0
28.0
38.0
30.0
25.0
25.0
23.0
9.9
10.8
8.9
17.3
10.1
91.0
145.0
*
134.0
55.0
106.2
63.0
68.0
77.0
51.0
39.0
45.0
36.0
29.0
14.7
17.3
7.7
14.1
*
201.0
79.0
70.0
63.0
103.2
37.0
46.0
88.0
81.0
85.0
56.0
28.0
28.0
16.4
11.5
*
15.5
*
108.0
74.0
87.0
*
89.7
49.0
65.0
46.0
46.0
45.0
37.0
57.0
73.0
41.0
63.0
«*
48.0
Ave
7.8
8.3
4.2
3.5
21.1
38.5
44.8
51.8
90
-------
Table A-16. Leachate Total Phosphate Concentration (mg PO./£) (Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
\j
\j
A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
* j
! A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
! A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
: A
M
J
Ave
2.5
3.3
3.8
2.7
3.9
4.0
6.3
8.8
2.0
1.5
2.0
6.6
4.0
2.6
1.1
4.2
3.9
2.9
4.8
4.0
4.2
3.9
3.6
2.9
3.4
3.5
0.5
1.7
2.4
3.2
3.3
2.2
2.1
1.4
3.6
3.1
4.3
5.4
7.5
5.5
5.3
6.0
1.0
1.1
3.9
1.7
1.9
4.8
4.0
3.0
2.6
2.7
1.3
4.2
2.8
3.6
2.5
2.9
1.9
2.0
2.3
2.9
2.0
2.2
2.7
3.6
4.1
3.4
4.0
2.3
3.4
1.5
4.0
2.0
0.3
2.5
2.8
1.7
1.3
2.9
3.2
2.9
2.3
** 4.9
5.2
6.0
3.5
3.6
*
3.4
*
2.0
1.5
2.2
1.1
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.2
1.5
2.2
*
1.9
*
1.3
1.3
1.4
0.9
0.8
1.1
2.3
1.1
2.5
2.9
3.1
4.0
3.0
3.3
2.8
2.3
1.8
2.5
2.6
0.6
*
3.4
2.6
2.0
2.7
** 4.4
3^7
8.2
1.7
2.8
*
3.2
0.5
3.7
9.6
13.0
5.6
9.2
8.4
8.4
7.2
8.2
3.7
2.1
6.6
7.0
2.3
6.3
4.6
8.1
10.1
6.4
3.8
7.5
4.2
3.4
9.5
4.3
3.6
2.5
4.1
5.0
3.0
2.8
4.5
0.0
3.5
0.6
3.2
2.9
1.2
4.6
6.0
5.6
1.6
0.6
0.9
2.6
0.8
0.8
1.6
1.9
4.1
2.0
1.9
4.5
13.3
6.8
9.3
15.7
6.4
7.4
12.1
12.5
5.5
6.4
3.5
8.6
2.3
3.4
5.3
7.8
7.5
7.7
4.1
2.0
2.2
10.6
2.5
6.3
5.1
1.9
3.9
3.4
6.0
3.7
7.8
4.4
19.0
25.0
18.9
19.3
26.0
14.2
15.7
24.0
42.0
30.0
34.0
6.5
22.9
36.0
46.0
28.0
26.0
25.0
24.1
24.9
28.2
38.8
26.7
26.5
27.6
29.8
27.6
26.7
33.3
29.2
31.9
25.8
23.2
24.2
23.7
11.3
11.2
6.1
22.9
7.5
7.2
7.3
6.2
8.4
7.5
7.4
33.0
40.0
17.0
36.0
30.0
17.8
4.2
15.0
9.8
21.0
21.0
19.5
22.0
23.0
*
25.0
24.0
26.0
18.7
15.8
25.2
23.5
24.4
24.7
26.1
23.3
23.6
21.6
28.2
23.3
15.8
16.0
16.6
15.4
17.6
21.0
21.5
19.2
20.0
15.8
12.9
19.0
14.3
16.4
9.6
14.7
*No data available
**New lift added
91
-------
Table A-17. Leachate Soluble Phosphate Concentration (mg PO
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Ce,ll 7 Cell 8
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
_ J
* A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
CSJ i
r^
-------
Table A-17. Leachate soluble Phosphate Concentration (mg
(Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7
Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
* J
p> j
- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
^ J
01 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
VD 1
r*- v
£ A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
|> M
r*v "
0» A
1 »
Ave
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
9.4
0.2
0.2
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.8
0.1
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.9
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.5
1.1
1.4
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.5
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.9
0.5
0.3
** 0.5
0.6
0.0
0.4
0.4
*
0.4
*
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
*
0.2
*
0.2
0.2
1.4
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.3
0.1
1.0
1.1
0.4
0.0
*
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
** 1.0
0.6
0.8
0.3
0.3
*
0.5
0.1
0.8
2.0
1.4
2.5
2.9
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.1
0.6
0.1
1.3
0.4
0.4
2.7
1.7
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.0
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.1
1.3
2.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.6
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.8
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.9
3.4
0.3
2.3
4.1
0.0
1.4
1.1
1.3
0.0
0.7
1.3
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.2
1.2
2.0
1.2
3.0
1.3
5.8
19.0
7.3
0.6
11.5
2.8
10.5
5.0
19.0
18.0
12.5
5.5
9.8
36.0
14.8
7.9
15.9
6.8
7.4
12.0
13.8
14.2
4.9
3.5
4.7
11.8
4.5
5.2
5.2
4.4
5.1
7.0
3.5
3.1
3.0
0.6
0.6
0.3
3.5
0.6
1.1
2.5
1.4
0.8
0.8
1.2
24.0
25.0
9.0
29.0
12.8
9.8
2.5
11.8
3.3
15.0
12.8
11.3
13.9
15.0
*
15.3
13.4
9.2
8.0
8.3
7.9
11.0
6.5
4.8
5.0
9.5
7.2
4.2
4.8
6.0
5.7
6.2
4.5
4.6
4.0
3.4
4.8
3.6
4.9
4.1
1.9
11.8
8.8
4.4
2.9
5.6
*No data available
**New lift added
93
-------
Table A-18. Average Leachate COD Production (g/day average since previous sampling)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
r- J
£ J
" A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
£ J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
fM
J
E J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave. incl
Ave. excl
1305
75
35
14
357
204
677
1108
579
106
189
60
163
64
289
214
217
322
202
282
506
1184
620
114
74
702
1217
1057
93
188
520
926
197
6629
7291
3818
616
312
136
85
23
141
31
.+1684
.+ 274
1759
171
173
0
526
651
2630
3140
654
341
362
254
638
121
305
448
1031
881
692
63
884
2614
1516
533
200
1855
1412
1620
614
452
1038
502
354
6289
6045
10297
3547
1903
305
68
65
677
561
2551
887
473
94
0
178
186
363
3948
6198
2342
957
2213
430
155
54
85
52
246
1420
93
18
201
1675
517
65
42
265
183
190
39
342
302
209
112
780
905
670
82
66
37
33
18
55
24
249
71
310
53
11
72
112
229
2728
2358
2224
1077
966
245
181
57
141
176
151
878
48
23
442
1278
460
58
37
135
131
70
30
87
233
95
69
167
225
96
38
23
18
36
20
26
17
69
38
0
0
614
1378
67
412
1753
2331
3060
3104
2614
1199
416
93
22
163
48
211
1251
693
0
238
0
1105
77
284
386
269
611
301
182
145
134
28
28
39
15
21
180
118
0
0
1475
110
87
334
1406
2838
9120
22920
18179
9264
534
760
747
2029
0
2697
5874
2253
0
0
14
14
0
6
126
233
1722)
8729 }+
7699;
2966
834
460
190
.407
0
552
1993
641
94
-------
Table A-18. Average Leachate COD Production (q/day average since previous sampling)
(Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
CTl ^
- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
fC J
O*t A
"" S
0
N
n
u
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
£ 0
1^^
^1 A
s
0
N
D
Ave
j
\J
F
1
£ M
2 A
M
i i
j
\j
Ave
48
153
920
227
636
94
5
6
3
5
32
6
178
2
5
129
195
15
8
20
4
3
2
15
5
34
1
15
111
106
6
48
209
313
153
1053
809
350
49
40
10
16
78
23
259
9
9
1265
838
427
55
51
28
6
4
23
25
228
5
x 75
359
226
278
189
65
94
310
108
115
39
14
10
4
4
14
33
68
5
6
46
246
21
16
** 32
19
8
5
14
0
35
0
20
74
36
24
4
16
10
2
2
1
0
16
0
6
7
12
7
10
7
24
34
71
x 26
x 35
23
4
6
1
2
3
4
19
0
b *
b *
a 15
3
13
** 65
11
7
1
9
0
12
2
36
1108
510
1111
94
71
48
22
20
5
1
252
0
5
68
177
161
194
101
59
289
363
x 193
x 645
168
29
19
3
10
7
20
150
5
2
3
58
16
23
2
6
4
1
1
2
10
1
0
8
12
13
3
6
11
24
22
x 44
x 84
36
13
14
3
9
4
4
22
4
5
5
5
17
13
4
1
6
2
3
4
6
2
0
6
7
5
6
4
2902
5640
3131
7371
6830
6277
1378
838
169
953
775
1321
3132
1438
266
841
5237
2724
928
3706
449
1420
777
613
1066
1622
706
587
2949
4455
3825
1755
1786
1308
1241
1187
644
47
1708
43
755
1772
1650
1110
1082
1069
575
1659
2074
7684
7327
3976
1068
1281
342
1357
1507
2078
2577
1539
0
b *
a 3494
3654
2563
4571
b *
a 878
819
549
154
1822
1005
336
6477
6828
5338
1599
1420
1181
646
585
435
417
2189
236
2181
4019
3939
1741
1177
2216
* No data available
** New lift added
x gutter broken, runoff probably in leachate
system
a total since previous successful sampling
b pump breakdown
95
-------
Table A-19. Oxygen Concentration (%0p)
Cells l-6:2'&4' averages; Cells 7&8:3',5'&7' averages;
Cells 3&4 after 7/75:1',3',5'&8' averages.
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
. J
; o
' A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
1 J
! A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.2
1.3
0.8
*
1.2
1.6
0.6
1.0
1.5
1.8
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.8
0.7
** 8.4
0.3
2.0
11.6
1.8
0.0
*
3.0
3.4
*
3.3
5.9
*
10.9
19.0
2.2
6.5
4.7
0.6
0.0
0.3
7.4
2.5
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.4
1.7
0.6
*
1.2
1.2
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.0
0.3
** 9.0
1.7
0.6
0.7
** 6.1
8.4
1.2
3.9
1.5
3.0
*
2.2
10.4
*
3.8
9.5
*
20.3
19.5
1.9
12.3
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
5.8
5.8
0.0
1.0
0.4
1.4
0.3
*
1.6
2.3
0.3
0.5
0.9
1.3
0.2
** 0.4
0.9
0.0
10.2
1.0
0.7
1.0
2.6
2.8
8.4
*
5.1
0.8
*
3.3
2.6
*
20.0
19.2
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.6
1.0
0.6
*
1.6
2.2
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.8
** 7.8
1.7
8.1
11.6
2.7
9.1
6.2
7.8
11.4
16.5
*
11.5
1.4
*
8.6
13.6
*
19.2
19.8
4.4
5.2
2.4
5.2
6.1
11.1
14.1
14.8
7.0
11.5
11.2
8.8
10.3
9.2
13.9
18.4
9.8
5.4
8.0
9.2
12.8
20.9
18.8
19.8
10.5
13.8
20.6
18.1
20.4
20.1
16.8
17.4
17.2
17.9
15.7
16.8
18.5
20.9
20.5
20.0
17.8
11.6
19.7
18.6
17.9
14.8
12.3
14.6
12.9
20.2
8.8
11.4
9.3
11.7
13.6
11.4
20.7
19.8
19.0
18.2
18.6
19.1
20.4
18.7
15.1
19.5
13.4
18.2
17.9
16.5
16.1
15.1
Ave 5.5 6.6 4.2 10.5 13.0 18.5 13.2 17.4
96
-------
Table A-19. Oxygen Concentration (%CL) (Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
o^ ^
- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
fC J
01 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
2 A
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
""* M
r-. "I
2 A
M
i i
Ave
0.0
1.1
6.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
*
0.0
4.6
0.0
*
*
*
1.9
0.0
0.8
5.4
1.6
2.0
0.5
1.8
0.0
0.3
0.9
5.2
2.4
0.0
0.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
*
*
2.0
2.3
*
*
*
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.3
17.6
7.8
0.0
0.7
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
18.5
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
2.4
0.0
12.2
*
0.0
0.0
*
x *
*
4.2
3.8
5.8
15.9
5.2
14.3
3.5
9.6
6.0
8.8
*
6.4
*
18.9
17.6
12.6
8.6
10.6
3.8
3.8
0.4
1.9
2.8
2.5
17.2
14.0
13.0
4.6
9.8
6.2
5.0
6.8
7.6
24.1
17.0
20.2
12.1
20.0
15.0
18.7
15.7
10.2
*
x *
*
4.8
2.8
7.0
14.0
12.0
9.2
8.6
6.9
10.1
10.3
*
9.3
*
14.6
14.0
7.7
2.8
9.4
0.0
0.9
4.6
4.2
3.6
2.7
19.2
19.6
20.4
18.0
17.4
18.4
6.0
8.0
13.3
11.4
17.6
18.7
15.7
18.1
19.9
21.0
22.2
19.8
12.6
*
*
20.5
19.4
18.6
18.0
19.0
20.2
20.8
21.4
13.1
20.4
17.1
18.8
22.4
20.1
20.4
20.6
20.2
20.2
18.4
17.2
20.8
22.4
22.4
20.2
20.4
19.8
20.8
22.0
22.0
19.4
19.8
*
*
22.6
19.6
17.3
19.8
20.3
16.8
16.8
20.8
17.6
19.0
17.0
18.0
10.8
10.5
10.8
11.5
11.4
14.1
13.8
9.9
9.9
14.4
13.2
13.5
12.0
14.8
** 0.0
** 3.2
** 0.0
** 0.0
6.5
*
*
15.5
6.5
6.1
1.5
5.4
0.4
7.2
4.6
5.0
0.4
3.1
0.0
*
6.6
8.7
3.0
1.4
3.7
1.2
2.4
1.2
7.1
1.4
2.7
19.9
15.6
16.6
16.1
16.1
17.3
16.9
16.4
15.4
18.2
18.1
15.7
16.9
18.2
** 20.9
** 19.7
** 7.6
** 7.3
9.9
*
*
22.7
3.8
5.7
4.0
12.0
2.4
6.2
4.5
1.5
2.2
2.3
1.7
*
11.2
6.4
7 .0
8.0
4.9
7.2
5.7
4.4
2.7
4.6
4.9
*Data unavailable or unreliable
**New probes or may be unreliable due to only one data value available
xNew lift added.
97
-------
Table A-20 - Carbon Dioxide Concentration (%C02)
Cells l-6:2'&4' averages; Cells 7&8:3',5'5 &71 averages;
Cells 3&4 after 7/75:1',3',6', & 8' averages.
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
_ J
n J
- A
S
0
N
D
16.8
21.7
16.4
15.3
19.8
17.4
*
20.3
21.2
22.2
20.7
17.0
15.4
14.2
15.9
Ave 18.1
J 14.8
F 15.0
M ** 8.6
A 16.1
M 19.8
J 18.8
i J 18.9
: A
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
: j
: A
s
0
N
D
Ave
28.0
*
19.0
14.6
*
17.4
10.1
*
11.1
1.0
22.2
15.6
17.6
17.2
18.8
17.1
7.9
14.6
13.9
25.3
31.6
20.2
16.7
21.2
17.8
*
23.2
25.3
24.4
23.2
21.2
19.5
17.1
** 11.4
20.1
21.6
18.1
** 14.8
13.0
26.0
23.4
22.2
30.0
*
25.0
15.7
*
21.0
12.7
*
1.7
2.2
37.6
lii.6
26.0
29.2
29.3
32.4
31.2
18.4
21.5
12.8
18.4
19.1
20.4
19.0
26.2
*
30.2
28.6
30.5
27.6
24.4
18.0
19.2
** 23.8
24.4
23.2
11.2
17.0
18.9
24.9
29.6
24.6
21.4
*
23.2
30.2
*
22.4
19.0
*
3.0
1.2
32.0
32.6
38.2
35.4
35.8
34.0
28.0
24.0
25.7
10.8
18.5
21.3
19.3
21.0
17.6
*
25.1
22.2
26.3
27.8
23.8
18.2
20.1
** 13.1
21.3
9.0
8.0
** 9.9
8.8
18.0
24.2
16.4
9.2
*
11.4
22.0
*
13.7
5.2
*
0.7
1.6
18.1
19.2
21.6
13.8
13.7
9.8
3.8
5.4
10.3
15.3
10.0
9.2
9.9
11.9
10.8
6.7
0.0
10.0
18.3
13.1
11.5
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.3
10.8
5.0
0.8
0.7
0.0
0.0
3.3
1.1
2.8
4.8
8.4
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
5.6
22.3
2.0
1.9
3.1
5.8
8.1
9.4
14.9
1.5
22.5
18.4-
17.3
12.9
10.3
8.2
11.0
0.7 :,
0.4
3.4
1.3
1.6
0.6
0.0
0.2
7.5
2.0
5.5
2.0
3.7
2.7
3.7
3.2
2.7
98
-------
Table A-20.
Cell 1 Cell 2
J
F
M
A
M
r-- J
en u
-- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
1C J
cr> £
S
o
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
j
£ J
^ A
s
o
N
D
Ave
J
F
i^. M
2 A
M
Ave
16.5
14.8
11.3
14.6
21.0
21.8
22.8
19.2
19.2
18.5
17.6
15.1
17.7
15.6
*
16.6
12.8
22.2
*
*
*
21.4
20.6
16.1
12.5
17.2
13.4
9.0
17.8
11.4
20.1
14.3
21.8
24.2
29.4
28.4
12.6
33.2
37.0
33.4
27.7
33.4
32.4
28.4
28.5
33.0
*
*
26.7
28.8
*
*
*
30.4
27.0
29.6
29.4
29.3
24.4
3.0
12.9
21.8
30.4
18.5
Carbon Dioxide Conc<
Cell 3 Cell 4
28.2
24.6
22.0
23.1
0.0
19.8
32.2
27.8
22.0
23.1
20.0
17.0
21.6
21.7
8.0
*
20.6
26.3
*
x *
*
22.4
24. 0
17.6
2.6
17.9
13.2
8.6
10.0
11.6
13.8
*
14.0
*
2.0
0.0
7.2
12.0
9.2
22.0
22.2
25.8
24.7
26.2
24.2
1.7
2.8
5.4
14.8
7.1
12.8
12.1
10.1
10.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.4
0.0
2.4
0.0
2.6
8.2
*
X*
*
15.4
18.5
14.6
5.8
7.5
7.9
8.2
12.4
5.2
7.8
*
5.6
*
2.4
5.4
16.0
25.1
9.6
24.6
24.2
16.6
21.2
20.8
21.5
jntration
Cell 5
2.1
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.5
2.2
8.8
9.2
3.2
8.2
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.9
*
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.7
0.7
(%C02)
Cell 6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
*
*
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.0
0.5
(Continued
Cell 7
10.4
10.3
9.2
9.7
12.2
9.4
10.5
14.1
12.0
9.6
7.6
8.2
10.3
4.1
** 26.1
** 21.3
** 25.6
** 29.0
** 24.0
*
*
18.6
28.9
28.4
32.6
23.9
26.9
9.6
15.3
16.5
23.6
24.1
37.2
*
31.4
22.4
29.3
27.2
24.0
21.9
16.0
18.3
14.0
28.3
19.7
)
Cell 8
0.0
3.7
3.5
3.2
4.5
2.9
2.6
2.7
3.9
3.8
0.0
3.8
2.9
0.0
** 0.0
** 0.0
** 13.2
** 16.0
** 14.0
*
*
0.4
25.0
18.0
19.0
10.6
16.8
7.5
11.5
16.9
15.2
17.5
28.1
*
18.3
20.8
15.2
12.5
16.4
11.3
9.9
10.8
14.6
16.1
12.5
*Data unavailable or unreliable
**New probes or may be unreliable due to only one data value available
xNew lift added
99
-------
K
Table A-21. Methane Concentration (%CH4)
Cells l-6:2'&4' averages; Cells 7&8:3',5'&7' averages;
Cells 3&4 after 7/75: r,3',6' &81 averages.
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
; J
' A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
! J
: A
s
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Ave
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
** o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
*
10.4
1.2
*
1.8
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.0
*
0.0
0.8
0.3
0.7
2.6
1.2
0.8
** 0.8
0.8
7.0
4.5
**0.0
0.0
2.5
5.0
4.6
12.4
*
30.4
25.2
*
9.2
10.5
*
0.0
0.0
38.2
9.3
14.4
24.1
16.2
38.2
25.6
25.2
18.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
6.4
6.4
*
2.0
7.4
23.2
26.7
20.8
1.6
7.2
** 34.0
12.9
39.6
7.7
6.8
14.2
37.6
28.0
20.4
19.4
*
23.9
29.7
*
22.7
20.1
*
0.0
0.0
44.2
35.3
50.2
41.0
37.2
35.9
7.8
30.2
27.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
0.8
1.1
17.5
24.8
12.5
2.0
7.6
** 11.6
7.1
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.8
13.5
6.2
0.0
*
4.5
11.7
*
4.4
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
17.6
9.4
15.4
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.0
1.3
2.8
0.0
1.5
6.6
1.2
0.0
4.3
6.8
5.8
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.9
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.0.0
0.0
0.2
100
-------
Table A-21. Methane Concentration (%CHq] (Continued)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
j
[2! j
- A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
J
£) A
S
0
N
D
Ave
J
F
M
A
M
j
VD 1
(^ J
2 A
S
0
N
D
Ave
j
\J
IK. M
n*v II
en n
r rl
M
i 1
Ave
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
0.0
2.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
1.1
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
*
*
2.7
2.0
1.7
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.9
0.4
24.8
31.6
51.4
52.5
5.2
34.2
23.2
21.6
15.4
41.8
55.0
43.4
33.3
51.7
*
*
40.8
47.8
*
*
*
23.2
20.4
35.8
38.2
36.8
16.9
0.0
23.8
34.3
38.8
22.8
28.5
12.6
15.6
26.3
0.0
16.9
22.8
14.2
6.9
8.6
8.8
4.0
13.8
10.4
0.0
*
11.6
28.7
*
x *
*
20.1
14.0
10.9
0.0
12.0
9.4
4.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
*
4.7
*
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
17.5
16.0
19.6
22.8
21.6
19.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
X *
*
3.8
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
15.6
26.6
24.8
*
20.3
*
3.1
0.3
6.4
29.6
12.7
28.0
25.6
15.6
27.4
50.5
29.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
*
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.2
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
** 0.0
** 0.0
** 0.0
** 0.0
4.8
*
*
8.9
18.3
19.3
17.7
6.9
7.4
3.3
2.3
6.1
9.2
13.7
30.0
*
25.4
19.7
21.5
14.8
13.9
8.7
1.1
4.5
7.4
22.9
8.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
** 0.0
** 0.0
** 0.0
** 0.0
0.0
*
*
0.0
3.9
3.1
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.4
2.3
5.6
*
7.5
5.8
2.0
1.8
2.4
0.4
1.0
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.5
*Data unavailable or unreliable
**
New probes or may be unreliable due to only one data value available
xNew lift added
101
-------
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Table A-22. Average Refuse Temperature (°F)
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
74.8
67.2
59.5
53.8
*
49.2
*
52.5
61.0
62.4
66.8
70.5
69.8
*
64.0
45.0
51.0
48.3
45.0
52.7
60.7
69.4
74.4
75.2
80.7
73.6
52.2
53.7
54.6
53.8
53.0
53.6
63.0
81.4
80.5
80.7
78.3
74.0
71.7
57.2
75.8
58.0
57.0
52.0
*
48.2
*
52.7
58.5
63.3
67.2
67.9
64.2
*
52.9
49.2
43.7
38.7
38.7
45.3
49.7
55.5
61.9
66.3
63.0
55.0
43.0
42.0
39.8
39.5
39.4
44.8
52.7
55.0
65.8
66.3
54.2
49.0
42.8
32.7
90.3
115.0
97.7
75.0
*
65.3
*
54.5
62.5
66.4
69.4
68.2
64.2
*
52.0
48.0
41.3
37.7
38.3
44.7
53.0
59.5
67.6
70.2
66.8
62.8
44.4
45.0
35.8
37.8
40.0
41.6
51.7
63.7
71.2
70.8
67.5
62.1
57.5
42.7
88.5
116.4
99.8
71.7
*
61.2
*
61.7
72.3
78.1
80.4
83.0
83.0
*
71.0
56.2
51.3
42.3
39.7
52.3
60.0
74.8
88.8
84.7
80.7
63.0
52.4
49.5
41.1
37.3
43.5
43.2
55.2
66.9
72.7
77.5
75.7
61.1
57.2
40.5
104.3
99.6
89.0
72.8
72.0
57.5
56.1
62.2
66.1
71.6
80.8
94.4
97.3
92.2
82.0
77.2
61.5
100.2
102.0
100.7
95.2
89.2
97.3
91.7
85.6
77.2
81.2
83.6
90.2
90.8
86.6
77.5
72.2
57.8
109.9
106.7
96.0
81.0
71.8
62.6
56.5
50.3
50.4
59.5
58.8
63.9
68.2
75.4
75.1
71.2
59.8
103.8
98.8
87.0
73.7
64.6
58.9
57.0
56.7
61.8
64.8
67.5
73.4
76.5
78.. 0
75.0
75.0
65.8
102
-------
Table A-22. Average Refuse temperature (°F) (Continued)
Cell T Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
60.9
51.8
50.4
51.5
54.7
58.0
67.8
68.2
70.0
67.2
61.2
54.2
31.4
33.7
34.2
30.3
35.6
40.5
47.0
51.4
52.8
45.2
42.4
36.7
45.3
44.3
43.1
44.7
52.6
56.1
67.3
65.2
60.6
57.9
40.6
42.1
37.5
37.9
37.3
37.2
45.8
51.3
59.0
60.6
60.6
52.0
42.8
44.0
54.1
52.4
51.5
54.3
66.6
73.8
93.8
87.6
88.8
79.8
68.4
54.9
45.1
43.6
44.4
46.7
57.5
63.7
78.2
77.2
64.5
58.0
48.2
43.6
56.4
51.0
45.9
43.3
48.4
54.6
63.0
73.4
74.8
74.6
72.6
68.7
56.7
53.2
51.6
50.7
59.5
66.7
69.0
71.0
71.0
68.5
64.8
59.3
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
49.0
43.2
48.4
45.4
54.0
66.4
65.5
64.0
55.4
52.6
46.8
42.4
32.8
29.2
33.5
36.5
45.0
51.8
54.5
52.7
41.6
40.0
36.1
31.0
31.2
41.0
28.8
31.4
45.0
49.5
**53.8
57.0
51.8
48.4
47.7
44.8
36.6
29.4
28.8
30.6
40.2
63.2
**58.6
64.9
55.8
51.4
52.6
48.6
52.8
49.2
47.5
51.7
70.2
80.3
91.4
87.1
78.9
76.3
69.6
54.4
39.2
35.2
36.8
44.2
65.4
74.8
72.6
65.2
52.0
46.5
43.4
37.4
59.4
53.2
50.6
46.0
47.0
60.4
61.9
66.8
69.0
69.0
68.8
62.0
56.4
55.8
51.4
47.5
56.2
65.7
63.2
67.2
64.2
64.0
61.9
57.3
J
F
M
A
M
J
S J
£ A
S
0
N
D
40.6
31.4
35.2
40.8
43.1
49.0
26.0
27.8
24.5
33.2
38.8
51.3
38.6
36.2
35.3
35.4
37.1
38.3
45.9
44.4
44.7
45.2
44.6
44.2
46.0
42.5
49.4
58.6
75.0
59.8
61.2
64.4
64.7
68.2
65.0
64.2
47.7
43.6
43.8
54.6
64.8
77.3
29.8
32.3
31.0
36.1
45.5
53.6
51.4
42.9
40.2
40.5
44.5
50.3
58.4
68.9
69.2
65.6
60.7
55.0
52.3
48.7
44.0
49.1
54.7
59.8
64.5
68.0
68.0
66.3
61.4
53.3
J 41.2 55.4 47.2 50.6
F 40.0 51.4 41.7 40.0
£ M 38.2 51.0 37.4 44.1
« A 37.4 54.5 37.2 44.4
M 40.0 57.8 44.0 53.5
J 39.7 61.5 53.2 57.2
*No data available
**New lift added JJ ]?31
103
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
DECOMPOSITION OF RESIDENTIAL-LIGHT COMMERCIAL
SOLID WASTE IN TEST LYSIMETERS
5. REPORT DATE
Submitted November, 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Robert K. Ham
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Contract No. 68-03-0315
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The monitoring of eight large test lysimeter cells has given information
about the decomposition of, and leachate and gas production from, shredded and
unprocessed refuse. Six of the cells were originally 4 to 5 feet deep and held
100 tons each of residential-light commercial municipal solid waste. Two cells
were originally 8 to 10 feet deep and held 200 tons each. All cells were exposed
to the climate at Madison, Wisconsin, for 5 to 7 years.
Cell monitoring was designed to indicate changes in leachate quantity and
composition and gas composition, as a result of: (1) shredding or not shredding
the waste, (2) covering or not covering the waste with soil, (3) increasing the
depth of a lift from 4 feet to 8 feet, and (4) building an 8-foot layer in a
landfill in one or two lifts.
Increased peak concentrations of contaminants in leachate were common with
.shredded refuse, in comparison with unprocessed refuse. The effect, of soil cover
on the cells was to prolong the period of production of leachate high in contami-
nant concentrations. The cells left uncovered produced initially a highly con-
taminated leachate, followed by rapid stabilization to consistently low concentra-
tions of contaminants.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Refuse disposal
Leaching
Lysimeters
Gases
Decomposition reactions
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cos AT I Field/Group
Solid waste management
Sanitary landfills
Leachate
T3F
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
21. NO. OF PAGES
111
!0. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
*U S GOVERHMEHT PBIHITHG OFFICE: 1980 341-082/104
-------
EPA REGIONS
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Waste Management Branch
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
617-223-5775
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Solid Waste Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York. NY 10007
212-264-0503
U.S. EPA, Region 3
Hazardous Materials Branch
6th and Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia. PA 19106
215-597-7370
U.S. EPA, Region 4
Residuals Management Br.
345 Courtland St., N.E."
Altanta, GA 30365
404-881-3016
U.S. EPA, Region 5
Waste Management Branch
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
312-353-2197
U.S. EPA, Region 6
Solid Waste Branch
1201 Elm St.
Dallas, TX 75270
214-767-2645
U.S. EPA, Region 7
Hazardous Materials Branch
324 East 11th St.
Kansas City, MO 64108
816-374-3307
U.S. EPA, Region 8
Waste Management Branch
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO 80295
303-837-2221
U.S. EPA, Region 9
Hazardous Materials Branch
215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-556-4606
U.S. EPA, Region 10
Waste Management Branch
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-1260
------- |