Umteo States
Environmental Protection
Ag®ncy
Hesaercfr and Dev»lopment
Municipal Environmental Research FPA GOO 2 79 053h
Laboratory July 1979
Cincinnati OH 45266
Investigation of
Sanitary Landfill
Behavior
Volume II
Supplement to the
Final Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution-sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service,'Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-79-053b
July 1979
INVESTIGATION OF SANITARY LANDFILL BEHAVIOR
Volume II. Supplement to the Final Report
A.A. Fungaroli
R. Lee Steiner
Drexel University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
Research Grants R80077? and R80194?
Project Officer
Dirk Brunner
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO ^5268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Re-
search Laboratory, 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 commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of
increasing public and government concern about the dangers of
pollution to the health and welfare of the American people.
Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are tragic testimonies to
the deterioration of our natural environment. The complexity of
that environment and the interplay between its components require
a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in
problem solving, and it involves defining the problem, measuring
its impact, and searching for solutions. The Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory develops new and improved technology
and systems to prevent, treat, and manage wastewater and solid
and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal and
community sources, to preserve and treat public drinking water
supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health,
and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of
the products of that research, a most vital communications link
between the researcher and the user community.
This two-volume report provides long-term information on the
release of gaseous and liquid contaminants to the biosphere from
decomposing, landfilled, municipal solid waste. Volume I, the
comprehensive final report, presents results from a 6-year study.
(Preliminary results were published in 1971 - A.A. Fungaroli,
Pollution of Subsurface Water by Sanitary Landfills. Report No.
SW-12rg, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1971.) Volume II contains supplemental studies on stabilization
and leachate behavior, including results from an additional year
of groundwater monitoring at the field site.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This two-volume study was conducted to predict landfill life
through the characterization of gas and leachate generation and
pollutant removal. Factors that affect stabilization of the
decomposing solid waste were also studied.
The experimental facilities consisted of a sanitary landfill
field site for studying gas generation, leachate migration, and
groundwater contamination; a laboratory lysimeter for recording
leachate quantity and pollutant removal} mini-lysimeters to de-
termine the effect of shredding the refuse; and accelerated
column tests for predicting long-term landfill behavior and for
identifying the influence of depth and added nutrients on
stabilization.
A two-dimensional model of leachate migration patterns was
developed. The correlation between the computer solutions to the
model and average field concentrations obtained from shallow
wells at the field site was good. A zone of contamination in the
groundwater was described.
The final report (Volume I) identifies a semi-log linear
relationship between contaminant concentrations and leachate
volume after field capacity is reached. The supplemental study
(Volume II) confirms this relationship.
Field capacities for various sizes of milled refuse are
determined along with the influence of density (and depth) on
leachate pollutant concentrations. Each chemical component of
leachate is positively or negatively correlated with every other
chemical component as well as with the volume of leachate•
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Research Grants
R800777 and R80194? by Drexel University under the sponsorship
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The two-volume
report covers the period September 196? to October
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Acknowledgment x
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary and Conclusions 2
3. Laboratory Experimental Study 6
Column test arrangement 6
Solid waste composition 9
Leachate analysis 9
Discussion of results 9
Leachate contaminant cumulative curves . . . 57
Comparison of D6 leachate and D7 leachate. . 58
b. Field Facility Experimental Study 59
Deep well study 59
Wells 12 and 13 114
Well 3 115
Shallow well study lib
Ground water total dissolved solids study. . 116
-------
FIGURES
fto.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Schematic
Column A
Column A
Column A
Column A
Column A
Column A
Column B
Column B
Column B
Column B
Column B
Column B
Column C
Column C
Column C
Column C
Column C
Column C
Column D
Column D
Column D
Column D
Column D
Column D
Column D6
Column D6
Column D6
Column D6
Column D6
Column D6
Leachate
Leachate
Leachate
Leachate
- Plexiglas Columns
• pH Bottom Leachate
• Iron Concentration Bottom Leachate
• Zinc Concentration Bottom Leachate
• Sodium Concentration Bottom Leachate
• Chloride Bottom Leachate
• COD Concentration Bottom Leachate
• pH Bottom Leachate
• Iron Concentration Bottom Leachate
• Zinc Concentration Bottom Leachate
PAGE
7
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Chloride Concentration Bottom Leachate 20
Sodium Concentration Bottom Leachate 21
COD Concentration Bottom Leachate 22
pH Bottom Leachate 23
Iron Concentration Bottom Leachate 24
Zinc Concentration Bottom Leachate 25
Chloride Concentration Bottom Leachate26
Sodium Concentration Bottom Leachate 27
COD Concentration Bottom Leachate 28
pH Concentration Bottom Leachate 29
Iron Concentration Bottom Leachate 30
Zinc Concentration Bottom Leachate 31
Chloride Concentration Bottom Leachate32
Sodium Concentration Bottom Leachate 33
COD Concentration Bottom Leachate 3^-
PH 35
Iron Concentration 36
Zinc Concentration 37
Chloride Concentration 38
Sodium Concentration 39
COD Concentration 40
Iron - Cumulative Quantity Removed
with Time 4l
Zinc - Cumulative Quantity Removed
with Time 41
Chloride - Cumulative Quantity Removed
with Time 42
Sodium - Cumulative Quantity Removed
with Time 42
vi
-------
FIGURES (CONT.)
'No.
PAGE
36 Leachate COD - Cumulative Quantity Removed
with Time
37 Leachate Iron - Cumulative Grams/Ft2 Removed vs.
Quantity of Leachate/Ft2
38 Leachate Zinc - Cumulative Grams/Ft2 Removed vs.
Quantity of Leachate/Ft2 45
39 Leachate Chloride - Cumulative Grams/Ft2 Removed
vs. Quantity of Leachate/Ft2 46
40 Leachate Sodium - Cumulative Grams/Ft2 Removed
vs. Quantity of Leachate/Ft2 47
41 Leachate COD - Cumulative Grams/Ft2 Removed
vs. Quantity of Leachate/Ft2 48
42 Plexiglas Column Profiles - pH 49
43 Plexiglas Column Profiles - Iron Concentration 50
44 Plexiglas Column Profiles - Zinc Concentration 51
45 Plexiglas Column Profiles - Chloride
Concentration 52
46 Plexiglas Column Profiles - Sodium Concentration 53
47 Plexiglas Column Profiles - COD Concentration 54
48 Kennett Square Plot Plan 60
49 Shallow Well Cluster Locations 6l
50 pH - Test Well No. 12 62
51 COD - Test Well No. 12 63
52 Iron - Test Well No. 12 64
53 Total Dissolved Solids - Test Well No. 12 65
54 Chloride - Test Well No. 12 66
55 Sodium - Test Well No. 12 6?
56 pH - Test Well No. 13 68
57 COD - Test Well No. 13 69
58 Iron - Test Well No. 13 70
59 Total Dissolved Solids - Test Well No. 13 71
60 Chloride - Test Well No. 13 72
61 Sodium - Test Well No. 13 73
62 Total Dissolved Solids - Groundwater 74
63 pH - Test Well No. 3 75
64 COD - Test Well No. 3 76
65 Iron - Test Well No. 3 77
66 Total Dissolved Solids - Test Well No. 3 78
67 Chloride - Test Well No. 3 79
68 Sodium - Test Well No. 3 80
69 Field Test Landfill
E Well Series
pH Factor 81
70 Field Test Landfill
E Well Series
TDS Concentration 82
vii
-------
FIGURES (CONT.)
No. PAGE
71 Field Test Landfill
E Well Series
Iron Concentration 83
72 Field Test Landfill
E Well Series
Chloride Concentration 84
73 Field Test Landfill
E Well Series
Na Concentration 85
74 Field Test Landfill
E Well Series
COD Concentration 86
75 Field Test Landfill
SI Well Series
pH Factor 8?
76 Field Test Landfill
SI Well Series
TDS Concentration 88
77 Field Test Landfill
SI Well Series
Iron Concentration 89
78 Field Test Landfill
SI Well Series
Chloride Concentration 90
79 Field Test Landfill
SI Well Series
Na Concentration 9!
80 Field Test Landfill
SI Well Series
COD Concentration 92
81 Field Test Landfill
SF Well Series
pH Factor 93
82 Field Test Landfill
SF Well Series
TDS Concentration 94
83 Field Test Landfill
SF Well Series
Iron Concentration 95
84 Field Test Landfill
SF Well Series
Chloride Concentration 96
85 Field Test Landfill
SF Well Series
Na Concentration 97
viii
-------
FIGURES (CONT.)
No. PAGE
86 Field Test Landfill
WI Well Series
pH Factor 93
87 Field Test Landfill
WI Well Series
TDS Concentration 99
88 Field Test Landfill
WI Well Series
Iron Concentration 100
89 Field Test Landfill
WI Well Series
Chloride Concentration 101
90 Field Test Landfill
WI Well Series
Na Concentration 102
91 Field Test Landfill
WI Well Series
COD Concentration 103
92 Field Test Landfill
WF Well Series
pH Factor 104
93 Field Test Landfill
WF Well Series
TDS Concentration 105
94 Field Test Landfill
WF Well Series
Iron Concentration 106
95 Field Test Landfill
WF Well Series
Chloride Concentration 107
96 Field Test Landfill
WF Well Series
COD Concentration 108
97 Total Dissolved Solids
Groundwater - E Series 109
98 Total Dissolved Solids
Groundwater - SI Series
99 Total Dissolved Solids
Groundwater - SF Series HI
100 Total Dissolved Solids
Groundwater - WI Series 112
101 Total Dissolved Solids
Groundwater - WF Series 113
ix
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank the Southeastern Chester County
Landfill Authority and its director, A. Nixon, for providing
the field site and for their cooperation throughout this study.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report is a supplement to a. report on sanitary
landfill behavior entitled "Investigation of Sanitary Land-
fill Behavior, Final Report, Volume I" by A. A. Fungaroli
and R. L. Steiner. The final report presents the results of
a comprehensive laboratory and field study of sanitary land-
fill behavior which was conducted over the period from Sep-
tember 1967 to October 1973.
Near the time of termination of the comprehensive study it
became recognized that it might be possible to predict sani-
tary landfill leachate behavior patterns by performing
accelerated laboratory tests. One purpose of the study re-
ported herein was to test this hypothesis. A second pur-
pose of the study was to continue to analyze field leachate
data to provide a more complete picture of sanitary land-
fill behavior under field conditions.
The study reported herein had the following broad objectives;
1. Expanded experimental observation of the leachate gener-
ated by domestic solid waste, typical of that currently
being disposed of in sanitary landfills.
2. Test of the validity of using accelerated leaching tests
to predict the longevity of a sanitary landfill's
pollutant generation life.
3. Continued experimental observation of the generation
and movement of leachate at a field sanitary landfill
site.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report presents the results of some accelerated leach-
ing column tests performed on solid waste taken from the
laboratory lysimeter (Final Report) and a one year contin-
uation of the leachate monitoring program at the field test
facility (Final Report).
Column Tests
The column tests consisted of four (4) plexiglas columns
which were filled with relatively undisturbed solid waste
refuse samples taken from the laboratory lysimeter (Final
Report) as it was dismantled.
The four plexiglas columns consisted of sections eight (8)
inches (2,032 mm) internal diameter and one (1) foot (3,048
mm) long. As described in this report the one (1) foot
(3,048 mm) sections functioned the same as a continuous
long seven (7) foot (21,335 mm) leaching column. The ad-
vantages of the short columns were easier handling and
refuse filling as well as leachate sampling. The column
filling and feeding programs are described in the follow-
ing paragraphs.
The lysimeter cross-section was separated into four (4)
quadrants. Starting from the surface, the soil cover was
removed first followed by relatively undisturbed one (1)
foot (3,048 mm) layers of refuse. Each one (1) foot (3,048
mm) thick refuse layer was trimmed to fit into the plexi-
glas column. The plexiglas sections were marked in the
same order and pattern as removed from the tank to insure
proper reassembly orientation.
The four plexiglas test columns labeled A, B, C and D were
subject to different water feeding and leachate removal
programs. They were:
Column A; Water addition program was the same as
followed in the laboratory lysimeter study (Table 1,
Final Report) except that the cycle was suppressed
to complete an annual cycle in 5.2 weeks. The quan-
-------
tity of water fed ranged from a low of 23 ml. (equi-
valent to the month of August) to a high of 652 ml.
(equivalent to the month of January). In addition,
the amount of leachate removed from the bottom of a
section was not fed to the next section. Instead, an
equal quantity of distilled water was fed to the next
section.
Column B; Water addition program was the same as fol-
lowed in the laboratory lysimeter study (Table 1, Final
Report) except that the cycle was suppressed to com-
plete an annual cycle in 5.2 weeks. The quantity of
water fed ranged from a low of 23 ml. (equivalent to
the month of August) to a high of 652 m. (equivalent
to the month of January). The leachate removed from
the bottom of one section was fed to the top of the
next section. The amount of leachate removed from a
bottom leachate specimen for laboratory analysis was
replaced by distilled water before being fed into the
next section.
Column C; A uniform water addition (303.5 ml.) equal
to the average annual infiltration which was added in
a 5.2 week period (Table 1, Final Report) was added on
a daily basis. The leachate removed from the bottom
of one section was fed to the top of the next section.
The amount of leachate removed from a bottom leachate
specimen for laboratory analysis was replaced by dis-
tilled water before being fed into the next column.
Column D; Water addition program was the same as fol-
lowed in the laboratory lysimeter study (Table 1,
Final Report) except that the cycle was suppressed to
complete an annual cycle in 5.2 weeks. The quantity
of water fed ranged from a low of 23 ml. (equivalent
to the month of August) to a high of 652 ml. (equiva-
lent to the month of January). The leachate removed
from a bottom leachate specimen for laboratory analysis
was replaced by distilled water before being fed into
the next column.
The principal difference between this column and Column
B was that input water was seeded with a nutrient to
test its effect. 24 mg/1 of nitrogen was added to the
input water. This value was selected on the basis of
COD averages for the leachate. The nitrogen was ob-
tained by using 13 amino acids each providing 1 mg N/l
with the remainder being supplied by NH,SO4. See body
of report for complete list of amino acids?
-------
The main purpose of the column tests was to:
1. provide additional experimental observations on the
character of the leachate generated by domestic solid
waste.
2. test the validity of using accelerated leaching tests
to predict the longevity of a sanitary landfill's pollu-
tant generation life.
3. provide experimental information on the effect of nu-
trient feeding on leachate composition.
From the results of the column tests presented herein, it is
concluded that:
1. The transfer of the solid waste from the lysimeter to
the columns results in initial higher concentrations in
the leachate. This effect results from a loosening and
reorientation of the waste during the transfer process.
The initially high concentrations in the leachate rep-
resent a flushing process during the start of the column
tests and is similar to that observed during the initia-
tion of the lysimeter test.
2. The accelerated column tests/ while showing marked diff-
erences, depending on the feeding program, during the
early TIME* periods all gave similar pollutant concen-
tration results at the end of the test.
3. The leachate pH becomes basic as the pollutant concen-
trations become minimal. In this study final pH values
approached 8.
4. The presence of the nutrient tends to retard iron remo-
val and keep leachate concentrations high.
5. While leachate zinc concentrations are generally low,
the presence of the nutrient tends to retard the zinc
removal rate.
6. Chloride and sodium continue to have similar leachate
concentration patterns. The concentration patterns
are generally independent of the water feeding program.
7. COD concentrations are somewhat less when using dis-
tilled water for each column section (Column "A") as
compared to the other columns. However, the presence
of nutrients does not have a significant influence on
COD reduction rate.
-------
8. The semi-log linear relationship, which was reported in
the Final Report, for total pollutant removed versus
leachate quantity, above field capacity, is valid until
the pollutant is removed. The results clearly demon-
strate that the use of the semi-log plot of unit pollu-
tant removed against unit leachate quantity is a valua-
ble tool for predicting contaminant removal behavior
patterns.
9. The upper levels of the refuse in the column stabilizes
earlier than the deeper levels. This behavior indicates
that shallow sanitary landfills will reach stabilization
much earlier than deeper ones. That is, a uniform de-
gradation pattern is not obtained in a sanitary landfill.
As a result, longer monitoring and control periods are
required for deep sanitary landfills.
Field Facility
The additional data collected from the field facility
shallow and deep ground water wells provide a more complete
picture of subsurface leachate migration patterns.
Of particular interest is the fact that the leachate which
discharges from the refuse will concentrate in the upper
layer of the ground water system. Further, while pollutant1
concentration levels do not equal the peak magnitudes re-
ported in the laboratory studies, they do approach the lab-
oratory values. The principal difference being dilution
due to ground water mixing. It is noteworthy that most of
the pollutant peaks occurred during the period of data col-
lection reported herein. This latter observation suggests
that definite trends should be defined prior to termination
of any field observations.
The combination of proper field data collection using "shal-
low" ground water observation wells and the semi-log unit
pollutant removed versus unit leachate quantity can pro-
vide the basis for a sound procedure for projecting the life
expectancy of a sanitary landfill.
-------
SECTION 3
LABORATORY EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Column Test Arrangement
The laboratory lysimeter (Final Report) was dismantled in
May 1972 because leachate pollutant concentrations had
reached low but continuously observable levels. However,
it was not possible to predict how long the leachate pollu-
tant concentrations would continue to give positive readings.
Since it was desirable to determine how long it would take
for leachate pollutant concentrations to reach negligible
values, plexiglas column tests were established. The plexi-
glas column leaching tests were developed to provide pollu-
tant concentration patterns under accelerated water feeding
programs.
The plexiglas columns (Figure 1) consisted of seven (7) eight
(8) inch (2,032 mm) internal diameter tubes one (1) foot
(3,048 mm) in length. The bottom of each section had a pro-
vision for extracting leachate samples for analysis. The
top of each section had a port for feeding in the leachate
from the previous section, plus any makeup water to provide
constant liquid flow through the refuse. The procedure out-
lined in the following paragraphs was used in setting up
the columns.
The lysimeter cross-section was separated into four (4) qua-
drants. Starting from the surface, the soil cover was re-
moved first followed by relatively undisturbed one (1) foot
(3,048 mm) layers of refuse. Each one (1) foot (3,048 mm)
thick refuse layer was trimmed to fit into the plexiglas
column. The plexiglas sections were marked in the same order
and pattern as removed from the tank to insure proper re-
assembly orientation.
The four plexiglas test columns labeled A, B, C and D were
subject to different water feeding and leachate removal
programs. They were:
Column A; Water addition program was the same as fol-
•lowed in the laboratory lysimeter study (Table 1, Final
Report) except that the cycle was suppressed to complete
an annual cycle in 5.2 weeks. The quantity of water fed
-------
Column
Orientation
water
in Co 1umn #1
not inclu
in study
j~n
Y
*
leachate
out
-I*-!
£
Plastic Screen-\
;d
4" Wall —
Co 1 utnn 2
Refuse
Plastic Screen — .
II II II M II II !l II 1 II >l "|!
[•a 4" Perforated PI exi— / f>
> qlass Leachate Reservoir^
1 4" Solid Plexiglass —* _S
: Plastic Screen — \
r*— i . . _ ^
1" j
HI
•s 7 —W£
$ r-
I^-?N
§_1'^
?nr
>^
jy
•I^BB
Refuse
tygon tubing
,to remove
sample
FIGURE 1. SCHEMATIC - PLEXIGLASS COLUMNS
-------
ranged from a low of 23 ml. (equivalent to the month
of August) to a high of 652 ml. (equivalent to the month
of January). In addition, the amount of leachate re-
moved from the bottom of a section was not fed to the
next section. Instead, an equal quantity of distilled
water was fed to the next section.
Column B: Water addition program was the same as fol-
lowed in the laboratory lysimeter study (Table 1, Final
Report) except that the cycle was suppressed to complete
an annual cycle in 5.2 weeks. The quantity of water fed
ranged from a low of 23 ml.(equivalent to the month of
August) to a high of 652 ml. (equivalent to the month of
January). The leachate removed from the bottom of one
section was fed to the top of the next section. The
amount of leachate removed from a bottom leachate speci-
men for laboratory analysis was replaced by distilled
water before being fed into the next section.
Column C; A uniform water addition (303.5 ml.) equal
to the average annual infiltration which was added in
a 5.2 week period (Table 1, Final Report) was added on
a daily basis. The leachate removed from the bottom of
one section was fed to the top of the next section.
The amount of leachate removed from a bottom leachate
specimen for laboratory analysis was replaced by dis-
tilled water before being fed into the next column.
ColumnD: Water addition program was the same as fol-
lowed in the laboratory lysimeter study (Table 1, Final
Report) except that the cycle was suppressed to com-
plete an annual cycle of 5.2 weeks. The quantity of
water fed ranged from a low of 23 ml. (equivalent to
the month of August) to a high of 652 ml. (equivalent
to the month of January). The leachate removed from
the bottom of one section was fed to the top of the
next section. The amount of leachate removed from the
bottom leachate specimen for laboratory analysis was
replaced by distilled water before being fed into the
next column.
The principal difference between this column and Column
"B" was that input water was seeded with a nutrient to
test its effect. 24 mg/1 of nitrogen was added to the
input water. This value was selected on the basis of
COD averages for the leachate. The nitrogen was ob-
tained by using 13 amino acids each providing 1 mg N/l
with the remainder being supplied by
8
-------
It
II
It
The amino acids were chosen to include the essential
amino acid plus others available to give a cross-
section of every class of amino acids. The following
acids were added:
Tyrosine 25.88 mg/1 (1 mg N/l)
Glutamic acid 21.01 rag/1 "
Cysteine 34.32 mg/1 "
Asparagine 10.72 mg/1 "
Histidine 9.98 mg/1 "
Leucine 18.74 mg/1
Alanine 12.74 mg/1
Phenylalanine 23.59 mg/1
Threonine 17.01 mg/1 "
Methionine 21.31 mg/1 "
Argumine 6.21 mg/1 "
1 mg/1 phosphate was added as KH^PO4. Thus a 24/1
nitrogen phosphate ratio was achieved.
Solid Waste Composition
The solid waste composition was the same as the final solid
waste composition for the laboratory lysimeter. These com-
positions are presented in Table 1 which is the same as
Table 20 in the Final Report.
Leachate Analysis
The leachate was analyzed for pH, iron, zinc, chloride, sod-
ium and COD. These substances were selected from the com-
plete set of analyses performed in the laboratory lysimeter
study because all others were of such low concentrations as
to not provide any additional useful information. The
leachate analysis followed the laboratory procedures used
throughout the duration of this study and as described in
the Appendix of the Final Report.
Discussion of Results
Figures 2 through 47 show the results of the leachate analy-
sis. All weights! moisture contents, and densities are cited
on a dry-weight basis. The following parameters must be definedi
TIME* is the time in DAYS* from the start of the plexiglas
column tests. Further, DAY* is a day in the scale of the
accelerated water infiltration cycle. That is, using DAY*
as the time unit for the water feeding cycles as described
above for each column, it is possible to generate leachate
data for the equivalent of approximately six (6) years of
field behavior in approximately eight (8) months. (One year
of water infiltration was simulated by a 5•2-week water feeding
program.)
-------
TABLE NO. 1
LYSIMETER SOLID WASTE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
mg/g of refuse - except as noted
Pre-Test
Composition1 1st
Percent Ether Extractable 1.62 0.423
Percent Water Extractable 6.78 1.402
Solid Chemical
Oxygen Demand
Solid Nitrogen
1283 733
2.97 1.95
Iron 0.602 0.091
Zinc 0.595 0.011
Nickel 0.034 0.021
Copper 0.025 0.007
Calcium 0.856 0.338
Phosphate 0.293 0.006
Chloride 2.003 0.200
Sodium 1.950 0.095
Ammonia Nitrogen 0.02 0.019
Organic Nitrogen 0.35 0.066
Chemical Oxygen Demand 25.25 1.25
2nd
Post-Test Composition/layer^
3rd 4th 5th
0.521
2.506
768
2.29
Water
0.112
0.017
0.011
0.005
0.376
0.001
0.211
0.043
0.0
0.044
0.943
2.52
1.95
960
0.0
2.20
2.86
981
0.0
2.359
6.128
1045
0.0
Soluble Chemical Composition
0.101
0.005
0.022
0.011
0.540
0.008
0.259
0.099
0.001
0.075
3.063
0.587
0.002
0.029
0.007
0.668
0.012
0.126
0.467
0.0
0.111
8.46
0.050
0.021
0.056
0.009
0.881
0.002
0.299
0.635
0.0
0.111
11.83
6th
2.634
5.33
1086
1.42
0.036
0.023
0.029
0.007
0.746
0.001
0.578
0.683
0.0
0.157
10.47
1. Average of all refuse placed in lysimeter.
2. Average of four samples in each layer. Each layer approximately
twelve inches thick. First layer taken from top of refuse.
Sixth layer taken from bottom.
-------
pH
5.0-J
.O-l
T
T
T
T
500
1000 1500
TWE*rN DAYS*
2000
2500
FIGURE 2. COLUMN A - pH
BOTTOM LEACHATE
11
-------
500 -
i»oo-
o
OC
I I I I I I I I I I
0 .
I
1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 3. COLUMN A - IRON CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
12
-------
o
k.o
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
o
I I I I I I I I I I I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE k. COLUMN A - ZINC CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
13
-------
o
o
to
120 -
100-
80-
60-
40-
20-
o
0-JO--- 0--0 O O---
I I I I I I I I I
0 500 1000 1500 2000
TIME* IN DAYS*
2500
FIGURE 5. COLUMN A - SODIUM CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
-------
koo.
350.
300
250-
200-
o
o
150-
100-
50-
00
oooo oI
o
\
0-o-o
I II
0 500
I I I I I I I
1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 6. COLUMN A - CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
-------
10 -|
8 -
6 -
2 -
0 -
o o
'11* CJ'O" •
I I I I I I
1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 7. COLUMN A - COD CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
16
-------
pH
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0-
6.5-
6.0-
5-5-
5-0-
o o o
o
o o
i i r i r i i i i i i
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 8. COLUMN B - pH
BOTTOM LEACHATE
17
-------
800
700
600
500 -
O)
E
o 300
200
100-
0.
o o
I I I I I I I I I I
0 500 1000 1500 200C 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 9. COLUMN B - IRON CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
18
-------
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.0-
I I I I I I I I I I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 10. COLUMN B - ZINC CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
19
-------
250
225
200
175
150 -
125 -
9 100
o
75 -
50
0 -
O-OO--O-OO--U U—I OJ'90-
I I I I I
1000 1500 2000
TIME* IN DAYS*
2500
FIGURE 11. COLUMN B - CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
20
-------
2^0
220
200
180
160
CT>
O
CO
120
100-
80-
60-
40-
20'
0.
o o
I I I I I I I I I I
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 12. COLUMN B - SODIUM'CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
21
-------
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.0
~ 3.5
«-»
o
x
^ 3.0
I*
0
o
CJ
2.0 -
1.5 -
1.0 -
0.5 -
oo'
I I I I I I I I I I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 13. COLUMN B - COD CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
22
-------
o o o
pH
I I I I I I I I I
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 14. COLUMN C - pH
BOTTOM LEACHATE
23
-------
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50-
0-
I I I I I I I I I I
0 500 1000 1500 200,0 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 15. COLUMN C - IRON CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
-------
12 -
10 -
8 -
1
o
z
ISI
6 -
2 -
OOO---O O-"JB UJO O OB
I I I I I I I I I I I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 250t)
TIMEMN DAYS*
FIGURE 16. COLUMN C - ZINC CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
25
-------
350
300 -
250-
200 -
00
ce.
O
u
150-
100-
I I I I I
1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 17. COLUMN C - CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
26
-------
2000 '
1800 "
1600 -
11*00 -
1200 -
i1 1000 -
o 800 -
to
600 -
200 -
oo*
QOOGZ
O-o-
I I
500
OO CO OO OO
I I
1000
I I I I
1500
TIME* IN DAYS*
2000
I I
2500
FIGURE 18. COLUMN C - SODIUM CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
27
-------
6.0 .
5.5 .
0.5-
o-
i I I I I I I I I I
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 19. COLUMN C - COD CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
28
-------
pH
8.25
8.00
7.75
7.50
7.25
7.00
6.75
6.50
6.25
6.00
5.75 -
5.50
r i T- r i i
500 1000 1500
TIME* IN DAYS*
i r i
2000 2500
FIGURE 20. COLUMN D - pH
BOTTOM LEACHATE
29
-------
500 - -
400 -
350 -
300 -
C250 -
^•x
E1
o
DC
200 '
150-
100-
50-
0.
o o
^ (
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* \\\ DAYS*
FIGURE 21. COLUMN D - IRON CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
30
-------
o
z
ISI
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75 -
1.50 -
1.25-
1.00-
0.75-
0.50-
0.25*
0.00-
<
oV o
I I I I I I I I I I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 22. COLUMN D - ZINC CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
-------
350
300
a. 250
LU
O
T:
o
200 -
150-
100 -
O O 00
I I I I I I I I I I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 23. COLUMN D - CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
32
-------
220
200
20-
0.
Ill I till I I
} 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 2k. COLUMN D - SODIUM CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
33
-------
5.5
5.0
o
X
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
§ 2.0 -
1.5 *
1.0 -
0.5-
0-
oooo
•0-0-
I I I I I I
500 1000 1500
TIME* IN DAYS*
I I I
2000 2500
FIGURE 25. COLUMN D - COD CONCENTRATION
BOTTOM LEACHATE
-------
pH
7 -
6 -
5 -
3 -
2 -
o o o o o
o o o o
o o o
o
o o
o
o ooo
oo oo o o
o o o
oo o o o
o
o o
o o
0 -
I I I I I I I I I I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* tN DAYS*
FIGURE 26. COLUME 06 - LEACHATE pH
-------
450
400
350
300
250
-^200 .
o
CC
150 -
100 -
50 -
0 -
o o
o o
o o oo o
o
o o o
o o ooo o
o o
o o
00
o o oo
o o
o
o
I I I I I I I I I I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 27. COLUMN D6 - LEACHATE IRON
-------
9
8
6 -
5 -
Ol
o
3 -
2 -
1 -
0 -
ooo
o o o
00
o-ooooooooooooo-ooo-----------ooo-o--oc----------
I I I I I I
500 1000 1500
I t I
2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 28. COLUMN D6 - LEACHATE ZINC
37
-------
240
220
200
180
160
^120 -
LJ
2 100 .
t£.
O
X
O
80-
60-
20-
o o
oo o
o o
o
o o
oo o
o oo
n. --O-O-----O---O---------OO-OO-OOO-GO-OO----------
u I I I I I I I I I I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 29. COLUMN D6 - LEACHATE CHLORIDE
38
-------
120 -
100 •
80 '
60.
Q
O
20-
0-
o o
ooo o
o
o
o o
oo
oo o
oo o
oo oo o oo
o ooo oo o
...0.-.. — -0— -- — -- — -------O - -
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 30. COLUMN D6 - LEACHATE SODIUM
39
-------
O)
Q
O
O
1*000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500 .
1000 -
500 -
0 -
O
O
o o
o o
oo oo
o
oo o o
000
o oo o o
o oo oo o o o o
oo a o
1 I I I I I I I I I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
TIME* IN DAYS*
FIGURE 31. COLUMN D6 - LEACHATE COD
-------
50
40
30
20
10
CM
START OF
COLUMN TEST
500
FIGURE 32.
1000
2500
3000
3500
1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS
LEACHATE IRON - CUMULATIVE QUANTITY REMOVED WITH TIME
1.6L
1.2
0.8
0.4
in
o
START OF
COLUMN TEST
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 33. LEACHATE ZINC - CUMULATIVE QUANTITY REMOVED WITH TIME
-------
START OF
COLUMN TEST
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 34. CHLORIDE - CUMULATIVE QUANTITY REMOVED WITH TIME
START OF
COLUMN TEST
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 35. SODIUM - CUMULATIVE QUANTITY REMOVED WITH TIME
3500
-------
1000
800
600
400
200
START OF
COLUMN TEST
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 36. CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND - CUMULATIVE QUANTITY REMOVED WITH TIME
-------
60-
50
-CM
30
20
10
t I
START OF
COLUMN TEST
SYSTEM
REACHED
FIELD
CAPACI
10
LITERS/FT
100
FIGURE 37- LEACHATE IRON - CUMULATIVE GRAMS/FT^ vs.
QUANTITY OF LEACHATE/FT2
-------
(9
.1
! SYSTEM
REACHED
FIELD
CAPACITY
10
START OF
COLUMN TEST
i i i i i i i
100
1000
LITERS/FT'
FIGURE 38. ZINC - CUMULATIVE GRAMS/FT REMOVED vs. QUANTITY OF LEACHATE/FT"
-------
30
28
26
22
20
18
16
12
10
8
6
k
to
CJ
SYSTEM
REACHED
FIELD
CAPACITY
START OF
COLUMN TEST
t i
t i r !
10
100
LITERS/FT
1000
FIGURE 39. CHLORIDE - CUMULATIVE GRAMS/FT REMOVED vs. QUANTITY OF
LEACHATE/FT2
-------
50
30
START OF
COLUMN TEST
20
10
J 1_J—i ' ' ' '
SYSTEM
REACHED
FIELD
CAPACITY
J 1 ! ' i i i
J L
10
100
1000
LITERS/FT*
FIGURE kO. SODIUM - CUMULATIVE GRAMS/FT2 REMOVED vs. QUANTITY OF
LEACHATE/FT2
-------
00
1000
*—1—1, l ,.\.\ \
SYSTEM
REACHED
FIELD
CAPACITY
iii
_LJ_L
START OF
COLUMN TEST
10
100
LITERS/Fr
_». '
1000
FIGURE 41. CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND - CUMULATIVE GRAMS/FT REMOVED vs.
QUANTITY OF LEACHATE/FT2
-------
3 -
k •
COLUMN 5 -
DEPTH
(ft.)
6 -
7 -
DAY 122
g
\\ ^v
\^N V1
r-
Jf'
vl
\\
[
.
*
DAY 693 DAY 1856
/
/ t'
.
I
>
\
\,
u
I
•
\
^1
1 1 /
\J
/I
/I
ll
I'l
l. \ fc
\ \l
1
v\
>\l
*,} \
1
:
i
1 ll >"
;
1
\l\
^56678 678
FIGURE 42. PLEX1GLAS COLUMN PROFILES. COLUMNS A, B, C & D
-------
-
3-
COLUMN 5
DEPTH
(ft.)
DAY 122
100
DAY 693
200
300
^00
IRON
(mg/1)
100
DAY 1856
f
\
1\
i!,1
!\
100
200
FIGURE 43. PLEXIGLAS COLUMN PROFILES. COLUMNS A, B, C 6 D
-------
DAY 122
DAY 693
ji
DAY 1856
FIGURE kk.
0 1 2
ZINC (mg/1)
PLEXIGLAS COLUMN PROFILES.
COLUMNS A, B, C S D
-------
DAY 122
3 '
f, 5
D
I
-
I
o
u
100
200
DAY 693
300
100
200
DAY 1856
.3.C&D
100
CHLORIDE (mg/1)
FIGURE *45. PLEXIGLAS COLUMN PROFILES. COLUMNS A, B, C & D
-------
DAY 122
DAY 693
;.
DAY 1856
o
100
200 300 0 100
SODIUM (mg/1)
FIGURE 46. PLEXIGLAS COLUMN PROFILES. COLUMNS A, B, C & D
-------
3 -
J 5
a
a>
c
3
6 •
DAY 122
DAY 693
000
DAY 1856
ill
1000
1000 2000 3000 1*000 0
COD (mg/1 as 0 )
FIGURE 1*7. PLEXIGLAS COLUMN PROFILES. COLUMNS A, B, C £ D
-------
The addition of the column time span to the lysimeter data
presented in the Final Report gives approximately ten (10)
years of leachate generation data.
£H
Figure 2 presents the leachate contaminant data for
the leachate from section 7 of Column A.
The pH curve, Figure 2, shows that the leachate was
initially acid with increasing values until about
1000 DAYS* into the test. After that time the lea-
chate became basic and appeared to approach a pH of
8.0. A similar behavior pattern was obtained for
Column B (Figure 8). In Column C (Figure 14) and
Column D (Figure 20), while a pH of 8.0 was approached
asymptotically, a pH of 7 was reached approximately
250 DAYS* in the period. For Column "C" the differ-
ence can only be attributed to the difference in its
feeding program from Columns "A" and "B". For
Column "D", the differences could be attributed to
nutrient effect when compared to "A" and "B", but
the cause of its similarity to "C" is not readily
apparent.
A more meaningful comparison of pH for each column
with depth is presented in Figure 42. The results
shown are for three different DAYS". As shown, while
pH values do differ with depth and column, there is
no uniqueness to the curve patterns or trends. How-
ever, most important is that by DAY* 1856 all pH
values are approaching the same values.
Iron
The iron curves for the four (4) columns, (Figures 3,
9, 15 and 21) show similar decreasing patterns toward
minimal, if not zero, concentration levels. The curve
for Column A (Figure 3) shows the most rapid decrease
of iron concentration which probably reflects the
water feeding program. The column "D" iron curve
(Figure 21) shows the slowest decrease of iron con-
centrations and, in fact, at the end of the test they
were still in the 50 to 100 mg/1 range, significantly
higher than the final concentrations for the other
columns.
The iron concentration vertical profile curves for
each column are presented in Figure 43. Again, the
typical early irregular initial patterns prevail with
55
-------
a trend toward uniform common curves at DAY* 1856.
Zinc
The zinc curves, Figures 4, 10, 16 and 22, show that
in all cases concentrations are low with occasional
sudden increases which occurred on a rather random
pattern. While concentrations are low for Columns
A, B, and C, they are lowest for Column A. Further,
the nutrient influence, Figure 22, appears to be a
retarding of the reduction of zinc concentrations to
negligible levels during the latter period of the
s tudy.
The zinc concentration vertical profile curve, Figure
44, shows behavior patterns similar to those described
earlier. Overall at DAY* 1856, zinc concentrations
in all columns were almost zero except in the bottom
section (section 7).
Chloride
Chloride concentration curves for the bottom leachate
are presented in Figures 5, 11, 17 and 23. Chloride
results showed a large degree of scatter during the
early stages of the study. However, concentrations
were decreasing. After DAY* 100 all chloride concen-
trations were virtually zero.
The chloride concentration vertical profile curves,
Figure 45, show the typical early TIME* period irre-
gular pattern followed by an almost complete coinci-
dence of all test results toward the termination of
the test.
Sodium
Sodium concentration curves for the bottom leachate
are presented in Figures 6, 12, 18 and 24. The sodium
concentration test results show that the most rapid
reduction of sodium occurred in Column "C" with the
slowest reduction occurring in Column "D". Sodium
concentration levels reached negligible values after
about 1500 DAYS*.
Figure 46, sodium concentration vertical profile curves
show the same patterns and trends reported for the
other parameters measured. That is, during early TIME*
the concentrations are somewhat irregular, followed by
a uniform profile at later TIME*. In general, concen-
-------
trations reached minimum values in the upper refuse
layers earlier than toward the bottom.
COD
COD concentration curves for the bottom leachate are
presented in Figures 7, 13, 19 and 25. Column "A",
Figure 7, showed the earliest and most rapid stabili-
zation. This was probably the result of the fact that
the column sections were fed fresh distilled water.
The results for columns "B", "C", and "D" are similar,
showing no advantage to using nutrients to reduce COD
concentration levels.
Figure 47 shows COD .concentration vertical profile
curves. Again the pattern is similar to those de-
veloped for the other parameters with highly irregu-
lar patterns during early time and similar overlapp-
ing profile near the end of the study period.
Leachate Contaminant Cumulative Curves
Figures 32 through 36 present cumulative quantities of
contaminant removed plotted against time from the start
of the original laboratory lysimeter study. Shown on each
curve is the time of initiation of the column tests re-
ported herein.
Of particular significance is the fact that even though at
the end of the laboratory lysimeter study the leachate
contaminant concentrations were low, a significant leach-
able quantity of each contaminant (except zinc) remained
in the refuse.
The quantity which remained in the refuse varied from less
than 5 percent for zinc to approximately 33 percent for
chloride.
The curves in Figures 37 through 41 show plots of contami-
nant removed in grams per square foot versus leachate in
liters per square foot. Marked on the curve are two points
of significance. The first point is the unit quantity of
leachate at which the lysimeter landfill study refuse
reached field capacity. The second point is the unit lea-
chate quantity at which the study being discussed herein
was initiated. It must be noted that in interpreting
these curves, there was a break in experimental continuity
as the laboratory lysimeter was dismantled and the column
study program initiated.
57
-------
All plots show that the relationship between quantity of
contaminant removed and leachate quantity follows a vir-
tually uniform slope until complete removal is approached.
This behavior is seen in the leachate iron curve, Figure 37,
the chloride curve, Figure 39, the sodium curve, Figure 40,
and the COD curve, Figure 41. The results clearly demon-
strate that the use of the semi-log plot of unit contami-
nant removal against unit leachate quantity is a valuable
tool for predicting contaminant removal behavior patterns.
Comparison of D6 Leachate and D7 Leachate
Plots of leachate contaminant concentrations for leachate
from the bottom of section 6, Column D and section 7, Col-
umn D, are presented in Figures 26 through 31 and 20 through
25 respectively. Complete leachate data for all the columns
and all sections can be found in the appendix.
The pH values for the D7 leachate appears to have been
slightly more acid and more erratic in concentrations.
However, the plots for all other contaminant concentra-
tions appear very similar with no major differences appar-
ent. However, a review of the general vertical profile
curves for the various contaminants, Figures 42 through 47,
shows that overall pollutant concentrations increase with
refuse depth. This trend suggests that the upper refuse
layers stabilize earlier than the deeper layers, assuming
simultaneous placement.
58
-------
SECTION 4
FIELD FACILITY EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
The field facility was described in complete detail in the
Final Report. Of particular interest in this report is
the arrangement of the deep and shallow ground water ob-
servation and sampling wells. The locations of the deep
wells reported herein, wells 3, 12 and 13, are shown in
Figure 48. Figure 48 is the same as Figure 13 in the
Final Report. The locations of the shallow ground water
wells are shown in Figure 49. Figure 49 is the same as
Figure 18 in the Final Report.
In this study, only ground water quality in selected wells
was monitored (Figures 50 through 101)j temperature and gas
monitoring was discontinued. This reduced activity was the result
of limited funds, and the decision to monitor only ground water
quality was due to the fact that temperature and gas behavior
patterns appeared to be reasonably well defined by the initial
study.
Background ground water quality data was collected at the
site prior to installation of the test cell in the spring
of 1968. Complete ground water background data can be
found in the Final Report. Overall background ground water
quality was good with only low concentrations of the vari-
ous contaminants present.
The deep ground water wells 12 and 13 are directly under
the refuse center, while well number 3 is outside the re-
fuse down ground water gradient.
The shallow ground water wells are all down gradient from
the surface.
Deep Well Study
The ground water data from wells number 12 and 13 beneath
the refuse and well number 3 down ground water gradient
from the refuse are presented as typical of the deep ground
water wells. The general direction of ground water flow is
from wells number 12 and 13 toward well number 3.
59
-------
,
r/w
ZHS)
E3 El
4 t » •*
E2 E4
D3 Dl
*D2 *D4
i
OETA 1 L
8'x6' instrument shed
.0
TO
.N-3
* >'
—ft— '
A
* *
A
jlLlf " " ^- electrTc
JL< n
« 57
£ 1 imits of sanitary
t landf 11 1 test area
__, _ .. »
B2 -*4 A3..*A1 ^ — see Section Drawing
* rt £. * oi +... ground water sample we
•l£JD DH «
". -. * *••• gas sample well and
_ thermistor tube
* "'" nuclear access tube
line
til
1* *'" unsaturated soil moisture
samole well
access road
FIGURE 48. KENNETT SQUARE PLOT PLAN
60
-------
W127
WF28
WF27
W128
WF25
E28
S128*
S125
,5127
•S135
E25
.E27
SF27
SF28
•SF25
25 27 28 35
-i*'
—
21 FT.
vtt
£i
35FT.
i
25FT.
28FT.
F
1
30FT.
35FT.
.GROUND.
WATER
FIGURE 49. SHALLOW WELL CLUSTER LOCATIONS
61
-------
pH
8.0
7-0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0'
1.0
T OF THIS
STUDY
500 1000
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 50. pH - TEST WELL NO. 12
1500
-------
2700 '
t 1800 •
ON
900
500 1000
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 51. CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
OF 15°°
THIS STUDY
- TEST WELL NO. 12
-------
Q)
250 .
200 •
150 -
100
50
START OF
THIS STUDY
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 52. IRON - TEST WELL NO. 12
-------
20001
1500-
L.
0)
- 1000-
500
START OF
THIS STUDY
500
1000
1500
TIME JN DAYS
FIGURE 53. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS - TEST WELL NO, 12
-------
200 .
£ 100 •
500
1000
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE $1*. CHLORIDE
1500
- TEST WELL NO. 12
-------
1000-
~ 500
y
500
1000
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 55. SODIUM - TEST WELL NO. 12
1500
-------
CD
8.0
7.0'
6.0-
5.0"
4.o-
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
500 1000
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 56. pH - TEST WELL NO. 13
1500
-------
12629
11900
2700.
» 1800
900
500
1000
TART OF
/THIS STUDY
TIHE IN DAYS
FIGURE 57. CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
1500
- TEST WELL NO. 13
-------
800
0)
600
-o
o
200
500 1000
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 58. IRON - TEST WELL NO. 13
1500
-------
4900
1000
800
*j 600
o>
400'
200
4500
>1600
START OF
THIS STUDY
500 1000
TIME fN DAYS
FIGURE 59. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
1500
- TEST WELL NO. 13
-------
200H
10
** 100
500 1000
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 60. CHLORIDE - TEST WELL NO. 13
1500
-------
1000 .
VjJ
500
vu
500
1000
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 61. SODIUM - TEST WELL NO. ]3
1500
-------
6000
5000
a, 3000
E
2000
1000
12
13
STARf OF
THIS STUDY
5°^ 1000 • • T5W
TIME IN DAYS FROM DECEMBER 12, 196?
FIGURE 62. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS - GROUNDWATER
-------
8.0-
7.0
6.0'
fe 5.0'
+J
~ *».o-
I1
3.0-
2.0
1.0-
500
1000
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 63. pH - TEST WELL NO. 3
1500
-------
2700 '
0)
4->
" 1800
900
1 .
START OF
THIS STUDY
500
1000
1500
FIGURE 64.
TIME IN DAYS
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND - TEST WELL NO. 3
-------
15-
10
500
FIGURE 65.
1000
TIME IN DAYS
1500
IRON CONCENTRATION - TEST WELL NO. 3
-------
-------
\0
80 .
60
40
20
T OF
THIS STUDY
"ISO T0i50
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 67. CHLORIDE - TEST WELL NO. 3
-------
THIS STUDY
500 1060 ' 1560
TIME IN DAYS
FIGURE 68. SODIUM - TEST WELL NO. 3
-------
io.Cr
oo
pH
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
START OF
E 23
E 25
E 28
•
H* TH 1 S STUDY
1000 1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIGURE 69. FIELD TEST LANDFILL. E WELL SERIES - pH FACTOR
-------
CD
500
Aoo
300
200
100
E 23
E 25
E 28
H
START OF
> THIS STUDY
FIGURE 70.
1000 1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIELD TEST LANDFILL. E WELL SERIES - TDS CONCENTRATION
-------
oo
30
20
10
E 23
E 25
E 28
START OF
IS STUDY
1000 1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIGURE 71. FIELD TEST LANDFILL. E WELL SERIES - IRON CONCENTRATION
-------
400 _
300
200
100
E 23
E 25
E 28
START OF
THIS STUDY
FIGURE 72.
1000 1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIELD TEST LANDFILL. E WELL SERIES - CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION
-------
oo
^ 30
ef
20
10
START OF
STUDY
FIGURE 73.
1000 1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIELD TEST LANDFILL. E WELL SERIES - Na CONCENTRATION
-------
120
100
80
CO
20
E 23
E 25
E 28
i'
"
1 M
1)
'J!
I \t
1000
1500
2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIGURE Ik. FIELD TEST. LANDFILL. E WELL SERIES - COD CONCENTRATION
-------
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
,AxA/X
L.. START OF\
I THIS STUDT
1000 1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIGURE 75. FIELD TEST LANDFILL. SI WELL SERIES - pH FACTOR
-------
2600
/
3300
O } f\f\
ZHUU
2200
2000
1800
1600
UOO
•^
E 1200
1000
800
600
wo
200
\
i
i
i
• SI 23 /
SI 25 ^ . /
SI 28——— *"*> r~*T^/\~~i '
*
i
. /
i\3?oa'
'M i
nl / i
i M / '
1 Vl / '
i \\l i
I i/ '
I ( /
A x'''
\ /'
t /
\ /
v-y
START OF
-> THIS STUDY
A
(i
^^S4— / -AV / i
/"•^j- — - — ....•' \_x.-x"sxf i ,
i . ? _ — i
1000 1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIGURE 76. FIELD TEST LANDFILL. SI WELL SERIES - TDS CONCENTRATION
-------
1000
900
800
700
600
500
AOO
300
200
TOO
SI 23
Si 25
SI 28
•
•
J.
,RT OF
STUDY
FIGURE 77.
1000 1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIELD TEST LANDFILL. SI WELL SERIES - tRON CONCENTRATION
-------
500
400
- 300
at
200
100
750
SI 23
SI 25-
SI 28
START OF
•>THIS STUDY
1000
1500
2000
FIGURE 78.
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIELD TEST LANDFILL. SI WELL SERIES - CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION
-------
100
90
80
70
60
^50
oi
30
20
10
SI 23
SI 25
SI 28
175
160
OF
L>fmiS STUDY
1 |
A/
J
2000
FIGURE 79-
1000 1500
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIELD TEST LANDFILL. SI SERIES - Na CONCENTRATION
-------
720C
6300
5400
i*500
^ 3600
CT
2700
1800
900
J
1
f
i
i
SI 23
SI 25 [4
- SI 28 '|
i
i
: .^_ _£J\
' u
1 \ 1
i \ i
i \ t
i '• /
! \ •'
Nj1 v
START OF
THIS STUDY
FIGURE 80.
1000 1500 2000
TIME \H DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIELD TEST LANDFILL. SI WELL SERIES - COD CONCENTRATION
-------
10.Or
9-°| START OF
I^THIS STUDY
7:!r A ,A/\r%
t f *
\\ f
6.0
\ \ -'I
\ V V
s-°l \ I
*.o- \j
3.0- SF25 \|
sr 28 v
2.0-
1.0-
1000 1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIGURE 81. FIELD TEST LANDFILL. SF WELL SERIES - pH FACTOR
-------
1000
900
800
700
600
|>500
300
200
100
SF 25'
SF 28-
FIGURE 82.
1000 1500 . 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIELD TEST LANDFILL. SF WELL SERIES - TDS CONCENTRATION
-------
50
vO
r 30
20
10
SF 25
SF 28
I
START OF
THIS STUDY
2000
1000 1500
T(ME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIGURE 83. FIELD TEST LANDFILL. SF WELL SERIES - IRON CONCENTRATION
-------
AGO „
300
200
100
SF 25
SF 28
u
START OF
THIS STUDY
1000 1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIGURE 84. FIELD TEST LANDFILL SF WELL SERIES - CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION
-------
70
60
50
40
SF 25
SF 28
20
START OF
10
1000 1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIGURE 85. FIELD TEST LANDFILL. SF WELL SERIES - Na CONCENTRATION
-------
00
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
k.Q
3.0
2.0
1.0
w: 23
Wl 25
Wl 28
START OF
>THIS STUDY
FIGURE 86.
1000 1500
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIELD TEST LANDFILL. Wl WELL SERIES - pH FACTOR
2000
-------
700
600
500
- 400
\
E 300
200
100
Wl 23
Wl 25
Wl 28
STAR/ OF
TH4.S STIDY
y
2000
1000 1500
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIGURE 87. FIELD TEST LANDFILL. Wl WELL SERIES - TDS CONCENTRATION
-------
o
o
O)
30
20
10
Wl 23
Wl 25
Wl 28
JL
78
START OF
THI/S STUD^
J
2000
FIGURE 88.
1000 1500
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIELD TEST LANDFILL. Wl WELL SERIES - IRON CONCENTRATION
-------
300
200
100
Wl 23
Wl 25
Wl 28
1000 1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIGURE 89. FIELD TEST LANDFILL. Wl WELL SERIES - CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION
-------
s
70"
60-
;;
30
20
10
1 J 1 AT
W ! t. j
ui 9cr__._
Ul ?R— . --
1 START OF /
P'THIS STUDY /
t ^^Ss^^-fSi^~:\yJt —-'
1000 1500
I
2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIGURE 90. FIELD TEST LANDFILL. Wl WELL SERIES - Na CONCENTRATION
-------
69
80
70
60
50
^
|f kQ
30
20
10
Wl 23
Wl 25
Wl 28
1000
2000
FI
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
GURE 91. FIELD TEST LANDFILL. Wl WELL SERIES - COD CONCENTRATION
-------
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
3-0
2.0
1.0
WF 25'
WF 28.
\
\
\l
V
h
START OF
THIS STUDY
i
XTl
1000 1500
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIGURE 92. FIELD TEST LANDFILL. WF WELL SERIES
2000
- pH FACTOR
-------
s
• w»
900
800
700
- 600
o>
E 500
400
300
200
100
j\
i \
I \
I \
i i
i i
i \
^TART 'OF A\ /
UtHIS STU0I/ V/
1 } •— *• I
l i V
i /
WF 25 -•— •— j/***' 1
WF 28 f^^ j
* .»^^^
i i f
FIGURE 93.
1000 1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIELD TEST LANDFILL. WF WELL SERIES - TDS CONCENTRATION
-------
30-
20
10
WF 25'
WF 28.
I
h
A
M
/ i
/
START OF
THIS STUDY
l\rf
1000 1500 2000
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIGURE Sk. FIELD TEST LANDFILL. WF WELL SERIES - IRON CONCENTRATION
-------
400
300
200
100
WF 25
WF 28
START OF
THIS STUDY
"
FIGURE 95.
1000 1500
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIELD TEST LANDFILL. WF WELL SERIES
2000
- CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION
-------
50
il
II
I i
o
00
O)
30
20
10
WF 25.
WF 28.
hSIMKJ OF
THIS/STUDY '/
—\
;\
i i
V
1000
1500
2000
FIGURE 96.
TIME IN DAYS FROM MAY 10, 1968
FIELD TEST LANDFILL. WF WELL SERIES - COD CONCENTRATION
-------
400
E23
E25
E28
11
C3V
E
300
200
100
START OF
THIS STUDY
500 1000 1500
TIME IN DAYS FROM DECEMBER 12, 196?
FIGURE 97. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS - GROUNDWATER
-------
2.400
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400 -
200
SI 23
SI 25
SI 28
SI 35
FIGURE 98.
500 1000
TIME IN DAYS FROM DECEMBER 12, 196?
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS - GROUNDWATER
1500
-------
500
SF23
SF25
SF28
kQQ
300
200
100
i i
500 1000 1500
TIME IN DAYS FROM DECEMBER 12, 1967
FIGURE 99. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS - GROUNDWATER
-------
I-1
H
ro
Wl 23
Wl 25
Wl 28
k
400
300
200
100
500 1000 1500
TIME IN DAYS FROM DECEMBER 12, 196?
FIGURE 100. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS - GROUNDWATER
-------
500
400
300
200
100
WF23
WF25
WP28
6
500 1000
TIME IN DAYS FROM DECEMBER 12, 1967
FIGURE 101. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS - GROUNDWATER
1500
-------
Wells 12 and 13
EH
pH, Figures 50 and 56, tends to remain slightly acidic
at about 6.0. The curve continuation is similar to
the earlier pattern and there are no indications of
a basic (pH >7) condition developing.
COD
Well 12 COD, Figure 51, indicates a continuing low
concentration level, generally less than 1800 mg.
However, in well 13, COD, Figure 57, increased to
between 12,000 mg/1 and 13,000 mg/1 toward the latter
part of the earlier study and the first period of
this study. Thereafter, COD values, while higher
than those monitored in well 12, were less than 2700
mg/1. The well 13 COD values, while not as high as
obtained in the laboratory lysimeter leachate, reached
extremely high concentration values.
Iron
Iron in both wells, 12 and 13, Figures 52 and 58,
showed maximum concentrations during this study per-
iod greatly in excess of those previously reported.
Peaks in well 12 reached 463 mg/1 and in well 13
almost 900 mg/1.
TDS
Figures 53 and 59 show TDS curves for wells 12 and 13
respectively. Figure 62 is a detailed composite of
TDS data for both wells. Generally the TDS concen-
trations in the wells reached levels greatly in ex-
cess of the values previously reported. Well 13
generally had higher TDS concentrations than well 12
and reached levels between 5,000 and 6,000 mg/1.
Chloride
Chloride results are presented in Figure 54 for well
12 and'Figure 60 for well 13. Again chloride concen-
trations reached levels significantly higher than
those recorded during the earlier study. This is
particularly true in well 13 where levels approached
800 mg/1.
-------
Sodium
Sodium concentration data is presented in Figure 55
for well 12 and Figure 61 for well 13. Concentration
patterns differ from those previously reported for
chloride. Sodium peaks occurred during the earlier
reported study period. However, the sodium concen-
tration patterns are very similar to those for chloride
with peaks and valleys occurring at the same time.
Well 3
Well 3 is located down ground water gradient from the re-
fuse area and outside of it.
Generally the pH range, Figure 63, is similar to
that obtained for this well during the earlier study.
Water quality does not appear to have been affected
by the refuse deposit leachate.
COD
Figure 64 presents the COD concentration data. The
COD values for the entire period fall within the
range of background water quality and does not show
any significant influence due to refuse leachate.
Iron
Iron concentrations, Figure 65, were within background
levels until approximately 800 days into the test.
Thereafter, values increased to approximately 4 mg/1
and were time dependent. During the study period
covered by this report, concentration levels were
significantly less than earlier peak values. While
iron concentrations exceeded background levels, the
increases were much less than pure leachate concen-
trations .
TDS
Total Dissolved Solids concentrations are presented
in Figure 66. During the period of the study reported
herein, concentrations were low, although a slight
positive trend can be observed in the figure. While
generally TDS values are higher than reported back-
ground values, their overall limited variations
suggest more background values than leachate influence.
115
-------
Chloride
The chloride pattern, Figure 67, for the entire study
period including that covered by this report generally
falls within background values.
Sodium
During the period covered by this report, sodium concen-
trations, Figure 68, were negligible and well within
background levels.
Shallow Well Study
Concentration curves are presented for the E, SI, SF, WI and
WF shallow well series in Figures 69 through 96. The curves
are for pH, TDS, iron, chloride, sodium, and COD with a few
exceptions.
The SI series, which is down ground water gradient from the
refuse cell clearly shows the layer influence with depth.
Concentrations of each contaminant decrease with increasing
depth to approximately background concentration levels.
The SF series further down ground water gradient than the SI
series shows little, if any, change from background concen-
tration levels.
The E series is adjacent to the test cell, but somewhat
down gradient. This series shows the effect of lateral as
well as vertical dispersion. Concentrations of the various
contaminants are higher than background, but generally less
than found in the SI series at the same depth.
The WI and WF series patterns are similar to those for the
SI and SF series and also reflect lateral as well as verti-
cal dispersion effects.
Overall the shallow well behavior patterns developed during
this study period are continuations of the earlier patterns
with some large increases recorded only in those wells most
affected by leachate migration (SI series).
Ground Water Total Dissolved Solids Study
Figures 97 through 101 show comparisons of TDS concentra-
tions for selected deep and shallow well series. The pur-
pose of the comparisons was to establish layer effects
within the ground water system.
116
-------
The results of these comparisons clearly indicate that
contaminant layering exists within the ground water system
and could be defined with relative ease. To a great ex-
tent this delineation of the contaminant layer became
easier because of the data gathered during this study per-
iod because the degree of shallow well contaminant concen-
trations are most obvious in the SI series, Figure 98, and
the WI series, Figure 100.
117
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-053b
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
INVESTIGATION OF SANITARY LANDFILL BEHAVIOR
Volume II. Supplement to the Final Report
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
July 1979 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
A.A. Fungaroli*
R. Lee Steiner*
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Drexel University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1DC618
19104
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Grant Nos. R800777 and
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS OIH. , UM
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory-
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio ^52 68
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES See AlSO Volume
, I, EPA-600/2-79-P53a.
* Address at time of publication: AGES Corporation
215 South Broad Street, Suite 902, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.
oiect Officer: Dirk Brunner ( 51^) 684-7871.
Pro
16. ABSTRACT
This two-volume report provides long-term information on the
release of gaseous and liquid contaminants to the biosphere from
decomposing, landfilled, municipal solid waste. Volume I, the compre-
hensive final report, presents results from a 6-year study«
The investigation included studies of leachate migration, the rela-
tionship between contaminant concentration and leachate volume, field
capacities for various sizes of milled refuse, influence of density
and depth on leachate pollutant concentrations, and the relationship of
leachate chemical components to each other and to leachate volume.
Volume II contains supplemental studies on stabilization and
leachate behavior, including results from an additional year of ground-
water monitoring at the field site.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Groundwater
Leaching*
Contaminants*
Refuse disposal
Sanitary landfills
Solid waste
Gas generation
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
128
2O. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R.v. 4-77)
118
o u.i. covtmiiKinntuiTMGOfFia an -657-060/54ZZ
------- |